Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Are you voting Pepsi, Coke, or Mountain Dew in November? |
| 09.16.04 (9:18 pm) [edit] |
|
I just returned from Virginia Tech, where Libertarian presidential candidate [url=http://www.badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url] gave a wonderful speech, followed by questions from the audience. Of course I am a bit biased in this overview, seeing as I was already planning on voting for Badnarik, but I would like to highlight some of my favorite parts of the event. He gave a fairly short and straightforward speech in which he discussed each of the major issues concerning America in this election, and briefly explained his views on them. Unlike John Kerry or George Bush, Badnarik gave concise explanations of his position. While Kerry is constantly criticized for not having a clear stance on most issues, and Bush is known for making misleading statements to provide his position, there was no mistaking Michael Badnarik's stances on the issues. He discussed the unconstitutional nature of the Patriot Act, the importance of the 2nd Amendment, the potential reinstatement of the draft, social security, the problems with a foreign policy based on offense instead of defense, as well as other issues of importance. After the speech, students in the audience handed in the index cards they were given, with questions for Badnarik. He fielded all the questions excellently and showed no vulnerability in answering questions on any topic. My personal favorite question was, "The differences between George Bush and John Kerry are much like the differences between Coke and Pepsi. How are you like Mountain Dew, and why shouldn't I vote for Coke?" Badnarik listed his qualifications, his background, and his intentions as President. He also related a story (maybe not in answering this particular question, but at some point). He was in an elevator with 6 other people recently, wearing jeans and a tshirt that said "Badnarik for President" on it. One of the people in the elevator looked at his shirt and said, "Badnarik? I've never even heard of him." So, he turned to the guy, reached his hand out, and said, "Hi, I'm Michael Badnarik. I'm running for President." Everyone in the elevator said that they were voting for him. Badnarik, in relating this story, said that the only criteria he had to meet for those people in that elevator were that he wasn't George Bush and he wasn't John Kerry. Though the entirety of the speech was amusing, well said, and very lucid, the final question received the best and most powerful answer. The question was simple: "Are you an anarchist?" To answer, Badnarik created an analogy. He said that if you live in a log cabin, fire is essential to your survival and very important. And there is a place for fire, named the fireplace. The founding fathers knew that government was something we needed, something that would benefit us and enhance our survival. The place for government was in the Constitution. So long as your fire remains in the fireplace, it is a good thing. But as soon as it goes out of the fireplace, it becomes a bad thing, and you immediately and instinctually stomp it out. While the government acts within the limitations of the Constitution, it is a good thing. But when the government goes beyond the limitations of the Constitution, it becomes a bad thing, and, Badnarik stated, he hopes that we would immediately and instinctually stomp it out. If you would like to know more about Michael Badnarik or the Libertarian Party, feel free to ask, or visit http://badnarik.org or http://lp.org. |
| 27 Comments |
| The politics of September 11 |
| 09.10.04 (8:23 pm) [edit] |
|
Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks that changed our modern world. Much time will likely be spent reflecting on that day in 2001, highlighting personal and emotional stories. And this is somewhat important. Remembering those who lost their lives in the attacks, and for what reason, serves as a chilling reminder of the fragility of world politics. As was done in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, a strong call for a mentality of war will be made. For me, remembering September 11, 2001 evokes the exact same feelings now as I had then. My first semester at college, I had class at 8:30 every Tuesday morning. Thankfully, this excruciatingly boring class often let out well before 9:30, and that particular morning we were free to go a little before 9. I went back to my room and climbed into bed. The next thing I knew, my roommate was on the phone sounding upset, frantic, and generally as though something major had happened. When I rolled over and looked at her, she just told me to go downstairs- it was on tv. Clueless, I went downstairs and sat down, trying to grasp what I was seeing on the television. The news reporters were talking about a plane flying into the World Trade Center. At that time, they were even still discussing the possibility of it merely being an accident. I was stunned. After a few minutes of watching the footage of a smoky and fiery World Trade Center, there was suddenly another plane in the shot. I watched, feeling helpless, this plane as it turned and flew into the second tower. No one knew quite what to do or how to react. Another of my roommates had been telling us about how she had worked right by the trade centers over the summer, and had an uncle who worked in one of the towers that was hit. The whole morning, she tried calling him, but could not get through. Later, we heard that another plane had hit part of the Pentagon and a fourth plane had crashed in Pennsylvania- only a few hours from the school I was attending. Classes were cancelled for the day, and everything on campus was solemn. The next day, some students organized a candle-light vigil. At first, the focus was on unity and mourning a national loss. Quickly, it shifted to anger and revenge. Naturally, anyone who saw the planes crash into the World Trade Centers that morning felt angered. Revenge was called for by our President. Once it became clear that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, there were many calls for bombing Afghanistan. I was one of the few against this action. My feeling was that, though retaliation may very well be warranted and necessary, indescriminately attacking an enemy within a nation would not only be ineffective, but would do little other than guarantee more violence. Today, three years later, my feeling has not changed. And neither has that of the President. Well, except that now he favors attacking sovereign nations that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, rather than going after bin Laden. But, at any rate, the President's prime motivation is to fight terrorism with great force. He calls for support in this 'war on terrorism' based on the emotional responses to 9/11. And all too often, he gets this support. So many are convinced that it is necessary to support the President no matter what, or they are supporting terrorism. Bush and his supporters, followers, and campaigners promote the message of only one possibility on this issue- you're either with Bush or you don't care about America. Unfortunately, dissent is viewed as a weakness. The assertion that, since terrorists attacked the US, the US must attack terrorism, is false. Terrorism is extremely broad in scope, and attempting to wage war on all terrorism only breeds terrorist action. Going after bin Laden and al Qaeda would have been logical after 9/11, but not with brute force alone, and not by dropping bombs throughout Afghanistan. Strategically seeking out bin Laden and others known to be active members of al Qaeda would have been the best and most effective way to thwart terrorism and to avenge the 9/11 attacks. President Bush, however, declared war on terrorism. He used this as a political ploy. Maintaining that the terrorists brought war to us, the President coaxed the nation into going along with his war. But he neglected the realities of the situation. He has been able to use an emotional cue to gain support and to weed out criticism. Those of us critical of Bush's war(s) are made out to be un-American. Many emotional accounts of lost loved ones in the attacks of 9/11 evoke a sense of anger and resolve among Americans. Bush uses this to his advantage. Politically, September 11 is used as an irrefutable source of power for Bush- it is very difficult to challenge the President when such an emotional and nationally uniting subject is involved. When emotional issues that concern the entire nation are brought up, often is the case that emotion overrides rational thought. The unity brought about by this national tragedy serves to give Bush unquestioned leadership- something he has not demonstrated deserving. I am hopeful that while the nation mourns once more the tragedy of 9/11, rational thought will not be discarded, and the talking points from the Bush camp will not resonate among the people. |
| 7 Comments |
