Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Jeff said Really. You “can’t fathom” why it’s a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country’s founding principles.
Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles?
The Declaration of Independence?
David Bjorlin wrote…
The Declaration of Independence?
That’s what I was thinking, but since I’m no expert on the fine print of American political documents, I’ll leave it to you guys. =)
Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in ’08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in ’00?
Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in ’08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in ’00?
I think people were trying to claim that Howard Dean was unstable (after that wonderful soundbyte in Iowa), yet he probably would’ve been a candidate that could actually get people moving in the right direction.
All in all, I don’t recall specifically how the Republicans backstabbed McCain, so I don’t think it would affect my opinion of him.
Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in ’08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in ’00?”
I certainly hope they don’t. I think what the GOP did was despicable, and hope the Democratic party doesn’t get so desperate as to do the same. Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.
PAD
Nobody’s really denying that one could come up with humanitarian reasons for the Iraq invasion (whether those reasons are sufficient to justify the invasion would be another matter). What PAD (in my interpretation) is denying is that this was the primary motivation for going to Iraq. Which it wasn’t
There’s no question that the WMD issue was the primary justification for the invasion. There’s also no question that we haven’t found anything close to what we were expecting to find (no WMDs, trivial WMD development programs). The government has subsequently been making the argument that even with the primary argument gone, there were several other justifications advanced for the invasion, and the remaining justifications are sufficient. If PAD were merely saying “who are you trying to kid?” (and in all honesty 2/3 of the resolution endorsing the invasion was about WMDs, q.v. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf ), then I wouldn’t have thrown a hissy fit. I don’t think that’s what he said.
We invaded a country that has strategic value in addition to humanitarian disasters, and didn’t invade countries with disasters but no strategic value. That doesn’t mean this disaster isn’t serious.
David Bjorlin wrote…
We invaded a country that has strategic value in addition to humanitarian disasters, and didn’t invade countries with disasters but no strategic value. That doesn’t mean this disaster isn’t serious.
Disaster is right. And I see nothing wrong with letting your government know that it is unacceptable to invade a country, and when the initial justification for the invasion evapourates, to make up new ones on the fly until one sticks.
Except this past week, the majority of Americans apparently let the government know that that sort of behaviour is acceptable.
“Strategic value” indeed. Pretty shaky moral ground to say the least.
Craig, that quote from his letter was no different than the wording on any fund-raiser letter sent out by a party supporter. It in no way implied anything about Diebold or their machines or that he was rigging them.
His quote was in reference to financing and hard work he would supply to help Bush win.
I can see where he should have worded it better, but to feel that he would rig an election off a quote on a fund-raiser letter is just too paranoid.
“Heres an interesting question for the forum: If John McCain runs in ’08, would the Democrats be justified in bringing the same concerns about his mental stability that HIS OWN PARTY used against him in ’00?”
I certainly hope they don’t. I think what the GOP did was despicable, and hope the Democratic party doesn’t get so desperate as to do the same. Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.
PAD
***********
Oh, I agree with you. But just speaking for myself, I’ll want someone on the right to explain to me why he was crazy in 2000 and the right man for the job 2008 before I’ll consider voting for him.
Jeff said Really. You “can’t fathom” why it’s a good thing to question the government. To speak out against perceived injustices. Funny, I was under the impression that that is one of your country’s founding principles. Maybe I missed that in print somewhere. Where does it say that is one of our countries founding principles? The Declaration of Independence?
Nope, just read it and I don’t see any reference to this. Are you referring to the colonies accusing the King of injustices and declaring independence?
Peter said Furthermore, I can only guess that the way the GOP managed to get McCain to toe the line was to ensure him he was gonna be The Guy in 2008.
He had a chance to be the man in 2004 if he stood by his friend, John Kerry. Why would he toe the line to be the man in 2008 when he could have been an extremely powerful man now? With McCain by his side, Kerry wouldn’t have lost. Why did he choose to side with Bush? Do you think he was coerced?
I hope John McCain runs as an independent in 08. He could cream the republicans and democrats on his own.
Oh, I agree with you. But just speaking for myself, I’ll want someone on the right to explain to me why he was crazy in 2000 and the right man for the job 2008 before I’ll consider voting for him.
Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don’t think that we took an official position on McCain’s mental health. You’ll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as “someone on the right.”
Jeff, I’ve been to Halifax, Nova Scotia before. It was incredible. I loved the bag pipe player playing in the park and I saw Tatoo when I was there, which was great also. I’m not sure where you live in Canada, just wanted to say I liked your country.
I’m curious as to why you care about American politics. From what I gathered while I was there, they didn’t care one way or another that I was from America. Then they tried to put mayonaise on my burger, ughhh. :0)
Novafan wrote…
I’m curious as to why you care about American politics.
A good question. There are a couple of big reasons:
1) The U.S. and Canada are each other’s biggest trade partners, and so the policies of each government are very important. As the “little guy” in the trade relationship, Canada tends to have trouble holding its own in trade disputes, and so we have an interest in who’s in charge over there.
2) As the leading world superpower, the entire world has its eyes on you guys. The actions of America, especially lately, have a huge impact on politics and economies worldwide.
3) I’m interested in politics in general.
It should be noted that some Canadian trade groups feel that Bush would actually be better than Kerry when it comes to resolving trade disputes, most notably the current embargo on Canadian beef, which is killing the industry over here. The Bush administration has been stellar for our economy, since your unstable economy has led to some huge gains in the value of our currency. 🙂
Also, while most Canadians bear no ill will to Americans as individuals, anti-Americanism in terms of politics hasn’t been higher hear in a long, long time. Were you to visit today (and I encourage you to do so), you would probably find some very strong opinions regarding the direction your country is headed in.
“Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don’t think that we took an official position on McCain’s mental health. You’ll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as “someone on the right.”
Which reminds me–when is VRWC inc gonna send me this weeks Talking Points? I realise you guys were probably celebrating heavily Tuesday but it’s been almost a week. This is no time to fall down on the job.
All this talk about what “The Republicans” did to John McCain…remind me, what party was it that almost nominated him? Who were his supporters? It’s like saying what “The Democrats” did to Ted Kennedy when he ran against Carter.
Rest assured, the same people who would have been thrilled to have McCain on the ticket with Kerry will find some reason why he should not be within 100 yards of the White House if he decides to run in 2008.
Speaking for Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Inc., I don’t think that we took an official position on McCain’s mental health. You’ll have to seek the actual people who spread that rumor, rather than typecasting everyone who counts as “someone on the right.”
Are you the same VRWCI that phoned southern voters and asked them what they thought about McCain having an illegitimate biracial daughter?
Oh yeah, that was Bush 2000 campaign.
Craig, that quote from his letter was no different than the wording on any fund-raiser letter sent out by a party supporter. It in no way implied anything about Diebold or their machines or that he was rigging them.
Yet, it is rather amusing that when a problem still occurred with the machines, it favored Bush.
Either way, it was a VERY tacky comment for that guy to make, and he should know better.
Btw, I talked a Canadian last night who was sick and tired of listening to Americans complain about the election. She doesn’t care. I told her that, in the long run, she should. *shrug*
Speaking of 2008 presidential candidates, I think you can start considering Iowa governor Tom Vilsack to try and run for the Democratic nomination.
He’s apparently imposed a self-limitation of 2 terms, the 2nd of which will be up in 2 years, and he was a VP finalist for VP for Kerry.
Novafan:
You wanted to where being able to criticize the government is one of our founding principles?
Here it is:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I hope that’s helpful.
Ralph Sevush wrote: “I was simply reacting to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters said “moral values” was the biggest factor in their vote…”
Source?
If this is the “fact” you were reacting to then you might have to rethink your reaction (or find some other rationalization for it).
The overwhelming majority of Bush supporters did not list “moral values” as the biggest factor in their vote. In one exit poll of about 13,000 voters from both parties, 22% listed “moral values” as the number one factor. Of that 22%, 80% voted for Bush. (Source: NY Times, 11/3/04) A fraction of 22% (even a large fraction) is still less than 22%. (We can also factor in a rather wide margin of error, since we know how “accurate” this exit poll was — but let’s take it at face value for a moment.) Even if every single one of that 22% voted for Bush, that leaves at least 78% — which is in fact an overwhelming majority — of Bush voters naming some other issue as the most important to them in the election. (Source: New York Times, 11/3/04)
Only 5% of voters polled listed “health care” as their number one issue. 73% of those people voted for Kerry. Does that mean that the “overwhelming majority” of Kerry voters thought health care was the number one issue in the election? No. Same thing.
If the people who are so angry about this result want to make sure it doesn’t happen again, it might be wise to try to learn the real reasons it did rather than twisting statistics to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes, ironic or otherwise.
Thanks Den. So we’ve come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it’s true or not.
Is that the general consensus?
Thanks Jeff for responding to my question. I enjoy talking to people from different countries.
Wait a minute, I just found out from Craig in the Fonzie thread that I’m actually Canadian so that makes us countrymen. :0)
Peter said Shana just told me this great joke she heard on “Prairie Home Companion.” “What’s the difference between the Iraqi war and the Vietnam war?” “George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam war.”
If you thought that was funny, this is what I heard today on the radio:
“What do you call 10,000 liberals amassing at the Canadian Border?”
“A good start.”
Interesting info from left wing blog dailykos; looking at the e-mail newsletters sent out by the Bush and Kerry teams reveals the following–
Bush Kerry
Give Money 8% 57%
Get Out the Vote 38% 29%
Issues/Events 54% 14%
The Kerry folks used the web as nothing more than a way to get money–exactly the same mistake that the Dean campaign did! the Bush team used it to get out the vote. result–Kerry got and spent a great deal of money, only to lose in the only thing that maters, which is getting your voters to the polls.
Dumb move for such supposedly smart guys…
What I would like to know is how on Earth Hillary Clinton can run for President in 2008 for the Democratic Party? Isn’t there a 2 term limit on the presidency now? She already had her 8 years as President, let someone else try to compete. :0)
Novafan wrote…
Thanks Den. So we’ve come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it’s true or not.
Were I Den, I would have bolded the part that said, “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What do you call 10,000 liberals amassing at the Canadian Border?”
“A good start.”
Well, if/when the draft comes, it’d be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush’s war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.
PAD
So we’ve come to the conclusion that abridging the freedom of speech allows people to say whatever they want about the Commander in Chief, regardless if it’s true or not.
Well, as a public figure, the burden of proof for sustaining a libel charge is much higher, so yes.
People can accuse Clinton of rape and using cocaine without a shred of proof. That’s been established for years now.
Oh, and murder, too. Can’t forget the whole Vince Foster conspiracy.
Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I’ll let you know.
Jeff said Were I Den, I would have bolded the part that said, “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That’s just it Jeff, they aren’t petitioning the Government. Why don’t they do this?
Den said Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I’ll let you know.
I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?
Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.
Peter said Well, if/when the draft comes, it’d be kind of nice if only conservatives were left to send their children to die in Bush’s war. All the liberals in Canada could wave bye-bye to the passing troop transports.
Here we go with the draft nonsense. Another scare tactic that the Democrats used that I’m sure got a lot of younger people to vote for Kerry.
I’ll believe it when I see it Peter. Btw, I bet if it were to happen, many people would protest and tear up their draft papers instead of fighting for their country in a time of need. What a bunch of wooses I say.
Novafan wrote…
That’s just it Jeff, they aren’t petitioning the Government. Why don’t they do this?
One could argue they did, last Tuesday.
I guess they didn’t get enough signatures =D
Jeff said One could argue they did, last Tuesday. I guess they didn’t get enough signatures =D
Ha. You’re right, but I don’t think that was the intent of that article.
Here’s an article analyzing the flaws in the study that established the 100,000 Iraqi war dead total.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?
Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.
It’s noble that you feel that way, but as long as we have a first amendment protecting people’s right to freedom of speech, there will always be certain people on both sides of the aisle who will engage in personal attacks, insults, and pure mudslinging. You’re just going to have to learn to live with it.
Quite frankly, I’d rather live in a country where the president has to deal with a few personal insults than one where criticizing his judgment can result in you “disappearing.”
People can accuse Clinton of rape and using cocaine without a shred of proof. That’s been established for years now. Oh, and murder, too. Can’t forget the whole Vince Foster conspiracy.
Tell you what, Novafan, whenever the level of accursations leveled at Bush even comes close to what was leveled at Clinton, I’ll let you know.
The charges against Bush and Clinton have been remarkably similar:
Clinton: Whitewater coverup
Bush: SEC investigation of Harken
–
Clinton: Drug use
Bush: Drug use
–
Clinton: Womaninzing and rape
Bush: getting woman pregnant/helping with abortion
–
So, I think the accusation levels are pretty high on both sides.
Novafan:
>I have no idea about all of the accusations that were leveled at Clinton, nor did I care. He was our Commander in Chief, so I supported him up until the point where he let his little head do the talking for his big head. However, I still never insulted him, ran his name through the mud, called him names, or anything to that effect. Why? What he did was totally wrong and against my beliefs, so I had every right to protest and throw my arms up in disgust right?
>Wrong. He was still my President until the next election. He is a man and entitled to make mistakes.
Big difference between the two main incidents being cited. One got a hummer, while the other sent thousands of them over to invade a foreign nation.
You forgot:
Clinton: Accusations that he had Vince Foster and a number of other people murdered.
Bush: ???
When somebody accuses Bush of being Michael Corleone, they will be even.
“Bush lied and people died!”
“Blood for oil!”
Sorry that’s already there, too.
Hëll, Howard Dean once even accussed Bush of having pre-knowledge of the 9/11 attacks in one of his primary rants. He quickly backed down, though.
Yeah, well the problem with these more extreme accusations is that they tend to bury the more credible criticisms in the dross.
For example, I certainly don’t think Bush lied on Iraq. But I have a sneaking suspicion that he and his team didn’t scrutinize the intelligence as thoroughly or as carefully as he should have–and criticisms of this have been forgone and ignored in favor of shrill screaming about lies.
It’s been well established that Rumsfeld and Rove cherrypicked their intelligence and, despite Tenet’s “slam duck” assertion, most of the CIA expressed doubt that there were WMDs still in Iraq. So, they set up their own committee in the Pentagon to select only those reportst that favored their position. What made it to the president’s desk and the congressional intelligence committees were reports that were massaged and tailored to support a predetermined conclusion.
So, is it an unfair accusation if it has some documented basis in fact?
With regard to how liberals would feel about a McCain presidency:
I can’t speak for all liberals, but as a general rule, this liberal would not have a problem with him. Whether I would vote for him would depend on who the other parties put up against him.
My only real problem with McCain is his horrible, atrocious record on free speech/censorship issues. But Lieberman is as bad as he is, and Gore was close to as bad, and yet I voted for that ticket over Dubya.
I did give serious pause to voting for Clinton when he chose Gore as a running mate, for the same reason — but decided it was better than George Bush pere.
You’ll note that around that time, Tipper stopped pushing the PMRC, and I don’t think that was a coincidence. There was no big push to limit free speech during the Clinton administration save perhaps for the V-Chip, and that is an optional tool. If McCain would take a similar tack, then again, depending on who he was running against, I would strongly consider giving him my vote.
For those looking for suspicious evidence of voter fraud, here’s something from Keith Olberman;
“remarkable results out of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In 29 precincts there, the County
Bill,
Kerry conceded. This is not about the election. The main issue now is, can we trust that our vote counts? It is becoming increasingly clear that without a paper trail we have no idea what these machines are doing. There were glitches all over the country, but due to the fact that some states say we can trust the machines, we have no backup to find if they recorded each voters wishes accurately. Is any computer 100%, entirely safe from software or hardware problems? A paper trail should be mandatory and my republican friends agree with me.
For those looking for suspicious evidence of voter fraud, here’s something from Keith Olberman;
Either way, the problems must be found and tracked down. And the CEO’s of the companies that make these devices should be told to STFU.
No, I’m not blaming voting machines for Bush winning; it’s already well known here how I feel.
Either way, the problems must be found and tracked down. And the CEO’s of the companies that make these devices should be told to STFU.
Hëll, yeah. No matter how you voted, this should really concern you. I can accept Bush won; I can’t accept that the voting machines are as bugfree as humanly (or even inhumanly) possible.
I think this is an example where liberals and conservatives should be able to come to agreement. Everyone who can legally vote should be able to do so. All illegal votes must be eliminated (since every illegal vote is essentially the same as denying a valid one).
They can sure make dámņ sure that we don’t get tax returns sent to the wrong person so I don’t see how they can’t control the voter rolls. A picture ID should be madatory for voting–we require it for far far less important things. Punishment for rigging elections should be harsh way beyond measure–a few convictions on this will be all that is needed to discourage it.
(I would also suggest law enforcement arrange for “volunteers” to infiltrate the operations of your opponents with the goal of looking for fraud.)
It can be done and people of good will should fight for it. Only those who think that they can’t win a fair fight would object.