Politics

Why the Blind Support?

by

Palestinian RubbleI have to admit that I don’t understand. I haven’t understood for a long time.

Why… why does the US always blindly support Israel no matter what it does?

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not suggesting that the actions of Hamas and the Palestinians have been any great representation of moral superiority… far from it… but Israel certainly is no better. I’ve heard people say that Israel is just protecting itself from Palestinian aggression, but the same has been said of the Palestinians (who certainly seem to have body count on their side of the argument).

Palestinians seem to have a reprehensible tendency to employ suicide bombings and somewhat random missile attacks (for which I’ll blame Hamas) which tend to predominantly kill and injure Israeli civilians. Israel tends to employ more targeted all-out military actions that kill dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians (including some civilians) and destroy buildings and homes with wanton abandon.

I cannot see how either antagonist in this conflict can, in good conscience, be supported, yet the United States continually and unequivocally sides with Israel. Yes, some officials call for bilateral cease fires and there are numerous impotent “peace plans” suggested and implemented, but all of them start from the assumption that Israel is the victim and deserves our unquestioning and unwavering support.

I fully admit that I am not as well versed in history as I could be in this matter, however I’ve been paying attention to the situation for some years now and I find both sides to be despicable. The history that I do know tells me that this entire situation is a petty religious conflict that has little to no possible chance of being resolved peacefully. Nor does it have a chance of being resolved militarily.

So why the support for Israel? Is it political fear of being painted as an anti-semite? Is it some sense of misplaced duty to uphold a 1947 United Nations resolution? Is it the lack of other allies in the region? Is it some ancient Biblical text promising the land to the Jews? I just don’t get it.

I’ve seen, read, and heard nothing that would justify the blind support of a country whose actions are just as disgraceful as those of their enemy.

Not the Best Approach

by

In Washington state, Olympia’s Legislative Building has a new display up for December along with a traditional Christmas display. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (of which I am a member) has been allowed to place an engraved sign for the month. The sign is in response to a religious group suing to be allowed to display a manger scene, which is now displayed in the building. The FFRF sign reads:

At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Now, while I usually fully support the endeavors of the FFRF and their actions that promote the separation of church and state, and I support the right to display this message when other religion-related displays are allowed, I just seem to think that the chosen wording was not the best choice.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the words and their meaning. I just think that it comes off as too confrontational and hostile to be of any benefit. It’s the type of wording that will elicit responses of equal or greater hostility. It immediately puts believers on the defensive. It immediately offends believers. It’s a negative message.

I think it would have been perfect if it would have glorified reason and the natural world without the second and fourth sentences. It could have touted the wonders of natural selection. It could have promoted freethinking and rationality. It could have lauded the benevolence and charity of the human spirit. Instead, it acts as a red hot poker of divisiveness.

The Foundation’s billboards and other signs do a better job of positive promotion. Their “Imagine No Religion” billboards and “Reason’s Greetings” billboards are perfect examples. Even the American Humanist Association’s ad that says “Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake.” doesn’t convey the same confrontational tone.

Getting people to think about religion and why they believe what they believe is key. I truly believe that most religious people don’t think about it… truly think about it. It’s something that has been ingrained in them since they were old enough to understand words and it’s taken for granted. Most religious “study” is study of the Bible or of other holy books… the theology… and doesn’t address whether the basic premise makes sense or not. Having people start thinking about it at that level is what will open minds.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s latest sign stops it from happening altogether.

So NOW what?

by

I watched Obama’s acceptance speech this morning and as he walked out onto the platform in front of 125,000 supporters in Chicago’s Grant Park, I joked with a co-worker that he’s walking out there thinking, “Wow… I won! OMG NOW WHAT?!?”

I doubt if he was actually thinking that, but that joke and an interview question that my niece asked me yesterday for her school project started my speculation. Now that Barack Obama won the election and will be President of the United States of America come January, what will happen?

My niece’s question was “What do you think will happen if Barack Obama becomes President?” My answer? “I think our standing in the international community would increase dramatically over the first few years.” That was all. She asked the same question about McCain. My answer was, “Nothing.”

I didn’t mean it as a negative against McCain. I don’t think any Presidential candidate can fulfill all the promises and plans made on the campaign trail. He may sincerely want to fulfill them, but when it comes right down to it, the President isn’t the “do’er.” He (or she) has influence (some more than others, obviously) and can help drive things in a certain direction, but it’s Congress who actually “does stuff” when it comes to domestic issues. The President can propose and he can shoot down.

However, the “Commander in Chief” controls the military and controls foreign policy (more or less). I believe that Obama will represent the United States positively to the rest of the world and based on world polls, the world believes that, too. That, in and of itself, will do more for national security than any amount of border control or military action or aggressive posturing, especially in the long run. Representing the United States with strong, positive leadership tempered with humility and a willingness to listen to others’ viewpoints will repair this country’s relationships and make it stronger and safer. I believe Obama can do that.

I’m not as sure about the heavily Democratic Congress, however, when it comes to domestic policy. I hope that Obama can bring any wildly left-wing proposals into the middle, but only time will tell. Up to this point, the gap between political parties has been fairly wide and the gap has gotten increasingly larger in the past 8 years, so hoping for a spontaneous “meet in the middle” would be somewhat naive. I do hope for a nudge in that direction, however… enough to get the ball rolling toward the middle area where it belongs. If Obama can get that to happen, I’d put a pretty big check mark in his “Success” column.

“Folksy” doesn’t belong in the White House

by
Say "nuclear"
Say "nuclear"

I’m dismayed by the number of people who seem to think that being “folksy” is a good qualification for a presidential or vice-presidential candidate. Being able to connect with people is one thing. Using slang, bad grammar, and incorrect pronunciations for common words is something altogether different. Comedians and television writers get damned good mileage from it, but do we really want it from our public officials?

Personally, I want someone smart in public office, especially in the office of President of the United States of America. When I say “smart,” I don’t just mean IQ. I mean having enough of an education to know how to speak in public, to use proper grammar, to pronounce common words correctly, to know enough about science to talk intelligently, to process information rationally, to negotiate effectively, to look at evidence objectively, and to know when to ask for help. There’s more to it than that, though. Someone “smart” understands that appearance matters… visually, audibly, and behaviorally.

Folksy appears uneducated. It probably doesn’t appear that way to uneducated people, but to anyone else (who has an ounce of honesty)… it does. However, everyone looks favorably upon well-spoken, even folksy people. Well-spoken doesn’t mean using big words, literary flourishes, clever allusions, and mythological references. It means having the ability to get your point across cleanly and clearly, using proper grammar and a relatively solid grasp of the English language. That doesn’t offend or alienate anyone.

That’s what I want in the office of President. We haven’t had it for 8 years now and, although McCain has it (or used to), his runner-up has precious little of it. Obama has it in abundance. Biden has it, too. When I visualize our president sitting down with other world leaders to discuss matters of global importance, I cringe to think of someone saying “new-cue-luhr” and “you betcha” and winking and stumbling over facts and simple scientific issues. If that happens, it reflects poorly on us as a country. It looks laughable. It looks farcical. It looks sad.

Culturally Moderate

by

I read a article today from The Washington Post’s E. J. Dionne Jr. about how Republicans are divided about the McCain/Palin ticket, which he attributes to a number of different causes. That aside, he also made the following statement.

Conservatism has finally crashed on problems for which its doctrines offered no solutions (the economic crisis foremost among them, thus Bush’s apostasy) and on its refusal to acknowledge that the ‘real America’ is more diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate than the place described in Palin’s speeches or imagined by the right-wing talk show hosts.

I don’t know about conservatism having “finally crashed” but I do agree about its refusal to acknowledge that America is more “diverse, pragmatic and culturally moderate” than what the right-wing seems to believe (even leaving out the absurd conservative caricatures of Limbaugh, Coulter, and the like).

I believe that moving too far from center on either side will have negative consequences. I don’t want Democrats controlling the Presidency and all of Congress any more than I want the Republicans controlling it all. There needs to be a balance… something that will force both sides to meet in the middle because, as we’ve seen before, if there’s nothing forcing them to do it, they won’t do it.

Mix it up.

by

I really would like Obama to win the presidency. If that happens, what I would also like is for Republicans to control at least one of the houses of Congress. Having the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives all controlled by the same party, either Democrat or Republican, is a bad thing, in my opinion. We should never have another “rubber stamp” Congress the way we did for the first six years of Bush’s term (on either side of the fence) since it tends to nullify the system of checks and balances that the Constitution lays out.

An even better solution would be to eliminate the party system altogether, but that’s not going to happen… and is perhaps a topic for another post.

Kudos to Joe

by

Joe Wurzelbacher, that is. He’s the “Joe the Plumber” of last night’s presidential debate fame. I’ve read about some of the interviews he’s given and I’m really impressed at the way he’s taking it. When asked about how he’ll be voting, he declined to say, but offered some words of wisdom.

I’m not telling anybody anything [about voting]. It’s a private booth. I want the American people to vote for who they want to vote for. I just want them to be informed.

He followed up with some words discounting his “celebrity” status.

I’m a flash in the pan, not a megastar. I’m not Matt Damon. I’m not any of those guys who have droves of women and men who want to be them or will vote for them because Matt Damon said so. I love his movies but I don’t have that kind of power.

Right now, I’m just completely flabbergasted by this whole thing and I’m sure if it happened to them they would be so, I just hope I’m not making too much of a fool of myself, and can get some kind of message out there, to watch actions and learn for yourself. Don’t take other peoples’ opinions. I mean, read it yourself.

He really comes off like a guy with a good head on his shoulders… well-spoken, humble, and intelligent. We need more people like him.

And no, Joe. You’re not making a fool of yourself. Cheers!

You’ve got to be kidding me.

by

I just watched a video on Fox News of a Sean Hannity interview with McCain and Palin. It had its share of the usual claims that you would expect from either party’s candidate during a campaign, so that was no surprise and was expected. Both McCain and Obama regularly make claims about the other that are misleading (and sometimes blatantly untrue).

What really struck me in this interview, though, was McCain’s statement that Palin is “probably one of the foremost experts in this nation on energy issues.” He backed that up by saying that she was responsible for a 40 billion dollar pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska and that she’s been on a board that oversees natural gas, oil, and other Alaskan resources. He says, “There’s nobody more qualified to take on our mission of becoming energy independence.” That’s not a typo. That was the quote.

I was dumbfounded by the claim that Palin is one of the foremost experts in this nation on energy issues. …Because she was the governor of Alaska? I suppose if you consider “energy” to be only oil and natural gas, that claim might not be quite so outrageous, but it’s still pretty far out there.

The 40 billion dollar pipeline claim is partially true, but misleading. She was partly responsible for moving the project closer to realization, but construction has not been started and the project isn’t a done deal yet. TransCanada, who is to be the builder, estimates that it will take 10 years to complete and will cost about 26.5 billion dollars, not 40 billion.

Either way, claiming that, because she’s been governor of Alaska, Palin is one of the leading experts in the country on energy is like saying that I have foreign policy experience because I can see Russia from my back yard.

Oh, wait…