The intersection of religion and politics really bothers me. Not necessarily because I disagree with anything they're saying, but because the way they say it makes me cringe. From the public sanctimony of GWB and Joe Lieberman to the newfound faux-religiousity of
Howard Dean, these guys just don't get it. They think religion is an all-or-nothing propostion. They think the world is split into pure secularists and religious fanatics, and they pick a side and then try to "reach out" to the other. Folks, it don't work that way. Any of these guys would benefit mightily from a high school level World Religion course. Maybe then they could see that "religion" is not some monolithic concept that you're either a part of or not. My guess here is that your average voter (not
all of them, but certainly
enough of them) isn't so much interested in having a President who shares their faith as having a President who understands and respects their faith. I think if a guy could walk into a church, mosque, synagogue or buddhist temple at will and discuss how their plans relate to the tenets of that faith, he'd be pretty much irresistable, despite the fact that such a candidate would obviously not be a believer in most, if not all, of those faiths. It seems to me that more people would vote for the candidate who they knew was willing to look at things from their perspective and disagree than the candidate who splits the world into us versus them. You can try to keep everybody happy by constantly shifting the bounds of "us" to fit whoever you're talking to, but eventually you have to fix the lines, or the press and the public will do it for you. Once those lines are carved in stone, it is is well-near guaranteed that compared to "them", your "us" will be a puny group indeed. It's just a matter of whether you picked a better one than the other fellow.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 12:58 AM
|
December 30, 2003, the day they appointed a
special prosecutor to investigate the Valerie Plame leak. John Ashcroft finally buckled under presure and recused himself from the investigation of the White House. It was rather difficult to accept that he could impartially and vigorously go after a group including the guy who gave him his job and the guy he hired to run his Senate campaign. Well, the ball's rolling now. Watergate started as the investigation of a minor break-in, and we all remember where the Whitewater investigations led. Once one of these guys gets rolling, he's going to find whatever there is to find; inquiring minds want to know exactly what that is.
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 4:26 PM
|
I think this one takes the cake. The FBI has
alerted cops around the country to watch out for people carrying... almanacs. Yes,
almanacs. The FBI points out that while possession of an almanac may be "the product of legitimate recreational or commercial activities," it also "may point to possible terrorist planning."
OK, no, we're not getting a little paranoid here or anything. This is totally normal! We
want our police to pull us over for carrying bloody
almanacs. How can we be safe if we don't all panic about EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. Please, protect me Big Brother! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! SHOE PRODUCTION IS UP!
God DAMN!
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 4:16 PM
|
Now that's just dumb. While Howard Dean's been attacking the Bush administration for holding secret meetings with power company executives to formulate the nation's energy policy, it turns out that while he was Governor of Vermont, Dean, uh,
held secret meetings with power company executives to formulate the state's energy policy. Now there are differences between the two situations, but he still looks like a moron accusing Bush of doing exactly what he's doing. Release the docs, Howie. Set an example.
Dean has also been getting a lot of flak lately for his
insistence that Osama bin Laden should have a trial before we decide what we do with him. The quote goes as follows:
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
Some have interpreted this as proof Dean is soft on terror. In fact, it's a thought I first had when President Bush declared that Osama should be executed. I thought, "since when do presidents get to play judge, jury, and executioner? I thought that's what we had the judges and juries for in the first place." Everyone, from suspected shoplifters whose convictions hang on a single officer's word to suspected mass murderers with a mountain of evidence supporting the allegations, gets a fair trial. I have faith that the judicial system will see him convicted and dealt with in a manner befitting his crimes. If Mr. Bush no longer trusts the courts to do justice, he must see our Constitution, the one he vowed to uphold, as unsuited to his vision of the future. If he no longer beleives in it, should he not resign his post to someone who does?
posted by Mr. Ripzaw at 11:25 PM
|
