Omar bin Laden come out in Cairo, Egypt to tell the press that his father Osama bin Laden is sorry. When the news reporter asked why he did it, why he wanted the twin towers to come down on September 11, 2001, Omar said his father thought that some would die in order for millions of others to be saved. Omar also said that his father was sorry for the lives that were lost on that fateful day. The interviewer then asked Omar, “Then do you condemn what he did?”. Omar responded, “Yes, I believe he did it wrong”.
Omar wants to be an ambassador for peace. But he also said that his father is a very kind man.
I don’t know the beliefs that the bin Ladens hold, or how they were raised to think about the world, but I don’t think that someone who raises armies to kill innocent people is a very kind man. Then when Omar comes out saying that he wants to be an ambassador for peace and that his father is a kind man, I can only wonder what his scheme is. What is he after? I also wonder what goes through their head when they kill innocent people. How can they think that is right? Whatever the case, I though this video by ABC was very interesting. (This video was a featured video on yahoo and there was no link provided, but if you want to see the video and it is not on the main yahoo web anymore than I am sure that if you search for Omar Bin Laden’s interview on ABC it would not be hard to find.)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Bad Rebuttal
“There’s been an annoying tendency in this campaign among some liberal writers and bloggers to dismiss arguments as right wing talking points without further consideration. While it might sometimes be valid to dismiss some of the irrationality we sometimes hear from the right, this argument is being tremendously over utilized to declare an argument invalid without bothering to consider its merits. This trend has now come to an absurd level as the Clinton campaign is responding to charges of dishonesty by dismissing this charge as a right wing talking point.” (Ron Chusid)
I agree with this post. I also think it is awesome and speaks well of a liberal blogger who would come out and say that about people with his same view points. But, I think that conservative bloggers do the same thing. They will label an argument as liberal and then shut it out completely. This is wrong, there has to be more to it than that. If candidates or bloggers or anyone shuts out an argument simply because it is not from their view point then they are probably afraid to try to argue against it. It is a cheap way out. It is also foolish to dismiss an argument that way because it allows the other side to win without a valid rebuttal.
I agree with this post. I also think it is awesome and speaks well of a liberal blogger who would come out and say that about people with his same view points. But, I think that conservative bloggers do the same thing. They will label an argument as liberal and then shut it out completely. This is wrong, there has to be more to it than that. If candidates or bloggers or anyone shuts out an argument simply because it is not from their view point then they are probably afraid to try to argue against it. It is a cheap way out. It is also foolish to dismiss an argument that way because it allows the other side to win without a valid rebuttal.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Religion: Statement by Mike Huckabee
“Mike Huckabee’s declaration that we need to amend the Constitution to be in line with God’s standards easily drives secular liberals into a frenzy. On CNN’s Late Edition on Sunday, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called that statement in conflict with ‘all of American constitutional history.’” (Tim Graham)
I think that there is a lot wrong about this statement. First, that the statement “in line with God’s standards” is in “conflict with ‘all of American Constitutional history’” I do not believe is true. We have freedom of religion, but only because our country and constitution were founded by Christian men seeking religious freedom from the Church of England. I also think that if Mike Huchabee ran for president way back when our country was first started and he made that statement, the people would probably cheer him on. But because we can barely even mention God or the Bible in public schools today, there are serious repercussions to making a statement such as that. Like the sending the “liberals into a frenzy”.
MIKE HUCKABEE: "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
The problem here is there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. What interpretation of the Bible should we conform the constitution to? In a perfect world when every religion believed in the same One True God, this idea would be great. But because mankind will eventually mend the Bible and then state law to conform to personal interests, like with Henry XIII, we have to keep the separation of Church and state.
I think that there is a lot wrong about this statement. First, that the statement “in line with God’s standards” is in “conflict with ‘all of American Constitutional history’” I do not believe is true. We have freedom of religion, but only because our country and constitution were founded by Christian men seeking religious freedom from the Church of England. I also think that if Mike Huchabee ran for president way back when our country was first started and he made that statement, the people would probably cheer him on. But because we can barely even mention God or the Bible in public schools today, there are serious repercussions to making a statement such as that. Like the sending the “liberals into a frenzy”.
MIKE HUCKABEE: "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."
The problem here is there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. What interpretation of the Bible should we conform the constitution to? In a perfect world when every religion believed in the same One True God, this idea would be great. But because mankind will eventually mend the Bible and then state law to conform to personal interests, like with Henry XIII, we have to keep the separation of Church and state.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Cheating?
I knew politics were dirty, but cheating? C’mon candidates! I think they can do better than that.
Here is the case. Hilary Clinton was accused of cheating by Obama’s campaign.
“We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.” (Statement released by Obama’s campaign found on Ron Chusid’s blog)
If what she did was really cheating then shame on her. If Obama’s campaign is just accusing so that they have something else to dissolve favorable public opinion for Clinton, than than wow- I didn’t know his campaign was that low.
Here, Clinton accuses Obama of being soft.
“While the Democratic senator from Illinois was holding his rallies, though, Clinton’s campaign sent out a mailing accusing him of being soft in his support for abortion rights, organized 24 prominent New Hampshire women to send an e-mail echoing that charge and distributed a flier accusing him of seeking a big tax increase on working families. The charges were debatable, but Obama’s only response was a hastily arranged automated phone call decrying the abortion attack. Clinton won the primary with strong support from the mailings’ target audiences — women and working-class voters.” (Ron Chusid)
I believe that Hilary needs to stop accacking her foes and start building her platform.
Here is the case. Hilary Clinton was accused of cheating by Obama’s campaign.
“We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.” (Statement released by Obama’s campaign found on Ron Chusid’s blog)
If what she did was really cheating then shame on her. If Obama’s campaign is just accusing so that they have something else to dissolve favorable public opinion for Clinton, than than wow- I didn’t know his campaign was that low.
Here, Clinton accuses Obama of being soft.
“While the Democratic senator from Illinois was holding his rallies, though, Clinton’s campaign sent out a mailing accusing him of being soft in his support for abortion rights, organized 24 prominent New Hampshire women to send an e-mail echoing that charge and distributed a flier accusing him of seeking a big tax increase on working families. The charges were debatable, but Obama’s only response was a hastily arranged automated phone call decrying the abortion attack. Clinton won the primary with strong support from the mailings’ target audiences — women and working-class voters.” (Ron Chusid)
I believe that Hilary needs to stop accacking her foes and start building her platform.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Obama and the Jewish Community
Unfortunately there have been some right wing attempts to smear Barack Obama’s reputation by making false accusations that Obama is anti-Semitic. Some of the supposed claims were repeated in The Washington Post by Richard Cohen. “The smears concentrate on relationships between Jeremiah A. Wright, the pastor of Obama’s church, and Trumpet Magazine, a church newsletter, to Louis Farrakhan. The attacks boil down to insinuating that Obama shares views with Farrahkan because of support for Farrahkan by Wright and the church newsletter. As even Cohen concedes in his column, ‘It’s important to state right off that nothing in Obama’s record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan.’” (Ron Chusid)
Obama responded with this statement: “I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”
Some leaders in the Jewish community responded with a letter condemning this libel.
January 15, 2008
An Open Letter to the Jewish Community:
As leaders of the Jewish community, none of whose organizations will endorse or oppose any candidate for President, we feel compelled to speak out against certain rhetoric and tactics in the current campaign that we find particularly abhorrent. Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and who he is as a person.
These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates.
Attempts of this sort to mislead and inflame voters should not be part of our political discourse and should be rebuffed by all who believe in our democracy. Jewish voters, like all voters, should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president. We urge everyone to make that decision based on the factual records of these candidates, and nothing less.
Sincerely,
William Daroff, Vice President, United Jewish Communities
Nathan J. Diament, Director, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Richard S. Gordon, President, American Jewish Congress
David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Phyllis Snyder, President, National Council of Jewish Women
Hadar Susskind, Washington Director, Jewish Council for Public Affairs
(This letter was found in a blog entitles “Liberal Values” written by Ron Chusid.)
I am glad that the Jewish leaders wrote the community a letter explaining these false rumors. I think the situation was handled well and I can only hope that Obama’s name is cleared from having a racist mark. This should never have happened, but politics are ugly.
Obama responded with this statement: “I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”
Some leaders in the Jewish community responded with a letter condemning this libel.
January 15, 2008
An Open Letter to the Jewish Community:
As leaders of the Jewish community, none of whose organizations will endorse or oppose any candidate for President, we feel compelled to speak out against certain rhetoric and tactics in the current campaign that we find particularly abhorrent. Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obama’s religious beliefs and who he is as a person.
These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates.
Attempts of this sort to mislead and inflame voters should not be part of our political discourse and should be rebuffed by all who believe in our democracy. Jewish voters, like all voters, should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president. We urge everyone to make that decision based on the factual records of these candidates, and nothing less.
Sincerely,
William Daroff, Vice President, United Jewish Communities
Nathan J. Diament, Director, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Richard S. Gordon, President, American Jewish Congress
David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Phyllis Snyder, President, National Council of Jewish Women
Hadar Susskind, Washington Director, Jewish Council for Public Affairs
(This letter was found in a blog entitles “Liberal Values” written by Ron Chusid.)
I am glad that the Jewish leaders wrote the community a letter explaining these false rumors. I think the situation was handled well and I can only hope that Obama’s name is cleared from having a racist mark. This should never have happened, but politics are ugly.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Michigan Primary
Reading today in a Liberal blog I found that the democratic nominees took their names off the ballot “to the primary being held early in violation of party rules.” So, democrats can influence the primary election by voting in the republican primary. Democrats like this because they are hoping that it will make the republicans fight each other over the primary thus unifying the party. The drawback for the Democratic Party is that the Republican Party is receiving more press coverage.
On the other side, republicans are saying that the Democratic Party is receiving a lot of press coverage due to the “mud” that Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are slinging at each other. “Today’s lead editorial scolds those naughty Democrats, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for slinging mud at each other, and pleads with them to “move the discussion to a higher plane” for the sake of the Party. Heaven forbid the Party should tear itself apart months before a presidential election!” (Newsbusters) The blog later goes on to comment about the Democratic Party’s historic breakthrough with the first ever female and African American nominees. This could hurt the Democratic party in the long run if they dwell on it too long because they are not focusing on the important issues such as how they will actually run the country!
On another note, there are two options for voters who are voting in the primary that is not of their own party ties. One: the voter can vote for the candidate who they think will make the best president, or two: they can vote for the candidate who they think is least likely to be a top contender against the nominee in their own party as to “cause trouble”.
On the other side, republicans are saying that the Democratic Party is receiving a lot of press coverage due to the “mud” that Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are slinging at each other. “Today’s lead editorial scolds those naughty Democrats, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for slinging mud at each other, and pleads with them to “move the discussion to a higher plane” for the sake of the Party. Heaven forbid the Party should tear itself apart months before a presidential election!” (Newsbusters) The blog later goes on to comment about the Democratic Party’s historic breakthrough with the first ever female and African American nominees. This could hurt the Democratic party in the long run if they dwell on it too long because they are not focusing on the important issues such as how they will actually run the country!
On another note, there are two options for voters who are voting in the primary that is not of their own party ties. One: the voter can vote for the candidate who they think will make the best president, or two: they can vote for the candidate who they think is least likely to be a top contender against the nominee in their own party as to “cause trouble”.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Race
I hate to address this topic again, but I have seen it more in the media and in my blogs now than ever before. There are a couple issues with the candidates. Barack Obama’s wife has been accused of pandering, Hillary Clinton is being accused of attacking Obama on a race basis, and newscasters are not sure how to address these politically incorrect issues.
Barack Obama’s wife was accused of pandering recently. Here is the situation from Tucker Carlson. “I cannot resist putting up on the screen a brand-new quote from Michelle Obama which I think is interesting for a bunch of different reasons. This is apparently in a speech to a predominantly black audience, she said this, recently, quote: ‘We had a miraculous victory in Iowa . . ain't no black people in Iowa. Something big, something new is happening. Let's build the future we all know is possible. Let's show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now.’” In this show, Tucker was afraid to accuse Obama’s wife of slurring her speech in order to please the crowd. The conversation continues with Carlson talking to a guy by the name of Franklin.
CARLSON: The more we talk about race in relation to this presidential election, the more it hurts Obama, and I think a lot people --
BOB FRANKEN: That could be Tucker --
CARLSON: I think that's right.
FRANKEN: Yeah, but when you have this Harvard [law school] graduate [and Princeton undergrad alum] using an expression like "ain't no," I've got to question the sincerity of it a little bit. I think she might be accused of pandering just a tiny bit.
CARLSON: Well, there are many layers here that we don't have the time, or maybe the bravery, to delve into, but I want to get to Newt Gingrich . . .
I am not sure that I aggree with Carlson that the more we talk about race, the more it will hurt Obama’s campaign. The more I hear about it personally the more I want to vote FOR Obama simply because I want to prove that this country is (or should be) over this disgusting issue.
The other blog is about Hilary Clinton turning to race to try to help herself in the primary election against Obama. Here is part of the blog.
“There’s already been plenty of discussion of Clinton resorting to the use of race since Obama has seriously challenged her for the nomination. Sam Stein discusses this along with a copy of a memo from the Obama campaign. Joe Gandelman also posts the memo along with additional observations. Steve Benen ranks the examples on a five “Horton” scale after noting earlier in the day that Clinton was taking the race “in a cheap and ugly direction.”
There is some ambiguity in the use of race by the Clinton campaign as they know an outright racial attack would backfire. Instead they are concentrating on a series of subtle comments to inject race into the campaign while leaving them room for denial.” (Ron Chusid)
Once again, we should be past this. I am taken back by the idea that Clinton would use this as a strategy in her campaign.
Barack Obama’s wife was accused of pandering recently. Here is the situation from Tucker Carlson. “I cannot resist putting up on the screen a brand-new quote from Michelle Obama which I think is interesting for a bunch of different reasons. This is apparently in a speech to a predominantly black audience, she said this, recently, quote: ‘We had a miraculous victory in Iowa . . ain't no black people in Iowa. Something big, something new is happening. Let's build the future we all know is possible. Let's show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now.’” In this show, Tucker was afraid to accuse Obama’s wife of slurring her speech in order to please the crowd. The conversation continues with Carlson talking to a guy by the name of Franklin.
CARLSON: The more we talk about race in relation to this presidential election, the more it hurts Obama, and I think a lot people --
BOB FRANKEN: That could be Tucker --
CARLSON: I think that's right.
FRANKEN: Yeah, but when you have this Harvard [law school] graduate [and Princeton undergrad alum] using an expression like "ain't no," I've got to question the sincerity of it a little bit. I think she might be accused of pandering just a tiny bit.
CARLSON: Well, there are many layers here that we don't have the time, or maybe the bravery, to delve into, but I want to get to Newt Gingrich . . .
I am not sure that I aggree with Carlson that the more we talk about race, the more it will hurt Obama’s campaign. The more I hear about it personally the more I want to vote FOR Obama simply because I want to prove that this country is (or should be) over this disgusting issue.
The other blog is about Hilary Clinton turning to race to try to help herself in the primary election against Obama. Here is part of the blog.
“There’s already been plenty of discussion of Clinton resorting to the use of race since Obama has seriously challenged her for the nomination. Sam Stein discusses this along with a copy of a memo from the Obama campaign. Joe Gandelman also posts the memo along with additional observations. Steve Benen ranks the examples on a five “Horton” scale after noting earlier in the day that Clinton was taking the race “in a cheap and ugly direction.”
There is some ambiguity in the use of race by the Clinton campaign as they know an outright racial attack would backfire. Instead they are concentrating on a series of subtle comments to inject race into the campaign while leaving them room for denial.” (Ron Chusid)
Once again, we should be past this. I am taken back by the idea that Clinton would use this as a strategy in her campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)