it’s over. it’s all over. the atlanta braves’ reign of terror has finally ended. the mets made it official this weekend by sweeping the braves, something they don’t do very often. while this in no way cures the ills of the world at large, it’s still pretty cool. politics later. celebration now. 🙂 congratulations mets…let’s keep it going, shall we?
tags: new york mets, atlanta braves
The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.
that’s the problem we are currently having in washington, d.c. there isn’t a serious effort to reform the way the politicians handle our tax money, or to change the way the power structure works so that our representatives are more accountable. it’s more difficult than just blaming the party currently in power, because the system has been broken for many years, and neither side seems interested in changing the status quo. the conventional wisdom is that a congressman or senator campaigns on “reform” and “changing washington”, and then that person gets caught up in the game, and forgets all about that silly reform nonsense. the solution to this is not just to elect idealistic people who don’t have a fighting chance under this current system of getting any serious reforms passed, although we absolutely need to do that. we need to fix the system.
i wish i could take credit for the following suggestions, but i can’t. they are the proposals of former congressman and MSNBC host joe scarborough, from his book “rome wasn’t burnt in a day”. the main premise is accountability. what a novel concept. it could never work in washington d.c., unfortunately. (my comments in italics)
iraqi prime minister maliki addressed a joint session of congress today, and this is part of what he said.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, our nascent democracy faces numerous challenges and impediments, but our resolve is unbreakable and we will overcome them.
The greatest threat Iraq’s people face is terror: terror inflicted by extremists who value no life and who depend on the fear their wanton murder and destruction creates.
They have poured acid into Iraq’s dictatorial wounds and created many of their own.
Iraq is free, and the terrorists cannot stand this.
They hope to undermine our democratically elected government through the random killing of civilians. They want to destroy Iraq’s future by assassinating our leading scientific, political and community leaders. Above all, they wish to spread fear.
Do not think that this is an Iraqi problem. This terrorist front is a threat to every free country in the world and their citizens. What is at stake is nothing less than our freedom and liberty.
Confronting and dealing with this challenge is the responsibility of every liberal democracy that values its freedom. Iraq is the battle that will determine the war. If, in continued partnership, we have the strength of mind and commitment to defeat the terrorists and their ideology in Iraq, they will never be able to recover.
that’s the bigger issue here. terrorists must not be able to dictate the direction of a country. that’s what the terrorists are trying to do in iraq. we cannot allow this. terrorism won’t stop after iraq, but we need to deal the islamic extremists as many damaging blows as we can. that’s why we need to support israel and any other country that is actively fighting terrorists. israel is doing its part against terrorism in its current struggle against hezbollah, but it’s a recurring problem for them. we may never see the end to the war against terrorism. that doesn’t mean that we should ignore the growing threat it poses to each and every one of us.
israel’s former PM makes the case against a cease-fire.
The objective of the military campaign currently being waged on Israel’s northern border, as well as any diplomatic effort to bring that campaign to an end, must therefore be to disarm Hezbollah, first and foremost from its missile arsenal. A failure to do so would be a great victory for that terror organization and for its sponsors in Tehran and facilitators in Damascus. It would enable Hezbollah to rebuild its lethal capacity for waging war, continue to threaten the people of Israel and hold hostage the people of Lebanon, and sow the seeds for an even greater conflict in the future. In contrast, disarming Hezbollah would help restore Israel’s deterrence and security, give hope to a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future for Lebanon, and deal a heavy blow to the forces of international terrorism.
the times online has this to say about the israeli / hezbollah throwdown:
The pincer war launched by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel is also related to domestic politics. In the occupied territories, Hamas needs to marginalise Mahmoud Abbass PLO and establish itself as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In Lebanon, Hezbollah wants to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of a new pro-American coalition government led by Fouad Siniora, the prime minister, and Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader….
The strategy is high risk. If the Israelis manage to crush Hamas and destroy Hezbollahs military machine, Irans influence will diminish massively. Defeat could revive an internal Hezbollah debate between those who continue to support a total and exclusive alliance with Iran until the infidel, led by America, is driven out of the Middle East and those who want Hezbollah to distance itself from Tehran and emphasise its Lebanese identity. One reason why Hezbollah has found such little support among Arabs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia this time is the perception that it is fighting Israel on behalf of Iran, a Persian Shiite power that has been regarded by the majority of Arab Sunnis as an ancestral enemy.
that’s why we must allow israel to do what it is doing, because it’s about more than some petty regional dispute. you can hate israel all you want to, but there’s a more critical matter to be addressed in this case. wouldn’t you rather have israel exist in its current state than live in a region controlled by unapologetic terrorist thugs? it’s clear that in some parts of the middle east, hatred for israel runs deep. does it run deep enough to surrender control of everything to iran and syria, or their terrorist representatives? i hope not.
being opposed to illegal immigration is not a racist position. neither is being opposed to giving non-citizens the same rights and privileges as american citizens. it doesn’t matter what the original nationality of a person is. if that person is not willing to obey our laws, then they shouldn’t be here. what’s hard to understand about that?
what seems to be lost in america’s current melting pot is a sense of national identity. this national identity was something that made us different from the rest of the world. it was something that inspired people to come to this country in the first place.
the following letter was originally posted on cao’s blog, with the request to pass it along…it inspired me. i hope that it will do the same for you.
From: David LaBonte
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to print it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined.
Dave LaBonte (signed)
Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statute of Liberty because the people now in question arent being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why todays American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer.
Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them.
All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity. Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from.
They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans.
And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another countrys flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. Im sorry, thats not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in t he early 1900s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to reate a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statute of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldnt start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte
P.S. Pass this on to everyone you know!!! KEEP THIS LETTER MOVING!! I hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!! ~~ r.p.
Technorati Tags: illegal immigration
if the voters of connecticut really want a change from the senator they have now, then they would have to vote for…a republican. lamont is only different because he opposes the war in iraq. while it’s true that lamont can claim outsider status, and that he is not tied to any special interest groups, on policy issues there’s not many areas where lieberman and lamont disagree. consider this sampling of groups that lieberman has supported (according to his voting record): planned parenthood, naral, aclu, nea, now, uaw, afl-cio, all the big ones. these groups don’t give endorsements out lightly, but lieberman’s record shows that he deserves those endorsements.
this may come as a shock to conservatives…but joe lieberman is not one of us, hannity’s endorsement not withstanding.
from california conservative:
Lieberman has voted either outright against every Republican initiative or, as in the case of Soc. Security reform, has hedged his bet but still on the negative side of the issue. Only with Iraq policies has Lieberman voiced his agreement with Republican ideas.
In measuring Liebermans record, the American Conservative Union has given him a rating of 0? for calendar year 2004, only an 8? in 2005, and a low 17? for his lifetime in Congress based on his votes in the Senate. (By contrast, much as my Conservative friends may not like him, McCains ACU rating is 72, 80 and 83 respectively.)
He voted against every Bush tax cut, voted against Justice Alitos Supreme Court appointment, opposes traditional marriage laws, is against drilling for oil in Alaska, is for partial-birth abortion, and supports some of the absurd restrictions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocols. And this is just for starters.
Lieberman is not a conservative Democrat. Its just that simple.
there are several objections to re-electing joe lieberman, and none of them are very convincing. the main objection to lieberman is not that he is too conservative, it’s that he’s not liberal enough. he doesn’t oppose bush enough for the liberal netroots. he supports the war in iraq…although he’s backed off somewhat from what he has said/written previously. there is also the unpardonable sin of condemning clinton’s actions during monicagate(which the former president has somehow forgiven him for doing).
i’m not going to predict what’s going to happen next, because anything could happen when the voters of connecticut ultimately decide this. it sure does seem that lieberman isn’t handling this challenge all that well. i watched some of the debate a few weeks ago, and even though lamont may not have had the best answers, this time it didn’t matter.
i don’t know what joe’s advisors have been telling him…but looking angry and defensive doesn’t work for him. he looked like some kind of angry dad, instead of someone who was confident about his record and willing to defend the positions he has taken. it was a side of lieberman that i certainly didn’t expect to see, and it was an ugly display. ned lamont may not have won the debate, but i don’t think lieberman helped his own case either.
there is no reason other than iraq that connecticut conservatives (especially republican conservatives) should give lieberman their vote. in my view, that single issue is still not enough to overlook his entire career record. he should be liberal enough for the rest of the state. it all depends on how much the netroots is willing to sacrifice to make an example out of joe lieberman.
tags: joe lieberman, ned lamont, connecticut, conservatives
there are some people in this country who still do not seem to understand that the war on terrorism is not just about iraq. the war on terrorism will not be over at the end of the bush 43 presidency. it will not be concluded when the last of the US troops leave iraq and afghanistan. terrorism has always existed in the world. it’s something that is more easily ignored when it doesn’t happen to people we know, or when it happens in some place we have never been. 9/11 was a tragic wake-up call that a terrorist attack could happen in the united states of america, and it brought an up close and personal introduction to a new kind of enemy — one that doesn’t follow the generally accepted rules of engagement. that’s the kind of enemy the nation of israel is facing right now.
israel has been dealing with terrorists for quite a long time, and unfortunately for them, there’s no end in sight to that struggle. the new attacks against israel are proof of that. when you have a political party whose sole purpose for existence is killing jews, like hezbollah, how is negotiation even possible? when your opposition consists of ideologues with beliefs like that, how can they be appeased? more importantly, why must they be appeased? why should israel give them what they want?
i’m not a foreign policy expert, so i can’t suggest the next move for any of the parties involved in this conflict. all i can understand is what we have learned from history. we don’t defeat terrorists by giving them what they want. we don’t defeat terrorists by giving in to fear. we defeat terrorists by killing them, and by cutting off their financing and means of communicating with each other. i don’t believe that any of us will ever see the end of the war on terrorism. we still need to do what we can to keep our country safe. i believe this.
israel understands the threat they face with terrorists, and they usually do a capable job handling that threat. what about this country? are we willing to take the necessary steps to ensure the security of the united states of america and to protect this country from foreign and domestic threats to that security? that’s the committment president bush made to us when he was sworn into office and that’s the promise he made to us after 9/11.
read the senate resolution on israel , pdf here (h/t- truthlaidbear). i don’t think i could have added anything to what they said. terrorism is not a bogus threat. it’s a real threat. the response to it needs to be a serious one, and not a collection of soundbites designed for political point scoring. decide for yourself who you think is guilty of this.
it has become a tradition in the blogosphere to note milestone posts or blog anniversaries…and i’m all about keeping up with these traditions. so this is the official announcement of the one year anniversary of this blog. thanks to everyone who has commented here. i appreciate it very much.
here’s how this whole thing started:
(from random musings on live 8)
perhaps we have lost our ability to believe in something bigger than ourselves. we can easily lose sight of the bigger picture when we get bogged down in the details. we look at the fortunate fools who still believe and trust in the power of a big dream, and we are envious. we are envious because we used to be where they are. we know better now. we are smarter, too smart to believe, to dream, or to act like our lives mean something. heres to the ones who havent become jaded and cynical enough to settle for being ordinary. dreamers with a plan can change the world. we have seen it throughout history. we cant all be singers, or actors, or people with a great big stage to influence huge crowds of people. but we all have a part to play. we all can make a difference where we are.
here’s a few more of my favorite posts from the past year(will open in new window):
coming up… thoughts on lamont/lieberman, baseball prediction revisions, and more on the plame affair that wasn’t. stay tuned. 🙂
interesting perspective by ralph peters on our treatment of terrorists. the overall idea is that we should kill them in battle instead of capturing them. it makes a lot of sense. excerpt here.
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral – or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves.
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans – but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies – beyond the pale of law.
i’ve never understood the inclination to give terrorists the same rights as prisoners of war. the rules of engagement have changed. we can’t apply the same rules in this case. not only that, but as peters points out, the enemy we face does not fit the description of prisoners of war laid out in the geneva conventions. i’m not an expert in international law, but i do think that modification of this and similar treaties is necessary to deal with the current threat we are facing with terrorists and those affliated with terrorists.
i’m not suggesting that there should be no guidelines for terrorist treatment. there should be a clear idea of what is acceptable and what is not in interrogation of enemy combatants, terrorists, or legitimate prisoners of war. we just can’t get into this politically correct mentality where we don’t take the threat to our country and to other countries seriously. we are getting to the point where we are looking to international law to determine what the united states is allowed to do.
this bothers me. the increasing dependence on international law to determine the actions of the united states, a sovereign nation, is a disturbing trend. the responsibility of the united states government should first be to its citizens, and its primary duty is to ensure america’s safety and security. if the UN or the EU or any foreign body makes treaties or laws that threaten to take away our ability to defend our country from our enemies, the united states shouldn’t be obligated to sign on to any such treaties. i’m not sure what is so hard to accept about such a proposition.
we can set guidelines for interrogation, but we also must keep in mind the nature of the enemy the world faces today. we may need to modify existing treaties and our current laws to effectively deal with the terrorist threat. we just can’t allow those who are confirmed to be terrorists back into iraq and afghanistan to cause more chaos. it’s hard enough for us to win in those two countries as the situation stands right now.
Technorati Tags: terrorism, interrogation, geneva conventions
yesterday was a great day. july 4th is worth celebrating. there’s something totally right with the way america celebrates independence day. we eat food that wouldn’t be the first choice of any legitimate medical professional, we recognize the outstanding job our military men and women have done and are doing now, and we shoot off big, noisy, pretty explosives. some of us are even lucky enough to watch some live baseball games. 🙂 what’s not to love about that? if you want to be cynical and adopt the predictable connection the left would make with the fireworks, and the explosives going off in iraq right now, go ahead. however, i believe that the left’s opposition to the way we celebrate july 4th is about more than just being against the war in iraq. it is about seeing patriotism as blind support of everything our country does and says. that’s not what patriotism means.
why is that it has suddenly become popular to oppose patriotism? is it such a crime to believe that the united states is the best country in which to live and that it is a country that gives its citizens the best opportunity for happiness and prosperity? is it so terrible to show respect to the men and women of our military, whether or not we agree with their mission? that’s what i would consider patriotism. we can have an overall positive view of the united states without whitewashing the flaws we do have as a country. there can be dissent. there’s nothing wrong with objecting to the policies of the bush administration on various subjects. many of us do. the problem is that what may have started out as honest, principled disagreement has turned into america-bashing.
here’s the difference between dissent and america-bashing. dissent says, “i disagree with this policy for reasons x, y, and z. here’s what we should do instead.” america-bashing is something that has now become chic for the elite enlightened leftists. the message generally expressed is less of a constructive criticism and it is primarily designed to make an emotional appeal to the conspiracy theorists.
here’s a good example of what i’m talking about, from our favorite pro-peace advocate, cindy sheehan.
The star-spangled banner, which I can now see whipping in the wind outside of an airport terminal where I am writing this from does not fill me with pride: it fills me with shame and that flag symbolizes sorrow and corruption to me right now. The flag represents so much lying, fixed elections, profiting by the war machine, high gas prices, spying on Americans, rapid erosion of our freedoms while BushCo literally gets away with murder, torture and extreme rendition, contaminating the world with depleted uranium, and illegal and immoral wars that are responsible for killing so many. A symbol which used to represent hope to so many around the world now fills so many with disgust.
i am probably going to catch a little flak for writing this, but I sincerely believe that there are some on the left who are rooting for america to fail in iraq. they keep bringing up vietnam as an example for how we should handle iraq. we lost in vietnam. do we really want to adopt a strategy based on a war that we lost? it’s one thing to say that we need to look at whether we have made enough progress in iraq at this point, or whether we need to re-adjust our strategy to deal with the current status on the ground. the goal should be to finish the job. the strategy should focus on the best way to do that.
you can disagree with the bush administration on iraq. you can be violently opposed to some other policy decisions he’s made. the freedom to speak out against any of these bush policies is a freedom that was bought and paid for with the lives of the united states military. that’s why we need to respect their sacrifice, regardless of our feelings about their current mission. we need to make sure they have the resources they require to finish the job in iraq. once that happens, both sides will get what they want – the troops will start coming home.
Technorati Tags: patriotism, july 4th, dissent