Well, this is most likely going to be my last post of 2007. First of all, I'd like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy New Year, and happy holidays in general. This year has been quite a year!
On to business, then. Primaries are coming up and we're all thinking about the next presidential election. Well, maybe we're all thinking about getting Christmas dinner ready and buying presents for everyone, but I've certainly still got elections on my mind. Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote for another 4 1/2 years, but that doesn't prevent me from speculating.
Clinton and Obama are the clear frontrunners of the Democratic side, with Clinton perhaps a bit ahead. Personally, I support Obama. He seems to have a really good, strong, clear head on his shoulders. I also don't buy the "Obama is inexperienced, Clinton is experienced" line. Yes, Clinton has been in the Senate a few years longer than Obama, but what has she got besides that? Are we counting her being First Lady when her husband was president? I suppose she does deserve credit for her work in the former Clinton administration, but it just doesn't seem like she has enough experience to be holding it up as a weapon against Obama.
Then, of course, there are the Republicans. I can see no clear frontrunner here. There's Guilliani, whose whole platform is "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" Then there's Romney, who seems like an unlikely winner because so many people are so dead set against the Mormons (plus, does he really seem like he'd be a good, reliable president?). They've got Huckabee, who I don't know a ton about but who seems slightly less completely out of his mind then the others (he's still insane, though, I just did some quick online research). McCain, who scares me a little bit. I can't stand any of them is what I'm saying. They're all anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, etc. etc. Basically I disagree with the Republicans on everything.
It seems to me that after the current administration, a Republican president is very unlikely (thank God).
What do you think? I want comments, people!
I'm going to do some more research on Huckabee. He's the candidate my neocon arch rival in history class supports. I really enjoy yelling at that kid. Haha.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Another Iraq? Oh God...
Well, he's done it again folks. George W. Bush has once again ignored all reason, lied to the American people, and is trying to start a war on false pretenses. As a member of the MoveOn.Org email list, I recieved the following email:
Dear MoveOn member,
Wow. All year President Bush has been moving America closer to war with Iran. But yesterday we learned stunning news: Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003—and President Bush has known for months.
But Bush is undeterred. This morning, he held a news conference where he actually tried to portray the news that Iran isn't building a bomb as yet another reason to confront Iran! He also said he hadn't known about the new evidence—a fact contradicted by his own National Security Adviser.
It's Iraq all over again. Bush is willing to ignore intelligence and lie to move us towards another war.
We can't let him get away with it again. Will you write a letter to the editor of your local paper reminding folks that we've heard this story before, that Bush is misleading America on Iran just as he did on Iraq? Click here:
http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=87&id=11747-8612325-6rMB7F&t=3
The letters-to-the-editor section is one of the most widely read parts of the newspaper—a flood of letters can influence politicians, reporters, and the public. There are a couple key points we have to highlight in this critical moment:
Bush has been actively misleading us on Iran. Bush said today that he "only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week."
But according to the Washington Post, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley "said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate." Here's the Post:
President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
Just like he did with Iraq, Bush is ignoring the intelligence and recklessly pushing towards war. We can't afford to let Bush and Cheney start another disastrous war.
Congress must act now and make it clear that President Bush has no authority to strike Iran.
The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that Iran is not the threat Bush says it is.
The public is very nervous about the prospect of another war, but the President's bully pulpit is powerful and he uses it to great effect. We need to raise our voices now. Please write a letter today:
Thanks for all you do,
–Ilyse, Tanya, Justin, Adam G., and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007
After reading this, I sent a letter to my local newspaper and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same. Go to the website given in the email and simply enter the information asked of you and write a short letter. You don't even have to go to the post office! And above all, oppose any plans of a war in Iran. A nuclear program that has been inactive since 2003 is not a legitamite reason to start yet another war!
Dear MoveOn member,
Wow. All year President Bush has been moving America closer to war with Iran. But yesterday we learned stunning news: Iran shut down its nuclear weapons program in 2003—and President Bush has known for months.
But Bush is undeterred. This morning, he held a news conference where he actually tried to portray the news that Iran isn't building a bomb as yet another reason to confront Iran! He also said he hadn't known about the new evidence—a fact contradicted by his own National Security Adviser.
It's Iraq all over again. Bush is willing to ignore intelligence and lie to move us towards another war.
We can't let him get away with it again. Will you write a letter to the editor of your local paper reminding folks that we've heard this story before, that Bush is misleading America on Iran just as he did on Iraq? Click here:
http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=87&id=11747-8612325-6rMB7F&t=3
The letters-to-the-editor section is one of the most widely read parts of the newspaper—a flood of letters can influence politicians, reporters, and the public. There are a couple key points we have to highlight in this critical moment:
Bush has been actively misleading us on Iran. Bush said today that he "only learned of the new intelligence assessment last week."
But according to the Washington Post, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley "said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate." Here's the Post:
President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
Just like he did with Iraq, Bush is ignoring the intelligence and recklessly pushing towards war. We can't afford to let Bush and Cheney start another disastrous war.
Congress must act now and make it clear that President Bush has no authority to strike Iran.
The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that Iran is not the threat Bush says it is.
The public is very nervous about the prospect of another war, but the President's bully pulpit is powerful and he uses it to great effect. We need to raise our voices now. Please write a letter today:
Thanks for all you do,
–Ilyse, Tanya, Justin, Adam G., and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007
After reading this, I sent a letter to my local newspaper and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same. Go to the website given in the email and simply enter the information asked of you and write a short letter. You don't even have to go to the post office! And above all, oppose any plans of a war in Iran. A nuclear program that has been inactive since 2003 is not a legitamite reason to start yet another war!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Torture... Oh, Sorry "Advanced Interrogation"
Wow. I can't believe I haven't blogged in over a month. I really need to get back down to business.
The other day, in my American History class, I got into an argument with another student about torture. This teenage Neo-Con is convinced that
a. Our country should be torturing people and
b. Our country is not torturing people.
After a long debate about the moral inplications of torture (which clearly didn't have any effect on this kid), I brought up waterboarding. What did he say to that? "Waterboarding isn't torture!"
Whaaatt???
I looked up torture. I showed him the definition:
"1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining"
Didn't simulated drowning seem to fall into the category of "something that causes agony or pain"? Didn't it seem that if you couldn't breathe you might feel "anguish of body or mind"? But no. He wasn't swayed. Apparently "just because Webster defined it" doesn't mean that definition is relevent in politics.
At this point, I gave up. Anyone who honestly believes simulated drowning isn't torture isn't going to buy anything that isn't said by one of the Republican idiots who run our government.
It starts you thinking, though. How many people in our country are really this brainwashed? And where is the world going if America decides that torture is OK?
The other day, in my American History class, I got into an argument with another student about torture. This teenage Neo-Con is convinced that
a. Our country should be torturing people and
b. Our country is not torturing people.
After a long debate about the moral inplications of torture (which clearly didn't have any effect on this kid), I brought up waterboarding. What did he say to that? "Waterboarding isn't torture!"
Whaaatt???
I looked up torture. I showed him the definition:
"1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining"
Didn't simulated drowning seem to fall into the category of "something that causes agony or pain"? Didn't it seem that if you couldn't breathe you might feel "anguish of body or mind"? But no. He wasn't swayed. Apparently "just because Webster defined it" doesn't mean that definition is relevent in politics.
At this point, I gave up. Anyone who honestly believes simulated drowning isn't torture isn't going to buy anything that isn't said by one of the Republican idiots who run our government.
It starts you thinking, though. How many people in our country are really this brainwashed? And where is the world going if America decides that torture is OK?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
