"The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them" -Thomas Jefferson, 1821
I really love this whole blogging thing. Meeting new friends, engaging in spirited debate and quoting cool stuff from famous people. Here is something funny. I have just read an email that I believe accuses me of being a left-winger. Now that is a first! As always, I appreciate your comments and I look forward to more of them as we continue this journey together. I also love political neophytes who like to label that which they do not completely understand. My new friend questioned my whereabouts when President Clinton was in office, stating that the Clinton Presidency was much more abusive than the current administration. He cites the war in Bosnia, Clinton's sexual proclivity and the fact that the President lied on television as evidence of this abuses. That stuff is just Bush league (no pun intended). I would like to respond to my new friend just for the record. First, I agree with you regarding the war in Bosnia, it was certainly politically motivated as most wars are. Second, it is my understanding that President Clinton was impeached and I believe that he should have been removed from office. Third, all politicians lie on television. Here is a hint; you can always tell when a politician is lying because his or her lips are moving. Is my new friend really defending a President who ignores the limits of executive power so clearly outlined in the Constitution by comparing it to a misguided war in Bosnia? Can you say Grenada? Can you say Panama? Is he really defending the actions of President Bush by comparing it to oral sex in the White House? I must admit that is a tough one, which is the biggest threat to national security, Monica Lewinsky and her famous blue dress, or the complete and utter disregard this President has for the First and Fourth Amendments? You cannot defend the horribly misguided actions of one President, by bringing up dirt on another. Remember, momma always says, two wrongs don't make a right.
Seriously, if we are going to talk about President Clinton why don't we just compare apples to apples? How about the Clinton administration's misguided policies with regard to China and the future ramifications of those policies on the United States? Discuss if you will the magnitude of the Clinton administration's numerous missteps, fumbling and outright appeasement of the Chinese Government and what that means for the future of this country and for world peace. In my humble opinion, the Clinton Administration actually helped to create a new superpower threat, which in time will challenge the United States for economic and military supremacy. It is also my opinion that the Pro-China policies of the Clinton-Gore administration were a disaster for American national security interests. The Clinton administration's loosening of trade restrictions on China dramatically strengthened China's military power through the legal transfers of strategic high-level technologies. Why not discuss the Clinton-Gore fund-raising scandal, where as the Chinese government indirectly and directly influenced the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. Expound if you will upon the manner in which the Chinese government funneled over $1.2 million into Democratic Party coffers, purchasing direct access to top officials in the administration. To quote Mao, "The mind of the enemy and the will of his leaders is a target of far more importance than the bodies of his troops." It is clear that the influence of the Chinese government on the Clinton administration made it easier to conduct espionage against the United States, particularly against our nuclear weapons facilities and that loosened trade restrictions enhanced China's massive technology gathering efforts to the point that they were able to acquire hundreds of advanced U.S. supercomputers. The NSA reported in May 2000 that the China Academy of Engineering Physics, the Chinese government's primary nuclear weapons development facility, was using U.S. acquired supercomputers to conduct simulated nuclear detonations. Clinton ignored these reports and his administration sought to further loosen controls on high performance computers to China. Now we begin to compare apples to apples.
The fundamental flaw with arguments such as those made by my new friend is that they fail to address the issues. Right is right and wrong is wrong. As people become indoctrinated into the political process, they allow themselves to be labeled. They identify themselves and others as Democrat or Republican; conservative or liberal; left wing or right wing, and the list goes on and on. Can you say Compassionate Conservative? What does that mean? The funny thing is that most people don't even know what these labels mean. Since when do you have to be right wing in order to be right? Do people really think that any side of the political equation has a monopoly on right and wrong? Here is a unique idea, just make informed decisions. Evaluate the facts and make your determinations on truths, which are based on knowledge and not ideology. My friend, I have been there and I want you to know that it's ok to develop your own thoughts and ideas, even if they don't conform to your self administered labels or your particular party's ideology. It is a truly liberating experience and one that I recommend highly.
I would like to address your remaining concerns. You rhetorically inquired as to my whereabouts during the Clinton administration years. I was waiting for the idea of web logging to be developed. Had the whole blogging thing been available during those years, you would probably have considered me a brother right-winger. As for concerns over rising gas prices and drilling for oil in Alaska, I wonder if you have read any of the recent studies on the impact of increasing fuel mileage standards on all vehicles and the corresponding reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gasses? If you did you would realize that the answer is not in Alaska but in Detroit. We put monkeys in space for crying out loud; you would think that we could design a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon. Greater fuel efficiency means that our vehicles would require less fuel to go greater distances. The corresponding lower demand for fuel will ultimately mean lower prices at the pump (see the law of supply and demand). Finally, burning less carbon-based, fossil fuels in our vehicles will reduce greenhouse gas emissions thereby helping the environment. Did I say environment? I must be a liberal. As you ponder this remember, it is ok to think big picture and still be a Republican. However, if there are people out there who are more afraid of a $3.00 gallon gas than they are about protecting our rights guaranteed under the Constitution, than we have bigger problems than the fact that we elect idiots as Presidents. Apologetically and in closing, I must admit that I find your comparisons of Yahoo and Google cookie caches to the dangers of NSA data mining and domestic surveillance as funny. I am far more concerned with losing my rights and privileges as an American and about our governments continued assault on the constitution, than I am about Google or Yahoo knowing that I like to visit ESPN.com.
Think about it.
I really love this whole blogging thing. Meeting new friends, engaging in spirited debate and quoting cool stuff from famous people. Here is something funny. I have just read an email that I believe accuses me of being a left-winger. Now that is a first! As always, I appreciate your comments and I look forward to more of them as we continue this journey together. I also love political neophytes who like to label that which they do not completely understand. My new friend questioned my whereabouts when President Clinton was in office, stating that the Clinton Presidency was much more abusive than the current administration. He cites the war in Bosnia, Clinton's sexual proclivity and the fact that the President lied on television as evidence of this abuses. That stuff is just Bush league (no pun intended). I would like to respond to my new friend just for the record. First, I agree with you regarding the war in Bosnia, it was certainly politically motivated as most wars are. Second, it is my understanding that President Clinton was impeached and I believe that he should have been removed from office. Third, all politicians lie on television. Here is a hint; you can always tell when a politician is lying because his or her lips are moving. Is my new friend really defending a President who ignores the limits of executive power so clearly outlined in the Constitution by comparing it to a misguided war in Bosnia? Can you say Grenada? Can you say Panama? Is he really defending the actions of President Bush by comparing it to oral sex in the White House? I must admit that is a tough one, which is the biggest threat to national security, Monica Lewinsky and her famous blue dress, or the complete and utter disregard this President has for the First and Fourth Amendments? You cannot defend the horribly misguided actions of one President, by bringing up dirt on another. Remember, momma always says, two wrongs don't make a right.
Seriously, if we are going to talk about President Clinton why don't we just compare apples to apples? How about the Clinton administration's misguided policies with regard to China and the future ramifications of those policies on the United States? Discuss if you will the magnitude of the Clinton administration's numerous missteps, fumbling and outright appeasement of the Chinese Government and what that means for the future of this country and for world peace. In my humble opinion, the Clinton Administration actually helped to create a new superpower threat, which in time will challenge the United States for economic and military supremacy. It is also my opinion that the Pro-China policies of the Clinton-Gore administration were a disaster for American national security interests. The Clinton administration's loosening of trade restrictions on China dramatically strengthened China's military power through the legal transfers of strategic high-level technologies. Why not discuss the Clinton-Gore fund-raising scandal, where as the Chinese government indirectly and directly influenced the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. Expound if you will upon the manner in which the Chinese government funneled over $1.2 million into Democratic Party coffers, purchasing direct access to top officials in the administration. To quote Mao, "The mind of the enemy and the will of his leaders is a target of far more importance than the bodies of his troops." It is clear that the influence of the Chinese government on the Clinton administration made it easier to conduct espionage against the United States, particularly against our nuclear weapons facilities and that loosened trade restrictions enhanced China's massive technology gathering efforts to the point that they were able to acquire hundreds of advanced U.S. supercomputers. The NSA reported in May 2000 that the China Academy of Engineering Physics, the Chinese government's primary nuclear weapons development facility, was using U.S. acquired supercomputers to conduct simulated nuclear detonations. Clinton ignored these reports and his administration sought to further loosen controls on high performance computers to China. Now we begin to compare apples to apples.
The fundamental flaw with arguments such as those made by my new friend is that they fail to address the issues. Right is right and wrong is wrong. As people become indoctrinated into the political process, they allow themselves to be labeled. They identify themselves and others as Democrat or Republican; conservative or liberal; left wing or right wing, and the list goes on and on. Can you say Compassionate Conservative? What does that mean? The funny thing is that most people don't even know what these labels mean. Since when do you have to be right wing in order to be right? Do people really think that any side of the political equation has a monopoly on right and wrong? Here is a unique idea, just make informed decisions. Evaluate the facts and make your determinations on truths, which are based on knowledge and not ideology. My friend, I have been there and I want you to know that it's ok to develop your own thoughts and ideas, even if they don't conform to your self administered labels or your particular party's ideology. It is a truly liberating experience and one that I recommend highly.
I would like to address your remaining concerns. You rhetorically inquired as to my whereabouts during the Clinton administration years. I was waiting for the idea of web logging to be developed. Had the whole blogging thing been available during those years, you would probably have considered me a brother right-winger. As for concerns over rising gas prices and drilling for oil in Alaska, I wonder if you have read any of the recent studies on the impact of increasing fuel mileage standards on all vehicles and the corresponding reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gasses? If you did you would realize that the answer is not in Alaska but in Detroit. We put monkeys in space for crying out loud; you would think that we could design a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon. Greater fuel efficiency means that our vehicles would require less fuel to go greater distances. The corresponding lower demand for fuel will ultimately mean lower prices at the pump (see the law of supply and demand). Finally, burning less carbon-based, fossil fuels in our vehicles will reduce greenhouse gas emissions thereby helping the environment. Did I say environment? I must be a liberal. As you ponder this remember, it is ok to think big picture and still be a Republican. However, if there are people out there who are more afraid of a $3.00 gallon gas than they are about protecting our rights guaranteed under the Constitution, than we have bigger problems than the fact that we elect idiots as Presidents. Apologetically and in closing, I must admit that I find your comparisons of Yahoo and Google cookie caches to the dangers of NSA data mining and domestic surveillance as funny. I am far more concerned with losing my rights and privileges as an American and about our governments continued assault on the constitution, than I am about Google or Yahoo knowing that I like to visit ESPN.com.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment