Patriotism

So I was just in a little conversation on a message board recently about the nature of patriotism, and it got me thinking. Bear with me here for a little bit.

There's a lot of people who feel very strongly that patriotism should be taught. They feel that "American" virtues (whatever that means) should be instilled in their children just like knowledge of spelling, grammar, and mathematics. They should know the Pledge of Allegiance by heart (even though most people, I believe, don't really know what it says or means, just like the Lord's Prayer; it's just said by rote now), they should automatically stand and remove their hat the the first hint of the Star Spangled Banner, and they should start chants of "USA! USA!" whenever they feel like it (Ok, that last one may be stretching it, but not too much). But is this really patriotism?

Is someone who's told to be proud of their country really proud of their country? Or are they just doing what they were told when they were young and not questioning it? The same argument, I feel, could be made for religion, though I won't go into that now. How can you claim patriotism as a part of yourself, as one of your virtues, unless you've come to it on your own terms?

And the incorporation of all these symbols in expressing patriotism is just silly, in my opinion. Just because your lapel has an American flag doesn't mean that you're more American than I am. Just because both doors AND the antenna of your SUV have American flags on them (along with the "These Colors Don't Run" bumper sticker, most likely) doesn't make you more American, more patriotic than me. I know more than just the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner (how many people do you figure know that there's more than one?). I know all the words to "God Bless America" (Hint: the song doesn't start with "God bless America..."). I know all the verses to "America the Beautiful," "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." They even choke me up, on occasion, if I'm thinking of the right thing. I've sang a solo in an Irving Berlin medley at the Convention of the Daughters of the American Revolution. I have a t-shirt with no sleeves that has a flag on it and says "United We Stand." Am I more patriotic than most other people I know?

Ann Coulter would say yes.

I say no.

Fargus...

Lafayette/Lehigh

Hey, all. Sorry for not posting for a little while. I'm afraid it'll be a little while longer, probably, but I just wanted to say that the reason I didn't post was because I was gone for Lafayette/Lehigh (which we won, I hear!). If anyone has any stories from the weekend involving me, please let me know. Thanks a lot!

Fargus...

Indecency?

ABC may be receiving a fine from the FCC for a recent opening to an episode of Monday Night Football which featured Nicollette Sheridan's naked back. Notice I did not say backside, in which case there may be a legitimate complaint. No, it was her back. And unless she's one of those rare people who have breasts in the front and the back, I don't see what the big fuss is. The story's here.

And the evangelicals, once again, say they're not trying to take over the country. They show all the violence they want, nearly to the point of showing a Marine executing an Iraqi laying defenseless on the ground in Fallujah, but one naked back and everyone's all aflutter.

In my mind, the Janet Jackson incident makes this one look like nothing. Wait, no, that's not right. It's nothing regardless of the context which you place it in. This is getting pathetic.

Fargus...

O Canada?

CNN's got a story here which says basically that a number of Canadians, including immigration lawyers and some Canadian businesses are actively trying to encourage Americans dissatisfied with the election to come live in Canada.

WHY MOVE TO CANADA?

Reasons to move to Canada, as cited by www.canadianalternative.com:

1. Canada has universal public health care.
2. Canada has no troops in Iraq.
3. Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol environmental treaty.
4. More than half of Canada's provinces allow same-sex marriage.
5. The Canadian Senate recommends legalizing marijuana.
6. Canada has no law restricting abortion.
7. Canada has strict gun laws and relatively little violence.
8. The United Nations has ranked Canada the best country to live in for eight consecutive years.
9. Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976.
10. Canada has not run a federal deficit since 1996-97.

Looks to me like they're not going for the Red Staters, huh?

Fargus...

Colin Powell resigns

So it begins. Here's a story from FOXNews about Colin Powell's resignation. This is a little scary, to me. Powell is a good guy, by my estimation, and he helped to at least give the appearance of balancing out the Bush cabinet. Now with this "mandate," who's to say who's going to come in to fill the void? I mean, there's talks that Condi Rice might pick up as Secretary of State, but then who would step in as National Security Adviser? Seems to me that it'd probably be somebody pretty damn far from the center of the political spectrum.

Evidently, as CNN just told me (the TV version.....sorry no link), Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham is resigning as well. My guess is that that Cabinet post will be split up among the members of the board of directors of Halliburton. They have a "mandate," they don't have to be secretive about it anymore.

Anyway, that's about it for now. More later.

Fargus...

EDIT: Word is that Rod Paige (Secretary of Education) is expected to confirm his resignation today as well, along with one more who's as-yet-unknown.

The Filibuster Rule

I found this article which describes pretty well the history of the filibuster in the US Senate. It used to be a two-thirds majority of the entire Senate (67 Senators at any time) were needed to break a filibuster, and then it was reduced to two thirds of Senators present, and it's now been reduced to three-fifths of Senators present (the Democrats has damn well better make sure none of them call in sick those days). And I apologize for the previous post, as well. Where I said "Congress," it should read just "Senate."

Fargus...

Republicans Gone Wild

Maybe you know, maybe you don't, about the policy of the government concerning the appointment of Supreme Court Justices in the event of a vacant seat. The President presents his picks to the Congress. Congress then debates and has the power to confirm or deny the appointment. In the Senate, though, a Senator can filibuster a motion to stop it from going through. This process just entails them getting up there and saying whatever they want, to fill time, so that the session will come closer to expiring before the filibuster is broken. It takes only 40 of 100 votes to hold up a filibuster, and the Democrats have done it to 10 of Bush's federal court nominees in the past.

Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader, has come out and said that this has to stop. Here's the article. He's said, "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end." It's not surprising to hear the guy coming out in support of his President's appointments. What is a little surprising, and what makes me a little uneasy, is the "One way or another" line. It's like an at-all-costs, end-justifies-the-means type of thing. He's hinted that he's in favor of an actual change in the rules of the Senate that would prevent such filibustering in the future.

Now I'm no great fan of filibustering (besides that in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington...ever see that flick? Jimmy Stewart is the man!), but I think that it's dangerous for the Republicans to try to push their "mandate" so far that they feel they have the right to change the rules in such a way to quash opposition to their own views. Pah. Pah, I say. These are important issues, and there's a reason why a minority is allowed to have the power to delay them. Like I said, I'd be pissed if I got filibustered, but I can understand why the rule is there (and by the way, the fact that the filibuster rule is in place is evidence that 40% of a vote is a valuable enough portion of the population to merit some respect.....how much of the vote did Kerry get again? Mandate, what?). Anyway, that's my take.

Fargus...

Ass-croft

Boy, ain't it good to know that Ashcroft isn't gonna let his Attorney General-ship fade softly into the night? Here's an article in which the man basically blasts all the judges who "second-guessed" the President's (and Administration's, implicitly) decisions concerning the prisoners of war in the "War on Terror." He calls them "activists," which evidently has become Republican-speak in the last few years for "people who don't agree with us." This, if I may take an aside for a second, brings us back to the whole issue of the conservatives' innate ability to redefine words (liberal, Democrat, freedom, "right," etc.) not just for themselves, but for society at large.

There shouldn't be a negative connotation to the word "activist," if you think about it. An activist should be thought of as someone who's passionate about a cause and runs with it. By Bush & Co.'s own definition, I guess we should now refer to the "activist" Catholic church, trying to push their abortion agenda.

Anyway, as I was saying, it's the right of the judicial branch of the government to operate autonomously. It's a separate but equal branch of the American government. One of three, in case Ashcroft has forgotten. During times of war, no branch becomes subordinate to any other branch. Never have, never will (I hope I hope I hope).

Fargus...

Global stem cell ban

I just read this on CNN.com about how the US is trying to push a global ban on stem-cell research and embryonic cloning. That's right, let that word sink in. Global. Made me a little scared, personally. And to think, people are saying that evangelical Christians aren't trying to take over the country. Well, I don't have much to say about this now. I think that, if you've heard me talk or read me writing (am I a pirate now?), my position on this would be self-explanatory.

Fargus...

The implications

Ok, so now that I've had some time to process what happened on Tuesday, I guess I'm ready to give my cogent analysis of what's going to happen between now and 2008.

• The Supreme Court

There's a hell of a lot of spots potentially opening up, and despite what was said in one of the debates, I doubt like crazy that Bush doesn't have a "litmus test" for his appointees. He says that he wants candidates who interpret the constitution, but what's coming out of the other side of his mouth when he says that is nearly audible, it's so clear. He wants candidates who interpret the constitution in ways that agree with his own views. Anybody else is an "activist." Say what you will, everybody's got to admit that Kerry was very honest in his admission that he would not appoint a judge who would outlaw abortion, which was in his mind a constitutional right.

• Legislation

With a clearer majority in both houses of Congress on the part of the Republicans, prepare to see a lot of bold legislation pushed through. Not only do they hold a clearer majority, but a lot of the Democratic senators and representatives are not by any stretch "liberal," and would be much more likely to cross party lines than would the conservative majority. There's already been a push for an amendment which would allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be President of the United States. Well, the amendment would technically allow anybody who'd been a citizen for a certain number of years to run for President, but let's be honest--it's clearly designed for the Terminator. Prepare to see ANWR opened up for drilling, I'd think, as well. The Senate doesn't have a clear enough majority to block filibustering on judicial appointments, but they're getting there.

• 2008

Already? Of course. Commentators started talking about the Presidential race in 2008 by the time it was the morning of November 3rd. I haven't the foggiest who the Democrats will run, but it had better not be Hillary Clinton. If she's the party's only hope, then we're in a lot bigger trouble than we ever thought. More likely to win would be a Southern or Midwestern governor, like Tom Vilsack of Iowa, or Brad Henry of Oklahoma, though I don't know if either of them (among others) have presidential aspirations. Vilsack was on the short list of consideration for Veep candidates in 2004, so his name's floating already.

As for the Republicans, I could see it possibly getting ugly. Giuliani and McCain are the two powerhouse names of the party, and they've been busy posturing themselves for it. I think that the current ultra-conservative administration would like a candidate who more clearly represents the logical progression from their own viewpoints (Giuliani and McCain are by far not toeing the party line on all issues), but I think they'd probably win out in the primaries due to their big name status and popularity. The ultra-cons would love to have somebody like Bill Owens of Colorado, for example, or maybe Jeb Bush (no matter what he says) to uphold not just the ideological dynasty, but the family dynasty (his son George Prescott Bush could be next, as well as being the first Hispanic President). If the non-US-citizen amendment were to pass, I'd think that Arnie'd probably win in a pretty big way, due to his big name and popularity, but the ultra-cons wouldn't like having someone in office who is, truly, a social liberal. I think that his name would distract even the Southerners and Midwesterners from that pesky issue, though.

• 2006

I think that the outcome of the midterm elections will depend on whether the ultra-cons try for their overreach immediately, or in the last two years of their term. If they hold back for the first two years, they stand to gain substantially in the 2006 elections, I'd think, and then they could go for the glory between '06 and '08. If they can pretend toward bipartisanship for two years, they might even be able to get the 60 votes in the Senate needed to break a filibuster (if they don't just abolish that rule first). But I don't think they've got that patience, personally. The only question is whether the backlash reaction to the inevitable conservative overreach will come in 2006, 2008, or later, once we've realized that it's going to take a lot of work to pull America anywhere close to the center again.

Cheers,

Fargus...

The Election -- What Else?!

So it's over. Months and years of campaigning, billions of dollars spent, and all for it to be over in less than a day. I'm not saying I'm not relieved that it is over, but there is a strange sense of emptiness in me, as though I'm not quite sure what will fill the void that this race has left in my thinking for the last few months; it also seemed a lot darker than I remember as I was out walking tonight.

There are lots of thoughts swirling through my head about this right now, but I'll try to sort it out to the few that I think are important.

• The swing states

Anyone else a little surprised to see Florida and Ohio (the "Florida" of 2000 and of 2004, respectively, so they were projecting) be not nearly so close as all the analysts throught? I figured that the networks were going to be a lot more careful this time than they were last time, especially with the potential swing states, but that didn't turn out to really mean a lot, did it? It just meant that they'd be careful with Ohio and Florida even when it was obvious to a five-year-old that they'd been taken by Bush.

• The turnout

To be honest, I felt a little bit betrayed on behalf of the entire part of the country which trusted that people cared enough to get out there and vote. I'll admit that early on in the night, when they were projecting that they thought 120 million people would vote, I was a bit quick to say that I wouldn't be surprised if even more got out there to vote. I wouldn't have been surprised to see a turnout of 130 million, but then again, I'm no political expert. It's been said that now, all of a sudden, it's not "cool" to be apathetic, but it appears to be only a little less cool than it was before. The youth didn't get out in the numbers that they should have (keep in mind, I'm saying this in regards to the youth at large, not just in their capacity as majority Kerry voters). I know people who didn't vote just because they didn't apply for their absentee ballots quite in time, and that's no excuse, in my mind. These are people who know about and care about the issues, and their apathy kept them from being counted again. I have no doubt that my few friends were not the only ones in such a position.

• The chances, the polls, and "the fight"

I feel like the polls leading up to the presidency didn't mean a thing, and like this election should indicate that more than anything to us. Zogby and Gallup were like our crack and heroin for months, but in the end they didn't mean anything. I thought that Kerry had a good chance because it was the way I felt in my mind, not just from watching the polls. I thought that for the same reason that I thought the turnout would blow me away. But no matter what's said, Bush won a clear majority of the electoral college, and a clear majority (not just a plurality) of the popular vote. As such, I don't think a fight would have been worth it (not to mention the fact that there were no states close enough to swing it for him). In 2000, it was close enough for both sides to be justified in the fight, especially since Gore had only a plurality, and not the clout of a majority.

• The summary

So where does this leave me? I'm pretty happy that the thing's over without a lengthy legal battle, no matter what the outcome. I'm glad that a precedent hasn't been set for elections like 2000's becoming the norm. I'm a little bit scared to see what's going to happen in the next four years. If the last four years were what Dubya did when he didn't have a "mandate" and when he had to worry about re-election, I'm pretty apprehensive about the possibilities until 2008. There are judicial seats opening up which will be filled by Bush, and there's still a war going on (not to mention a certain Doctrine to apply). I would not be surprised to see many things over the next four years, including:

• Roe v. Wade overturned
• Conflict in Iran, Syria, or North Korea
• Constitutional amendment allowing Arnold Schwarzenegger to be President
• Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (unlikely, but wouldn't surprise me)

Especially with the new clear majority in the Congress, there'll be less impediments to getting any of these wedge issues passed. Conservatives are gaining the momentum to make a "change of mind" a pretty uncomfortable proposition for the forseeable future. Say, for instance, the tax cuts are made permanent, and then the country trends liberal in 20 years. It's going to be awfully hard to do anything about that, even if the politicians want to. Or even if the people want to. That's just an example, though. One of the scariest things, I think, is the clear conservative majority that'll be enjoyed in the Supreme Court. "Morals" and "values" are being championed, and as such, a lot of the personal freedoms that religious zealots have crusaded against are going to be in danger in the next four years.

Anyway, that's all I've got right now. I'll be back later. Leave some comments, dammit.

Fargus...

Iraqi troops dead

So 49 of the recently "trained" Iraqi forces were killed execution-style the other day. This gives me a lot of faith that their training was executed pretty well (sorry for the sarcasm there). But for real, the message that this has to send is that the insurgents are strong. Stronger than we may have thought, perhaps, and certainly stronger than the trained Iraqis.

I just read this article, which was a bit surprising to me. In it, Prime Minister Allawi blamed the US-led coalition for the massacre. I'd thought that Allawi would hesitate to be so critical of the US, but he certainly hasn't been. More than showing some nuance to the Prime Minister's position, though, I think that this shows that we can't go on deluding ourselves anymore. The situation in Iraq is far from sunny, as the conservatives would seem to like to claim (just turn on FOX News sometime, and they'll tell you about how the media overrepresents the bad things that happen). I've thought that for a long time, but part of Bush's claim was that Iraqi forces were being trained to take over for the coalition forces. This makes that argument moot, in my humble opinion, since these Iraqi forces were hardly effective in stopping the insurgents.

It frustrates me just a little bit that I'm making an argument that amounts to "things aren't as great in Iraq as they say." It's ridiculous for me just to type that, but Bush keeps saying that "freedom is on the march," talking about how good things are for the Iraqis now, so this kind of stuff has got to be brought up.

Anyway, that's all I've got for now.

Fargus...

Fox News Part II

Just a quick one here. I was watching DaySide with Linda Vester on FOX News today, and they had a little discussion about how nasty the negative campaigning is this election season. They then went on to talk about a few examples of local ads that we may not have seen, but that were terrible. I expected to see one from each side, as Linda had used the term "fair and balanced" herself earlier in the show, but alas, I was to be disappointed. There was one advertisement about Democratic allegations of Republican voter suppression of minorities. It was a bad ad, to be sure, and didn't really deserve a place in the political forum. But the other advertisement was a negative advertisement by Democrats against a Republican congresswoman where it depicted, among other things, her stealing a watch from a corpse. Terrible advertisement, of course, and again, not deserving of a spot in the public discourse; but you couldn't help but leave the program with the impression that Republicans are being unfairly discriminated against by Democrats, and that they haven't put out any nasty ads themselves. Love it.

Fargus...

Bush & the draft?

Now that you've read the title, let me begin with a caveat. I don't think that another Bush administration would necessitate a draft. With that said, though, I've got a few things on my mind that worry me, in that regard.

Conservatives charge that it's only been liberals who have brought up the draft in this election year, and only as a cheap political trick. I'll admit that that's mostly true; the part that I disagree with is the implications behind the words "cheap political trick." I've been paying a hell of a lot of attention to everything going on in the election this year, as I haven't in years past, and what I've seen is this: Kerry has stated his plan to expand the Armed Forces so that we don't have to rely so much on reservists, and so that we can have reserve forces again, barring any kind of unforeseen necessity for them. I haven't heard the same type of plan from the Bush team. It's been commonly acknowledged, seems to me, that the troops are stretched pretty thin now, even though they have performed quite well. I've heard from Bush that he will not reinstate the draft, but I haven't heard his alternate plan.

I agree that the draft was brought up by Democrats, but I think that it's a legitimate thing to think about. In the absence of a clear alternative, and facing what seems like the possibility of an extended occupation of Iraq, what other thought are people supposed to have than that the draft is a possibility? Both candidates have charged that they are the best way to avoid a draft, but that's just posturing, trying to get the young vote. CNN's got an article on it here.

But there's bigger issues going on here. One is that Bush has long criticized Kerry's "strategy of retreat" in Iraq, but he recently said this: there will be no longtime troops in Iraq. That seems like the beginning of talking about withdrawl of troops, at least without having to "flip-flop" and say that it's part of his strategy. It's just his prediction at this point, but it gives Bush the added bonus of getting to seem like his administration is going to start getting out of Iraq. Especially as polls indicate increasing uneasiness about the war.

Here's the other thing I want to talk about, though. People haven't had to make any real sacrifice for this "war." I'm not talking about the troops, because we've lost over 1100 of them now. Of course that's a sacrifice. But beyond them, the average person in the United States hasn't had to give up anything. They get to express the righteous indignation of a nation at war, and then their taxes go down. Lord forbid we should have to surrender more of our money to support a cause which is so "right." I can't remember exactly where off the top of my head, but I recently read that support of the Iraq war goes down drastically, in the same poll, when the respondents are asked if they would feel the same way if their child were in the war, or if they had to make a personal sacrifice in any way.

People alive during World War II were all making sacrifices for their country. Everyone mobilized to help the war effort, and everyone had the right to feel good about themselves, because everyone was helping. But now we've got a whole class of people who feel good about themselves for just agreeing with the war. There is no sacrifice in our country. We are not a "nation at war." This has not come home to us, I think, and until it does, we've got a bunch of blowhards talking about the rightness of the liberation of Iraq without having to think about what they'd be willing to give to liberate the people of Iraq.

Fargus...

(Un) Fair and Balanced

So here's something interesting. I was watching television this afternoon, and I turned to FOX News, because I love watching Dayside with Linda Vester (it makes me chuckle and shake my head), but the programming was pre-empted by a Bush campaign speech right here in New Jersey. FOX covered the speech for about 50 minutes (so far as I saw), and then cut it off when it was getting toward wrapping up. They then "interviewed" former U.N. ambassador Dick Holbrooke about the speech. The "interview" basically consisted of a pretty blonde lady quoting Bush's speech in the guise of asking questions, and Holbrooke called her out on it.

The interesting part, though, came when Kerry's speech came on, just about five minutes later. FOX understandably didn't feel the need to cover the opening platitudes of Kerry thanking the town of Tampa for hosting him, etc. They took a quick commercial break at that point, and so I turned to CNN and MSNBC, which were both also covering the speech. After a while, I turned back to FOX, and I saw that they had preempted Kerry's speech for a program about electronic voting machines in Florida. Kerry was still speaking about taxes and health care on CNN and MSNBC (in an admirable attempt, I think, to keep at least some of the public debate on his own terms), but FOX deemed it not important enough to cover.

I watched some more of the speech upstairs and then turned it off and checked in on my roommate, who was watching it downstairs. He was a bit incredulous that FOX had cut to commercial in the middle of the speech, as he just noticed (he'd been watching CNN also). We stayed on FOX until the end of the commercial, and instead of returning to Kerry's speech, they cut to a special report on the latest tribe member to be voted off of Survivor, complete with an in-studio interview.

Now this isn't a rant about the primacy of entertainment over the important issues that news channels should be covering, though there's a case to be made for that. Nor is it a case about how terrible reality television and our obsession with it can be, though there's certainly a case to be made for that. No, what really stuck in my craw was that FOX chose to cover Bush's speech nearly in its entirety, but cut Kerry off after a fairly short time. Both were campaign speeches, and FOX seemingly declared its own political endorsement loud and clear by letting everyone know that while Bush deserved a lot of coverage, Kerry isn't quite as important as an exclusive interview with the latest dude to get voted off of Survivor.

Ridiculous, huh?

Fargus...

Voting for Kerry Is a Sin

I'm a little late with posting this one, as it was covered in the debate on Wednesday, but it came back into my mind and I thought I'd vent on it a little bit. As reported in this article, there have been a couple of outspoken Catholic bishops in the United States who have called on their flocks, telling them that the issue of abortion forces them not to vote for Senator Kerry. They claim that abortion is a "foundational issue," and that since Senator Kerry supports the right of a woman to choose, there is only one way that a true Catholic can vote with a clear conscience. They go so far as to say that a vote for Kerry would have to be taken to confession before receiving communion (this is not even to mention the church officials that were trying to deny Kerry the right to take communion).

This is just sick, frankly, and it makes me sick with religion at large, even though this is just one facet of one part of one faith. There is a clear separation of church and state in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So there's some ways to interpret that, right? Some would view it as an entire separation of church and state. I'd like to think about the people who don't, though. What's implicit in it, no matter how you view it, is this: churches are free to practice however they wish, but the state can't choose one and claim it as the United States' official religion. It's where you go from there that's the problem. People who would like church and state to be absolutely separate see this as creating two different public spheres which should not interact with one another. But it doesn't necessarily state that in the amendment.

I feel like the people who would like more religion in the public sphere can make a valid argument based on the wording of the amendment, though I don't like it very much. The amendment clearly states that the state may not do anything respecting an establishment of religion, but it does not say that an establishment of religion may not try to influence the state. In fact, if you look on, people also have the right "to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Now here's where the truly sticky part comes in. Redress of grievances, huh? Grievances are inherently subjective things. What may offend one may be completely fine to another, but that doesn't inhibit the right of the offended to petition for a redress of those perceived grievances. People have the right to request redress for grievances, and people have the right to assemble in/as religious institutions; as such, it seems that people have the right to assemble and, as a religious institution, request redress for grievances.

So what? Well, it seems to me, much as I don't like it, that the first amendment guarantees that the Congress won't explicitly favor one religion over another; but the amendment doesn't stop any religion from getting involved in public affairs where they feel that there is an issue to address, a wrong to be righted. As a purely constitutional argument, I think that the bishops who have spoken out against Kerry are entirely within bounds, as they're entirely within bounds to try to influence the government to outlaw abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage. The Catholic church sees those issues as grievances with which it has taken offense, and it is exercising its first amendment right to request redress for those grievances.

But is it right? I'm not saying that it's always wrong to go against the will of the people, because I happen to agree that sometimes the government needs to step in, lay the smack down, and say, "Enough is enough." Slavery, civil rights, gay marriage (hopefully before too long), etc. These are issues (excluding the last for now) on which the government had to make unpopular decisions because they realized that it was the right thing to do. They knew that eventually people would come around, and that in the meantime, sadly, they could not necessarily be trusted to be left to their own devices. Such misplaced trust would have resulted in the violation of Constitutional rights for other citizens of the country, and that could not be tolerated.

Is it right for these bishops to discourage voters from voting their conscience? Is it right for them to encourage more of the blind following that earns them criticism and rebuke all the time? Is it right for them to place a single issue at the forefront and ignore all others? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!" I'm not a very religious person; I have, in fact, struggled for years with my own beliefs, and I'm still not sure where I stand. But the more of this kind of thing I see, the less I'm inclined to want to align myself with anything close to it. Religion can be a great thing for people if they let it. It can be comforting, it can be beautiful, and as a complement to your own conscience and views, it can give you the feeling that there's something more out there that you're a part of, and that comforts a lot of people. The only problem is that many people don't want to view religion as a complement to their own conscience and views. Many people think that religion should dominate every facet of their lives. Their consciences don't matter, and their unfettered views don't matter either; if it's what some dude tells them God wants, then that's what it is.

I'm a little disheartened by the fact that the question of faith was so prominent in the third Presidential Debate; I'm a little more disheartened by the fact that Kerry seemed to feel that he had to pander and tell the world that his faith is important in every decision he makes. It may be true, but what's wrong with having a strong conscience instead of a strong external guiding hand?

Fargus...

The ongoing Sinclair Saga

So, as you may all know, the chair of the FCC has recently said that they won't do anything to block the Sinclair Broadcast Group from airing Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the anti-Kerry movie from the SBV boys. There's a CNN article about it here. But here's the thing. Guess who the chairman of the FCC happens to be? None other than Michael Powell, son of George W. Bush's Secretary of State! I'm not a detractor of Colin Powell; I like the guy, in fact. But might there be a slight conflict of interest going on at the FCC because of this? I feel like the answer speaks for itself.

In related news, the Kerry campaign is now demanding equal time on the Sinclair stations in an attempt to at least get their side heard. Since the FCC has refused to do anything about this, the campaign has had no choice but to attempt to play ball with Sinclair. But they're not going to play by Sinclair's rules and submit Senator Kerry to a silly interview with the Sinclair people; they're looking to air their own 45-minute spot on the Sinclair affiliates directly after the SBV movie.

I don't like it. I don't like any of it. I don't like that a person related to the Bush campaign has the ultimate say in whether the FCC is going to do anything about this travesty, but there's nothing to do about that. I don't like that the Kerry campaign has to respond, but the Kerry campaign has to respond. There's nothing to do about that, either.

Bah.

Fargus...

Stewart on Crossfire UPDATE!!

Hey, y'all. I just found the rush transcript for the Stewart Crossfire appearance. Here it is.

EDIT (3:26 pm, 10/16/04): Here's an outstanding article on Stewart's appearance, courtesy of MTV.com.

Fargus...

Jon Stewart on Crossfire

I think I just saw what was one of the most simultaneously wonderful, horrifying, jaw-dropping, amazing telecasts I've seen in recent memory. Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show (as y'all already know, I'm sure), appeared on CNN's Crossfire today at 4:30 pm EST, alongside hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala. As you should know, I'm a huge fan of The Daily Show, and I think that (as has been said all over the place) Jon Stewart is one of the most influential media figures in the current presidential campaign. That's a lot to say for a fake news man.

Thing is, though, when I say it, I mean it. I think that a lot of the "mainstream" media, like Bill O'Reilly and the dudes on Crossfire, are willing to acknowledge Stewart and The Daily Show as influential, they view it as a pretty sad state of affairs. Bill O'Reilly's comments on the stoned slackers seemed intended to minimize the audience of The Daily Show, though O'Reilly effectively apologized for his remarks later, claiming (and I believe him) that he intended the remarks in jest. Apologies notwithstanding, though, there's an undercurrent that if a "news" show like The Daily Show can be so popular, then its audience must be on something. My own personal opinion is that Stewart and his writers and correspondents on Comedy Central offer a lot of biting insight into the absurdity that's present in the system. People don't just like it because it's funny. They like it because it's relevant.

But I digress. As I said, Stewart appeared on Crossfire today, between Begala and Carlson, and he took aim directly at the U.S. media and their political coverage. Surprisingly enough, he took aim specifically at Crossfire, the show on which he was appearing. He talked about such shows as Crossfire, Hardball, and "I'm Gonna Kick Your Ass" as being dishonest when they claimed to be offering actual debate. His target was the sorry state of American discourse, which lets "partisan hackery" pass as honest debate. Begala and Carlson were both a bit taken aback and were at pains to interrupt Stewart to defend themselves. They defended their own show, of course, and they defended the spin-meisters who appear on television all the time as people who honestly believe what they're saying. Stewart took aim at the type of system that would allow there to be a place called "Spin Alley"--or as he titled it, "Deception Lane"--to be the first place to which the media turns after such events as the Presidential Debates. Again, Begala and Carlson were quick to claim that spin is not deception, but rather perception. Carlson made a couple of cracks about how Stewart is more fun on his own show, and Stewart responded by saying that Carlson is as big a dick on his own show as on any show.

Barbs aside, Jon Stewart has a point, and it's sad that personalities in the "mainstream" media look to him as a sort of pet; as someone to have on their show to be funny. He came down hard on an issue that he obviously feels quite strongly about, and the Crossfire hosts didn't quite know how to handle it. In a system where it's hard to look in any direction without hearing cries of bias, and of partisan politics, is it that surprising that there's some resentment at a talking head show which ends up being "guy spouting the Democratic agenda vs. guy spouting the Republican agenda"? Kerry & Bush have rallies every day, and if I wanted to listen to somebody talk about how many jobs were lost under Bush, I'd listen to Kerry; if I wanted to listen to somebody talk about Kerry's Senate record, I'd listen to Bush. (In his defense, Tucker Carlson is more nuanced than the standard Republican mouthpieces)

Jon Stewart was saying that, in his opinion, such partisan back-and-forth sessions are not in any way helpful to America. Honest debate would be helpful; that being the type of debate in which one side can concede good points made by the other. But what we have are shows like Crossfire, which are shouting sessions that leave no room for rationality and honesty. Again, they're "partisan hackery," as Stewart put it, and we've got enough of that everywhere else.

As for the shots traded by Carlson and Stewart at the end of the show, I feel like Jon Stewart is tired of being minimalized. He's now commonly accepted as one of the most (if not the most) influential personality in the media today, but he can't get a fair shake when he appears in any other corner of that media in which he's so influential. Personally, I'd feel a little pissed off, too, if I had something intelligent to say, and I was only met with, "I thought you were going to be funnier." It may have been out of line for Stewart to call Carlson "a dick" on national television; but let's remember that it was perfectly fine for Dick Cheney to tell Pat Leahy to go f*ck himself.

I think that the state of the media is atrocious at this point, if only because of its sheer volume. We've got three national cable channels (CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews) that are dedicated to news 24 hours a day. They've got to have something to talk about, but as I see it, there's not enough news (especially now, when it's all dominated by the presidential campaign) to fill 72 hours a day, in addition to all of the news programs on all of the other channels, without getting ridiculous, which they indubitably have.

Argh.

Fargus...

Master Debaters

I've got two things to relate from last night, both tangentially related to one another. First things first, I went to my first local political meeting. The Cranford Democratic Committee had a young lawyer named Michael Shapiro come in to speak. He's a lawyer for the Kerry campaign, and Johan, Oliver and I had seen the event advertised in the newspaper, so we decided to check it out. The glimpse that I gained into politics, both local and national, was amazing. But more than the insight into either the local or the national level was the insight into the cooperation and friction between the two, at least within the Democratic party.

Shapiro didn't really have very much to say, aside from, "Yay Kerry, vote Kerry, get your friends to vote Kerry!" He was well-spoken, but there was not much more than that. The other man to speak was George MacDonough, long-time Cranford resident, who's running for town council (he was defeated by 16 votes last time). He was well-spoken and articulate, and he got my vote, at least. But the fascinating thing relates to the fact that Jersey's not a swing state anymore. What I learned last night is that the Kerry campaign has put all of its money into the swing states, and none anywhere else. None. That's right, a lawyer for the Kerry campaign had to buy his Kerry/Edwards pin from the internet. Lots of the people at the meeting were indignant about the lack of lawn signs and bumper stickers, but there's literally a couple of thousand dollars in the Democratic campaign in Jersey, all in the form of contributions from elected officials in the state. For a state where the polls were showing a dead heat just a few weeks ago, the campaign doesn't seem (to my mind, anyway) to be paying nearly enough attention.

The other thing that's been infuriating me lately can be seen here. It's insane for Lynne Cheney to react as ridiculously as she has to Kerry's mention of her daughter in last night's debate. Mary Cheney is an out-of-the-closet lesbian. That's a well-known fact, and she's been active in politics concerning that fact. Kerry's point was not meant as a dig. Kerry's point was that we cannot all think of this as an issue that does not involve us. This is not a faceless issue. This is an issue that involves the immediate family of the running mate of the man who's trying to discriminate so readily against the homosexuals in the population. Thing is, the homosexuals can't be seen as "them" when they're part of our family.

The Republicans seem to be getting more than a little desperate here. Desperate to distract from the war in Iraq, desperate to distract from domestic issues, desperate to distract from their own plans. The only thing that they seem to be entirely resolute on is the fact that John Kerry is an insensitive liar who extended the stays of POWs in Vietnam and would give up our security to other countries in a global test to fight the more sensitive war on terror to reduce it to a nuisance. The debates have shown clearly, if nothing else, that John Kerry is not the man that they've made him out to be. He's strong, he's resolute, and most importantly, he's presidential. He has a bearing that Bush could never hope to have. Bush's folksy charm worked in 2000 because he was running against a boring, self-righteous, supercilious, smug-looking jackoff (pardon my language, for all the Gore fans, but let's just face it). When he's running against a guy with good speaking skills, a good bearing, and a good control of the facts, simple charm can only get him so far. I think that's been Kerry's real victory in these debates. People have gotten to see him as he really is, not just as the Republicans have portrayed him.

More later, I'm sure.

Fargus...