Point: Change Clothes, and Go!

This week marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation at Auschwitz. Many world leaders were there to recognize the symbol of history's worst moments. French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in this event, along with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.

As you can imagine, the ceremony was about as serious as you can get. So, you wouldn't think that I'd be discussing the choice of attire in this blog. Chirac and Putin were dressed appropriately for the event, wearing formal overcoats and dress boots. Cheney, conversely, was not dressed close to appropriately. The second-most powerful man in the most powerful country in the world looked like he just walked out of a screening of "Napoleon Dynamite" at Sundance. Cheney wore a ski parka, hiking boots, and a wool hat that said "Staff 2001". Classy duds for an event such as this one.

I'm not going to over-dramatize this misstep, and feign outrage on the level reversing roe vs. wade or the war in Iraq. I AM going to say this fashion faux pas is symbolic for Cheney's self-absorbed, piggish attitude. Don't forget, this is a man who tried to hide his lesbian daughter during the 2000 election. Cheney has been to hundreds of state events during his thirty-five years in public service, and has no excuse for showing up under dressed. How would YOU dress for a Holocaust reception?

Point: Force Feeding Government, One Country at a Time

I have rewritten the intro to this piece seven times. I have attempted each time to convey a witty analogy of how four more years of George W. Bush is like waking up with the equivalent of a aestically displeasing bedmate and a awful hangover. Each attempt has been painfully unfunny, and would destroy the miniscule "political capital" that I have built up. (rest assured, all of the out takes will make the point vs point DVD)

I chose instead to begin this piece this way:

"America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling."

The quote came from yesterday's inauguration. President Bush thanked our allies in the war on terror, and then made that comment. Now, despite being the co-creator of an critically acclaimed blog, I'm having a tough time understanding how that quote makes any sense. Isn't that EXACTLY what we've done in the war against Iraq? We invaded a country, slapped their military around, and are trying to change their style of government to ours. How is that not imposing?

I've written a specific post about the lack of evidence in invading Iraq, but here's the quick recap: C.I.A. inspectors left Iraq shortly before Christmas, and last week filed a report stating that they could not find any weapons of mass destruction. Interesting how that was news for only one day. It makes me think that the news isn't as liberal as Bill O'Reilly and Fox News would like you to believe. It also makes me pine for some impartial news, but let's skip my ADD-addled digressions for the moment.

So, President Bush led us into a war without any evidence, and is now forcing our government on the people of Iraq. No sane Democrat would argue that Iraq isn't a better place without the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and the Hussein-ettes. I, for one, would argue that Democracy is the greatest form of government in the history of the world, and I'm sure that once implemented, Iraq will be a better country. But, who gave the United States the power to take over other countries when we see fit? Not to mention the curious timing of invading Iraq when we couldn't find the real enemy, Osama Bin Laden. What proven link is there between Al Qaida and Iraq? After reviewing the facts in such a matter, how can any American support this? Doesn't this go against the principals that the country was built on?

This President has become Anakin Skywalker; he's standing at the ledge between the force and the dark side. I've become too pessimistic to think that this administration will change their foreign policy to: think before you act. It's not looking good; Colin Powell, a.k.a. the only sane cabinet member, has just pulled a Elvis and left the building. We can only hope that the Democrats can start to provide the checks and balances that is their job, instead of reprising their roles as the "yes men". (See the Vote to Invade Iraq)

That is our "only hope".

Point: How Quickly We Forget

I pose a question to the readers of Point vs. Point.

What if on September 11, 2001, instead of terrorists flying 4 commercial airline jets into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and potentially the White House, these terrorists had flown military planes over New York City, Washington D.C. and Boston dropping bombs that killed the same amount of people. Would you feel differently about the war in Iraq?

While the attacks of September 11 spawned a horror in me that will never fully die, I feel that many people now have come to terms with that day (in the effort of coping with such an atrocity) as an isolated terrorist incident, and now go on with their lives feeling, I would venture to say, equally as safe doing their daily life tasks as they did before.  I don't know if there are many rational Americans now who say they still live in the type of fear we felt in those first weeks after 9-11.   

My point is, there is a reason for that.  There is a reason that we do not live in constant fear.  It is not because President Bush told us not to: I don't care how many times he says it, "resolve" doesn't enable me to get out of bed, take public transportation, fly in airplanes,  visit national monuments, or travel abroad. 

The reason that we don't live in fear is because President Bush has, quite literally, put his money where his mouth is.  Yes, the deficit has been blown out of the water.  Ok. That is something I can't argue with.  But, what have we gotten for our $3.4 billion in increased military spending? How about freedom. How about the ability to live relatively secure without fear of random terrorist bombings or attacks. 

I love the fact that I have three times now been stopped at security because my industrial strength, Italian made, i-can't-live-without-it Blue Sapphire hair straightener looks like a weapon of mass destruction. I enthusiastically thank airport security for ripping apart my bags filled with perfectly folded clothes and tightly packed shoes.

I love the fact that I know when there are big events in the city that draw crowds, there are undercover police, FBI, and (hot) secret service agents in civilian clothes at ground level working to protect us. 

I like what I've read of the Patriot Act so far (I'm a slow reader, so I've only gotten to Sec 214. Pen Register and Trap and Trace Authority Under FISA (huh?). Share information guys! Work together! Expand our intelligence!

So, I guess what I'm saying is, for better or for worse, the terrorists declared war on America on 9-11. I think if they had used bombs, or had driven tanks over our front yards, Americans would still today have the same vengeful feelings we did three years ago.  The President has tried diplomacy, he has tried reasoning, and he has tried ultimatums.  Now he is using all of his resources to protect our country and the freedoms that we hold dear / take for granted. 

No one wants war - no one likes war - and there are many elements of how Bush is going about fighting this war that I can contend with - but unfortunately because this is a war without borders, it's hard for people to understand and quantify our progress, and therefore its easy to point the finger.  At Bush.

tamar.

Point: Think before you act, Mr. President

With the war on Iraq having no end in sight, President Bush's worst quality is on display again: impulsiveness. Bush, who has channeled John Wayne during the war on terror, likes to act first and defend his actions later. This gunslinger attitude has gotten him, and us as a country, into trouble with the rest of the world as we charged into Iraq without just cause.

It's not just the war that Bush has made ill-advised decisions on. Once hearing about the 2004 Tsunami disaster, President Bush immediately pledged $15 million toward the relief effort. The problem is that we're the richest nation in the world, and it made us look indifferent towards the plight. The President should have waited until all the damage had been assessed, and then made a decision; that's what Australia and Germany did. The world is fast become more and more anti-America and we blew a change for some good PR. Instead the world thought us to be unsympathic toward the tragedy.

Now, $15 million is a lot of money, so it's helpful to get some perspective. $15 million would fund a whopping 2 hours fighting the war on Iraq, according to John Aravosis, former policy advisor to the World Bank. Defending freedom doesn't come cheap. If only that's what we were doing there: According to MSNBC, CIA inspectors came home shortly before Christmas still not having found any WMDs. But hey, we're the United States, and we liberate other countries on a need basis. It's freelance work, really, and we do it ONLY when we need to divert attention from national issues, like a weak dollar, appointing judges to abolish abortion or freedom of speech, and reforming Medicare.

After widespread criticism from both liberal and conservative news outlets, President Bush upped the pledge to $35 million (4 hours in either Iraq or on the set of "Waterworld"; your choice) and then to $350 million. Caving into pressure; if that's not leadership I don't know what is. Our pledge is still far less than countries like Australia ($764 million) and Germany ($674 million).

President Bush needs to start thinking about our reputation around the world, and to realize that we are the world's leader, for right or wrong. Let's start acting like it.

paul.

Response #2 to "A Lesser of Two Evils"

Chris - you summed it up nicely.  you have no faith in our executive branch nor
did our forefathers, hence the checks and balances structure of our
government.  religious ties were kept separately from government
because religion has nothing to do with government.  our constitutional
democracy has one purpose or at least it had one purpose when it was
originally devised, that is to protect our rights from being infringed
on by others. so basically if you want to worship jesus or the old
testament or sacrifice a goat it is really nobody's business certainly
not some bureaucrat's in washington.  as long as you don't interfere
with someone else's ability to worship you should be left in peace.

So on that we agree but Interestingly I think you missed a very
important point.  you finish with, "until we figure out a way to
actually give financial aid non-discriminately".  I would argue that
this is a practical impossibility and not what you really want.

The word discriminate is defined as... "to distinguish by noting
differences" so to give the aid non-discriminately the government would
have to give out equal amounts of cash to any group that requested it,
regardless of purpose,etc...

Since most people agree that this is not a reasonable thing to do they
accept that some group's requests must be turned down and that some
causes may be more noble or more dire, hence the need for
discrimination.  Herein lies the rub.  Since the it is the government
who makes these handouts and they must turn some groups down, they must
decide on a criteria by which they will discriminate.  In our
discussion this criteria has been defined as the betterment of the
community.  But how do they decide this? eventually it comes down to a
personal decision about which community, what will better it, and who
is in the best position to make that happen.  The people who make these
calls may be thousands of miles removed from you, they may have totally
different cultural backgrounds and belief systems and the kicker, they
are giving away your money.

one solution is to let you give your own money away, or not give it
away as you see fit.  I would much rather pick my own charities than
let some faceless committee decide what is important to me but hey that
is just me.

for the record I, no I don't believe forceful redistribution of wealth
is an effective solution to poverty.

TS.

New Writers, New Format, Same Great Taste!

With the widespread popularity of Point vs Point, we have changed the format a bit. We now have several contributing writers (Tamar, Terry, Venetia) who (hopefully) will be writing on a regular basis. You can see their writing under the main section of the web site. RE: Responses, they are still greatly appreciated. They can be found at the bottom of each article. Don't forget to click there to see the witty repartee.

Thanks.

Counter Point: The Lesser of Two Evils

As Paul and Chris have admirably created a forum for Eco-boomer political and social commentary, I am inspired to write counter-points to their arguments, not in opposition to their validity, but to reinforce and support the ideals on which this blogg was founded by offering a counter-perspective.

Please refrain from throwing tomatoes and other virtual rotting vegetable at this article.

I think that Senator Santorum was referring to the evolution of his brain when he said that it is a theory that has holes. And has for his objections to our constitutional right to privacy, maybe he should rethink that before he goes around publicly saying he has no problem with homosexuality, just homosexual acts. Huh? He also has been public on his opinion that the scandal in the Catholic Church is a direct result of Catholics being too liberal. Huh? Santorum: a man who talks a lot but says little.

Yes, men like Senator Santorum are scary indeed. They are the fanatics that degrade and dilute the reputation of the Republican Party, and the intelligent world at large.

With that aside, here is a quick count-point that offers a different perspective on a hot topic.

Separation of Church & State: Now I as much as anyone, being a Jew working for a Jewish organization (who would have thought!), I too fear the dilution of the line between church and state. However, we may want to take a closer look before we get up in arms whenever we hear those two words in the same sentence. We need be careful of being hypocritical.

On our money, it says "in God we trust". When we swear in a new President, while his right hand is raised to the sky as he swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States, his left hand is sitting on top of the Bible. Now what dilutes the church/state line more? Giving government funds to all and any religious organizations to support community service programs, or to force all Americans to swear on a New Testament Bible?

The point I am trying to make is that when it comes to the role religion plays in our society, you have to look at it from "the lesser of two evils" standpoint. Religion should have nothing to do with American public life, but unfortunately, the two are inextricably linked: America was primarily founded on the basis of religious freedom, so in reality, we're not working to keep them separate, but to keep them from infringing on the liberties of others.

Everyone has a different opinion, but I am frightened less by a government that gives financial aid non-discriminately to a religious organization that is working towards the betterment of their community, than one that forces me to sit in court and swear on a Bible that entirely contradicts my faith.

Granted, this assumes that our government is capable of making this community service distinction clear, but I guess all we can do is have faith that our government, and our President, will uphold the Constitution and curtail its laws, programs, and federal funding to adhere to what was set forth by the Founding Fathers.

Tamar.

Point: The man for the DNC

As the post-election hangover wears off for the Democrats, the party must start to strategize for the future. Key members like former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has been defeated, paving the way for a Republican majority and leaving the Democrats more vulnerable than ever. The Dems now turn their attention to electing a new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) when they adjourn in February. This position, now held by Terry McAuliffe, leads the fundraising team for the party, helps form the party platform, and provides a public face to the party. It's a job with plenty of publicity. So, it's no surprise that a high-profile candidate, who had the most memorable speech from the campaign, is actively running for the job.

I'm not talking about one of the Johns here (Kerry or Edwards); I'm referring to Former Gov. Howard Dean, and his "scream" speech. Gov. Dean has kept a high profile by appearing on shows such as NBC's "Meet the Press". Dean has apparently been successful, as he just picked up an important endorsement from U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA.) Murtha, a former Vietnam veteran who is in favor of the war in Iraq, said "I am not with him on all the issues, but he understands the party’s problems, what we need to do and how to get there…A lot of people in the party don’t understand just where we are. We need a change. We need something different.” (TheHill.com, Hans Nichols)

I think Rep. Murtha is right about one thing: If ever the Democrats needed a change, it's definitely now. This is not groundbreaking information. We are talking about a party that was just trashed in the last election, and whose "great hope" for the future is a senator with one day of congressional experience. (Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL). I do NOT agree with Rep. Murtha that Dean is the right choice.
Gov. Dean is a New York City-raised, Ivy League-educated liberal whose followers were mainly college students from the northeast and California. The Democrats already have those voters; they need to tap into the middle of the country and the south to recapture the former Democrats that have strayed to the right.

The DNC needs to select a chair that will make both parties stand up and take notice. They need a person who is close to the middle, and will help shape policy so that Republicans will consider their candidates in four years. They need someone who takes over a room when they walk in.

That someone is William Jefferson Clinton.

No politician since John F. Kennedy can win over a crowd like Bill Clinton. His charisma and moxie led to many victories for both the Democrats and for America. His influence is still being felt, as evidenced by President Bush selecting him, along with former Bush, to spearhead the Tsunami Relief Effort. With the likelihood of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) running for the Presidency in 2008, there would be a great synergy with Bill Clinton raising funds AND awareness for his wife over the next four years.

Bill Clinton would re-energize a Democratic Party that is on life support. He has the power to go into Republican-dominated areas and win back the very people that used to vote Democratic blindly. Compared to two terms of being President, this would be a cakewalk. Sure, Clinton has flaws (character being 1-10), but his genuine love of America has not diminished.

Thus ends this dream sequence; the chance of Clinton being elected as DNC Chair is almost non-existent. The egos here are far too great, and Clinton probably can't "lower" himself to run for the position. Too bad. I have no doubt that this is what our forefathers meant our government to be when they wrote the constitution. Just once, I would love to see just one case of pure public service.

I bet Democrats and real patriots would too.

Point: The End of Freedom?

I start the first post of the new year by thinking about the future. Specifically, the future of American politics. Looking on from a left-leaning perch, I am of the opinion that the policies of this country will get worse before they gets better. With a Republican-led government, we will see the deficit get larger, the mystery of Medicare get more muddled, and church and state become closer than they already are.

For today's purposes, I've chosen to focus on something more important; the disassembling of our government. In the January 5th issue of Newsweek, an article titled "Mister Right" profiles Sen. Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania. Santorum is a political wiz kid, having won a seat to Congress at age 32, and to Senate at age 36.

According to Howard Fineman, who wrote "Mister Right", Santorum won his campaigns largely by recruiting right-wing activists to fight the ground war. Fineman wrote that Santorum is "close to the White House", and that he is "the point man for hot-button issues ranging from Social Security."

In that article, Santorum is quoted as saying that evolution "should be taught in public schools, but only as a still controversial scientific theory that 'has holes'."

Of course this makes a great deal of sense to everyone in the U.S. While we're at it, we should tell the kids that the Revolutionary War may or may not have included Paul Revere, FDR plagiarized the New Deal, and that 9/11 was caused due to pilot error. We should also clean up the whole Nixon thing; "Yes, Danny, Watergate is a slide at the Magic Kingdom".

If you're a Democrat, you're already pissed off. If you're a Republican, you're rubbing it in to the Democrat I just mentioned because you voted for these people, AND you have a mandate for the next four years. But like all right-wing political agendas, it gets far worse. Senator Santorum goes on to say that "there is no constitutionally based right to privacy...It is a phony legal concoction by liberal judges."

WHAT? Did 2005 bring Americans a monarchy? I knew I should have stayed up this year. After Senator "Reverse and Ban" gets done with our laws, the list of acceptable activities will start and end with going to church. Good thing that Santorum is the third-ranking Republican in a majority of 55 members!

Santorum went on to suggest entirely different laws than our own by saying that he favors each state having the power to legislate on their own, even if that meant that a state banned contraception or premarital sex.

Maybe I'm completely wrong about what we're trying to do here, but I was under the impression that Americans are trying to unite the country, not divide it. I guess I also thought that by having the fifty states make up one country, we would create a land where the sum far outweighed the parts. I certainly got that feeling on September 11, 2001. I have absolutely no idea why we would break up our laws based on the state you lived in. The crazy part is that I bet some states would do this; Would Utah, with its largely Mormon population, make premarital sex a crime? Would Louisiana, a state with a high level of drinking, revert to prohibition? Is this really what the country wanted when they re-elected President Bush?

We are in very dangerous waters when we start to make new laws and repeal existing others based on a small portion of the population. This country is built on the foundation of freedom; whether it's freedom of speech, choice, or action. To take away rights from citizens is a sure fire way to start a country's downfall. Moderate Republicans must aid Democrats on every level to fight this war and save the ideals that the United States were built on.

If we fail, we will be responsible for imploding the greatest nation of all time. I can't live with that.

Can you?

paul.

Point: From the people who brought you 6 minute abs, it's 10 minute goverment!

Before I get on my soapbox today, we at Point vs. Point would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the victims and the families of the tragedy in the pacific rim. We hope and pray for a speedy rescue and recovery effort. As surfers, both paul and I have some small affinity for the area. I have never traveled there but I have friends who have spent time in the region and have nothing but the nicest things to say of the people that live there and have been affected, indeed they are some of the kindest, most generous people on earth. If you would like to donate money to the disaster relief effort www.state.gov has information on reputable charities as does www.amazon.com.

On to less important things.

Why are there more people who care how Randy Johnson pitches against switch hitters in Camden Yards than there are people who care about where their senators stood in the last vote? Why is it that more people can name all twelve players on their local basketball team than came name their representatives in congress? Who do you know that could name all 9 Supreme Court justices? Who do you know that can name the 8 teams that make up the AFC North and East? Why do more people choose to watch ESPN as opposed to C-SPAN? Okay scratch that last one, C-SPAN is not much more then a cure for insomnia.

Why don't more people care about their government? Do these people care about having a job? Do they care about being able afford to send their kids to college?What about being able to retire before they are eighty? Will new immigration laws affect them in anyway? Abortion? Hello? Is this thing on?

Here's the point, I wish more people my age would get informed. Not even involved, just informed. I'm not looking for everyone to drop what they are doing and turn to a life of public service, I just wish that people would take even ten minutes out of their day to see what's going on with our government. Even ten minutes a week would be cool. The payoff is that the next time you vote with your head held high. Not because it's who your parents, or significant other voted for, not because he/she is incumbent so they must know what they are doing, not because he/she is a democrat or a republican so they must think the same way you do, and not because his/her name looks cool because it forms a palindrome. I'm only speaking from experience here. I started voting when I was 18 and I have definitely been guilty of everything listed above at one point or another in my life. I think I even voted ABBA to city selectman.

Vote because you believe in something. Vote because you don't believe in something. But vote with conviction in your beliefs and because you want your voice to be heard.

Let me point out that as much as it may sound like it I'm not trying to ride in on a high horse. I don't event know how to ride. I had to look up who the Representative for my borough was. I knew Hillary was my Senator because she is sexy. Well SHE'S not actually sexy but to the media the story of her being senator is sexy. I'd like to take time right here to absolutely clarify that I don't think that Hillary is sexy. Just her story. To the media. Really.

My other Senator is Charles Schumer which I actually did know because, well I don't actually get out that much.

Over the holiday I spent some time with my 19 year-old cousin. I took a swing at pouring on some of the self-righteousness that I just let loose above. He took it like any 19 year old would have. He gave me the "whatever" look and brushed it off as though I was a geek. He didn't actually use those words because I'm a lot bigger than him and have been known on occasion to ummmmm forcibly adjust his perspective but I knew enough to know what he was thinking. Maybe it's what I thought at 19, but as I'm getting older I realize that a lot of geeky things are actually pretty cool which I guess is my ulterior motive to getting more people involved.

But not C-SPAN...that still blows.

chris.