Here we go........think we had fun with Obamamania, well now we have Palinpalooza.
I'd like to see both sides wiggle out of this one. There is a new video out showing Palin supporters being interviewed outside her booksigning. Guess what- they really sound stupid when interviewed though becuase they know next to nothing about her policy thoughts. But they sure are wrapped up in the idea of Sarah, dontchaknow.
If your a Democrat, that proves that all Republicans are stupid. If your a Republican, it's proof that the media is out to get Palin.
But wait.....where I have I seen this before? Oh yea, a year ago. Obama supporters out showing how little they knew about him and his policies.
So does this mean the sides are even.....well I guess so. They both suck and people are easily spun up. Especially when they only talk to people they already agree with. Yelling at the opposition doesn't count as talking, by the way.
What we need is discourse. Discussion. Give and take of ideas
Monday, November 23, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Middle Ground Solutions to Education
Too often we tend to think the nation is stuck on polar opposites of every issue. In reality, most people are not. Those in power are generally more partisan that the average American. Cable news tends to drive the wedges even deeper.
We need to find more good news to celebrate. When politicians begin to feel like working together provides greater advantage than simply defending their particular party agenda, things may begin to get better.
How about an issue that brings together Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton. How about finding out it's more than just a photo opportunity. How about hearing Newt say nice stuff about Obama? How about hearing Al say that there needs to be more accountability from teachers and standards are a good thing?
The interview of these two (along with the Sec. of Education) on Meet the Press was one of the most refreshing discussions I have seen in a long time.
'>http://
We need to find more good news to celebrate. When politicians begin to feel like working together provides greater advantage than simply defending their particular party agenda, things may begin to get better.
How about an issue that brings together Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton. How about finding out it's more than just a photo opportunity. How about hearing Newt say nice stuff about Obama? How about hearing Al say that there needs to be more accountability from teachers and standards are a good thing?
The interview of these two (along with the Sec. of Education) on Meet the Press was one of the most refreshing discussions I have seen in a long time.
Visit msnbc.com for
Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy'>http://
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Saturday, November 14, 2009
You Can't Scream Jihad in Crowded Chat Room
The President is demanding accountabilty for the Fort Hood fiasco. He wants to know who, knew what, and when. A question asked by many in the past few days.
One thing that people are not talking about (yet) is how this affects peoples views of The Patriot Act. Reports out now indicate that the FBI knew that Major Hasan was corresponding with a radical cleric as long as a year ago. They determined at the time that these conversations were "consistent with his research". This is fodder for ideologues on both sides. Either we missed the boat entirely on this guy or it is the price we pay for our freedom. After all, Frankiln said that a country that trades liberty for safety deserves neither. Well, I don't think it's as simple as all that.
In the past, we have traded our liberty for security. And it is true that in each case we have looked back on thoe times with contempt. First there was John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act. A law so nice we had to try it twice according to Woodrow Wilson. Under his version over 1,000 Americans were indicted during World War 1. It went so far as to deny mail services to those suspected of dissention. FDR and Nixon also had their versions of "win the war at the cost of personal liberty" laws. For more info on this, see Howard Finemans book "The Thirteen American Arguments".
Were the laws above constitutional? That depended on who you asked and when you asked them. What made these laws so bad though, in my opinion, was not how they got the information, but what they did with it.
The fact that the government tracks emails to suspected terrorists does not bother me. I am, however, concerned with what they do with the information. It has been said that you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Well, you can't yell "JIHAD" in a crowded chat room either.
On second thought, sure you can. You can do anything you want.
You can do either one of those things, as long as you don't mind drawing attention to yourself. There may be a fire, in that case you're a hero. You may be a terrorist, in that case you should be arrested. By shouting things like this and being noticed, you invite scrutiny. It would be wrong not to look into what is causing someone to yell.
The delimma is how do you proceed. Success in this depends on the Bill of Rights. The most important of these is the right of the free press. If the government must proceed with the understanding that it too is being watched. If the government understands that it too, is drawing attention to itself, then things are not likely to get out of control. The Patriot Act, without scrutiny is a dangerous thing. The Patriot Act out in the open can be a very useful tool.
Those on the left may say that this guy at Ft Hood should have been stopped by his coworkers. There were plenty of clues available for those closer to the situation than the FBI. Very true, especially if you look at his presentation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110903618.html
These same individuals, however, would have been the same folks to claim profiling had anyone stepped in to intervene, say, a ten days ago. Essentially, political correctness led to inaction by both the federal government and his colleagues.
I don't believe this was a complicated terrorist plot. I believe this was a man with way too many issues to deal with and nowhere to turn. Physician heal thyself is easier to preach than to practice. He wanted out of the military and used his faith as a tool. This led him to the Cleric that then fed on his weak mind. The actions of Hasan are similar to a miltiary member that uses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to avoid deployment. Desperate times call for desperate actions, in the minds of some. This was a weak-minded, confused individual that could not deal with his problems. He got a gun and committed horrible crimes and should be held accountable.
One thing to ponder: If the government had acted on the information they recieved (ooh-rah Right Wing Patriot Act people) and they had linked it to his ownership of guns (ooh-rah Left Wing Gun Control people) and prevented this, who would get the credit?
Ultimately, this shows that there is a need to protect the people from terrorists and crazy people in general. The pendulum of liberty and security will never stop swinging back and forth becuase circumstances in the world always change. The most important thing to ensuring both liberty and securtiy is a free press, critical of the government and all those in positions of power.
One thing that people are not talking about (yet) is how this affects peoples views of The Patriot Act. Reports out now indicate that the FBI knew that Major Hasan was corresponding with a radical cleric as long as a year ago. They determined at the time that these conversations were "consistent with his research". This is fodder for ideologues on both sides. Either we missed the boat entirely on this guy or it is the price we pay for our freedom. After all, Frankiln said that a country that trades liberty for safety deserves neither. Well, I don't think it's as simple as all that.
In the past, we have traded our liberty for security. And it is true that in each case we have looked back on thoe times with contempt. First there was John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act. A law so nice we had to try it twice according to Woodrow Wilson. Under his version over 1,000 Americans were indicted during World War 1. It went so far as to deny mail services to those suspected of dissention. FDR and Nixon also had their versions of "win the war at the cost of personal liberty" laws. For more info on this, see Howard Finemans book "The Thirteen American Arguments".
Were the laws above constitutional? That depended on who you asked and when you asked them. What made these laws so bad though, in my opinion, was not how they got the information, but what they did with it.
The fact that the government tracks emails to suspected terrorists does not bother me. I am, however, concerned with what they do with the information. It has been said that you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Well, you can't yell "JIHAD" in a crowded chat room either.
On second thought, sure you can. You can do anything you want.
You can do either one of those things, as long as you don't mind drawing attention to yourself. There may be a fire, in that case you're a hero. You may be a terrorist, in that case you should be arrested. By shouting things like this and being noticed, you invite scrutiny. It would be wrong not to look into what is causing someone to yell.
The delimma is how do you proceed. Success in this depends on the Bill of Rights. The most important of these is the right of the free press. If the government must proceed with the understanding that it too is being watched. If the government understands that it too, is drawing attention to itself, then things are not likely to get out of control. The Patriot Act, without scrutiny is a dangerous thing. The Patriot Act out in the open can be a very useful tool.
Those on the left may say that this guy at Ft Hood should have been stopped by his coworkers. There were plenty of clues available for those closer to the situation than the FBI. Very true, especially if you look at his presentation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110903618.html
These same individuals, however, would have been the same folks to claim profiling had anyone stepped in to intervene, say, a ten days ago. Essentially, political correctness led to inaction by both the federal government and his colleagues.
I don't believe this was a complicated terrorist plot. I believe this was a man with way too many issues to deal with and nowhere to turn. Physician heal thyself is easier to preach than to practice. He wanted out of the military and used his faith as a tool. This led him to the Cleric that then fed on his weak mind. The actions of Hasan are similar to a miltiary member that uses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to avoid deployment. Desperate times call for desperate actions, in the minds of some. This was a weak-minded, confused individual that could not deal with his problems. He got a gun and committed horrible crimes and should be held accountable.
One thing to ponder: If the government had acted on the information they recieved (ooh-rah Right Wing Patriot Act people) and they had linked it to his ownership of guns (ooh-rah Left Wing Gun Control people) and prevented this, who would get the credit?
Ultimately, this shows that there is a need to protect the people from terrorists and crazy people in general. The pendulum of liberty and security will never stop swinging back and forth becuase circumstances in the world always change. The most important thing to ensuring both liberty and securtiy is a free press, critical of the government and all those in positions of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
