The RipZAW |
|
|
Guaranteed Fair and Balanced, or your money back. Send a letter to the Editor... err, Writer. Blogger. Something.    Links to StuffNewsSalon.com Google News CNN International The Onion The Motley Fool Slate Fun Stuff Mark Fiore's Cartoons Homestar Runner.com Daryl Cagle's Pro Cartoonist Index Internet Bumper Stickers Belief System Selector Odd Todd As the Apple Turns Where's George? Oddlots Irregulars Citizen's Survival Tools Project Vote Smart Congress.org Government Information Awareness Clicks for Charity The Hunger Site Ecology Fund Things I'm a Member of American Civil Liberties Union League of Conservation Voters MoveOn.org Our Campaigns Other Blogs The Homeless Guy Spinsanity The Moderate Republican Where is Raed? Granny D Atrios Daily Kos Talking Points Memo Political Animal IMPORTANT Cartoons We Drink Ritalin The End of the World Super Mario Brothers: [1] [2] [3] All Your Base 
Visitors:
Archives
|
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Was just watching Crossfire on CNN. Saw Novak and Begala agree substantiatively on an issue for the only time in history. They both think that you can't go to war on the basis of 11 empty chemical warheads. I'm glad to see that for an issue of this magnitude, where thousands of lives are on the line, even hard line party men can muster the courage to say "enough is enough." Scott Ritter's (chief UN inspector up until '98) testimony on the state of Iraq's arsenal, and exactly what going to war really means, was enough to make even a hawk think about whether war is something we really can even contemplate. He also said something chilling: Once an army gets big enough, it reaches a critical mass where it will go to war, regardless of what anyone wants it to do. As one of the Crossfire hosts, I believe Novak, said: "I hope to God we don't reach that point." As a note, Ritter is a controversial figure. He is anti-war, citing the fact that Americans, as well as Iraqis, will die, and our administration hasn't even showed us any proof of their accusations. As he said in a speech at Bryn Mawr college last year: "If a doctor says 'I have to operate on your brain,' you don't just say 'OK', you say 'can I see the x-ray first? Where's the problem?' And the doctor, if you need the surgery, will show you the x-ray. He doesn't accuse you of being unpatriotic for not doing what he says, no questions asked." It was an hour and a half speech, so I won't try to summarize it here, but suffice it to say that his argument followed what seemed to me to be impeccable logic, with the exception of a few probable exaggerations, and he convinced me that the US cannot go to war unless someone comes up with a really, really good reason. Like, a lot better reason than any of the speculations they've thrown at us as of yet. One of the guys on Crossfire on the same episode, who came on after Ritter (I forget his name, but he was from defensecentral.com or somesuch, and an unrelenting hawk) came out blasting with a list of mostly incomprehensible accusations. The only one I caught was something about Ritter taking a payoff from the Iraqi government. Sounds most likely like BS to me, something someone made up to discredit a very persuasive opponent. Ritter himself admits to being the target of several FBI investigations, which he claims were launched on frivolous charges in retaliation for his anti-war stance. So can I be sure I can trust him? No. But after seeing the man in person and hearing what he has to say, I trust him further than I trust the whole Washington establishment put together. Good luck, Scott. | OK, so first, some background. I'm a student in Pennsylvania, formerly of Southern California. Politically, I'm not affiliated with any party. I think they all say some things that makes sense and some things that don't (in varying proportions, of course.) I'm closest to a Libertarian, but I think the Libertarian party takes it way too far - for example, I'm in favor of tough gun control and environmental laws. Further, I'm inclined to let states make pretty much whatever kind of crazy laws they want. I'm of the opinion that governments are supposed to guarantee freedom and justice, and while you can get a pretty solid definition of freedom, justice varies with the people. So, while only a big government with a lot of strength behind it can do a good job defending freedom, only a small government, closely linked to all those governed by it, can guarantee justice. If the people in state A don't like how things work in state B, they ought to voice their opinion on the matter and then be quiet, because if the people in state B didn't like the way state B worked, they'd move to state A (I think that made sense...) The one major exception I can think of is in the case of outright oppression by the law. Then we move into the whole big-government-protects-freedom-better thing I talked about, and it ought to do that. Civil Rights laws in the 60s come to mind. A big problem is that, as the phrase goes, power corrupts. The federal government has power. A lot of it. Unfortunately, it does what the Constitution was supposed to stop it from doing, which is use that power in whatever way seems to make sense at the time. As far as I can tell, the federal government was designed to have highly circumscribed authority to be used only in the case of national crisis when all other forms of recourse have failed. Now, people are more likely to petition the White House for something than to petition City Hall. What kind of sense does that make? And when you put the guys in Washington in that kind of position, and every act they take gives them an opportunity to insert some kind of cockamamie rider supporting their pet project, exactly how much discretion do you expect? They're going to do whatever they feel like, and they do. Like right now, the health insurance crisis. OK, condition one met, its a pretty big deal. But now they're saying they want a federal health insurance standard to override all the state ones. What kind of sense does that make? So, if a state is perfectly satisifed with what it has, or even better, is phasing in a plan that provides much better results than the white house plan, they can't use it because it's not Dubya approved? Guess what, George - no one asked your opinion. Environmental law is a more egregious example. Washington says that states can't impose fuel efficiency standards more strict than the federal ones on vehicles sold in their state. Why in the blue blazes not? The cars are being sold IN THEIR STATE! They ought to be able to set whatever kind of limits they want, and the record shows they would be if the white house wasn't blocking them at every turn. Federal hegemony allows special interests to spend a few mil in campaign donations in one place and own the whole country in return for their investment. That's why they set up a divided government - they knew centralized power was bad, so they reserved it only for emergencies. Wow, I was going there for a while. That's about it for now. Later. | This is my foray into blogging. Who knows whether this will be around in a month? Anyway, one I figure out how to work this crazy thing, I might actually start saying something, which may involve topics related to (but not limited to): - George "Dubya" Bush - Global Warming - How religion lost its way - The IRS - The INS - OMS - State/Federal Controversy - Affirmative Action - The word "tube" (I just like that word) So, either I'll see you again or, uh, I won't. Later. | |