First, Republican Congress leadership blocks every attempt to introduce a minimum wage increase to debate. Then they use the debate as an opportunity to give the rich millions more.
What does one have to do with the other? This is such obvious pork it's disgusting. It's like saying we'll get you your next meal, but only if we can give an island paradise to this rich guy over here...
Now, I'm not really against the estate tax repeal. Not really for it, either, but to force it upon us this way is blackmail!
=========================
Edited From Associated Press article
House Approves Minimum Wage Increase
July 29, 2006
WASHINGTON - Republicans muscled the first minimum wage increase in a decade through the House early Saturday after pairing it with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates.
The House passed the bill 230-180 before leaving for a five-week recess.
The GOP package would increase the wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years.
Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over the last 10 years.
Under current law, the estate tax is phased out completely by 2010, but jumps back to 55 percent on estates larger than $1 million in 2011.
The bill passed Saturday would exempt $5 million of an individual's estate, and $10 million of a couple's, from estate taxes by 2015. Estates worth up to $25 million would be taxed at capital gains rates, currently 15 percent and scheduled to rise to 20 percent. Tax rates on the remainder of larger estates would fall to 30 percent by 2015.
The maneuver was aimed at defusing the minimum wage increase as a campaign issue for Democrats while using the popularity of the increase to achieve the Republican Party's longtime goal of permanently cutting estate taxes.
That left Democrats fuming.
"Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum wage workers, 'We'll raise your minimum wage but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America,'" said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
As part of the plan, Congress would also pass a bill shoring up the U.S. pension system. That bill easily passed the House Friday night and seemed more likely to succeed in the Senate than the minimum wage-estate tax plan.
The No. 2 Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said the move by GOP leaders — who actually oppose the minimum wage increase — was a cynical exercise to give political cover to GOP moderates while ensuring the wage increase does not become law.
Republicans countered that it was only fair to business interests opposed to the wage to reward them with estate tax relief and other tax cuts. And they said adding the estate tax was the only way to get their Senate GOP counterparts — who rejected a minimum wage increase just last month — to vote for it.
"The Republicans in the Senate have twice defeated this," said Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio. "You know what? If the Senate wants the estate tax and the (tax cut) extenders, they've to give us the minimum wage. That's how it's going to become law."
LaTourette organized a drive by almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers to persuade House leaders to schedule the wage measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the minimum wage issue and have public opinion behind them.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Conservative Professor Censored By University
Here's a link to a post on Undernews, a progressive online alternative news repository, concerning a conservative professor who has been denied promotion for his stated views on affirmative action and other policies of State University Of New York (SUNY) Fredonia.
UNDERNEWS: CONSERVATIVE PROF CENSORED BY UNIVERSITY
Should a state university have the right to do something like this?
By his own admission, the university president, Dennis Hefner, says that Kershnar (the professor) has been an excellent teacher. The only reason for his denied promotion is that he has stated views that are in opposition to SUNY Fredonia's "official" views.
In addition, SUNY has stated it will promote Kershnar only if he submits his public writings to be reviewed by the university before publishing.
There seem to be so many things wrong with this situation that it's hard to know where to start. Here are some of my objections:
Is there more to the story that I missed? I was outraged when some U.S. universities fired their professors after 9/11 for their stated personal views on that situation (was it at Notre Dame and Colorado?) and this is just as bad.
UNDERNEWS: CONSERVATIVE PROF CENSORED BY UNIVERSITY
Should a state university have the right to do something like this?
By his own admission, the university president, Dennis Hefner, says that Kershnar (the professor) has been an excellent teacher. The only reason for his denied promotion is that he has stated views that are in opposition to SUNY Fredonia's "official" views.
In addition, SUNY has stated it will promote Kershnar only if he submits his public writings to be reviewed by the university before publishing.
There seem to be so many things wrong with this situation that it's hard to know where to start. Here are some of my objections:
- This is a state-funded institution, not a private one. As such, doesn't it set itself up for public debate of its policies and procedures? It's as if I worked for the streets and sanitation department and voiced disapproval about a drainage ditch that needed to be mended. Should I be fired because of my concern for the public good, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about it?
- As representatives of an institution of higher learning, shouldn't the president and board be more willing to listen to criticism of its policies? I understand that I might be more than a little naive about this -- I mean, who enjoys being criticized? But if these people are sincere in their dedication to their function as leaders of higher education, shouldn't they just argue the "facts of the case" and not resort to silencing a lower member of the faculty who disagrees with them? If their policies can't withstand a little discussion, then maybe they aren't appropriate policies... This seems like a bully tactic.
- Does the need for consensus outweigh the need for open debate and reflection at a state-funded university? I don't believe that. PR may play a part in some university hiring practices, but that shouldn't extend to the promotion of a professor, especially if he has shown excellent teaching ability.
- No institution should have the right to make professional decisions about an employee's personal life, as long as the person is acting within the law.
Is there more to the story that I missed? I was outraged when some U.S. universities fired their professors after 9/11 for their stated personal views on that situation (was it at Notre Dame and Colorado?) and this is just as bad.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Word Of The Day: Sophistry
Even more reason that we shouldn't trust politicians when they start talking science. These are excerpts from an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on July 19, 2006.
============================
Experts rip Rove stem cell remark
Researchers doubt value of adult cells
By Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham
Tribune staff reporters
When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."....
But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research--echoed by many opponents of funding for such research--is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists. The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say.
"[Rove's] statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.
If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."
Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternative ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.
The bill heading for Bush's desk would expand federal funding of work on stem cells taken from embryos. Such cells come from extra embryos originally created for in-vitro fertilization. Many experts believe embryonic stem cells could one day help regenerate damaged tissue for patients with conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease, though embryonic cells have not yet been tested in humans.
Adult stem cells, which usually come from bone marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood, are widely considered less flexible than embryonic stem cells in forming many types of tissue. Yet adult stem cells already are in common use for certain conditions, such as replenishing immune cells after cancer treatment and treating some bone and blood disorders.
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.
One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group. Prentice compiled of 72 diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells. Yet most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven," wrote Teitelbaum of Washington University and his co-authors, who claimed that Prentice "misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments."
==================================
Keep in mind, friends, that any time a politician or mouthpiece for a political organization like the Family Research Council tries to give scientific reasons for why they're opposed to something... they're usually cherry-picking scientific evidence that supports their view, rather than taking the scientific findings as a whole and then forming their opinions. There's a word for that, and it's "sophistry": looking for evidence for something you've already decided.
Even more reason that we shouldn't trust politicians when they start talking science. These are excerpts from an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on July 19, 2006.
============================
Experts rip Rove stem cell remark
Researchers doubt value of adult cells
By Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham
Tribune staff reporters
When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.In fact, Rove waded into deeply contentious scientific territory, telling the Denver Post's editorial board that researchers have found "far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."....
But Rove's negative appraisal of embryonic stem cell research--echoed by many opponents of funding for such research--is inaccurate, according to most stem cell research scientists. The field of stem cell medicine is too young and unproven to make such judgments, experts say.
"[Rove's] statement is just not true," said Dr. Michael Clarke, associate director of the stem cell institute at Stanford University, who in 2003 published the first study showing how adult stem cells replenish themselves.
If opponents of embryonic stem cell research object on moral grounds, "I'm willing to live with that," Clarke said, though he disagrees. But, he said, "I'm not willing to live with statements that are misleading."
Dr. Markus Grompe, director of the stem cell center at the Oregon Health and Science University, is a Catholic who objects to research involving the destruction of embryos and is seeking alternative ways of making stem cells. But Grompe said there is "no factual basis to compare the promise" of adult stem cells and cells taken from embryos.
The bill heading for Bush's desk would expand federal funding of work on stem cells taken from embryos. Such cells come from extra embryos originally created for in-vitro fertilization. Many experts believe embryonic stem cells could one day help regenerate damaged tissue for patients with conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease, though embryonic cells have not yet been tested in humans.
Adult stem cells, which usually come from bone marrow transplants or umbilical cord blood, are widely considered less flexible than embryonic stem cells in forming many types of tissue. Yet adult stem cells already are in common use for certain conditions, such as replenishing immune cells after cancer treatment and treating some bone and blood disorders.
White House spokesman Ken Lisaius on Tuesday could not provide the name of a stem cell researcher who shares Rove's views on the superior promise of adult stem cells.
One of the only published scientists arguing that adult stem cells are better is David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University and now a fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group. Prentice compiled of 72 diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells. Yet most of the treatments on the list "remain unproven," wrote Teitelbaum of Washington University and his co-authors, who claimed that Prentice "misrepresents existing adult stem cell treatments."
==================================
Keep in mind, friends, that any time a politician or mouthpiece for a political organization like the Family Research Council tries to give scientific reasons for why they're opposed to something... they're usually cherry-picking scientific evidence that supports their view, rather than taking the scientific findings as a whole and then forming their opinions. There's a word for that, and it's "sophistry": looking for evidence for something you've already decided.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Racism and the Middle East
A friend and I were talking yesterday about the Muhammad cartoon fracas in Europe that’s spilling over to America through South Park. He said, “You can make fun of every other religion except Islam. If you make fun of Islam, there’s rioting in the streets.”
Which made me think a little. On the surface that seems like it’s true. You don’t see Christians rioting because their Messiah is the butt of a joke.
Now I’ve done a little study of Islam – not much, but a little more than most Americans – and I don’t see anything in its text, the Koran, that paints a picture of an inherently violent religion. It actually seems to be a little less violent than most of the Christian Old Testament. So what is it that makes a 21st-century Muslim riot in the streets when he perceives a blasphemy where a Christian would only grumble about it and eventually ignore it?
Then I realized that we haven’t seen anywhere near the same size outcry against the Danish comics in this country as in Europe.
Then it hit me. The violence isn’t inherent in the religion – it’s endemic to the Middle East.
But why? The answer seems obvious to me, but maybe it’s a misreading or over-generalization. But the countries in the Middle East have a history that stretches back into ancient times – of small groups vying for power against other smaller groups. Of course, in the pre-Renaissance era, that was true even in Europe. And what did we have there then? We had wars that lasted for 100 years off and on. We had rival families duking it out over titles and territory for generation after generation (War of the Roses, anyone?). It is only in recent times, after the revolutions of 1848 and after the worldwide bloodbaths of World Wars 1 and 2 that this has changed. We have had relative peace between nations for the past 50 years. That is reflected in the Cold War. We had the power to annihilate each other but we didn’t do it. Our cultures had changed.
But the countries in the Middle East have only been countries for a short time, and their nationhood was a matter of imposition rather than a natural occurrence. Groups were thrown together in the same countries that would never have naturally come together so soon (see post below).
If the tables were turned, and Islam was the dominant Western religion and Christianity was the dominant Middle Eastern religion, what would happen?
Is this a racist statement? No. Racism comes when you believe that a characteristic -- good or bad -- is inherent in the people themselves. The anger that is coming out of the Muhammad cartoons is a political, rather than a genetic, phenomenon.
A friend and I were talking yesterday about the Muhammad cartoon fracas in Europe that’s spilling over to America through South Park. He said, “You can make fun of every other religion except Islam. If you make fun of Islam, there’s rioting in the streets.”
Which made me think a little. On the surface that seems like it’s true. You don’t see Christians rioting because their Messiah is the butt of a joke.
Now I’ve done a little study of Islam – not much, but a little more than most Americans – and I don’t see anything in its text, the Koran, that paints a picture of an inherently violent religion. It actually seems to be a little less violent than most of the Christian Old Testament. So what is it that makes a 21st-century Muslim riot in the streets when he perceives a blasphemy where a Christian would only grumble about it and eventually ignore it?
Then I realized that we haven’t seen anywhere near the same size outcry against the Danish comics in this country as in Europe.
Then it hit me. The violence isn’t inherent in the religion – it’s endemic to the Middle East.
But why? The answer seems obvious to me, but maybe it’s a misreading or over-generalization. But the countries in the Middle East have a history that stretches back into ancient times – of small groups vying for power against other smaller groups. Of course, in the pre-Renaissance era, that was true even in Europe. And what did we have there then? We had wars that lasted for 100 years off and on. We had rival families duking it out over titles and territory for generation after generation (War of the Roses, anyone?). It is only in recent times, after the revolutions of 1848 and after the worldwide bloodbaths of World Wars 1 and 2 that this has changed. We have had relative peace between nations for the past 50 years. That is reflected in the Cold War. We had the power to annihilate each other but we didn’t do it. Our cultures had changed.
But the countries in the Middle East have only been countries for a short time, and their nationhood was a matter of imposition rather than a natural occurrence. Groups were thrown together in the same countries that would never have naturally come together so soon (see post below).
If the tables were turned, and Islam was the dominant Western religion and Christianity was the dominant Middle Eastern religion, what would happen?
Is this a racist statement? No. Racism comes when you believe that a characteristic -- good or bad -- is inherent in the people themselves. The anger that is coming out of the Muhammad cartoons is a political, rather than a genetic, phenomenon.
The Root Of Middle Eastern Anger
My feeling is that it's not the religion that causes the Middle East to be such an "angry" place, it's the politics. That region has been the hotbed of activity since colonial times (before that, even, but the current strifes are based in colonial policies.
A little history: Everywhere else in the world, countries are formed through a long historical process -- people of different heritages live in an area, form their own culture, then fight wars to gain more land and assimilate more people into their group. This usually takes hundreds, thousands of years. That's the natural way of forming a country.
Now, the countries that you see on the map in the Middle East weren't formed that way -- they were formed that way by Britain and other countries based on their colonial interests in the area, regardless of whether those borders are "natural". As a result, people are stuck with others who are not like them, and who are sometimes even historical enemies. Ancient land claims were disregarded and that has caused a lot of anger in the region there.
It has nothing to do with the religion of the majority of Middle-Eastern people. If the tables had been turned and Islam was the majority religion of Europe and Christianity was the majority religion of the Middle East, the Christian Middle Eastern people would be the angry ones, and the rest of the world would be stereotyping Christians as terrorists.
Never look at the stereotype, always look at the individual -- you'll be a lot more understanding.
My feeling is that it's not the religion that causes the Middle East to be such an "angry" place, it's the politics. That region has been the hotbed of activity since colonial times (before that, even, but the current strifes are based in colonial policies.
A little history: Everywhere else in the world, countries are formed through a long historical process -- people of different heritages live in an area, form their own culture, then fight wars to gain more land and assimilate more people into their group. This usually takes hundreds, thousands of years. That's the natural way of forming a country.
Now, the countries that you see on the map in the Middle East weren't formed that way -- they were formed that way by Britain and other countries based on their colonial interests in the area, regardless of whether those borders are "natural". As a result, people are stuck with others who are not like them, and who are sometimes even historical enemies. Ancient land claims were disregarded and that has caused a lot of anger in the region there.
It has nothing to do with the religion of the majority of Middle-Eastern people. If the tables had been turned and Islam was the majority religion of Europe and Christianity was the majority religion of the Middle East, the Christian Middle Eastern people would be the angry ones, and the rest of the world would be stereotyping Christians as terrorists.
Never look at the stereotype, always look at the individual -- you'll be a lot more understanding.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Role Of Nationalism In The World
The problem with nationalism or any kind of ancestral pride is that it's pointless. I think the Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and other belief systems have it absolutely right when they discourage pride of all sorts. All it ever does is put a veil over our understanding -- distracting us from the business at hand, and the attainment of a clearer understanding of the world around us. Pride in the whole takes away from an understanding of the parts.
For example, I have heard many of my right-wing friends talk about how the Iraqis killed in this war were probably up to no good, anyway. Or say that if another country doesn't go along with US desires (like the French) then that country should be bombed next. Where does this come from? I think these are otherwise very nice people who have just had the wool of nationalism pulled over their eyes so that the US is all good, and everyone else is worthless.
And I know this isn't just limited the US -- it just comes across as more arrogant since we're the most powerful nation on Earth. For example, the Germans I know have an incredible amount of pride in their heritage; but aren't they the same people who spawned that most evil of all sinners, David Hasselhoff?! To me, that just shows that nationalism is bull.
A country is nothing but a lifeless construct made up of regular people -- no more worthy of pride than any other group of people. People in Sudan or Turkey or Venezuela are exactly like the people in the US in every important respect -- EXACTLY the same. Take one of them at birth and drop them into an American family, and that kid'll end up like any other American. It works the other way around, too...
So forget nationalism and treat individuals as individuals.
Some will say that I'm wrong -- that America is different from all those other countries. Drop an Algerian in France and they'll never be considered French, but bring them to America and they're part of us -- American through and through.
Unfortunately, people who believe this are living in a fantasy land. The ideal America is very different from actual America by the very definition of the word.
We all deal daily with the hoax that is the "American melting pot." Yes, it's an ideal that I would love to see, but is it true? We live in the same country, but...
How American were Middle Eastern-looking people in the weeks after 9/11? Were they welcomed as true Americans? I have an uncle who has said that no Muslim is a true American -- that they're all enemies of the US. How inclusive is that comment? And he's not alone. One of the older German people I know who has been in this country for less than 50 years, is complaining about how LEGAL immigrants are coming in and taking "American" jobs. Irony all around!
And I think it's ironic how Americans hate the French (of course, EVERYONE hates them). But, of all the other cultures on the planet, French culture is the one that most closely mirrors our own -- a passionate nationalistic sense that tends toward the xenophobic, a near-total disregard for other countries' desires and international law, and now, an official language. Culturally, we're more like the French than we'd like to think.
Would I like to see an America that shines like the city on a hill? Absolutely -- we have the power and ability and strong Constitution to make it so. Does that make me proud of our country? No. It just makes me very excited by our potential!
More new content just to fill up space...
As part of my program of telling everyone what to do and think, I have recently been answering a lot of questions on Yahoo! Answers. Figured I might as well share the wisdom here...
First question:
What Is The Definition of Evil?
I don't think there is any real definition of evil that covers everything. It's how people perceive certain activities that go against cultural norms or biases. Hell, I've even heard that eating shellfish is evil according to the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah. I used to eat shrimp all the time... I'm SO screwed when I die.
My feeling is that true evil doesn't exist in mankind, because the concept of evil itself is rooted in beliefs about the supernatural. We usually perceive "evil" in a person when their acts are so horrific that no real human being could have committed them -- the person must be connected with the Devil or something. What we're really perceiving, in my opinion, is evidence of a tragic mental imbalance with tragically horrible consequences.
But who's the first person that comes to mind when you hear the word "evil"? 9 times out of 10, people will say "Hitler". I know I'm playing the exaggeration card here, but bear with me.
Ask yourself, though, how did Hitler get into power? Wasn't it because so many people in Germany agreed with him? And what about all the people who carried out his horrible orders? Aren't they to be considered evil, too? And what about Germans who knew what was happening and didn't do anything to stop it? Aren't they, then, evil?
Fact is, Hitler and his followers did what they did because they believed that doing so would be to the betterment of mankind. There are still people I know who are otherwise very nice who believe Hitler wasn't as bad as he is made out to be. It's a belief born out of fear and ethical retardation.
Evil is just a word we use when we just can't understand how a person could do something like that. But looking at it as evil does no good, either. If someone is evil, then we don't need to ponder it any further -- but if someone has a mental imbalance that causes him to disregard the simple human courtesy of not hacking a victim up with a cleaver, then there's hope.
I know, this is a rambling essay filled with BS and leaps of logic. But if you're talking about a concept as out there as the definition of evil, then you're gonna get a lot of convoluted answers. Especially since I haven't given it much thought...
As part of my program of telling everyone what to do and think, I have recently been answering a lot of questions on Yahoo! Answers. Figured I might as well share the wisdom here...
First question:
What Is The Definition of Evil?
I don't think there is any real definition of evil that covers everything. It's how people perceive certain activities that go against cultural norms or biases. Hell, I've even heard that eating shellfish is evil according to the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah. I used to eat shrimp all the time... I'm SO screwed when I die.
My feeling is that true evil doesn't exist in mankind, because the concept of evil itself is rooted in beliefs about the supernatural. We usually perceive "evil" in a person when their acts are so horrific that no real human being could have committed them -- the person must be connected with the Devil or something. What we're really perceiving, in my opinion, is evidence of a tragic mental imbalance with tragically horrible consequences.
But who's the first person that comes to mind when you hear the word "evil"? 9 times out of 10, people will say "Hitler". I know I'm playing the exaggeration card here, but bear with me.
Ask yourself, though, how did Hitler get into power? Wasn't it because so many people in Germany agreed with him? And what about all the people who carried out his horrible orders? Aren't they to be considered evil, too? And what about Germans who knew what was happening and didn't do anything to stop it? Aren't they, then, evil?
Fact is, Hitler and his followers did what they did because they believed that doing so would be to the betterment of mankind. There are still people I know who are otherwise very nice who believe Hitler wasn't as bad as he is made out to be. It's a belief born out of fear and ethical retardation.
Evil is just a word we use when we just can't understand how a person could do something like that. But looking at it as evil does no good, either. If someone is evil, then we don't need to ponder it any further -- but if someone has a mental imbalance that causes him to disregard the simple human courtesy of not hacking a victim up with a cleaver, then there's hope.
I know, this is a rambling essay filled with BS and leaps of logic. But if you're talking about a concept as out there as the definition of evil, then you're gonna get a lot of convoluted answers. Especially since I haven't given it much thought...
A Letter to the President
Since this is a new blog, I feel like I have to have at least a little content so people get an idea of what I'm about. Here is a letter I wrote to George W. Bush a couple of days after the election in 2004.
Dear Mr. Bush:
Firstly, Mr. President, congratulations on winning such a hard-fought campaign for President. Though I am an independent voter who leaned toward the Kerry side of this campaign, I have many Republican friends who are glad to see their candidate win a second term. I respect their opinions as much as I respect my own and yours -- even though they are sometimes far removed from my own.
I only hope they're still this happy in another four years -- and that I share their opinion on that.
However, my letter concerns the direction of the next four years of this great country, and how they will affect the 48% of this country who voted for Senator Kerry.
I would like you to consider that number for a second, Mr. President, because it represents more than 141 million Americans who don't share your views. And though it is fewer than the 150 million who supported you in this election year, it is still an incredibly large number of people.
I ask you to consider these numbers in relation to what you have called the "mandate" you feel you have been given by the American people. And I ask you to consider that 48% of the country -- equal to 141 million Americans -- also made their desires known on November 2, and that your opponent was the preferred choice of those people.
Consider that a mandate is something you get when a vast majority of people give it to you. Then consider the actual size of your majority.
You recently said, "I earned capital in the campaign and now I intend to spend it. And I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I would spend it on." Of course, that is your right as the winner of this election, and you have to keep your promises, and any President needs to do the same.
Consider the truth of John Kerry's concession speech -- about healing the divide that exists in the United States. The truth is obvious to anyone who considers it.
Consider the possibility that you have no mandate, and that if your second term behaves as if it has one, those wounds will never heal.
Consider for an instant that maybe, just maybe, sometimes the best use of power is to not use it at all. As President, you should always look for opportunities to use your power, and look even harder for opportunities not to.
Thank you for listening, and I hope you continue to listen. Because you aren't just the leader of your own party. This is not just the land of the Republicans. It is the land of the free, and you've been elected to lead all of us. The entirety of the American people will be waiting and watching to see what you do. And in the end, you work for us, all of us... Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
Since this is a new blog, I feel like I have to have at least a little content so people get an idea of what I'm about. Here is a letter I wrote to George W. Bush a couple of days after the election in 2004.
Dear Mr. Bush:
Firstly, Mr. President, congratulations on winning such a hard-fought campaign for President. Though I am an independent voter who leaned toward the Kerry side of this campaign, I have many Republican friends who are glad to see their candidate win a second term. I respect their opinions as much as I respect my own and yours -- even though they are sometimes far removed from my own.
I only hope they're still this happy in another four years -- and that I share their opinion on that.
However, my letter concerns the direction of the next four years of this great country, and how they will affect the 48% of this country who voted for Senator Kerry.
I would like you to consider that number for a second, Mr. President, because it represents more than 141 million Americans who don't share your views. And though it is fewer than the 150 million who supported you in this election year, it is still an incredibly large number of people.
I ask you to consider these numbers in relation to what you have called the "mandate" you feel you have been given by the American people. And I ask you to consider that 48% of the country -- equal to 141 million Americans -- also made their desires known on November 2, and that your opponent was the preferred choice of those people.
Consider that a mandate is something you get when a vast majority of people give it to you. Then consider the actual size of your majority.
You recently said, "I earned capital in the campaign and now I intend to spend it. And I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I would spend it on." Of course, that is your right as the winner of this election, and you have to keep your promises, and any President needs to do the same.
Consider the truth of John Kerry's concession speech -- about healing the divide that exists in the United States. The truth is obvious to anyone who considers it.
Consider the possibility that you have no mandate, and that if your second term behaves as if it has one, those wounds will never heal.
Consider for an instant that maybe, just maybe, sometimes the best use of power is to not use it at all. As President, you should always look for opportunities to use your power, and look even harder for opportunities not to.
Thank you for listening, and I hope you continue to listen. Because you aren't just the leader of your own party. This is not just the land of the Republicans. It is the land of the free, and you've been elected to lead all of us. The entirety of the American people will be waiting and watching to see what you do. And in the end, you work for us, all of us... Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
Ah! A fresh, new blog!
For a few years now, I've thought about starting up a blog, but something always held me back. I mean, anything I have to say has probably already been said by countless other bloggers and traditional media commentators, so who cares what I have to say?
There's just something so seductive about creating your own blog, though. You get to say exactly what you think in a (semi)-public forum, you get to craft your arguments, and best of all you get to tell people off in a really elegant way.
Really, a blog is just a power-tripper's way of telling everyone what to do and think. I'm no exception.
Unfortunately, I can also be pretty wrong when it comes to current events... it's hard not to be fooled by the countless other media and bloggers out there. How can one single person stay on top of everything that happens in the world? Or their ramifications? Plus, PR people are constantly spinning and spinning so we'll never know the real truth behind anything -- not even when the authorized, official accounts come out.
So that's what this blog will be about: spouting my opinion whether or not I really know anything. You all can tell me when I've lost my marbles.
For a few years now, I've thought about starting up a blog, but something always held me back. I mean, anything I have to say has probably already been said by countless other bloggers and traditional media commentators, so who cares what I have to say?
There's just something so seductive about creating your own blog, though. You get to say exactly what you think in a (semi)-public forum, you get to craft your arguments, and best of all you get to tell people off in a really elegant way.
Really, a blog is just a power-tripper's way of telling everyone what to do and think. I'm no exception.
Unfortunately, I can also be pretty wrong when it comes to current events... it's hard not to be fooled by the countless other media and bloggers out there. How can one single person stay on top of everything that happens in the world? Or their ramifications? Plus, PR people are constantly spinning and spinning so we'll never know the real truth behind anything -- not even when the authorized, official accounts come out.
So that's what this blog will be about: spouting my opinion whether or not I really know anything. You all can tell me when I've lost my marbles.
