Friday, July 6, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
NEA President Reg Weaver:
“We cannot allow our schools to be judged solely on the basis of one-size-fits-all, multiple choice test. Even if we meet all of the criteria of No Child Left Behind, it still won’t prepare our children for the 21st century.”
“And like you I believe that we should reward teachers when schools show achievement gains, and we can’t do this unless we finally fix what is wrong with No Child Left Behind.”
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Something from another blogger, Bill Vallicella at Right Reason.
Bodissey writes, "This is not to say that a successful political system never involves compromise. In order for our political structures to work, they must always allow for compromise."
You can't fault the former Vice-President's optimism about his pessimistic vision of the future.
This is the scene in London, where the Algore is awaiting the 0707 "Live Earth" concert.
(I just loved the first search result! "Ticket Prices have been Reduced - Great Seats Available.")
Now comes news that the former Should Be First Son was arrested. I guess being an Oregonian I can forgive the marijuana...but Xanax, Valium, Vicodin and Adderall?
It's been pointed out that perhaps he should be forgive post-injury to his brain. Traumatic Brain Injury. Occured when he was 6, back in 1989. And maybe, just maybe, Algore should have given a little more attention to problems around the house starting about 11 years ago. Al III's rap sheet includes:
- In 1996, he was suspended from his high school for smoking marijuana.
- In August 2000, he was ticketed for reckless driving by North Carolina police for driving 94 mph.
- In September 2002, military police arrested him on suspicion of drunk driving near a military base in Virginia.
- In 2003, he was charged with marijuana possession in Maryland after police stopped the car he was driving for not having its headlights on.
- In February 2004, he entered a substance abuse program as part of a plea agreement.
But do an AltaVista search on "gore tbi" and this pops up:
Officials say Gore killed drug probe
Maybe III was just visiting Uncle Whit?
You can be against the war due to religious convictions. And during a period where we have an all-volunteer army it's impossible to find a reason why anyone opposed to war qua war would have to serve. And the argumentation--religious convictions from adherence to the Ten Commandments--is unassailable. You choose to believe that all killing, therefore, all war, is bad. I, personally, am against the death penalty.
But do I believe the State has the right, or authority to take a life? Yes. I would prefer it didn't, but the death penalty has a lot of possible argumentation that that includes the religious proscription to kill, as well as economic and justice issues.
Of course, the Seventh Day Adventists and Quakers come to mind. But Quakers and Adventists have served our military with distinction. So, against the war, in Iraq in some other way?
War isn't a death penalty for the enemy. Wars can escalate. Wars can be lost. Wars can be won. War is serious business. And while the business of war is often killing, it isn’t the aim of war.
In my response to the previously mentioned comment I attempted to point out that the groundwork for this war was not the product of "Bush's ego" as the commenter suggested. In fact, if one looks at the historical record, the precedents for our War in Iraq were set during the Clinton presidency. My response follows:
"Shifting the meaning of things is easily spotted as a logical fallacy. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Martin Indyk, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs dated February 2, 1999. "Well, the Security Council resolutions are comprehensive in their requirements. They would require a different kind of Saddam Hussein. Were he to accept them he would be in a different kind of Iraqi leader. The fact that he has not accepted them for seven years shows that he is not going to accept them, that he is not going to accept Iraq's international obligations. And we see already having accepted one on recognition of Kuwait. Now, his people are raising questions about that again. So, we know that he is not undergone a fundamental change. If he were to give up his weapons of mass destruction, completely disarm, then the oil embargo under the resolutions will be lifted, but he won't do that. That is why the sanctions remain on because he will not accept the requirements of the Security Council. If he were to accept them, if he were to be somebody different then the circumstances will change. But we do not expect that to happen anytime soon because he is Saddam Hussein."
As a young man one can criticize easily what one doesn't remember. When ones leaders are busily erasing history--see Hillary's latest stance regarding the war in Iraq--it can be confusing to the young when it looks at the years previous to the Bush presidency and sees such belligerence. Look at the expression of the will of Congress as voiced by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. "Expresses the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people and democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, including convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to the foreign debt incurred by the Hussein regime."Sounds pretty much like the President's "plan", doesn't it? Why Lefties have to bring up Bush, or in your case, Bush's ego, is laughable. But that's the way of fallacious logic. For instant, "further strengthening of our Government into Totalitarianism" because?) "...war is the ultimate show of power by 'The State'".
Crazy, man! Like, outasight! It’s sooo progressive!War--to fulfill the mandates of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, or, as the result of the HJ Res 114--is totalitarianism?
Everyone is allowed to have opinions. But an opinion that purports to show conclusory fact--when in fact it's just a bumper sticker--is not a valid argument. "War is the ultimate show of power by "The State". Well, no, maybe defending one's borders is. Or the ability to levy and collect taxes is. Or, as in Venezuela, the ability to destroy a nation's economy. All these conclusory statements could be supported by argument. But building a fallacious argument, using terms like "Totalitarianism" (with caps), "Bush's ego" (huh? didn't this get sorted out during the Clinton years?), and "nowhere near a threat to the citizens of our country" (read a little history) aren't important enough in themselves to form an argument of any kind.
Glad to have you here. Have a nice day!"
Key cites listed above were from the pre-Bush era. Secretary Indyk was Clinton's secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was signed into law by President Clinton.
The question again asked, “Can someone be against the Iraq War and NOT be a leftist?" Well, yes, here are two quick states where that could be true. The person who was for the war and now against the war could be an opportunist or of weak character. Hans J. Morganthau wrote about this kind of politician in his “In Defense of the National Interest”, Knopf (1951). It is difficult to “swim against the tide of popular opinion” and face it, the lure of being popular is seductive. It’s generally preferable to being unpopular.
The second case would be if that person were simply wrong. If, in the face of United Nations resolutions, House and Senate mandates, and the words of two presidents that the risks that Saddam Hussein presented are denied, can simply be ascribed to as being wrong. Sometimes people simply make mistakes. If, in the face of overwhelming evidence you can’t draw the correct conclusions we can only fault the system.
In disagreeing with the war, are you opposed to the aims of the war? I suppose that’s possible. Are you one of those people who view the region with the jaundice of Rudyard Kipling? Was the Senate wrong in 1998 when it set out to establish democracy for the Iraqi people? But that wouldn’t free you from the label of being a Lefty. Liberal, rational thought coincides in the words “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…” To quote the Claremont Institute:
"The Founders are about to state four truths that they describe as self-evident. But they know that nearly every other political power on earth denied these truths. In what sense, then, can they be called "self-evident"?The phrase "self-evident truth" has a particular meaning in the western philosophical tradition. It means a proposition whose truth is known as soon as the definitions of the terms in question are known.
For example, one knows it is a self-evident truth that "a whole is equal to the sum of its parts," as soon as one understands the definitions of "whole," "sum," and "parts."For those who do not understand the definitions--for instance, using the example above, for someone who doesn't know what "sum" means--a self-evident truth does not appear true. Nonetheless, it is."
So, it’s always been known that denying truth is possible. Denying truth doesn’t make you a lefty. It’s just a good indicator. You can choose to oppose this war on the basis of religion, on the basis of opposing the policy of your country, or by being wrong or an opportunist.
But where does opposing this war make you right? Are you right in your support of Saddam Hussein? Are you right in your support of Islamic Terror? Are you right in your support for beheadings, for the subjugation of women, Christians, Kurds? Death squads of Shia and Sunni? Are you right in wanting to become more like France? Are you right because you appease your enemies? Are you right because the values that you and I share are too good for the Iraqi people? Are you right because you don’t care about the innocents in Iraq? Are you right because you want to consign the Iraqis to civil war and oppression?
Would you stand up, as King Christian X did and wear the Mogen David? Would you support the fight to liberate Iraq from tyranny, or would you consign it to civil hell? Can you see that if Iraq fails, Lebanon fails? Will you turn your back on liberals in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan?Or will you prove the bombers in Lebanon right? Prove the warlords in Somalia right? Kill an American and they run.
Not this time. War was declared on the US in 1979 when Islamic terrorists took US diplomats hostage. War was declared on the US in 1983 when Hezbollah, an arm of the Iranian terror movement killed 220 Marines, 18 sailors and 3 soldiers. War was declared in April of 1993 when Iraq attempted to assassinate President George H.W. Bush. War was declared on the US when Iraq targeted US fighters in the no-fly areas of Iraq. And Iraq declared war on humanity when it used gas and chemical weapons on its own people, between February and August of 1988, destroying hundreds of villages and 200,000 people.
I am proud of my country. I am proud of what we are doing to help the Iraqis, the Kurds, the Shia, the Sunni, the Lebanese, Jordanians, Egyptians, and Saudis. To retreat, to run is wrong.
Can you oppose the war and not be a Lefty? Perhaps. But one name is as good as any other I can think of.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
At what point will the Progressives--aka Lefties--be satisfied?
Now they've taken my cigarettes. For my own good. The only problem now is finding a reasonable substitute.
We've been smoking in this country for around 400 years. What made the Dems in Salem think they knew better?
Oh, smoking deaths. Right.
Last year we lost power for five days during a winter storm. An elderly couple around the corner from me died using candles for light. I notice the legislature didn't mandate self-extinguishing candles.
Which, on the right date, would make sense. "Hey, baby, come over for a candle-lit dinner tonight?" Then things progress from there.
Lefties exist because their opinions are more important than yours. How many deaths were there from dumb? Let's outlaw dumb first. Then move on to cigarettes.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Me? I'm not Jewish. I guess you'd say I'm a Christian. But I'm not. Not like we "In the West" would say I'm a Christian.
I am respectful of other people's religions, though. Well...maybe not.
I have a hard time with Muslims. But, maybe you don't.
Let's just blame that on cultural diversity.
When you have a mouse, you know it. How? Mouse turds.
What do you do when there's a mouse in the pantry of state?
That's kinda what I thought the President's commutation of "Scooter" Libby's sentence was all about.
Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison for what?
I'm not gonna go where most will, with comparisons of other wrongs and rights, and concommitent pardons.
Mebbe if Russert were going to jail, too, I'd feel less forgiving of Libby. But if you didn't follow the actual testimony of the trial you have either up or down. If you followed it, Tim Russert would be going to jail. And, he's a Mainstream Media Journalist. So...you knew it wouldn't happen.
I watched all that "Big Tim" "Little Tim" crap. Russert lied. Yes, I'm pissed. But mostly? At the judge who denied what any "perp" would have had. Time "out of the joint" while the appeals progressed.
Kill somebody? Release. Fight Lefties? The Joint.
Afraid to complain? Why? If you blog, wait until we get closer to November '08. Some of us will be cited for violations of McCain-Feingold. Some of us will go to jail. "Scooter" is us in a year.
I have a mouse in my pantry. But who cares, but I?
Welcome to Schlongsterites! Thanks!
More OregonGuy here.