Call Now!
Friday, September 25, 2009
It's Called a Foreign Policy
I used "Win" in my previous post in the internet sense of the word, denoting a small victory. I don't think Russia is trustworthy, but I do think it is better to have them going along with possible sanctions against Iran than the other way around, as would have probably been the case if we didn't scrap the pointless and costly missile defense system the Bush administration wanted to install in Poland and the Czech Republic.
I find this development today more encouraging. The U.S., U.K. and France have gone public with intelligence that Iran has a hidden uranium enrichment plant. I don't think anyone should be surprised about this revelation, but letting Iran and Russia know that we know about it is an important step in gaining support for either weapons inspectors to be allowed into Iran, or sanctions to be put in place. Sanctions don't always work and they can have unintended consequences but it is one tool we have and it is important to try.
It has been so song since the United States has had a foreign policy beyond "you're either with us or with the terr'rists" that some people don't know what it is supposed to look like. It should be about building coalitions with other countries, some of whom may have competing interests, to try to achieve progress on particular issues. In this instance, it would be stopping Iran's nuclear program without resorting to bombing them, as I believe we cannot afford to open up a third front in this war.
Despite what some may want you to believe, it is not 1938, and Vladimir Putin, though he is not a good guy, is not Adolph Hitler trying to take over Europe. Foreign Policy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game where you either get every concession you want right away or bombs away. I find the resignation, and in some cases nihilism, on the right in this country to be disappointing and unfounded, be it with regard to foreign policy, health care, etc. They seem to be overcome with woe at the state of the world, but devoid of ideas on how to fix any of it besides bombs and free market platitudes. Sometimes a military solution is the only one left but the President has a duty to exhaust every other avenue first. Most previous presidents, Democratic and Republican, knew this.
EDIT: After I made the post above I saw that Andrew Sullivan came to much the same conclusion, only he's a little more pissed off. It's worth a look.
I find this development today more encouraging. The U.S., U.K. and France have gone public with intelligence that Iran has a hidden uranium enrichment plant. I don't think anyone should be surprised about this revelation, but letting Iran and Russia know that we know about it is an important step in gaining support for either weapons inspectors to be allowed into Iran, or sanctions to be put in place. Sanctions don't always work and they can have unintended consequences but it is one tool we have and it is important to try.
It has been so song since the United States has had a foreign policy beyond "you're either with us or with the terr'rists" that some people don't know what it is supposed to look like. It should be about building coalitions with other countries, some of whom may have competing interests, to try to achieve progress on particular issues. In this instance, it would be stopping Iran's nuclear program without resorting to bombing them, as I believe we cannot afford to open up a third front in this war.
Despite what some may want you to believe, it is not 1938, and Vladimir Putin, though he is not a good guy, is not Adolph Hitler trying to take over Europe. Foreign Policy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game where you either get every concession you want right away or bombs away. I find the resignation, and in some cases nihilism, on the right in this country to be disappointing and unfounded, be it with regard to foreign policy, health care, etc. They seem to be overcome with woe at the state of the world, but devoid of ideas on how to fix any of it besides bombs and free market platitudes. Sometimes a military solution is the only one left but the President has a duty to exhaust every other avenue first. Most previous presidents, Democratic and Republican, knew this.
EDIT: After I made the post above I saw that Andrew Sullivan came to much the same conclusion, only he's a little more pissed off. It's worth a look.
The Flip Side.
To call this a foreign policy win seems a bit over dramatic. I supposed "wringing a concession from Russia to consider" bearing down on Iran for its nuclear weapons program via stricter sanctions is something of a "success." But, I have a hard time taking any of it seriously, thus my inclination to believe this article, and any sort of celebratory tone or "glee" it may evoke, is short-sighted and will most likely be short-lived.
History tells us that Russia is not nice. Recent history, more importantly, tells us that Putin will do what Putin wants to do, and that the former-president's successor, Dmitri Medvedev, is merely a figurehead kowtowing to the stalwart that is now-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
That being said, the article admits Putin recently stated that he may not actually agree with the sanctions. So, Medvedev signing the resolution means little without Putin's endorsement. To add insult to injury, Medvedev himself stated what we all know, and history shows time and time again, "sanctions rarely lead to productive results."
Furthermore, the resolution isn't binding. Meaning, Russia is simply giving lip service to the Obama Administration, that's like the star quarterback telling the fat chick in his algebra class he'll think about it when she asks him to homecoming. Unless there's some overriding gain to be had for Russia, and Putin more specifically, the resolution means close to nil.
Am I saying we should go invade Iran? No. I'm just opining that if anyone thinks the Russian government can be trusted are either very ignorant (willfully or not) or hopelessly naive. I much prefer John McCain's statement over George W. Bush's, when each had a chance to look into Putin's eyes. The later saw the soul of a good man, the sooner, KGB.
Am I saying sanctions shouldn't be tightened on Iran. No. But, I agree with Medvedev that they aren't effective.
As for all the grandstanding about the change in direction regarding U.S. relations with the U.N., I'm not exactly sure if anything of real substance was actually said. Granted, I'm only going off what I read in the article, but it sounds as if it was just another speech by Obama filled with his now familiar eloquent vacuousness, listing powerpoint-style his Administrations commendable goals with results that any rational person would find hard to disagree with for the most part. But, as we've come to love about politicians of any creed, they have the goals but rarely can they explain the means. Kinda of like healthcare or balancing the budget, etc.
Then there's the whole legitimacy of the U.N. I'm not talking about its existence or ability to impose sanctions and the like. I'm talking about the organization's clout, or lack there of. It's hard to take it seriously when it takes Muammar Gaddafi seriously.
Furthermore, the resolution isn't binding. Meaning, Russia is simply giving lip service to the Obama Administration, that's like the star quarterback telling the fat chick in his algebra class he'll think about it when she asks him to homecoming. Unless there's some overriding gain to be had for Russia, and Putin more specifically, the resolution means close to nil.
Am I saying we should go invade Iran? No. I'm just opining that if anyone thinks the Russian government can be trusted are either very ignorant (willfully or not) or hopelessly naive. I much prefer John McCain's statement over George W. Bush's, when each had a chance to look into Putin's eyes. The later saw the soul of a good man, the sooner, KGB.
Am I saying sanctions shouldn't be tightened on Iran. No. But, I agree with Medvedev that they aren't effective.
As for all the grandstanding about the change in direction regarding U.S. relations with the U.N., I'm not exactly sure if anything of real substance was actually said. Granted, I'm only going off what I read in the article, but it sounds as if it was just another speech by Obama filled with his now familiar eloquent vacuousness, listing powerpoint-style his Administrations commendable goals with results that any rational person would find hard to disagree with for the most part. But, as we've come to love about politicians of any creed, they have the goals but rarely can they explain the means. Kinda of like healthcare or balancing the budget, etc.
Then there's the whole legitimacy of the U.N. I'm not talking about its existence or ability to impose sanctions and the like. I'm talking about the organization's clout, or lack there of. It's hard to take it seriously when it takes Muammar Gaddafi seriously.
Foreign Policy Win!
Like I always say, just do the opposite of what John Bolton says, and good things will happen.
Out of the Loop.
I know I've been out of the loop working 13 hour days and raking in legally mandated overtime for hourly employees this week, but who is Theo. I like shaking hands with people I work with. Plus, I know this post is uncouth.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Gay Is the New Straight
In next Sunday’s New York Times Magazine this article about kids coming out in middle school will appear. I’ve seen this phenomenon written about before in major publications, proving that it is in fact becoming a more and more common occurrence. This article is long and a little meandering at times, but it’s worth a read. It raises a few concerns but generally takes a positive view of what these kids are doing, and I am in agreement.
Most gay people I know (and I also have some personal experience in the matter) have known they were gay since puberty, which could be as young as perhaps 10 years old. I myself knew since I was about 13. I use the word knew rather than “had a feeling” or some other such phrase in order to convey certainty. I was certain I was gay since the age of 13, but I didn’t come out until I was 18. I know many others who similarly waited until college to come out. I raise this point about certainty because I know the most common issue people will take with this article is that these teenagers are too young to know how they feel. I agree that teenagers are often confused about their identity, how they want to dress, what music they want to listen to, etc, but I think most of you out there who have been teenage boys will agree that one thing that was crystal clear at that age was who you were attracted to. In fact, most of your day was probably taken up by this attraction. The same is true for most of the teens who are now coming out of the closet. Sure, some may have a more fluid identity as they grow up, but many of them wont, and it is wrong for their parents to insist they are going through a phase or that they are too confused to know what they want. Heterosexual teens do not usually have to explain their attraction to teens of the opposite sex to their parents.
However, the real value of this new trend is that it is allowing gay teens to have a “normal” adolescence. Rather than having to hide how they feel and keep secrets from friends and family, they can date other gay teens and have immature middle school and high school relationships. While from my own memory of middle and high school these relationships often seemed trivial and wrought with pointless drama, they are ultimately useful in developing what one wants in a relationship and in a mate. Many gay teens, including myself, didn’t get to have these experiences. Instead they waste years and years of time until they’re in a place where they feel like they can come out. It just makes more sense and I believe it is healthier for the kids to just come out when they know they’re are gay, rather than carrying it around and compartmentalizing that side of their life from everyone else.
Another concern some will have is that this will lead to increases in bullying in schools. I’m sure in many instances it has, but I also know that other kids will make fun of you for being gay whether or not you’re out of the closet if you seem at all different. Your actual sexual orientation doesn’t have much to do with it in the end. At least when these kids get older they wont have to wonder “what if?”
TV: The Cool Kids are Taking Over
Seemingly unremarked upon, this year's Emmy Awards marked a sea change for this venerable awards show. At almost every turn, you could see the cool kids were taking over. Usually the Emmys are well behind the curve when it comes to hip, modern entertainment, preferring to highlight well-worn shows and personalities while ignoring what's, as the kids say, trending. This year was different though. You had man-of-the-moment Neil Patrick Harris hosting, Twitter darling John Hodgeman behind the scenes snarking on the winners as they made the long journey to the stage, and the awards tending to go to popular and well received shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Pushing Daisies, Damages, and 30 Rock. Even in the details of the show, you could see the younger viewpoint poking through. Highlighted in the "Year in Drama" presentation? Battlestar Galactica. Harris's little seen internet sensation from last year, "Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog" was even given a few minutes in the spotlight, while net darling and star of "The Guild" Felicia Day popped her head in for a little harmony.
The gradual decline of broadcast television in favor of cable and the internet was a theme throughout the night, and you could feel the awards show struggling to keep up and stay relevant. I think they succeeded. It was a modern, brisk (at 3 hours), and entertaining show all around, and hopefully marked a turning point in television entertainment as a whole.
Although, could someone explain to me how Jon Cryer won?
The gradual decline of broadcast television in favor of cable and the internet was a theme throughout the night, and you could feel the awards show struggling to keep up and stay relevant. I think they succeeded. It was a modern, brisk (at 3 hours), and entertaining show all around, and hopefully marked a turning point in television entertainment as a whole.
Although, could someone explain to me how Jon Cryer won?
In Defense of Palin
For my first post for the Daily Ire, I'd like to take a shot at the Daily Kos's Markos Moulitsas while defending Sarah Palin. A week or so ago Mr. Moulitsas was a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, a show that I'm not the biggest fan of in the first place. (At least Bill O'Reilly has guests who disagree with him, even if it's just to scream at them and cut their mics.) While on the show, Moulitsas took a pot shot at Palin, criticizing her for not supervising her children. While I'm not in any sense a fan of Palin, I winced at that comment. Such critiques should be out-of-bounds when attacking one's political opponents, unless it somehow highlights a hypocrisy. To my knowledge, Palin has not evidenced any such hypocrisy in this area. Moreover, her kids seem to be both well-adjusted and well-behaved. Having sex and getting pregnant, as I hope my liberal brethren will agree, is not a moral failing.
If you hope to raise the level of discourse, to bring people to your side, to show leadership for the liberal movement, making a classless comment like this is not doing you any favors.
If you hope to raise the level of discourse, to bring people to your side, to show leadership for the liberal movement, making a classless comment like this is not doing you any favors.
Taitz Bait
During his "Rambling Diatribe" to the United Nations this morning, Muammar el-Qaddafi repeatedly called Barack Obama "our son" and said the Israelis hired Jack Ruby to kill Lee Harvey Oswald. I wonder if that's because Oswald had the real birth certificate.
Monday, September 21, 2009
FOOD: The Role of Pasta
A few weeks ago there was a bit of a fooferaw on the internets about how best to prepare pasta. On one side is the view well-expressed below by Mario Batali:
The other side, mostly consisting of yuppie home cooks and anti-traditionalists, argued that Batali's position is deplorable and he is consigning a generation of people to diabetes. They were advocating that you should load your pasta with vegetables and other "stuff" so as to have a more balanced diet. (I am summarizing this argument as opposed to linking to it because I've searched the intertoobs far and wide and can't find it now.)
I believe Mario Batali is right because the other side is missing the whole picture. In my experience with my Italian relatives, and in my trips to Italy, I have found that pasta is almost always "just pasta." By this I mean that that pasta is served by itself. There are often various meats or vegetables cooked in the sauce, but they rarely are mixed in with the pasta and served together. At dinner time you have your pasta, your meat, maybe a vegetable or a salad, but they are all separate. This is why Italians can eat their pasta by itself and still not go blind from diabetes or become obese. Two or three helpings of just pasta is terrible for you, but if you also have some meat, some green vegetables sautéd in garlic and wash it all down with copious amounts of delicious, antioxidant-rich red wine, you're getting a nicely balanced meal.
I suppose the yuppy side of the argument was bristling at the idea of just eating a bowl of starch. As I said, I agree with them that such a thing would be bad for your health, but I don't agree that you should dump all the other stuff in with the pasta. If done right it should be delicious enough to be enjoyed on its own.
A good pasta dish is about the balance between sauce and pasta. Flavorful, perfectly cooked pasta can't save a bad jar of Kroger-brand, high fructose corn syrup-filled tomato sauce, and beautifully balanced sauce at a nice restaurant can't save a pile of overcooked mush. Listen to Mario.
BASEBALL: Cecil Cooper Canned
Houston Astros have fired manager Cecil Cooper. I think he was a marginal manager. I didn't like it when he was named manager, and I'm glad he's being let go. Why? Because I don't think he was an improvement over the last guy. He was just like the last guy.
Call me race baiting if you want, but I'm pretty sure that we'll soon hear some people start saying he was canned because of his race. Cecil Cooper is black. He was the first black manager for the Astros. There was some celebration of that fact when he was named. I suppose it was another ceiling busted for minorities, though there were other minority managers already out there. Baseball moved past racism a long time ago, in my opinion, which is why I felt touting Cooper's race actually cheapened his achievement. He got there through effort, not because he is black.
When the Astors lost the 2005 World Series, some local African American groups alleged they lost , in part, because the Astros were a racist team, as there were only a few African Americans, and minorities in general, on the roster and God was judging them. This is, of course, ridiculous. Baseball is about winning, not race, and they lost because the bottom literally fell out of the pitching that got us there in the first place, not due to the fact that Willy Taveras was lonely.
Thereafter, Phil Garner was let go at the end of the 2007 season, and Cecil Cooper was named the new manager. I don't think Cooper was named because he was black or in reaction to local pressure; I think he was named because he's just like Phil Garner and will do what he's told by upper management, and because somebody had to be fired after the 2007 season.
I felt a bit guilty, I have to admit, that this thought process was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news, but I'm not surprised. Obama was supposed to be the post-racial president. But as we have seen, he, people around him, and other political leaders didn't change at all, but seemed to have turned it up instead. And, of course, racist idiots have expectantly crawled out of the wood works to much of the logical right's chagrin.
I hope Coop gets an assistant managers job soon, because I don't think he should be manager, and that the Astros find a good replacement, whether he's white, black, asian, mexican, etc... in the off season. Because watching a loosing team is no fun.
Call me race baiting if you want, but I'm pretty sure that we'll soon hear some people start saying he was canned because of his race. Cecil Cooper is black. He was the first black manager for the Astros. There was some celebration of that fact when he was named. I suppose it was another ceiling busted for minorities, though there were other minority managers already out there. Baseball moved past racism a long time ago, in my opinion, which is why I felt touting Cooper's race actually cheapened his achievement. He got there through effort, not because he is black.
When the Astors lost the 2005 World Series, some local African American groups alleged they lost , in part, because the Astros were a racist team, as there were only a few African Americans, and minorities in general, on the roster and God was judging them. This is, of course, ridiculous. Baseball is about winning, not race, and they lost because the bottom literally fell out of the pitching that got us there in the first place, not due to the fact that Willy Taveras was lonely.
Thereafter, Phil Garner was let go at the end of the 2007 season, and Cecil Cooper was named the new manager. I don't think Cooper was named because he was black or in reaction to local pressure; I think he was named because he's just like Phil Garner and will do what he's told by upper management, and because somebody had to be fired after the 2007 season.
I felt a bit guilty, I have to admit, that this thought process was the first thing I thought of when I heard the news, but I'm not surprised. Obama was supposed to be the post-racial president. But as we have seen, he, people around him, and other political leaders didn't change at all, but seemed to have turned it up instead. And, of course, racist idiots have expectantly crawled out of the wood works to much of the logical right's chagrin.
I hope Coop gets an assistant managers job soon, because I don't think he should be manager, and that the Astros find a good replacement, whether he's white, black, asian, mexican, etc... in the off season. Because watching a loosing team is no fun.
Priorities
I feel like this should be a big deal. Maybe if there was a video of the deal going down with some idiot dressed as a pimp, it would be.
President to Paterson: GTFO
With or without White House interference, Governor Paterson ain't gonna be governor of New York after 2010. His poll numbers are abysmal, and even if he does decide to run, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo will beat him handily in a primary, and likely win the general election against Rudy.
Given that this is the most likely outcome, I think the White House let it be known publicly that Paterson doesn't have their support to keep any coming Democratic primary from taking on a racial character. Obama's support gives Cuomo cover to take on one of only two black governors in the country. However, ultimately I believe Paterson will spare us and not run.
Elliot Spitzer should not have resigned.
In Defense of the Religious Right
I just read this piece by Frank Schaeffer, a former member of the religious right. I suppose I feel compelled to comment because rarely do I read something that makes me feel just sad (though saying as much may tick off Robot Devil). From what I can tell Mr. Schaeffer is fairly well known in liberal circles, but I've just learned of him.
Mr. Schaeffer was raised within the ranks of evangelical Christian religious right society and, in fact, helped build it. Subsequently, he became disenchanted by the movement and is now a member of what he calls "rule-obeying democratic liberalism."
Now, there are points that Mr. Schaeffer makes that I cannot disagree with. Evangelicals do indeed strongly desire to have a Christian based government. They do have what seems to be a heightened awareness/fear of "Satan" and believe that anything that strays away from a fundamentallist system is the product of his dominion/infestation of individuals and nations. They don't like homosexuality. And, home or private schooling is a pretty BFD.
But, Mr. Schaeffer's word choice paints a picture of a tyrannical father hunkering his poor wife and children in an underground bomb shelter forcing them to read their Bibles 24-7, then strapping them to racks and cracking whips on their shoulders a la Lavar Burton in Roots to beat the gay out of everybody. A society where people go around hating everybody and desiring to lynch any black man that dares to even look at a white person. A world where freedom of thought is not only frowned upon, but met with severe, and possibly deadly, consequences.
Mr. Schaeffer even decides that because of these people's lifestyle they've forfeited their right to be Americans. He implies that they're committing some sort of crime through choosing to live as they do, even insinuating that allowing them to practice their constitutionally protected, fundamental right to travel freely through the nation should be halted.
It is this, the bile he's spewing by calling these people Anti-American, child abusing, hatemongering, racists, that I find so disheartening. It is the amazing contempt he seems to hold for evangelical Christians. If you read his words, you can feel his utter disgust for what he perceives to be the religious right.
Why do I have room to speak on this issue? Because, like Mr. Shaeffer, I was also raised in an evangelical Christian environment. And though there may be tiny segments within it's makeup that fit his description; his article is pure garbage, a smear piece. Simple as that.
Admittedly, I was not educated at home or at a private institution, (too many kids not enough money--though my oldest brother did spend some very early elementary years at a private Christian academy), but growing up it was often debated, considered, and occurring all around me. A close friend of mine, for instance, only attended a single year in public school - 6th grade. Beyond that, he and his siblings were either home schooled or attended private Christian academies.
Right now, that particular friend, and the countless number of people I know who were brought up similarly, aren't going around trying to destroy civil rights for minorities , sabotage gays, or dismantle the country. My family isn't going around telling people that Obama isn't our president because he's black.
For a little insight of what it's like growing up in that environment, I'll relate to you how big a part of life religion is for evangelicals. Though they always said, it's a faith not a religion.
I remember going to church every Sunday morning, Youth Groups at church on Wednesday nights, and Home Group meetings on Tuesdays. Prayers at every dinner. During church services the pastor would preach with such emotion, often screaming and shouting and everything you've seen in movies. He would condemn the government for acting against the wishes of God. Condemn President Clinton directly. sometimes. Rant about the killing of babies through abortion. People would respond with their own shouts. People around me "spoke in tongues" and ran around with banners and tambourines. Singing during praise and worship was a highly infused affair full of dancing and singing loudly, passionately, sometimes lasting two hours or more. We even said the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of services. In short, we were "holy rollers."
But we weren't hating on minorities and talking about revolution. We weren't beating up gays. We would talk about a cultural or a religious revolution, but that's hardly a new idea (i.e. 60's). Then there's the fact that half my church was made up of black people, Asian people, Indian people, etc... Oh, and how about the first church we attended when we moved to Houston - all black, save for us. And I loved it. So, pardon me if I get a little touchy when someone with a broad stroke paints the religious right as a bunch of bigoted fascists.
And to respond to Mr. Schaeffer unfairly accusing Evangelicals of child abuse. What-the-F-ever. Child abuse is a serious accusation. Having spent four years working directly with children, I've had the unfortunate opportunity to see what it does first hand. Again, I'm sure it occurred within some Christine homes, but to say such a blanket statement as his is infuriating. It can happen in any home it has nothing to do with religion. And it's not a part of being an Evangelical.
I recall often discussing the concept of "spare the rod, ruin the child" as it's said in the Bible growing up, both at home and at church, but never once was I beaten. I was whooped, so to speak, "spanked" if you will. On my ass, and sometimes on my thighs when mom or dad would miss with the belt or spoon or hand. One time I was even slapped across the face by my mother after I said something quite disrespectful. But, I wasn't beat, I was disciplined. I was never punished for something I didn't deserve.
And this is pretty much how things work on the religious right, in our churches and homes. I feel fairly comfortable talking about this in such a broad fashion because of how the religious right operates, it's like a family, and you can see what's going on. So, when I say how discipline works, it's because when we got spanked, be it friends or family, we all talked about it - about how it sucked. Church is a big deal. We have our ways, but they aren't what Mr. Shaeffer is claiming.
Then there is Mr. Shaeffer's absurd notion of "rule-obeying democratic liberalism". That unlike conservatives, liberals are open minded and peaceful. How conservatives will simply change the rules if they're loosing, and if that doesn't work, they'll resort to pulling a "lead pipe" from there back pocket.
Shut up you blithering ass.
Did he not get the memo on how the law was amended in Massachusetts during the 2006 presidential election so that then Republican Governor Romney could not appoint a senator to take Democratic Senator Kerry place as the law on the books said he could? THEN, how the state is moving to amend the law AGAIN, so that the present governor can appoint a replacement because Senator Kennedy died. Yeah, the dems don't change rules at all...
How about the black panthers not letting people vote in the past election as can be seen on Youtube. That guy who bit off a conservative protester's finger (I'm not defending the protester's rude behavior, but biting off a finger isn't a good reaction). Acorn registering the entire Dallas Cowboys football team in Nevada. Protesters comparing Bush to Hitler and advocating his assassination. The pro-life supporter who was shot and killed a few weeks back. Pelosi ignoring the millions of dollars worth of fraud perpetrated by Rangle. Yeah, conservatives are just insane and terrible people. Liberals are calm and approach things with restraint and reason.
I don't support idiots shouting racists things at Obama. I don't support crazy Nirthers. I don't believe that Obama is the anti-Christ, if he is, well that would suck. But, please, don't paint us all as demons and the left as spotless angles of "rule-obeying democratic liberalism." Mr. Shaeffer's ugly rant is hateful and his treatment of the religious right is despicable. He calls us dupes. His experience seems to seethe from an apparently terrible reliationship he had with his father and upbringing and it's made him a very angry man. If this is true, then he's like a lot of libs I know - malcontent children who will snicker at his snide little article and revel secretly in his hatred.
Mr. Shaeffer is an idiot.
Mr. Schaeffer was raised within the ranks of evangelical Christian religious right society and, in fact, helped build it. Subsequently, he became disenchanted by the movement and is now a member of what he calls "rule-obeying democratic liberalism."
Now, there are points that Mr. Schaeffer makes that I cannot disagree with. Evangelicals do indeed strongly desire to have a Christian based government. They do have what seems to be a heightened awareness/fear of "Satan" and believe that anything that strays away from a fundamentallist system is the product of his dominion/infestation of individuals and nations. They don't like homosexuality. And, home or private schooling is a pretty BFD.
But, Mr. Schaeffer's word choice paints a picture of a tyrannical father hunkering his poor wife and children in an underground bomb shelter forcing them to read their Bibles 24-7, then strapping them to racks and cracking whips on their shoulders a la Lavar Burton in Roots to beat the gay out of everybody. A society where people go around hating everybody and desiring to lynch any black man that dares to even look at a white person. A world where freedom of thought is not only frowned upon, but met with severe, and possibly deadly, consequences.
Mr. Schaeffer even decides that because of these people's lifestyle they've forfeited their right to be Americans. He implies that they're committing some sort of crime through choosing to live as they do, even insinuating that allowing them to practice their constitutionally protected, fundamental right to travel freely through the nation should be halted.
It is this, the bile he's spewing by calling these people Anti-American, child abusing, hatemongering, racists, that I find so disheartening. It is the amazing contempt he seems to hold for evangelical Christians. If you read his words, you can feel his utter disgust for what he perceives to be the religious right.
Why do I have room to speak on this issue? Because, like Mr. Shaeffer, I was also raised in an evangelical Christian environment. And though there may be tiny segments within it's makeup that fit his description; his article is pure garbage, a smear piece. Simple as that.
Admittedly, I was not educated at home or at a private institution, (too many kids not enough money--though my oldest brother did spend some very early elementary years at a private Christian academy), but growing up it was often debated, considered, and occurring all around me. A close friend of mine, for instance, only attended a single year in public school - 6th grade. Beyond that, he and his siblings were either home schooled or attended private Christian academies.
Right now, that particular friend, and the countless number of people I know who were brought up similarly, aren't going around trying to destroy civil rights for minorities , sabotage gays, or dismantle the country. My family isn't going around telling people that Obama isn't our president because he's black.
For a little insight of what it's like growing up in that environment, I'll relate to you how big a part of life religion is for evangelicals. Though they always said, it's a faith not a religion.
I remember going to church every Sunday morning, Youth Groups at church on Wednesday nights, and Home Group meetings on Tuesdays. Prayers at every dinner. During church services the pastor would preach with such emotion, often screaming and shouting and everything you've seen in movies. He would condemn the government for acting against the wishes of God. Condemn President Clinton directly. sometimes. Rant about the killing of babies through abortion. People would respond with their own shouts. People around me "spoke in tongues" and ran around with banners and tambourines. Singing during praise and worship was a highly infused affair full of dancing and singing loudly, passionately, sometimes lasting two hours or more. We even said the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of services. In short, we were "holy rollers."
But we weren't hating on minorities and talking about revolution. We weren't beating up gays. We would talk about a cultural or a religious revolution, but that's hardly a new idea (i.e. 60's). Then there's the fact that half my church was made up of black people, Asian people, Indian people, etc... Oh, and how about the first church we attended when we moved to Houston - all black, save for us. And I loved it. So, pardon me if I get a little touchy when someone with a broad stroke paints the religious right as a bunch of bigoted fascists.
And to respond to Mr. Schaeffer unfairly accusing Evangelicals of child abuse. What-the-F-ever. Child abuse is a serious accusation. Having spent four years working directly with children, I've had the unfortunate opportunity to see what it does first hand. Again, I'm sure it occurred within some Christine homes, but to say such a blanket statement as his is infuriating. It can happen in any home it has nothing to do with religion. And it's not a part of being an Evangelical.
I recall often discussing the concept of "spare the rod, ruin the child" as it's said in the Bible growing up, both at home and at church, but never once was I beaten. I was whooped, so to speak, "spanked" if you will. On my ass, and sometimes on my thighs when mom or dad would miss with the belt or spoon or hand. One time I was even slapped across the face by my mother after I said something quite disrespectful. But, I wasn't beat, I was disciplined. I was never punished for something I didn't deserve.
And this is pretty much how things work on the religious right, in our churches and homes. I feel fairly comfortable talking about this in such a broad fashion because of how the religious right operates, it's like a family, and you can see what's going on. So, when I say how discipline works, it's because when we got spanked, be it friends or family, we all talked about it - about how it sucked. Church is a big deal. We have our ways, but they aren't what Mr. Shaeffer is claiming.
Then there is Mr. Shaeffer's absurd notion of "rule-obeying democratic liberalism". That unlike conservatives, liberals are open minded and peaceful. How conservatives will simply change the rules if they're loosing, and if that doesn't work, they'll resort to pulling a "lead pipe" from there back pocket.
Shut up you blithering ass.
Did he not get the memo on how the law was amended in Massachusetts during the 2006 presidential election so that then Republican Governor Romney could not appoint a senator to take Democratic Senator Kerry place as the law on the books said he could? THEN, how the state is moving to amend the law AGAIN, so that the present governor can appoint a replacement because Senator Kennedy died. Yeah, the dems don't change rules at all...
How about the black panthers not letting people vote in the past election as can be seen on Youtube. That guy who bit off a conservative protester's finger (I'm not defending the protester's rude behavior, but biting off a finger isn't a good reaction). Acorn registering the entire Dallas Cowboys football team in Nevada. Protesters comparing Bush to Hitler and advocating his assassination. The pro-life supporter who was shot and killed a few weeks back. Pelosi ignoring the millions of dollars worth of fraud perpetrated by Rangle. Yeah, conservatives are just insane and terrible people. Liberals are calm and approach things with restraint and reason.
I don't support idiots shouting racists things at Obama. I don't support crazy Nirthers. I don't believe that Obama is the anti-Christ, if he is, well that would suck. But, please, don't paint us all as demons and the left as spotless angles of "rule-obeying democratic liberalism." Mr. Shaeffer's ugly rant is hateful and his treatment of the religious right is despicable. He calls us dupes. His experience seems to seethe from an apparently terrible reliationship he had with his father and upbringing and it's made him a very angry man. If this is true, then he's like a lot of libs I know - malcontent children who will snicker at his snide little article and revel secretly in his hatred.
Mr. Shaeffer is an idiot.
The "Good" War
I was pleased to wake up this morning and read the headline "Changes Have Obama Rethinking War Strategy." Afghanistan has always been more complicated than Iraq, mainly because it wasn't a mistake to go in in the first place, but I think it has become more of a fool's errand with each passing day.
Due to the neglect of the Afghan war over the last few years, the Taliban have made significant gains. Now because of a disputed election in which fraud likely took place, an already weak central government will just become weaker in the eyes of the Afghan people and will lack any sense of legitimacy.
Therefore, it is important to ask why we are in Afghanistan and what the mission should be. The President has said repeatedly the first goal should be to ensure that al-qaeda can't use Afghanistan as a base to launch future terrorist attacks. I agree that this should be an aim, but the problem is that this same goal could be applied to all sorts of nations we haven't invaded. By this logic it would be worthwhile to invade and occupy Somalia, Yemen, and especially Pakistan. Unless we do that, we're just playing a world-wide game of whack-a-mole.
Now there seem to be two options in Afghanistan, escalate the conflict with more troops hopefully bring stability, or to scale back and have a lighter footprint. Now, lo-and-behold, General McChrystal's report has been leaked to Bob Woodward and, gasp!, he wants more troops (I wish we would stop acting like the conclusion of these sorts of reports is a surprise. Generals will always want more troops). I'm sure that to execute a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy more troops would be needed, but now the White House is rethinking the strategy.
Most analysts agree that the report was probably leaked to try to box the President into committing to its recommendations, but I hope he doesn't do it. He needs to think through how such a strategy will ever come to an end, and what the cost will be. Therefore, it's comforting to know that he's hearing from voices who express such concerns, particularly Secretary Gates.
As the arrests of terror suspects in Denver and New York have shown, terrorists can just as easily be American or EU citizens as Saudis or Pakistanis. Good intelligence will be a better tool to keep Americans safe than costly wars in impoverished countries.
I do agree with the Pentagon official quoted at the end of the article expressing impatience with Obama's deliberations. People are dying in Afghanistan every day and he needs to shit or get off the pot, I just hope gets off the pot.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Quick, Hearst needs a bailout.
I've heard talk about "bailingout" newspapers for a while, but I just came upon this story. Here is the bill's text and the corresponding Tax Code section. It doesn't seem like a "bailout" per se, but rather a method to indirectly subsidize an industry by exempting newspapers from taxation on advertising revenue.
Granted, I'm not innately opposed to giving tax breaks to somebody, but where are those lost taxes going to be made up? Raising present taxes on another sector? Implementing new taxes to impose on another? Will the tax breaks be ultimately beneficial to the economy, the resulting break actually helping it grow?
Granted, I'm not innately opposed to giving tax breaks to somebody, but where are those lost taxes going to be made up? Raising present taxes on another sector? Implementing new taxes to impose on another? Will the tax breaks be ultimately beneficial to the economy, the resulting break actually helping it grow?
When you give tax breaks to the individual the basic thought seems to be they will spend those dollars not taxed, said dollars will go into the economy, and said economy will be helped.
A problem that seems to be very apparent when discussing giving tax breaks to newspapers is that, unlike tax breaks for the individual, the money newspapers will save from not paying taxes won't be pumped back into the economy, but rather into themselves. This is not a terrible thing in actuality, if by doing that, newspapers would become profitable again and thus pump more money into the economy by creating jobs and whatnot. Problem is, newspapers are loosing money and aren't showing signs of profitability in the hard copy sector. Tax breaks may help them climb out of the red and into the black, but after that, will they get positive revue streams and not just fall back into the red as their business continues to shrink? Are jobs going to be created? Will they solve the actual problem? I personally doubt it.
A problem that seems to be very apparent when discussing giving tax breaks to newspapers is that, unlike tax breaks for the individual, the money newspapers will save from not paying taxes won't be pumped back into the economy, but rather into themselves. This is not a terrible thing in actuality, if by doing that, newspapers would become profitable again and thus pump more money into the economy by creating jobs and whatnot. Problem is, newspapers are loosing money and aren't showing signs of profitability in the hard copy sector. Tax breaks may help them climb out of the red and into the black, but after that, will they get positive revue streams and not just fall back into the red as their business continues to shrink? Are jobs going to be created? Will they solve the actual problem? I personally doubt it.Why subsidize or "bailout" another dying industry through tax breaks? Even the old guy at my work, who has subscribed to the Houston Chronicle for decades, informed me last week that he let his subscription lapse, favoring online news instead.
My position is, let these guys figure out how to implement and maintain a successful and profitable business model that works independent of, or at least not not wholly dependent on, tax breaks.
It's unfortunate that these once barons of the news are now slowly dying because the market is changing. Well, when the automobile industry boomed, wagons faded into the mist. When CD's became the medium of choice for music, tapes went away, same for DVD's over VHS. I don't recall talks of bailing out HD DVD when Blueray won. Markets move and change. CD sales are down now, MP3's are up. Are we going to subsidize or bailout the music industry? I haven't heard anything like that...yet.
One possible solution is to go straight online reporting. An obvious problem arises in that the internet is a free source of information, so how do these companies make money without charging people to see content? Again, obviously, internet advertising. For a comparable model, look at network television. Like the internet, it is free, paid for by advertising. But, is internet marketing as effective as traditional television advertising? I don't know.
Either way, I doubt that if we don't step up and save the newspapers they will just all shrivel up and go away. I'm not adverse to newpapers, generally. I actually prefer reading something in my hands than online. I don't like online novels, for instances. I think newspapers are very important and provide a source for news to those who don't have access to the internet, the elderly and poor primarily. But, as the market moves forward over time, those segments will be less and less as the internet becomes more and more accessible. There will always be a market for physical newspapers. Just like there's a market for wagons, tapes, VHS, and HD DVD. It will just be now a niche market.
Another issue I have with this is what affect it will have on op-ed pieces. Will another "czar" have to be appointed to review content so as to avoid the support or opposition of a political ideology, so referenced in the Tax Code, thus creating a sort of pseudo-Fairness Doctrine, inadvertently hurting the neomarxist newspapers whom the bill is primarily intended to save? That would be funny to see.
Douche of the week
This Sunday's douche of the week is:
anyone who describes immigrants as "illegals"...Lou Dobbs...please kill yourself (por favor, matarse).
Besos,
Cristóbal Jorge Farley-Bova
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)