About Justin Cox
Justin Cox is a twenty-something youth minister who dabbles in web design. This site is his window on the world where he mindlessly chatters about his various interests. He's going to stop talking in third person now.
Hopefully you'll find something enjoyable. Perhaps a classic posting?
Editorial #1
This post was written by guest author, Andy Gately.
I’ve been at the highest emotional intensity in these months leading up to what could prove to be the most important election of our lifetime. I know I’m not alone in my utter amazement at the fact that our country seems poised to prolong the term of an administration who’s policies are some of the most regressive and dangerous to our future as is imaginable. My anger is divided equally among the people who are voting based solely on the extremely limited information presented by the mainstream media, and among the group of neoconservatives who have misled the public in order to further their political, imperial and religious agenda.
My disbelief in the average person’s knowledge of world affairs began with the largely ignorant response to September 11th, which was then easily manipulated through patriotic public statements from our jingoistic president into a war in Iraq that, with the publication of the 9/11 Report, has proven to be not even slightly connected to the Twin Towers attack. That alone, even among hardcore Republicans, should deter his reelection, and yet Bush is currently neck and neck with Kerry, an admittedly weak but far less dangerous opponent, in the polls. Apparently lying about a blowjob gets everyone talking about impeachment, but lying about weapons of mass destruction gets you re-elected by indifferent voters. Since Bush has been in power, he’s inadvertently done more to destabilize national security than strengthen it. People rarely mention that the U.S. is the world’s leading arms dealer, and Bush has single-handedly done more to further the proliferation of the nuclear threat and provoke a new arms race than his several predecessors by violating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with his “mini-nukes” proposal, rejecting treaties that would have banned germ warfare, and funding and coercing the Japanese to co-invest in the as-of-yet failed Theater Missile Defense system, which could cause a war between Taiwan and China, for starters.
Everyone has the right to his or her opinion, as long as it’s an informed one, but many of us were far too easily convinced of Bush’s good intentions when he was obviously trying to secure oil interests in the middle east, which we wouldn’t have to be so reliant on if Bush did the smart thing and invested in alternative fuel sources. Instead, he cuts research into renewable energy by 50%, cuts incentives for the production of more efficient automobiles, overturns Clinton’s 2004 auto manufacturer deadline for prototype high-mileage cars, and you even get a tax break if you drive a gas-guzzling SUV since its classified as a truck. All to please his rich big business constituents, as he continues to act as a lapdog for his campaign contributors, including more oil company donations than any other president in history. No wonder we’re so hopelessly dependent on Iraq. No one’s doing anything about North Korea, India, Pakistan or China, all of which we know for certain have gone nuclear. Of course none of them can gas up our Hummers. As if to further the side effect of environmental destruction caused by our massive pollution, Bush went on to back out of the Kyoto protocol on global warming which was signed by 178 other countries, make drilling requests for Alaska and in national parks, including on the Florida coast, cut the EPA’s budget by 500 million dollars, slacken environmental laws against corporations, and break his campaign promise to invest 100 million dollars a year in rain forest conservation.
It took the sledgehammer subtlety of filmmaker Michael Moore to even get a national dialogue on his botched 9/11 response, but even after that, few people seemed to bother seeking out the sources of “terrorist” aggression towards the U.S. for themselves. I don’t know if its xenophobia, or just that no one cares that much, but when going to war, you should always, “Know your enemy and know yourself,” as Sun Tzu said, yet few people I know attempted to either learn the truth about the foreign policies our country engages in which go unreported, or why someone like Osama bin Laden would hate us so much that he’d attack us. I recalled a conversation I had with a friend of mine immediately following September 11th that was a typical opinion on the subject:
“Man, Andy, did you see the news today? I’m so addicted to CNN now, I can’t wait until they kill that coward Bin Laden.”
-”Just out of curiosity, why do you think he’s a coward?”
“What do you mean? He killed thousands of innocent people! He’s insane!”
-”Look, he’s clearly not insane because this kind of plot obviously required meticulous planning. And America kills civilians too, although we just fire unmanned cruise missiles hundreds of miles and then apologize for the “collateral damage,” a euphemism we wouldn’t have to use if our “surgical strikes” actually were such. I think the impersonal way we kill is more cowardly than flying a plane into a building yourself and sacrificing your life. Why do you think they attacked us? Because we do things like that.”
“That’s not why they attacked us, they hate America and they hate freedom, like the president says.”
“That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, no one “hates freedom.” Bush just says shit like that because it demonizes the enemy. They attacked us because we finance the murders of thousands of Muslims around the world all the time. We send 2 billion dollars a year to Israel and sell them Blackhawk helicopters so they can kill off Palestinians from their own homes. Isn’t it more than coincidental that we armed Osama bin Laden when he fought the Russians and traded with Saddam Hussein as he gassed the Kurds, but only when they turned against us did we label them the new Hitlers and tried to somehow link them together?”
Often now days, even considering the enemy’s perspective means you’re a terrorist sympathizer who’s belittling the deaths of the World Trade Center occupants. Since when has criticizing America become unpatriotic? Everyone freaks out when we’re finally attacked on our own soil, but if you ask someone about all of our insurgencies across the globe that we’ve participated in, most people couldn’t find them on a map. For fun, ask someone if they know what terrorism we participated in on September 11th, 1973 in Chile. If you call America what it is, an empire, that upsets people, or if you question why we have a mercenary army which maintains military bases in nineteen other countries. Why doesn’t, say, Japan have military bases here? Why not, we’ve got one of the biggest in the world in Okinawa? And what the hell are all these bases doing, besides making the locals feel like they’re being occupied and ensuring that prostitution becomes each country’s most lucrative source of income?
This leads to perhaps the single most destructive lie perpetuated by the Bush administration, the idea that terrorists attacked us because of what America stands for, rather than what America does around the world. All the discreet interventions by the CIA, all the covert overthrows of foreign governments to install America-friendly puppet dictators who allow corporations access to their labor force, trade and raw materials, all the dictators who then go on to run oppressive totalitarian regimes, often resulting in Muslim and many others’ suffering while we not only turn a blind eye and, more importantly, blind media coverage and then hypocritically denounce human rights abuses of other countries, this, this is why terrorists attack us. And it won’t be until Americans accept this hard fact and demand leadership change and transparent government that terrorists acts will cease.
For the mean time, we’re stuck with a president whose superior, reductive world view and disregard for foreign criticism has set up not only an us-verses-the-rest-of-the-world mentality, his constant Christian evocations equate to an “our God can beat up your God” position on foreign policy that has ushered in what is fast becoming a “Holy Cold War.”
9/27/04 at 5:15 pm
I do agree with you that the next major world war will be religious in nature. A war with three sides, one for each of the major world religions, that everyone will preferably loose. You are also correct in that most Americans are too ignorant to make a decision on the election on their own. The state of ignorance is incredible in this country. Again it is true, as per the 9/11 Commission Report, that 9/11 and Iraq had no direct link. However, toppling Saddam’s government was something that should have been done long ago. No, weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq but Saddam did have weapons as recently as ‘98 when he again threw out the UN Inspectors. Where did they go? More than likely they were sold off to Iran or Libya. Point is Saddam had to go. You’re right that more resources should have been initially devoted to finding Bin Laden, though hindsight is 20/20. Did we know Saddam made his weapons disappear? No. The problem I have with your article is that you propose a change need to be made and Bush need not be reelected. The only legitimate opponent would be John Kerry. However, where does Kerry stand on issues such as Iraq? As follows are Kerry�s four steps to solving the Iraq crisis: 1) Internationalize; 2) Train Iraqis; 3) Move forward with reconstruction; 4) Help Iraqis achieve a viable government (source: http://www.johnkerry.com). Correct me if I�m wrong, but aren�t we already doing this? I know that your article was in no way pro-Kerry, though it was decisively anti-Bush. And right now a good portion of America has this mindset that anyone but Bush will do. That thinking can lead to serious consequences. Think about it. In four years Bush has done some things wrong but he has also done some things right and throughout that time he has maintained his convictions and never wavered. In the twenty years John Kerry was in the Senate he changed his stance on everything so many times that he can�t run his election on his Senate career�hence the focus on his Vietnam service. The point is I have more confidence reelecting a president, despite his errors, whom I know wont change his convictions then electing a president that�ll flip and flop and wait for the UN and NATO to act in times of crisis�even though Saddam defied numerous UN Security Resolutions between Desert Strom and Iraqi Freedom without any repercussions from the UN. Unless John Kerry can convince me to vote for him in the upcoming debates (the first being this Thursday) then my vote will go to President Bush.
Sorry for the long, drawn out, rambling comment. Great article though, extremely well written. And I am glad that someone out there has done their homework and knows a little something about world politics.
9/27/04 at 6:17 pm
The following is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, but merely a response to this article: You mentioned that you hoped this article would create more response than your previous one. Perhaps the reason more people don’t want to respond is because they can see your article for what it really is: classic mudslinging, just like all of the presidential commercials that are invading our televisions. People don’t want to read blind bias and hatred, regardless of how cleverly written it is. Everyone is aware that people can find and spin facts to support whatever claim they are trying to make. I don’t think anyone is arguing the Bush is the greatest president we’ve ever had, but all of the problems in America are not going to go away simply be electing Kerry as president. A commerial I saw recently for Kerry stated that he would get allies involved with Iraq, which is a ridiculous promise considering that are allies don’t want to be involved. I just think that you are so busy talking about how many Americans are ignorant and biased that you don’t have time to look in the mirror.
9/30/04 at 5:16 pm
Holy shit, people do read these things. Just had to find an issue that struck a chord, I guess. Wow, there are intelligent responses to provocative material, and then there is Shannon’s response. I don’t even know where to begin. For starters, where did I personally attack the President as a person? I specifically avoided such ad hominem arguments (I’ll leave that to Michael Moore, that’s his specialty), but I could have easily launched into a tirade on how Bush was born into the presidency, got special treatment in the military, lied about his drunk driving record, etc., but I didn’t. Oh, and despite your claim that “the following is not meant to be a personal attack…” you follow it up with a nice impersonal “I think that you are so busy talking about how Americans are ignorant and biased that you don’t have time to look in the mirror.” And I’m the mudslinger? Here’s an idea: either come back when you’ve gotten your information from sources other than Kerry television commercials, or write your own article where you lay out your own evidence for Bush’s defense, because it helps to have at least a couple facts to back up your ideological stance. Speaking of which, what facts did I “spin”? All I did was list his policies, and argue why I thought they were detrimental. As for Kerry’s idea to send more troops, of course that’s a stupid idea, but did you miss the whole Bush-creating-the-Coalition-of-the-Willing memo? I guess it’s ok if Bush attempts to get every other country in the U.N. to back him, then only a couple do but goes ahead anyway, but Kerry, who actually has combat experience (however dubious, its more than Bush can say), doesn’t have the right to send troops? Talk about flip flopping. By the way, I’m extremely reluctant to support Kerry, but it boils down to this – Kerry’s a total flake, but at least he’s not spreading American ideals around the world through the barrel of a gun. We need to LEAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD THE HELL ALONE. At least militarily for a while. That means getting our ass out of every other country, we don’t need all those bases with the soaring rape reports from the indigenous people. Kerry may or may not exacerbate things around the world, but we know for a fact Bush will, so I’d rather have the fickle politician over the gunslinging ex-cokehead-cum-Christian fundamentalist currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Also, where exactly is the “hatred and blind bias” in my article? Am I biased just because I have a different viewpoint than your own? It’s easy to support a war on foreign soil when you’re a girl in college with the absolute least chance of being drafted, should Bush reintroduce the draft next term. But do you believe in this war enough to go fight for it? ‘Cause if not, you shouldn’t support it. I wouldn’t go fight because I believe this new war is entirely provoked by hubristic American foreign policy. The principal argument used in Bush’s defense seem to be “We know that he’s a war monger, and Kerry might be, might not, we can’t tell, but we’d rather take the safe way out than a “risky” one. It’s that kind of attitude that’s getting this country entangled in the first war on a global front. Justin, I was planning on responding to your post, but I’ll have to get to it later, actually backing up an argument intelligently really takes it out of ya.
10/1/04 at 10:42 am
Are there such things as manned cruise missles?
10/1/04 at 11:04 am
“actually backing up an argument intelligently really takes it out of ya.”
You may have been able to get some rest had you backed up your editorial as well as you think you backed up your argument in the this annoyingly narrow column.
I’ll agree about one thing though-where my 80 mpg car that GM made a prototype of a few years ago?
10/1/04 at 11:05 am
I wish I could type properly.
10/1/04 at 4:46 pm
i’m not sure what you were trying to say about your car or whatever, and no, there are no manned cruise missles, i was merely reinforcing how impersonal those weapons compared to suicide bombing. And great, another person who calls my views “narrow,” and offers no insight into why. How persuasive.
10/1/04 at 6:08 pm
Actually, i take it back, there are manned cruise missles. They’re called suicide bombers.
10/2/04 at 7:21 am
Actually, I was referring to the width of the the blue column in which this comment appears. The bit about the car was actually to add to the comment you made which specifically mentioned high-mileage cars.
Sounds like someone rode the defensive train to work today.
10/2/04 at 2:29 pm
You people seem intent on dodging the issue - i don’t care what you think of my writing style, only on the issue of the Bush administration. So either try to offer some new insight into my topic, or take a ride on the shut the fuck up train.
10/4/04 at 10:25 pm
Allende was a dictator that used class envy to squeak out an election, then turned on his people, killed thousands of them, which forced his own military to turn him, although we may have led a role in setting the stages for this, we had no role in the assault, and there’s a good chance it would have happened anyway. Although our intentions may have been less then admirable, I find comparing that act of so-called “terrorism” to what was perpetuated on 9/11 is a bit of a stretch. As far as our base in Okinawa, it was made possible/necessary after World War 2, which is also why they don’t have any bases here…they can’t.
In your second editorial, you ask what good is a global peace organization if we can circumvent it anytime we please, well I ask you, what good is a global peace organization that fails to implement its on resolutions…rendering it a pointless mandate setting body…AKA the league of nations. You say our intentions are for oil, but the ever increasing cost of military action in Iraq far exceeds any moneys earned from Iraqi oil especially considering we get and will continue to get the vast majority of our oil from Saudi Arabia.
Finally since you got the chance to hint at scandals without really documenting them, I’ll give that a go, If you want to talk about dishonest/greedy methods in getting oil how bout the whole “Oil for Food” debacle in which the French and many others illegally traded arms and money for Iraqi Oil?
I am no Bush diciple and find myself disagreeing with him regularly, I just wanted to have my say.
10/5/04 at 1:29 am
Good points, however the U.S. most definitely would have contributed to the physical assault on Allende’s regime had they know when the coup would take place. Nixon had deemed him a Marxist threat to U.S. interests, and as we know, whenever that happens, we decide to install our own dictator, however brutal, as long as he’s receptive to open trade. So he authorized $10 M to use for preventing his election, then continued to subvert his rule until Pinochet did it for us, and then we supported him. Anytime the CIA discrupts the affairs of foreign governments through violence, especially without the knowledge or consent of the American people, i think that is American terrorism, and while its not comparable in scale to 9/11, its only one of many examples of discreet CIA intervention on foreign soil, all of which contribute to what the CIA then calls “blowback,” or what the president calls “terrorism” against the United States. Problem is, the American people don’t have all the facts and then belive the president when he says we were unjustifiably attacked, when in fact we helped bring 9/11 upon ourselves.
As for Okinawa, i’m aware that the base is a holdover from WW2, but i think its just that, a holdover. We don’t need it there, it has no positive purpose, and it contributes to a skyrocketing rape crisis with the indigenous people there and perpetuates anti-American sentiment in the Orient. Why are we still there after the Cold War? The administration line is that its to prevent a power vacuum if we leave, but that’s total propaganda. The truth is they just don’t want to let go of their plush golf courses all over the island, and Japan is too weak to stand up to the US and tell us to quit occupying them. They even pay for us to stay there! Tell me its not hypocritical for us to have bases there in an allied country, and they can’t have them here. Why not? They’re not an enemy. We’re just power-hungry.
With regards to France’s well documented arms-for-oil debacle, i am in no way letting France off the hook, they shouldn’t exploit Iraq either. But just because they do, does that mean its ok for us to do the same? France and the US should stop meddling.
And yes, we’ve blow a ton of money on the war in Iraw, but we’ll make it back in time, and the opportunity cost far outweighs not going there. We not only get to set up a couple dozen more military bases all over Iraq (which we’ve already done), we’re guarateed cheap oil for decades.
10/5/04 at 1:46 am
With regards to our military bases aligned for Cold War use, Bush outlined a plan about a month ago that will shut down bases in certain areas around the globe abandoning the Cold War strategy in favor of a better strategic alliance for combating terrorism. Now I�m not exactly sure if the base in Japan is one that will specifically go, but I know that huge bases such as Ramstein AFB in Germany will be closed. If I remember correctly, by 2006 the complete realignment will be complete.
10/5/04 at 9:19 am
I just wanted to comment quickly on the whole Allende/Chili thing. Regardless of our previous involvement there, Andy said that “the U.S. most definitely would have contributed to the physical assault on Allende’s regime had they know when the coup would take place.” I don’t think that’s true, because the CIA was notified two days in advance about it. We obviously wouldn’t have, then, because we didn’t.
10/5/04 at 9:47 am
That may be true, but the point is why were we messing with Chili at all? We had no moral justification, only financial. So whether or not the CIA actually overthrew Allende or not (which they probably lied about), they participated in efforts to kidnap his army chief so as to prevent the congressional confirmation of his legitimate presidency. The mercenaries we paid to kidnap him then bungled it and murdered him, so his blood at least was directly on our hands. We need to stop trying to strongarm foreign governments into accepting our version of democracy. Regardless of whether we actually pull the trigger or not.
As for Bush’s plans to cut back on bases, i heard of that, but i still find it odd that we’re reducing some overall and building dozens more elsewhere, like in Iraq. And i think the Okinawa base is the last one we’d part with, since its our largest base anywhere, and costs us next to nothing to maintain since Japan foots the bill.
10/5/04 at 10:01 am
to finally respond to your initial post, Justin, i completely agree that Kerry’s plan sounds suspiciously similar to the current one, but i think he has realized that now that Bush has gotten us into Iraq, we definitely can’t back out until the country is secure and able to “self-govern,” whatever we decide that will entail. So, yes, his battle strategy is pretty much the same, but i’m voting for him mainly for his promised actions following the war - namely, regaining the confidence of our allies, which Bush has steadily eroded, seeking their approval before going to a war ONLY when the U.S. isn’t directly threatened - asking permission to defend our soil is another debate, but we’d never give up that right anyway, so there’s not much point in considering it. Also, his economic plan sounds far better, in my eyes. The other huge problem i had with Bush was his blatant catering to the rich via his tax cuts. Kerry has promised to lower them for the middle and lower class. I think its inexcusable that we’d spend so much going to a questionable war when health care and welfare are in such a sorry state, in the richest nation in the world. but that’s me
10/5/04 at 1:33 pm
We had business in Chili because it was determined that with Allende, they were on their way to becoming a Communist country. That would have been dangerous for us, and thus it could be seen as defense, not merely financial.
10/5/04 at 5:12 pm
Yes, but even if a country goes communist, who are we to say they can’t? As long as they weren’t making threats to us, we had no right to topple their government.
10/5/04 at 6:03 pm
I have to agree with Andy that just becuase a country is lead in a Communist direction, doesn’t justify us to remove it. At this point this topic has taken so many turns and tangents it’s ridiculous…but thats bound to happen with politcal discusions.
10/5/04 at 6:26 pm
i knew i wasn’t alone on that. As further proof of our ongoing foreign policy hypocrisy, at roughly the same time he was staging the coup in Chile to prevent them from going communist, Nixon opened up communist China. With all the double standards, no wonder we’ve lost the world’s trust.
10/5/04 at 6:55 pm
Just for the record, I wasn’t condoning our actions or saying that the U.S. was justified for messing with Chile. I only meant to say that, given the Communist-fearing atmosphere at the time, I don’t think that their reasons were merely financial.
10/5/04 at 10:30 pm
why pick out an insignificant detail then? it doesn’t matter what their reasons were, the point is Bush is merely continuing this kind of Republican misleading of the American people about our reasons for meddling with other countries.
10/5/04 at 10:31 pm
and before people jump on me, yes, the Democrats have repeatedly done it too, but the issue here is Bush. just trying to bring us back on topic
10/6/04 at 6:51 am
I picked it out because a) you brought it up, and b)it does matter why we were there, because I think you misrepresented our intentions. But, in keeping with the main theme, I don’t think that you are going to get anything different from Kerry either.
10/6/04 at 8:47 am
One thing that needs to be looked at with regards to the upcoming election (has nothing to do with this article but I figured it is relevent) is the Supreme Court. Whomever is elected will more then likely appoint two new justices with the possibility of a third. A crutial appointment will be Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement as she has often been the 5th and deciding vote among the split bench. No matter who is elected, I’d like to see some younger, more modern judges who are more in touch with the current state our society is in.
10/6/04 at 2:21 pm
Ok Shannon, so of all the things i’ve presented, that’s the one you decided to take issue with? i guess the rest is harder to refute.
Justin mentioned the new justices, and speaking of the court system, i’m all for the addition of new judges in general, especially after Bush nominated Michael McConnell, outspoken critic of the separation of church and state, and Terrence Boyle, known civil rights opponent, to federal judgeships.
10/6/04 at 2:54 pm
Actually, Andy, I did not comment on your other points because I think those were already sucessfully refuted. But, here’s what I don’t understand: You seem to take a cynical view on every aspect of politics and the goverment. You suggested that the CIA lied about their involvement in Chile, that the GOP was lying about their platform, that Bush has been lying to the American people, and even that many Republican and Democratic presidents have also lied, to name a few. Basically, you don’t trust anyone to do what they say they will,
and yet you believe that Kerry will somehow be different. Why is that you have so much faith in his being honest about his policies and plans when you really don’t think anyone is?
10/6/04 at 5:54 pm
Um, when did i ever say that i thought kerry wouldn’t lie? I said i preferred a flip-flopping politician to a war-mongering bible-thumper.
Surely i’m not the first person to suggest to you that this election is all about choosing “the lesser of 2 evils.”
I’m not the only cynic out there. I like to consider my POV realistic, not pessimistic, but I’d be far less so if, say we had a decent candidate to vote for. If Nader was allowed to debate, which is the least they could offer him, i’d be happy.
10/6/04 at 6:09 pm
you think my points have been refuted? Um, let’s see, no one’s even acknowledged my argument that Bush is simultaneously contributing to the destruction of the environment, pleasing the oil companies who contributed to his campaign, and furthering our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by his increased drilling, slackening the EPA’s powers against polluting companies, and all the propositions Clinton
made in his lame duck years that demanded high-mileage vehicles to cut our
dependence on fossil fuel? Tell me how that’s a good policy, i can’t wait.
Or, why was Bush sending kids to war, then cutting veteran’s benefits, after just shaking their hands? What kind of sick leader does that?
10/6/04 at 6:31 pm
You seem to be very forgetful about what it is that you say. To quote from you, Andy…”i’m voting for him [Kerry] mainly for his promised actions following the war - namely, regaining the confidence of our allies, which Bush has steadily eroded, seeking their approval before going to a war only when the U.S. isn’t directly threatened” etc. You said that you were voting for Kerry based on what he has “promised.” So, now your saying “Um, when did i ever say that i thought kerry wouldn’t lie?” So which is it? You attack Bush for lying, but you seem to belive Kerry will lie too. It just doesn’t make any sense. Also, if you really don’t believe that either of them will be very good, if it is the “lesser of two evils,” then why not vote for a third party candidate that you actually think would do a good job? Sure, the third party candidate would never win, but at least it would be an honest vote.
10/6/04 at 6:43 pm
Also, when I said that your points have been refuted, I was referring the newer points that you had made in the comment section of this article, because that was related to the Allende argument. I was saying that I wrote about Allende, because all of the other ones in that comment had been refuted. Sheesh.
10/6/04 at 9:08 pm
Allow me to clarify, if you don’t understand my position. I’m sure Kerry is probably lying some, because, as i pointed out repeatedly, he’s a flip flopping politician, and i’m expecting nothing more. However, as long as he honors even some of his promises, i think he’ll be an improvement. The main thing is to just get Bush out of office, because that’s the first step in restoring this government’s credibility. It just came out today that Saddam was in fact not persuing WMD’s after the first round of inspectors left, which further reveals our leader’s rash decision to go to war to the rest of the world, and refutes part of Justin’s inital post. If we have a new leader, the world could begin to restore their faith in us to at least the level where it was pre-Bush family, but i think that no one will believe our intentions as long as we’ve got a Bush in the white house.
And i would vote for Nader if i thought he had a chance (i did vote for him last election), but there’s not much point if they exclude him from the debates and deny him the audience he should have. The whole 2-party system is a joke, and its difficult to tell them apart anymore as it is. If the media and other politicians did their job and took 3rd party candidates more seriously by covering them as much as they do the rich candidates, it’d be a whole new ball game. But they have no incentive to do that, so we’re stuck with these two.
And ok, if you think the Allende stuff has been refuted, that’s fine, but how about getting back on topic and arguing about the stuff i mentioned about Bush and the environment? All this question dodging is getting old.
10/6/04 at 9:19 pm
I didn’t hear that about the WMD’s, I’ll have to check the news later tonight–I’ve been too busy watching playoff baseball. 
As for the two party system, you’re right, it is pretty much a sham anymore. In my eyes, the Democratic Party is dying. Once Clinton left, they have been having a hard time getting a canidate like him. Perhaps Berack Obama (sp?) is the next answer. But surely John Kerry or Hillery Clinton is not the ‘future’ of the party as what it is made to be. No one drives the party like Clinton did, and it seems like that is what they need. I’ve always been a fan of the third-party candidate idea, it’s why I’m a redgestered Independant. I like the idea of a political outsider who can come in with fresh ideas and make a differnece but you’re right, until they get the support from the media, it’ll never happen. Hell, if they get that bill passed that would let Gov. Arnold run for president, that might be a start. I don’t know. But on to the environment. I’m actually in favor of drilling in Alaska on a limited basis. We know there is oil there, it’s just a question of getting it. Yes, it can be done without tarnishing the environment. Frankly, anything that can curb our dependence on OPEC is a good thing in my book. With crude oil selling at over $50 a barrel now, it’s just out of control. The Saudi’s say they are going to boost production, but really, will that result in much? They can still charge as they see fit. So with respect to the environment and Bush drilling all over, I say lets go for it.
10/6/04 at 10:04 pm
First of all, it’s ridiculous that you mention a issue, and then when people discuss it, you assert that they are “dodging the issues.”
Anyway, it’s obvious that you don’t really know what you are talking about at all. To address the so called “cut” of the veteran’s benefits to which you refer, I took a quote from factcheck.org which is, from what I can tell, pretty non-partison. “In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: ‘He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans…’ It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted…. Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush’s budgets. That’s hardly a cut. In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush’s 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%. Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%. By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.” Basically, it isn’t going up as fast as everyone would like it to, but it’s not exactly a cut either.
10/6/04 at 11:06 pm
Why is it that anytime someone brings up a thrid party canadate people assume your talking about Nader, when they should be talking about Badnarik. These guys are outstanding, but don’t take MY word for it. http://www.lp.org
10/7/04 at 12:07 am
That’s only half the facts, so before you say i don’t know what i’m talking about, consider this:
*the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’ paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were termed “wasteful and unnecessary” by the White House, Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes.
* This year’s White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals—despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago.
* The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans—those with “non-service-related illnesses”—who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.
* Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated.
* In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries—military-run stores that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted troops and their families get by—along with the possiblility of closing 19 more.
* At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers’ children at 14 military installations.
* The White House is seeking to block a federal judge’s award of damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country’s reconstruction.
* The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
* In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to “the cost of the extraordinary security” during Bush’s recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly “would cover a vest for every soldier” in Iraq.
And if you look at what i wrote, i wasn’t accusing “people” of dodging the issues, i’m directly accusing you of dodging my argument about bush’s impact on the environment and his dependence on fossil fuels, which i have repeatedly directed to you and which you keep ignoring. If you’re not avoiding this issue, prove it by responding in your next post. christ.
10/7/04 at 12:46 am
Also, Andy, I’m not quite sure when I “repeatedly dodged” the enviroment. You mentioned two issues that you wanted addressed, and clearly I picked the incorrect one. Anyway, I don’t have anything to “prove” to you. I haven’t responded yet because I’ve been too busy responding to all of your other crap, and I saw that Justin had started talking about his opinion on it, and I thought that maybe I would let someone else discuss their position on it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was of the impression that this was a conversation between many people, and not just a one on one debate between the two of us. Silly me, I thought Justin was capable of discussing the topic with you without needing my opinion, but obviously you feel differently.
And, oh my goodness, this is ridiculous. You make a blatant statement regarding the Veteran’s cuts, with no facts to back it up, and when I actually discuss the “issues” that I’m accused of dodging (which were not addressed to me), you say I only presented half of the information. I thought that was better than no information regarding it, as you had previously provided, but clearly I was wrong. So, since you continue to say things that aren’t true, allow to continue the quote: “One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit. According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush’s budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent. And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush’s three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million). While it’s false to say the veterans budget has been cut, and false to say that any veteran getting benefits has been cut off, it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits, or as rapidly as veterans groups would like. In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that — because the increase in funds couldn’t meet the rising demand — it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits. That led to accusations that Bush was denying benefits to veterans. ‘We have 400,000 veterans in this country who have been denied access in a whole category to the VA,’Kerry declared during a debate Oct. 9, 2003. The VA’s estimates of the number who might be denied benefits is much lower, and in fact nobody can say with certainty how many middle-income veterans might have signed up for medical benefits if they had been allowed.Meanwhile the VA continues to add hundreds of thousands of disabled and lower-income veterans to those already receiving benefits, and has kept paying benefits to all veterans who were already receiving them. The middle-income veterans who currently aren’t being allowed to sign up are those generally with incomes above 80% of the mid-point for their locality. The means test cut-off for benefits ranges up to $40,000 a year in many cities. And any veteran with income less than $25,162 still qualifies no matter where they live. Those figures are for single veterans. The income cut-off is higher for those with a spouse or children. And it should be noted that the administration is proposing to increase some benefits, including ending pharmacy co-payments for some very low-income veterans, and paying for emergency-room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals. All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits — particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact. (Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we’ve received no response.)”
10/7/04 at 9:53 am
Well hey, that was unexpected, but thanks. it was big of you to admit that. Glad we finally agree.
As for that last comment about having my children, i don’t think i know you that well, but i’m flattered.
10/7/04 at 10:02 am
Cute, everyone. I’m guessing Pat wrote that, based on the lack of capitalization, but Andy doesn’t seem to be consistant with his capital-use either, so who knows who it was.
10/7/04 at 10:44 am
Either way, I see no reason to continue this topic now that my secret has been revealed. This whole political debate was merely a sad attempt to cover up my ever-increasing passion for Andy.
10/7/04 at 12:38 pm
i figured as much. you’re so cute when you’re mad
10/7/04 at 1:21 pm
Alright, that’s enough. Debate is good, but now it’s just a little childish. I’m closing the comments on this article down.
Comments
There are 42 responses to Editorial #1