Sigh. Four more years. Protest photos from inauguration day.
The whole mess disgusts me. A number of my family members voted for Bush. As Christians, his position on the so-called "moral" issues drove their vote. My assertion has always been that Bush, et al., were pushing these issues for political gain, thereby getting religious voters to vote for a platform that, in the case of lower- and middle-class voters, is fundamentally against their best interests. Furthermore, it was my view that the administration would never really take agressive measures to act on the issues, leaving them on the table as long-term political wedge issues on which they had a huge advantage over the Democrats.
Well, it looks like my assertion has some validity: According to a recent Washington Post article, apparently Bush has said he won't be aggressively pushing for the amendment. From the article:
Social conservatives who helped stoke record turnout for Bush in the 2004 election expressed concern that he is dropping the issue he passionately touted during the campaign now that he has been reelected.
I don't mean to sound anti-religion (though I am), but when you explicitly reject reason, it's pretty easy to get hoodwinked by politicians.
Well, turns out the search for WMD's is over. Total weapons found: zero. Yeah, somehow this doesn't surprise me.
A girl at Russel High School near Ashland got kicked out of her prom because she was wearing a Confederate flag-themed dress. Despite the general disdain I have towards "rebel" flag-waving types, I can't imagine many non-Southerners really understanding the girl's motivation. For example, take most of the reactions to the story on Metafilter.
My view? Well, I'm a pretty ardent supporter of free speech in general. So, obviously I would have supported her wearing the dress. But one really should consider the deeper cultural significance of the flag.
For the vast majority of people who currently display the Confederate flag, it's a symbol of Southern heritage, not a symbol of racism, white supremacy, or support of slavery. Certainly, over the years, it has carried those meanings for various groups, but today, in most cases, it's simply a cultural symbol and individuals ought to have the right to display it. No matter how hideous the dress you put it on might look. :)
*mumbles something about the mental deficiency of most of the United States*
Well, the election being over, the conservative pundits would have us believe that there is some kind of vast conservative revolution going on in America. I mean, look at all those red states! The Land of Bush is huge!!
But, some rather interesting statistical analysis, resulting in cool-ass maps, actually brings home how close the election is, and of course, how divided the country is right now.
Conservative revolution? Naah. Mouth-breathing troglodytes just came out to support gay marriage bans and happened to vote for Bush while they were there. :)
Michael Moore has announced he won't seek the Best Documentary Oscar this year. Instead, he is opting out of the process in favor of trying to get Fahrenheit 9/11 played on television before the election. How great would that be?
John Kerry Strikes Back.
The French ban on "conspicuous religious symbols" in public schools went into effect recently as the new school term began. Articles at Salon and BBC News. By way of background, I am not myself religious, and I'm fairly critical of organized religion in general. However, I do have problems with this policy.
Now, one of the main factors behind this law was that Islamic symbols (headscarves being the primary example) might cause trouble given the geopolitical situation these days. And some idiots might think, "Oh, well, as long as they're just banning Islamic symbols, no big deal." Well, other symbols, including Christian crosses are also affected.
Now, the specifics of this religious symbol or that don't really matter to me. I'm a heretic/heathen/infidel no matter how you look at it. However, a ban on the display of religious symbols represents a dangerous precedent: the banning of any form of expression by the government must not be taken lightly. After all, freedom of expression is a fundamental aspect of any effective democracy. And the fact is, I see absolutely no overriding reason that makes the French ban on religious symbols at all appropriate. I may not agree with the irrational anti-French sentiment from some groups in this country, but this is one case when I think the French are definitely in the wrong.
Interesting article at the Christian Science Monitor regarding ecological sustainability, particularly in regards to resource consumption by humans, and how sustainability will be affected by rapid modernization (and thus rapid increase in consumption) in densely populated areas like China. Worth a read.
Salon has an interesting article today about the Republican party's political "attack machine." Very interesting, indeed. The main point: The Republicans have, for a very long time, been the absolute Ninja Masters of negative campaigning, and Bush's current run for re-election rests on a foundation of personal attacks, backed by an almost issue-free platform.
What with the Republican National Convention getting underway, the election season is coming to a key point. And highly disturbing, Electoral-vote.com's estimation via an aggregate of various polls indicates that Bush is ahead now, by almost 40 votes. Not long ago, Kerry had something like a 60 vote lead by their estimate. One has to wonder if the entirely questionable Swift Boat shenanigans had something to do with this. Anyway, just thought I'd point that out.
Interesting article at Wired News about the Bush administration's science policies and a (large) group of scientists who have come out against the administration's use of scientific advice in policy decisions. If the scientists really have a case, and I think they probably do, these actions (particularly those based on reproductive health issues and stem-cell research) are just more examples of the Bush administration putting ideology before sound policy.
I just watched the 5 am replay of Your World with Neil Cavuto. Ben Stein was on to talk about his new book. Now, Stein's Comedy Central game show was hilarious. He's a classic cult figure with the spot in Ferris Beuller's Day Off and those eye drop commercials. He's also an unabashed Republican.
In his book, he decries so-called "liberal negativism" in America, and talks about how he considers it a threat to the United States. The Cavuto interview was absurd and I do believe I've lost any respect for Stein. And it wasn't even the moronic Neil Cavuto doing the interview!
Okay, if you go to the Fox News site, you can watch the interview. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to directly link to the video, so you'll have to find it manually. As of this writing, there's a link on their front page.
And just to let you know, O'Reilly loses. Not necessarily because Moore beat him on the issues, or out-debated him. No, in fact, they both danced around the issues quite a bit. The real reason O'Reilly lost? As per Official Internet Flamewar Rules, the first person to bring Hitler into the discussion loses. It's that simple. Ol' Bill went all in with a big Hitler reference, and the rest is history. Moore 1; O'Reilly 0. Schwing! :)
I don't know if this has aired, but c/o the Drudge Report, here's a transcript of Bill O'Reilly's interview with Michael Moore. Very interesting read. :)
Here is an interesting look at the statistics in this year's upcoming presidential election. Although nation-wide polls have it looking pretty even, a state-by-state breakdown has Kerry ahead by a good margin in terms if electoral votes. That's hopeful!
So what do my readers think? Who's going to win this election? Who do you want to win this election? Who would your dream candidate be and how do you think they'd do if they were in the race?
Me? I'm a pessimist, through and through. I'm afraid Kerry isn't going to be able to handle Bush. And besides, Kerry just strikes me as not really caring, for some reason. Bush cares. He cares about personal vendettas, corporations, crushing civil liberties, oil profits, destroying science, and promoting the agenda of the Religious Right. But at least he cares. Kerry just strikes me as very one-dimensional. And I don't like him. But I'm voting for him, because Bush is just that awful. My dream candidate? Dennis Kucinich's politics with the integrity of John McCain. Would such a candidate win? Probably not: one has to shift so far to the center to win a presidential election in this country that the two salient features of said dream candidate would be all but moot. Oh well.
Post a comment with your opinion!
Update: Fixed the link. This goes to the site's main page, which has the electoral map I wanted to point to in the first place. This one might be subject to change, though, so if it contradicts what I was saying, ignore what I was saying!
For anyone interested, here is a free HTML version of the 9/11 Commission Report.
My good friend Tim posted an excellent blog regarding this morning's Fox and Friends, which we were both (un)fortunate enough to watch. Go read what Tim has to say.
My personal view on the topic: Fox continues to pander to their primarily right-wing audience while neglecting their obligation to be, and let's not kid ourselves here, fair and balanced. (And yes, I do think private media agencies have an obligation to be responsible journalists so long as they are presenting themselves as such!) What's worse, they participate regularly in what basically amounts to fear-mongering. After all, as the Broadcast Arm of the Bush White House, Fox News clearly benefits from an America whose citizens are paralyzed by fear.
It makes me sick.
I feel icky linking to Matt Drudge, but this is rather interesting.
In the fine spirit of Fahrenheit 9/11, MoveOn.org is among the sponsors for a new documentary called Outfoxed. Essentially, it's an in-depth look at Fox News and it details the problems inherent in massive corporate-controlled media empires. I'm looking for a torrent as we speak. Should be interesting.
Haven't posted in a while, but here's an interesting link.
So, apparently, the government is seeking legislation that would provide a means by which federal elections could be postponed in the case of terrorist attacks. A noble idea, but really, I don't trust Tom Ridge, Dubya, Dick Cheney, or John Ashcroft. At all. So, the idea that they're trying looking to have Congress give them the power to postpone federal elections is rather chilling to me. Shudder.
Kurt Vonnegut. One of my favorite writers. Here's a link to an editorial he wrote recently. Quite good.