Hey everybody (which probably means no one), sorry I haven't posted in a while. I was in a doozy (doozie?) of a car collision last week and I've been recovering. Also, I had to move back to Lawrence, so that took up some time.
A lot has happened since I left you. Karl Rove resigned, the multitude of presidential candidates all made some mistake, I'm sure. I really couldn't keep up with everything while I was in the hospital and moving my things.
I would like to turn this blog, if anyone reads it, into a discussion, so if anyone out there is reading...post away!
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Tough on Terror or...Military Solutions Are Not For Pussies
Pakistanis were in an uproar over the weekend after remarks made by two '08 candidates, crowd favorite Barack Obama and Colorado's resident racist, Tommy Tancredo.
Obama's statement supporting a possible military strike against al-Qaida inside Pakistan's borders, IF the intelligence supported it, ignited anti-U.S. sentiments among Islamic groups. These were further inflamed by Tancredo's solution for deterring a nuclear terrorist attack against the U.S.: threaten to bomb Islam's two most holy cities, Mecca and Medina. This is not the first of Tancredo's ridiculous statements during the few short months since the campaign started. He also supports deporting ALL illegal immigrants as soon as possible, and referred to Miami as a third-world nation.
While yes, Sen. Obama's view on the issue of strikes within Pakistan are a slight misstep on his part, by itself it is out of context with the rest of his foreign policy. Earlier this week he was attacked by Hillary Clinton again for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terrorism. Clinton claimed that "presidents never take the nuclear option off the table". Well they sure as hell should. If anyone fired a nuclear weapon, we would all be in a dire situation. America should lead the way to disarmament and be the first ones to take it off the table. Many could see Obama's hopes and goals as foolish and a pipe dream, but maybe thats what we need these days.
As for Tancredo. It is easy to understand, from his willingness to launch a strike against Mecca, that he is a nutjob. But it exposes a dangerous belief that is popular among the ignorant and the religious right. That is, that the actions of radical terrorist groups are rooted in the Islamic faith, that they hate America because we're a Christian nation, and that Muslims are our "enemy". All of this is fundamentally moronic. The actions of al-Qaida are politically motivated, admittedly fueled by a radical fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Their goals are not actually to destroy America or kill Christians, they are to unite the region's Islamic nations under the rule of a single caliphate.
In fact, many views about the motivations behind violence in the Middle East are similarly erroneous. I have heard it said that the Sunni-Shi'a conflict is "all about religion", which if you think about it, is ridiculous. They aren't yelling about the Prophet's nephew's being the true source of guidance whilst firing their Ak-47's. No, the conflict is more akin to the Rwandan genocide, in that the Sunnis, a minority in Iraq, were in power for the years leading up to their "liberation", and they were a bit on the oppressive side towards the majority Shi'as. Now that they have a majority-rule "government", the Sunnis feel threatened. True true, there are about a million other factors, but what it all boils down to is this: power. Political power through control of the government, oil fields, killing fields, whatever. Power feels good. And they both want it.
Sunni's don't hate Shi'as because they follow Imams, they're afraid of their power. Just like Muslims don't hate "us" because we're Christians, but aren't too fond of us for invading their countries and killing their kin.
Obama's statement supporting a possible military strike against al-Qaida inside Pakistan's borders, IF the intelligence supported it, ignited anti-U.S. sentiments among Islamic groups. These were further inflamed by Tancredo's solution for deterring a nuclear terrorist attack against the U.S.: threaten to bomb Islam's two most holy cities, Mecca and Medina. This is not the first of Tancredo's ridiculous statements during the few short months since the campaign started. He also supports deporting ALL illegal immigrants as soon as possible, and referred to Miami as a third-world nation.
While yes, Sen. Obama's view on the issue of strikes within Pakistan are a slight misstep on his part, by itself it is out of context with the rest of his foreign policy. Earlier this week he was attacked by Hillary Clinton again for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terrorism. Clinton claimed that "presidents never take the nuclear option off the table". Well they sure as hell should. If anyone fired a nuclear weapon, we would all be in a dire situation. America should lead the way to disarmament and be the first ones to take it off the table. Many could see Obama's hopes and goals as foolish and a pipe dream, but maybe thats what we need these days.
As for Tancredo. It is easy to understand, from his willingness to launch a strike against Mecca, that he is a nutjob. But it exposes a dangerous belief that is popular among the ignorant and the religious right. That is, that the actions of radical terrorist groups are rooted in the Islamic faith, that they hate America because we're a Christian nation, and that Muslims are our "enemy". All of this is fundamentally moronic. The actions of al-Qaida are politically motivated, admittedly fueled by a radical fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Their goals are not actually to destroy America or kill Christians, they are to unite the region's Islamic nations under the rule of a single caliphate.
In fact, many views about the motivations behind violence in the Middle East are similarly erroneous. I have heard it said that the Sunni-Shi'a conflict is "all about religion", which if you think about it, is ridiculous. They aren't yelling about the Prophet's nephew's being the true source of guidance whilst firing their Ak-47's. No, the conflict is more akin to the Rwandan genocide, in that the Sunnis, a minority in Iraq, were in power for the years leading up to their "liberation", and they were a bit on the oppressive side towards the majority Shi'as. Now that they have a majority-rule "government", the Sunnis feel threatened. True true, there are about a million other factors, but what it all boils down to is this: power. Political power through control of the government, oil fields, killing fields, whatever. Power feels good. And they both want it.
Sunni's don't hate Shi'as because they follow Imams, they're afraid of their power. Just like Muslims don't hate "us" because we're Christians, but aren't too fond of us for invading their countries and killing their kin.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Grand Ole' Party Line or...Woes in the Home State
Just the other day, the Kansas Republican Party announced the formation of "loyalty commitees" which would investigate and sanction Party officials that publicly suppport or contribute money to non-Republican candidates. Those found in violation of this new rule would be stripped of their office. The state's GOP executive director stated that, "The motive behind this is, let's make sure Republicans are supporting Republicans."
The Kansas GOP leadership is dominated excessively by conservative extremists, and these committees only serve to further alienate the disaffected Republican moderates. The idea of this "loyalty committee" is to enforce strict adherence to Party lines, which can only hurt our democratic process. This is continuing the trend of voting based solely on party loyalities instead of actual issues. However, it doesn't seem unusual in a party whose current incarnation is nothing at all like its traditional roots. The extreme Christian right is seeking to edge the traditional Republican moderates out of the party, so as to have control over the dominant party in Kansas. Dissenting party officials would be stripped of their positions, but so what? If their own party would do that to them, then maybe it isn't the place for them, as it has become warped beyond recognition. Any ousted Republicans, feel free to join the Democrats, or even become Independents. And start voting your conscience, not your party lines. Same goes for everyone else.
In other Kansas-related news, Senator and Presidential hopeful Sam Brownback was in Iowa yesterday, campaigning for the job he will never get. He told Iowans that their was a path to victory in Iraq, and that if we left there, it would become a haven for al-Qaida and a failed state. Moving words from an intelligent guy, if it wasn't what all the other Republicans were saying. There is nothing to make Brownback stand out from the rest of the herd, except maybe his naivete. Also, the Senator went to a firing range with some good ol' boys and shot off a few assualt rifles, saying that he would not allow our Second Amendment rights to be infringed upon. I think we've gone here before. Brownback said that no new gun regulations should be created, but the ones already in place should be enforced. Which ones Sammie? How about bringing back that Brady Bill that your Republican buddies failed to renew, giving potential criminals access to the kind of guns you went and shot off on your silly vacation?
See why Kansas gets represented the way it does?
Anyways, wrapping it up. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a hopeful Gonzales impeachment.
The Kansas GOP leadership is dominated excessively by conservative extremists, and these committees only serve to further alienate the disaffected Republican moderates. The idea of this "loyalty committee" is to enforce strict adherence to Party lines, which can only hurt our democratic process. This is continuing the trend of voting based solely on party loyalities instead of actual issues. However, it doesn't seem unusual in a party whose current incarnation is nothing at all like its traditional roots. The extreme Christian right is seeking to edge the traditional Republican moderates out of the party, so as to have control over the dominant party in Kansas. Dissenting party officials would be stripped of their positions, but so what? If their own party would do that to them, then maybe it isn't the place for them, as it has become warped beyond recognition. Any ousted Republicans, feel free to join the Democrats, or even become Independents. And start voting your conscience, not your party lines. Same goes for everyone else.
In other Kansas-related news, Senator and Presidential hopeful Sam Brownback was in Iowa yesterday, campaigning for the job he will never get. He told Iowans that their was a path to victory in Iraq, and that if we left there, it would become a haven for al-Qaida and a failed state. Moving words from an intelligent guy, if it wasn't what all the other Republicans were saying. There is nothing to make Brownback stand out from the rest of the herd, except maybe his naivete. Also, the Senator went to a firing range with some good ol' boys and shot off a few assualt rifles, saying that he would not allow our Second Amendment rights to be infringed upon. I think we've gone here before. Brownback said that no new gun regulations should be created, but the ones already in place should be enforced. Which ones Sammie? How about bringing back that Brady Bill that your Republican buddies failed to renew, giving potential criminals access to the kind of guns you went and shot off on your silly vacation?
See why Kansas gets represented the way it does?
Anyways, wrapping it up. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a hopeful Gonzales impeachment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
