Your turn at the Soapbox

You know what they say about polls... nonetheless, I thought this was interesting.

Here's a recent poll that shows Mitt might not be doing as hot as you might like to think. In fact, it shows that Republicans would favor an actor who hasn't even announced his intention to run over good old Mitty.

Ouch!

Before I get started, this is a picture of me descending Leatherman Peak. The 2nd tallest mountain in Idaho. We did it this past weekend. Lots of snow, ice, and sore muscles. Staff, I wish you were there. Come do Rainer with us May of 08. Anyways, my first real mountaineering ice climb. The peak was 12,543 feet. Heinous.
And now...

While I enjoy a good scandal, (though it does no good for our country's image) I am pretty tired of Plame's situation being construed as a Dick Cheney fiasco. There is a lot of assumption going into thinking that Cheney was the master-mind behind the Plame ousting. Not that I don't think he couldn't come up with it, but I'm not sure what he would gain by leaking it. Rove might stand more to gain, but he is in enough trouble already. If Rove is as "tight" with Bush as is touted, again, what would he have to gain also? I think it is way too late to think that anything could be gained politically by this. I can guarantee that she will use her looks and situation to get at least a dozen interviews, a few speechs, and two books. No doubt it will turn into a money and popularity contest with her. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it seems too coincidental that this happens almost every time. Clinton ring a bell.

Now, on to more important things, our future Pres. Romney.
Still, Romney is making a significant impact on the American people. As Josh so dutifully pointed out, Romney took the majority vote from the recent PAC convention.(Glad to see you coming around.) He beat out Guliani, McCain and the others. He also is gaining significant ground in Michigan and believe it or not, Ohio.

Shocking, I know. But why should it be so shocking? In a recent interview that Mitt Romney had on Fox News, he was confronted by the interviewer as to his position change on abortion, Mitt did not back down. He said that he did change his position about 4 years ago and is now pro-life. No other candidate can say with clear diction why they changed a position. He made no excuses as to why he changed his view. America is about learning and educating one's self for the improvement of others. Mitt has done that. If I learn valid things that would change my opinion, I might consider making a modification to my view points. As would any of you I would imagine, where there is credible proof. His view points will directly influence the outcome of the next election for the better. No other candidate, neither Dem nor Reb, will be able to stand toe to toe with him and be secure in their position.





Sorry it took me a while to get this one posted. Work is out of control right now. And Courtney jsut got Sara's scissors and cut half of her hair off. Nice.

On my ride into work I pass this little barber shop in a seedy area of town. I have never seen a soul in there but I couldn’t help but notice the sign that hangs in their front window.

If we can’t make you look good, you’re ugly!

While I doubt this brings in too many customers it has stuck in my mind.

I can’t help but think that the same is true for the situation in Iraq. No matter how much we try to pretty it up, it is just plain ugly. No amount of hand-wringing or optimism will change the fact that we are in a situation that we should never have gotten into in the first place.

I think it is telling that we don’t even know what it would mean to ‘win’ this conflict. Deposing Saddam, we thought that was winning. Helping the govt. to be established, thought that was winning too. The sad fact is, there is no way to ‘win’. The reasons we went there have changed so much that I don’t think we really know why we are there anymore. The world isn’t safer, Iraq is arguably a breeding ground for terrorism. Saddam is gone, which is great, but the world is full of tyrants and I fear that another type of tyranny will take his torch and run with it.

In America, our lives are comfortable enough that we can sit around and pontificate about the virtues of democracy. But in other countries, as many of us know from our missions, having enough to eat is a more pressing matter. Historically, the only democracy that people from the Middle East have known was imperialism which was synonymous with exploitation. So we are now trying to reform their country in our own image, afraid that if we left them to do things on their own, they would choose to have a government that we could not support.

Is the Middle East thirsting for democracy? Arguably, no. Is it always what is best for them? That’s a tough one. In Russia I met scores of people who cursed the democratic changes that took place in the 90’s because now they have nothing to eat.

Democracy is not something you can give to people. They have to want it, make it for themselves. If not, if you try to force it on people they either reject it or use it in ways we don’t like. Case in point: Hamas.

I wish I had some brilliant point to all of this. The sad truth is I have no clue what I think we should do from here. I don’t think there is a good answer, the only options are ugly from here on out.

I don’t want any more of our soldiers to die fighting a battle we can’t win. A battle they never should have been put in. But, I don’t want Iraq to regress any further than it has. I fear, though, in spite of all our best efforts, we cannot prevent it.

I remember one professor I had at the University of Utah who talked about what he thought would happen in Iraq if we went to war there. He drew a big map of Iraq and split it in three pieces. He talked about how the borders of Iraq were drawn by an British civil servant who had no understanding of the different peoples who lived there, he was just concerned with divvying up the land for the British installed leaders in the region. Here we are, now, still trying to get three different groups to be one homogeneous group. You would think we learned some lessons from British colonialism, but ten again, maybe not. I agree with my professor, it just isn’t going to happen.

I don’t want to be partisan but I am frustrated with those who got us into this mess without thinking it through. There was no justification, and trying to sow democracy was just an afterthought.

I’m just a s patriotic as the next guy, I like to think that I am a little more, perhaps. I want victory, success and prosperity. But isn’t it time we admit we really screwed up. As mistakes go, this one is a biggy, monumental. even. Again I have no solutions, I don’t pretend to think anyone in politics has any great ideas, and I surely don’t have any better ones. I’m just sad and frustrated that fellow Americans are dying for the country we love, and doing it for reasons that were either false or contrived.

So my friends run this blog called “Your turn at the Soapbox.” Which is cool. I like the fact that my friends have such varied political views and that they are willing to talk about them. The want me to post on that blog too. And I guess I will. I am a little pissed that they decided to call me a long-haired, emo-sissy. Not that their calling me names bothers me per se. I’ve known this bunch of guys since high-school. I am however bugged that this is what political discussion has come to mean. If I disagree with you, you simply call me names and try to make me look bad so that you look right. There is no cooperation, no attempt to persuade, no chance to work together on finding a common solution. I think it hurts more that my friends call me a liberal. I have never posted on the blog, and frankly my political views are not well formed and all over the map. They do not fit neatly into one ideology. Despite this fact my friends think that they have me all figured out and they are ready to pull out the labels and names and say things like “...spew out all that liberal sissified poetry you call art...” I am not sure that even makes sense. It’s just an attempt at fancy name calling. The thing that is even sadder is I know that my friends are only half serious. But the people who discuss politics for a living and want to be taken seriously are even worse. Ann Coulter’s calling John Edwards a “faggot” is a perfect example. If I called one of my co-workers that word, I could be fired; and yet somehow it’s o.k. to use it in public discourse. I hate talking politics with anyone because the response I get from people is always the same if they agree with me, they call the people who don’t names. If they don’t agree with me they call me names. It’s always discouraging. In fact I think there are two major problems with Americans my age. The first is what I have been describing. If I disagree with you, you are (insert political, racial, sexual, intelligence insult or other slur or slander here). The other is if I am messed up it’s someone or something else’s fault, and I am not responsible. We need to own up to these things. Our grandparents would be ashamed of the way we act. Oh and my hair was never really that long.

Something James said earlier made me think.

We have so many more important and pressing matters to attend to than to constantly attack Bush during the most crucial time in our nation's history........I'm telling you right now, I would even support the vile Clinton's if they were still in control.

I have heard this idea before, here and elsewhere, that we should support our President in anything that he does. The justification for this idea is, as I understand it, that we are Americans and shouldn't doubt our leaders. While this is obviously necessary for those in the armed services, this is a ridiculous thought for the rest of us.

In this "most crucial time in our nation's history" (which I'm not too sure about. I think the Civil War was a might bit more crucial) we should be doubting everything our President says and does, especially when much of it flies in the face of our history and constitution.

I've tried to trace where this thought has come from and I have discovered it's source. Yup, that's right, the source of all brilliant contemporary political thought: Britney Spears. Here's what she said:

Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

That was shortly after she stated, brilliantly, "Would I (ever kiss a woman) again? No! I would not do it. Maybe with Madonna, but..."

Instead of prescribing to blind obedience, let's hear what Thomas Jefferson said:

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

When we convince ourselves that we should not question the acts of our leaders we allow ourselves to be mislead. The patriotic thing to do is question, disagree, propose alternatives and doubt our leaders.

Sometimes I say things and regret that I have said them. I guess that the buffer that usually exists between brain and mouth is malformed in my physiology. I suppose that is the danger of talking politics, especially the way that I do it. I specialize in parody and sarcasm. And, too often, parody can be mistaken for hatred or vitriol. Simply reading someone else's thoughts (like on a blog) it is hard to sense where the sarcasm is and where the true belligerence is. It's easier when I draw cartoons because no one takes me seriously, but people still choose to get angry.

In a round about way, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone by what have said here. The original intent of this site was for us to have a place where we can share our thoughts, however disparate and undefinable they may be. Hopefully understanding one another better, and perhaps becoming more open-minded to each others positions. In the process, I think we are able to maintain the relationships I so value but sometimes unabashed fraternity comes through.

Just as when we have the rare opportunity to actually see one another, we joke and tease, bringing up dirty laundry and calling each other names. While an exercise in immaturity, I consider it a harmless manifestation of our brotherhood. When I call my friends names, I do so in full parody mode (ie when James blew me away in Halo, I called him a jerk, didn’t mean it, but I said it anyway). I think you all know that I am probably the biggest long-haired emo-sissy on the planet, I am unabashed Death Cab for Cutie and Weezer fan, and love reading Ralph Nader and Michael Perenti (collective gasp). And have you seen my hair lately?

I do consider what we do to be different that Coulter in that she means it when she says ‘faggot.’ When I call you guys names I say it with no more hatred than familial teasing. I don’t know how that got lost, but I am sorry that it did.

But, there is one person in my family that my wife has forbidden me to speak about politics with because said person cannot leave personal feelings out of the conversation. I cannot have a political conversation with this person without them taking everything I say as a personal insult. They become belligerent and hold it against me for months. It’s a loss, because I think we could find a lot more in common if we just talked more. I hope that won’t happen with us.

I think that we in this country must be able to openly disagree and too often we aren’t willing to do so. As I have said here before I think most people don't fall into the two categories 'liberal' or 'conservative, and I surely don't. It seems that so many people are stuck behind their point of view and unwilling to talk. In a politically disparate time, people stand behind their party stances and lob canned attacks at each other. But at least here, we are talking, and having a good time at it. I get to hear things from James that are FAR from my thinking. I have to try to understand it, and think of what it means to me. Maybe he will make me vote for Mitt in ‘08 (don’t count on it, I just haven’t made my mind up yet!) and I don’t know of anyone else with whom I could have such open political conversation, blatant disagreement even, and still love you guys to death.

If there is name calling, which, there has only been one instance of, it is not a political attack. It’s teasing, and I'm sorry if it was hurtful.

This picture belongs in the editorial section or political cartoon segment.......but the front page on a "responsible" newspaper????? It's funny.....here I am minutes from where he gave this speech, and the local papers haven't even covered this. Interestingly, he has lots of hispanic support down here--the Miami-Dade County Commissioner among them. It is a funny picture though.....especially after (a few weeks ago) Romney gave his thoughts on Castro........particularly his "I can't wait until he's dead" thoughts.