Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Teenage Thugettes
It appears some of the Teenage Thugs on Short Vine have been arrested. These are the kids who where allegedly spouting racial insults at people for no apparent reason. The Enquirer actually reported in an editorial that the racial insults were anti-white. This fact was not listed in the original news story. I am in favor of hate crimes laws, where the motivation of the crime is taken into consideration in sentencing. What must happen is that these laws must be applied equally. Black on white hate is not excusable, no matter what some of the callers on WDBZ may say. What hasn't City Council members who voted for the hate crimes ordinance called for it to be invoked? Is the problem Mike Allen's office refusing to apply a law he disagrees with?
Reactionary Squeaky Wheels
Without even considering the future ramifications, the Florida House has voted to give Governor Jeb Bush the power to restore the feeding tube to a comatose woman. The Florida Senate is expected to follow with approval later on today. This woman has been comatose for 13 years, but her parents want to carry on, while the husband has gotten a court order to allow him to let her die. This is a sad case, but why are the Florida politicians jumping into this case without thinking about what they are doing? What is next? Will Jeb Bush have power to keep me on a respirator if I am brain-dead after a car wreck? Will Jeb Bush have power to prevent any abortion? Or prevent the use of contraceptives? They are reacting to the Anti-abortion lobby who have seized on this case and are making it into a battle by marching their jack booted foot soldiers headlong into it.
You know Jeb Bush is playing politics when you read this:
You know Jeb Bush is playing politics when you read this:
"This is a response to a tragic situation." Bush said. "People are responding to cries for help and I think it's legitimate."If someone were to ask Jeb Bush for a law to prevent Johnny's lemonade stand from being driven out of business by the new Starbuck's juice bar, I guess Bush would be getting his oil can out to fix the squeaky wheel.
Schiavo has been at the center of a court battle between her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and her husband, Michael Schiavo. The parents want Terri Schiavo to live, and her husband says she would rather die.
The Florida Supreme Court has twice refused to hear the case, and it also has been rejected for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, a Florida appeals court again refused to block removal of the tube.
Cincinnati Loves the 80's
A big wow goes out to Sarah at the Hedgemo for this list of I love 80's for Cincinnati. I came to the area in 1990, and that was Oxford, so I only actually lived in Cincinnati starting in 1994. This would make a great TV special for one of the local TV stations to pick up. It would be fluff, but fun fluff that someone my age might actually find entertaining.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Timing is Everything
Rob Bernard is quoting from Jonah Goldberg about the reasons for going to War in Iraq. There are some "valid" reasons to have gone to War. If we are going to apply any of those reasons on other countries is yet to be determined and so far not lived up to in the case of Liberia where we dipped out toes in the water, and got of Dodge in hurry.
The problem is that without the WMD, the element of a threat vanishes. No WMD, no threat (whether you want to quibble on immediate, impending, or imminent). Why did we have to go to war in March? Was our intelligence that bad that we actually thought Iraq could strike with WMD first? Yes, this was a big fear of everyone, including the luke-warm war supporters (those mostly Dems in Congress authorizing war), but that was based on the assumption that Bush was holding back evidence (for security reasons) and that we should trust him when he and his many underlings said Iraq had those weapons.
Now, of course we could now go how Bush and company have changed talking points and no longer say WMD, they say WMD programs. That, I think everyone agrees is a case of revisionism, which now is spin, but back then was misleading.
If there were no known WMD stockpiles or no actual WMD ready to fire at anyone, then why attack Iraq in March? Why not wait until the 1st ID was in place? Why not appear to be destined for war and instead give Saddam’s generals the summer to take him out. We seem to have been successful in doing that once the war started. We instead could have built credibility with the world and gotten UN approval for the war based on Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN.
We still would have lost credibility because there were no WMD to be found in the numbers stated (or likely at all), but if we had the UN mandate, Bush would have had the cover, could have fought the War starting this November, and could have had foreign troops taking over as peace keepers by next April, just in time for Bush to ride into the height of the primary season. Instead, we get hurry up and fight, damn the post-war, and fuck what anyone else thinks about it. That is standard MO for this President and his team. That is where the criticism of him lies on firm ground. I have yet to hear anyone substantially retort my complaints on the hasty timing of the War. I don't think there is a valid reason for the timing. Valid in at least a semi-objective manner that is. If it was for politics or for misjudgment we must judge that this president can’t be trusted to the tell the whole story to the American people when he wants to take us to war. That is the most critical duty of a President and he failed. He not only failed, but he in my opinion knows he failed and does not feel an once of shame for it. People wonder why he is hated? He is hated for character, like Clinton was, but when that chacater affects everyone, then it matters. If Bush was lucky he could have done this and actually won next year with a Regean percentage of the vote. Instead he will not win by much if he does. He might win a clean number of electoral votes, but the county is as divided now, as I have ever known it to be. I would bet those much older would agree that were more divided now than in 1968. Will 2004 be as bloody and violent as 1968? I fear it may.
The problem is that without the WMD, the element of a threat vanishes. No WMD, no threat (whether you want to quibble on immediate, impending, or imminent). Why did we have to go to war in March? Was our intelligence that bad that we actually thought Iraq could strike with WMD first? Yes, this was a big fear of everyone, including the luke-warm war supporters (those mostly Dems in Congress authorizing war), but that was based on the assumption that Bush was holding back evidence (for security reasons) and that we should trust him when he and his many underlings said Iraq had those weapons.
Now, of course we could now go how Bush and company have changed talking points and no longer say WMD, they say WMD programs. That, I think everyone agrees is a case of revisionism, which now is spin, but back then was misleading.
If there were no known WMD stockpiles or no actual WMD ready to fire at anyone, then why attack Iraq in March? Why not wait until the 1st ID was in place? Why not appear to be destined for war and instead give Saddam’s generals the summer to take him out. We seem to have been successful in doing that once the war started. We instead could have built credibility with the world and gotten UN approval for the war based on Iraq's refusal to comply with the UN.
We still would have lost credibility because there were no WMD to be found in the numbers stated (or likely at all), but if we had the UN mandate, Bush would have had the cover, could have fought the War starting this November, and could have had foreign troops taking over as peace keepers by next April, just in time for Bush to ride into the height of the primary season. Instead, we get hurry up and fight, damn the post-war, and fuck what anyone else thinks about it. That is standard MO for this President and his team. That is where the criticism of him lies on firm ground. I have yet to hear anyone substantially retort my complaints on the hasty timing of the War. I don't think there is a valid reason for the timing. Valid in at least a semi-objective manner that is. If it was for politics or for misjudgment we must judge that this president can’t be trusted to the tell the whole story to the American people when he wants to take us to war. That is the most critical duty of a President and he failed. He not only failed, but he in my opinion knows he failed and does not feel an once of shame for it. People wonder why he is hated? He is hated for character, like Clinton was, but when that chacater affects everyone, then it matters. If Bush was lucky he could have done this and actually won next year with a Regean percentage of the vote. Instead he will not win by much if he does. He might win a clean number of electoral votes, but the county is as divided now, as I have ever known it to be. I would bet those much older would agree that were more divided now than in 1968. Will 2004 be as bloody and violent as 1968? I fear it may.
Puff Piece?
Is the Enquirer going soft on Damon Lynch? In this Greg Korte article we are led to believe there are two Damon Lynch's. One is an activist, one is a slick politician. Is there really a difference? Both claim to be "honest," but neither lives up to it.
I was looking for the big questions to be asked and answered. If elected will Lynch end his support for the boycott? If he will not, then how can anyone believe he is representing the entire city? Why do the revised Boycott A demands call for an "Afro-centric" curriculum to be established in city schools? How could that curriculum not be considered racist? What evidence does he have that there are "rapists" on the CPD? If he has no evidence, will he apologize for his letter claiming such?
How does a person who is supported by racists, plan on dealing with people of all races? How does a person who blames another race for the problems of his race expect to "bring the races together?"
These questions may have been asked, but they will not get any answers. Lynch is a politician with a blinded following who think he is the answer for an unnamed question.
UPDATE: Wes Flin comments on Lynch and the boycott.
I was looking for the big questions to be asked and answered. If elected will Lynch end his support for the boycott? If he will not, then how can anyone believe he is representing the entire city? Why do the revised Boycott A demands call for an "Afro-centric" curriculum to be established in city schools? How could that curriculum not be considered racist? What evidence does he have that there are "rapists" on the CPD? If he has no evidence, will he apologize for his letter claiming such?
How does a person who is supported by racists, plan on dealing with people of all races? How does a person who blames another race for the problems of his race expect to "bring the races together?"
These questions may have been asked, but they will not get any answers. Lynch is a politician with a blinded following who think he is the answer for an unnamed question.
UPDATE: Wes Flin comments on Lynch and the boycott.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)