Archive for December, 2004
The Brown Scare
I was reading the Cap Times the other day and came across a truly frightening article. According to a study conducted by Cornell University, 45% of Americans believe that Muslim Americans should have restricted civil liberties. The options offered by the poll included forcing Muslims to register their address with the federal government (27% support), racially profiling Muslims for terrorist threats (22%), and my personal favorite: undercover federal agents infiltrating Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities (29% !).
Even in writing this I am outraged. Have we learned nothing in the past 50 years? This reeks of the great Red Scare of the 1950s–only this time we’re targeting people based solely on their ethnic makeup (or, more likely, their physical appearance). As Bush keeps telling us, the reason Bin Laden blew up the towers was because he hates our freedoms. Well, we’ll show him (by god!) by limiting our citizen’s civil liberties. The sheer lunacy of this thought process drives me batty!
Read the article here. The only bright side I can think of is that we don’t have any senators leading the charge this time around.
. . .
Q: How can you tell the FBI agent in your local Communist Muslim group?
A: He’s the only one paying his dues.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Dec 20th, 2004
A Glimmer of Hope
I’ve tried to avoid discussing the political, social, and philosophical ramifications of the November election because frankly, it’s depressing. The other day I came across this map [see below] on the internet and thought it was pretty nifty. By identifying the voting patterns of young voters (age 18-30), we can see that there is indeed hope for America. (We just need to wait a few years for the old folks to die off).
As a young voter, I feel I am uniquely qualified to reflect on why we voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. (And although I’m entirely unqualified to write about why old people vote Bus, I’m going to do that too.) Young voters place their trust in science, reason, fairness, and justice. We understand that a woman’s reproductive health is something to be decided by her and her doctor–not a lawmaker in Washington. We understand that the sanctity of marriage is fortified by offering the possibility of marriage to all people, regardless of sexual preference. We understand that our generation has the burden of fixing our antiquated energy systems–and we know that we can’t just pass the burden onto our children.
So what drives the old farty-pants Bush supporters? They see the world as black and white. You’re either Pro-War or Pro-Terrorists. You’re either Pro-Life or Pro-Baby Killing. You’re either Anti-Gay Marriage or Anti-Families. This interpretation of the world as simple dichotomies is terribly destructive, because it prevents the formation of workable solutions. Bush did a terrific job painting the world in two colors, and it worked for him.
We young voters understand that the world is not black-and-white, but rather a continuous spectrum of color. Take, for instance, the oft-cited example of abortion. I, and I assume many fellow young voters, wish that abortions weren’t necessary. But at the same time I realize that they are absolutely vital in some cases. We young voters recognize that there can be no simple answers. There will always be trade offs.
Now check out the map.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Dec 12th, 2004
The oxymoron of the Republican Big Government [Guest Post!]
This post was written by my good friend Katie Gavle and deserves some time on the front page. In her words:
I agree with Tad, last time I checked the Republicans were in favor of a central government with a “hands off” approach with most aspects of life. Originally, many Americans feared an oppressive government similar to the monarchy of England that ruled over our founding fathers. They preferred a smaller central government with limited power. My, how times have changed. The part that scares me most about the Republican machine that drives our country is their expanding control over issues that once were considered the “personal freedoms” governed by each individual according to his or her choosing. As Tad mentioned, the issue of censorship can fall under this argument; however, my main concern is the regulation of the areas of life dubbed “moral issues”.
When did the personal choice of romantic partners become something that rich, white men in suits start to control? When did it become allowable for the American government to decide if I can or cannot marry someone of the same sex? Is it immoral for two educated adults in a committed relationship to want to be joined lawfully for the rest of their lives? I think that exemplifying a faithful and mature relationship, regardless of the gender of the partners, is what we should strive for when talking about the sanctity of marriage. It is probably safe to say that most Americans would think that two 18 year-olds fresh out of high school cannot possibly know more about the power and the sanctity of marriage than a heterosexual couple that has been together through the ups and downs of adult life and still love each other as much, if not more, than the day they started dating. Why does that opinion change if that committed and loving couple happen to be two homosexuals? In a country that prides itself on the notion of freedom and liberty, it sure is ironic that an educated adult in a committed relationship isn’t free to choose their own sexual identity and let that be acknowledged legally.
—
Thank you Katie!
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Dec 7th, 2004
Republican Hypocrisy (continued)
This is a really easy subject to write about. Listening to Robert Novak got me thinking about just how ridiculous the Republican ideology really is. Take, for example, the issue of personal freedom. According to most conservatives, the government should stay out of your way and let you achieve your personal destiny. This is usually used to criticize things like taxes, environmental regulations, and anti-trust laws.
On the other side of the coin, those same conservatives believe that we are incapable of deciding what is right or wrong to view on the television, and thus try to censor any “objectionable” material. It would be absolutely terrifying if the public airwaves were used to transmit something as visually scaring as a naked breast or as audibly scathing as the word “shit”.
The justification for these restrictions is always the same: to protect our children. Of course, what they are implying is that adults everywhere lack the capability to educate their children on what is okay to watch and what is not.
To me, this policy seems to fly in the face of our sacred “personal freedoms”. But hey–I’m a liberal. I probably just don’t understand.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Dec 4th, 2004
Robert Novak
The other day I attended a lecture by the very conservative writer Robert Novak. Since most of my friends share a liberal view of the world, it’s good to get the other perspective once in awhile–as painful as it may be. Not far into his speech, Mr. Novak brought up one of my personal pet peeves: the blatant hypocrisy of the Republican Party regarding land subsidies in the West.
The short story on the West is this: the federal government owns millions of acres of land west of the Mississippi. Much of this land is used for grazing, logging, mining, and farming. In almost all cases, the small fees paid by the rancher/logger/miner/farmer for use of the public land is less than the cost of bureaucratic management, and much less than the true value of the land. In no uncertain terms, it is a federal subsidy for those activities paid by you, me, and everyone else who pays taxes.
This on its own doesn’t bother me. I benefit (directly or otherwise) from the products produced from those public lands. What bothers me is when the Republican Party gets up on the soapbox and rips into social assistance programs like welfare. They love chanting “Small Government! No Handouts!”, yet smugly grin when those “handouts” directly benefit their constituents. (In case you didn’t know, the West is what we call a RED state.)
I don’t have all the answers. But I can smell hypocrisy when it blows my way and the Republicans are full of it. Check back soon for another post on this subject.
[the server hosting my page crashed last night. sorry if you couldn't access my page.]
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Dec 3rd, 2004
