I donated to Barack's campaign again. It was only $25, but it helped get him to $10 million in the 24 hours after Palin's speech. Truthfully, it wasn't what she said that made me do it. I disagree with her, and I have some real problems with the idea of her becoming the VP, but her speech didn't prompt me to donate. I donated because of the crowd at the Republican convention.
When Obama spoke, the crowd cheered for his proposals. They cheered for his ideas. They cheered for his hope. When he criticized McCain the crowd cheered even louder, for Barack. When McCain criticizes his opponent, the Republican crowd boos. Loudly. Yeah. They boo. Is this the fourth grade or what?
I don't like the negative energy and I don't want that kind of energy in the White House for 4 more years. It's just a small thing, but I see the difference in the two campaigns and I think it is a microcosm for the more complex policy/personality differences in the campaigns.
I guess it comes from my years working with disabled teens . . . which is a lot like community building in many ways . . . . . because you have to help people work together, I taught those teens that it was OK to cheer for your team, but not OK to boo for the other team. It's un sportsman like. It's undignified. It's rude.
If they keep booing, I'll keep donating. . . . . to the Democrats.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Irony
Here's something to ponder.
McCain, and the Republican party are reflexively reminding voters about McCain's war record. Although I'm not convinced this experience indicates any leadership capacity on the part of the candidate, his time in confinement was undoubtedly one of the most important times (especially for him) in his life. Given the obvious fact that I have NEVER been held in confinement, beaten, or tortured, I can not relate to what this experience must mean to him but it's safe to assume it was a profoundly moving experience.
Now, here's the irony. McCain was held by the North Vietnamese government. As a pilot he had access to information which they believed (probably incorrectly) could help them defend themselves against attack from US forces. And, undoubtedly some of his captors enjoyed (shudder) torturing an American fly-boy.
Fast forward to the present day. American detainees (prisoners) at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and numerous undisclosed detention centers through-out the third world have been tortured. Using interrogation techniques developed by Communist regimes during the Cold War, we have beaten, attacked, waer-boarded, and humiliated our detainees. The pictures that I saw coming out of Abu Ghraib were less violent than the torture exprienced by Mr. McCain, but I dare say I would rather be beaten than humiliated both sexually and religiously. There is a real irony in a democracy using land on an island governed by a dictator who we despise to detain (illegally?) "enemy combatants".
The North Koreans wanted information to protect themselves. We torture(d?) detainees to obtain information to protect ourselves. The means differ, but the goals and the ends are scarily similar. Yet, John McCain's experience is simultaneously heroic and tragic , and how dare those bad men torture such a good man! Meanwhile the forces of American power torture those allegedly evil Muslims, and the Republican Party vociferously defends it's right to do so.
Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and other innovations of the Bush Administration were brought to us by many of the same neo-cons (or their proteges) which have joined the McCain campaign since he became the unofficial Republican nominee.
I disagree with torture. I especially disagree with torture when it is undertaken in the false name of liberty. Torture and liberty are not compatible. They are like oil and water. You just can't mix them. At least the North Vietnamese were consistent. Torture is (sadly) consistent with dictatorship. It fits. It's an instrument of power and control. One that doesn't fit well in a democracy like we claim to hold dear.
I don't want to give these neo-cons any more opportunities to besmirch the ideal of freedom for their own twisted goals. The McCain campaign needs to be stopped. I kinda think Palin may be the proverbial straw, but McCain has proven many times that he is tough in a fight.
But, I really do think we should start using this theme of torture against the Republican Party. If his torture was so bad (and it really really was that bad) what is he going to do to make sure that this practice is eliminated? Can we really trust him to eliminate it? I know he has stood up against it in the past but those efforts were largely ceremonial window-dressing thanks to W's signing statement (which is, in and of itself probably illegal, but that's another entry).
It just seems ironic for the Republican party, which has stood up for the right to torture detainees has used their nominee's experience as a victim of torture to highlight his experience and readiness to lead. McCain wants his experience with torture to be a campaign issue, and I'm willing to play along. That means he needs to convince me (unlikely) that he's going to jettison these neo-cons and make sure that American soldiers (or CIA, or FBI, or any other 3-letter agency) are not using the instruments of torture against others. If it was wrong to beat McCain (it was) it is wrong to beat our detainees today. And that is a conversation I don't think the Republican Party wants to have.
Note: I don't think McCain himself is directly responsible for these acts of torture. But, as a Senator, he is indirectly responsible for the behavior and composure of our troops. He has made some efforts to combat this, but it is an issue that should be incredibly uncomfortable for many of McCain's advisers, who have continuously defended W's right to torture detainees. I would also like to know if the "new" non-straight-talk-express John McCain still feels as strongly about this as the old John McCain who seemed like a much better Senator.
McCain, and the Republican party are reflexively reminding voters about McCain's war record. Although I'm not convinced this experience indicates any leadership capacity on the part of the candidate, his time in confinement was undoubtedly one of the most important times (especially for him) in his life. Given the obvious fact that I have NEVER been held in confinement, beaten, or tortured, I can not relate to what this experience must mean to him but it's safe to assume it was a profoundly moving experience.
Now, here's the irony. McCain was held by the North Vietnamese government. As a pilot he had access to information which they believed (probably incorrectly) could help them defend themselves against attack from US forces. And, undoubtedly some of his captors enjoyed (shudder) torturing an American fly-boy.
Fast forward to the present day. American detainees (prisoners) at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and numerous undisclosed detention centers through-out the third world have been tortured. Using interrogation techniques developed by Communist regimes during the Cold War, we have beaten, attacked, waer-boarded, and humiliated our detainees. The pictures that I saw coming out of Abu Ghraib were less violent than the torture exprienced by Mr. McCain, but I dare say I would rather be beaten than humiliated both sexually and religiously. There is a real irony in a democracy using land on an island governed by a dictator who we despise to detain (illegally?) "enemy combatants".
The North Koreans wanted information to protect themselves. We torture(d?) detainees to obtain information to protect ourselves. The means differ, but the goals and the ends are scarily similar. Yet, John McCain's experience is simultaneously heroic and tragic , and how dare those bad men torture such a good man! Meanwhile the forces of American power torture those allegedly evil Muslims, and the Republican Party vociferously defends it's right to do so.
Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and other innovations of the Bush Administration were brought to us by many of the same neo-cons (or their proteges) which have joined the McCain campaign since he became the unofficial Republican nominee.
I disagree with torture. I especially disagree with torture when it is undertaken in the false name of liberty. Torture and liberty are not compatible. They are like oil and water. You just can't mix them. At least the North Vietnamese were consistent. Torture is (sadly) consistent with dictatorship. It fits. It's an instrument of power and control. One that doesn't fit well in a democracy like we claim to hold dear.
I don't want to give these neo-cons any more opportunities to besmirch the ideal of freedom for their own twisted goals. The McCain campaign needs to be stopped. I kinda think Palin may be the proverbial straw, but McCain has proven many times that he is tough in a fight.
But, I really do think we should start using this theme of torture against the Republican Party. If his torture was so bad (and it really really was that bad) what is he going to do to make sure that this practice is eliminated? Can we really trust him to eliminate it? I know he has stood up against it in the past but those efforts were largely ceremonial window-dressing thanks to W's signing statement (which is, in and of itself probably illegal, but that's another entry).
It just seems ironic for the Republican party, which has stood up for the right to torture detainees has used their nominee's experience as a victim of torture to highlight his experience and readiness to lead. McCain wants his experience with torture to be a campaign issue, and I'm willing to play along. That means he needs to convince me (unlikely) that he's going to jettison these neo-cons and make sure that American soldiers (or CIA, or FBI, or any other 3-letter agency) are not using the instruments of torture against others. If it was wrong to beat McCain (it was) it is wrong to beat our detainees today. And that is a conversation I don't think the Republican Party wants to have.
Note: I don't think McCain himself is directly responsible for these acts of torture. But, as a Senator, he is indirectly responsible for the behavior and composure of our troops. He has made some efforts to combat this, but it is an issue that should be incredibly uncomfortable for many of McCain's advisers, who have continuously defended W's right to torture detainees. I would also like to know if the "new" non-straight-talk-express John McCain still feels as strongly about this as the old John McCain who seemed like a much better Senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)