Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Where to start?
Well, I may be showing my arrogance to think that I've been missed during my hiatus, but I've been incredibly busy with my "off-line" pursuits. Seems that the blog continually has to take a back seat to other tasks, particularly since most of them are "profit-based" endeavors.
Anyway, I have been keeping astride of the issues that are making the blog rotation of late, and I'd like to share a few thoughts.
LaShawn Barber has taken a huge amount of heat for her post regarding Christianity and Liberalism. I don't think she for one minute assumes that no Christians vote for the liberal candidate, but I do wonder how someone who professes to believe the Bible (and the whole Bible), can support the liberal agenda without acknowledging an ideological conflict. The Bible plainly teaches a solid work ethic, condemns homosexuality, promotes the protection of the unborn and others who are incapable of defending themselves, and teaches personal responsibility for personal actions. The liberal agenda promotes sloth, praises many types of sexual deviations, protects abortion-on-demand as law, and demonstrates that personal responsibility is to be avoided in favor of laying blame for one's actions to circumstance or environment. In a nutshell, the Bible teaches moral absolutes, the liberal theme is one of moral relativism. I don't assert that a Christian can't vote Liberal and still be a Christian; only that the honest Christian must admit to compromising some of the tenets of his faith.
ISOU goes on a tare here regarding the accusations of voter fraud and intimidation. While the points he makes ring true on some fronts (how supervision of voting precincts may hearken back to the days of segregation to some black voters old enough to truly remember suppression) one has to weigh both sides of the argument carefully. I am of the opinion that every voter should have to produce some form of identification to demonstrate that he is truly who he claims to be. I also cringe at the proposition that people can be registered to vote in two states simultaneously, and can vote in both states. I think it's time that voting is viewed again as a privilege, not an inalienable right. I am personally outraged that there are those folks who would undermine this basic tenet of our government for the sake of political gain, and if anyone really cares which side is doing more digging under this particular cornerstone, look at which party has the long-standing history of opposing any reforms that would curb voter fraud. At some point, the responsibility must fall upon the voter to be informed on the issues, and to vote in the right place, at the right time, and in the right manner. Also, I am convinced that legislation needs to be pursued that would harshly prosecute those who vote fraudulently. There is no excuse, in the "information age" for there to not be safeguards against multiple registrations, nor is there any excuse for counting so-called "provisional" ballots, cast by folks voting in the incorrect precinct. It's your privilege to vote, so treat it as such.
I've almost decided that many Americans are just as stupid as Michael Moore believes them to be. Facts have been totally discarded in this election campaign (as in the CBS memo debacle), and slanderous character attacks have been substituted. In the light of all this, I have one significant fear regarding Tuesday, November 2, 2004. That fear is not that Kerry will win. Rather it is that Kerry will almost win. If that happens, the DNC will conclude that these tactics almost worked, and that they have to do even more of the same to win the 2008 election. That, in my opinion, would be disastrous for the United States. The things that have been done and said this year border (and sometimes cross that border) on treason and insurrection. I am in hopes (though possibly futile hopes) that Bush will win in a landslide, and that the DNC will take this as a sign that their efforts this year were the wrong campaign, done in the wrong way, at the wrong time. I'm so tired of hearing Kerry supporters interviewed on television and radio and repeating the same talking points we've heard all year. It's a sign of a propaganda campaign that hasn't enough basis in fact to be defended. It also seems to be proof that if a lie is told often enough and loudly enough, people accept it as truth. Worst of all, it has created a climate in which a publication in England indicates that the President of the United States should be assassinated, a liberal talk-radio station hints that it would be a good thing if George Bush were dead (of natural causes, of course), and there's nothing but a muted murmer amongst the American populace.
The double standard regarding the way MSM reacts to the two sides of this campaign was never more evident than last week in the midst of the controversy over the "Stolen Honor" documentary. Imagine for a moment the firestorm that would have certainly been brought on if the Republicans and their supporters used the same tactics to mute "Farenheit 9-11." Cries of censorship and lectures on first-amendment rights would still be rolling through every major network. To give another example, if Fox News had broken a story about newly-discovered memos detailing how Kerry had forged documents and lied about combat actions to get his medals, only to have the documents proved to be forgeries, would they have been able to sweep the mess under the carpet by pointing to the "valid questions" the documents raised? I'd say not.
In conclusion, if anyone's out there who truly believes that Saddam wasn't aiding Al-Qaeda, who truly thinks that 9-11 was anything but an act of war, who believes that Kerry's plan to give everything to everyone will be financed with anything short of back-breaking taxes on the working class, who thinks that the overinflated Clinton economy and NAFTA had nothing to do with the recession and job losses over the past four years, who believes that Bush's funding of stem cell research under particular guidelines constitutes a ban, who believes that Bush and Cheney planned, facilitated, or used for their personal gain the attacks of September 11, or who believes that attempting to stand on every side of every issue is a sign of good leadership, please go cast your vote for the candidate who embodies that type of thought: John Kerry. It's your right as an American to be oblivious to the obvious.
Anyway, I have been keeping astride of the issues that are making the blog rotation of late, and I'd like to share a few thoughts.
LaShawn Barber has taken a huge amount of heat for her post regarding Christianity and Liberalism. I don't think she for one minute assumes that no Christians vote for the liberal candidate, but I do wonder how someone who professes to believe the Bible (and the whole Bible), can support the liberal agenda without acknowledging an ideological conflict. The Bible plainly teaches a solid work ethic, condemns homosexuality, promotes the protection of the unborn and others who are incapable of defending themselves, and teaches personal responsibility for personal actions. The liberal agenda promotes sloth, praises many types of sexual deviations, protects abortion-on-demand as law, and demonstrates that personal responsibility is to be avoided in favor of laying blame for one's actions to circumstance or environment. In a nutshell, the Bible teaches moral absolutes, the liberal theme is one of moral relativism. I don't assert that a Christian can't vote Liberal and still be a Christian; only that the honest Christian must admit to compromising some of the tenets of his faith.
ISOU goes on a tare here regarding the accusations of voter fraud and intimidation. While the points he makes ring true on some fronts (how supervision of voting precincts may hearken back to the days of segregation to some black voters old enough to truly remember suppression) one has to weigh both sides of the argument carefully. I am of the opinion that every voter should have to produce some form of identification to demonstrate that he is truly who he claims to be. I also cringe at the proposition that people can be registered to vote in two states simultaneously, and can vote in both states. I think it's time that voting is viewed again as a privilege, not an inalienable right. I am personally outraged that there are those folks who would undermine this basic tenet of our government for the sake of political gain, and if anyone really cares which side is doing more digging under this particular cornerstone, look at which party has the long-standing history of opposing any reforms that would curb voter fraud. At some point, the responsibility must fall upon the voter to be informed on the issues, and to vote in the right place, at the right time, and in the right manner. Also, I am convinced that legislation needs to be pursued that would harshly prosecute those who vote fraudulently. There is no excuse, in the "information age" for there to not be safeguards against multiple registrations, nor is there any excuse for counting so-called "provisional" ballots, cast by folks voting in the incorrect precinct. It's your privilege to vote, so treat it as such.
I've almost decided that many Americans are just as stupid as Michael Moore believes them to be. Facts have been totally discarded in this election campaign (as in the CBS memo debacle), and slanderous character attacks have been substituted. In the light of all this, I have one significant fear regarding Tuesday, November 2, 2004. That fear is not that Kerry will win. Rather it is that Kerry will almost win. If that happens, the DNC will conclude that these tactics almost worked, and that they have to do even more of the same to win the 2008 election. That, in my opinion, would be disastrous for the United States. The things that have been done and said this year border (and sometimes cross that border) on treason and insurrection. I am in hopes (though possibly futile hopes) that Bush will win in a landslide, and that the DNC will take this as a sign that their efforts this year were the wrong campaign, done in the wrong way, at the wrong time. I'm so tired of hearing Kerry supporters interviewed on television and radio and repeating the same talking points we've heard all year. It's a sign of a propaganda campaign that hasn't enough basis in fact to be defended. It also seems to be proof that if a lie is told often enough and loudly enough, people accept it as truth. Worst of all, it has created a climate in which a publication in England indicates that the President of the United States should be assassinated, a liberal talk-radio station hints that it would be a good thing if George Bush were dead (of natural causes, of course), and there's nothing but a muted murmer amongst the American populace.
The double standard regarding the way MSM reacts to the two sides of this campaign was never more evident than last week in the midst of the controversy over the "Stolen Honor" documentary. Imagine for a moment the firestorm that would have certainly been brought on if the Republicans and their supporters used the same tactics to mute "Farenheit 9-11." Cries of censorship and lectures on first-amendment rights would still be rolling through every major network. To give another example, if Fox News had broken a story about newly-discovered memos detailing how Kerry had forged documents and lied about combat actions to get his medals, only to have the documents proved to be forgeries, would they have been able to sweep the mess under the carpet by pointing to the "valid questions" the documents raised? I'd say not.
In conclusion, if anyone's out there who truly believes that Saddam wasn't aiding Al-Qaeda, who truly thinks that 9-11 was anything but an act of war, who believes that Kerry's plan to give everything to everyone will be financed with anything short of back-breaking taxes on the working class, who thinks that the overinflated Clinton economy and NAFTA had nothing to do with the recession and job losses over the past four years, who believes that Bush's funding of stem cell research under particular guidelines constitutes a ban, who believes that Bush and Cheney planned, facilitated, or used for their personal gain the attacks of September 11, or who believes that attempting to stand on every side of every issue is a sign of good leadership, please go cast your vote for the candidate who embodies that type of thought: John Kerry. It's your right as an American to be oblivious to the obvious.
// posted by Jamie @ 10/26/2004 07:37:00 AM 
