When you think of the vast percentage of Americans who can’t be bothered to come out and vote…and that musicians develop an overwrought campaign called “Vote Or Die,” which really doesn’t mean much of anything, as opposed to the “Vote And Die” message being spread by Iraqi terrorists…
It’s just pretty dámņëd impressive, the Iraqis turning out to vote in their first election. Make no mistake, it’s still a horror show, we still shouldn’t be over there, Bush lied to America, and Bush’s List continues to grow. But at least Iraqis are braving all manner of risk to vote, as opposed to many Americans who are so cavalier about a right they never earned or had to fight for.
PAD
• 
Covering several points:
Posted by kingbobb at January 31, 2005 08:48 AM
So, what happens if the Iraqi council elected by this vote turns around and drafts a constitution that calls for the appointement of a military warlord with all the power and trappings that Saddam held? Do we sit back and call that a success of democracy, or do we then invade again and start all over?
Before i went to Viet Nam, i was sent to Counter-Insurgency School by the Navy.
One of the things that we were told as part of the curriculum was that a US-backed referendum on Viet Nam’s statue was held in 1954. And the Bad Guys won.
And the US said “Oops, that didn’t come out right” and more-or-less unilaterally set aside the results and began sticking its toes into the quagmire.
Posted by Brian Czako at January 31, 2005 10:11 AM
And was it Voltaire (or maybe Bugs Bunny) who said, “I do not agree with what you have
to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”?
Neither, actually — i don’t have the reference handy, but it was a later writer who said “As Voltaire might have said…”
Posted by Robbnn at January 31, 2005 11:32 AM
Well, all of those things are illegal now, rather than government sanctioned. Girls are being educated.
Ummm, it was my understanding that, under the Saddam regime, women and girls had about as much freedom in everyday life as males did — at least so far as government activity went; as the column by an Iraqi woman referenced up-list points out, there was quite a bit of mistreatment of women and girls by their own families and relatives because they started getting “uppity”.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at January 31, 2005 12:47 PM
I’d say the U.S. military is playing the role of the French (without whom the Colonials would have definitely lost)
In your example, it would be more appropriate if we gave aid to the Kurds while they fought the war themselves against Saddam.
In their support of the Us presence in Iraq, the Kurds would do well to remember the word “Montagnard”
Posted by Derek! at January 31, 2005 05:31 PM
That doesn’t jibe with several reports I heard on NPR and assorted other sources. Can you verify this?)
I read an ABC or MSNBC online report a few days before the election about candidate names being kept secret. I’ll see if I can find it.
According to “All Things Considered” Monday evening, the ballot did not list candidates, but rather political groups/coalitions, many/most of which were identified only by icons on the ballot.
Posted by David Bjorlin at February 1, 2005 12:13 AM
That statement in no way denigrates the Colonial fighters. It’s just meant to bring caution to those that would decry any act of terrorism.
Then it’s a tremendous non sequitur. If you want to make the argument that, to the British, George Washington was a traitor, you’re right. But why in the would would you want to exercise caution in decrying an ACT of terrorism?
Possibly because the example of the US Revolution demonstrates that the usual attitude runs “I am a freedom fighter, you are a revolutionary, he/she/it is a terrorist”, and one person’s terrorist is another’s Heroic Freedom Fighter.
Consider the King David Hotel and the Jerusalem railroad station, and then consider Menachem Begin’s attitude as Prime Minister of Israel.
Powell Pugh:
Similes and metaphors used in the discussion of social, political and legal issues are almost always applied very badly, serving little purpose other than creating schisms. People who use them, more often than not, are just fearmongers who’d rather lean on pre-packaged non-solutions, rather than address the actual issues.
Actually, I just love The Tick, and the link amused me. I thought it might do the same for others (because it does sound like something Tick-like, though not quite up to Edlund’s standards, and even if you disagree with the arguments, the style is amusing). When I resort to prepackaged arguments, I (try to) do so with links, preferably to places that provide a little more than just quips or party line arguments.
You know, you’re the one who asked why we didn’t just go fix things in Mexico. When I explained, you said my reason wasn’t valid because YOU didn’t mention it. When I then justified bringing something extra to the table (the situations weren’t analogous, and the war at large was at least part of the reason why), you focused on the 9 words that I’d included as a joke (with a link to provide context for it), and completely avoided the substance of the comment.
Then you accuse ME of avoiding the issues?
Powell Pugh wrote (and Craig J. Ries made similarly minded statements just before that.):
Regime change was not our objective in ’91. BushSr. was at least intelligent enough to realize that.
It was obvious, even then, that it should’ve been our policy, and there was, as I recall, an attempt to affect regime change indirectly, when we offered to support Iraqi Freedom Fighters against Saddam. However, when the time came, Bush Sr. opted to let us be shackled by U.N. demands.
Whether it was an explicit objective or not then, the information I have is that it should’ve been. Maybe that’s a case of hindsight (the idea of mass graves or prisons for children doesn’t exactly make me feel all warm and fuzzy about Saddam), but I’m pretty sure we had every reason to know he was evil. Regime change should have been a goal, and our leaving that man in power so he could kill a few hundred thousand of his own people was a travesty.
Craig J. Ries wrote:
I’m sure some of those “terrorists” in Iraq are fighting simply because they see us as just another conquerer, not a liberator.
Actually, I suspect that most of those fighting against us in Iraq are either outsiders interested in keeping the people in Iraq from gaining a little say in their own lives or displaced Saddam supporters who, as Bill Mulligan put it, are “wishing for a return to the good old days when a man could rape and mutilate the same people who are now jumping around with purple stained fingers.” In either case, I’d wager that those fighting us who actually have an interest in freedom are an extreme minority.
Maybe I’m wrong, though. It has happened before.
Mike Weber:
Posted by Brian Czako at January 31, 2005 10:11 AM
And was it Voltaire (or maybe Bugs Bunny) who said, “I do not agree with what you have
to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”?
Neither, actually — i don’t have the reference handy, but it was a later writer who said “As Voltaire might have said…”
Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote those words (or something very similar. I think it was “I disapprove of what you say…”) in Friends of Voltaire, as I recall. It was a paraphrase of Voltaire’s ideas from an essay, and closely related to something he’d said in a letter, as I recall.
Too bad the Iraqi’s didn’t EARN the right to vote, America freed them, they did nothing to fight Saddam and earn this…
Not buying PAD’s books because you disagree with him is fine from a Free Speech point of viewm trying to get him fired for it is Ecomonomic Terrorism (I can play Bush’s word games too…)
*grumble* dámņ lack of working preview…
economic
>Ecomonomic Terrorism (I can play Bush’s word games too…)
Although that does sound like a Bushism, I had Eddie Murphy’s Buckwheat in my head when I read it. 🙂
Fred
O, dear Lord, I will now hear Murphy’s Buh’Wheat voice over every Bladestar post….
And speaking of Bladestar, he does have a good point: The Iraqi’s didn’t “earn” their freedom, the US handed it to them (some would say the US brought them anarchy, but that’s another argument).
Unless you count as “earning” the 20 years of fear and suffering brought about by Saddam’s regime. But as was discussed in relation to the tsunami victims, that was something that happened to them, not something they earned.
So I guess it depends on which side of the fence you fall on. Do you have to work at something to earn it, or is suffering pain and death enough of a cost to mean that you’ve earned salvation?
SPPPOOOOONNNN!
“David, I wasn’t implying that boycotts and calls for them were unAmerican. If anything, history has proven that Americans hold to their ability to boycott tightly, and concept like freedom of speech and free enterprise protect the boycott. What I meant was simply the idea of a boycott clashes with the basic concept of free speech. The only consitutional protections we have are from government restrictions of free speech.”
“But to say that one supports and believes in free speech, and then turn around and try to exert economic pressure on someone who holds beliefs you disagree with, is the very heart of hypocrisy. I’m not talking about the individual who decides not to be a customer of those he disagrees with, but rather the person that actively seeks to get someone fired, or prevent someone from working because of their ideals or political leanings. It’s an attempt to coerce someone away from a line of thought through economic pressure, essentially trying to eliminate that idea by preventing those with that idea from earning a living. If enough engage in that activity, the “offending” person must literally starve, conform, or suffer in silence. It destroys the foundation of the concept of free speech.”
I agree with much of this…but where exactly does the line from boycott to hypocrisy get crossed? It seems as though you are saying it is fine to boycott, say, Dominoes Pizza because the founder is a right to lifer, but if you take out ads urging others to do so or send letters to organizations telling them not to use Dominoes for catering events or you will not participate in said events, you are crossing the line into blackmail.
But no boycott can have any effect if it isn’t publicized and if the “offending” party isn’t aware of the reasons for the boycott.
Let try an example. You find out that the owner of a local hamburger joint is an active member of a far right white supremacy group. Nonviolent but otherwise your classic Jew-hating anti-minority whackjobs. Obviously, (I would think) you might want to avoid eating there. Would it be a violation of one’s commitment to free speech to also send letters to the editor informing others of this fact?
If a teacher is a member of NAMBLA does a school have the right to fire them (I’m assuming here that the teacher in question has no record of actually ACTING on the principles he espouses. His “crime” would be strictly limited to the free expression of his beliefs, such as they are).
In both cases I would see this as a violation of someone
Boycotts alone are not hypocritical. Those that claim to adhere to the ideals of free speech while calling for boycotts are.
I don’t see an individual’s private choice to not be a customer of someone with views repellant to that individual as a boycott. I think you’re right: boycotts are public, organized efforts to change the behavoir of someone or some organization through economic or public pressure.
In your first example, I’d say, yes, if a customer discovers that about the owner, and then publishes that in the local paper with the intent of driving him out of business because of his belief, that’s a huge violation of the ideal of free speech. If all he does is express ideas, and does not discriminate against minorities, then taking action to deprive him of other cusotmers does violated the ideals of free speech.
Yeesh, I don’t think I want to touch the NAMBLA example. Too complex. Raises the issue of free speech clashing with child endangerment. I think protecting kids is going to win out in that one.
Even boiled down to its core values, I think everyone recognizes that the idea of free speech is not unfettered. Other basic rights can and will trump free speech at times. So I don’t think your lack of sympathy in the above examples makes you a hypocrit. If the teacher works at an all girls school, maybe the firing would be unjustified, but if he’s teaching a coed class of 4th graders, I doubt it.
JosephW wrote:
kingbob– Great reply, thoughtful stuff.
Maybe I’m wrong, though. It has happened before.
*shrug* I did say “some” of them. But it makes no difference to the Bush Administration. The whole “you’re with us or against us” mentality that’s serving us oh so well.
Face it, it was obvious that the U.N.
“The vietnam/iraq comparisons are overdone.”
Really? Y’think? Because Glenn brought up the following:
“United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.”
– Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled ‘U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,’ September 4, 1967
PAD
I agree with much of what David B said in response to Kingbob. I do think there is a misunderstanding of “free speech” though. Free speech doesn’t mean anyone has to publish my writing or speaking. If disgruntled decided he wanted Peter David locked down, thrown in prison, or hands removed so he can’t type, then yes indeedy that’s abridging free speech, but urging a publisher to drop him (while nothing I’d do) isn’t abriding free speech, only free publishing which doesn’t exist.
I’m far too selfish to boycott PAD’s writing. I have passed on a couple political preachy issues, but his writing is so enjoyable that to drop him because I disagree with his politics is harming me, not him.
Robnn, I guess I’d say the publisher has a role in deciding what they want to publish, and should monitor that. If PAD submits a story that Marvel feels would be offensive to some, and could hurt sales, then the editor should get back to PAD and inform him of that. PAD (or any author, for that matter) can either make changes to accomodate the publisher, or take his work elsewhere. That’s not really limiting speech.
And I’m not even really saying there’s anything wrong with trying to influence through boycotting actions, just pointing out that claiming to support free speech while calling for a boycott based on suppressing ideas is hypocritical.
I fear people are VASTLY oversimplifying the political state in Iraq. There are several motivating forces there and they simply do not boil down to pro-US/anti-US, pro-freedom/anti-freedom or anything else that ideology dictates.
No, the terrorists are not going to leave. But they aren’t there just because the US are there; when the US leaves, terrorists elements are going to remain. Why? Because they do well in an area where it is chaotic and the native power structure is weak or still forming. That’s basic tactics (and something few people have recognized, particularly in the current administration).
There is a considerable religious component to the Iraqui situation. The natural movement is toward a heavily Islamic flavored government (if not domination), for which I see nothing being done to prepare for (from the US perspective). There is also a strong multicultural problem: Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurds vs. everyone else, etc. If you thought American multiculturalism is problematic, you simply haven’t been paying attention where multiculturalism is a REAL problem.
It’s my contention that current conservatives, most specifically the current administration, are the ones LEAST likely to appreciate the multiple factors at play here. They understand and use military force well, but they do not seem to comprehend or even acknowledge the multiplicity of factors that are at work here or that may come into play.
Tsunami’s are a natural phenomenon, Dictators aren’t. America (while it had help) started throwing off the British itself…
There are only two factors in Bush’s empty head:
1) What George says
and the other?
2) Those who don’t agree with GWB are evil
those are the only factors Bush sees
To RMaheras: Does this then mean you don’t have any substantial backing for your assertion? No Security Council resolution passed following the results of Desert Storm has ever authorized any specific use of force (via that specific phrase or the phrase “all necessary means”) against Iraq since SCR 678. Check the website http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html; that’s where I’ve read the various Resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
Still siding with Bladestar on this one. Iraqi Freedom is something the Bush administration imposed on Iraq. They didn’t struggle for it, fight for it, claim it from the hands of the dictators ruling over them. And maybe they couldn’t have, and maybe they will be better off this way.
On the other hand, given that about 40 people died as a result of suicide attacks on election day, and every voter knew going to the polls would make them a potential target, I still think the Iraqis could show US citazens a thing or two about the respect the right to vote deserves. Due to a clerical error, I was prevented from voting in the elections held 2 years ago. My appreciation for my right to vote increased greatly that day, and hopefully I will never take that right for granted, as some in this country do.
“And I’m not even really saying there’s anything wrong with trying to influence through boycotting actions, just pointing out that claiming to support free speech while calling for a boycott based on suppressing ideas is hypocritical”
not even close to true, free speech means the government will not lock you up for saying something, it means they will not stop you from speaking out, that is free speech, you have no understanding of free speech at all, not even the basics it seems.
for some one to boycott, they are using their free speech, just because i believe in free speech does not mean i can not call for you to lose a job, because again, free speech means the government won’t slap the cuffs on you and haul you off, not that i have to listen to you or not boycott.
come on mcfly think!
Welcome to the conversation, Wally. Please do a scroll up and check the “what’s gone on before.”
I wasn’t discussing the Constitutional concept of free speech, of which I have more than a passing familiarity with. Just the core concept of freedom of speech and expression. If your concept of free speech begins and ends with the protections contained within the Constitution, then you’re correct. The larger discussion of which you jumped into the middle of dealt more with the core principles of free speech.
On the Iraq/Vietnam comparisons, PAD wrote:
Really? Y’think? Because Glenn brought up the following:
“United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.”
– Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled ‘U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,’ September 4, 1967
PAD
Weren’t the Vietnam 1967 elections were marred by extensive voter fraud and the fact that popular Buddhist and pacifist candidates were kept off the ballots?
(I’m pretty sure they were, but I could very easily be wrong. My institutional history education is severely lacking, and most of my free-time history reading centers around the American Revolution and the surrounding years — just a few years short of Vietnam, you know.)
I’ve heard no accusations of fraud (from anyone who has any way to back up those accusations), and I’m not aware of any popular candidates that we kept off the ballots in this case.
I’ve heard no accusations of fraud (from anyone who has any way to back up those accusations), and I’m not aware of any popular candidates that we kept off the ballots in this case.
Well, it sounds like we don’t even know who the candidates are – only party names.
So, we know about as much as the Iraqis do when it comes to knowing who they’ve just elected for the General Assembly.
To be honest, I don’t know that candidate names matter all that much, as long as the voters had a party name and the party platforms were available.
I don’t know about you, but it comes time to vote, I would have to do a lot of work to know the specific stances of those running for certain offices. I try to do this where I can, but when I can’t, I rely on the party names. The fact that “John Doe” is running against “Jim Smith” in a particular race doesn’t give me as much information as knowing their parties will. I try to be as informed about every election (local, state and federal) that I vote in, and there are almost always one or two elections where I’m reduced to voting for a party. In a national setting, where a large number of parties are running, I don’t know that giving the candidate names would’ve provided any significant information (other than to those who were trying to stop the elections — killing off the candidates would be a good start for that, I think.)
In a safer environment where the people had more widespread access to free information, I’d prefer that they have data on the candidates themselves (and I imagine that future elections will move in that direction), but the system for this election is better than what they had just a couple of years ago.
Do we have any evidence that a party was restricted?
“The vietnam/iraq comparisons are overdone.”
Really? Y’think? Because Glenn brought up the following:
“United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.”
Yes, I do think so. Unless one can show compelling evidence that the Iraqi vote is analogous to the Vietnam one. As I mentioned right after the sentence you quote “As Christopher Hitchens points out, it is generally acknowledged that Ho Chi Minh would have won had there been an actual vote of all the people of Vietnam.” Right or wrong, the communists were the choice of the majority. Is there ANYONE who actually believes that the Iraqis would put the terrorists in charge if they could? The ones who threatened to kill them if they voted at all? Anyone? Bueller?
I’m waiting for some right wingers to take these Vietnam=Iraq ideas and turn them into an equally bogus argument for increased military presence–we don’t want all the other Arab governments to become like Laos and Cambodia.
Yes, those who learn nothing from history are doomed to repeat it but one can also argue that those who believe that history repeats itself are doomed to be surprised. Comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam or Germany or Japan or Afghanistan will almost certainly prove more wrong than right.
At any rate, you can read Hitchen’s reply at http://slate.msn.com/id/2112895/
“Do we have any evidence that a party was restricted?”
I think I heard on NPR that to qualify a party could not have an armed militia. Reasonable request and a good incentive to get some of the weapons off the streets.
Kingbob, guess we’ll agree to disagree, then. Thank you for the civil discourse, though. I appreciate gentle reasoning over slapping each other around.
Driving home yesterday, I was rather shocked to see a woman walking down the street in scarves draped around her neck and a belt around her waist and literally nothing else. She was functionally nude (and quite pretty, to boot. I pray for her safety, because this was NOT a nice part of town… høøkër or not, she was putting herself in ridiculous danger). If she was doing this in her own home, no problem. But on a public street? No. I have no difficulty with someone repressing her right to free expression in this instance, for the sake of traffic and her own protection… okay, this had NOTHING more than a minorly tangental point of contact with our discussion, but I really wanted to tell someone about it 🙂 (And honestly, no is no, but as much as I hate this phrase, she was asking for trouble. If she were raped, I’d have no problem prosecuting the offender, but I’d be shaking my head while I did it…)
Robnn, I don’t think there’s anything contradictory between supporting free speech and recognizing that there are limits to it. I’m not sure that walking around with mulitple wardrobe failures would qualify as protected free speech. But even if it did, it could be trumped by other rights and needs, such as keeping the peace. Nudity aside, she could have been charged with disturbing the peace, I suppose, which free speech doesn’t protect.
Although this goes more to the Constitutional protections of free speech, and how they intersect with other rights.
Now, if you had suggested that, in addition to someone making the woman cover up some, they then call her employer and inform them of her massive wardrobe failure….
And what’s wrong with a naked woman?
Fall already america, if you are so pathetic you fear nudity…
===============================================
Who Will the Iraqis Print on Their Money ?
President Bush ? Ðìçk Cheney ?
===============================================
One of the most important ‘ties-that-bind’ that
has held America together since 1776 is the collection
of portraits that are prominently displayed on our Dollars
and Coins. These portraits present those courageous original
Americans who bet their very souls to make America a realized
possibility.
The Portraits [on our American money] are a constant reminder
of the life, times, travail, and beliefs of those indigenous
Americans who put-forth Leadership. Such an ever-present
reminder is Inspiring and has helped to keep our country bound-
together [like some sort of magic encapsulation- Glue] for over
200 years !!
[….sorry I “shouted” {‘!!’}; I
guess I just got carried-away by
all the pent-up Inspiration. Does
using an exclamation-mark indicate
that I have lost my Argument ?….]
So I ask, at this point, what Portraits will the Iraqis print
on their money ? US President Bush ? Ðìçk Cheney ? Can
someone name at least [5] prominent Iraqi leaders who were
ardently advancing the cause of Democracy prior to their
emancipation by US Forces ?
The Answers don’t really matter that much, anyways. Why?
Answer: the makers of American mind-control public service messages
are already plying their “craft” to brainwash Iraqi television-viewers
IN Iraq. Using all-powerful Television and Public Service Messages,
the reformation of Iraq is ultimately assured.
John Berry:
>So I ask, at this point, what Portraits will the Iraqis print
on their money ? US President Bush ? Ðìçk Cheney ? Can
someone name at least [5] prominent Iraqi leaders who were
ardently advancing the cause of Democracy prior to their
emancipation by US Forces ?
Not sure of the full intent of your post, but I’m not sure that there are % Iraqis to put on their bills. The Iraqis ain’t runnin’ the show. They may eventually find a few individuals who will step up to the plate to handle the mess they are currently in, but this plan wasn’t theirs.
Fred
Hmmm…I was thinking that the pertinent parallel between Vietnam and Iraq was the lack of understanding of the political dynamics of the country, leading to results that the administration does not want. It’s not a binary situation there (the US vs. the terrorists); there are all sorts of political outcomes that nobody in the US would want…
“And what’s wrong with a naked woman?”
“Fall already America, if you are so pathetic you fear nudity…”
Oooookay…we’re kind of busy but we’ll get right on it,sir.
Back to reality…not that you were under any obligation to do so but I would wonder if a naked woman wandering around a bad neighborhood might not be in serious need of help. Either she’s off her meds or maybe just been raped…from your description I’m guessing she was more likely a prostitute, though you have to wonder…
The last time a half naked woman wandered off the streets anywhere near me it was a girl who had been gang raped by her bother’s gang in retaliation against the family trying to get the brother out of the gang (in other words, the brother, while not one of the rapists, was an accomplice). Nasty, nasty stuff. We took her in to the lab I worked at and called the cops, tried to console her (but what exactly are you supposed to say). Anyway…sad to say that’s my first thought when I see a naked woman in public, I’d like to go back to the days when it would trigger happier thoughts.
What kind of lab were you working at? (If I recall correctly, you are a teacher, but I don’t know what subject you teach.)
In this case it was a lab in a soybean oil refinery. I made sure the soy bean oil was hydrogenated to the proper melting point and other stuff I’ve long forgotten. Of course, now we know that hydrogenated oil is probably very very bad for you so every time Nightline does some report like “Hydrogenated Soybean Oil: The Silent Killer” the faces of those I have wronged haunt my dreams.
Regarding John Berry’s comments about future Iraqi currency, who mandated any requirement that ANY person’s image must appear on the currency? Many countries have no specific people represented on their currencies, and among those which do, there’s no limitation that requires the people be politically connected (German and French currencies have featured artists and scientists as often as, if not more often than, politicians). Several Middle Eastern countries (Egypt, the UAE, Lebanon) often avoid depicting any people, preferring to use historic sites or natural features and landscapes or commonly seen images (dhows at sea, animals).
Of course, now we know that hydrogenated oil is probably very very bad for you so every time Nightline does some report like “Hydrogenated Soybean Oil: The Silent Killer” the faces of those I have wronged haunt my dreams.
It’s ok, you’re not a politician, so you have a conscience and all that.
I mean, let’s face it, politicians sell their souls to the devil… or special interest groups, whichever come first. 😉
The concept of potential fraud in the Iraqi election is an interesting one, if only for the fact that the results have yet to be announced.
This of course opens the possibility of ballot manipulation at the counting stage. For one thing, supposing that the folks we consider to be less acceptable candidates win, what then?
This thought brings up the question: exactly who is counting the votes? Iraqis, Americans, Iraqis under supervision of Americans, Americans under supervision of Iraqis, or an independent group of third party observers?
Also, where are the ballots? If I was a terrorist hëll bent on disrupting the election, I would target the storage facility or facilities where that immense number of ballots must be stored.
Interesting possibilities…..
Craig,
“I mean, let’s face it, politicians sell their soul to the devil…or specal interest groups, whichever comes first.”
I saw you had a smiley, so will not go off. But I feel this kind of statement is the kind of lazy, cliched nonsense spouted from the loudmouth at a bar to Jay Leno. Most politicians I know are honorable people who do what they think is right. If they are unsure about an issue, then , yes, they will listen to “lobbyists” make their arguments, be it the National Organizatio For Women, MADD, the AARP or businesses or communities that may be affected by legislation.
It truly is a thankless job.
Most politicians are heroes.
Most politicians are heroes.
Sure, but then there’s the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. “Special interests” aren’t always good things.
Bush’s latest bit? To halt this ridiculous and insane spending, he wants to have a near-freeze on an increase in government spending… except for national defense.
I wonder, does national defense include invading other countries?
Anyways, I think you find more of the soul-selling in Washington than anywhere else, because that’s where the ones that have the most money already are, and the ones with more money to hand out are going to make their voices heard.
Take the new Washington Nationals, for example. MLB is a “special interest” group as any of them. I wouldn’t be surprised that, upon building of the new stadium, it has more luxury boxes than any other baseball stadium in the country.
Why? Well, you gotta have those perks for Congressmen to make sure that MLB keeps that monopoly exemption status (when stricter drug testing should have been forced down MLB’s throat).
“Most politicians are heroes”
Ah yes, hiding behind the secret service and sending other people’s children off to die is SO heroic.
Wasting tax dollars on perks and pork is SO heroic.
Bloody waste of life is what politicians are.
Make it truly democratic and representative. No one is allowed to run for office, citizenship and SSN are drawn at random from eligible candidates in the appropriate district (2 dsenators from each state, 1 rep from each district, Pres and Vice Pres from the entire national pool…, etc)
Then maybe you’ll have something closer to the way it should be…
Bladestar wrote:
Ah yes, hiding behind the secret service and sending other people’s children off to die is SO heroic.
As opposed to how the entire nation hides behind the adult soldiers who volunteer to do a job (an admittedly risky job, but that’s not the same as “sending children to die”) to protect us all?
The Secret Service exists to protect something more than an individual; the death of an important member of the government, especially at the top levels of the government, has a significant effect on the nation’s security as a whole.
Make it truly democratic and representative. No one is allowed to run for office, citizenship and SSN are drawn at random from eligible candidates in the appropriate district (2 dsenators from each state, 1 rep from each district, Pres and Vice Pres from the entire national pool…, etc)
Right. Because there’s NO WAY we could do worse than the elected officials we have in office right now. (Oh, wait, yes, we could. We just narrowly avoided doing just that on November 2nd of last year, didn’t we?)
I’ll grant you that the current system tends to get people whose greatest strengths aren’t so much in the areas we’d prefer, but rather in being charismatic. A purely random system could never be better, though, and a system that selects from an “elite” group of people who are deemed “qualified” (by whoever decides such things) would be horribly corrupt.
And that “horribly corrupt” elite is what we currently have. And Bush is worse than Kerry would’ve been.
The only plus is no more GW next election.
As opposed to how the entire nation hides behind the adult soldiers who volunteer to do a job (an admittedly risky job, but that’s not the same as “sending children to die”) to protect us all?
Except, they aren’t protecting us by being in Iraq.
Oh, wait, yes, we could. We just narrowly avoided doing just that on November 2nd of last year, didn’t we?)
No, we didn’t avoid it: Bush is still in office.
Ah yes, hiding behind the secret service and sending other people’s children off to die is SO heroic.
That was a particularly stupid cheap shot. Rather have them than somebody who’d say this.
As if I care what an astronaut’s breakfast drink thinks…
Because there’s NO WAY we could do worse than the elected officials we have in office right now. (Oh, wait, yes, we could. We just narrowly avoided doing just that on November 2nd of last year, didn’t we?)
No, we didn’t avoid it: Bush is still in office.
That doesn’t even make sense, we didn’t avoid worse than the current elected officials because they are in office????
Wouldn’t they be equal, not worse?
PAD,
If you are still checking up on this, I wanted to say I agree with the first half of your post. I was in the Czech Republic for the last week and did not hear much news. While we may disagree on why we are there, etc., your comments about the Iraqi’s are exactly on target. It is a shame that so few vote here. While I think Bush still would have won, I would prefer a Kerry victory with 80% of the population voting than a Bush victory with 49% (or whatever it was).
Iowa Jim (aka Jim in Iowa)
Wouldn’t they be equal, not worse?
When Bush backed his ášš into office 4 years ago, I really thought, “how bad could it be?”
But now that he has another 4 years I think, “how much worse is it going to get?”
Let’s hope that:
A) The Iraqi votes are being accurately counted and whoever is declared winner was the person actually elected rqather than who Bush & Co. WANT elected
And
B) The Iraqi people voted more intelligently than the American people.
Congrats Iraq, you about to learn just how corrupt an elcted goverment can be…