May 25, 2005
'Wear it on your sleeve.'
People complain about President Bush and how he ‘Wears his faith on his sleeve’. What does that mean?…and why complain about it? I believe that faith is not the only thing being worn like that.
So what? The man believes that their is a 'superior being' that guides him in the decisions he makes. Isn't this better than a man who believes he is the superior being?
A big complaint has to do with Pres. Bush taking us to war.
How could a 'Godfearing' man send our soldiers into a 'War on Terror'? a War in Afghanistan? a War in Iraq? Exactly what convinces a man who claims to have such a strong faith in 'God' to take us to war?
Others who believe tend to think that the evil in our world can be extinguished through talk and a good example.
Are we in the ultimate fight between Good & Evil?
I agree that the fight cannot be won without erradicating such things as poverty and the lack of education.
Should Bush have not taken us to War and concentrated more on the more peaceful means - weren't we already doing that without success?
I am outraged because we seem to be 'walking on eggshells' when it comes to our fight with the Muslim World - the fight is with the radicals - the ones who want to chop off the heads of anyone who does not believe in their form of Islam. These are the same people who saw the U.S. as 'weak' in the years before Bush took office.
I want to know how Bush can take us to War and at the same time expect us to kiss butt in the Middle East?
The fine line. Is that what it is? We have to bring the average everyday Muslim over to our side by not offending their Religion? Just how is this done? This seems to be an impossible task.
The reason for the title - 'Wear it on your sleeve' ....
The other night I was watching 'After Words'. Michael Eric Dyson, author of 'Is Bill Cosby Right? Or has the Black Middle Class Lost it's Mind?', was speaking about his disapproval of things that Bill Cosby has said recently about African Americans.
It seems that Bill Cosby wants black Americans to take responsibilty for themselves and stop playing the victim because he feels it has not been working. Mr. Dyson is outraged because he thinks that African Americans should always be defined by their race first.
We have many who are outraged by the 'Christian Right'. This is a group who is defining themselves as 'Christian first'.
We do not need a religious group taking over our country. What we need is our country to be a moral leader without actually having a particular religion 'in charge'. Why is it that any one group thinks they are morally superior?
Liberal, Conservative, Moderate ...
What makes any of us think that a particular group can solve all the problems that face us today?
From political parties, to race, to financial status, to what country they live in... Everyone these days seems to have something that they use to define who they are - something that puts them in some kind of a group that makes them feel superior to others.
We will never get along and live in the peaceful world most ALL of us hope for without practicing one basic principle...
We are ALL HUMAN BEINGS - all basically the same. We need the same things to survive and to ensure the existence of our species...SUNLIGHT, RAIN, OXYGEN, FOOD --
From the 'War on Terror' to the 'War on Poverty' nothing will ever really be accomplished as long as human beings are not put first. Those who are in charge are not doing this. They are putting their 'groups' first. Fighting over things like who will get the credit if something goes right. Fighting over who will get the blame is something goes wrong.
Everyone needs to take a step back, a deep breathe, and figure out how they can make this world a better place without getting a pat on the back for it.
I am not sure everything I wrote got my point across.
Many of the fights are for a good cause. My question is:
Are the different groups actually going about it the right way?
“Liberal, Conservative, Moderate …
What makes any of us think that a particular group can solve all the problems that face us today?”
Dawn,
I, for one, am human first, family second, country third and so forth.
One thing is for sure and for certain, not one of those groups can solve our problems separately.
The blame game is way too easy a way out. If you don’t take responsibility, you don’t have to fix the problem.
An old Japanese saying, “fix the problem not the blame”.
I am going to keep repeating this mantra until it sinks in.
Until we give these folks a reason to LIVE FOR their religion, they will continue to want to DIE FOR their religion.
I haven’t heard it said that way, but I’d interpret “wearing your faith on your sleeve” to be like wearing your heart on your sleeve, which means roughly, putting one’s ordinarily private emotions on display for all to see. It suggests a view that religion should be a private matter, not a public one; and hints that overt public displays of “faith” are apt to be hypocritical. (I haven’t said that, mind, you just asked us what it means.)
As to whether a man that “believes that their [sic] is a ‘superior being’ that guides him” is actually “better than a man who believes he is the superior being”, well, that depends. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to find some very bad things done in the name of religion, and I personally have known some people that are quite religious and yet did things I found dispicable. On the whole I’d weight public religiousity as a slight negative - people should be judged by their track record, not by their religious beliefs, and being more public than needed suggests an attempt as misdirection, at least.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 25, 2005 08:24 PMBTW, Dawn, if you’re “outraged because we seem to be ‘walking on eggshells’” then you’ll probably be thrilled to find out:
- Amnesty International has called Gitmo “the gulag of our time”
- Additional stories, found credible by the FBI, of Koran desecration have surfaced
- Human Rights Watch says that U.S. FBI agents operating in Pakistan repeatedly interrogated and threatened two U.S. citizens who were unlawfully detained and subjected to torture by the Pakistani security services.
And that’s just one day! Yippee! What great news for those that want to be absolutely sure we’re not “kissing butt” in our war to - what was it now? - oh, yeah, introduce democracy in the Middle East.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 25, 2005 08:39 PMThere are many people who wear their faith on their sleeves. The Crusaders, George W. Bush, Al Queda, the Taliban, etc. The problem is these people tend to justify their actions in the name of a “higher cause” which blinds them to the bigger picture. They all believe God is on their side. Sadly, God does not give referrals.
Posted by: Aldous at May 25, 2005 08:40 PM“I, for one, am human first, family second, country third and so forth.” says Rocky.
This seems to be the problem we have in our fight against the radical Muslims - or Muslims in general?
They put the religion ahead of anything else. They follow their religious leaders no matter what they say or do.
If we could get into their heads and get them to see that the majority of us here in America put our needs as humans first and that we are ‘just like them’ in that we want to take care of our families - raise our children in peace and security….
We just don’t have the access to the average Muslim that Al Queda has.
William,
I’d like to use that to compare Bush and Putin. Putin appears to be a man that thinks he is ‘superior’ in that he wants to be the sole ruler of his country and he believes he is the only one that can do it.
To a certain extent Bush is like that - why else would he have ran for President?… or anyone for that matter? If Bush is more like the Putin that I see, he is doing a good job ‘hiding’ it. I really don’t see us being taken over by a dictator - just won’t happen.
Going after Bush because he has a strong faith in God is wrong because who’s to stop these same attacks when they are made on anyone running for office?
Belonging to a church and believing in God seems to be a prerequisite for getting elected. It will be a sad day in this country when devil worshippers and KKK members are the norm. Who’s to say their aren’t some truely evil people hiding behind the scenes of our political parties now? Working their way up in the ranks and bringing others along?
People are easily brainwashed.
Comparing the religious right in this country to the radical muslims is going to far.
Anybody catch the story about Amnesty International? Those people are disturbed.
Posted by: dawn at May 25, 2005 08:52 PMAnyone here - can you prove what the detainees said was true?
Are you giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did not do that as a way to cause trouble?
They know much better than we do what it means to desecrate the Muslim Holy Book and how these stories will play out in the Middle East.
Amnesty Int. and the ACLU are leaning what way?
Anybody know the name of the FBI agent and where the actual document is? I see the stories about it. Another anonymous source?
I heard Amnesty Int. never even visited Gitmo.
“The Crusaders, George W. Bush, Al Queda, the Taliban, etc.”
How can anyone HONESTLY compare Bush and the U.S. to the Taliban and Al Queda. These things are said just to stir people up with no hard evidence.
If ‘AI’ were truely doing it’s job and had their priorities straight - the U.S. would not have topped the list.
BTW - I have no problem with the death penalty for someone rightfully convicted of SEXUALLY MOLESTING A CHILD as ‘AI’ seems to have. Would they prefer they be sent to a country club?
Dawn,
“How can anyone HONESTLY compare Bush and the U.S. to the Taliban and Al Queda. These things are said just to stir people up with no hard evidence.”
Have you ever heard of the use of “counter-terrorism” by American and American-funded forces throughout Central and South America during the Reagan administration? America uses the same tactics for “counter-terrorism” as the “terrorists” use.
You can obviously compare the two men and/or organizations because both are driven to their policies and actions through their fundamentalist view of their religion; be it Christianity or Islam. Both are very close-minded and view their enemy as “evil”. They think in absolutes. “You are either with me or against me”. They are both trying to create a religious paradise on Earth for their respective religions. They both view Western culture and modern philosophy as intrinsically evil or “anti-life”. They both will go to almost any action to defend their beliefs and goals.
Posted by: Ryan at May 25, 2005 11:13 PMI don’t care if he DOES wear his religion on a sleeve, I’m just troubled by some of his “faith-based decisions” because as an agnostic it’s rather hard for me to get behind those. The funny thing is that the one time I would probably agree with him, capital punishment, he makes an exception to his Christian values and approves of it instead of condemning it.
Posted by: Zeek at May 25, 2005 11:59 PMdawn:
What most Bush Apologists always fail to notice is that EVERYBODY is saying the exact same story. The 3 INNOCENT British Prisoners recently released and the INNOCENT Canadian all sound the same.
It always disgusts me how Republicans take it for granted that they are all Terrorists when in fact the vast majority are completely innocent. Innocent people are not trained to lie and they are not Terrorists.
This is simply part of what I am talking about earlier. The Bushies and their Supporters CANNOT face reality. They are doing God’s work. They are the Good Guys. Therefore, all these bad things are lies, the work of bad apples, liberal media and who knows what else?
Posted by: Aldous at May 26, 2005 12:18 AMLet the President wear his faith on his sleeve… just don’t let him force EPA scientists to change their findings merely because they conflict with administration policy and objectives. Which is the inherent problem, of course. Too often, Science and Religion are spoken of as equals, which is completely incorrect; Science can only speak of what can actually be measured and the level of peer review that is required to “prove” a hypothesis is the strictest test of human reason ever devised. Religion, though being a comfort to many, does not generally have the same rigorous parameters that Science has, and therefore policy determined by Religion is not as likely to be as thouroughly scrutinized. Perhaps a misplaced assumption of authority in Religion?
Posted by: ant at May 26, 2005 12:42 AMWow, dawn. You just don’t get it.
A big complaint has to do with Pres. Bush taking us to war.
No, the complaint was the way in which the administration lied to get us into Iraq. We were all behind the President when he went after al Qaeda. The support faded when he got us sidetracked and bogged down in Iraq. Our fight is with bin Laden. You may remember him. He’s responsible for the 9/11 attack.
So what? The man believes that their is a ‘superior being’ that guides him in the decisions he makes.
I firmly believe in God, but even I don’t want to get into how kooky that sounds. It’s one thing to talk to God, but quite another when you say he talks back. In any case, the problems crop up when guys like Bush, DeLay, and Frist ditch the Constitution when it contradicts the Bible.
BTW, I agree with the gist of your article.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 26, 2005 04:35 AMAldous
“… in fact the vast majority are completely innocent.”
You would have to have a case by case study of each and everyone of those being held to have that statement be true and honest
Posted by: tom at May 26, 2005 06:09 AMWell…great post…M.L.K. said”I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and liv out of the meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self evident that, ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.” I believe that. I also believe that I am rite in what I believe. I’m passionate about what I believe in. I can’t force anyone to believe what I believe. I’m a conservative. I don’t look down on others because they don’t believe what i believe…but I do pray for them ;).
Posted by: rob at May 26, 2005 07:06 AM“Wow, dawn. You just don’t get it.
A big complaint has to do with Pres. Bush taking us to war.”
No No - AP
I was referring to the different ways of interpreting faith when going to war or not.
Some faithful believe there should never be a war and others believe war is part of the fight between good and evil.
“In any case, the problems crop up when guys like Bush, DeLay, and Frist ditch the Constitution when it contradicts the Bible.”-AP
- you are right. Though not in power - some Dems joined in. Soon we will see how much emphasis those running for office place on religion. My guess is - more than in the past.
Aldous,
How do YOU know those 3 prisoners didn’t cook that up together? I suppose chopping their heads off - though innocent - would not have offended the muslims to the same extreme? They could have cheered them as martyrs.
If flushing the book helped prove they were innocent and then released - is there still a problem?
We will never have ANY person in office that does not lead somewhat on their own personal beliefs, it is not humanly possible to totally negate how you feel (that is evident within these posts).
Personally I’m glad Bush is at least up front about his beliefs, this caused the whole nation to scrutinize his every move.
I didn’t vote for Bush because I agree with his beliefs, I voted for him because he had some.
The scarier alternative to me is someone pretending their every whim blows like the wind in polls.
“Anyone here - can you prove what the detainees said was true? Amnesty Int. and the ACLU are leaning what way? Anybody know the name of the FBI agent and where the actual document is?”
Dawn, let’s me get your claims straight - I can see you’re upset, but I’m not sure why.
You’re “outraged” because “we’re walking on eggshells” - to coin a phrase, what does that mean? People - and in all likelihood, at least some innocent people - are interned for years without legal counsel, there is widespread psychological abuse of prisoners, there is “rendition” to countries that torture prisoners, that there have been incidents of torture and death of prisoners.
Do you (a) not believe any of this is happening, but you would be upset if it was or (b) don’t care whether it’s happening or not, since it’s impossible to get muslims on our side anyway, and we can’t be seen as ‘weak’?
Not to psychoanalyze, but I’d like think that Team Reds is actually really upset by the administration’s policy to prisoners (what would you say if Clinton had done all this?) but are just taking it out on the “messengers” - Newsweek, AI, FBI agents, whoever.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 26, 2005 10:29 AMIn the end, I think Ron Reagan Jr. said it best at his father’s eulogy:
“Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.”
There are many apologists of Bush43 who would rather say “How do YOU know those 3 prisoners didn’t cook that up together?” and overlook the Gonzalez memo than admit we are in the wrong on this issue. Many evil things have been done in the name of religion, and those things are why the establisment clause is in our Constitution. When God tells you to do something, it is the ultimate excuse.
People forget that after the Red Sea closed on the Egyptian army God cried because they too were his children.
Posted by: Dave at May 26, 2005 10:54 AMDawn,
Great article.
I’m not sure if its wearing religion “on his sleeve” that bothers the left so much, rather its wearing ALL issues on his sleeve!
How many issues does President Bush express his views on that people are confused about? Can you spell: NONE.
It drives the left nuts that he will come out and express his views on every issue without a bunch of spin and hyperbole.
People can love/hate his opinions on any issue, few will be confused about WHAT his opinion IS!
It just happens to be that the majority of the voters agreed with his opinions on issues and he expressed them in simple terms that everyone understood that got him elected.
Democrats could regain power if they would express EXACTLY what their opinions are on issues , and adjust their platform based on what the public wants/will vote for.
Wishey-washey doesn’t sell very well to the voters, and printed words in a platform don’t mean sick-em if they can’t be backed up with voteing record.
Posted by: Beagle at May 26, 2005 11:38 AMI have a tendency to wear my mind on my sleeve I have a history of taking off my shirt-Barenaked Ladies - “Seven Days”
Ours is a culture of litmus tests, and wearing your faith on your sleeve can be one of them. But when the loyalties of one’s worldly life become divided, we can end up changing our shirts a lot, not really wearing our faith where we should be.
The worst thing the Religious right has done in this country is give its wholesale support and involvement to the Republican party, allowing interests whose principles are counter-Christian to alter the message they give out.
The proper place for faith is in the mind, the heart, and the hands. If we do not act out our faith, wearing it on our sleeve will soon become another wardrobe malfunction.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2005 11:52 AMWilliam,
Considering the way things are right now - we have no chance of getting the Muslims to understand where we are coming from. The radicals are using it as propaganda and the ‘everyday’ Muslim will always listen to them before us, because they are Muslim. They will find any way they can to make us look bad EVEN IF we didn’t do it. How do you win a fight when it is okay for the other side to kill each other?
No - I do not like prisoner abuse but is flushing a book up there with chopping off fingers? Not to me. A muslim would rather be minus fingers.
If there are so many people who know what should be done to correct the problems in the Middle East - why did 9/11 happen to begin with? Was Clinton not doing it ‘right’ either?
I hope we can agree that it is a very complicated matter and one solution alone will not work.
This should bring us back to the original discussion:
I only caught part of it but there was a story about Farikan on ‘Hannity and Colmes’ last night. Both of them were outraged by the fact that Farikan had the nerve to ‘blame’ the Jews for Hitler.
A question: What did the Jews do to create a Hitler?
To me, that is a question that needs to be answered but the blame still falls on Hitler.
The guest they had to speak for Farikan was trying to explain but was so rudely cut off. He started to say that the same can be said about blacks, that they should look inside themselves and stop blaming everything on others.
Believe it or not - I was trying to get past the blame game and get at the root of the problem to maybe find solutions.
Blaming Bush for ALL the problems we have in the Middle East is way off the mark.
Maybe just maybe if we had done something about the way people enter our country 10 years ago we wouldn’t have had 9/11.
Are those fighting for ‘open borders’ the same ones who are blaming Bush for everything?
Who is for the ‘lottery’ to become a citizen? No background checks? Just get your ticket drawn and you’re in? Bad policy. Who sponsored that and got it passed? Just how many terrorists are in that lottery? Don’t know - can’t find out because we rely on the info given by states that sponsor terrorism.
People pick a ‘group’ to belong to (for maybe one reason)and then get lost in the ideology and refuse to compromise because they just can’t understand how someone could disagree with them.
Like the ACLU. I can agree with a few of their fights but not all. If you belong to that group you are pretty much giving them the go ahead to fight for things you may strongly disagree with and there is nothing you can do except not pay your membership next time.
That is what I was trying to discuss.
Stephen,
I understand your point on the single issue of religion, my point was that religion is a single issue in the overall debate over platforms and voteing trends, and who is expressing their EXACT views on a given issue.
At times a single issue will turn the tide in an election, most times its a collection of issues.
Posted by: Beagle at May 26, 2005 12:11 PMDawn,
Your article immediately reminded me of the words of John Lennon:
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one.
Unfortunately, this is a dream. Humans have and will continue to “group” themselves. It is in our nature!
Posted by: Michael Burns at May 26, 2005 12:23 PMQuit pusyfooting around. If you want to win their hearts and minds. Grab them by the balls and thei hearts and minds will follow.
Posted by: Rolland Favre at May 26, 2005 12:37 PMMichael-
I think you are both right. You are right because by nature we are pack animals, basically driven to belong to one pack after another all our lives. Familly, religion, school, clique, home team, profession, etc. But unlike other pack animals, as humans we can choose our actions and reactions through reasoning.
Diplomacy exists to prevent mortal conflict among pack members or between pack groups when reasoning is preferred by both sides. Reading the news shows us how wrong people are who ignore the basic fact that we are pack animals, pretend that John Lennon’s vision is a reality and act accordingly. When you are dealing with a pack gone wrong like Al Qaida or a criminal gang you can’t afford to pretend they are aiming for some higher purpose. They understand and respect pure force and disdain any other form of communication.
Posted by: Monica at May 26, 2005 12:50 PMDawn:
The radicals are using it as propaganda and the ‘everyday’ Muslim will always listen to them before us, because they are Muslim. They will find any way they can to make us look bad EVEN IF we didn’t do it.
I agree - there will always be anti-American agitators. But that doesn’t mean our actions don’t make it better…or worse. Right now we’re supplying them with all the “ammunition” they need for propoganda and more. Abu Ghraib was kind of like abandoning tons of explosives in Iraq for the insurgents to find - and all we’ve done in response is haul a few noncoms up for a courtmartial?
Your post bothers me because it seems to say two comtradictory things - “don’t blame us”, maybe we’re pulling out a few fingernails but the bad guys are chopping of fingers - and “hey, everyone should forget about what groups are responsible and put people first”.
If we expect others to put “people first”, then we need to start with ourselves: and the goal is not just to be better than bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein, it’s to do what’s right. Then we need to look at our families, and every group we feel with do belong with, and push them as hard as we can to put “people first”. Your church, your political party, and your country. Groups aren’t going to disappear, and sometimes you can’t change the groups you belong to - I’m going to live and die an American, that’s just who I am. But you can make them better. And that process includes criticism, investigation, blame, taking responsibility, and seeking accountability, and making changes.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 26, 2005 12:55 PMMonica, your last comments are some of the most astute I have read in awhile. This very realistic view of human behavior however, is at once too simple to explain all of human behavior, and too complicated for many in the pack.
Seems to me we need to understand what makes packs go bad and to the very best of our ability, prevent the circumstances and context which cause packs to go bad. That is not to say we can afford to ignore the packs that already have gone bad. But, the two greatest fears I have of society going after bad packs, is 1) we inadvertently create more bad packs than we eliminate, and 2) we become a bad pack ourselves in our efforts to eradicate bad packs.
Competent, capable leadership which never forgets to prevent realization of the 2 fears above is absolutely necessary to prevent such fears from being realized. Do we have that kind of leadership in the US? I don’t think we do.
Quit pusyfooting around. If you want to win their hearts and minds. Grab them by the balls and thei hearts and minds will follow.
This is the mentality of an abusing husband or father. The reason his wife/child doesn’t love/respect him is because he doesn’t beat them often or severely enough.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2005 01:43 PMThe big question is: ” What is wrong with wearing your religion on your sleeve?” It seems that today it is alright to wear your “Atheism, Sexual Orientation, Race, Disability, Party Affiliation, Belief in Darwinism, etc” on your sleeve, but to say that you are a Christian is now to be only whispered in the confines of your home.
While I agree that our national decisions should not be based solely on Christian beliefs, it seems that it has become politically correct to exclude Christian beliefs, yet allow other belief systems to influence public policy. The point being is that no one belief system has all the answers. The vast majority of Americans hold some sort of religious belief and most of those beliefs share a lot of common ideals. Of course, the extremist in any belief system tend to be the ones that get the most attention in the media, but they rarely represent the majority.
Is it time that we give states back their individual control and stop the federal government from trying to legislate everything? Do we need the Feds to “homogenize” (no pun nor humor intended)our society or should they allow us to have retain our individual community personalities? Just adding more fuel to the fire…..
Posted by: Sam Steele at May 26, 2005 01:46 PM“I agree - there will always be anti-American agitators.”
But does that mean we should accept them living in our own country?
There are ways to go about making a point - doing it in a way that benefits the ‘enemy’ is what I am against. There is a difference between criticism and bashing.
Why are there so many who search and search for reasons to blame the U.S. but noone else? I know, they don’t have to search long and hard to find the errors of our ways.
I did not say ‘don’t blame us’ -
We have our faults -
Blame America first? Is that the proper way to go about this? Every time someone does that it sets us back a few steps. Just how do we make America great by reinforcing the negatives and never pointing out any positives?
Until those in the Muslim world who do not agree with the UBL’s and Zarqawi’s of the world stand up and shout that they need to make some changes too - none of this will accomplish anything. Of course, unlike you, they fear that they will have their head chopped off.
We are better than UBL and Saddam and if you don’t believe that …
“And that process includes criticism, investigation, blame, taking responsibility, and seeking accountability, and making changes.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if other nations felt the same way about their own and not just us.
Since we are now at the top of the list with ‘AI’ it seems there is no where to go but up.
I’m so thankful that they did that for us. It should make a big difference in our fight against the radical Muslims.
Dawn said:
“I only caught part of it but there was a story about Farikan on ‘Hannity and Colmes’ last night. Both of them were outraged by the fact that Farikan had the nerve to ‘blame’ the Jews for Hitler. A question: What did the Jews do to create a Hitler? To me, that is a question that needs to be answered but the blame still falls on Hitler.
Please re-read your post, maybe it was poorly phrased. But, to assert that a victim of racism or other prejudice could be accused of complicity in their victimization is incredible to me. You need (?) to ask “What role did the Jews have in creating the Holocost?” ?? Do you not see a fundamental prejudice in your comment? What did the rape victim do to get raped? Only the rapist asks that question. What did the slave do to become a slave? Only the plantation owner asks that question.
Beagle,
My problem with Bush is not:
How many issues does President Bush express his views on that people are confused about? Can you spell: NONE.
My problem with Bush are his answers. Confidence and Clarity are not Competence or Veracity. Oh, and don’t forget we invaded Iraq because of WMD and the tax cuts were to go almost entirely to the poorest Americans.
Wait a minute. There’s something I don’t understand here.
Why is it that every time the war in Iraq is mentioned, there’s a “sneer” attached to it?
“The war in Iraq is to introduce our(sneer) Democracy (sneer) into the Middle East.
Does the Iraqi government even resemble our form of Democracy? Do they have a Senate? Do they have a House of Representatives? Do they have just one leader…or is the power of that office shared by many? Their form of democracy doesn’t even look like ours.
And isn’t it about the individual’s basic fundamental right to determine their own destiny? The right NOT to have a despot control every facet of your existance? The right NOT to have to live in fear of instant death if you disagree with anything the tyrant says?
Isn’t this war about the freedom (no sneer) to determine an individual’s future?
Forget the excuse of WMDs. Read about the excuses Woodrow Wilson made up to get us into WW1 until the Lutsitania incident. Read about how FDR tried everything in the book to get us into WW2 until Pearl Harbor. Where’s the outrage against them? Where are the universal condemnations for them? Where are the sneers?
Make no mistake about it. This war is about freedom…personal and collective. Just ask any Iraqi that has a purple finger. Just ask the Lebonese. And now, just ask the Palestinians. What has this war done? Ask them…they know.
Yes, we’re bullying the Middle East around. But we’ve done that as long as we’ve been a country. The war in Iraq is not setting a precedent in any way.
We bullied the British in 1776.
We bullied the Confederacy in 1865.
We bullied the Germans in 1945.
And the results are clear. Freedom for ourselves in 1776. Freedom for the slaves in 1865. And freedom for the continent of Europe in 1945.
Of course Bush lied about WMDs. Any thinking person can see the lie for what it is. Do you want to take the Clinton route and impeach him for his lie? Go ahead. I’m all for you. But just remember the political makeup of the House and Senate.
This about freedom for a person and a country to determine their own future…and if that future is Democracy, Socialism, Theocracy or whatever…that’s their choice. Not ours. Freedom. And if lying about WMDs got us there, just say that we’re taking the Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt route.
Jim T said:
And if lying about WMDs got us there, just say that we’re taking the Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt route.
Please elaborate your correlary.
Posted by: Dave at May 26, 2005 02:28 PM“Blame America first? Is that the proper way to go about this? Every time someone does that it sets us back a few steps. Just how do we make America great by reinforcing the negatives and never pointing out any positives?”
And how do we ever fix any problems by ignoring the negatives, and pretending they don’t exist?
And more to the point - whether we citizens are helping or hurting our image abroad by speaking up about torture is pretty hard to tell. BUT if innocent people are being locked up for years, subjected to abuse, tortured, killed, and we do nothing, how do we face ourselves in the mirror each morning? if you see someone being murdered and don’t try and stop it you’re legally an accessory. And morally, you’re doing the wrong thing - just as those that torture and kill are doing wrong - if you let it happen, that’s just wrong.
So, hey, sorry if you don’t like the news you’re reading. I don’t like it much either. But pretending it’s not there, or pretending that it’s all a leftwing plot (why does the FBI hate America?), that doesn’t really help. We need to stop those that make the news, not those that report it.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 26, 2005 02:40 PMOne has to wonder why GWB is criticized for being frank about his faith, when Kerry not only made a much bigger deal about his religion, but even campaigned in churches, and none of the people criticizing GWB about his faith objected.
One has to wonder if the critics think GWB means it and Kerry doesn’t? If so, why were they rewarding hypocrisy (if that’s what they think it is) and punishing transparent honesty, when they profess to hate hypocrisy? Isn’t that rather hypocritical in itself?
And with regard to people who claim to think that GWB lied about Iraq - my understanding is that he honestly said what he believed. That he was mistaken doesn’t mean that he didn’t believe it. I myself believed prior to the Iraq war that SH had poison gas at the very least. We know for a fact that he used it on the Shiites and the Kurds.
ET
Posted by: ET at May 26, 2005 02:41 PMDave,
I am saying that most people look at the obvious and don’t always find the underlying cause.
I am not saying it was the fault of the Jewish people - I am saying that finding out what created Hitler in the first place will help everyone understand and keep it from happening again. That is what the man was trying to say when he was so rudely cut off.
I was repeating what someone else said in hopes that everyone would stop and think. Think about how what we do and say is just as important as what our enemies do and say.
Is there a movement to allow rapists to rape because a woman is wearing a bikini? I don’t see how that compares to Hitler and Bin Laden.
In Bin Laden’s world, if a woman is raped, her head is chopped off for disgracing her family. I’ve not heard what happens to the man.
Bin Laden went from getting our help to coming after us. He must have already had that intention. He had to get rid of the Russians first and we helped.
If we had known his true intentions would we have helped in that fight? I doubt it. Did we really know, and think if we helped he would change his mind about coming after us? I’ve heard both.
Decisions are made based on what we know at the time. How many times have any of us wished we had known more before making one?
We don’t understand why people want to live in the ‘dark ages’. It’s confusing to see them use modern technology to fight for a life full of dictators and death.
If the Koran is the underlying cause then I say let’s have a big fire.
It is not just the U.S. that caused all the problems but there are many who can’t see fault anywhere else or just don’t bother to try.
“And how do we ever fix any problems by ignoring the negatives, and pretending they don’t exist?”
I don’t believe I said that.
Dawn,
1) I do get the impression you don’t understand what I raving about. It was your phraseology of the question: “What did the Jews do to create a Hitler?” That’s a very far cry from: “finding out what created Hitler in the first place will help everyone understand and keep it from happening again”
2) I am not comparing our treament of rapists and other criminals with that of Shria countries. We are talking about the morality of the US and that shouldn’t be a relativistic discussion. It’s how we treat our criminals and unfortunate (death penalty for minors, welfare vs. too-bad, the criminalization of homosexuality, penitentiary vs. reformatory, etc…)that matters. BTW: “In Bin Laden’s world, if a woman is raped, her head is chopped off for disgracing her family” is not completely accurate. It would be the family’s right for an honor killing, not the states choosing.
3) The is no difference between: “If the Koran is the underlying cause then I say let’s have a big fire” vs.”If the Bible is the underlying cause then I say let’s have a big fire” except which religion you’re born into.
The problem with so many in the religious right is they can’t see how bigoted they appear to those who are not them. It’s not possible for them as believers to comprehend that assumptions based in their beliefs impact patterns and content of their speech so that a matter-of-fact statement can often be an antithesis to other belief systems.
Posted by: Dave at May 26, 2005 03:18 PMWilliam,
Great posts here. They’re so good, I have nothing to add.
Dave,
I did not ask that question to begin with but the sentiment behind it is understandable.
Since there are so many ways to say the same thing - people don’t always understand exactly what was meant.
Many disagreements begin with someone hearing something a certain way, a way that if stated slightly different would have received a completely different response.
The Radical Muslims want the Jews dead - not just living in another part of the world. They feel the same way about us.
There is much more to it than what the west is doing to them.
Christians, Jews - all guilty of believing the same thing during the history of our world.
What are they doing to themselves by believing everyone in the world who is not Islamic needs to die? Has this not been going on since before we even became a Nation?
They are right, to a certain extent, that this is a Holy War.
Is that not part of the reason why some people believe GWB should have not made such a big deal out of his faith?
“And how do we ever fix any problems by ignoring the negatives, and pretending they don’t exist?”I don’t believe I said that.
No, you said “Blame America first? Is that the proper way to go about this? Every time someone does that it sets us back a few steps. Just how do we make America great by reinforcing the negatives and never pointing out any positives?” I’m just rephrasing - if we don’t “blame America” - or at least those in charge of the mistakes made in or by America - then aren’t we ignoring the negatives?
Posted by: William Cohen at May 26, 2005 03:56 PMI believe there needs to be a balance struck William.
Dawn~
Thank-you for saying a balance needs to be struck! I’ve said it a million times: “I feel like I overly defend my country because the left NEVER does!” All I hear about is balance except on this one issue….OUR COUNTRY! If there was ever the occasional compliment of this great nation I may be willing to listen to all the negative.
Dawn,
(1) You’re right, religious fanatics claim righteousness at the expense of all other religions, often calling on the elimination of those belief systems because of the threat they represent. To allow the injection of religious beliefs into the political agenda is Theocracy and unbecoming of the President especially. (Reason 1 for anti-sleeve)
(2) I would posit that many people oppose Bush43 not because he “wears his faith on his sleeve” but because he wears “his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage” (See item 1)
(3) I’m going to be reiterative here: You see nothing wrong with what you said before other than as some minor miscomprehension on the reciever end. That’s because of your viewpoint. If you were Jewish, or any other persecuted minority then you will naturally hear it otherwise. That’s where the so-called “political correctness” comes from. Of course, many people take “PC” too far but that wasn’t the point. The point is you will never understand the personal impact of bigotry (race, religious, sexual orientation, …) until you experience it yourself. As much as the religious right claims to be a victim, they are not.
Traci:
The Left never does (defend my country)
And that is fair and balanced? Posted by: Dave at May 26, 2005 04:25 PM
Dave~
Funny that you are upset about the simple misgiving of a word…..EXCUSE ME….”OUR”!
BUT still no positive only negative! My thought exactly!
I thought conservatives were suppose to be negative while liberals led by example.
Traci:
I’m not upset. Why would you use that word? I do think you’re wrong that liberals don’t defend our country. It’s just we’re more willing to discuss it’s frailties.
Anyway, I always thought the conservative mantra was “responsibility/accountability” and the liberal mantra was “opportunity/tolerance”.
All these words are positive in my book.
Posted by: Dave at May 26, 2005 05:11 PMRegarding “what is wrong with wearing your religion on your sleeve?” According to St. Matthew, Christ said “…when thou prayest thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say to you, they have their reward.” and “…when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret…”.
Posted by: Warren Dace at May 26, 2005 05:52 PMHow many issues does President Bush express his views on that people are confused about?
Actually, there are many indeed. Mr. Bush is constantly changing his mind, but at least he does it with authority and then denies he does it at all. For just one list of how this works, click here.
It drives the left nuts that he will come out and express his views on every issue without a bunch of spin and hyperbole.
Are you kidding me? Did you listen to the debates? A skilled spinner, no. An assiduous one, yes. For just one example, No Child Left Behind was touted as a fix for every social and economic ill known to humankind. Please.
Of course Bush lied about WMDs.
Thank goodness there’s a pro-Bush writer out there who will admit this. Whether or not he thought it was the right thing to do, and whether or not history judges him in the same light as Wilson or Roosevelt, Mr. Bush spun us dead into a war. But he did it for multiple reasons, including America’s little oil habit.
I do think you’re wrong that liberals don’t defend our country. It’s just we’re more willing to discuss it’s frailties.
Liberals are also more willing to fight. If you look in Congress and the Bush Administration, there are many more Democrats than Republicans who have served their country. They don’t call them chicken hawks for nothing. One of the only fighting Republicans is McCain and look what happens to men of honor in the GOP.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 26, 2005 06:23 PMMonica,
Your comments on human behavior were right on.
David,
You stated:
Seems to me we need to understand what makes packs go bad and to the very best of our ability, prevent the circumstances and context which cause packs to go bad.
What is a “bad” pack? What one considers a bad pack, another considers good. What one considers wrong, another considers right. Again, that is human nature. Fighting against human nature will generally cause more problems than it solves.
Let the people live their lives.
Let them segregate.
Let them congregate.
Let them associate.
Leave them alone.
The less the government intrudes into people’s lives, the better.
The government should focus on protecting “life” (individuals and packs - for example, fighting Al Qu), preserving “liberty” (freedom to segregate, congregate and associate), and permitting the “pursuit of happiness” (no guarantees).
Posted by: Michael Burns at May 26, 2005 07:58 PMMichael,
Let the people live their lives. Let them segregate. Let them congregate. Let them associate. Leave them alone.
WTF?!?!?!?!
Ok, I’m sorry Michael, for a second there I thought you said, “let them segregate.” But you wouldn’t say that because that would be either something you have no authority to say or amazingly hypocritical of you to say. I have no idea why you think segregation should be allowed…
Fighting against human nature will generally cause more problems than it solves.
I would say this is a horrible generalization (at best). While fighting human nature can be bad, in many cases (many BIG cases) it is not. For instance, overpowering weaker people and taking their property could be considered human nature, but we don’t allow it. Many things that would fall into the category of “human nature” would also be considered barbaric, uncivilized, and dangerous.
Posted by: Zeek at May 26, 2005 08:39 PMTraci:
“The Left never does (defend my country)”
I defended it for 8 years in the Army Reserve, and I’m as far left as anyone. Where were you?
Posted by: Ricko at May 26, 2005 08:49 PMTraci,
of the two presidential candidates only one actually defended our country on foreign soil…and he got slammed for it. I don’t care what his reasons for serving, senator Kerry was in the line of fire. Were his medals fabricated? I don’t know. I do know he was there where live ammunition was flying. He wasn’t grand-standing for a political career on safe soil. Sure, he had political aspirations…but HE WAS THERE…not here.
I consider Senator Kerry quite liberal. He also DEFENDED OUR COUNTRY.
Afterwards he protested the war. If you talk to some of the soldiers who saw things going on there, they uderstand why. Others disagree. My uncle served in ‘Nam. He saw a 12 year old girl raped by US soldiers as well as other murders and rapes. He never said a thing (except to me and his wife) and he can’t forgive himself to this day.
Protest or not…Kerry (a liberal) served HIS country.
In addition, I have several relatives that only vote for democrats (something I don’t like…voting for a party rather than a candidate). These same relatives have served in many confilicts and wars defending THEIR country.
Continuous improvement involves looking at ones weakness and making changes that improve. We’ve used it in the business world for years. We rarely sit around and toot our horn about our successes. No, we continually look at our faults and make improvements. It’s what makes us comptetitive and better. Identify weakness, improve, monitor, and repeat. It works in business, engineering, manufacturing, and yes - even politics and government.
Posted by: Tom L at May 26, 2005 09:48 PMRegarding GW wearing his religion on his sleave…
If he is doing so to pander for votes he is sinning. I’m not saying that is what he is doing. Only he and God knows his heart.
I’m a firm believer in Christ as my Saviour. I believe the best way to change the world is one heart at a time. NOT through a secular government.
Many folks don’t like Jimmy Carter. Particularly many in the religious right. This I cannot fathom. Granted, he didn’t have a successful presidency. However, when a man takes time to build homes for the poor in the hot Georgia sun, with no media present, his actions speak musc louder than his words. If my memory serves me correctly, this man is “no spring chicken” either.
If one wants to demonstrate the change Christ has made in ones life, do it through actions. SHOWING Christ’s love….not just talking about it and certainly not for personal gain. Demonstration of Christ’s love through actions should be done out of love and in HIS name.
Posted by: Tom L at May 26, 2005 09:58 PMMicaheal Burns, the Nazis were a bad pack. And they are the perfect example. Because most who supported the nazis were not bad people. The pack was bad. The people in the pack committed horrible acts because of the pack. Extremely few members of that pack would have ever even fantasized doing what they did were it not for the pack.
What one pack considers good, another considers bad, is certainly demonstrably true enough. However, anyone with any kind of education and ability to learn about survival within their group learns the secular golden rule. That is true of the last remaining uncivilized tribes on the Amazon in the Brazilian forests as it is in America or China today.
“Don’t do to others what you would not want their kin to do to you.”
It is a simple rule and were it not for packs, almost all persons would observe it - since it derives from a basic instinct for survival. Therefore, bad packs are those which violate that rule, good packs are those which observe it. And great packs are those who go beyond and help establish the kinds of circumstances in which packs don’t have to fight each other for what they need to survive.
No rocket science here, no Ph.D. in sociology required. Most teens everywhere are aware of the rules above and would be inclined to agree with them as good rules for everyone.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2005 09:58 PMDave posted: The problem with so many in the religious right is […] It’s not possible for them as believers to comprehend that assumptions based in their beliefs impact patterns and content of their speech so that a matter-of-fact statement can often be an antithesis to other belief systems.
Some of us are pretty well aware of it, Dave. Try “can often seem” rather than “can often be” in that last bit. The problem with some (not all, thanks be) non-Christians is that they think that people who disagree with the basis of what they (the non-Christians) believe in must be bigots. And one thing that such people often believe in even more deeply than they believe anything else, is that all religions are equally valid for those who believe them.
Christians don’t believe that. Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is a genuine historical personage; that there’s only one God, not many, and that Christ is Emanuel, God-with-us; and that God does care whether we love Him or not, whether we do what is right or not. There’s plenty of room for disagreement on what God wants of us, but for Christians, that there’s just one true God is central.
That means that the theory that each religion is just as valid for the believer just doesn’t fly with Christians. Or Jews, for that matter. Or Muslims either. There’s a reason we’re called monotheists.
To some people that sounds like bigotry. I’ve had people reject me because of that. The last time it happened it had been an interesting exchange of views until she discovered that I’m a genuine monotheist, and at that point she got very upset.
To a Christian, saying that there’s more than one true god is about on the level of claiming that that the sun is a mystic illusion with no existence in the material world. One can (and should) be respectful; God has, after all, created all humans with the power to believe what they choose to believe. But agree?!? Sorry, friend, we’re not allowed to pretend to agree. And trying to insist that we must agree is an attempted infringement on our freedom of worship, and the mark of a person who is not only a bigot, but also a pushy one.
Interesting that we get yelled at for being hypocrits whenever we are frank about what we believe.
Dave posted: If you were Jewish, or any other persecuted minority then you will naturally hear it otherwise. […] you will never understand the personal impact of bigotry (race, religious, sexual orientation, …) until you experience it yourself. As much as the religious right claims to be a victim, they are not.
I’ve had a supervisor look at me funny because I bowed your head to pray. I was one of a group forbidden to have a Bible study on public school property, only to see the Buddhists encouraged to start a meditation group in that same building. A total stranger walked up to me and screamed that I had no right to wear my Christian religious symbol in public. (Actually, that’s happened more than once.) Christians don’t get persecuted? Really?
I shouldn’t complain. I keep remembering those Pakistani Christians that the Saudis arrested not so long ago …. the Coptic Christians that are robbed, raped, murdered in Egypt because of their religion, and the government does nothing …. the black Christians at the southern edge of Sudan that the Sudanese government exterminated, all except for the ones they kept as slaves and the ones they drove out of the area entirely (this was before the Darfur genocide) …. the Chinese Christians who are persecuted in so many ways by their government, even forbidden to have children sometimes ….
Really, what I’ve faced is nothing. As persecutions go, it’s just a blip. Nobody’s threatened my life or anything that extreme. My job, yes. My life, no.
Dave Posted: Anyway, I always thought the conservative mantra was “responsibility/ accountability” and the liberal mantra was “opportunity/ tolerance”.
Interesting that you should think that when the mainstream (liberal) media seem to be chanting “responsibility / accountability” and the conservatives seem to be saying, “Yes, let’s have that and also opportunity, tolerance, the American Dream!”
I seem to remember talk of “ownership society” (opportunity plus responsibility) and a plea from GWB right after 9/11 and from time to time since then not to persecute American Muslims (tolerance) and promising that any such persecution would be prosecuted (accountability) which indeed it has been …. Just to mention a set of examples.
Reed Sanders Posted: Liberals are also more willing to fight. If you look in Congress and the Bush Administration, there are many more Democrats than Republicans who have served their country. They don’t call them chicken hawks for nothing.
And yet stastically the armed forces of this nation overwhelmingly vote conservative. My spouse is a disabled veteran (Navy); the people I meet at the local VA hospital are also overwhelmingly conservative.
Perhaps most conservatives would rather get on with their lives than try to mess with other people’s lives the way the government does.
Zeek posted: I have no idea why you think segregation should be allowed…
In case you missed it, blacks who care about being culturally “genuinely” black are self-segregating, resisting pressure to mingle with non-blacks, be they Latin, white or Asian. And sadly, “genuinely” black appears to mean ignorant and “real man” black appears to mean violent. It’s been in the news; I’m not speaking my personal observation here, I’m relating the way it was covered by liberal journalists.
My personal observation of middle-class achievement-oriented blacks is that they are just as smart, just as willing to learn, and just as law-abiding as the next guy, be the next guy Latin, Asian or white.
There’s a tendency in certain journalistic quarters, and among the high-profile black leaders who get their income from the blacks who are less well integrated with mainstream American culture, to stereotype “black” culture in such a way as to discourage achievement, and unfortunately a tendency among some blacks bombarded with this sort of “soft” bigotry to believe it. Bill Cosby is right.
ET
Posted by: ET at May 26, 2005 10:31 PMET,
Several good points. However, you said:
“I was one of a group forbidden to have a Bible study on public school property”
Is this a public school? Are you a member of the faculty? or staff? Were those inspired to start a Buddhist meditation group lead by faculty or staff? If so, that is truly a double standard and I agree with you.
However, if this is a public school and you are an employee and no employee is leading the Buddhist meditation….well, then I agree that it shouldn’t be allowed. Why? Because in this situation your employer would be taking federal government funding (taxes) and favoring a particular religion by allowing a staff member to lead this type of study. I’m sure you would be allowed to hold a Bible study on your own time with the same folks with little said.
If this is your case, encourage a student to hold a voluntary Bible study. That way no public school employee would be tied to the study group and the situation would not cross the “church-State separation” issue.
I hope the situation isn’t that our tax dollars are going to fund the Buddhist meditation (held by a staff member). If that is the case our government has crossed that separation line and are indeed discriminating against Christianity.
Please, by all means don’t abandon your Bible study. As a Christian myself, I firmly believe in it. But due to the secular nature of our government I can understand why this decision was made (if all the assumptions I’ve made are correct).
Continue to spread the Gospel. It can be done through other means than Bible study. Through our demonstation of Christ’s love through our actions and lives. Hold off-campus Bible studies. Don’t harshly judge others. Care for the needy. There are so many ways to spread the Gospel that doesn’t involve tax payer dollars.
Don’t get discouraged and please don’t take offense to what I’ve said.
Regards
Posted by: Tom L at May 26, 2005 10:56 PMTsk, tsk, Red Team. Deep in denial, are we?
Today The Senate refused to close debate on the Bolton nomination. Seems the Bush administration is refusing to release classified documents concerning Bolton’s use of intelligence concerning WMD’s in Syria, among other things.
For the second time in one week, moderate Republicans crossed the line to vote with Democrats. For the second time in one week, Republican Senators ignored Frist and the wishes of President Bush.
And the first time, Bush finally appears likely to cast a veto on… get this… stem cell research. Not spending. Nothing related to the deficit. Wow. There’s great leadership for you. The Senate will probably override the veto- yet another slap to the lame duck- though the House will probably not override it.
Guess the Red Team is busy putting their collective hands over their ears and singing ‘LA LA LA. I can’t hear you. LA LA LA.’ Let’s talk about faith… let’s talk about greatness…
Not the approval polls- ‘LA LA LA’- not Iraq- ‘LA LA LA, singing louder now!’- not Social Security privatization…
Yeah, anything but politics.
Can’t say I blame you.
Anyone still want to confess they voted for this guy?
Posted by: Phx8 at May 26, 2005 11:16 PMET said:
Interesting that you should think that when the mainstream (liberal) media seem to be chanting “responsibility / accountability” and the conservatives seem to be saying, “Yes, let’s have that and also opportunity, tolerance, the American Dream!”
We clearly have different viewpoints.
I’ll stick with these, since it’s late here:
a- Liberal Mainstream Media = Rightest rhetoric with no real value as a discussion point.
b- To claim that conservatives seek tolerance is unbelievable. Tolerance for whom? Certainly not anyone who isn’t a conservative, christian, church going, heterosexual, anti-choice, Republican caucasoid.
Zeek,
I have no idea why you think segregation should be allowed…
Because, that is a natural tendency. Look at any city in our Country and you will find examples of natural segregation. Here in Southern California, we have “little Siagon”, China Town, Korean Town, Watts, East Los Angeles, and many, many other areas where races have naturally segregated. What is wrong with that?
While fighting human nature can be bad, in many cases (many BIG cases) it is not. For instance, overpowering weaker people and taking their property could be considered human nature, but we don’t allow it.
As I stated, one responsibility of government is to protect life! That would include protecting the weak as well as the strong.
David,
And great packs are those who go beyond and help establish the kinds of circumstances in which packs don’t have to fight each other for what they need to survive.
No argument there. However, the question is, at what point does “diplomacy” fail and “force” become required to restore order between the packs?
Having grown up the “target” of name callers and bullies, I learned quickly that “diplomatic force” often works better at ending the bullying than simple “verbal diplomacy” ever did. In otherwords, “standing up” to them caused them to “back down”.
Posted by: Michael Burns at May 27, 2005 12:19 AMThe other night I was watching ‘After Words’. Michael Eric Dyson, author of ‘Is Bill Cosby Right? Or has the Black Middle Class Lost it’s Mind?’, was speaking about his disapproval of things that Bill Cosby has said recently about African Americans.
It seems that Bill Cosby wants black Americans to take responsibilty for themselves and stop playing the victim because he feels it has not been working. Mr. Dyson is outraged because he thinks that African Americans should always be defined by their race first.
Dawn,
Although I agree with much of Cosby’s brutally honest truths about the current state of the Black community, his personal ethical lapses do weaken his credibility. And, as much as Dyson’s book follows the ‘blacks-as-perpetual-victims’ outline, you’ve dismissed the equally substantive and thorough dissection of the very ills Cosby is referring to.
The comparison that can be drawn with Bush and the GOP here, is that the same lip service coming from Cosby does nothing to address the pervasive, underlying causes that more middle to upper class Blacks are disassociating themselves from.
And, Ken Mehlman and the RNC are exploiting such mentality in Black churches, by using homophobia and intolerance (under the cloak of faith), to absolve the Cosby crowd and blame it all on the Democrats.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at May 27, 2005 03:10 AMWilliam Cohen
o, hey, sorry if you don’t like the news you’re reading. I don’t like it much either. But pretending it’s not there, or pretending that it’s all a leftwing plot (why does the FBI hate America?), that doesn’t really help. We need to stop those that make the news, not those that report it.
The truth is out there if one wants to take the time to look, rather than have it fed to them with the various slants, spin and propaganda.
DETAINEES 3849-3854 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 05/21/02 Records detainee stating that “prior to an interview in Bagram, he was forced to strip naked in front of others.”
DETAINEES 3873-3875 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 07/30/02 Notes that “[t]he Camp Delta detainee uprising which occurred on or about 19-20 July 2002, was started when one detainee claimed that a guard dropped a Qur’an. In actuality the detainee dropped the Qur’an and then blamed the guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim and this initiated the uprising.”
DETAINEES 3878-3881 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 08/01/02 Notes that “[p]rior to his capture, REDACTED had no information against the United States. Personally, he has nothing against the United States. The guards in the detention facility do not treat him well. Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the detainees. They flushed a Qur’an in the toilet. The guards dance around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do these things.”
DETAINEES 3926-3927 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 10/22/02 Notes, “REDACTED began the interview by saying he was under stress because he had not heard from his family and did not know how they were doing. REDACTED said that a guard at Camp Delta, several weeks before, told him he had mail, but that it could not be given to him until after it was translated. REDACTED said that he was still waiting for the letter, and was bothered because it had not yet been delivered to him.”
DETAINEES 3947-3948 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 12/09/02 Notes that “REDACTED engaged in limited conversation, stating he would no answer any questions because he feels he has been mistreated. When asked how he has been mistreated, REDACTED replied he felt like an animal having to be moved in chains… . REDACTED did request legal counsel, at which point the interviewers explained that, under his current conditions, he was not entitled to legal counsel.”
DETAINEES 3982-3984 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 03/28/03 Notes that “Detainee REDACTED stated that the treatment of the Qur’an continued to be the reason for his unwillingness to cooperate. REDACTED was asked how the mistreatment of the Qur’an had taken place. REDACTED stated that the issue continued to be based on what the detainees perceived as the use of the Qur’an as a weapon. It was taken from them and returned at will, with little consideration for the value which they placed in the book. REDACTED was asked if he had ever seen the Qur’an mistreated or intentionally mishandled. He had not. REDACTED was asked if he had ever seen the Qur’an thrown around, tossed on the ground or mistreated in any way. He had not … . REDACTED was informed that his case for the proper treatment of the Qur’an had been taken to higher levels and presented as a serious issue. The effort had been hurt, however, because it had been found that detainees were hiding things within the pages of the Qur’an. As a result, the guards were required to look through the Qur’an for their own safety. REDACTED was asked if he could assure camp officials that none of the detainees would ever hide any objects of any kind in their Qur’ans. He stated he could not.
DETAINEES 3998 Summary of FBI interview of detainee at Guantanamo Bay 04/10/03 Notes that REDACTED “accused Pakistani Police with giving him electric shocks and U.S. troops of beating him… . REDACTED lied to the interrogators in Kandahar because he felt that if he didn’t say what the interrogators wanted, they would continue to beat him. REDACTED was then shown a photograph of himself taken in Kandahar and asked to point out where any bruises or signs of a beating were located. REDACTED then admitted to lying about the beatings.”
I suspect there are those who are too entrenched in their positions to really want to find the truth.
I can’t imagine a hatred for a President or Administration so venomous that one would sell out their Countryman, families, country, way of life and aid a sworn enemy to bring down said Administration.
The bigger the lies the quicker people are to believe them
Posted by: Ronok5 at May 27, 2005 06:43 AMET said:
Dave Posted: a- Liberal Mainstream Media = Rightest rhetoric with no real value as a discussion point.
Trying to dismiss claims that the mainstream media are biased without a careful examination of the claims displays your own prejudices. The networks and the major blue-state papers ARE liberal - center leaning left at the least, some of them pretty extremely left on some issues.
I wasn’t repeating “talking points”. I was being carefully specific in my adjectives. I regularly consult both mainstream and alternative media. And I find that alternative media are more of a mixed bag - some liberal, some conservative, rarely impartial except for scientific articles on subjects not remotely political.
I pay attention to the apparent bias of the authors or performers, even when I tend to agree with it, and wherever I can, to the provenance of the information. I aim to be informed, not brainwashed.
b- To claim that conservatives seek tolerance is unbelievable. Tolerance for whom? Certainly not anyone who isn’t a conservative, christian, church going, heterosexual, anti-choice, Republican caucasoid.
Dave, Dave, Dave …. I quoted a specific example that was widely reported: GWB calling for Americans to refrain from persecuting their fellow Americans of the Muslim persuasion.
Are you claiming it never happened, eh? It was reported by the mainstream media, fella. Are you saying that it is, in your considered opinion, impossible for a conservative Republican to be tolerant of diverse views? Are you confessing that you are an anti-conservative as well as a liberal? Isn’t that a bit - rigid? Aren’t you liberals supposed to be tolerant of diverse views? Why are you so intolerant of my views?
I, a conservative, a Republican, a Christian of the fundamentalist, pro-life sort, and more white than anything else, have a number of friends, including some very close friends, who are liberals, several (both liberal and conservative) who are not Christian, even several who are homosexual. They would not like my spouse or me as they do if we were intolerant sorts.
I make no secret of my opinions, understand. My friends all know where I stand. But I firmly let people know that I believe that they have the right to believe as they choose, regardless of whether I think they are right or not, and in turn, I insist on the right to believe as I choose and call people on it when they try to get pushy with me.
And I am not by any means unique.
I like a rousing discussion with people of views that are not like my own; it helps me identify subjects where I need to do more research and gives me reason to work out more precisely not only what I believe, but why I believe it. Can’t get that from a dialog with somebody who *agrees* with one ….
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
ET
And yet stastically the armed forces of this nation overwhelmingly vote conservative.
Thanks ET, That’s actually a good rejoinder. It should also give liberals pause. In 20 years, it’s quite possible the situation will reverse itself. Most of the politicians who’ve served may well be conservatives at that point. And it frightening to think how that plays into what some experts see as the growing militarism of the U.S.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 27, 2005 07:30 AM… you said:
“I was one of a group forbidden to have a Bible study on public school property”
Is this a public school? Are you a member of the faculty? or staff? Were those inspired to start a Buddhist meditation group lead by faculty or staff? If so, that is truly a double standard and I agree with you.
Yes, it was a public school. No, I was not on staff in any capacity, nor were any of us. I believe the Buddhists were mostly students, as were most of our group: students, and a couple of adult mentors not employed by the school district.
It was some years ago now. It made rather a negative impression on me at the time. I didn’t and don’t begrudge the Buddhists their meditation space and time; I just thought (and still think) that refusing to let us have the Bible study, which was purely voluntary and planned to take place once a week before classes started for the day, when they were allowing the same thing for non-Christians, was unlawful discrimination. But we wound up meeting at a private home about a block from the school, which was actually better. More private, and we were able to have a potluck breakfast, which we couldn’t have done in a classroom.
I might have thought of it as an isolated case if one of my cousins hadn’t told me of another such instance, which got me interested enough to start looking for such instances. Unfortunately, according to my sources, such things do happen, and not infrequently.
It’s nothing really ugly as persecution goes, of course. There’s far worse done in other parts of the world. But I am concerned that this was / is an issue at all, under the circumstances. It seems to me to indicate a lack of respect for the right to freedom of worship if and only if the worshipper is Christian. When there was another, better place readily available, it didn’t seem worth fussing about. But it has remained with me as an uneasiness that the basic principle was not defended there and then.
Workplace Bible studies held on company (non-government) property are quite easy to arrange, I find. Um … most of the time!
There are lots of ways to spread the word of God, as you said.
Thanks for your interest. :)
ET
Posted by: ET at May 27, 2005 08:08 AMHas the conservative right gone completely mad? Our founding fathers realized that religion and government need to be separate. This was based on the history of death and destruction brought on by religious ferver.
It absolutely confounds me that wereas these men 200 years ago knew this, we don’t. Look at the history of death that surounds religion and weap. God would never wish to be part of this culture of death created in his name.
Religion is evil. We would be better off without it.
Bush is evil. For killing 150 thousand inocents for oil.
Americans are poorly educated, and are placing liberty and personal freedom in jeapordy.
Bert,
I did not read the man’s book. He spent a good amount of time explaining why he thinks Bill Cosby(I’ve not heard- Did he settle that case?) is wrong and a horrible man for saying what he said…and not in a kind way I might add.
I realize the both of them are trying to help in their own way. Like most things there is no single solution. Different people, different solutions - and I didn’t mean ‘race’ different.
Poor is poor. Being poor is just as bad for anyone of any race. Living in an area where the opportunites really aren’t there is a problem for a lot of people. Not having easy access to educational facilities beyond HS is not there for a lot of people. My sister-in-law is driving 40 minutes one way to get her degree right now and working full time. Not easy.
Where I live now the ratio of blacks to whites is very low. Does that mean there aren’t any poor people? No. Being poor is not a race issue.
Bill Cosby may have stirred something in a lot of people by what he said. Not just African Americans. Sure. Use statistics like Al Sharpton saying his community has 50% unemployment. Is that MY fault? Is that HIS fault? Try using the ‘packs’ analysis here. What happens when there are too many in a pack? Someone starves.
Instead of packs.. how about ants or bees?
Every community has bosses and workers. Every community has leaders and followers. Not every community takes care of the weak, ill, hurt, or just plain lazy.
No matter how hard we try, we can not ‘save’ the unwilling.
Dave,
Man. I wish I could get you to understand that I am not blaming the Jews and making ‘excuses’ for Hitler. He was a psycho wimp who took his own life instead of facing the world for what he had done.
That doesn’t explain how he got so many people to go along with his plot. That doesn’t explain why it was so easy for a man like him to get all those people to do what he wanted.
Now there are groups of Muslims who want the Jewish people removed from this planet and they aren’t having trouble finding followers either.
We came to their rescue before and now we are doing it again.
This time helping them has brought us into a worse situation.
Both sides could end that conflict if they wanted to. Neither side can agree on a compromise. The Jewish people are willing to give back 95%? of the land they took 40 years ago but that isn’t good enough for the Palestinians?
Holy Land - let’s all fight to the death over a piece of dirt.
Holy Land - it’s so important we have to die for it but not important enough to share with others.
Why does anybody feel they have to ‘own’ the Holy Land?
Makes no sense to me.
Now if it was the last piece of ground left on Earth where I could grow food ….
ET,
Now that you have given me (as Paul Harvey would say)…”the rest of the story”; I find this just as disturbing as you yourself do. This goes against our constitution….it guarantees freedom of religion. To allow one and not the other is nothing short of descrimination and….well, criminal.
I hope this has been illustrated to those who blatantly disregarded the constitution. I work at a government facility and we occassionally hold Bible study. It is on our own time and no one has said anything, nor do I expect them to. However, I live in the Southeast.
Posted by: Tom L at May 27, 2005 09:46 AMET:
I’ve enjoyed this thread but we’re going to have to agree to disagree…
1) So-called “Main stream media” is generally fact based with topics geared towards ratings. Unfortunately, many people claim ‘bias’ when reporting is contrary to their world view. However, I will agree that some local news outlets have lower standards than national and editorials and moderated discussions are not included here, as they are opinions, not news. BTW, I listen to many sources of news and am very cynical of all.
2) Wow, Bush said no lynching of American muslims… how much more tolerant can you get? Anyway, there is a big difference between “tolerence of me” and “tolerance of others”
3) “Perhaps most conservatives would rather get on with their lives than try to mess with other people’s lives the way the government does.” Perhaps we’re talking two different groups of conservatives?
4) Finally, religion to me is a very personnal matter and I really, really, dislike being proselytized. No, I’m not accusing you of that here but perhaps that is why there is a double standard. “Bible study groups” seem to be include “how can we get more people to the word”. I’ve never seen a Buddhist try to convert the guy next to him on the exercize bike at Golds.
Dawn:
My appologies, I never meant to imply any of the things you just posted. I was only trying to identify that the only reason you stated the original post the way you did was because there’s an inhernet blindness in all of us to the perspectives of others. You aren’t Jewish so you wouldn’t necessarily see how the tone of the original post was so agressive.
Posted by: Dave at May 27, 2005 10:03 AMFighting for your country and Defending your country are two seperate things!
Posted by: Traci at May 27, 2005 10:15 AMWith all the knocks about Bush, I guess you have all forgotten about Mr.Clinton? When he was president the screams were that “He did the right thing dodging that war”! If you feel that way, that is fine, but please don’t try to convince us now that Mr.Kerry is somehow superior.
Posted by: Traci at May 27, 2005 10:24 AMFighting for your country and Defending your country are two seperate things!
True! Sometimes those who defend their nation are actually fighting against it, especially if that nation is in the wrong. Defending a nation when it’s in the wrong can be an almost traitorous act, as history has revealed over and over.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 27, 2005 11:33 AM“Defending a nation when it’s in the wrong can be an almost traitorous act, as history has revealed over and over.”
Nicely put, Reed.
Posted by: William Cohen at May 27, 2005 11:51 AMDave,
Or I just wrote it off the top of my head, re-read it, changed it a little. Really tried not to offend anyone - but as you know when some of us are really trying not to offend - the other side has to listen to what someone really means or at the least - ask.
This has got to be one of the hardest ways to communicate. No expressions, no tone of voice … sometimes it’s very difficult to make a point or ask a question exactly the way it is meant to sound.
But, I do try.
Traci said:
With all the knocks about Bush, I guess you have all forgotten about Mr.Clinton? When he was president the screams were that “He did the right thing dodging that war”!
So you’re saying: “Don’t worry that Bush bailed on his guard duty commitments because Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar”? Besides, we’re talking 2005, not 1995, and a chickenhawk is the president, not an adulterer. Of course maybe Laura just hasn’t let on yet?
Fighting for your country and Defending your country are two seperate things!Fighting doesn’t have to mean violence. What about the Democrats fighting for American dignity by opposing Bolton? Or, what about fighting against neo-con judges to help protect us from their ultra-rightist agenda? If by defending you mean say “USA is right” when we’re not, e.g. use of torture, unilateral preemptive wars, etc… then I think you’ve chosen the wrong terminology.
Dawn said: “the other side has to listen to what someone really means or at the least - ask.”
Agreed, my original post:
Please re-read your post, maybe it was poorly phrased.
Reed/William:
What would you say to changing the word “nation” to “government”? Opposing bad government is defending the nation (people/culture…)
Dave posted: I’ve enjoyed this thread but we’re going to have to agree to disagree…
Probably. I didn’t expect to “convert” you. I discuss for the fun of it and to exercise my brain.
So-called “Main stream media” is generally fact based with topics geared towards ratings. Unfortunately, many people claim ‘bias’ when reporting is contrary to their world view.
CBS. Dan Rather and the infamous documents which were almost immediately after he aired them proved to be forged - which he had used even after his own document experts told him they were not the real thing, because he so hated GWB that he could not imagine that anything against GWB could be untrue. That’s not bias on the part of Rather and his program director? Just one rather extreme example, but it was widely reported, perhaps you will remember it. Fact based? Based on hate-filled fantasy, more like. What a spectacular meltdown that turned out to be.
I paid close attention to the election coverage last year. I’ve found that election coverage tends to “out” the bias (either way) behind so-called impartial reporting, if a person is paying attention.
Bias, in my observation, is displayed in a lot of ways: in the choice of which stories to cover as well as in how the stories are covered (phrasing can do a lot to confuse even the facts, if the viewer or reader is not paying attention), that sort of thing.
However, I will agree that some local news outlets have lower standards than national and editorials and moderated discussions are not included here, as they are opinions, not news.
Actually, our local stations (I live in a large “blue” city in a “blue” state) are less extreme in their bias, and more honest about it, than the national news.
Not that I watch the news on TV all that often, outside of election seasons. I prefer the print and electronic media: easier to review, easier to check. Yeah, I’m a little lazy that way. :)
BTW, I listen to many sources of news and am very cynical of all.
And what is a cynic but a frustrated idealist? :)
Wow, Bush said no lynching of American muslims… how much more tolerant can you get?
Right after 9/11, when he was busy preparing for the Afghanistan invasion, he took time to remember to appeal to our furiously angry nation to not blame our loyal and law-abiding fellow Americans (who fled here to get away from the sort of attitude that led to the 9/11 attacks) for things done by foreign terrorists. He could have said nothing, but he spoke up in favor of tolerance.
I used that example because it was widely and clearly reported; I thought perhaps you would remember it. But it’s not by a long shot the only instance I know of conservatives striving for tolerance.
I AM a conservative, and tolerant of diverse views, and well aware of the oft-repeated slander that all conservatives are rigidly intolerant. I tend to notice incidents that demonstrate how false the liberal’s stereotype of conservatives is.
FWIW, I also pay attention to the way liberals come in all sorts of flavors of opinion. The only part of the stereotype of “liberal” that I’ve seen to be true more often than not is that liberals are oblivious to the implications of events that tend to disprove their views; liberals, far more than conservatives, are “true believers” when it comes to issues that matter to them. Convincing a conservative that he’s wrong can be done, if one has the facts on one’s side. Convincing a liberal, regardless of the facts, is - well, not impossible, but a lot less likely.
One of my good friends is a quintessential liberal’s liberal. During the last election she startled me by starting a discussion of politics by stating that she and her husband hated GWB “with a purple passion.” She didn’t start out with a reasoned discussion of GWB’s deficiencies; she started out with the emotional base from which she viewed everything she saw on the news. This is not, in my experience, unusual among liberals.
Me, I paid attention. I made my conclusions on the basis of reason in the light of information I acquired, not on the basis of personal animus.
What does that tell you about the differences between liberals and conservatives, mm?
Anyway, there is a big difference between “tolerence of me” and “tolerance of others”
Of course. And the reason you mention that is?
“Perhaps most conservatives would rather get on with their lives than try to mess with other people’s lives the way the government does.” Perhaps we’re talking two different groups of conservatives?
Probably. I was considering conservatives in general, not specifically the conservatives in politics, and not specifically Republican conservatives. Don’t forget the libertarian variety of conservative, who have been known to vote Republican in national elections but whose whole party line is for less of the ubiquitous nanny state, for limiting government to the sine qua non of the Constitution: establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense …. you know, the really basic stuff that we *need* a government for. A lot of Republicans feel the pull of the libertarian view, but we are practical enough to know that it’s not going to happen in our time, and to work on first things first. Like national defense.
GWB’s domestic policies, IMO, are sometimes poorly considered. If Kerry had been convincingly firm on defense and had had a better domestic agenda, instead of a much worse one …. But he wasn’t and didn’t.
Finally, religion to me is a very personnal matter and I really, really, dislike being proselytized. No, I’m not accusing you of that here but perhaps that is why there is a double standard. “Bible study groups” seem to be include “how can we get more people to the word”. I’ve never seen a Buddhist try to convert the guy next to him on the exercize bike at Golds.
I’ve been proselytized by atheists. Yes, I used a plural. I don’t usually mind, though. I *like* to have discussions with people whose views differ from mine. They haven’t convinced me - my research, every time it comes up, indicates that the actual facts are all on MY side - but the process is usually interestingly educational for me. :) And it’s a worthwhile reality check.
(I approve of reality checks. It’s a good thing to periodically examine one’s set of beliefs, attitudes and preconceptions for how it relates to reality; one doesn’t catch all the subtle implications of various parts of it in a single round, or without relevant life experience.)
One of the proselytizing atheists I met is a college professor who used to proselytize his classes, including two that were required for graduation. I think that’s a violation of the separation of church and state in a public institution, isn’t it? If a professor’s religious opinions affect the grades he assigns students who hold differing opinions, isn’t that a denial of the student’s right to freedom of worship? Yet another story that the liberal part of the media have chosen not to investigate or report, although it does occasionally show up in conservative media.
(No, he didn’t downgrade *me*. I wasn’t attending his college; I was a friend of his son and daughter, and acquainted with some of his students. Last I heard, he was retiring: hence the past tense. But he’s hardly unique, from what I’ve heard.)
And that’s my 50 cents’ worth on those issues. :)
ET
Posted by: ET at May 27, 2005 05:45 PMTo allow the injection of religious beliefs into the political agenda is Theocracy and unbecoming of the President especially. (Reason 1 for anti-sleeve)
Theocracy is something the world has not seen since the coronation of King Saul. If you want to know what a theocracy is really like, read Exodus through Judges.
We’ve seen ecclesiocracy - rule by the church - but that’s not the same thing. And that’s not what GWB is doing anyhow.
Check your dictionary for the definition of theocracy. Claiming that we’re in “danger” of “theocracy” is a display of either ignorance of what theocracy is, or a deliberate choice of inaccurate phrasing for propaganda effect, i.e. lying.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply repeating talking points, not knowing what the word “theocracy” actually means.
GWB is not God, nor does he claim to be, nor is he an absolute ruler. He does not even claim to be “in charge” as the appointed representative of God to our nation. GWB says he believes in God. He says that his belief in God, and the moral principles he derives from the teachings of a Person that every civilized culture on the planet views as admirable, affect his decisions as executive of our representative government. He has even made efforts to reach out to people whose religious beliefs differ from his. He is not trying to set up his church as the State Church, or even Christianity as the State Religion. He doesn’t make a big deal of his religion, the way Kerry did last year (Did you watch the debates? I did); it’s just transparently part of who and what he is at this stage of his life.
Would you rather GWB had no moral principles? Would you rather he lied about what he believes, or how it affects him?
ET
Posted by: ET at May 27, 2005 06:17 PMDawn wrote: “Are we in the ultimate fight between Good & Evil? .. we seem to be ‘walking on eggshells’ when it comes to our fight with the Muslim World…the same people who saw the U.S. as ‘weak’ in the years before Bush took office.
I want to know how Bush can take us to War and at the same time expect us to kiss butt in the Middle East?”
Then, to be fair, she says some things I agree with. But it all reminds me of this cartoon, which, for those of you interested in ancient history, was considered satiric when it appeared in Oct 2001.
William,
It’s just ‘funny’ how both sides can feel that same way.
Maybe you can find an explanation for that - or another comic? ha ha
Opposing bad government is defending the nation (people/culture…)
I agree it’s sometimes a good distinction. Thanks. At other times, as with our little nonpartisan love affair with gas-guzzling vehicles, it’s the culture itself that needs questioning.
she started out with the emotional base from which she viewed everything she saw on the news. This is not, in my experience, unusual among liberals.
Have you listened to right-leaning AM radio lately? 95% emotion, I’d say. Truth is, this seems to be the way most people operate, left or right. Trying to separate emotion from reason is tricky business. Sometimes people are very emotional over what they’ve been thinking about for a while.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at May 28, 2005 04:00 PMDawn wrote:
Living in an area where the opportunites really aren’t there is a problem for a lot of people. Not having easy access to educational facilities beyond HS is not there for a lot of people.
My point here Dawn, is that instead of demagoguing a Cosby vs. Dyson fight and maybe reading his book, you’d realize he would strongly disagree with your above statement (as I do).
Knowing these ‘areas’ as well as I do, real opportunities may not be in walking distance, but they’re accessible by public transportation. And, the only people insisting they have ‘…no easy access to educational facilities beyond HS’, are using this as an excuse for not properly preparing themselves for such advancement.
By the way, apparently some in the Republican Party have compared the pivotal role faith has played in Bush’s Presidency, to that which has been historically documented of Abraham Lincoln’s tumultuous term in office.
To which, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo recently remarked, the difference was that Lincoln spoke to God - while Bush claims God speaks to him!
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at May 28, 2005 07:33 PMMichael,
Because, that is a natural tendency. Look at any city in our Country and you will find examples of natural segregation. Here in Southern California, we have “little Siagon”, China Town, Korean Town, Watts, East Los Angeles, and many, many other areas where races have naturally segregated. What is wrong with that?
WHAT THE HELL???? So somehow this makes it alright for racist people to segregate? That’s bull shit. Our country went through segregation before, it didn’t work out too well for minorities in case you didn’t notice. I’m not sure why the hell you think it would be a good idea NOW to segregate for any reason other than racism.
As I stated, one responsibility of government is to protect life! That would include protecting the weak as well as the strong.
How can you claim to be protecting the weak when you are encouraging segregation? That is just completely ridiculous.
Posted by: Zeek at May 28, 2005 10:50 PMBert,
I don’t know where you live.. but .. it is a 35+ minute drive to the nearest university and a 45+ minute drive to the nearest tech school where I live and there is no public transportation - unless you can afford a cab?
It may not seem like a lot to some people.. when you have kids, a min. wage job, and bills to pay - it is not an easy obstacle to