It just kills me that people use these articles with faulty writing, logic, and arguments to form their opinions. I have made numbered footnotes with my thoughts at the bottom. By the way, the portions in blue are portions that either a) were not included in the original print version b) were removed from the online version or c) the wording was changed in a way that materially affects the meaning of the sentence and its role in proving the conclusion of the article. No mention of these changes was made in the online version or the print version. Questionable journalism at its finest.
The Oral Myth [1]
For a decade parents have fretted about an oral sex 'epidemic' among young teenagers. But a new study rebuts that notion.
Jennie Yabroff
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:20 PM ET May 23, 2008
The story is shocking, but perhaps not unfamiliar. At a birthday party for a seventh-grader, the boy's mother had gone down to the basement only to find all the boys lined up along one wall. The girls, the mother reported, had been going down the line performing oral sex on them.
But is the story true? Some people certainly seem to think so. In the new play "Good Boys and True" students at an elite boys' school have contests to see who can be orally serviced by the most girls. Last year's nonfiction book "Restless Virgins" detailed a sex scandal at Milton Academy, a Massachusetts prep school, involving a female sophomore performing oral sex on five male students. And by now most of us have heard of "The Rainbow Party," the 2005 young adult novel that suggested high school girls spend their afternoons fellating their male classmates. The following sentence is included in the print version of the article but has been removed from the online version without editor's note - "These works reflect a panic that arose from a spate of news accounts dating back to 1999 about teen's penchant for oral sex". [2]
But according to a newly published study of 15-to-19-year-olds by the Guttmacher Institute [3], teen sexual behavior in general hasn't changed much since 1991 [4]. Just a little more than half the teens studied had engaged in oral sex, only 5 percent more than had engaged in vaginal sex. Most teens who had had oral sex had also had intercourse, and only one in four teen virgins had had oral sex—not exactly the makings of a teen oral sex epidemic. [5]
So why is society constantly speculating about the most salacious stories about our children? [6] Possibly because they confirm our (originally "parents'") worst fears about the values of the next generation and our growing sense that we (originally parents) really have no idea what's going on with our kids. Maybe, also, because in our increasingly sexualized culture the stories seem not so implausible. Maybe it's easier to pay attention to a few shocking anecdotes than to what the data—or our children—tell us. (It's not surprising that most of the rumors focus on girls servicing boys, since our culture seems to revel in being simultaneously titillated and appalled by the precocious sexuality of teen girls, as evidenced by the recent controversy surrounding Miley Cyrus’s seminude “Vanity Fair” spread)". We were the free-love generation, and we're obsessed over the sexual lives of our children. We need to ask ourselves why," says Laura Sessions Stepp, author of "Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both."
As for the veracity of the story about the seventh-grade birthday party, Stepp is skeptical. But the hysteria of the mother who called to tell her about it (who had heard the tale from another mother) is real. Stepp should know: she helped create it, with a 1999 front-page story in the Washington Post about the alarming fad for oral sex among middle-schoolers in Washington's suburbs, one of the first stories to publicize the idea that oral sex among youngsters was on the rise. Thanks to Monica Lewinsky oral sex was already on everyone's minds, along with the idea that the younger generation didn't consider it as serious as intercourse. "It had been going on among older teens. Then Monica surfaces, and all of a sudden it's front and center," says Stepp. "It was more than a wake-up call. It was a siren." Over the next few years the idea that kids were having oral sex—in basements, on school buses, in study halls—as cavalierly as shaking hands gained traction in the popular imagination. (In 2002 Oprah devoted an episode to the "epidemic.") The logic seemed self-evident: if oral sex wasn't "really sex," it was a way kids could satisfy their sexual urges while remaining chaste.
But according to the Guttmacher study, the idea that kids use oral sex as a substitute for intercourse is a myth. According to the study's author, Laura Lindberg, "There is no good evidence that teens who have not had intercourse engage in oral sex with a series of partners … Our research shows that this supposed substitution of oral sex for vaginal sex is largely a myth." [7]
Even so, there can be a huge discrepancy between perception and reality when it comes to the sex lives of teenagers. "You'd think parents would be relieved by these studies, but when Oprah refers to oral sex as an epidemic, they're sold on the idea that that's what happening," says Kathleen Bogle, author of "Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus." "There seems to be a resistance to clearing up false perceptions on the parts of parents and of kids themselves." [8]
Part of the reason for the misconception is that the language of teen sexuality is intentionally vague. When an adolescent talks about "hooking up" she may be describing a range of activities from kissing to having intercourse. "Because of the ambiguity of what 'hooking up' means, people often assume that in more of the cases it includes oral sex than it actually does," Bogle says. "You can be fooled into thinking everyone else is doing it." [9] Another explanation is that these stories are, essentially, the most virulent form of gossip, salacious and nearly impossible to disprove. "We're afraid to believe it about our own kids, but we're eager to believe it about other kids," says Stepp. "That way, if our own kid does it, we can believe it's peer pressure."
The recent critical focus on abstinence-only sex education may also be contributing to the perception that kids use oral sex as a substitute for intercourse. According to a study published in the 2005 Journal of Adolescent Health, teens who had taken abstinence pledges were six times as likely to have engaged in oral sex as teen virgins who hadn't taken the pledge. [10] The study was picked up by opponents of abstinence-only education such as Bill Maher, who suggested, in a televised special, that Republicans had created a generation of "apple-cheeked" girls who said no to sex but an enthusiastic yes to all sorts of other pornographic behavior. [11] But, again, the Guttmacher study found that oral sex is much more common among teens who have already had intercourse than among virgins. [12]
Whether they're having oral sex or not, the act seems to mean something different from what it meant to their parents. "For our generation, oral sex seemed more intimate than intercourse," says Stepp, who is a parent herself. "The thought that their 11-year-old-daughters are doing it is flabbergasting." [13] The hysteria around oral sex, then, may be as much about attitude as behavior, suggesting that teens have become ever more exoticized in the eyes of the older generation, a seemingly strange and impenetrable tribe with bizarre rituals and alien belief systems. The truth, of course, is that some kids do it, some kids don't, and for every birthday party where the boys line up against the wall, there are hundreds more where the kids drink too much soda, play Grand Theft Auto, and then simply go home.
[1] The title of this story was changed in its online version. The original title was "The Myths of Teen Sex". The original title seems a bit broader, don't you think? While I am glad the author narrowed the claim somewhat to reflect the content of the article, this should have been done in the print version - the version I am sure is read by the most readers.
[2] How interesting that this sentence has magically disappeared. What is the importance of a play, a non-fiction book, and a 2005 fiction novel that involves oral sex? What exactly are these telling us? I am not sure that they reflect a "panic" (an interesting word choice) - in fact I am not sure they represent anything other than what they are: except 3 pieces of literature. But is this sentence is removed completely, the prior sentences are meaningless, rendering this article all the more incoherent.
[3] What is the Guttmacher Institute? Are they experts in this area of research? Are they backed by some sort of special interest who might distort their findings? No explanation or verification is given by the author. I am not saying their findings are distorted, but I am saying that the author can't just appeal to some authority group I have never heard of - she must explain why she believes they are in a position to make such claims.
[4] So what if it hasn't changed since 1991? - the article isn't about changing beliefs, it is about whether today's beliefs are well founded. By stating that attitudes toward sex haven't changed since 1991, the author mistakenly gives the impression that things are really as bad as people think. Opinions held in 1991 are irrelevant to this author's thesis.
[5] Up to this point we are being led to believe that although many adults are in a "panic" over teen oral sex, this is misguided and teen oral sex is not a prevalent as many might think.
The author's facts, in my opinion, contradict her conclusion. Let's examine the numbers we just read here. Of those surveyed more than half had engaged in oral sex and nearly half had engaged in intercourse. Wow. I think those are pretty big numbers, especially if you keep in mind that most (if not all) of these teenagers are likely under the age of consent, meaning they are technically breaking the law by engaging in sex. That is pretty alarming in my book. Her next sentence states that these two groups of teens (oral sex & intercourse) overlap. Her next sentence says 25% of teen virgins have had oral sex. Think about that - that means over 60% of teens are either having intercourse or engaging in oral sex. If I was a parent, that would get my attention. I would not be labeling that as a "teen sex myth".
[6] Constantly speculating? What did the author provide to establish this claim? She provided 3 examples of literature at the beginning of the article - hardly proof of society's "constant speculation" over teen behavior. Perhaps a survey of the parents of teens may have established something viable, but the author cannot just claim that society is overly engrossed in mistaken innuendo - she must provide some proof of that claim.
[7] Notice the addition of "with a series of partners". This totally changes the meaning of this quote, and significantly reduces its contribution to the author's main point. The issue is not whether teens are having oral sex with multiple partners - the issue in the minds of parents is whether teens are having oral sex at all. This totally distorts the meaning of the quote the misleads the reader.
[8] What does this new, added quote mean? That parents want to continue to believe in a false "crisis"? That kids are intentionally hyping the prevalence of oral sex? To what end? Another poorly constructed paragraph.
[9] Notice that this new quote presents the opinion that "they might not be doing it" based on the assertion that some people will assume the vague language describes more significant sexual activity than actually occurred. By the same token, doesn't it stand to reason that because the language is vague, some people who assumed "hooked up" means kissing when in fact it meant oral sex? Vague language can be misinterpreted both ways, and the author does not bring up this point.
[10] So? What is the point of bringing in the influence of abstinence only classes? It does nothing to advance her conclusion - that teens are not engaging in oral sex as often as parents and adults believe. This is an unrelated red-herring.
[11] Please tell me the author did not just use a comedian as a source for a legitimate opinion piece. Will she be quoting Stephen Colbert as well? What about Chris Rock? If the author wishes to be taken seriously, she should make sure her quotes come from serious sources.
[12] Another misleading comment. "More common" does not mean "uncommon". The author would have you believe oral sex is not a major occurrence among teens because only 25% of teen virgins have had oral sex rather than the 50% of teens who are engaging in both oral sex and intercourse.
[13] Somehow, I doubt the ranking of oral vs vaginal sex in the pecking order matters to the parent of an 11 year old. Both are unacceptable.
What a poor article. Add Newsweek the list of publications that need to tighten writing standards
29 June, 2008
28 June, 2008
The Secret Cost of Cap and Trade
Let’s Just Call It ‘Cap and Tax’
The current plan for dealing with global warming would trigger a lobbying frenzy to win new subsidies and preferential treatment.
Robert J. Samuelson
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 12:42 PM ET May 31, 2008
We'll have to discard the adage "everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it." In this era of global warming, it is inoperative, because the whole point of controlling greenhouse-gas emissions is to do something about the weather. This promises to be hard and perhaps futile, but there are good and bad ways of attempting it. One of the bad ways is "cap and trade." Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.
The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade—a hugely complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases—is its very complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in ways that are essentially deceptive. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would directly regulate economic activity, but it is promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, cap-and-trade would quickly become a bonanza for lobbyists, who would scramble to exploit the system for different industries, venture capitalists, localities and others. All the influence peddling would undermine the system's abstract advantages.
The Senate is scheduled to debate a cap-and-trade proposal this week, and although it's unlikely to pass, it will undoubtedly return because all the major presidential candidates support the concept. Cap-and-trade extends the long government tradition of proclaiming lofty goals that are, in practice, difficult or impossible to achieve. We've had "wars" against poverty, cancer and drugs to eradicate obvious societal ills, but poverty, cancer and drugs remain. President Bush called his landmark education law "No Child Left Behind" rather than the more plausible "Fewer Children Left Behind."
Carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) provide about 85 percent of U.S. energy needs and generate most greenhouse gases. So, the simplest way to stop these emissions is to outlaw them. Naturally, that's what cap-and-trade does. Under the bill passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, companies could emit greenhouse gases only if they had annual "allowances"—quotas issued by the government. The amount of allowances would gradually decline. That's the "cap." Companies (utilities, oil refineries, steel companies) that needed extra allowances could buy them from companies that wanted to sell. That's the "trade."
Consider one version of the bill. In 2012, the cap on greenhouse gases would be 3 percent below their 2005 level and 6 percent below the level projected without any restrictions. By 2030, the cuts would be 35 percent and 44 percent, respectively. By 2050, U.S. greenhouse gases would be rapidly vanishing. Even better, their disappearance would be allegedly painless. Reviewing five economic models, the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, finds that the cuts can be achieved without "significant adverse consequences to the economy." Fuel prices would rise, but because people would use less energy, the impact on household budgets would be modest.
This is mostly make-believe. If we suppress emissions, we also suppress today's energy sources, and because the economy needs energy, we suppress the economy. The models magically assume smooth transitions. If coal is reduced, then conservation or non-fossil-fuel sources will take its place. But in the real world, if coal-fired power plants are canceled (as many were last year), wind or nuclear power don't automatically substitute. If the supply of electricity doesn't keep pace with demand, brownouts or blackouts will result. The models don't predict real-world consequences. Of course, they didn't forecast $135-a-barrel oil or the disastrous effects of corn-based ethanol on food prices.
As mandated emissions cuts go deeper, the danger of disruptions would mount. Population increases alone raise energy demand. From 2006 to 2030, the population will grow by 22 percent (to 366 million), the number of housing units by 25 percent (to 141 million) and the amount of commercial business space by 35 percent (to 101 billion square feet), projects the Energy Information Administration. The idea that higher fuel prices will be offset mostly by lower consumption is optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent cut in emissions from a base year would raise annual average household energy costs by almost $1,300 (in 2006 "constant" dollars), or roughly 3 percent of income for the bottom four fifths of the population.
That's how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As allowances become scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. For the government, issuing the scarce emissions allowances would vastly expand its power. The government could sell the allowances and spend the proceeds, or it could give them away, providing a windfall to recipients. The Senate proposal does both, to the tune of about $1 trillion from 2012 to 2018. Beneficiaries would include farmers, Indian tribes, new technology companies, utilities, states and mass-transit systems. Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs—and multiply by 10.
Unless we find cost-effective ways of reducing the role of fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade system would ultimately break down. It wouldn't permit satisfactory economic growth. Nor would it work internationally. Developing countries, the largest source of new emissions, won't abandon fossil fuels unless there are competitive alternatives. If we're going to use price to try to stimulate those new technologies, let's at least do it honestly. Most economists think that a straightforward tax on carbon would have the same incentive effects for alternative fuels and conservation as cap-and-trade without the rigidities and uncertainties of emission limits. A tax is more visible, understandable and democratic. If environmental groups still prefer an allowance system, let's call it by its proper name: "cap and tax."
The current plan for dealing with global warming would trigger a lobbying frenzy to win new subsidies and preferential treatment.
Robert J. Samuelson
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 12:42 PM ET May 31, 2008
We'll have to discard the adage "everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it." In this era of global warming, it is inoperative, because the whole point of controlling greenhouse-gas emissions is to do something about the weather. This promises to be hard and perhaps futile, but there are good and bad ways of attempting it. One of the bad ways is "cap and trade." Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.
The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade—a hugely complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases—is its very complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in ways that are essentially deceptive. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would directly regulate economic activity, but it is promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, cap-and-trade would quickly become a bonanza for lobbyists, who would scramble to exploit the system for different industries, venture capitalists, localities and others. All the influence peddling would undermine the system's abstract advantages.
The Senate is scheduled to debate a cap-and-trade proposal this week, and although it's unlikely to pass, it will undoubtedly return because all the major presidential candidates support the concept. Cap-and-trade extends the long government tradition of proclaiming lofty goals that are, in practice, difficult or impossible to achieve. We've had "wars" against poverty, cancer and drugs to eradicate obvious societal ills, but poverty, cancer and drugs remain. President Bush called his landmark education law "No Child Left Behind" rather than the more plausible "Fewer Children Left Behind."
Carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) provide about 85 percent of U.S. energy needs and generate most greenhouse gases. So, the simplest way to stop these emissions is to outlaw them. Naturally, that's what cap-and-trade does. Under the bill passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, companies could emit greenhouse gases only if they had annual "allowances"—quotas issued by the government. The amount of allowances would gradually decline. That's the "cap." Companies (utilities, oil refineries, steel companies) that needed extra allowances could buy them from companies that wanted to sell. That's the "trade."
Consider one version of the bill. In 2012, the cap on greenhouse gases would be 3 percent below their 2005 level and 6 percent below the level projected without any restrictions. By 2030, the cuts would be 35 percent and 44 percent, respectively. By 2050, U.S. greenhouse gases would be rapidly vanishing. Even better, their disappearance would be allegedly painless. Reviewing five economic models, the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group, finds that the cuts can be achieved without "significant adverse consequences to the economy." Fuel prices would rise, but because people would use less energy, the impact on household budgets would be modest.
This is mostly make-believe. If we suppress emissions, we also suppress today's energy sources, and because the economy needs energy, we suppress the economy. The models magically assume smooth transitions. If coal is reduced, then conservation or non-fossil-fuel sources will take its place. But in the real world, if coal-fired power plants are canceled (as many were last year), wind or nuclear power don't automatically substitute. If the supply of electricity doesn't keep pace with demand, brownouts or blackouts will result. The models don't predict real-world consequences. Of course, they didn't forecast $135-a-barrel oil or the disastrous effects of corn-based ethanol on food prices.
As mandated emissions cuts go deeper, the danger of disruptions would mount. Population increases alone raise energy demand. From 2006 to 2030, the population will grow by 22 percent (to 366 million), the number of housing units by 25 percent (to 141 million) and the amount of commercial business space by 35 percent (to 101 billion square feet), projects the Energy Information Administration. The idea that higher fuel prices will be offset mostly by lower consumption is optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a 15 percent cut in emissions from a base year would raise annual average household energy costs by almost $1,300 (in 2006 "constant" dollars), or roughly 3 percent of income for the bottom four fifths of the population.
That's how cap-and-trade would tax most Americans. As allowances become scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. For the government, issuing the scarce emissions allowances would vastly expand its power. The government could sell the allowances and spend the proceeds, or it could give them away, providing a windfall to recipients. The Senate proposal does both, to the tune of about $1 trillion from 2012 to 2018. Beneficiaries would include farmers, Indian tribes, new technology companies, utilities, states and mass-transit systems. Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs—and multiply by 10.
Unless we find cost-effective ways of reducing the role of fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade system would ultimately break down. It wouldn't permit satisfactory economic growth. Nor would it work internationally. Developing countries, the largest source of new emissions, won't abandon fossil fuels unless there are competitive alternatives. If we're going to use price to try to stimulate those new technologies, let's at least do it honestly. Most economists think that a straightforward tax on carbon would have the same incentive effects for alternative fuels and conservation as cap-and-trade without the rigidities and uncertainties of emission limits. A tax is more visible, understandable and democratic. If environmental groups still prefer an allowance system, let's call it by its proper name: "cap and tax."
27 June, 2008
Its Fate is Sealed
Obama Seal No More?
by Aaron Bruns
Fox News
Barack Obama’s much-mocked Presidential Seal won’t be seen again, according to campaign staffers. The modified Great Seal of the United States of America — featuring the familiar eagle modified with the Obama logo and the US Motto “E Pluribus Unum” changed to a rough Latin translation of Obama’s slogan “Yes We Can,” debuted at a meeting of Democratic Governors last week.
At the time, staffers indicated that it might be used again at similar presidential-style events. But today, after it was roundly ridiculed as more a symbol of the campaign’s arrogance than the campaign itself, staffers said the seal has seen it’s last podium.
“This was a one time thing designed for a one time use at the Governors meeting,” said one traveling press aide, who also asked “is this really worth of this much attention?”
Does anyone care?
Obama's Long March
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 27, 2008
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007
WASHINGTON -- That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping.
Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.
Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.
Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.
Obama's long march to the center has begun.
And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge -- for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the last eight years.
Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech -- designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother" -- then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.
Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting, evinced only the mildest of disappointment.
Indeed, The New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a pre-emptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups -- notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, "there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group" and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.
True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.
As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.
The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.
When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.
Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.
Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 27, 2008
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." -- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007
WASHINGTON -- That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping.
Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take "the hammer" to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.
Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric "overheated" and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.
Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet "without preconditions" with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be "preparations," you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.
Obama's long march to the center has begun.
And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge -- for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the last eight years.
Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech -- designed to rationalize why "I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother" -- then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great "race speech" now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.
Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting, evinced only the mildest of disappointment.
Indeed, The New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a pre-emptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups -- notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, "there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group" and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.
True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.
As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight -- switching sides in World War II, for example -- whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.
The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.
When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.
Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.
Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will have made the Clintons look scrupulous.
26 June, 2008
Who is the bi-partisan candidate here?
Subject: COUNTRY FIRST vs. SELF-SERVING PARTISANSHIP
To: Interested Parties
From: Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Senior Advisor
Date: June 26, 2008
Re: Country First Vs. Self-Serving Partisanship
Today, our country faces great challenges. But the problem is not a Republican Administration that has disappointed many or a Democratic Congress that cannot take action on the challenges facing our nation. The problem is that politicians in Washington are working for their own self-interest or that of their party.
Too many in Washington are putting politics first and country second. Too few are setting aside their own interests to work together on solutions for America.
For John McCain, country first is how he has lived his life and how he has worked in Washington. When John McCain was offered early release as a prisoner of war, he refused, subjecting himself to torture rather than give a propaganda victory to his captors. Is it any wonder that during the Republican primary, John McCain was working with Democrats and
talking about the need for comprehensive immigration reform? Is it any wonder that at the nadir of the Iraq war, John McCain was arguing for the successful surge strategy rather than timetables for withdrawal?
Does anyone think that John McCain would have broken his word on a bipartisan agreement for public financing in the general, even if it accrued to his benefit?
Senator Obama's rapid ascent to the Democratic nomination is an historic achievement of which he should be proud. But while Senator Obama is certainly a fresh face, his campaign offers more of the same old typical politics that have broken Washington. In his time on the national stage, he has consistently put his party and his self-interest first.
On campaign finance, Barack Obama had to choose between keeping his word or enjoying a financial advantage. He chose the money. On town hall debates, Barack Obama called for an elevated, civil debate, but has worked to undermine the possibility of joint town halls where he would have to answer questions from real voters. On Iraq, Barack Obama has refused to acknowledge success on the ground because he would risk losing his base of support. Likewise on energy he has refused any supply solution to our energy crisis because of left-wing opposition.
There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance. He has never been a part of a bipartisan group that came together to solve a controversial issue. He has never put his career on the line for a cause greater than himself. Even as a state Senator, Obama voted 'present' on controversial bills. We have seen Barack Obama forced to choose between principle and the interests of himself and his party. He has always chosen the latter.
We don't need to trade Republican partisanship for Democratic partisanship. We need to put our country first and put our politics second.
That is what John McCain has done his whole life, and that is what he will do as President.
List of major bi-partisan issues led by John McCain in his most recent term in office:
1) 2002 - Proposing campaign finance reform with Democrat Russ Feingold
2) 2003 - Introduced bill with Democrat (now Independent) Joe Lieberman to combat global warming
3) 2005 - member of the Gang of 14
4) 2006 - Introduced comprehensive Immigration reform with Democrat Ted Kennedy
List of major bi-partisan issues led by Barack Obama in his entire time in office:
...
List of positions currently or previously held by John McCain that are at odds with the official party position or at odds with the position of the head of the party (The President)
1) Advocated the need for a larger invasion force upon entry of Iraq
2) Pushed for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld from his post as Secretary of Defense
3) Pushed for anti-torture ban of US detainees
4) Publicly stated that Guantanamo Bay should be permanently closed
5) Publicly stated that he believed The President unwisely had too much confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin
6) Has pushed for the normalization of relations with Cuba
7) Voted against the Bush Tax cuts twice
8) Has criticized President Bush for signing "pork-laden" appropriation bills
9) Voted twice again the repeal of the estate, or "death" tax
10) Opposes federal funding of Amtrak
11) Voted for Democrat-appointed Supreme Court nominees Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer
12) Has advocated a one-year moratorium on earmarks
13) Has voted not to pursue earmarks during his time in the senate for his home state of Arizona
14) Voted for reduced emission standards for US vehicles
15) Has said he would elevate the EPA to a cabinet-level department
16) Previously opposed offshore drilling in areas such as ANWR
17) Proposed increasing non-corn ethanol imports
18) Has publicly opposed increase increase in corn-based ethanol production
19) Speaks openly about his belief that global warming is real and needs to be addressed immediately
20) Voted against Federal Defense of Marriage Act
21) Believes abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and births that would put the mother's life in danger
22) Supports embryonic stem-cell research
23) Has a C+ rating from the NRA for not being "pro gun" enough
24) Supports the legalization of current illegal aliens following restitution payments
25) Opposed ballot efforts to repeal affirmative action
26) Opposed creating an official national holiday recognizing Martin Luther King, Jr
Positions that Barack Obama have taken that are in opposition to his party or his party's leadership
1) Supports the death penalty for those convicted of child rape
Amazing, isn't it? Judging from this information, who is more likely to work for "change" and be prepared to reach across the aisle to solve future issues that will require bi-partisan action?
If I have unfairly characterized Senator Obama's record, please let me know. I am not trying to be unfair to him, I am just unaware of a significant number of position that are at odds with his party.
To: Interested Parties
From: Steve Schmidt, McCain 2008 Senior Advisor
Date: June 26, 2008
Re: Country First Vs. Self-Serving Partisanship
Today, our country faces great challenges. But the problem is not a Republican Administration that has disappointed many or a Democratic Congress that cannot take action on the challenges facing our nation. The problem is that politicians in Washington are working for their own self-interest or that of their party.
Too many in Washington are putting politics first and country second. Too few are setting aside their own interests to work together on solutions for America.
For John McCain, country first is how he has lived his life and how he has worked in Washington. When John McCain was offered early release as a prisoner of war, he refused, subjecting himself to torture rather than give a propaganda victory to his captors. Is it any wonder that during the Republican primary, John McCain was working with Democrats and
talking about the need for comprehensive immigration reform? Is it any wonder that at the nadir of the Iraq war, John McCain was arguing for the successful surge strategy rather than timetables for withdrawal?
Does anyone think that John McCain would have broken his word on a bipartisan agreement for public financing in the general, even if it accrued to his benefit?
Senator Obama's rapid ascent to the Democratic nomination is an historic achievement of which he should be proud. But while Senator Obama is certainly a fresh face, his campaign offers more of the same old typical politics that have broken Washington. In his time on the national stage, he has consistently put his party and his self-interest first.
On campaign finance, Barack Obama had to choose between keeping his word or enjoying a financial advantage. He chose the money. On town hall debates, Barack Obama called for an elevated, civil debate, but has worked to undermine the possibility of joint town halls where he would have to answer questions from real voters. On Iraq, Barack Obama has refused to acknowledge success on the ground because he would risk losing his base of support. Likewise on energy he has refused any supply solution to our energy crisis because of left-wing opposition.
There has never been a time when Barack Obama has bucked the party line to lead on an issue of national importance. He has never been a part of a bipartisan group that came together to solve a controversial issue. He has never put his career on the line for a cause greater than himself. Even as a state Senator, Obama voted 'present' on controversial bills. We have seen Barack Obama forced to choose between principle and the interests of himself and his party. He has always chosen the latter.
We don't need to trade Republican partisanship for Democratic partisanship. We need to put our country first and put our politics second.
That is what John McCain has done his whole life, and that is what he will do as President.
List of major bi-partisan issues led by John McCain in his most recent term in office:
1) 2002 - Proposing campaign finance reform with Democrat Russ Feingold
2) 2003 - Introduced bill with Democrat (now Independent) Joe Lieberman to combat global warming
3) 2005 - member of the Gang of 14
4) 2006 - Introduced comprehensive Immigration reform with Democrat Ted Kennedy
List of major bi-partisan issues led by Barack Obama in his entire time in office:
...
List of positions currently or previously held by John McCain that are at odds with the official party position or at odds with the position of the head of the party (The President)
1) Advocated the need for a larger invasion force upon entry of Iraq
2) Pushed for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld from his post as Secretary of Defense
3) Pushed for anti-torture ban of US detainees
4) Publicly stated that Guantanamo Bay should be permanently closed
5) Publicly stated that he believed The President unwisely had too much confidence in Russian President Vladimir Putin
6) Has pushed for the normalization of relations with Cuba
7) Voted against the Bush Tax cuts twice
8) Has criticized President Bush for signing "pork-laden" appropriation bills
9) Voted twice again the repeal of the estate, or "death" tax
10) Opposes federal funding of Amtrak
11) Voted for Democrat-appointed Supreme Court nominees Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer
12) Has advocated a one-year moratorium on earmarks
13) Has voted not to pursue earmarks during his time in the senate for his home state of Arizona
14) Voted for reduced emission standards for US vehicles
15) Has said he would elevate the EPA to a cabinet-level department
16) Previously opposed offshore drilling in areas such as ANWR
17) Proposed increasing non-corn ethanol imports
18) Has publicly opposed increase increase in corn-based ethanol production
19) Speaks openly about his belief that global warming is real and needs to be addressed immediately
20) Voted against Federal Defense of Marriage Act
21) Believes abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and births that would put the mother's life in danger
22) Supports embryonic stem-cell research
23) Has a C+ rating from the NRA for not being "pro gun" enough
24) Supports the legalization of current illegal aliens following restitution payments
25) Opposed ballot efforts to repeal affirmative action
26) Opposed creating an official national holiday recognizing Martin Luther King, Jr
Positions that Barack Obama have taken that are in opposition to his party or his party's leadership
1) Supports the death penalty for those convicted of child rape
Amazing, isn't it? Judging from this information, who is more likely to work for "change" and be prepared to reach across the aisle to solve future issues that will require bi-partisan action?
If I have unfairly characterized Senator Obama's record, please let me know. I am not trying to be unfair to him, I am just unaware of a significant number of position that are at odds with his party.
25 June, 2008
Concern about McCain's Grasp of Economics
I am posting a portion of John Stossel's article regarding McCain and speculators. I am omitting the speculator portion because I found it unconvincing. If you would like to read the entire article, it can be found here.
I, along with Stossel, am concerned that McCain is now talking about the "excessive profits" of the oil companies (see posts on April 23, April 30, May 5, May 28). I never thought I would see the day when the government would say "you are making too much money - I deserve some of that" without the claim of illegal activity. Amazing.
"I believe there needs to be a thorough and complete investigation of speculators to find out whether speculation has been going on and, if so, how much it has affected the price of a barrel of oil. There's a lot of things out there that need a lot more transparency and, consequently, oversight."
Those are the words of presidential candidate John McCain. This man is the Republican?
There's more.
"I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. They're making huge profits and that happens, but not to say, 'We're in this so we can over time eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil,' I think is an abrogation of their responsibilities as citizens."
Let me get this straight. A potential president of a putatively free country scolds companies for "obscene profits," failure to invest in competing products, and therefore irresponsible citizenship. Why? Is McCain running for national economic commissar?
This is not the first time McCain has displayed what I would call an anti-capitalist mentality. In an early presidential debate he countered former businessman Mitt Romney's claim to superior executive experience by saying, "I led the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy, not for profit but for patriotism".
Why the put down of profit?
[...]
It would be nice if McCain would finally learn some economics.
I, along with Stossel, am concerned that McCain is now talking about the "excessive profits" of the oil companies (see posts on April 23, April 30, May 5, May 28). I never thought I would see the day when the government would say "you are making too much money - I deserve some of that" without the claim of illegal activity. Amazing.
"I believe there needs to be a thorough and complete investigation of speculators to find out whether speculation has been going on and, if so, how much it has affected the price of a barrel of oil. There's a lot of things out there that need a lot more transparency and, consequently, oversight."
Those are the words of presidential candidate John McCain. This man is the Republican?
There's more.
"I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies not only because of the obscene profits they've made but at their failure to invest in alternate energy to help us eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. They're making huge profits and that happens, but not to say, 'We're in this so we can over time eliminate America's dependence on foreign oil,' I think is an abrogation of their responsibilities as citizens."
Let me get this straight. A potential president of a putatively free country scolds companies for "obscene profits," failure to invest in competing products, and therefore irresponsible citizenship. Why? Is McCain running for national economic commissar?
This is not the first time McCain has displayed what I would call an anti-capitalist mentality. In an early presidential debate he countered former businessman Mitt Romney's claim to superior executive experience by saying, "I led the largest squadron in the U.S. Navy, not for profit but for patriotism".
Why the put down of profit?
[...]
It would be nice if McCain would finally learn some economics.
Income brackets and the RECESSION
1) Where is the recession that was the focus of so much media scrutiny? Must be in media purgatory with the coverage of the Iraq war and the recent information that calls global warming into question...
2) I think the information re: income statistics is important to keep in mind as the election nears. A lot of arguments are going to be based on statistics like these - we should be mindful of what, exactly, we can infer from these statistics (and, perhaps more importantly, what we cannot infer)
The Imitators: Part II
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
It must be a bitter disappointment to those in the media and in politics who have been dying to use the word "recession" that, for the second quarter in a row, there has been no downturn in the economy, though growth has been slow.
Alarmists have been reduced to quoting other alarmists on the supposedly impending recession but that is still not the real thing.
The definition of a "recession" is very clear and straightforward: Two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have not yet had one consecutive quarter of negative growth.
The fault-finding brigades of critics of the American economy and society are among the reasons why there is so much talk about how we ought to do things that are being done in Europe.
We need to understand America first, before we start imitating Europe.
The American economy produces the largest output in the world-- more than Japan, Germany, and Great Britain combined.
Measured by purchasing power, output per capita in the United States is the highest of any large nation.
There are some very small places like Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands with higher purchasing power per capita but, as Professor Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard put it, places like Luxembourg are "technically countries but are more like large suburbs." Luxembourg's total population is about the same as that of Long Beach, California. Wal-Mart has more employees than the total population of Luxembourg.
Some other small places like the Cayman Islands are tax havens that attract the wealth of people who are not really Cayman Islanders.
Among countries at all comparable to the United States in size or population, none has achieved as high an output per capita. New Jersey produces more than Egypt. California produces more than Canada or Mexico.
Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the United States as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to all kinds of statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most of the people in those categories move from one category to another over the years.
Studies that follow given individuals over time show the exact opposite of what is being said in the mainstream media and in politics. That is, most of the working people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rise into the top half, and the rate of increase of their incomes is greater than that of most of the people initially in the top fifth. Those individuals in the top one percent, as of a given time, actually have an absolute decline in income over time. As they drop out of the top one percent, they are replaced by others, so the statistical category can be doing great, while the flesh-and-blood people who pass in and out of that category are by no means gaining on those further down the income distribution.
None of this is rocket science. But most people in politics, in the media and in academia still insist on using statistics based on the fate of abstract categories over time-- households, families, income brackets-- even when other statistics, based on following specific individuals over time, are available.
Households and families vary in size from group to group and are generally declining in size over time, but an individual always means one person. Income per household or family can be stagnant, or even declining, while income per person is rising.
That has in fact been a general pattern in recent decades, which may be why the nay-sayers are forever citing household and family income statistics, while ignoring statistics on income per person.
Amid a general undermining of American economic performance, it is hardly surprising that so many people think we should imitate what the Europeans are doing-- whether in the economy, in foreign policy or in other areas.
We can always learn particular things from other countries, whether in Europe, in Asia or elsewhere. But imitating Europeans when they are not doing as well as Americans makes no sense.
2) I think the information re: income statistics is important to keep in mind as the election nears. A lot of arguments are going to be based on statistics like these - we should be mindful of what, exactly, we can infer from these statistics (and, perhaps more importantly, what we cannot infer)
The Imitators: Part II
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
It must be a bitter disappointment to those in the media and in politics who have been dying to use the word "recession" that, for the second quarter in a row, there has been no downturn in the economy, though growth has been slow.
Alarmists have been reduced to quoting other alarmists on the supposedly impending recession but that is still not the real thing.
The definition of a "recession" is very clear and straightforward: Two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We have not yet had one consecutive quarter of negative growth.
The fault-finding brigades of critics of the American economy and society are among the reasons why there is so much talk about how we ought to do things that are being done in Europe.
We need to understand America first, before we start imitating Europe.
The American economy produces the largest output in the world-- more than Japan, Germany, and Great Britain combined.
Measured by purchasing power, output per capita in the United States is the highest of any large nation.
There are some very small places like Luxembourg or the Cayman Islands with higher purchasing power per capita but, as Professor Benjamin M. Friedman of Harvard put it, places like Luxembourg are "technically countries but are more like large suburbs." Luxembourg's total population is about the same as that of Long Beach, California. Wal-Mart has more employees than the total population of Luxembourg.
Some other small places like the Cayman Islands are tax havens that attract the wealth of people who are not really Cayman Islanders.
Among countries at all comparable to the United States in size or population, none has achieved as high an output per capita. New Jersey produces more than Egypt. California produces more than Canada or Mexico.
Desperate efforts to depict all the prosperity and progress in the United States as being monopolized by "the rich" have led to all kinds of statistical mumbo jumbo, such as comparing the changing ratios between statistical categories over time and ignoring the fact that most of the people in those categories move from one category to another over the years.
Studies that follow given individuals over time show the exact opposite of what is being said in the mainstream media and in politics. That is, most of the working people in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rise into the top half, and the rate of increase of their incomes is greater than that of most of the people initially in the top fifth. Those individuals in the top one percent, as of a given time, actually have an absolute decline in income over time. As they drop out of the top one percent, they are replaced by others, so the statistical category can be doing great, while the flesh-and-blood people who pass in and out of that category are by no means gaining on those further down the income distribution.
None of this is rocket science. But most people in politics, in the media and in academia still insist on using statistics based on the fate of abstract categories over time-- households, families, income brackets-- even when other statistics, based on following specific individuals over time, are available.
Households and families vary in size from group to group and are generally declining in size over time, but an individual always means one person. Income per household or family can be stagnant, or even declining, while income per person is rising.
That has in fact been a general pattern in recent decades, which may be why the nay-sayers are forever citing household and family income statistics, while ignoring statistics on income per person.
Amid a general undermining of American economic performance, it is hardly surprising that so many people think we should imitate what the Europeans are doing-- whether in the economy, in foreign policy or in other areas.
We can always learn particular things from other countries, whether in Europe, in Asia or elsewhere. But imitating Europeans when they are not doing as well as Americans makes no sense.
23 June, 2008
Where does Time Magazine get these guys?
My thoughts are at the bottom.
Barack, Don't Go to Baghdad
Author: Peter Beinart, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy
June 5, 2008
Time Magazine
In 1978, with America’s ally the Shah of Iran under siege, President Jimmy Carter asked a former diplomat named George Ball to study the situation and recommend a course of action. Ball’s chief qualification was that he, more than any other high-level U.S. official, had been right about Vietnam—from early on, he had warned it would be a quagmire. Ball accepted Carter’s offer but refused to visit Iran. In the 1960s he had watched one colleague after another set off on fact-finding missions to Vietnam, and each returned convinced that America could win the war. “I had learned from our Vietnam experience,” he explained, “how dangerous it can be when travel is substituted for thought.”
Barack Obama should keep Ball in mind as he mulls John McCain’s suggestion of a joint visit to Iraq. Ball understood something important: that when you take a guided tour, your tour guide decides what you see. In Iraq today, as in Vietnam back then, the tour guides are America’s officers and diplomats on the ground. And in Iraq, as in Vietnam, they have an incentive to show good news—which isn’t always the same as the truth.
To begin with, there’s security. Since the first priority of McCain and Obama’s hosts would be to ensure that the candidates leave Iraq alive, they would by necessity take them to places the U.S. and Iraq have made safe and avoid places they have not. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are unlikely to introduce Obama and McCain to Iraqis who want to kill them, and thus their meetings would tilt heavily toward those Iraqis who want the U.S. to stay and away from those who are trying to force America to leave. As the New York Times has noted, congressional visitors to Iraq almost never have unscripted meetings with average Iraqis whose political views aren’t already known.
Also, Petraeus and Crocker report to the President, a guy with strong feelings about Iraq. They and their staffs don’t want to sound like partisan flacks, but it’s far easier for them to reinforce the Administration’s view than to contradict it, especially when the cameras roll. By making them the spokesmen for its Iraq policy, the Bush Administration has encouraged Americans to believe Petraeus and Crocker are independent analysts who just happen to agree with their Commander in Chief. But Petraeus and Crocker would never purposely craft an itinerary that might cast doubt on the Administration’s policies and embarrass their boss—or the man who shares his views, McCain.
It’s for exactly these reasons that some of the members of Congress who know the military best have been most wary of visiting Iraq. When Patrick Murphy, who served with the 82nd Airborne in Baghdad, returned to the country as a Congressman in 2007, he said he found the trip “somewhat scripted” and insisted on breaking off and seeing his former comrades so they “would give the straight story.” Senator Jim Webb, a former Marine and Secretary of the Navy, called congressional Iraq visits a “dog and pony” show.
This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are illusory. It’s just that the war’s realities are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest in what you see. In Vietnam, the wisest U.S. officials sought out journalists like David Halberstam and Bernard Fall who had spent years traveling the country, and former diplomats and military officers who had the freedom to say what they really believed. And even that kind of granular, uninhibited knowledge isn’t much help without a larger view of the world. McCain thinks winning in Iraq is the single most important foreign policy challenge facing the next President. As a result, he’s willing to spend billions more dollars, impose a far greater strain on the military and divert U.S. attention from other problems to incrementally improve our chances of success. Obama thinks Afghanistan and Pakistan are more central to the war on terrorism and that our resources in those countries would bring a higher rate of return. Given that fundamental difference, a joint trip to Iraq—and only Iraq—concedes McCain’s key assumption. Perhaps Obama should counter by proposing that they visit southern Afghanistan, where America’s war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been crippled for years by the diversion of troops and attention to Iraq.
If anyone knows that clarity often comes with distance, it’s Obama, who spent 2002 and 2003 in Chicago, far from the secret briefings that persuaded many Democrats to back the war. Today he should kindly decline McCain’s offer and keep his distance once again.
Ok, a couple of thoughts here
1) Is the author really suggesting that Senator Obama will be better informed and better prepared to make decisions about the Iraq war by not seeing the information first hand? On its face that should raise suspicions...
2) The reason the author gives for the above statement is (and I am paraphrasing here) - "all those guys are just company men anyway, and you won't see the 'real' Iraq". Let's think about that for a moment. The author is in fact arguing that since the Senator will be receiving information that supports one side of the argument, he shouldn't hear that information at all. Is this how we want our President to be advised? I would much rather that he hear that "biased" information and then hear the opinions (and facts) of advisors who take the opposite position.
Notice here that author did not claim that Obama would be lied to, just that the information would be one-sided. If he is not hearing false information, how can it possibly hurt his decision making capability? All true information would be useful, it would seem to me.
I am willing to concede that he will be taken to safe areas and told stories of American successes. Given his strong opposition to the Iraq war and his certainty that we should leave Iraq, I find it hard to believe he would not be able to ask tough questions or demand to see the parts of Iraq that he continues to claim are beyond saving.
Is the candidate so easily swayed that he cannot reason for himself or weigh contrasting opinions? If so, this is truly frightening.
3) In the article, the author subtely suggests that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are puppets, that President Bush has "encouraged Americans to believe Petraeus and Crocker are independent analysts who just happen to agree with their Commander in Chief." This is an outrageous suggestion - that these two men do not speak the truth or voice their own opinions, but spout the company line to support their boss. What evidence does the author have to support such a claim? If he does have evidence that these two are painting a less than honest portrait of the Iraq campaign he should bring it forward immediately and both Petraeus and Crocker will be charged with lying to congress.
4) The last paragraph is ridiculous and insulting. I am not so stupid as to accept the author's claim that Obama had "clarity" in 2002 and 2003 when asserting that the Iraq war was a mistake while in Chicago (and I quote) "far from the secret briefings that persuaded many Democrats to back the war."
Right - he showed clarity when spouting off about a topic upon which he was ill informed by the author's own admission - that's a new take. Isn't that the whole problem - he was "far from the briefings" - anyone else see the problem here? You can't show clarity on a topic that requires in-depth knowledge that you do not have. The author might as well go ahead and assert that all briefings are unnecessary and "cloud the judgement" of decision makers.
5) I think this article is a telling validation of the surge. The author's point is that Obama will only be shown the safest areas and told successe stories, and that he won't be able to see evidence of American failure in Iraq. What a difference a surge makes. Two years ago the idea of being able to hide American failure was laughable. And a trip filled with safety and success stories would have been a short trip indeed. Now failures are so hard to find and so easily hid it isn't even worth going over there for a look around.
Barack, Don't Go to Baghdad
Author: Peter Beinart, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy
June 5, 2008
Time Magazine
In 1978, with America’s ally the Shah of Iran under siege, President Jimmy Carter asked a former diplomat named George Ball to study the situation and recommend a course of action. Ball’s chief qualification was that he, more than any other high-level U.S. official, had been right about Vietnam—from early on, he had warned it would be a quagmire. Ball accepted Carter’s offer but refused to visit Iran. In the 1960s he had watched one colleague after another set off on fact-finding missions to Vietnam, and each returned convinced that America could win the war. “I had learned from our Vietnam experience,” he explained, “how dangerous it can be when travel is substituted for thought.”
Barack Obama should keep Ball in mind as he mulls John McCain’s suggestion of a joint visit to Iraq. Ball understood something important: that when you take a guided tour, your tour guide decides what you see. In Iraq today, as in Vietnam back then, the tour guides are America’s officers and diplomats on the ground. And in Iraq, as in Vietnam, they have an incentive to show good news—which isn’t always the same as the truth.
To begin with, there’s security. Since the first priority of McCain and Obama’s hosts would be to ensure that the candidates leave Iraq alive, they would by necessity take them to places the U.S. and Iraq have made safe and avoid places they have not. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are unlikely to introduce Obama and McCain to Iraqis who want to kill them, and thus their meetings would tilt heavily toward those Iraqis who want the U.S. to stay and away from those who are trying to force America to leave. As the New York Times has noted, congressional visitors to Iraq almost never have unscripted meetings with average Iraqis whose political views aren’t already known.
Also, Petraeus and Crocker report to the President, a guy with strong feelings about Iraq. They and their staffs don’t want to sound like partisan flacks, but it’s far easier for them to reinforce the Administration’s view than to contradict it, especially when the cameras roll. By making them the spokesmen for its Iraq policy, the Bush Administration has encouraged Americans to believe Petraeus and Crocker are independent analysts who just happen to agree with their Commander in Chief. But Petraeus and Crocker would never purposely craft an itinerary that might cast doubt on the Administration’s policies and embarrass their boss—or the man who shares his views, McCain.
It’s for exactly these reasons that some of the members of Congress who know the military best have been most wary of visiting Iraq. When Patrick Murphy, who served with the 82nd Airborne in Baghdad, returned to the country as a Congressman in 2007, he said he found the trip “somewhat scripted” and insisted on breaking off and seeing his former comrades so they “would give the straight story.” Senator Jim Webb, a former Marine and Secretary of the Navy, called congressional Iraq visits a “dog and pony” show.
This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are illusory. It’s just that the war’s realities are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest in what you see. In Vietnam, the wisest U.S. officials sought out journalists like David Halberstam and Bernard Fall who had spent years traveling the country, and former diplomats and military officers who had the freedom to say what they really believed. And even that kind of granular, uninhibited knowledge isn’t much help without a larger view of the world. McCain thinks winning in Iraq is the single most important foreign policy challenge facing the next President. As a result, he’s willing to spend billions more dollars, impose a far greater strain on the military and divert U.S. attention from other problems to incrementally improve our chances of success. Obama thinks Afghanistan and Pakistan are more central to the war on terrorism and that our resources in those countries would bring a higher rate of return. Given that fundamental difference, a joint trip to Iraq—and only Iraq—concedes McCain’s key assumption. Perhaps Obama should counter by proposing that they visit southern Afghanistan, where America’s war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been crippled for years by the diversion of troops and attention to Iraq.
If anyone knows that clarity often comes with distance, it’s Obama, who spent 2002 and 2003 in Chicago, far from the secret briefings that persuaded many Democrats to back the war. Today he should kindly decline McCain’s offer and keep his distance once again.
Ok, a couple of thoughts here
1) Is the author really suggesting that Senator Obama will be better informed and better prepared to make decisions about the Iraq war by not seeing the information first hand? On its face that should raise suspicions...
2) The reason the author gives for the above statement is (and I am paraphrasing here) - "all those guys are just company men anyway, and you won't see the 'real' Iraq". Let's think about that for a moment. The author is in fact arguing that since the Senator will be receiving information that supports one side of the argument, he shouldn't hear that information at all. Is this how we want our President to be advised? I would much rather that he hear that "biased" information and then hear the opinions (and facts) of advisors who take the opposite position.
Notice here that author did not claim that Obama would be lied to, just that the information would be one-sided. If he is not hearing false information, how can it possibly hurt his decision making capability? All true information would be useful, it would seem to me.
I am willing to concede that he will be taken to safe areas and told stories of American successes. Given his strong opposition to the Iraq war and his certainty that we should leave Iraq, I find it hard to believe he would not be able to ask tough questions or demand to see the parts of Iraq that he continues to claim are beyond saving.
Is the candidate so easily swayed that he cannot reason for himself or weigh contrasting opinions? If so, this is truly frightening.
3) In the article, the author subtely suggests that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are puppets, that President Bush has "encouraged Americans to believe Petraeus and Crocker are independent analysts who just happen to agree with their Commander in Chief." This is an outrageous suggestion - that these two men do not speak the truth or voice their own opinions, but spout the company line to support their boss. What evidence does the author have to support such a claim? If he does have evidence that these two are painting a less than honest portrait of the Iraq campaign he should bring it forward immediately and both Petraeus and Crocker will be charged with lying to congress.
4) The last paragraph is ridiculous and insulting. I am not so stupid as to accept the author's claim that Obama had "clarity" in 2002 and 2003 when asserting that the Iraq war was a mistake while in Chicago (and I quote) "far from the secret briefings that persuaded many Democrats to back the war."
Right - he showed clarity when spouting off about a topic upon which he was ill informed by the author's own admission - that's a new take. Isn't that the whole problem - he was "far from the briefings" - anyone else see the problem here? You can't show clarity on a topic that requires in-depth knowledge that you do not have. The author might as well go ahead and assert that all briefings are unnecessary and "cloud the judgement" of decision makers.
5) I think this article is a telling validation of the surge. The author's point is that Obama will only be shown the safest areas and told successe stories, and that he won't be able to see evidence of American failure in Iraq. What a difference a surge makes. Two years ago the idea of being able to hide American failure was laughable. And a trip filled with safety and success stories would have been a short trip indeed. Now failures are so hard to find and so easily hid it isn't even worth going over there for a look around.
MoveOn's Latest
Here's MoveOn's latest - another emotion-laden, fact (those annoying things that screw up otherwise perfect propaganda) avoiding chop job
And the response:
Op-Ed Columnist
Someone Else’s Alex
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
The people at MoveOn.org have a new Iraq ad that is, if they do say so themselves, their most effective ever. Then again, for the group that brought us the “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad last September, that might not be saying much.
Nevertheless, the organization boasts on its Web site, “This isn’t your average political ad — it lays out the truth about McCain’s Iraq policy in a personal and compelling way.” MoveOn also claims, “We just got the results back and polling shows that voters found it to be more persuasive than any other ad we’ve tested before.”
I’m not persuaded. Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.
Their new and improved message is presented in a 30-second TV spot, “Not Alex,” produced in conjunction with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It’s airing for a week on local broadcast stations in markets in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, and on two national cable channels, with a reported buy of over half a million dollars.
The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:
“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”
Take that, warmonger!
Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn’t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.
And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, “Maybe 100” — explaining, “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. ...”
In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we’ve had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.
But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won’t be drafted, and his mommy can’t enlist him. He can decide when he’s an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.
All of this is pretty much par for the course in political advertising. And I’m of the latitudinarian school when it comes to campaign discourse; politics is supposed to be rough and ready. So, why, I wondered after first seeing the MoveOn ad, did I find it so ... creepy?
I was having trouble putting my finger on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com.
Here’s what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:
“Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere.”
This is the sober truth. Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And we’re not entering any such world.
We do, however, live in a free country with a volunteer army. In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won’t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.
But that’s not at all the message of the MoveOn ad.
The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.
And the sole responsibility of others.
21 June, 2008
Welcome
Welcome to two of our new co-authors - NC Governor 2028 and Good Night and Good Luck. Thanks for posting - I look forward to hearing more from both of you.
Gay Marriage
Since previous posts have supported homosexual marriage, I feel the need to respond with two reasons why I oppose any action by the
In Response...
Hello, I'm new here. I just wanted to respond to a post of June 18 by Concerned Citizen re: the new MoveOn ad. I have gone point by point as CC did, but omitted some of the points on which I am not as informed. Please compare to the post of June 18th for side by side arguments.
We don't like shopping at small neighborhood stores. We don't want the problem of choosing where to shop. And we just love cheap plastic crap from China.
Sure, globalization encourages choices, but it also seriously undervalues human rights (i.e. rights of prisoners who work as labourers to make the "cheap plastic crap from China") and overvalues "American liberal (intentionally small-l)" culture. Now I'm not saying that neighbourhood stores are necessarily any more likely to stock humanitarian or fair-trade oriented products (so I concede that point). But I do not think that it can be argued that the Chinese government has some extremely suspicious if not downright deplorable labour and human rights practices.
I'm voting Republican because I don't really want a cure for AIDS or for breast cancer. (They are just gays and women.)
Now this one, Concerned Citizen, I have to take issue with. I know from my own research that PEPFAR (President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief) has given a great deal of money and, in fact, has pioneered a funding delivery mechanism in the form of community participation in aid distribution. However, I think that the exclusion of countries which have an exploding sero-prevalent population (i.e. the Central African Republic, many of the post-Soviet central Eurasian republics, etc.) from the PEPFAR distribution list is an overt sanction for political reasons. Additionally, the PEPFAR money has been withdrawn from multilateral funding agencies like the Global Fund and other cooperative projects which promote equal distribution of monies and goods to all countries in need.
Additionally, Big Pharma is the exact set of corporations who put the US in such a diplomatic boondoggle in the 1990s when they tried to defend their patent rights against people manufacturing generic Anti-retrovirals and other life saving medications. This situation led to Al Gore (then VP) having to defend the intellectual property rights of these corporations in the face of large scale epidemics and disease.
I'm voting Republican so that my little Caitlin can be in a classroom with at least 30 other children. That way she can be challenged by fighting for attention.
Although I don't entirely agree with MoveOn's position here, I think the detrimental effects of "school choice" initiatives can be seen in the rapid and sudden decline of urban public schools since the genesis of the Bush administration. The fact of the matter is that in, for example, Chicago a child of colour is 6 times more likely to go to a school categorized as "failing" than a white child. School choice and No Child Left Behind have aggravated and complicated these problems by giving people incentives to disinvest from public schooling and the insistence on test scores as bench marks without reference to context or comprehension of the materials.
I'm voting Republican because women just can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever.
Now this is probably just a difference in opinion and an irreconcilable set of dialogues (pro-choice, pro-life, unborn child, mother’s right to determine for herself) so I do not try and change any minds. I am stringently pro-choice and instead of recounting all of my reasons, I will let one of my favourite bloggers speak for me. Don’t be scared off by or disregard the argument because the domain name. I am also a strident feminist, and I sincerely hope we all know that is not a bi-partisan sentiment.
The link is below:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/22/why-im-pro-choice/
I'm voting Republican because I've already seen the great outdoors. Continuing our use of fossil fuels freely is far more important than preserving our natural wildlands.
Changing our energy profile should be a very high priority on the American political agenda. And frankly since Roosevelt there hasn’t really been a president from either side of the aisle who has been committed to really preserving the natural landscape of the North American continent. That being said, I think that the proposals coming from the Republicans re: drilling in ANWR, off-shore drilling, giving more leeway to logging and mining companies, encouraging “hilltop removal” (strip mining) of the Appalachian mountains, etc. cannot be said to be necessarily pro-environment.
We're voting Republican because we like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We really like knowing that even if we're separate, we'll still be called equal.
Yes, it is, in some ways, a cheap shot. However, I think that the fact of the matter is that in cases that took the wind out of the sails of the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case (e.g. Milliken v. Bradley, and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1) were definitely decided by conservative courts. Those cases, by and large, supported a de-facto segregation policy which is still in place in nearly every city of reasonable size in the United States. Additionally, as referenced before, these schools are far from being equal in access to resources or information.
I'm voting Republican because I need to be told who I can love. I need the government to tell me. I need them to tell me how I can best show a lifetime commitment. And Republicans are just the folks to do that.
I am with Concerned Citizen on this one. Prohibition of gay marriage just does not make any intuitive sense to me. I think it would be more reasonable and more productive if we took away the right of people to get married who stay married for two weeks, or celebrities who have marriages annulled what seems like every day. Additionally, the question of the sanctity of marriage is not one that should be decided by the state.
I'm voting Republican because corporations should not have to pay to clean up environmental damage. The EPA is an outmoded idea. If people want clean water, buy it in a bottle.
The EPA, in the Bush administration, has been filled with appointees who are blatantly anti-EPA which does fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of the organization. While the case may be overstated (and we can all agree that people on both sides of any issue overstate their case) I think that the argument that the EPA has been crippled by the Bush administration stands on solid ground.
Because we need more minorities in prison.
MoveOn is not at all suggesting that minorities should be exempt from the legal system. But study after study has shown that an individual of colour (esp. if that individual does not have access to resources) is vastly more likely than a white individual to receive a guilty verdict. Additionally, they are vastly more likely to receive a heavier sentence than a white person. For a stark example, simply look at the laws governing cocaine possession. The forms of the drug that are largely consumed by individuals in black communities (e.g. crack cocaine) are hugely more severe than sentences delivered for possession of powdered substances, despite their being less pure and therefore less potent. The fact of the matter is that there is systemic racism within the legal system and that is one of the reasons (in addition to economic inequality, lack of opportunity, etc.) that the racial breakdown of prisons is so starkly different from the American population. A good book on the issue is:
http://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Account-Industry-Predatory-African-American/dp/0979295300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214060070&sr=8-1
Because hybrid cars really suck.
Yes, choice rules in a purely lassiez-faire kind of way. However, I think that there is a place for governmental regulation of the amount of consumption that we do. It is in our immediate economic interest to limit the amount of carbon emissions that we send into the air because of the detrimental effects of global warming on the US economy (agriculture, transport, emergency services, etc.). I do support governmental incentives and disincentives for promoting more fuel efficient practices across the board.
Because I just don't feel like I deserve health insurance.
To concede that you are owed a basic standard of health care is to concede that the government must in some way be responsible for it. Indeed, if there is a right to a minimal level of health which is economically unachievable by the majority of citizens then there is a crisis of healthcare. Living without health insurance in the country as it stands is basically living without health care. That status quo is unacceptable to me.
I'm voting Republican because sometimes the constitution is just one big inconvenient headache.
Let’s all be honest with one another. There are “activist judges” on all sides of any opinion. And interpretation of the constitution, whether from a literalist or expansivist sense is just that, an interpretation. I cannot see how we can point fingers and claim that any party throws out the constitution without pointing three fingers back at ourselves.
Because all other countries are in fear to us. We should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way.
The fact is that there is a serious crisis abroad in the American image. We wasted the goodwill we could have capitalized on after 9/11, we continue to destabilize the Middle East with some kind of grand plan to democratize it. As an American currently living abroad, I am finding that since I first travelled abroad, there is less good sentiment and more suspicion of the US role in the world and the ways in which we use our power. We are seen as bullies. That is just my own experience.
So I can stay in Iraq.
It is true that I wish for a better and more stable situation in Iraq. A better and more stable situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world. I am starting to believe, however, that continued occupation of the territorial region known as Iraq cannot solve problems. If we are providing safety for the “people” but only those who agree with us, then we will have to be there for a very long time. If it is the will of the “people” that we should go, then I think that is the best we can do with the boondoggle we have created.
So I can go to Iran.
There are other nations which hold nuclear weapons which threaten the destruction of their neighbors; North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel. Are we prepared to take all of them on? Is that our role? Is military force the best way to do it? I certainly do not think so. Is it the plan of the government to do so? I can hope that it is not, and lobby so that it cannot be.
We don't like shopping at small neighborhood stores. We don't want the problem of choosing where to shop. And we just love cheap plastic crap from China.
Sure, globalization encourages choices, but it also seriously undervalues human rights (i.e. rights of prisoners who work as labourers to make the "cheap plastic crap from China") and overvalues "American liberal (intentionally small-l)" culture. Now I'm not saying that neighbourhood stores are necessarily any more likely to stock humanitarian or fair-trade oriented products (so I concede that point). But I do not think that it can be argued that the Chinese government has some extremely suspicious if not downright deplorable labour and human rights practices.
I'm voting Republican because I don't really want a cure for AIDS or for breast cancer. (They are just gays and women.)
Now this one, Concerned Citizen, I have to take issue with. I know from my own research that PEPFAR (President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief) has given a great deal of money and, in fact, has pioneered a funding delivery mechanism in the form of community participation in aid distribution. However, I think that the exclusion of countries which have an exploding sero-prevalent population (i.e. the Central African Republic, many of the post-Soviet central Eurasian republics, etc.) from the PEPFAR distribution list is an overt sanction for political reasons. Additionally, the PEPFAR money has been withdrawn from multilateral funding agencies like the Global Fund and other cooperative projects which promote equal distribution of monies and goods to all countries in need.
Additionally, Big Pharma is the exact set of corporations who put the US in such a diplomatic boondoggle in the 1990s when they tried to defend their patent rights against people manufacturing generic Anti-retrovirals and other life saving medications. This situation led to Al Gore (then VP) having to defend the intellectual property rights of these corporations in the face of large scale epidemics and disease.
I'm voting Republican so that my little Caitlin can be in a classroom with at least 30 other children. That way she can be challenged by fighting for attention.
Although I don't entirely agree with MoveOn's position here, I think the detrimental effects of "school choice" initiatives can be seen in the rapid and sudden decline of urban public schools since the genesis of the Bush administration. The fact of the matter is that in, for example, Chicago a child of colour is 6 times more likely to go to a school categorized as "failing" than a white child. School choice and No Child Left Behind have aggravated and complicated these problems by giving people incentives to disinvest from public schooling and the insistence on test scores as bench marks without reference to context or comprehension of the materials.
I'm voting Republican because women just can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever.
Now this is probably just a difference in opinion and an irreconcilable set of dialogues (pro-choice, pro-life, unborn child, mother’s right to determine for herself) so I do not try and change any minds. I am stringently pro-choice and instead of recounting all of my reasons, I will let one of my favourite bloggers speak for me. Don’t be scared off by or disregard the argument because the domain name. I am also a strident feminist, and I sincerely hope we all know that is not a bi-partisan sentiment.
The link is below:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/22/why-im-pro-choice/
I'm voting Republican because I've already seen the great outdoors. Continuing our use of fossil fuels freely is far more important than preserving our natural wildlands.
Changing our energy profile should be a very high priority on the American political agenda. And frankly since Roosevelt there hasn’t really been a president from either side of the aisle who has been committed to really preserving the natural landscape of the North American continent. That being said, I think that the proposals coming from the Republicans re: drilling in ANWR, off-shore drilling, giving more leeway to logging and mining companies, encouraging “hilltop removal” (strip mining) of the Appalachian mountains, etc. cannot be said to be necessarily pro-environment.
We're voting Republican because we like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We really like knowing that even if we're separate, we'll still be called equal.
Yes, it is, in some ways, a cheap shot. However, I think that the fact of the matter is that in cases that took the wind out of the sails of the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case (e.g. Milliken v. Bradley, and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1) were definitely decided by conservative courts. Those cases, by and large, supported a de-facto segregation policy which is still in place in nearly every city of reasonable size in the United States. Additionally, as referenced before, these schools are far from being equal in access to resources or information.
I'm voting Republican because I need to be told who I can love. I need the government to tell me. I need them to tell me how I can best show a lifetime commitment. And Republicans are just the folks to do that.
I am with Concerned Citizen on this one. Prohibition of gay marriage just does not make any intuitive sense to me. I think it would be more reasonable and more productive if we took away the right of people to get married who stay married for two weeks, or celebrities who have marriages annulled what seems like every day. Additionally, the question of the sanctity of marriage is not one that should be decided by the state.
I'm voting Republican because corporations should not have to pay to clean up environmental damage. The EPA is an outmoded idea. If people want clean water, buy it in a bottle.
The EPA, in the Bush administration, has been filled with appointees who are blatantly anti-EPA which does fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of the organization. While the case may be overstated (and we can all agree that people on both sides of any issue overstate their case) I think that the argument that the EPA has been crippled by the Bush administration stands on solid ground.
Because we need more minorities in prison.
MoveOn is not at all suggesting that minorities should be exempt from the legal system. But study after study has shown that an individual of colour (esp. if that individual does not have access to resources) is vastly more likely than a white individual to receive a guilty verdict. Additionally, they are vastly more likely to receive a heavier sentence than a white person. For a stark example, simply look at the laws governing cocaine possession. The forms of the drug that are largely consumed by individuals in black communities (e.g. crack cocaine) are hugely more severe than sentences delivered for possession of powdered substances, despite their being less pure and therefore less potent. The fact of the matter is that there is systemic racism within the legal system and that is one of the reasons (in addition to economic inequality, lack of opportunity, etc.) that the racial breakdown of prisons is so starkly different from the American population. A good book on the issue is:
http://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Account-Industry-Predatory-African-American/dp/0979295300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214060070&sr=8-1
Because hybrid cars really suck.
Yes, choice rules in a purely lassiez-faire kind of way. However, I think that there is a place for governmental regulation of the amount of consumption that we do. It is in our immediate economic interest to limit the amount of carbon emissions that we send into the air because of the detrimental effects of global warming on the US economy (agriculture, transport, emergency services, etc.). I do support governmental incentives and disincentives for promoting more fuel efficient practices across the board.
Because I just don't feel like I deserve health insurance.
To concede that you are owed a basic standard of health care is to concede that the government must in some way be responsible for it. Indeed, if there is a right to a minimal level of health which is economically unachievable by the majority of citizens then there is a crisis of healthcare. Living without health insurance in the country as it stands is basically living without health care. That status quo is unacceptable to me.
I'm voting Republican because sometimes the constitution is just one big inconvenient headache.
Let’s all be honest with one another. There are “activist judges” on all sides of any opinion. And interpretation of the constitution, whether from a literalist or expansivist sense is just that, an interpretation. I cannot see how we can point fingers and claim that any party throws out the constitution without pointing three fingers back at ourselves.
Because all other countries are in fear to us. We should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way.
The fact is that there is a serious crisis abroad in the American image. We wasted the goodwill we could have capitalized on after 9/11, we continue to destabilize the Middle East with some kind of grand plan to democratize it. As an American currently living abroad, I am finding that since I first travelled abroad, there is less good sentiment and more suspicion of the US role in the world and the ways in which we use our power. We are seen as bullies. That is just my own experience.
So I can stay in Iraq.
It is true that I wish for a better and more stable situation in Iraq. A better and more stable situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world. I am starting to believe, however, that continued occupation of the territorial region known as Iraq cannot solve problems. If we are providing safety for the “people” but only those who agree with us, then we will have to be there for a very long time. If it is the will of the “people” that we should go, then I think that is the best we can do with the boondoggle we have created.
So I can go to Iran.
There are other nations which hold nuclear weapons which threaten the destruction of their neighbors; North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel. Are we prepared to take all of them on? Is that our role? Is military force the best way to do it? I certainly do not think so. Is it the plan of the government to do so? I can hope that it is not, and lobby so that it cannot be.
David Brooks: The Two Obamas
It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama has refused to honor his consistent promises to accept public financing for his presidential campaign. For a man who talks so much about changing the scope of Washington politics, it would be nice if he actually did something to back up his message. Turning down millions in private contributions to accept public financing would have been a true example of “Change.” But breaking promises to the American people in order to secure more campaign money for himself, well that’s good ole’
20 June, 2008
David Brooks: The Two Obamas
Ok, so I know a lot of the posts recently have been disproportionally anti-Obama, but I find the inconsistency between his words and his actions to be very concerning. Apparently David Brooks also noticed this:
The Two Obamas
By DAVID BROOKS
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.
The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.
I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
The Two Obamas
By DAVID BROOKS
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.
But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.
Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.
The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.
I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
19 June, 2008
Letter to the Editor
Dear Time Magazine Editorial Staff,
I am writing to express my displeasure with Michael Kinsley's essay in the June 9th edition entitled "Stormy Weather. Obama's rivals are wrong to link him with the former radicals he has befriended - even if they are despicable". Online, this article is entitled "Rejecting Obama's Radical Friends".
In the article, Mr. Kinsley's main point is the following:
Senator Obama should excused for associating with "despicable" people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn because many other respectable people in the Chicago area did the same.
Senator Obama is running for President of the United States, a position requiring judgement and wisdom at a level far beyond the average individual. To say that he should not be held to a higher standard is the presidential equivalent of the teenage argument "well, everyone else is doing it". Mr. Kinsley is insinuating that Senator Obama's opinions and actions are justified by the number of people who agree with him or act in a similar manner. Continuing this line of thought, he seems to be proposing that the Obama administration would be run by opinion poll, and he would not be required to exercise any judgement above that of the masses. In fact, he is arguing that all of Senator Obama's positions are legitimate and valid as long as they have popular support. This defeats the purpose of an independent executive branch, one specifically endowed with constitutional powers to enable the President to lead with vision and make tough calls in spite of contrary popular opinion. I think Mr. Kinsley's conclusion sends a horrible message to readers - it doesn't matter if you show poor judgement as long as others show poor judgement too. By the author's own admission in the title, Senator Obama befriended an unrepentant terrorist responsible for the death of two law enforcement agents. Why should he not be held accountable for this decision? And is he any less responsible for his actions just because of the actions of others? If everyone else jumped off a cliff...
Mr. Kinsley stated "Ayers and Dohrn never posed any real threat to U.S. national security" - even going so far as to say that "their victims were liberals". This phrase is an insult to the two policemen and the security guard who were killed in the plot involving Ayers and Dohrn. These three individuals were the true victims of their acts of terrorism. To try to minimize their actions or cast liberal ideology as the true victim strikes me as sick and truly infuriates me.
Additionally, I find it interesting that you would re-label the article in its online post. I find the new title misleading and, in fact contrary to the original (and, I assume, true) intent of the author.
The fact that Ayers' parents, Northwestern University, the University of Illinois, the Chicago Tribune, and others are willing to overlook the murderous and treasonous acts of these two individuals does not excuse others from making the same mistake. We are all responsible for our own actions, and "everyone else is doing it" isn't good enough for me, let alone the President of the United States. Mr. Kinsley's attempt make excuses for Senator Obama reflects poorly on him and equally poorly on Time Magazine for printing the essay.
If I continue to read such insulting and offensive opinions in your pages, I will cancel my subscription. Mr. Kinsley has a right to his opinion, and I have a right to express mine by opposing it with my words and my money.
I am writing to express my displeasure with Michael Kinsley's essay in the June 9th edition entitled "Stormy Weather. Obama's rivals are wrong to link him with the former radicals he has befriended - even if they are despicable". Online, this article is entitled "Rejecting Obama's Radical Friends".
In the article, Mr. Kinsley's main point is the following:
Senator Obama should excused for associating with "despicable" people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn because many other respectable people in the Chicago area did the same.
Senator Obama is running for President of the United States, a position requiring judgement and wisdom at a level far beyond the average individual. To say that he should not be held to a higher standard is the presidential equivalent of the teenage argument "well, everyone else is doing it". Mr. Kinsley is insinuating that Senator Obama's opinions and actions are justified by the number of people who agree with him or act in a similar manner. Continuing this line of thought, he seems to be proposing that the Obama administration would be run by opinion poll, and he would not be required to exercise any judgement above that of the masses. In fact, he is arguing that all of Senator Obama's positions are legitimate and valid as long as they have popular support. This defeats the purpose of an independent executive branch, one specifically endowed with constitutional powers to enable the President to lead with vision and make tough calls in spite of contrary popular opinion. I think Mr. Kinsley's conclusion sends a horrible message to readers - it doesn't matter if you show poor judgement as long as others show poor judgement too. By the author's own admission in the title, Senator Obama befriended an unrepentant terrorist responsible for the death of two law enforcement agents. Why should he not be held accountable for this decision? And is he any less responsible for his actions just because of the actions of others? If everyone else jumped off a cliff...
Mr. Kinsley stated "Ayers and Dohrn never posed any real threat to U.S. national security" - even going so far as to say that "their victims were liberals". This phrase is an insult to the two policemen and the security guard who were killed in the plot involving Ayers and Dohrn. These three individuals were the true victims of their acts of terrorism. To try to minimize their actions or cast liberal ideology as the true victim strikes me as sick and truly infuriates me.
Additionally, I find it interesting that you would re-label the article in its online post. I find the new title misleading and, in fact contrary to the original (and, I assume, true) intent of the author.
The fact that Ayers' parents, Northwestern University, the University of Illinois, the Chicago Tribune, and others are willing to overlook the murderous and treasonous acts of these two individuals does not excuse others from making the same mistake. We are all responsible for our own actions, and "everyone else is doing it" isn't good enough for me, let alone the President of the United States. Mr. Kinsley's attempt make excuses for Senator Obama reflects poorly on him and equally poorly on Time Magazine for printing the essay.
If I continue to read such insulting and offensive opinions in your pages, I will cancel my subscription. Mr. Kinsley has a right to his opinion, and I have a right to express mine by opposing it with my words and my money.
Quote
"The American Revolution bred a healthy paranoia about big government among our founding fathers. They envisioned a federal government that was small, confined to clearly enumerated purposes, and left most of tending to the needs of the citizenry to individuals, families, local communities, and local and state government.
Today, our society thinks nothing of asking the federal government to become a nanny state, with cradle-to-grave programs that meet our every need.
Every need, that is, except our innate need for freedom. And freedom, as President Reagan reminded us often, is incompatible with a large government intent on invading every area of our lives. That’s why it’s essential what we remain informed and involved as citizens of this great land."
Today, our society thinks nothing of asking the federal government to become a nanny state, with cradle-to-grave programs that meet our every need.
Every need, that is, except our innate need for freedom. And freedom, as President Reagan reminded us often, is incompatible with a large government intent on invading every area of our lives. That’s why it’s essential what we remain informed and involved as citizens of this great land."
18 June, 2008
Here is the latest MoveOn.org ad that is drawing national attention. Sadly, I believe this will be an effective ad because it distorts almost every issue and most voters today want their issues (and therefore their opinions) simplified so there is a clear "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong".
Ok - let's review this line by line. Here is the transcript:
I'm voting Republican because...
We don't like shopping at small neighborhood stores. We don't want the problem of choosing where to shop. And we just love cheap plastic crap from China.
I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to attack - Wal-mart? Interestingly enough, globalization encourages choice. Without globalization we would all be paying higher prices for lower quality goods since competition would be stifled through protectionist measure. And as for cheap plastic crap from China - where has MoveOn been lately? The computer I am using right now was made in China by a Chinese company. Works great (and it wasn't that cheap, either). Maybe they need to check their decade.
I'm voting Republican because I don't really want a cure for AIDS or for breast cancer. (They are just gays and women.)
Wow, what to say here. Is this a crack at stem cells? I am pretty sure George Bush has done more for AIDS in Africa than any other U.S. President. Besides, how fitting is it that Democrats take swipes at "big business" when it is most likely Big Pharma that will continue to innovate and develop new ways to combat disease.
I'm voting Republican because I think new drugs should be made available immediately whether they've been tested properly or not. If the major pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines are healthy, then I feel healthy too.
See above comment - here is an example of distortion; it isn't that Republicans are opposed to drug testing - we just don't believe it makes logical sense to obstruct a drug because it has a negative effect on a small number of respondents if it has a positive effect on a significant majority of the population. Sick individuals should have the right to try experimental drugs if they want to. I don't see the point of restricting all access to experimental medicine if the positives far outweigh the negatives for those willing to take the risk.
I'm voting Republican so that my little Caitlin can be in a classroom with at least 30 other children. That way she can be challenged by fighting for attention.
Ok, this one is flat wrong - Republicans want students and parents to have choices regarding schools - vouchers and charter schools would lower class sizes. Democrats want to cram all students into public schools whether they want to be there or not. I would think there would be a lot less fighting for attention in private schools where students actually choose to go there.
I'm voting Republican because women just can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever.
Women are more than capable of making decisions about their own bodies. The problem is when they want to make decisions about other bodies as well (such as the body of their unborn child). In this case, I do not believe you have the right to kill your child unless failing to do so will put the mother's life at risk. Once again, oversimplification reigns. Nuances are for Republicans.
I'm voting Republican because I've already seen the great outdoors. Continuing our use of fossil fuels freely is far more important than preserving our natural wildlands.
I like how this is presented as an "either/or" situation. I believe Republicans are for responsible harvesting of fossil fuels. I do think this is a balancing act, and I agree that both Republicans and Democrats need to identify ways to supply our energy needs while preserving the environment to the greatest degree possible.
We're voting Republican because we like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We really like knowing that even if we're separate, we'll still be called equal.
What a cheap shot. Let's bring up a ruling more than 50 years old that has since been overturned. To me it is interesting that this is the most powerful example they could muster.
I'm voting Republican because I need to be told who I can love. I need the government to tell me. I need them to tell me how I can best show a lifetime commitment. And Republicans are just the folks to do that.
Honestly, I sort of agree with Democrats on this one. I believe homosexuals deserve the same legal protections afforded to heterosexuals. The term "marriage" seems to be the sticking point for many people.
I'm voting Republican because corporations should not have to pay to clean up environmental damage. The EPA is an outmoded idea. If people want clean water, buy it in a bottle.
Who is arguing that corporations should not be responsible for negligent acts? And what is this about clean water? Who says we shouldn't have clean water? What a ridiculous comment.
I'm voting Republican because I don't want to know if the food I am eating has been genetically modified or exposed to radiation. I don't want to have to live with that fear, you know? So if the label says it's food, that's good enough for me.
Once again, who is arguing this point? At least the first few points portrayed a caricature of extreme conservative views. These points just seem to be invented.
I'm voting Republican because I really enjoy being screwed by the utility companies.
Once again, what exactly are you referring to?
Because we need more minorities in prison.
Yes, it is the fault of Republicans that people commit crimes. People who commit crimes should have to deal with the consequences of our actions, regardless of their skin color. Is MoveOn suggesting that minorities would be exempt from the justice system if they commit crimes? Somehow I doubt that.
Because hybrid cars really suck.
Once again, choice rules. Republicans believe consumer preference, not government mandate, should drive markets.
Because I just don't feel like I deserve health insurance.
I think the wording of this is telling - "deserve". As if this is some sort of entitlement. Guess what - you don't "deserve" health insurance. You are owed a basic standard of health care, but you are not owed health insurance.
Because Texas needs more billionaires.
Can someone explain this to me? How did we get to Texas and why would Republicans create billionaires? Are they talking about oil? Memo to Democrats - prove that gas companies have engaged in illegal activity or shut up about high gas prices. Gas prices are a function of a publicly traded commodity. Unless you can prove illegal actions, stop blaming the gas companies.
I'm voting Republican because sometimes the constitution is just one big inconvenient headache.
I find this charge very ironic - isn't this the Democratic position - that activist judges should be able to "interpret" the constitution however they believe the situation demands? Or however the "people" want? I believe it is Republicans who are "strict constructionists" and believe the the Constitution leaves lawmaking to the lawmakers (congress). Republicans believe the Constitution is to be followed to the letter, not to be sidestepped every time it is "inconvenient" to pass an amendment.
I think the whole world should be run by one big corporation. I think it would be so much cozier.
Ridiculous. What are they talking about? If anything, it is democrats who want one organization calling all the shots - the government. It would seem they are the ones who want to tell us what to drive, what to eat, who we have to hire, how much we should be paid, how much heat we should be using... doesn't that sound cozy....
Because all other countries are in fear to us. We should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way.
Once again, a blatant attempt to distort the issues. It is much easier to rely on sound bites that to debate the the situations presented by world realities.
So I can stay in Iraq.
If that is what is necessary. We started that mess - we have a responsibility to finish it and to provide safety and security to the Iraqi people until they can provide for themselves.
So I can go to Iran.
If need be - the American Military will be ready. Hopefully, this will not be a necessity. However, allowing a nation that has threatened the complete destruction of its neighbors to have nuclear weapons is not an option. Even Hitler was not so bold as to announce his murderous intentions. Should we not take them at their word? Why would we assume they are lying about such an important action?
So if you're thinking about voting something besides Republican, don't bother. Stay home. We've got it all taken care of. You'll get exactly what you deserve.
Good grief.
Ok - let's review this line by line. Here is the transcript:
I'm voting Republican because...
We don't like shopping at small neighborhood stores. We don't want the problem of choosing where to shop. And we just love cheap plastic crap from China.
I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to attack - Wal-mart? Interestingly enough, globalization encourages choice. Without globalization we would all be paying higher prices for lower quality goods since competition would be stifled through protectionist measure. And as for cheap plastic crap from China - where has MoveOn been lately? The computer I am using right now was made in China by a Chinese company. Works great (and it wasn't that cheap, either). Maybe they need to check their decade.
I'm voting Republican because I don't really want a cure for AIDS or for breast cancer. (They are just gays and women.)
Wow, what to say here. Is this a crack at stem cells? I am pretty sure George Bush has done more for AIDS in Africa than any other U.S. President. Besides, how fitting is it that Democrats take swipes at "big business" when it is most likely Big Pharma that will continue to innovate and develop new ways to combat disease.
I'm voting Republican because I think new drugs should be made available immediately whether they've been tested properly or not. If the major pharmaceutical companies' bottom lines are healthy, then I feel healthy too.
See above comment - here is an example of distortion; it isn't that Republicans are opposed to drug testing - we just don't believe it makes logical sense to obstruct a drug because it has a negative effect on a small number of respondents if it has a positive effect on a significant majority of the population. Sick individuals should have the right to try experimental drugs if they want to. I don't see the point of restricting all access to experimental medicine if the positives far outweigh the negatives for those willing to take the risk.
I'm voting Republican so that my little Caitlin can be in a classroom with at least 30 other children. That way she can be challenged by fighting for attention.
Ok, this one is flat wrong - Republicans want students and parents to have choices regarding schools - vouchers and charter schools would lower class sizes. Democrats want to cram all students into public schools whether they want to be there or not. I would think there would be a lot less fighting for attention in private schools where students actually choose to go there.
I'm voting Republican because women just can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies. Never. Ever. Ever.
Women are more than capable of making decisions about their own bodies. The problem is when they want to make decisions about other bodies as well (such as the body of their unborn child). In this case, I do not believe you have the right to kill your child unless failing to do so will put the mother's life at risk. Once again, oversimplification reigns. Nuances are for Republicans.
I'm voting Republican because I've already seen the great outdoors. Continuing our use of fossil fuels freely is far more important than preserving our natural wildlands.
I like how this is presented as an "either/or" situation. I believe Republicans are for responsible harvesting of fossil fuels. I do think this is a balancing act, and I agree that both Republicans and Democrats need to identify ways to supply our energy needs while preserving the environment to the greatest degree possible.
We're voting Republican because we like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We really like knowing that even if we're separate, we'll still be called equal.
What a cheap shot. Let's bring up a ruling more than 50 years old that has since been overturned. To me it is interesting that this is the most powerful example they could muster.
I'm voting Republican because I need to be told who I can love. I need the government to tell me. I need them to tell me how I can best show a lifetime commitment. And Republicans are just the folks to do that.
Honestly, I sort of agree with Democrats on this one. I believe homosexuals deserve the same legal protections afforded to heterosexuals. The term "marriage" seems to be the sticking point for many people.
I'm voting Republican because corporations should not have to pay to clean up environmental damage. The EPA is an outmoded idea. If people want clean water, buy it in a bottle.
Who is arguing that corporations should not be responsible for negligent acts? And what is this about clean water? Who says we shouldn't have clean water? What a ridiculous comment.
I'm voting Republican because I don't want to know if the food I am eating has been genetically modified or exposed to radiation. I don't want to have to live with that fear, you know? So if the label says it's food, that's good enough for me.
Once again, who is arguing this point? At least the first few points portrayed a caricature of extreme conservative views. These points just seem to be invented.
I'm voting Republican because I really enjoy being screwed by the utility companies.
Once again, what exactly are you referring to?
Because we need more minorities in prison.
Yes, it is the fault of Republicans that people commit crimes. People who commit crimes should have to deal with the consequences of our actions, regardless of their skin color. Is MoveOn suggesting that minorities would be exempt from the justice system if they commit crimes? Somehow I doubt that.
Because hybrid cars really suck.
Once again, choice rules. Republicans believe consumer preference, not government mandate, should drive markets.
Because I just don't feel like I deserve health insurance.
I think the wording of this is telling - "deserve". As if this is some sort of entitlement. Guess what - you don't "deserve" health insurance. You are owed a basic standard of health care, but you are not owed health insurance.
Because Texas needs more billionaires.
Can someone explain this to me? How did we get to Texas and why would Republicans create billionaires? Are they talking about oil? Memo to Democrats - prove that gas companies have engaged in illegal activity or shut up about high gas prices. Gas prices are a function of a publicly traded commodity. Unless you can prove illegal actions, stop blaming the gas companies.
I'm voting Republican because sometimes the constitution is just one big inconvenient headache.
I find this charge very ironic - isn't this the Democratic position - that activist judges should be able to "interpret" the constitution however they believe the situation demands? Or however the "people" want? I believe it is Republicans who are "strict constructionists" and believe the the Constitution leaves lawmaking to the lawmakers (congress). Republicans believe the Constitution is to be followed to the letter, not to be sidestepped every time it is "inconvenient" to pass an amendment.
I think the whole world should be run by one big corporation. I think it would be so much cozier.
Ridiculous. What are they talking about? If anything, it is democrats who want one organization calling all the shots - the government. It would seem they are the ones who want to tell us what to drive, what to eat, who we have to hire, how much we should be paid, how much heat we should be using... doesn't that sound cozy....
Because all other countries are in fear to us. We should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way.
Once again, a blatant attempt to distort the issues. It is much easier to rely on sound bites that to debate the the situations presented by world realities.
So I can stay in Iraq.
If that is what is necessary. We started that mess - we have a responsibility to finish it and to provide safety and security to the Iraqi people until they can provide for themselves.
So I can go to Iran.
If need be - the American Military will be ready. Hopefully, this will not be a necessity. However, allowing a nation that has threatened the complete destruction of its neighbors to have nuclear weapons is not an option. Even Hitler was not so bold as to announce his murderous intentions. Should we not take them at their word? Why would we assume they are lying about such an important action?
So if you're thinking about voting something besides Republican, don't bother. Stay home. We've got it all taken care of. You'll get exactly what you deserve.
Good grief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)