By now, readers will know who I favor in the Democratic race. Here's my most considered case. But what of the GOP? For me, it comes down to two men, Ron Paul and John McCain. That may sound strange, because in many ways they are polar opposites: the champion of the surge and the non-interventionist against the Iraq war; the occasional meddling boss of Washington and the live-and-let-live libertarian from Texas. But picking a candidate is always a mix of policy and character, of pragmatism and principle. And what these two mavericks share, to my mind, is a modicum of integrity. At one end of the character scale, you have the sickening sight of Mitt Romney, a hollow shell of cynicism and salesmanship, recrafted to appeal to a base he studied the way Bain consultants assess a company. Paul and McCain are at the other end. They have both said things to GOP audiences that they knew would offend. They have stuck with their positions despite unpopularity. They're not saints, but they believe what they say. Both have also taken a stand against the cancerous and deeply un-American torture and detention regime constructed by Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld. In my book, that counts.
I admire McCain in so many ways. He is the adult in the field, he is attuned to the issue of climate change in a way no other Republican is, he is a genuine war hero and a patriot, and he bravely and rightly opposed the disastrous occupation policies of the Bush administration in Iraq. The surge is no panacea for Iraq; but it has enabled the United States to lose the war without losing face. And that, in the end, is why I admire McCain but nonetheless have to favor Paul over McCain. Because on the critical issue of our time - the great question of the last six years - Paul has been proven right and McCain wrong. And I say that as someone who once passionately supported McCain's position on the war but who cannot pretend any longer that it makes sense.
Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror - at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East - we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration. We have, moreover, helped solder a new truth in the Arab mind: that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, national disintegration and sectarian warfare. And we have also empowered the Iranian regime and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it was in 2003. Apart from that, Mr Bush, how did you enjoy your presidency?
McCain, for all his many virtues, still doesn't get this. Paul does.
Paul, moreover, supports the only rational response: a withdrawal, as speedily and prudently as possible. McCain, along with Lieberman, still seems to believe that expending even more billions of dollars to prop up and enable a fast-devolving, ethnically toxic, religiously nutty region is somehow in American interests. Given the enormous challenges of the terror war, the huge debt we are piling up, the exhaustion of the military, the moral and financial corruption that has its white-hot center in Mesopotamia, I do not believe that an endless military, economic and political commitment to Iraq makes sense. It only makes sense if we are determined to occupy the Middle East indefinitely to secure oil supplies. But the rational response to oil dependence is not to entrench it, but to try and move away from it. Institutionalizing a bank-breaking, morale-busting Middle East empire isn't the way to go.
But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.
He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support.
Go Ron Paul!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
Right to Live
Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the most important political issue to me: abortion. On Facebook, there is an application that is called "Take a Stand" that allows you to voice your opinion on different political issues. It is an application that I, and a few friends of mine, have added. One of those friends has stated the following under Abortion:
"My conscience would not allow me to do it personally, but I do think the woman should have the right to choose."
Okay, I understand that some people have that viewpoint, but then look at what she writes under Capital Punishment:
"I am against it. We are humans and errors do occur. One innocent person dying is one too many, and it hasn't been just one."
Excuse me? Read those two quotes over and ask yourself it makes sense. To say that you're okat with abortion, yet capital punishment is taking the life of an "innocent person."
I take a strongly conservative position on abortion, but I tend to be more liberal with capital punishment. I am pro-life all the way. No one has the right to take away a human life. I think to favor one and not the other is hypocritical. But, staring at the political divide on these "life" issues, which of these sounds more atrocious?
1) For the very conservative: "I believe that an unborn child should be given a chance to live, but a convicted murderer deservers to die.
or
2) For the very liberal: "I believe that a convicted murderer should be given a chance to live, but an unborn baby should not if it is inconvenient for the mother."
The choice is obvious, and while most pundits will argue about rape incidents and a mother's health, take a look at these latest statistics: 1% of abortions are done because the woman was raped, .5% of abortions are done because of cases of incest, about 3-5% of abortions are done because of endangerment to a woman's health. That's it! That means over 90% of all abortions are because it was inconvenient to a woman who was unable to keep her legs closed!
The way I see abortion is as follows: let's say you have to get a new heart and the only one that would be a match would be your son or daughter's. Would you have them killed, so you can use their heart and live a little longer?
The choice is clear...this isn't about a woman choosing to have a child or not. This about choosing whether or not there is any value to the future of mankind. Abortion, my friends, is more of a threat to our direct future than any other, supposed "man-made" problem.
Unlike global warming, abortion is already happening, and has been PROVEN to end a human life.
"My conscience would not allow me to do it personally, but I do think the woman should have the right to choose."
Okay, I understand that some people have that viewpoint, but then look at what she writes under Capital Punishment:
"I am against it. We are humans and errors do occur. One innocent person dying is one too many, and it hasn't been just one."
Excuse me? Read those two quotes over and ask yourself it makes sense. To say that you're okat with abortion, yet capital punishment is taking the life of an "innocent person."
I take a strongly conservative position on abortion, but I tend to be more liberal with capital punishment. I am pro-life all the way. No one has the right to take away a human life. I think to favor one and not the other is hypocritical. But, staring at the political divide on these "life" issues, which of these sounds more atrocious?
1) For the very conservative: "I believe that an unborn child should be given a chance to live, but a convicted murderer deservers to die.
or
2) For the very liberal: "I believe that a convicted murderer should be given a chance to live, but an unborn baby should not if it is inconvenient for the mother."
The choice is obvious, and while most pundits will argue about rape incidents and a mother's health, take a look at these latest statistics: 1% of abortions are done because the woman was raped, .5% of abortions are done because of cases of incest, about 3-5% of abortions are done because of endangerment to a woman's health. That's it! That means over 90% of all abortions are because it was inconvenient to a woman who was unable to keep her legs closed!
The way I see abortion is as follows: let's say you have to get a new heart and the only one that would be a match would be your son or daughter's. Would you have them killed, so you can use their heart and live a little longer?
The choice is clear...this isn't about a woman choosing to have a child or not. This about choosing whether or not there is any value to the future of mankind. Abortion, my friends, is more of a threat to our direct future than any other, supposed "man-made" problem.
Unlike global warming, abortion is already happening, and has been PROVEN to end a human life.
Random Thoughts About my Friends
I have been meaning to say this to each of my friends for a very long time...
You are, by far, one of the greatest gifts that I have in life. You guys really are up there along with my family and with my faith. You are so important to me, and I am very grateful to have each and every one of you ride along with me as we venture through this life.
Thank you for always being there for me.
Thank you for always caring about what it is I have to say.
Thank you for re-assuring me whenever you agree with me.
Thank you for telling me that you disagree with other things that I say.
Thank you for bringing out the laughter in me, including when times are gloomy.
Thank you for keeping things light, because life is far too short to take everything seriously.
Thank you for being the "water" that puts out my "fire" when I am not having one of my better days.
Even when it may be days, or even weeks since we last spoke, I can call you up and our relationship is not strained.
If we've ever argued, I'm glad that we did, because it only made us closer and stronger.
I'm glad that we are not perfect, because it takes imperfect pieces to put together a jigsaw puzzle.
We may disagree on many things - lifestyle, politics, faith, right/wrong, relationships, what we may think of other people, etc. - but there is one thing that we can agree on.
You are my friends, and I thank God for you everyday. I love you guys, and I look forward to trying to return the favor by being as good a friend to you.
Thanks again,
Gabby
You are, by far, one of the greatest gifts that I have in life. You guys really are up there along with my family and with my faith. You are so important to me, and I am very grateful to have each and every one of you ride along with me as we venture through this life.
Thank you for always being there for me.
Thank you for always caring about what it is I have to say.
Thank you for re-assuring me whenever you agree with me.
Thank you for telling me that you disagree with other things that I say.
Thank you for bringing out the laughter in me, including when times are gloomy.
Thank you for keeping things light, because life is far too short to take everything seriously.
Thank you for being the "water" that puts out my "fire" when I am not having one of my better days.
Even when it may be days, or even weeks since we last spoke, I can call you up and our relationship is not strained.
If we've ever argued, I'm glad that we did, because it only made us closer and stronger.
I'm glad that we are not perfect, because it takes imperfect pieces to put together a jigsaw puzzle.
We may disagree on many things - lifestyle, politics, faith, right/wrong, relationships, what we may think of other people, etc. - but there is one thing that we can agree on.
You are my friends, and I thank God for you everyday. I love you guys, and I look forward to trying to return the favor by being as good a friend to you.
Thanks again,
Gabby
Neutrality - Still Taking a Side
Elie Wiesel once said "What hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander." If you do not know who Mr. Wiesel is, let me briefly explain why he is famous.
He was sent to the Auschwitz death camp during the Holocaust, and had to endure the sufferings in that camp, along with witnessing his father die before him. He wrote his memories of this point in his life in a famous book entitled Night.
This blog is not about Elie Wiesel, however. It is about the subject that the above quote tackles. The subject of neutrality. Indeed neutrality has its advantages. You aren't risking yourself to much scrutiny from either side of a conflict, and you can remain in peaceful terms with the "combatants." This is the case with international politics, and is a reason why most nations have a difficult time deciding whether to enter a war or to remain neutral. It almost ends up being a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" concept. In the case of World War II, Adolf Hitler did a lot of horrible things (as you all have probably learned about) and it wasn't until the Allies stood up to him, after years of trying to remain neutral and diplomatic, and fight for what they viewed as right, where things began to turn around in Europe.
But, I want to look at things at a more personal level - a fight within two different people. Neutrality in this regard takes more of a side than in politics/history. For instance, let's say one friend (Friend A) tells the other friend (Friend B) that he/she acts like a "moron." You are going to have one of two opinions:
1 - "I agree. Friend A is acting like a moron. Finally, someone said it." or
2 - "I don't think Friend B is acting like a moron. That wasn't very nice of Friend A to say."
Now, whatever your mindset, it is important. However, it is only a half to a whole, for lack of a better phrase. If you don't follow through with your opinions, not only are you hurting the one that you agree with, you are hurting yourself for not letting your true self come out.
In the meantime, let's say you are thinking about 1, where you think Friend B is a moron. You don't tell that friend that you agree with them. You just go about things the way the used to be, but there is tension. Friend B knows that you think he/she is a moron, and the longer you wait to confront him/her about it, the greater the friction there will be.
Let's say you do not think Friend B is a moron, but you are afraid to tell Friend A about it, because you are afraid that you will lose him/her as a friend. What good does that do for Friend B, the friend who you feel was wronged? If you do not let your opinions out, you may lose Friend B since you did not stand up for him/her, and/or lose Friend A since you did not agree with him/her.
That's why I take sides. Neutrality, in a sense, is taking a side, but while hiding in your shell, or in a cave, so that nothing harms you...yet. For instance, if I was in the first situation, I'd probably tell Friend B just what I think. I'll tell him/her "you have been acting like a moron." Maybe Friend B will realize this and return to the way he once was, or better yet, change for the better. Let's say I was in the second situation. I will tell Friend A that I understand what is so moronic about how Friend B is acting. Maybe Friend A is seeing things in the wrong light, or doesn't understand where Friend B is coming from.
The result? If Friend A decides that you are wrong, and doesn't talk to you anymore, was he/she really your friend in the first place? If Friend A really thinks that true friends are the ones who always agree with them and cannot take "no" for an answer, then Friend A is in for a tumultuous life, with fake friends. You wouldn't need to hang out with someone like that anyways. If Friend A sees that he/she is wrong, then things will begin to sort themselves out. If Friend A does not agree with you, but your relationship with him/her is not affected...then that will make your friendship stronger, because your friendship endured an obstacle.
Take sides. When it's appropriate of course, but it's rarely an inappropriate time to do so. There are times when you can't help but be neutral, like when you really don't have an opinion about something. That's fine. But, if you have an opinion about something, act on it.
If not, you will end up digging a hole for the "oppressed," to use Mr. Wiesel's quote again...and a grave for yourself.
I just thought I'd close with a few quotes about friendship.
"You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you."
- Dale Carnegie, American writer (1888-1955)
"In prosperity our friends know us; in adversity we know our friends."
- John Churton Collins, British literary critic (1848-1908)
"It isn't kind to cultivate a friendship just so one will have an audience. "
- Lawana Blackwell
"We secure our friends not by accepting favors but by doing them."
- Thucydides, Greek historian (471 BC - 400 BC)
and one of my favorite American Presidential Quotes:
"'Tis better to be alone than in bad company."
- George Washington (1732-1799)
He was sent to the Auschwitz death camp during the Holocaust, and had to endure the sufferings in that camp, along with witnessing his father die before him. He wrote his memories of this point in his life in a famous book entitled Night.
This blog is not about Elie Wiesel, however. It is about the subject that the above quote tackles. The subject of neutrality. Indeed neutrality has its advantages. You aren't risking yourself to much scrutiny from either side of a conflict, and you can remain in peaceful terms with the "combatants." This is the case with international politics, and is a reason why most nations have a difficult time deciding whether to enter a war or to remain neutral. It almost ends up being a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" concept. In the case of World War II, Adolf Hitler did a lot of horrible things (as you all have probably learned about) and it wasn't until the Allies stood up to him, after years of trying to remain neutral and diplomatic, and fight for what they viewed as right, where things began to turn around in Europe.
But, I want to look at things at a more personal level - a fight within two different people. Neutrality in this regard takes more of a side than in politics/history. For instance, let's say one friend (Friend A) tells the other friend (Friend B) that he/she acts like a "moron." You are going to have one of two opinions:
1 - "I agree. Friend A is acting like a moron. Finally, someone said it." or
2 - "I don't think Friend B is acting like a moron. That wasn't very nice of Friend A to say."
Now, whatever your mindset, it is important. However, it is only a half to a whole, for lack of a better phrase. If you don't follow through with your opinions, not only are you hurting the one that you agree with, you are hurting yourself for not letting your true self come out.
In the meantime, let's say you are thinking about 1, where you think Friend B is a moron. You don't tell that friend that you agree with them. You just go about things the way the used to be, but there is tension. Friend B knows that you think he/she is a moron, and the longer you wait to confront him/her about it, the greater the friction there will be.
Let's say you do not think Friend B is a moron, but you are afraid to tell Friend A about it, because you are afraid that you will lose him/her as a friend. What good does that do for Friend B, the friend who you feel was wronged? If you do not let your opinions out, you may lose Friend B since you did not stand up for him/her, and/or lose Friend A since you did not agree with him/her.
That's why I take sides. Neutrality, in a sense, is taking a side, but while hiding in your shell, or in a cave, so that nothing harms you...yet. For instance, if I was in the first situation, I'd probably tell Friend B just what I think. I'll tell him/her "you have been acting like a moron." Maybe Friend B will realize this and return to the way he once was, or better yet, change for the better. Let's say I was in the second situation. I will tell Friend A that I understand what is so moronic about how Friend B is acting. Maybe Friend A is seeing things in the wrong light, or doesn't understand where Friend B is coming from.
The result? If Friend A decides that you are wrong, and doesn't talk to you anymore, was he/she really your friend in the first place? If Friend A really thinks that true friends are the ones who always agree with them and cannot take "no" for an answer, then Friend A is in for a tumultuous life, with fake friends. You wouldn't need to hang out with someone like that anyways. If Friend A sees that he/she is wrong, then things will begin to sort themselves out. If Friend A does not agree with you, but your relationship with him/her is not affected...then that will make your friendship stronger, because your friendship endured an obstacle.
Take sides. When it's appropriate of course, but it's rarely an inappropriate time to do so. There are times when you can't help but be neutral, like when you really don't have an opinion about something. That's fine. But, if you have an opinion about something, act on it.
If not, you will end up digging a hole for the "oppressed," to use Mr. Wiesel's quote again...and a grave for yourself.
I just thought I'd close with a few quotes about friendship.
"You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you."
- Dale Carnegie, American writer (1888-1955)
"In prosperity our friends know us; in adversity we know our friends."
- John Churton Collins, British literary critic (1848-1908)
"It isn't kind to cultivate a friendship just so one will have an audience. "
- Lawana Blackwell
"We secure our friends not by accepting favors but by doing them."
- Thucydides, Greek historian (471 BC - 400 BC)
and one of my favorite American Presidential Quotes:
"'Tis better to be alone than in bad company."
- George Washington (1732-1799)
Six Question Quiz (I Bet You Won't Do Better Than 3)
Let's see if you can figure out who is responsible for the following quotes:
No. 1: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolf Hitler
C. Josef Stalin
D. None of the above
No. 2: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few … and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. V.I. Lenin
B. Benito Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the above
No. 3: "(We) can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khruschev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Leon Trotsky
D. None of the above
No. 4: "We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse-tung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong-il
D. None of the above
No. 5: "I certainly think the free market has failed."
A. Fidel Castro
B. Pol Pot
C. Nicolae Ceausescu
D. None of the above
No. 6: "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Avowed socialist Bernie Sanders
B. The late Communist Party USA leader Gus Hall
C. Angela Davis
D. None of the above
The correct answer to each of the questions is "none of the above." In fact, every single one of these statements was made by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton between 2004 and 2007.
The first was uttered June 28, 2004, at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer in San Francisco, according to a report by the Associated Press.
The second was made in a speech in New Hampshire May 29, 2007, according to a report in the Boston Globe.
The third, fourth and fifth came during a political forum telecast on CNN June 4, 2007.
The sixth was in a speech in Syracuse, New York, Sept. 2, 2005 and was reported in the Washington Post.
No. 1: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolf Hitler
C. Josef Stalin
D. None of the above
No. 2: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few … and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. V.I. Lenin
B. Benito Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the above
No. 3: "(We) can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khruschev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Leon Trotsky
D. None of the above
No. 4: "We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse-tung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong-il
D. None of the above
No. 5: "I certainly think the free market has failed."
A. Fidel Castro
B. Pol Pot
C. Nicolae Ceausescu
D. None of the above
No. 6: "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Avowed socialist Bernie Sanders
B. The late Communist Party USA leader Gus Hall
C. Angela Davis
D. None of the above
The correct answer to each of the questions is "none of the above." In fact, every single one of these statements was made by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton between 2004 and 2007.
The first was uttered June 28, 2004, at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer in San Francisco, according to a report by the Associated Press.
The second was made in a speech in New Hampshire May 29, 2007, according to a report in the Boston Globe.
The third, fourth and fifth came during a political forum telecast on CNN June 4, 2007.
The sixth was in a speech in Syracuse, New York, Sept. 2, 2005 and was reported in the Washington Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
