As anybody who knows me understands, I love this country. I love our sense of independence, and our vast freedoms to be who we choose to be, not what someone tells us to be. I love that we have no state religion or language, and that we refuse to dip our flag to foreign leaders during the Olympics. Although not as easy as it used to be, I love the idea that any American can rise from obscurity just through hard work and determination. I have read the Constitution, and marvel in the words of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
However, there is one thing I do not do, one thing that might result in some people questioning my love for my country. I don't put my hand over my heart during the national jingoistic displays.
Yes, I don't put my hand over my heart for "The Star Spangled Banner" or "The Pledge of Allegiance". I haven't since high school, and I don't intend to start doing it now. Instead, I stand respectfully with my hands clasped in front of me.
Why do I do this? The symbolism, of course. I don't need to be told how to show my respect to my country. Saluting flags and standing at attention and all that other crap is something far too militaristic, far too anti-democratic to my tastes.
As far as the Pledge of Allegiance is concerned, I go even farther and don't recite the pledge. After all, this isn't some fascist police state (yet). Our rights are derived from nature, not from the benevolence of Uncle Sam.
Thus, I can't understand why people jump all over Barack Obama for not kowtowing to the American flag during the national anthem. If he so chooses to stand with his hands at his waist, so be it. I'm certain he loves this country, and respects those who have died for it.
If you choose to put your hand over your heart, by all means do so. If you wish to stand respectfully, go ahead and do it. Hell, if you wish to stand disrespectfully, or not even stand at all, go ahead. Some people may not like it, but that is the way it goes in a free society. They'll get over it, in time.
To me, patriotism is standing up for what you believe. I believe in a free and open society, one where your love of country is shown through actions, not just hollow words and salutes. We fought a war over sixty years ago against two nations built upon jingoism and hollow nationalism. I'll be damned if I let this country that I love turn into one of those nations.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Taser This: F**K Standards
To me, the First Amendment is our most cherished constitutional right. The idea that we can question our leaders without fear of reprisal by the government is something I hold sacrosanct. Whenever someone tries to impinge this right, I will make my displeasure known.
That being said, this doesn't mean anybody can just spout what they want, and get away with it. Although the government has little right to limit speech (save for the old chestnut about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater), the same right isn't expressly extended to private entities. For example, Fox can force The Simpsons to pixelate nude rear-ends, and Comedy Central can tell Stone & Parker to not show the image of Muhammad. I don't believe they should enforce those limits, but I do not deny they have the ability to do so.
The issue is a little grayer, however, when it comes to political statements and news media. The issue becomes even grayer when the media outlet in question is a student newspaper on the campus of a public university. Where is the line drawn? Is anything out of bounds, or are there things for these papers that can result in negative consequences for the writer?
Thus we come to the controversy at Colorado State University. I'd summarize the editorial, except for the fact that it is almost exactly the same as this post's title, with "Bush" in the place of "Standards".
In my opinion, the editor should be fired. Not because of his political beliefs, or even because he used "Fuck" in the story. To fire him because of a political view in an editorial would be disastrous, a serious violation of the First Amendment. The use of "Fuck", although rather vulgar and contrary to usual journalistic standards, is defensible, if used in a clever or meaningful way. This is especially so in a campus newspaper, which is bound to be looser and more irreverent than the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.
He should lose his job because the statement wasn't exactly thought-provoking, humorous, or even all that bold. It was raw sensationalism for the sake of getting a rise out of people. Although there is a place for that kind of behavior, it isn't on the editorial pages.
One thing people seem to forget is that you have the right to free speech, but that also means people have the right to disagree with you. Your words have consequences, whether intentional or not. As this editor has the right to express his opinion, so do those who disagree with him. This is in clear force in this case, as the campus Republicans are pushing to bankrupt the paper until he is fired.*
So I ask on Mr. McSwane to do the right thing and resign. Not because I don't believe he has a right to say "Fuck Bush". His continued presence on the paper is harming its reputation, hurting its staff, and causing an uproar much greater than its true importance. If he won't live up to the consequences of his actions, the board in charge of the paper must act and remove him. Only by this action can the newspaper, and the students of Colorado State, move on.
*-The predictability and machine like actions of the Campus Republicans have their own disturbing elements, but I do not wish to get off on a tangent about the Republican party here.
That being said, this doesn't mean anybody can just spout what they want, and get away with it. Although the government has little right to limit speech (save for the old chestnut about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater), the same right isn't expressly extended to private entities. For example, Fox can force The Simpsons to pixelate nude rear-ends, and Comedy Central can tell Stone & Parker to not show the image of Muhammad. I don't believe they should enforce those limits, but I do not deny they have the ability to do so.
The issue is a little grayer, however, when it comes to political statements and news media. The issue becomes even grayer when the media outlet in question is a student newspaper on the campus of a public university. Where is the line drawn? Is anything out of bounds, or are there things for these papers that can result in negative consequences for the writer?
Thus we come to the controversy at Colorado State University. I'd summarize the editorial, except for the fact that it is almost exactly the same as this post's title, with "Bush" in the place of "Standards".
In my opinion, the editor should be fired. Not because of his political beliefs, or even because he used "Fuck" in the story. To fire him because of a political view in an editorial would be disastrous, a serious violation of the First Amendment. The use of "Fuck", although rather vulgar and contrary to usual journalistic standards, is defensible, if used in a clever or meaningful way. This is especially so in a campus newspaper, which is bound to be looser and more irreverent than the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.
He should lose his job because the statement wasn't exactly thought-provoking, humorous, or even all that bold. It was raw sensationalism for the sake of getting a rise out of people. Although there is a place for that kind of behavior, it isn't on the editorial pages.
One thing people seem to forget is that you have the right to free speech, but that also means people have the right to disagree with you. Your words have consequences, whether intentional or not. As this editor has the right to express his opinion, so do those who disagree with him. This is in clear force in this case, as the campus Republicans are pushing to bankrupt the paper until he is fired.*
So I ask on Mr. McSwane to do the right thing and resign. Not because I don't believe he has a right to say "Fuck Bush". His continued presence on the paper is harming its reputation, hurting its staff, and causing an uproar much greater than its true importance. If he won't live up to the consequences of his actions, the board in charge of the paper must act and remove him. Only by this action can the newspaper, and the students of Colorado State, move on.
*-The predictability and machine like actions of the Campus Republicans have their own disturbing elements, but I do not wish to get off on a tangent about the Republican party here.
Monday, September 24, 2007
The American Way: Ahmadinejad Speaks
I congratulate Columbia University for having the courage to let Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak. What better way for our country to show the strengths of our cherished ideals by allowing a leader of one of our least favored countries speak?
I am personally tired of our nations attitude towards both Iran and Cuba. While I don't think we should treat these nations as friends exactly, I do believe its time to accept that their governments aren't going anywhere, and that they deserve a more official role in our diplomatic efforts. Its time we bury the conflicts of the past, and look towards tomorrow.
I am personally tired of our nations attitude towards both Iran and Cuba. While I don't think we should treat these nations as friends exactly, I do believe its time to accept that their governments aren't going anywhere, and that they deserve a more official role in our diplomatic efforts. Its time we bury the conflicts of the past, and look towards tomorrow.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Tasteful Advertising
This is a wonderful PSA from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. So tasteful that I might just take up smoking to spite the creators of it.
I mean it makes sense. 5.4 million people dieing because they chose to smoke cigarettes that they knew could kill them, versus thousands of people killed just because a few deranged madmen hated them.
Of course, it's a little out of date now. I took the liberty of updating it so it would be a more relevant American tragedy. Can't wait until Dec 7!
I mean it makes sense. 5.4 million people dieing because they chose to smoke cigarettes that they knew could kill them, versus thousands of people killed just because a few deranged madmen hated them.
Of course, it's a little out of date now. I took the liberty of updating it so it would be a more relevant American tragedy. Can't wait until Dec 7!
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Blah Blah Blah: Bush speaks
Don't have much to say on Mr. Bush's speech tonight. Unless his speech includes "effective at noon tomorrow, I and Mr. Cheney shall resign our positions" or "I screwed up", I don't believe anything he has to say.
Naturally, the Dems will give him everything he wants (and possibly more) on any bill regarding the war. With an opposition party like them, who needs friends?
Ugh....
Naturally, the Dems will give him everything he wants (and possibly more) on any bill regarding the war. With an opposition party like them, who needs friends?
Ugh....
Friday, August 24, 2007
Barack Obama on the Daily Show
The first time Barack Obama was on The Daily Show, I remember him being much different from other politicians who had been on the show. He doesn't disappoint in his most recent visit. There are some excellent questions asked (such as why Hillary gets to count being First Lady as experience), and Mr. Obama has some great answers.
Be sure to check out the other video posted besides the interview. You have to laugh, otherwise you would cry.
Be sure to check out the other video posted besides the interview. You have to laugh, otherwise you would cry.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Oops...
The post about my victory in Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword has been moved to Quo Vadimus, where it was supposed to be posted. If you care to read it, click here.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
My 2008 Presidential Endorsement: Catch the Blue State Fever!
For the Democrats, I'm keeping this one fairly short, and without quite the vitriol present on the GOP side. For one, I'm saving myself for the big brawl tonight on MSNBC. For another, I actually can find some candidates to respect on the Democratic side. Barring the return of zombie Lincoln and the withdrawal of all Democratic candidates (save for Gravel), my 2008 general election endorsement will likely be a Dem.
In order from last to first.
#8: Mike Gravel
Sure, its fun when the crazies are let in the building. And his righteous indignation is a site to behold. However, crazy != good candidate, so I cannot give him too much support. Keep in mind, however, that I would still vote for him over every GOP candidate, save for possibly Ron Paul.
#6 (tie): Joe Biden and Chris Dodd
They seem like decent enough fellows, and have actually done pretty well in the debates. However, they aren't really that different than the front-runners, and don't have much of a shot. If I weren't such a political geek, I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart. They'll be much better as leaders in Congress.
#5: Hillary Clinton
Yeah, she is the front-runner. And yeah, she'll probably end up with the nomination. However, although I have shed some of my ignorance from the 90s, I still have hard feelings towards the Clintons. Fair or not, she strikes me as incredibly cold and calculating, and willing to drop her convictions at any moment for the convenient position. Also, I can't support a candidate who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. A true leader would have stood up to Bush at that moment, and done their best to keep us out of this war, rather than roll over like a coward.
#4: Dennis Kucinich
Unlike half of the field, he voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He stands his ground, and certainly seems to have plenty of conviction and a sense of responsibility. Also, he has a hot (for a hippie) young wife. But he is the most liberal candidate in the field, and has no shot at winning the nomination. Maybe he would win if he was running for President of The Shire.
#3: John Edwards
Despite the $400 haircuts and giant houses, he does seem to care about eradicating poverty. Unfortunately, this isn't 1968, and he isn't Robert Kennedy. Of course, considering how 1968 ended for Mr. Kennedy, maybe Mr. Edwards would be glad about that. Like Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, he is disqualified because of a vote for the Iraq Resolution. At least he has shown some regret about the decision, unlike a certain front-runner from New York.
#2: Bill Richardson
An experienced diplomat, with a real moderate streak (yet good on several liberal issues), and a proven track record? How did he get in this horse-race? Although a little stiff in the debates, he clearly knows his stuff, and is an excellent candidate. He really should be a bigger contender, but the glare of the top three kind of keeps him in the shadows. If it were any other year, the endorsement would be his.
#1: Barack Obama
Sometimes the race for the Presidency is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who may legitimately change the course of the country. Obama seems like he might be this candidate. He is unabashedly liberal, but in a way that will at least foster some respect and statesmanship on the other side of the aisle. His speeches seem to be from a different time, when eloquence and ideas mattered.
Obama represents optimism, a trait sorely lacking in most of the Democratic party. He represents fresh ideas, and a possible return of honor and respect to our government. Yes, he might be inexperienced, but that is why you bring in an experienced Secretary of State and Vice-President (preferably one who isn't a Sith lord, like our current Veep).
Hmm....Obama/Richardson '08. I think I like the sound of that.
In the end, the Democratic field is much easier to digest than the pills in the GOP race. Before the field started to appear, and the Republicans showed themselves for what they are, I was a strong supporter of ABH (anybody but Hillary) . However, with the turds on the right (or in the case of Romney, canine diarrhea), I might reluctantly support her candidacy if she were the nominee. Obama on the back side of the ticket would most certainly help.
In order from last to first.
#8: Mike Gravel
Sure, its fun when the crazies are let in the building. And his righteous indignation is a site to behold. However, crazy != good candidate, so I cannot give him too much support. Keep in mind, however, that I would still vote for him over every GOP candidate, save for possibly Ron Paul.
#6 (tie): Joe Biden and Chris Dodd
They seem like decent enough fellows, and have actually done pretty well in the debates. However, they aren't really that different than the front-runners, and don't have much of a shot. If I weren't such a political geek, I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart. They'll be much better as leaders in Congress.
#5: Hillary Clinton
Yeah, she is the front-runner. And yeah, she'll probably end up with the nomination. However, although I have shed some of my ignorance from the 90s, I still have hard feelings towards the Clintons. Fair or not, she strikes me as incredibly cold and calculating, and willing to drop her convictions at any moment for the convenient position. Also, I can't support a candidate who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. A true leader would have stood up to Bush at that moment, and done their best to keep us out of this war, rather than roll over like a coward.
#4: Dennis Kucinich
Unlike half of the field, he voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He stands his ground, and certainly seems to have plenty of conviction and a sense of responsibility. Also, he has a hot (for a hippie) young wife. But he is the most liberal candidate in the field, and has no shot at winning the nomination. Maybe he would win if he was running for President of The Shire.
#3: John Edwards
Despite the $400 haircuts and giant houses, he does seem to care about eradicating poverty. Unfortunately, this isn't 1968, and he isn't Robert Kennedy. Of course, considering how 1968 ended for Mr. Kennedy, maybe Mr. Edwards would be glad about that. Like Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, he is disqualified because of a vote for the Iraq Resolution. At least he has shown some regret about the decision, unlike a certain front-runner from New York.
#2: Bill Richardson
An experienced diplomat, with a real moderate streak (yet good on several liberal issues), and a proven track record? How did he get in this horse-race? Although a little stiff in the debates, he clearly knows his stuff, and is an excellent candidate. He really should be a bigger contender, but the glare of the top three kind of keeps him in the shadows. If it were any other year, the endorsement would be his.
#1: Barack Obama
Sometimes the race for the Presidency is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who may legitimately change the course of the country. Obama seems like he might be this candidate. He is unabashedly liberal, but in a way that will at least foster some respect and statesmanship on the other side of the aisle. His speeches seem to be from a different time, when eloquence and ideas mattered.
Obama represents optimism, a trait sorely lacking in most of the Democratic party. He represents fresh ideas, and a possible return of honor and respect to our government. Yes, he might be inexperienced, but that is why you bring in an experienced Secretary of State and Vice-President (preferably one who isn't a Sith lord, like our current Veep).
Hmm....Obama/Richardson '08. I think I like the sound of that.
In the end, the Democratic field is much easier to digest than the pills in the GOP race. Before the field started to appear, and the Republicans showed themselves for what they are, I was a strong supporter of ABH (anybody but Hillary) . However, with the turds on the right (or in the case of Romney, canine diarrhea), I might reluctantly support her candidacy if she were the nominee. Obama on the back side of the ticket would most certainly help.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The Bridge to a Snark-Free Zone
As anyone who read my previous post is probably aware, all but the short rant about John McCain was primarily tongue-in-cheek. I am aware Arnie Vinick is not real, and thus would not be a good candidate for the GOP. Also, he is about as old as Senator McCain.
I guess the point of my vitriol was the passionate distaste for the current state of the Republican party. This is the party that formed from the ashes of the Whig party, with one of its original tenants being built upon the idea that slavery was immoral, a very liberal idea in its day. Today, liberalism is damn near extinct in the party, and it resembles much more the party of Jefferson Davis than the party of Abraham Lincoln.
None of the Republican candidates remotely resemble the the salve of unity that can heal the wounds of our country. Most of them seem to feel that G.W. Bush has it right in Iraq, and I fear that if they are President, we can expect more of the same from them. All but Ron Paul and John McCain seem more than willing to embrace torture. They all seem to be trying to mimic Ronald Reagan, in the hopes that the masses will confuse Saint Gipper* with them, and therefore give them their vote. They are old, crotchety, and uninspiring, a sharp contrast to the Democrats.
Therefore, for the first time in my adult life, I am breaking my unofficial** allegiance with the GOP. I will state right here that unless something major happens, my forthcoming endorsement for the Democratic nominee is also my endorsement for the general election. If he (or she) fails to win the nomination, I am 95% sure I will endorse the victor in the primary. Please keep in mind I take no happiness from the thought that it is very likely that endorsement will be for a woman I don't care for all that much.
Stay Tuned for my Democratic Nominee Endorsement!
*I know I said this was a bridge to the snark-free zone, but I had to let this one through. IMO, the idolization of our 40th president is baffling. Sure, he wasn't bad, did restore a feeling of guarded optimism after the disaster of the 70s, and did play a role in the downfall of the USSR. However, his administration racked up huge deficits, his minions attempted to dismantle many parts of the government, and Star Wars was a joke. Sure he wasn't James Buchanan. But #1 American, ahead of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?
**I guess I officially broke allegiance with the party in 2004, when I voted in the Democratic primary. This was mainly because there were actually candidates to vote for in that election, rather than just rubber-stamping Bush on the GOP side. However, at that point I still considered myself aligned with the GOP, despite being a major Republican-in-name-only and a hostile member who disagreed with 95% of the administrations platform.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Because Six Months isn't early enough: My '08 Presidential Endorsements
Yeah, I know it is still six months until any meaningful events happen in the 2008 Presidential races, but I felt it necessary to give my endorsements now. Part of this is because I am antsy, and want to post something. Also, I am a political dork who unfortunately can't get enough of the process and the horse race. I know, I need to seek help.
Today, I'll be taking a look at the Grumpy Old Prudes, while tomorrow will be a look at the Jackasses.
While thinking of who to endorse for the GOP nomination, I thought long and hard on the issue. Seeing as most of my politics fall in line with the Democrats (yeah, I know, I know, I'm a cheese eating surrender monkey), none of the candidates seem to jump out to me.
Save for one. Yeah, he's not officially in the race, he was a television star, and the Republicans seem to love him. Here is a clip of him speaking, right after a liberal protest against eminent domain. He sure does have a way with outlining the true nature of the GOP, doesn't he?
Yeah, it looks like he might have a legal problem, but I'm sure President Bush can commute his sentence.
Seriously, I can't really find a candidate on the Republican side to give my endorsement. Yeah, I could give it to Tancredo, T. Thompson, or Hunter on the grounds of they give the Dems the best chance to win. However, I legitimately want to pick the best candidate available, regardless of my personal views.
I thought long and hard about going with the candidate leading this poll. However, a search of the FEC records found no mention of this Mr. (or Ms.) Oftheabove, and an exhaustive search of cool new people on MySpace came up with Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani, and sexxxychik69, but no Oftheabove. Therefore, I have to believe that that Oftheabove is one of those illegal aliens, and is trying to take over our government. So I have to respectfully decline giving him or her my endorsement.
I honestly can't believe Brent Musberger is running for President. I know he is a celebrated sports broadcaster, but that can't possibly qualify him to be leader of the free world. Sure, his brief cameo in Rocky II helped heal the nation from the wounds of Watergate, but that was thirty years ago. The nation is a much different place...Oh wait, that isn't Brent Musberger? Mitt Romney you say. He is a former governor of Massachusetts? OK, that makes a little more sense. But why is a Democrat running in the GOP primaries?
....
Really, they have Republicans in Massachusetts? Fancy that. I'm sure he is way too liberal for the conservative base, though, so I'll pass on him.
The next candidate to consider is Rudy (9-11) Giulia(9-11)ni. Outside of a (9-11) stint as (9-11) May(9-11)or of New (9-11) York, he doesn't have any politi(9-11)cal experience. Altho(9-11)ugh I dig so(9-11)me of his vie(9-11)ws on so(9-11)cial issues, he see(9-11)ms way to eager to prof(9-11)it off of a horrible trag(9-11)e(9-11)d(9-11)y. Damn if I can(9-11)'t remem(9-11)ber it though. America's Mayor, I'm afraid you don't get my endorsement.
I wont bother with Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Tommy Thompson. They have a snowball's chance in hell, and I already mentioned they would be a gift to the Democrats.
I do not endorse Fred Thompson, partially because he isn't officially in the race, and partially because a successful stint on "Law & Order" does not make a President. Also, he seemed to be a little too friendly with the Nixon people, and too many Bush followers seem to be flocking to him.
Thus, we are left with Representative Paul and Senator McCain. Seven years ago I would have been McCain all the way. His straight talk was uniquely refreshing to a young man preparing to vote in his first Presidential election. I was sad that Bush beat him, and looked forward to his possible running again in either 2004 or 2008.
Unfortunately, he decided it was best to cozy up to fatheads like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. He started playing buddy-buddy with the man who intimated he had an illegitimate child in South Carolina, and lost a lot of "maverick" credibility. He probably deserves some credit for standing pat on his beliefs in regards to Iraq and immigration. However, I won't give him that credit, mainly because I believe he feels those who disagree with Mr. Bush's war are somehow inferior, somehow less of a patriot than those who follow Mr. Bush's "surge" without question.
(Yeesh, it suddenly turned cold in here)
Uh...Also he looks like a Chipmunk with walnuts in his mouth, and he is like 97.5 years old (Seriously, he is older than Reagan was in 1980). OK, we're back from the precipice of real discussion. Walnuts!
Then there is Ron Paul. Yes, I give him points for being the one Republican with the cajones to question the war in Iraq. Yes, I think some of his views are on the mark. And yes, honestly, he impressed me the most of the candidates. However, his internet supporters are so damn annoying, I can't in good conscience reward their efforts.
That leaves just one candidate, and one candidate alone. Sure, he's a dark horse, and he is almost as old as John McCain. But he is socially moderate, enough so that he was elected by a large state. He also has deep convictions, and most assuredly won't cynically use the passion of the fundamentalist right of the party for his gains (because he is an admitted atheist).
Arnie Vinick '08!
Monday, July 9, 2007
Welcome to August Prairie
Last September, I wrote a retrospective of my experiences on September 11, 2001. At the end of that piece, I promised a follow-up on the five years since that horrible day. As you all probably know, that piece never arrived.
There are many excuses or reasons I can put forth. I probably could hide behind the fact that I moved 1/3 of the way across the country and started a new job. However, the new job didn’t really lessen my ability to write. I only work 40 hours a week, and there are many hours of the work day in which I have time to write.
Another excuse could be my typical lack of effort and tendency to abandon things I start. Although more accurate, this really isn’t the reason at all. Between the Vermilion Expat and Quo Vadimus, I have managed to post material, and continue to do so to this day.
Closer to the mark is my general disinclination to discuss politics or religion, outside of a few friends and family members in my “inner circle”. I like to keep things polite and pleasant when engaged in conversation with people. Politics and Religion are two intensely personal things, and can inflame passions quicker than almost any other topic.
Unfortunately, removing politics and religion from my writing and conversations removes like 50% of what I think about on a daily basis. Those who know me know I can be very quiet, sometimes going hours without saying much of anything. My desire to keep things polite is one reason I don’t converse much. Only if I know where someone stands, and am comfortable enough revealing where I stand, will I engage in conversation on these perilous topics.
Thus it is my desire to keep Quo Vadimus focused on sports, entertainment, and other lesser topics. Although these topics can inflame passions and create arguments, the arguments are usually good-natured and/or short-lived. Without debate on who the best hitter in baseball is (Ted Williams), or what team is the greatest Super Bowl champion of all time (85 Bears), sports wouldn’t be as interesting or fun, and we would have little reason to follow it.
However, I feel that I really want to let my feelings and thoughts on be made aware, and to generate debate in these most contentious areas. I have many things I want to get off my chest, and I would like to entertain the thoughts of others on these issues.
From this idea sprung forth August Prairie. Here, the impolite topics are now open to discussion, and no view will be turned away. You may not agree with me on what I have to say, and I may not agree with you. That is okay, because debate is good, as long as it is civil, informed, and free of cheap shots.
That isn’t to say it won’t be heated. One cannot be passionate about their beliefs, unless one is willing to defend those beliefs intensely. However, that heat must be controlled, or the debate will descend into a world of flame wars and pointless bickering In other words, the debate would be nothing more than what passes as discussion on most of cable news.
Therefore, I welcome you to August Prairie, and hope you’ll stick around and join the discussion. I’ll be posting some things soon, including the long-awaited follow-up to the 9/11 post. Also forthcoming is my endorsement for the 2008 election.
P.S. I am looking for additional contributors to August Prairie. If you want to get involved, let me know.
There are many excuses or reasons I can put forth. I probably could hide behind the fact that I moved 1/3 of the way across the country and started a new job. However, the new job didn’t really lessen my ability to write. I only work 40 hours a week, and there are many hours of the work day in which I have time to write.
Another excuse could be my typical lack of effort and tendency to abandon things I start. Although more accurate, this really isn’t the reason at all. Between the Vermilion Expat and Quo Vadimus, I have managed to post material, and continue to do so to this day.
Closer to the mark is my general disinclination to discuss politics or religion, outside of a few friends and family members in my “inner circle”. I like to keep things polite and pleasant when engaged in conversation with people. Politics and Religion are two intensely personal things, and can inflame passions quicker than almost any other topic.
Unfortunately, removing politics and religion from my writing and conversations removes like 50% of what I think about on a daily basis. Those who know me know I can be very quiet, sometimes going hours without saying much of anything. My desire to keep things polite is one reason I don’t converse much. Only if I know where someone stands, and am comfortable enough revealing where I stand, will I engage in conversation on these perilous topics.
Thus it is my desire to keep Quo Vadimus focused on sports, entertainment, and other lesser topics. Although these topics can inflame passions and create arguments, the arguments are usually good-natured and/or short-lived. Without debate on who the best hitter in baseball is (Ted Williams), or what team is the greatest Super Bowl champion of all time (85 Bears), sports wouldn’t be as interesting or fun, and we would have little reason to follow it.
However, I feel that I really want to let my feelings and thoughts on be made aware, and to generate debate in these most contentious areas. I have many things I want to get off my chest, and I would like to entertain the thoughts of others on these issues.
From this idea sprung forth August Prairie. Here, the impolite topics are now open to discussion, and no view will be turned away. You may not agree with me on what I have to say, and I may not agree with you. That is okay, because debate is good, as long as it is civil, informed, and free of cheap shots.
That isn’t to say it won’t be heated. One cannot be passionate about their beliefs, unless one is willing to defend those beliefs intensely. However, that heat must be controlled, or the debate will descend into a world of flame wars and pointless bickering In other words, the debate would be nothing more than what passes as discussion on most of cable news.
Therefore, I welcome you to August Prairie, and hope you’ll stick around and join the discussion. I’ll be posting some things soon, including the long-awaited follow-up to the 9/11 post. Also forthcoming is my endorsement for the 2008 election.
P.S. I am looking for additional contributors to August Prairie. If you want to get involved, let me know.
Monday, July 2, 2007
This Most Hallowed Week
Although you couldn't tell from the new edition of "The Week Ahead" on Quo Vadimus, I actually do consider the anniversaries of the historical events that are happening this week to be important. The events of these days, Particularly July 1-4, were crucial to the founding and continued existence of our nation.
Of course, the most well-known and important anniversary happening this week is Independence Day. 231 years ago Wednesday, a group of patriots put everything on the line and declared our independence from Great Britain. Although thousands of lives would still be lost and it would take seven years for the Treaty of Paris to make it official, our nation was truly born that July day in Philadelphia.
In the course of setting up a nation, many things were accomplished. One issue, however, was not settled. Despite many founders wishing to abolish the "peculiar institution" of slavery, there was no way this could happen if the United States wanted to include South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. Thus, the founders made a compromise on the issue, and left it to another generation to solve.
That generation would come almost ninety years later, and the resolution would be not by laws and debate, but by blood. For four years the brother states of the North fought the brother states of the South, costing over 600,000 American lives and leaving scars that have yet to heal.
Two turning points in that horrible war occurred during the sweltering early days of July, 1863. One took place on the verdant fields and ridges of Pennsylvania; the other took place at a stronghold on the vital Mississippi River. This week is is the 144th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg and the surrender of Vicksburg.
Today is July 2, the middle day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Although most people think of Pickett's Charge and day three of the battle when they think of Gettysburg, the second day was actually the bloodiest. Places, such as Devil's Den, Little Round Top, and the Wheatfield would reverberate throughout time, echoes of the triumphs and tragedies that took place that day.
July 2 is the day Sickles led his corps off of the main Union line, jeopardizing the entire position, killing many men in the III Corps, and costing him his leg. It is the day Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine stood on the Union left, and held off the Alabamians at all costs. It is the day Hancock saw a gap in the Union line, and ordered the 1st Minnesota forward. The 1st Minnesota succeeded in holding the line, but at a cost of 82% of the regiment killed, wounded, or missing.
As the two exhausted armies sat outside of Gettysburg on July 4th, an event just as important was taking place in Mississippi. After many failed attempts, U.S. Grant had found a successful way to envelop Vicksburg. In a brilliant campaign, he crossed the river downstream from Vicksburg, captured the state capitol in Jackson, and trapped John Pemberton's force, while Joe Johnston barely nipped at the Union's heels.
After a siege of over a month, Vicksburg was starting to crack. The Union approaches were getting ever closer to the Confederate lines, and the Confederates were running out of supplies. Finally, 144 years ago Tuesday, Pemberton sent a note asking Grant for terms. After some negotiating, terms were settled, and Vicksburg would be surrendered. Much to the delight of Unionists everywhere, the city was formally surrendered on July 4, Independence Day. Although Mr. Lincoln appreciated the country's birthday present, the city of Vicksburg did not, refusing to celebrate Independence Day until World War II.
Although the Mississippi wasn't truly in Union hands until Port Hudson fell on July 8, Vicksburg was the last key to control of the river. The river wasn't completely safe, and raiders such as Forrest did their best to keep it that way. However, the Union had split the south in two, achieved one of the major goals of the Anaconda Plan, and made victory much more likely. Vicksburg also marked another illustrious moment in U.S. Grant's career, a career that would lead him to Appomattox and the White House.
Whatever you choose to do with your Independence Day, remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who came before you. Reflect on the challenges we face today, and the possibilities of what tomorrow might be if we just try to live up to the standards of our previous generations. And then get back to your grilling, your fireworks, and your lazy summer day.
Of course, the most well-known and important anniversary happening this week is Independence Day. 231 years ago Wednesday, a group of patriots put everything on the line and declared our independence from Great Britain. Although thousands of lives would still be lost and it would take seven years for the Treaty of Paris to make it official, our nation was truly born that July day in Philadelphia.
In the course of setting up a nation, many things were accomplished. One issue, however, was not settled. Despite many founders wishing to abolish the "peculiar institution" of slavery, there was no way this could happen if the United States wanted to include South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. Thus, the founders made a compromise on the issue, and left it to another generation to solve.
That generation would come almost ninety years later, and the resolution would be not by laws and debate, but by blood. For four years the brother states of the North fought the brother states of the South, costing over 600,000 American lives and leaving scars that have yet to heal.
Two turning points in that horrible war occurred during the sweltering early days of July, 1863. One took place on the verdant fields and ridges of Pennsylvania; the other took place at a stronghold on the vital Mississippi River. This week is is the 144th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg and the surrender of Vicksburg.
Today is July 2, the middle day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Although most people think of Pickett's Charge and day three of the battle when they think of Gettysburg, the second day was actually the bloodiest. Places, such as Devil's Den, Little Round Top, and the Wheatfield would reverberate throughout time, echoes of the triumphs and tragedies that took place that day.
July 2 is the day Sickles led his corps off of the main Union line, jeopardizing the entire position, killing many men in the III Corps, and costing him his leg. It is the day Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine stood on the Union left, and held off the Alabamians at all costs. It is the day Hancock saw a gap in the Union line, and ordered the 1st Minnesota forward. The 1st Minnesota succeeded in holding the line, but at a cost of 82% of the regiment killed, wounded, or missing.
As the two exhausted armies sat outside of Gettysburg on July 4th, an event just as important was taking place in Mississippi. After many failed attempts, U.S. Grant had found a successful way to envelop Vicksburg. In a brilliant campaign, he crossed the river downstream from Vicksburg, captured the state capitol in Jackson, and trapped John Pemberton's force, while Joe Johnston barely nipped at the Union's heels.
After a siege of over a month, Vicksburg was starting to crack. The Union approaches were getting ever closer to the Confederate lines, and the Confederates were running out of supplies. Finally, 144 years ago Tuesday, Pemberton sent a note asking Grant for terms. After some negotiating, terms were settled, and Vicksburg would be surrendered. Much to the delight of Unionists everywhere, the city was formally surrendered on July 4, Independence Day. Although Mr. Lincoln appreciated the country's birthday present, the city of Vicksburg did not, refusing to celebrate Independence Day until World War II.
Although the Mississippi wasn't truly in Union hands until Port Hudson fell on July 8, Vicksburg was the last key to control of the river. The river wasn't completely safe, and raiders such as Forrest did their best to keep it that way. However, the Union had split the south in two, achieved one of the major goals of the Anaconda Plan, and made victory much more likely. Vicksburg also marked another illustrious moment in U.S. Grant's career, a career that would lead him to Appomattox and the White House.
Whatever you choose to do with your Independence Day, remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who came before you. Reflect on the challenges we face today, and the possibilities of what tomorrow might be if we just try to live up to the standards of our previous generations. And then get back to your grilling, your fireworks, and your lazy summer day.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Nothing to see here...
Not much of a post. Just reiterating that I am keeping my mouth shut on the grueling road to the White House unless something big happens. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Gore, I'm looking your direction...
Thursday, May 3, 2007
The GOP Debate, part 2
DJ Brownback be hatin on hip hop
Why, because Walter Mondale was a jackass, that's why!
I think you meant power over principle, Herr Walnutz
You know who had the line item veto? Jeff Davis. How did that work out, Mr. McCain?
Oh, Mr. Huckabee, please answer the damn question.
Mr. Guiliani, there ya go. Was that really that hard?
What a stupid question..Next?
Its really sad when John McCain is the left side of the immigration issue in the GOP.
Damn, even the righties believe in global warming now. Where is Mallard Fillmore on that one?
Once again, the President has jack shit to do with mothers and prisons. Governors maybe, but the President has bigger shit to deal with...Remember foreign policy? Yeah, that is supposed to be the largest part of the President's job.
John McCain scores a big one with me for the stem cell answer. His current score: -6345.8
The Market is part of the solution...but I still believe it ain't the only solution.
Consumption tax?
Mr. McCain, repeat after me...You can't line item veto without a constitutional amendment.
Yeah right, the 16th Amendment ain't getting repealed.
Woah, is Larry Flynt at the debate?
Another good answer, Mr. McCain...Too bad you made kissy-face with Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell just a little too much.
All you fucknuts who don't believe in evolution, please get out of this fucking race.
Mitt Romney supports the family.
Guiliani answered the Shiite/Sunni question, if a little uncertainly. Still, better than not answering it.
Oh Reagan, Ron Paul said he trusted the internet. However, I do like his answer on the Intertubes.
If you aren't influenced by your religious beliefs, then you don't have real religious beliefs. Why is it so hard to believe that faith isn't a good thing, and also sometimes the good of the country is different from your personal views?
Little known fact: Rudy Guiliani was mayor of New York.
Senator, if you win in 2008, its because the Democrats choked a big one...Or Mike Gravel somehow won the nomination. Wait, that's redundant.
Poor Mr. Guiliani, always having to go back to New York, because it is his only qualification.
The thirty second down the line questions are a terrible idea. The jackasses from both parties bloviate too long.
I didn't support the war, Mr. Paul.
Maybe so, Mr. Brownback, but Congress shouldn't be involved in a fucking vegetable case.
Yeah, because Bush, Frist, and Hastert did such a great job.
Bill Clinton wouldn't be President, jackass.
Fuck You Guiliani. Fuck you in your ear.
Once again, Mrs. Clinton would be in the Oval Office, not Bill.
This is going to be a long campaign....
Why, because Walter Mondale was a jackass, that's why!
I think you meant power over principle, Herr Walnutz
You know who had the line item veto? Jeff Davis. How did that work out, Mr. McCain?
Oh, Mr. Huckabee, please answer the damn question.
Mr. Guiliani, there ya go. Was that really that hard?
What a stupid question..Next?
Its really sad when John McCain is the left side of the immigration issue in the GOP.
Damn, even the righties believe in global warming now. Where is Mallard Fillmore on that one?
Once again, the President has jack shit to do with mothers and prisons. Governors maybe, but the President has bigger shit to deal with...Remember foreign policy? Yeah, that is supposed to be the largest part of the President's job.
John McCain scores a big one with me for the stem cell answer. His current score: -6345.8
The Market is part of the solution...but I still believe it ain't the only solution.
Consumption tax?
Mr. McCain, repeat after me...You can't line item veto without a constitutional amendment.
Yeah right, the 16th Amendment ain't getting repealed.
Woah, is Larry Flynt at the debate?
Another good answer, Mr. McCain...Too bad you made kissy-face with Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell just a little too much.
All you fucknuts who don't believe in evolution, please get out of this fucking race.
Mitt Romney supports the family.
Guiliani answered the Shiite/Sunni question, if a little uncertainly. Still, better than not answering it.
Oh Reagan, Ron Paul said he trusted the internet. However, I do like his answer on the Intertubes.
If you aren't influenced by your religious beliefs, then you don't have real religious beliefs. Why is it so hard to believe that faith isn't a good thing, and also sometimes the good of the country is different from your personal views?
Little known fact: Rudy Guiliani was mayor of New York.
Senator, if you win in 2008, its because the Democrats choked a big one...Or Mike Gravel somehow won the nomination. Wait, that's redundant.
Poor Mr. Guiliani, always having to go back to New York, because it is his only qualification.
The thirty second down the line questions are a terrible idea. The jackasses from both parties bloviate too long.
I didn't support the war, Mr. Paul.
Maybe so, Mr. Brownback, but Congress shouldn't be involved in a fucking vegetable case.
Yeah, because Bush, Frist, and Hastert did such a great job.
Bill Clinton wouldn't be President, jackass.
Fuck You Guiliani. Fuck you in your ear.
Once again, Mrs. Clinton would be in the Oval Office, not Bill.
This is going to be a long campaign....
Angry Old Men: The GOP Debate
We're live from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. The liberal wimps had their chance last week, now its time for the real men.
8:01-Good Reagan, do you really have to lionize "The Great Communicator" like that? As if his legacy isn't already puffed up as it is.
Order from left to right: Tool, Tool, Tool, Tool, Crazy, Turd, Crazy Old, Crazy Turd, 9/11 Turd, Crazy Asshole.
Chris Mathews is our moderator. Same stupid rules as the Dems. blah blah blah
Rudy Giuliani wants you to remember he killed all the homeless people of New York and put a Red Lobster in Times Square. He also wants to remind you of the terrorists.
John McCain is old...Arnie Vinick he ain't...but he is angry
They already followed us home asshole..Remember 9/11? By the way, McCain is the early front runner for the Bill Richardson Tight-ass award.
Damn, ease up Tommy Thompson...This isn't the Galatic Senate, and you aren't Palpatine.
Duncan Hunter: blah blah Vietnamiz...I mean Iraqinization of the war
Whoa, I didn't know Brent Musberger was running for President. Oh wait, that is Mitt Romney. nevermind
Sen. Brownback, you old dog, you brought out the Islamofascist buzzword.
You know, if I had to support a Republican, Huckabee would be my choice. He doesn't scare me as much as the other candidates, and he can lose weight crazy fast.
Jim Gilmore, the favorite son of my adopted state...Too bad I don't know who he is. Awesome, he wants us to get into more wars in the Middle East.
Good old Ron Paul, coming out against the war, albeit from the other side of the spectrum.
John McCain '08-Cause you know you want to beat those Persian bastards! He looks like he might be having a heart attack.
Yeah, because the Iranis want to get there ass blown back to the stone age. No legitimate government would consider giving Nukes to terrorists, not if they want to stay an existing free country.
Israel is a potential threat to the existence of the United States?
Alright, a cold war reference! Lets get back to the good old days!
Oh boy, the interactive questions...Those really work well.
God damnit, bin Laden is not the question, fucknut.
Huckabee is my favorite so far. You're dead to me McCain.
Hooray, Ron Paul wants to bring back slavery!
Mitt Romney, optimism doesn't mean blindness to problems.
A really good answer Huckabee...Republican friendly, moderate safe.
Presidents don't really have anything to do with organ donations...Want to help the organ donor program? Don't wear your seatbelt.
Lets piss on the interactive questions, and discuss Iran...
Reagan Damnit, Guiliani, answer the damn question, don't pander.
No, the Democrats are a big coalition party...The Republicans are Montgomery Burns, Ned Flanders, and Rainier Wolfcastle.
Yes, I'm sure Obama, Clinton, et al want to lead a shitty nation pessimistic about its future. Ask Carter about that one.
You know who came up with the City on the Hill crap? The puritans...Yep, the people that burnt "witches". Sounds like the GOP to me.
+1 Mitt Romney, with his answer to the catholic priest question.
Honest answer, and a good answer, Mr. Huckabee.
But atheists are evil souless demons, incapable of morality, eh Mr. Romney?
Yes, lets build a border wall.
Republicans seem to think they have a monopoly on virtue...but you are correct on your point, Mr. Guiliani.
Tommy Thompson, the veto master!
8:01-Good Reagan, do you really have to lionize "The Great Communicator" like that? As if his legacy isn't already puffed up as it is.
Order from left to right: Tool, Tool, Tool, Tool, Crazy, Turd, Crazy Old, Crazy Turd, 9/11 Turd, Crazy Asshole.
Chris Mathews is our moderator. Same stupid rules as the Dems. blah blah blah
Rudy Giuliani wants you to remember he killed all the homeless people of New York and put a Red Lobster in Times Square. He also wants to remind you of the terrorists.
John McCain is old...Arnie Vinick he ain't...but he is angry
They already followed us home asshole..Remember 9/11? By the way, McCain is the early front runner for the Bill Richardson Tight-ass award.
Damn, ease up Tommy Thompson...This isn't the Galatic Senate, and you aren't Palpatine.
Duncan Hunter: blah blah Vietnamiz...I mean Iraqinization of the war
Whoa, I didn't know Brent Musberger was running for President. Oh wait, that is Mitt Romney. nevermind
Sen. Brownback, you old dog, you brought out the Islamofascist buzzword.
You know, if I had to support a Republican, Huckabee would be my choice. He doesn't scare me as much as the other candidates, and he can lose weight crazy fast.
Jim Gilmore, the favorite son of my adopted state...Too bad I don't know who he is. Awesome, he wants us to get into more wars in the Middle East.
Good old Ron Paul, coming out against the war, albeit from the other side of the spectrum.
John McCain '08-Cause you know you want to beat those Persian bastards! He looks like he might be having a heart attack.
Yeah, because the Iranis want to get there ass blown back to the stone age. No legitimate government would consider giving Nukes to terrorists, not if they want to stay an existing free country.
Israel is a potential threat to the existence of the United States?
Alright, a cold war reference! Lets get back to the good old days!
Oh boy, the interactive questions...Those really work well.
God damnit, bin Laden is not the question, fucknut.
Huckabee is my favorite so far. You're dead to me McCain.
Hooray, Ron Paul wants to bring back slavery!
Mitt Romney, optimism doesn't mean blindness to problems.
A really good answer Huckabee...Republican friendly, moderate safe.
Presidents don't really have anything to do with organ donations...Want to help the organ donor program? Don't wear your seatbelt.
Lets piss on the interactive questions, and discuss Iran...
Reagan Damnit, Guiliani, answer the damn question, don't pander.
No, the Democrats are a big coalition party...The Republicans are Montgomery Burns, Ned Flanders, and Rainier Wolfcastle.
Yes, I'm sure Obama, Clinton, et al want to lead a shitty nation pessimistic about its future. Ask Carter about that one.
You know who came up with the City on the Hill crap? The puritans...Yep, the people that burnt "witches". Sounds like the GOP to me.
+1 Mitt Romney, with his answer to the catholic priest question.
Honest answer, and a good answer, Mr. Huckabee.
But atheists are evil souless demons, incapable of morality, eh Mr. Romney?
Yes, lets build a border wall.
Republicans seem to think they have a monopoly on virtue...but you are correct on your point, Mr. Guiliani.
Tommy Thompson, the veto master!
Awww Crap, already? Live Blog of the GOP debate: Pre-Debate coverage
I missed my chance to do this for the Democrats, so I am going to suffer through this crap-fest. Expect a lot of pissing on us radical islamofascist collaborator liberals by old men trying to annoit themselves the heir to the legacy of the Gipper. Thank Reagan I have beer.
7:21 EDT-MSNBC shows an awkward photo session of the candidates, Nancy Reagan, and Chris Mathews. Damn are these guys old and white. John McCain is older than Reagan was in 1980, and we aren't even to 2008 yet. I would compare the average age of the candidates from both parties, but it is horribly skewed thanks to the fact that Dennis Kucinich is a 5,000 year old elf.
7:24 EDT-We're back, with Keith Olbermann in front of a replica of Air Force One. And its time for him to call the current government what it is: NOT truly conservative. Obviously, that is a segue to Pat Buchanan, a true conservative (if batshit insane).
7:36 EDT-Everybody gives Nancy Reagan a standing ovation because she's old, and because she is the widow of the Republican George Washington. She is accompanied by some pumped up meathe...oh wait, that's California's governor.
7:39 EDT-3/4 of Republicans still approve of the President's job performance? Are they stupid? I mean seriously, are they Stupid? This administration makes U.S. Grant's presidency look competent. At least Grant founded Yellowstone and stopped the first version of the Klan.
7:44 EDT-Olbermann talks about the non-candidate candidates. Senor Gingrich (R-Confederate States of America), Fake DA Fred Thompson (R-Law & Order), and so liberal he's conservative Chuck Hagel (R-Traitorstan)
7:46 EDT-The Super Islamofacist Fightin' squad is introduced to the crowd. Its so refreshing to see ten white old men as it should be, instead of the elves and women from the Dems.
7:55 EDT-I honestly think Ronald Reagan is the most overrated President of all time. However, none of these men could hold his jockstrap.
7:58 EDT-Almost ready to start the real show...Oh boy, I'm just giddy with excitement!
7:21 EDT-MSNBC shows an awkward photo session of the candidates, Nancy Reagan, and Chris Mathews. Damn are these guys old and white. John McCain is older than Reagan was in 1980, and we aren't even to 2008 yet. I would compare the average age of the candidates from both parties, but it is horribly skewed thanks to the fact that Dennis Kucinich is a 5,000 year old elf.
7:24 EDT-We're back, with Keith Olbermann in front of a replica of Air Force One. And its time for him to call the current government what it is: NOT truly conservative. Obviously, that is a segue to Pat Buchanan, a true conservative (if batshit insane).
7:36 EDT-Everybody gives Nancy Reagan a standing ovation because she's old, and because she is the widow of the Republican George Washington. She is accompanied by some pumped up meathe...oh wait, that's California's governor.
7:39 EDT-3/4 of Republicans still approve of the President's job performance? Are they stupid? I mean seriously, are they Stupid? This administration makes U.S. Grant's presidency look competent. At least Grant founded Yellowstone and stopped the first version of the Klan.
7:44 EDT-Olbermann talks about the non-candidate candidates. Senor Gingrich (R-Confederate States of America), Fake DA Fred Thompson (R-Law & Order), and so liberal he's conservative Chuck Hagel (R-Traitorstan)
7:46 EDT-The Super Islamofacist Fightin' squad is introduced to the crowd. Its so refreshing to see ten white old men as it should be, instead of the elves and women from the Dems.
7:55 EDT-I honestly think Ronald Reagan is the most overrated President of all time. However, none of these men could hold his jockstrap.
7:58 EDT-Almost ready to start the real show...Oh boy, I'm just giddy with excitement!
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Price of Milk in America
Guliani doesn't know the price of milk
I haven't made up my mind as to whom I will support for the 2008 election. In fact I have vowed not to talk (too much) about it for right now. However, this is more of a general beef with the media coverage of an election, rather than this specific election. My issue is why in the hell does it matter if the Presidential candidates know the price of milk?
If a candidate does know the price of milk, he is either an incredibly thrifty person, or is just remembering the note one of his staffers gave him. Anyone who thinks a candidate that knows the price of milk is a "man of the people" is asking to be fooled.
That isn't to say that our leaders shouldn't know the price of milk, or at least pay attention to the problems of the average voter. When President Bartlet asked that his staff be given the price of milk, he wasn't doing it to show that he and his staff were common people. Rather, he was doing it to remind his staff of the hardships and issues facing the average person, and to keep that in mind when doing their job.
Unfortunately, this is one of those questions that candidates will probably be asked until the end of elected government. Obviously, they shouldn't give the wrong answer, and should keep the staffers on top of this wherever they go. But no citizen should base their voting decision on the answer to this question. In this case at least, actions speak louder than words.
I haven't made up my mind as to whom I will support for the 2008 election. In fact I have vowed not to talk (too much) about it for right now. However, this is more of a general beef with the media coverage of an election, rather than this specific election. My issue is why in the hell does it matter if the Presidential candidates know the price of milk?
If a candidate does know the price of milk, he is either an incredibly thrifty person, or is just remembering the note one of his staffers gave him. Anyone who thinks a candidate that knows the price of milk is a "man of the people" is asking to be fooled.
That isn't to say that our leaders shouldn't know the price of milk, or at least pay attention to the problems of the average voter. When President Bartlet asked that his staff be given the price of milk, he wasn't doing it to show that he and his staff were common people. Rather, he was doing it to remind his staff of the hardships and issues facing the average person, and to keep that in mind when doing their job.
Unfortunately, this is one of those questions that candidates will probably be asked until the end of elected government. Obviously, they shouldn't give the wrong answer, and should keep the staffers on top of this wherever they go. But no citizen should base their voting decision on the answer to this question. In this case at least, actions speak louder than words.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Inauguration Day
Welcome to the launch of August Prairie. This blog will focus on everybody's favorite subject: politics. It will combine thoughts on current issues both at home and abroad, as well as give me a chance to develop and introduce some of my thoughts and theories on government and social responsibility.
Although I will be keeping up with current events, and posting my thoughts when big things happen, one thing I will pretty much ignore (at least until two months before Iowa) is the 2008 Presidential Election. At this point, it is nothing but meaningless jockeying, and deserves very little space on this page. If a candidate drops out, or a new candidate enters, I will discuss it briefly. Otherwise, it will remain in the background.
Although I will be keeping up with current events, and posting my thoughts when big things happen, one thing I will pretty much ignore (at least until two months before Iowa) is the 2008 Presidential Election. At this point, it is nothing but meaningless jockeying, and deserves very little space on this page. If a candidate drops out, or a new candidate enters, I will discuss it briefly. Otherwise, it will remain in the background.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)