"Have we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we've done. We've done a lot of things." Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Roll Call, Monday, Dec. 10, 2007
So, what exactly have they been able to do? Well, they tried to oppose the surge. And now the surge is working. Just ask John Murtha. Let's see, I think they raised the minimum wage. Anything else? Oh, right, endless investigations. How is that working for them? Seems like a pretty poor return that Democrat voters got on their efforts in the '06 elections.
So I am assuming, if you care anything about politics, you have heard the biggest bombshell regarding the use of waterboarding in interrogation of terrorists. If not, it goes something like this. Democrats have been beating the Bush administration over the head, demagoguing like crazy, implying that the Bush administration approves of torture, because it has allowed a total of 3 very high al Qaeda terrorists to undergo this technique for a combined total of 3 minutes, in exchange for which we received incredibly valuable information. Waterboarding is torture because politicians say it is, and it makes a nice stick to beat the President over the head with. Only problem is that now those intelligence people who have for so long been leaking information to the press that gives the Bush administration a black eye have now bitten the hand that feeds them and let slip that top lawmakers, including Democrats like current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had received extensive briefing regarding the use of waterboarding, and either gave their tacit approval, or, at the very least, expressed no disapproval with the technique. In fact, some even questioned whether that was enough. So to turn one of their favorite questions on them, I would ask, "Madam Speaker, what did you know, and when did you know it?" And did she approve of waterboarding before she disapproved of it?
Finally, you have to really wonder whether the kid gloves that the media is using to treat the Democrat candidates versus the bashing they are giving the Republicans is, in fact, really beneficial to Democrats. In Democrat debates, they get softball questions from devoted Democrat voters, allowing them to discuss in detail exactly which one of them opposed the invasion of Iraq first, and who has the quickest plan to retreat. They venture into such dangerous venues as labor union debates, NPR radio debates, and CNN/YouTube debates, but won't consider Fox News debates. Repbulicans, on the other hand, go to Univision debates, CNN/YouTube debates (where they get hit with setup questions from Democrat plants - not very clever plants, either), and take all the tough questions. Okay, maybe they like that now, but when they actually have to go up against an opponent of substance in the general election, I'm thinking the guy that has already had to take some tough questions is going to be better prepared. So I actually have no problem with Republicans getting tough questions. I think there should be debates where, instead of getting questions from their own party, they should have to face questions from people of the opposite party. No softball questions at all. I would treat it like prepping a witness for questioning in a trial. Hit them with the tough questions now, so they are prepared for when the battle begins in earnest. To some extent, Republicans have already been doing this (yeah, I'm sure that guy who asked who believed in the Bible was somebody considering voting Republican). Democrats won't. They won't even go on Fox News for a debate. Now that is what I call reaching out to all voters!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
I'm back - Musings for Monday, Dec. 10, 2007
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have (emphasis added). This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
So Al Gore has officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which by now means that this would put him in the same company as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the fabricating Rigoberto Menchu. I guess I won't begrudge him that fellowship. And ever the modest, forward-thinking man that he is, he did not fail to mention in the beginning of his speech that he felt that he should not have lost the 2000 election, "Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature." Still no word, though, on how much in carbon offsets he will have to purchase to compensate for the flight across the Atlantic to accept. I suspect he made a greater contribution to global warming in this trip than I will this whole month.
Mike Hucakbee has been front and center as of late for his surge in Republican polls. Now, I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but I'm afraid I don't know much more about him than that he is a "true" Christian, unlike, say, that freaky Mormon guy. Honestly, can anybody tell me anything about him other than that he has some great one-liners and, did I mention, he is a "true" Christian? Sure, he takes the moral high ground, choosing not to comment on Mitt Romney's religion, but his not so subtle commercials proclaiming him a true Christian candidate practically scream between the lines. And that is all we know of him from him. What we find out from other sources disturbs me. He was disappointed with the President's veto of the egregious expansion of SCHIP to cover middle class adults who are too lazy to pay for their own insurance. Regardless of how he likes to spin it, his playing off raising taxes as Arkansas' governor is about as easy to stomach as George H. W. Bush's breaking his "Read My Lips . . . " pledge. But vote for him, because he is a "true" Christian. Sorry, just like I despise all the lemmings who will vote for Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she has 2 X chromosomes, I need more from a candidate than their religious background. Can anybody even tell me what his foreign policy is?
Mitt Romney made a big speech last week to try to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican party to not reject him based on his religion. Was it a good speech? Sure, why not. I think it is stupid he had to ever give it. With all of the important issues on the table this election season, some people are worried because the guy is a Mormon? Ask any of these people what exactly they dislike about his views, and they couldn't tell you, I'm sure. But they've been told that we are all freaky. So let me ask you this, which is the weirder idea, that God spoke to a 14-year old boy in upstate New York in the early part of the 19th century, or that there is an all-powerful being who created everyone and everything in the universe? What is harder to believe, that Jesus Christ visited the people on the American continent after his death, and these people also kept a record of their spiritual teachings, or that there existed a man who came to earth, payed for the sins of all mankind, died on a cross, and came back to life 3 days later? Or that God sent a flood that killed everybody on earth, except for one family, who were crowded together on a boat containing 2 of every animal on the face of the earth? Or that Moses was able to part the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross through on dry land? But you are right, it really is just a bit too much to think that God would talk to a 14-year old boy (by the way, how old was the prophet Samuel when God spoke to him? and how old was David when he was chosen by God?). If people are so concerned with the influence that Salt Lake City would hold on a potential Mormon president in imposing its ideas, then how do they explain that both a serious potential contender for the presidency and the Senate Majority leader both are members of that same faith, and yet are on seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Finally, in light of all of the rosy news that comes out of the Middle East and Muslim world, I thought it might be appropriate to contemplate the perceived favoritism that the nation of Israel receives from us. First of all, are they favored above all others in that region? Maybe. This may be, though, more due to their actions, than any pre-conceived favoritism. The fact of the matter is that they are more in line with our goals than anyone else over there, so of course they get preferred treatment. For the same reason that the hard worker in an office is going to get more raises and promotions than the slacker. You could argue that the hard worker gets them because of favoritism, but I think the better argument is they get them because they deserve them more. Is it any wonder that Israel gets more of our support? When was the last time you heard of someone thrown in jail for naming a teddy bear Moses, let alone had mass protests calling for their death, in Israel? You'd probably be pretty shocked if you were to hear of such a thing, wouldn't you? But were you shocked when you heard that a British teacher in the Sudan was thrown in prison for letting her class of school children name a teddy bear Mohammed, while people on the streets wanted her executed? Probably not. Let's try this one. How shocked would you be if you heard that a woman that was gang-raped in Israel was sentenced to 6 months in prison because at the time she was raped, she was with an unrelated man she was not married to? I'm sure we would see any number of denunciations at the much vaunted United Nations against Israel for that. And yet how shocked were you when you heard that a woman in Saudi Arabia received not only 6 months in prison, but also 200 lashes, after being gang raped by 7 men, all because she was in a car with a man that she was not related to - it was an old schoolmate of hers who wanted her picture - for shame! The Palestinians have a public education system that teaches them to hate Jews and teaches them a geography where Israel has been eliminated. Their version of Mickey Mouse extols the virtue of dying with a bomb strapped to your chest, killing Jews and infidels (that's you and me, in case you weren't clear on that).
But you are right, we probably side more with Israel just because we like them more.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.
"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
So Al Gore has officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which by now means that this would put him in the same company as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the fabricating Rigoberto Menchu. I guess I won't begrudge him that fellowship. And ever the modest, forward-thinking man that he is, he did not fail to mention in the beginning of his speech that he felt that he should not have lost the 2000 election, "Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature." Still no word, though, on how much in carbon offsets he will have to purchase to compensate for the flight across the Atlantic to accept. I suspect he made a greater contribution to global warming in this trip than I will this whole month.
Mike Hucakbee has been front and center as of late for his surge in Republican polls. Now, I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but I'm afraid I don't know much more about him than that he is a "true" Christian, unlike, say, that freaky Mormon guy. Honestly, can anybody tell me anything about him other than that he has some great one-liners and, did I mention, he is a "true" Christian? Sure, he takes the moral high ground, choosing not to comment on Mitt Romney's religion, but his not so subtle commercials proclaiming him a true Christian candidate practically scream between the lines. And that is all we know of him from him. What we find out from other sources disturbs me. He was disappointed with the President's veto of the egregious expansion of SCHIP to cover middle class adults who are too lazy to pay for their own insurance. Regardless of how he likes to spin it, his playing off raising taxes as Arkansas' governor is about as easy to stomach as George H. W. Bush's breaking his "Read My Lips . . . " pledge. But vote for him, because he is a "true" Christian. Sorry, just like I despise all the lemmings who will vote for Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she has 2 X chromosomes, I need more from a candidate than their religious background. Can anybody even tell me what his foreign policy is?
Mitt Romney made a big speech last week to try to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican party to not reject him based on his religion. Was it a good speech? Sure, why not. I think it is stupid he had to ever give it. With all of the important issues on the table this election season, some people are worried because the guy is a Mormon? Ask any of these people what exactly they dislike about his views, and they couldn't tell you, I'm sure. But they've been told that we are all freaky. So let me ask you this, which is the weirder idea, that God spoke to a 14-year old boy in upstate New York in the early part of the 19th century, or that there is an all-powerful being who created everyone and everything in the universe? What is harder to believe, that Jesus Christ visited the people on the American continent after his death, and these people also kept a record of their spiritual teachings, or that there existed a man who came to earth, payed for the sins of all mankind, died on a cross, and came back to life 3 days later? Or that God sent a flood that killed everybody on earth, except for one family, who were crowded together on a boat containing 2 of every animal on the face of the earth? Or that Moses was able to part the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross through on dry land? But you are right, it really is just a bit too much to think that God would talk to a 14-year old boy (by the way, how old was the prophet Samuel when God spoke to him? and how old was David when he was chosen by God?). If people are so concerned with the influence that Salt Lake City would hold on a potential Mormon president in imposing its ideas, then how do they explain that both a serious potential contender for the presidency and the Senate Majority leader both are members of that same faith, and yet are on seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Finally, in light of all of the rosy news that comes out of the Middle East and Muslim world, I thought it might be appropriate to contemplate the perceived favoritism that the nation of Israel receives from us. First of all, are they favored above all others in that region? Maybe. This may be, though, more due to their actions, than any pre-conceived favoritism. The fact of the matter is that they are more in line with our goals than anyone else over there, so of course they get preferred treatment. For the same reason that the hard worker in an office is going to get more raises and promotions than the slacker. You could argue that the hard worker gets them because of favoritism, but I think the better argument is they get them because they deserve them more. Is it any wonder that Israel gets more of our support? When was the last time you heard of someone thrown in jail for naming a teddy bear Moses, let alone had mass protests calling for their death, in Israel? You'd probably be pretty shocked if you were to hear of such a thing, wouldn't you? But were you shocked when you heard that a British teacher in the Sudan was thrown in prison for letting her class of school children name a teddy bear Mohammed, while people on the streets wanted her executed? Probably not. Let's try this one. How shocked would you be if you heard that a woman that was gang-raped in Israel was sentenced to 6 months in prison because at the time she was raped, she was with an unrelated man she was not married to? I'm sure we would see any number of denunciations at the much vaunted United Nations against Israel for that. And yet how shocked were you when you heard that a woman in Saudi Arabia received not only 6 months in prison, but also 200 lashes, after being gang raped by 7 men, all because she was in a car with a man that she was not related to - it was an old schoolmate of hers who wanted her picture - for shame! The Palestinians have a public education system that teaches them to hate Jews and teaches them a geography where Israel has been eliminated. Their version of Mickey Mouse extols the virtue of dying with a bomb strapped to your chest, killing Jews and infidels (that's you and me, in case you weren't clear on that).
But you are right, we probably side more with Israel just because we like them more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
