Tuesday is election day. It's important that you exercise your right to vote. It will be disappointing to see half the electorate not exercise this right; it essentially means that half the populace doesn't care enough about our democracy to play their part.
I understand why some people don't vote. I've encountered lots of folks, both young and old, who are totally disillusioned with the process. Some of these folks view all politicians as corrupt, or feel their vote doesn't count, or are convinced that money and privilege provide power, no matter what the vote results. Maybe some or all of these views are valid, but you still have to try. That's our duty.
If you don't vote on Tuesday, you forfeit all right to complain about the way things are run. Don't like what's happening in Iraq? Think we need health care reform? Concerned that your taxes are too high? Hate the way your local schools are run? Then quit complaining and go vote. It's the only opportunity you have to make your voice heard -- unless you're a lobbyist with big bucks to donate, of course.
So get out and vote on Tuesday. No matter which side you vote for, your voice is important. Don't squander your opportunity to instigate change -- and, slowly but surely, work towards a better way.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree. (But if you want to disagree, you better vote!)
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Change the course
On next Tuesday, I will vote -- as should you. While most people think of me as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat, I vote for candidates from either party. (Although, I admit, my lifelong vote tally is predominantly Democratic.) As an example of my open-mindedness, this time around I'll be voting, once again, for Indiana Senator Richard Lugar. He's done an okay job, for a Republican apologist, and I especially like his efforts to contain loose nukes from the former Soviet republics. So he gets my vote, in spite of party affiliation.
For other offices, I vote Democratic even though the Democrats have no chance in hell of winning in my particular district. For example, I have to vote against Representative Dan Burton, one of the biggest slimeballs in Congress today (and that's saying a lot), even though he doesn't even have a viable candidate running against him. That's the peril of living in one of the most solidly Republican districts in the country -- an area so Republican that some offices don't even have Democrats listed on the ballot. It's not that the area is hyper-conservative; my neighbors engage in more than their share of drink and illicit sex, thank you very much. No, the district is extremely wealthy, and apparently well-off people vote Republican for financial considerations. So be it.
For lesser offices, where I have no idea who's even running (voting uninformed is one of the major shortfalls of democracy), I always vote against the incumbent. My take is that, more often than not, whoever got voted into office is probably corrupt, so I'll take whatever alternative is available. Retain judge so and so? Nope. Re-elect incumbent whomever? Not a chance. I always vote for change, as it were.
Speaking of change, this election is the best chance we have to express our discontent with the current resident of the White House. I know King George isn't up for re-election, but we can kick out his faithful and irresponsible toadies. That means voting against Republican incumbents, wherever you can. Stay the course? Not this election. This time, the election is all about changing the course -- and bringing some modicum of responsibility back to Washington.
But that's just my opinion; the important thing is that you vote, for whichever side.
For other offices, I vote Democratic even though the Democrats have no chance in hell of winning in my particular district. For example, I have to vote against Representative Dan Burton, one of the biggest slimeballs in Congress today (and that's saying a lot), even though he doesn't even have a viable candidate running against him. That's the peril of living in one of the most solidly Republican districts in the country -- an area so Republican that some offices don't even have Democrats listed on the ballot. It's not that the area is hyper-conservative; my neighbors engage in more than their share of drink and illicit sex, thank you very much. No, the district is extremely wealthy, and apparently well-off people vote Republican for financial considerations. So be it.
For lesser offices, where I have no idea who's even running (voting uninformed is one of the major shortfalls of democracy), I always vote against the incumbent. My take is that, more often than not, whoever got voted into office is probably corrupt, so I'll take whatever alternative is available. Retain judge so and so? Nope. Re-elect incumbent whomever? Not a chance. I always vote for change, as it were.
Speaking of change, this election is the best chance we have to express our discontent with the current resident of the White House. I know King George isn't up for re-election, but we can kick out his faithful and irresponsible toadies. That means voting against Republican incumbents, wherever you can. Stay the course? Not this election. This time, the election is all about changing the course -- and bringing some modicum of responsibility back to Washington.
But that's just my opinion; the important thing is that you vote, for whichever side.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Slogans
So the Bush administration says that it is no longer using the phrase "stay the course" when speaking about the Iraq war. Notice that they didn't say they were changing their strategy. They're just changing their slogan. It's not the same thing.
The Bushies have no clear goal for getting out of Iraq. They have no plan. They have no timetable. In my mind, if you're not getting out, you're staying -- the course, that is.
And if they were getting out, wouldn't that be the same sort of "cut and run" strategy they accuse their detractors of? I mean, if you're not staying, you're running. And if cutting and running is so bad, then so must be not staying, shouldn't it?
To make matters worse, Bush goes to the Orwellian extreme of denying that "stay the course" was never their strategy in the first place. Press secretary Tony Snow recently stated that "The idea that we're staying the course is just wrong," even though until very recently Bush uttered that phrase regularly and repetitively. The administration seems to think that they can erase memories just by saying the opposite of something. Maybe memories can be erased, but videotape can't. It's not quite 1984 yet -- even though they're trying.
This administration believes that appearances matter more than reality. Thus the changing of the slogan while maintaining the same strategy. As a public, we shouldn't much care what the Bushies call something. We should care about their actions, not their words. And their actions are dangerous and disastrous. It doesn't matter what you call it, invading Iraq and then refusing to exit the resulting killing field is calamitous. Call it staying the course, call it whatever you like, it's stupidity bordering on criminality.
So, come next Tuesday, let's make a public effort to not stay the course. Vote the incumbents out of office, and give our democracy a fresh start -- and the Bush administration something new to worry about for the next two years.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
The Bushies have no clear goal for getting out of Iraq. They have no plan. They have no timetable. In my mind, if you're not getting out, you're staying -- the course, that is.
And if they were getting out, wouldn't that be the same sort of "cut and run" strategy they accuse their detractors of? I mean, if you're not staying, you're running. And if cutting and running is so bad, then so must be not staying, shouldn't it?
To make matters worse, Bush goes to the Orwellian extreme of denying that "stay the course" was never their strategy in the first place. Press secretary Tony Snow recently stated that "The idea that we're staying the course is just wrong," even though until very recently Bush uttered that phrase regularly and repetitively. The administration seems to think that they can erase memories just by saying the opposite of something. Maybe memories can be erased, but videotape can't. It's not quite 1984 yet -- even though they're trying.
This administration believes that appearances matter more than reality. Thus the changing of the slogan while maintaining the same strategy. As a public, we shouldn't much care what the Bushies call something. We should care about their actions, not their words. And their actions are dangerous and disastrous. It doesn't matter what you call it, invading Iraq and then refusing to exit the resulting killing field is calamitous. Call it staying the course, call it whatever you like, it's stupidity bordering on criminality.
So, come next Tuesday, let's make a public effort to not stay the course. Vote the incumbents out of office, and give our democracy a fresh start -- and the Bush administration something new to worry about for the next two years.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Studio 60
Yeah, I know, "good TV" is an oxymoron. But every now and then something decent appears, and it's worth noting.
Despite the fact that my big-screen TV is on quite a bit, I really don't watch much regular network TV. The major exception in recent years was The West Wing, especially in the original Aaron Sorkin days. Good TV, that -- and occasionally great.
Well, there's a new West Wing on NBC this fall. Not surprisingly, it's by the West Wing team of Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme, and it's called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The show is a workplace drama set in a fictional SNL-type weekly live comedy show, and judging from the first episode, it's terrific. Terrific Sorkin dialog, terrific characters, terrific everything. Lots of intelligence, lots of realism, lots of heart. I can't say enough about it. If the quality holds (or builds) from the pilot episode, then Sorkin has another winner on his hands -- and I have a new weekly show I have to watch.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Despite the fact that my big-screen TV is on quite a bit, I really don't watch much regular network TV. The major exception in recent years was The West Wing, especially in the original Aaron Sorkin days. Good TV, that -- and occasionally great.
Well, there's a new West Wing on NBC this fall. Not surprisingly, it's by the West Wing team of Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme, and it's called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The show is a workplace drama set in a fictional SNL-type weekly live comedy show, and judging from the first episode, it's terrific. Terrific Sorkin dialog, terrific characters, terrific everything. Lots of intelligence, lots of realism, lots of heart. I can't say enough about it. If the quality holds (or builds) from the pilot episode, then Sorkin has another winner on his hands -- and I have a new weekly show I have to watch.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Conventions
There's been a lot of fuss and bother this week about the Bush administration's push for new legislation defining U.S. obligations under the Geneva Convention. It's good to see some Republican heavyweights, such as John McCain and Colin Powell, coming down on the side of reason and opposing this bill. Pure and simple, Bush is arguing for the right to torture. It's no more complicated than that.
What McCain, Powell, and others rightly point out is that if we get to ignore the Geneva Convention, then our enemies do, too. So we want to torture some suspected terrorist we hold in a secret prison somewhere. If we do so, then that gives other countries the right to torture any of our soldiers or citizens they may be holding. Tit for tat -- or, if you prefer, the Golden Rule applied in reverse. Beware what you do to others, for they may do so onto you.
But, as with most things in the burgeoning Bush/Cheney dictatorship, this issue is about much more than it seems. It isn't just about the right to torture enemy combatants; it's about the administration's right to do anything they want, with no oversight whatsoever. It's all about the power, the enshrining of the executive as the sole branch of power in the U.S. government. Bush talks a lot about Islamic fascism, but he's well on his way in establishing fascist rule here in the United States. In Bush's world, no rules apply -- not the Geneva Convention, not the U.S. Constitution, not anything. The president and his men should be free to do whatever they please, with no restraints.
This vision of dictatorship America is horrifying. The new Bush doctrine should be stopped in its tracks, and its purveyors thrown from office -- and punished for their crimes against country and humanity. Enough is enough.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
What McCain, Powell, and others rightly point out is that if we get to ignore the Geneva Convention, then our enemies do, too. So we want to torture some suspected terrorist we hold in a secret prison somewhere. If we do so, then that gives other countries the right to torture any of our soldiers or citizens they may be holding. Tit for tat -- or, if you prefer, the Golden Rule applied in reverse. Beware what you do to others, for they may do so onto you.
But, as with most things in the burgeoning Bush/Cheney dictatorship, this issue is about much more than it seems. It isn't just about the right to torture enemy combatants; it's about the administration's right to do anything they want, with no oversight whatsoever. It's all about the power, the enshrining of the executive as the sole branch of power in the U.S. government. Bush talks a lot about Islamic fascism, but he's well on his way in establishing fascist rule here in the United States. In Bush's world, no rules apply -- not the Geneva Convention, not the U.S. Constitution, not anything. The president and his men should be free to do whatever they please, with no restraints.
This vision of dictatorship America is horrifying. The new Bush doctrine should be stopped in its tracks, and its purveyors thrown from office -- and punished for their crimes against country and humanity. Enough is enough.
But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)