--by Glenn Beck
[Here's an excerpt from a long read. There's enough of a wake up call in this letter to attract BOTH sides of the political divide]
Too many politicians are anxiously waiting for the right moment to expand government. They’re waiting for the “Megan Law” moment. That moment when the stars align so politicians can pass legislation over any objections, whether it’s good or bad.
Megan’s Law is named after a 7 year old girl who was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a repeat violent sexual offender. The public had finally become so outraged that the politicians had to act. Megan’s Law requires the posting of information about sexual offenders to the public. Passing Megan’s Law was the right thing to do but it shouldn’t have taken this tragedy to do it—but it took Megan’s tragedy in order to overcome the opposition from the ACLU and other groups who kept screaming about the rights of the accused.
Pelosi, Reid and the progressive left as well as many Republicans still don’t believe that our very survival is at stake with what is going on today. They still look at this meltdown as just another opportunity to score political points. If the Democrats in the House of Representatives really believed that our country’s economic security was at stake then they would have passed the bailout bill. They didn’t need any Republican support. They had the votes. But Pelosi and the Democratic leadership didn’t want to risk a massive voter backlash so they didn’t push the bill through. That is playing politics. If the Senate believed that our country’s economic security was at stake they would have passed a bailout bill without the $100 billion in ‘goodies’ attached. That is playing politics. Do the right thing for the country, stop playing politics.
As the crisis worsens and takes a higher emotional toll on the public we will see tragic stories. We will see more stories about people giving up hope, losing focus on what’s truly important and ending their lives and the lives of people they love. And when the ‘right’ story comes along, it will be exploited to take away more of our freedoms, to shred the Constitution just a little more and grab more money for the government from the people who earn it.
You can find the entire letter here
This is not about the election. This is not about who will make a better president. This is simply a wake-up call to ALL Americans. We are losing this county, and fast.
Here's another must read, also from Glenn Beck:
We are turning into France?
Don't let the tongue in cheek title fool you, this is not about us becoming French. It's about us on the verge of losing this country.
An Excerpt:
France, the UN, Russia, China has asked for a global currency. France said yesterday or day before, new world order. One financial system needs to come out of this. Last night for the first time ever all the central banks globalized and they all made one move together and they're all now saying we need to meet, we need to control the globe's financing. The UN is talking about a UN financial network. One currency. You add to the disenfranchisement now, what is it, 79% of Americans are Christian? How many of those actually still believe in the resurrection, how many believe still really in the return of Christ? 50%? 40%? I don't know, but it's large, that actually say, you know, there is some day where all these things are going to come true. Well, one world finance, one world currency, new world order, going to spook the bejesus out of those people.
And I think that's a fair assessment. All this financial turmoil has gotten me to thinking as well; days before I discovered Glenn Beck airing in my neck of the woods. America is NOT mentioned in prophecy; not as a world power. Europe is the big dog in the end. Are we anywhere near that day? Thousands of pastors across America say yes. I too say yes. It doesn't take a bible scholar to see the signs.
Where is America heading? I wrote last week about the partisanship killing this country. How is it that Bush is universally vilified by the Left as the worst president in American history when Congress' numbers are lower than his? How can all the talking heads in media, including Fox, say Obama won Tuesday's debate? I tell you, he did not win. The problem is politicians AND members of media have been in Washington, have been in "the game," so long that they can't empathize with the people they serve. They've forgotten how to think like an Average American.
I'm no intellectual slouch. I can read nuance, body-language, tone and tenor of speech. I can hear what IS said, and what is NOT said. I don't need the likes of Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, or anyone else to tell me what I heard.
I feel like some goat looking into the farmer's window only to see pigs sitting at table acting as though they were human. This country is not ours anymore. From the previous article, What's Coming:
Closer to home you will see that Americans are increasingly feeling isolated and detached from their government. Part of the reason is that we don’t think politicians care what we think anymore. The $700 billion bailout bill passed the Senate at a time when only 30% of the country supported it. We felt that a giant stick was poked into our collective eye!
59% of Americans would vote the entire Congress out of office but due to the self-serving way the politicians have drawn their election districts it’s just this side of impossible to do it. Only 49% of the people believe that this congress is currently doing a better job than a group of individuals selected randomly from a phone book would do and 33% of us actually believe the group selected at random would do a better job! [Emphasis mine]
Whatever our disagreements, we need, as Americans, to come together to save this country. NOT for Democrats, NOT for Republicans... but for AMERICANS. Party politics be damned. Save the planet? Let concentrate on saving our nation first.
Read the second article in its entirety here
38 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How do you propose we do this?
So, let us all begin with that.
How else shall we save this country?
Second, let's vote out everyone currently in office. Everyone. EVERY ONE; the good, the bad, the saintly. And as I suggested in a recent thread somewhere, enact a one-time, voter-poll lottery, and choose at random a one-term House and Senate, giving the states time to rewrite the laws to enable what I suggested in point one: take ALL the money out of politics. ALL. After all, why should only the rich be allowed a voice in politics?
[Personally, I like the idea of returning to the time in which only property owners we accorded to the right to vote, but I know that'll fly like a lead zeppelin.
But here's my reasoning on that:
Say there's only 10 farms around the entirety of your home town. Those ten farm produce ALL the food for your town-- there is no import.
Now suppose there are 10,000 people in your town, all with a vote-- the homeless, the welfare, the lower, middle, and upper classes, none of whom work or own a stake on any of those ten farms.
Vote time comes and the politicians are talking about giving more to those who have little. How are they going to give more? By demanding more of the ten farmers. Suppose there's a question of environment? Is is fair to allow people who are indigent and on welfare a say in HOW these ten farms are run and operated? No. Is it wise to allow those receiving free food a say in how that food is distributed, or how much they receive? No. But politicians today promise what they have no business promising.]
So why SHOULD only the rich be allowed to affect the outcome of elections? Folks like Soros, Buffet, Winfrey? Take the money entirely out of the equation. You and I deserve more of a voice than the ones we cast at primaries and general elections. Or the ones we voice when we call congress to complain, and congress turns off their phone system, or ignores the will of the people as they did when they passed last weeks crap sandwich.
How else shall we save this country Dan? Well, I'm not going to rattle off a long list of "I'd like to see" 's. What I've offered is enough to fill everyone's plate for now.
1. Repent. [those who call themselves by HIS name] Turn back to God.
2. Take money out of the election process.
3. Throw out everyone who's currently in office and replace them with a one term lottery chosen individual who is given the task of reshaping the laws and electoral districts to return the power back to the people.
4. If media wants to play ball, they have to sacrifice the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive from the campaigns and allow equal access to all candidates based on the relatively tiny funds offered them by the government.
[I'd be willing to allow candidates to raise no more than $100,000 and have the government match up to-- and not beyond --that point.]
That's enough to start with.
1. As a Christian, I am always in favor of change via revival - ie, through a change of heart towards more Godly, peaceful, just, compassionate ways. Humbly repenting of wrongs is always a good thing.
2. PLEASE, yes, let's take money out of the election process. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, but your proposal is something to consider.
3. I don't know how we can accomplish the "throw 'em all out" goal other than our legally established way of voting them out, but I'm okay with the notion of getting a fresh batch of representatives. I don't think it's a good thing to have life-long Congresspeople. Two-four terms ought to be plenty of service to your country and then get out of the way for someone else.
I certainly DO disagree with the notion of putting people in office by lottery - what a horrible idea. You might end up with some nutcase like me representing you! and who'd want that? I think voting remains a good way. And you are right in thinking most folk would think that limiting the vote to "the landed" would be a horrid idea.
4. I'd suggest getting rid of political commercials on TV or radio beyond "I'm candidate X and here is my platform... 1, 2, 3..." Do the networks have to carry the debates? I think that should probably be a requirement that goes along with getting the license to run a TV/Radio station.
So how 'bout that? Nearly 4/4 in a row that we can agree mostly upon.
I know some don't think that has any meaning, but I think clearly it does have a pretty specific meaning: Do not live in such a way that you can't continue living that way indefinitely.
It's a reasonable position to take personally and societally and something our policy makers and civic organizations and cities and communities and faith groups and individuals should be talking about seriously.
That statement's not specific, it's the exact opposite: it's incredibly vague. More than that, I don't think it's coherent, because NO lifestyle can be continued indefinitely.
Let's say I'm considering whether to use a simple plow to till a nearby field, a very earthy activity that would no doubt earn Wendell Berry's approval.
Can I till the earth indefinitely? The answer is an obvious no: eventually a person needs to eat and sleep.
Imagine a routine of farming, eating, and sleeping. Can that routine be carried out indefinitly? No, eventually every farmer gets too old to work (if he's lucky) and everybody dies.
What about such a lifestyle carried across the generations, so that a society can farm for centuries even if individuals don't live more than 60 or 80 years? The sun is eventually going to run out of fuel, so that society is ultimately as mortal as its individuals.
(And anyway, either the universe collapses in a reverse of the Big Bang, or suffers the slow heat death of entropy, or is just brought to an end or transformed by direct divine intervention. Since the universe will not sustain life for all eternity, no lifestyle in this universe can be maintained indefinitely.)
Even much sooner than that, the unpredictable can occur. I bet Dan thinks that primitive fishing villages are sustainable, but how many were wiped out (or nearly wiped out) by the Indian Ocean tsunami? If an asteroid is heading for this planet, which society can respond to preserve itself and every other society? Us greedy industrialists with our fossil-fuel economy and, y'know, rockets and missles, or the Amish with their supposedly sustainable horse-drawn buggies?
Does Dan's definition address any of these difficulties? No, it does not. Shallow as his thinking can very often be, he has defined one meaningless phrase by invoking another meaningless phrase and magically declaring it to be specific.
I remain unimpressed.
capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing ecological damage;
Or,
designating, of, or characterized by a practice that sustains a given condition, as economic growth or a human population, without destroying or depleting natural resources, polluting the environment, etc.
I think that in at least broad, general terms, we can all recognize the difference between sustainable and unsustainable when we see it.
Some in China have been farming the same lands using traditional methods for the last 4,000 years. Those would be sustainable farming methods.
On the other hand, if our own farming methods are wholly dependent upon cheap petroleum to produce food and if petroleum resources will only get more expensive and less available, that is NOT a sustainable farming method.
Dan, dictionary definitions don't answer every question, and the ones you provide still leave significant questions unanswered.
The first definition is about being "capable of being maintained at a steady level," but doesn't answer for how long. Practically any lifestyle can be maintained for an hour, none can be maintained for all eternity; the timeframe matters, and you haven't given one.
The first definition also mentions avoiding "causing ecological damage," just as the second excludes "polluting the environment."
Well, does that mean just smokestacks, or does that include campfires, too?
Your goals remain elusive, and my concern is that green Marxists can always ratchet up the standards more and more, to demand more and more state control.
It is inarguably true that the Industrial Revolution was more environmentally disruptive and destructive than what preceded it -- though I think it's clear the tradeoffs have been worth it -- but the important thing is, the same can be said of the AGRICULTURAL Revolution.
Just as factories pollute more than farms, farms pollute more than nomadic tribes of hunters and gatherers, and your definitions don't make it clear in the least that the ultimate goal isn't a renunciation of civilization for a Hobbesian state of nature, rather than just a renunciation of an oil-based economy.
I appreciate all the trouble you went to Googling a dictionary or two and copying the definition, but I still have seen no evidence that you've actually given the values to which you subscribe any thought that is deeper than Berry, who isn't one tenth as profound as he thinks he is.
Your definitions aren't clear. Please try again.
So, it would come down to how we go about trying to live sustainably. But living sustainably ought to be the goal. Living within our means.
If we can come to agreement on the ideal, then we can begin hashing out the details, but first - in order to save our nation and world - we have to have some semblance of agreement on the ideals, seems to me.
Your goals remain elusive, and my concern is that green Marxists can always ratchet up the standards more and more, to demand more and more state control.
Well, we would always want to watch out for any overly rigid state control, wouldn't we? We could all agree on the ideal (I'd hope) that we don't want a dictatorial state telling us how to live each and every moment. That would be an ideal worth supporting, wouldn't it?
Just the same, we don't want to live unsustainably in such a way that we have the same results of earlier civilizations that collapsed due to their excess consumption of resources.
So, the ideal would be to live sustainably but in a way that maximizes freedom.
The better we can do that, the more likely we'll do our bit to - if not save the world - at least cause a little less damage.
We certainly can't trust elected officials 100% to find and implement all solutions without public sector input. Similarly, we can't trust corporations 100% to find and implement all solutions without public sector input. We need to work together - citizens, corporations, gov't, liberals, conservatives, Americans, the rest of the world - to find our best solutions, flawed though they may be.
You apocalyptic christians need to go off and find yourselves an island. Where you won't have to hear my questions. Where you won't have to see anyone with differnt skin/noses/eyes. Somewhere all you earnest believers can just stare at your own navels, drawing your yearly lotteries waiting for the skies to fall.
Juries are selected by lottery. Who thinks those are the best system of justice?
All the same, since living healthy is a worthy ideal, there may be nothing wrong with gov't supporting the notion in a non-dicatorial manner.
Same for living sustainably.
Certainly true. Another hearty amen.
By supporting the notion of soul-searching - and, for those of us who find a God in that context, striving to follow in that direction - need not mean that those who soul-search and find NO God or are not clear on where they stand are not welcome, at least in my mind and I think in the best American traditions.
All are welcome to our shores. But if we hope to save ourselves, a little soul-searching is a good place to begin for all of us.
At least, speaking for myself, I certainly have no desire to remove the atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews or New Age-y sorts.
Of course Dan doesn't. Those are the kind of people he favors over real Americans and Christians.
First, for Bent,
"1. Repent. [those who call themselves by HIS name] Turn back to God."
Seems Eric was addressing Christians, but that doesn't exclude some semblance of repentance on the part of everyone else. Other than the belief in God, most people have the same notions of right and wrong in a general sense but still, few abide. So, repent. Cut the crap and get back to the right and wrong you KNOW exists no matter what your belief level in deity.
For my part, I KNOW that God exists and Jesus is Lord. Too much evidence and logic and testimony recorded to deny it for those who really need to have it if they'd only look. But I'll go farther and say, "Repent and spread the Good News."
2. Money was never the problem. Greedy bastards are the problem. Both those running for office and those who hope to gain from their election. They say that 5% of the population pay 60% of the taxes, or some such. Fine. They're the producers and as such should be heard since they know how to produce. But, if you don't want to be ruled by them, remember you're part of the other 95%. Consider yourself a political leader. Who would you prefer rebelling against you, the 5% or the 95%? Money will never trump the pissed off 95%. Speak out always and encourage others to do as well. Demand the opposition to defend their position and be willing and eager (and prepared and knowledgable) to defend ours. I insist that we are where we are as a result of our inaction as a people. We LET the greedy bastards have their way.
3. Term limits are for the lazy and those who abdicate their responsibilities as citizens. (Not always a conscious choice, but sometimes taught to be that way by immediate cultural influence) Pay attention to what your reps are doing, and even to those for whom you can't vote so you can support their opponents financially. Call them, write them, encourage others to do the same and vote them out when their term expires. But if they're good, hang the hell on to them.
A third Reagan term would have prevented "Read my lips".
4. There's no reason that a media outlet should lose dough in order to appear non-partisan. Let them be hacks. There's plenty more outlets and there's no reason not to call them or boycott them or their advertizers if they get too cocky. However, when debate time comes, I don't see a problem with them having to all broadcast the debates (I just hope my team's not playing that nite.)as part of their license agreement. If I'm not mistaken, the point of radio and television broadcasts were for the dissemination of news and for advertizing primarily. The entertainment gives people a reason to watch. But beyond the debates, how and when an outlet wants to present political presentations is their own business. More importantly, I'd like to see each candidate get a website through a non-partisan provider (wet dream) that would monitor the info on each for accuracy. On each site must contain links to all votes or proposals put forth in their past, if they have been serving before, and of course proposed ideas for running for office. (Rough draft)
Those are the kind of people he favors over real Americans and Christians.
Ummm, Mark, those "kind of people" ARE real Americans, too. You know that, don't you?
OH!!!
And MSU Gal? So very good to hear from you again! And I couldn't agree with you more.
This is a time when everyone needs to seriously reflect upon what their individual values are, and determine to know what do and say in these hard economic and political times. The world is changing in very fundamental ways. And if we're not careful this country could change in irrevocable ways. We have to start standing up... stop, as Mark said, abdicating the authority granted us by the Constitution to the 'powers that be'
The simple truth is, WE are the powers that be... if only we'd stand up and say, "enough's enough! Sit down, shut up, and listen to us! Don't like it? There's door, feel free to make use of it!"
Now, Mark...
I'm sorry I don't get to your place any more. Really, I mean that. I don't get to anyone's place much any more. I think the last place I commented at was ER's and I managed to tee him off.
Thing is, I've been doing 11-13 hour days at the station. I am training in a new position as well as doing the news. I have Ben to thank in no small measure for the position I'm transitioning into. It happens to be his OLD position. Yes, I did have to step forward and let the powers that be know I wanted the job, but his recommendation was instrumental in my getting the job. So I haven't had a lot of time. I get an hour in the morning to visit and read all the news sites I frequent, as well as read a few bloggers, you included. But I don't have time to comment.
Now on to the points you made.
"Money was never the problem." Oh, yes it is. Who can compete in a national election with a well-entrenched incumbent unless he or she has money? The incumbent would have to be a world-class idiot and jackass all rolled into one to lose his seat and even at that there's no guarantee he'll lose. Furthermore, you know enough about the power of money to know that without it, Oprah could never have been in a position to be kingmaker for Barack Obama. Neither could George Soros have been able to fund so much Liberal Lunacy as he has. Money greases the political wheels. Money IS the problem. Greed too... I grant you that. But money is the object of greed, and as I said, it greases all the right wheels. And the left ones too.
Also, if percentages in the votership mattered, why did Congress pass that crap sandwich when only 30% of voters supported it? Loaded with additional spending no less? Because they weren't afraid of the voters.
"Term limits are for the lazy and those who abdicate their responsibilities as citizens." Uhhh... yeah! Hello!? The majority of voters in this country HAVE abdicated their authority. The evidence is in members like Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
"There's no reason that a media outlet should lose dough in order to appear non-partisan." Oh yes there is! But that's not where I'm going with this. My point is, take money out of the equation and both incumbent AND challenger are able to run on an even playing field. This really has nothing to do with keeping money out of media's pocket. What this is about is giving the challenger a fair shot. And by doing this the media is forced to accept the new state of affairs. If they want to cover the campaigns they have to accept that the campaigns have little or no funds to spread around. Let the press go back to what it once was... a conscientious and fair observer of events. Let them cover the elections knowing that neither side has enough money to grease any media palms. Let the media go back to doing the Public a genuine service.
Dan,
"I'd suggest the notion of living sustainably as a goal is not that different than the goal of living in a healthy manner: Who could be opposed to the ideal? But we also don't want gov't (or corporations) deciding FOR us how best to live healthy.
All the same, since living healthy is a worthy ideal, there may be nothing wrong with gov't supporting the notion in a non-dicatorial manner.
Same for living sustainably."
You almost convince me, but for all your previous comments. I know your heart is in the right place on this issue of living sustainably, but as Bubba stated, you don't do a very good job of defining or describing the ideal... in detail. Still, this at least is something I can agree with in spirit. The devil is, as you said, in the details. And I'm quite sure you and I would argue bitterly over them... Seems to me, although I could be wrong, BUT I have trouble imagining myself wrong about us arguin', but still... who knows? Until you fess up with details, there's literally nothing to argue over. So again, who knows? Anything, I guess, is possible.
And I agree with Bubba. Let's keep the discussion centered on what we can do to save America, in concrete terms. Let's avoid, for now, the 'sustainable living' tangent. I'm not saying it has no validity, only that it's part of an aggregate whole; part of a much larger picture, and as such a philosophical tangent; a distraction from more immediate needs, and doesn't speak to the urgent need to accomplish something more immediate. Something in the here and now.
You confused Mark and me. Most of the comments to which you responded were mine.
But I reiterate that the problem lies with us primarily. We as a population haven't been vocal enough to give the pols any reason to fear us. That means, that the 70% who disagreed with the bailout dropped the ball. I refer again to the Harriet Meiers nomination and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, both of which faced REAL opposition with massive call in campaigns, and both bit the dust right quick. Soros' money didn't do jack without the millions of losers who bought into the crap he and others were spewing. I don't particularly thing he's being totally straight about it, but Obamalamdingdong claims most of his dough comes from the little guy in small increments. Even if he's totally lying about that, I believe it's possible to do such a thing.
And money isn't grease when it's supporting a campaign, it's our voice. If you dig deeply, even if it's only a couple of hundred where you might only have wanted to give 50, you've just raised your voice louder. And in tandem with other dollars from other like minded people, you're all roaring. We've seen rich dudes put up massive amounts of cash to finance their campaigns and still lose. Jim Oberweiss in Illinois must have lost three different campaigns by now, and he's not all that bad. (In fact he ran for the nomination that eventually was filled with Alan Keyes in the year Barry O was elected to the US Senate. I believe he came in 2nd to Jack Ryan, who stepped down when his divorce records--married to the luscious Jerri Ryan of Star Trek fame--were threatened withh public exposure by, hmmm, I think it was an Obamanable person---but I digress skillfully) Remember also that we've already seen that the McCain-Feingold bill didn't change much in the way of money finding it's way to the money grubbing.
As for methods, Perri Nelson suggests changing the primary system. He's in Washington State, I believe he said and by the time his primaries come, many candidates have dropped out. I'd like to see the primaries just two or three months before the general, maybe six at the most, with no single state voting before any other. Currently, it makes the first few states set the tone and make narrow the choices to those the rest of us might not like. Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson were gone by the time we had ours in Illinois and I'd have preferred either of them to McCain, Huck or Romney (though I'd like to see Mitt in the Cabinet somewhere). This rule change would make some spending superfluous I'd think since no voting could take place too soon. Outspending wouldn't have quite the same effect because everyone is still in the race no matter what.
The problem would be twofold, however. We'd need grassroots rebellion to get the party to change their primary rules, and we'd also have to impose on each state's right to run their own show. A compelling argument would be needed to convince every state to buy into the plan.
A compelling argument is needed in every conservative campaign to explain to the gen pop what it means to buy into conservative principles. People will send their money to whom they feel is best suited, if they send money at all. Strangely, too many think Barry is best suited and there's been no one who can demonstrate how stupid that is. That's a serious communication fault and more than money or equal time can fix that. Harry Truman did it. He went up against a well heeled opponent who was as slick as Barry O and had the cash. It was supposed to be a slaughter, but Harry, the Democratic Dubya of his day, went to the people and hammered them with common sense talk that persuaded. His win was far from assured. We both know that one of Bush's biggest faults was his poor communication skills. Whether our guy has it or is trained to have it, it's worth more than cash.
But I say again, real change comes from the grass roots up. WE have to be in the fight all the time. WE have to rally others to at the very least, read a newspaper once in awhile. Focus locally with an eye out nationally and make some noise. The more the merrier. It could be the guy in your area is motivated to act when twenty phone calls hit his switch board. You never know.
Term limits cuts our own throats. But how would we get them enacted? By rising up and demanding them. So why not rise up for what we really want instead, which is better representation? I refuse to have more choice taken from me. If I think my guy is doing the job and he's willing to keep doing it, I want him there. I think term limits gives the jerk better opportunity to do us wrong because he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected.
On that score, I'm reall interested in seeing what will happen with House and Senate seats since Congress has got such a poor rating these days. It will be interesting to see if people "vote the bums out". If it doesn't happen now, we're screwed and nothing either of us have suggested could make the least bit of difference.
I'd suggest that there are few more pressing issues than learning to live within our means environmentally, fiscally, societally and personally, but whatevs (as the kids say).
You weren't exactly asking for input on how to save ourselves, I just thought I'd throw in one in addition to your four with which I mostly agree.
But I say again, real change comes from the grass roots up.
I agree with Marshall here. Grass roots, bottoms up democracy is a grand and vital thing. When we look back on this election, I think that people will say that is one reason why Obama won (assuming he does win) - like him or not, the man has a heckuva mobilization plan.
Like community organizing or not, it can be a powerful tool in effecting change and getting out the vote and I imagine future races will look to see what they can learn from Obama's candidacy.
Whatever our disagreements, we need, as Americans, to come together to save this country.
How about ending the demonization of the Other as a critical starting point? We can't hardly come together if all sides are continually saying that the other sides are monsters or traitors or that they hate America, right?
That would seem like a vital beginning step: The realization that nearly all concerned are striving for a better, more peaceful, more secure, more wholesome nation - even if we disagree with their approach or angle. Yes?
LOL! Tgat's eassy to do, Art. Wasn't it ER who said you and I are twins, seperated at birth?
1. Computers should be in charge of re-districting. It's easy to program a geography program and tell it to create/determine the smallest contiguous area that is racially representative. That way you eliminate gerrymandering and incumbents that hang on for decades because they've cherry-picked their constituents.
2. States should allocate electoral votes to reflect the national vote. Electors were needed when the country was young and public media and education were lacking. Today that's not a problem. The person who wins the national vote should be president.
3. Corporations for the purposes of elections should be treated as individuals. It would be improper for a person to be the sole sponsor a fundraiser or campaign apparatus. Corporations should be treated the same way. Then they would have the right to speak as individuals to candidates without being able to exert undue influence.
Absolutely not, Dan. Obama is rightly seen as a bad choice for our country. There's nothing that should prohibit anyone from pointing out why that is so. As long as the points are factual, that is. And I would say that includes the seemingly wacky arguments about his Muslim connections, not because of what he presents himself to be, but because of the perception of him by radical Muslims and THEIR notions of Islam. He'll have to deal with some of these people at some point (hopefully with pre-condidtions) and their beliefs will come into play.
Regardless, he's a bad move for the country and his negatives should be highlighted as well as his positives, which are horribly few, just like any decision. You seem to want people to overlook the negatives in order to get your man in, so you call it demonize. I call it telling it like it is and THEN letting the people decide.
I realize that some are content with being perceived as striving a better nation, but are in fact, more concerned with sitting in the big chair. Obama is one of them, just as Clinton was before him. Do they want a better nation? Perhaps that's there somewhere, but it ain't their driving motivation. Is that just my opinion? Yeah. What of it? It fits pretty well based on his tactics in handling questions of his character and judgement.
I absolutely agree that people should feel free to point out McCain's or Obama's weaknesses as far as their policies are concerned. I'm fine questioning their character even - respectfully.
What needs to end are the demonizations of individuals and the twisting of their words or positions.
"He's a socialist!" "He's a fascist!" "She wants to establish Christianity as the national religion and imprison anyone who doesn't agree!!"
This sort of rot only weakens our democracy.
Obama IS a Socialist and a fascist!
And a Marxist.
His actions and speeches prove it. You know what they say..."If it waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
To seque(sp) from that, I want to add that we must force the opposition to justify their positions and beliefs as we must be willing and eager to justify and defend ours. This can only happen when people are willing to hear more than listen and not waste time with irrelevant crap like "demonizing". I'm currently engaged in a debate regarding tax cuts and their effect on tax revenues. I firmly believe that revenues increase as a result. As I search for evidence in support of my position that will satisfy my opponent, I must apparently be satisfied with his argument that "most economists" believe otherwise. So I'm working to back my position, but how could he ever hope that I'll change my tune if he offers nothing in return? Doesn't matter at present, because when my argument is supported, fence sitters will have something to consider to which they can refer when needed to support THEIR belief. That's how it should work to bring people into the fold. That will raise the amount of people who feel the same way and will vote accordingly.
For one thing, Dan'll defend Obama's mentor and former pastor as a holy man of God, he'll rail against (often imagined) rumors that Obama's a Muslim, and he writes here about how "all are welcome," including "atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews [and] New Age-y sorts."
But that doesn't stop him from speculating about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs, wondering aloud whether she's from "the 'Name it and Claim it' sort."
Religion is too important to Dan Trabue to be used as a political weapon, except when it isn't.
And the reason I've been focusing on whether Dan can define ideas like sustainable living is because Dan REPEATEDLY invokes these terms to attack those with whom he disagrees.
This has everything to do with living within our limits. With personal responsibility.
It is personally and societally irresponsible in the extreme to do what we're doing. I wish more conservatives would own up to it and live up to the name "conservative." [link]
By "people like me," do you mean people who call for us to live within our means and for personal responsibility? Oh, for the days when conservatives were actually conservative! [link]
We must consume less. We must not consume more than we can create. That is only responsible and I can't believe that all the "conservatives" would ignore the notion of living within our means. [link]
The last quote prompted my initial attempt to get Dan to define clearly the terms he uses so glibly to attack conservatives as being traitors to conservatism. That attempt went about as well as this one, where Dan is now suggesting that we should all be able to agree to support certain goals without having a clear idea what those goals ACTUALLY MEAN, since such things are piddling details.
Kicking or screaming, or quietly in its sleep -- let the GOP go to its reward.
Boo Repubs.
Yay Dems.
Yay 'Murka!
As for economic relationships, perhaps you all should introduce yourselves to history and look up the Bretton Wood Accords under which our financial systems were tied with those of Europe in 1944. Monetary values were pegged to the US dollar, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the International Monetary Fund were established.
As for Christian faith, Christ can lead us in the midst of world trade, market innovation, constant international exchange, and popular and syncretic religions without anxiety. After all, he lived in just such a context.
Why the paranoia? The only things he objected to were abuse of religious power and hypocrisy.
There is somewhat to fear, I believe, with calls for a global monetary system. Europe has adopted a single unifying currency, and on the surface it appears to have benefited everyone. Deeper down, however, each of those member nations are tied to each other in a far more fundamental way. Complete political unity is but one member short of realization-- Ireland being the last hold out, but recent events show that Sarkozy and Barosso are seeking to move ahead anyway, with Sarkozy-- championed by Barasso himself --taking the presidency of the European Council which is the REAL power in the EU government-- not the rotating presidency.
With a single currency every member nation has forsaken a measure of sovereignty to become a part of something much larger. What happens if, say, a PRESIDENT Barack Obama agrees with Europe, China and Russia that the world needs to be under a single currency? What if he convinces a democratically controlled House and Senate and it passes and is then signed by president Obama? Is America ready to cede a measure of sovereignty to become a member nation of a World Government with Europe as its head?
Before you say this could never happen, just one year ago no would have believed a Black Man with so many radical ties and Marxist beliefs would be, potentially, 17 days from the presidency.
Anything can happen in 17 days. It isn't over 'til the fat lady sings, and she doesn't take the stage for another 17 days.
A biracial man, left of center, who is enraptured with the power of the global market of capitalism and the potential of the US to lead in such an environment AND also wants to re-implement protective measures of competent, hands on, government oversight will be sworn in in January on a very cold day in Hell.
Europe, by the way, has been able to respond much faster than the US in the current crisis and their people have paid less dearly.
The European Union is not a model for the US for reasons due to economic size, regional rational for Europe to cooperate, etc. The smart members of both parties (and God, is Barack Obama ever smart and able to direct whole conferences of smart people) understand this completely and are only debating the value and nature of trade agreements.
Your hyperbole destroys your approach to saying something of worth