Vote, You Damned Fool, Vote!

Well, I went and voted a little while ago. I was really looking forward to it all day at work. After I got done my mom and I hopped into the minivan and drove over to the armory. It was pretty sweet. We here in Portage County still have the paper ballots, so it was kind of like taking the SAT's, but much, much easier. I didn't have any sort of difficult choices like I did during the state representatives primary a couple years ago. No, the choice was fairly clear. I probably could have just voted straight democrat and saved my hand a little bit of exercise, but that wouldn't have allowed me to write in my sister for city coroner. I usually write in my dad, but as my sister is going to school for a health related major, I figured she was more qualified (although by her report, human anatomy is not her strongest subject).

Now the waiting game begins, and I'm quite hopeful that the "tsunami of discontent" as CNN keeps calling it occurs. I've been having hopeful thoughts that somehow, Democrats win many, many more seats than anyone could have possibly guessed. I doubt this will happen, but it would put a hop in my step. Hell, just gaining some control would put a hop in my step. Am I certain that Democrats in power will save this country from its unfortunate direction? No, but I'm sure that they can't hurt anything.

What I'm really nervous about are a couple of very troublesome referendums here in Wisco. One is to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Not only that, but make it the only form of union, thus denying any type of rights to any other sort of relationship. This makes ZT very worried, not because I stand to lose much, but because many people stand to lose much in this, and not just homosexuals who want to enjoy the same rights as us heterosexual folks without commitment fears do, but because it reaches too far. If you don't believe in gay marriage, I suppose that's your perogative, and you can go ahead and make sure your church does not honor such things. But to deny the right of people to share a household and get such things as health insurance or hospital visitation rights is wrong, pure and simple.

The second ballot initiative here in Wisco is to allow the death penelty in our fine state. ZT is very much against the death penelty. I believe that in an uncertain system, we should never deal in the certainty of death. I believe it brutalizes society, and that a society that accepts state sanctioned homicide, even for some of it's most reprehensible citizens, is more willing to accept state sanctioned violence in the future.

Finally, here in the Stevens Point Area School District, we'll be voting on a school referendum to increase the district's budget by $6 million dollars over three years. For the most part, I approve of school referendums, and this one included. I believe a strong and well funded school district will be a boon to the community in which I grew up. Particularly troublesome if the referendum does not pass is the elimination of nearly 100 teacher jobs over the next three years. I believe that having these teacher positions filled is not only good for our schools, but good for the local economy. These are 100 good jobs in the area that will be able to contribute money to the area. Teachers will tend to stay in the area and bring families in. Upon losing their jobs, younger teachers will almost certainly leave the area. I cannot see how this would be good for the Stevens Point Area.

So there you have it, now you know how I voted. I hope you all will go out and contribute to the election. Also, best of luck to my sister on winning that coroner's position. I'm pulling for ya!

Why Morality Is Important

I'm not sure why I read something by Ann Coulter, call it curiosity I guess. I'd never read anything by Ann Coulter...now I realize there probably isn't much use in it. If you feel like figuring that out yourself, here's the article I read.

There's something in there that bothered me a bit more, however. There's a section where Coulter rants:

" But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese — enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today."


If Coulter wants to open up the history textbook, I'll be more than happy to do so. First of all, I believe it was a democrat who increased government spending, started social security (in other words, a dirty liberal) who fought back against Japan and Germany. His name was Franklin Delenore Roosevelt. You may have heard of him. Or if you want to bring North Vietnam into this, why don't we talk about the massive bombing campaigns? Was that nice? Was Lyndon "Great Society" Johnson one of those pansy liberals? Would a real man like Reagan or Bush have unleashed the nukes?

How about Coulter looks at a much more appropriate historical example (perhaps outside of World War II, the conservative's wet dream), that of the French in Algeria. Here was a situation in which the French were dealing with a vicious and ruthless independence movement that frequently enganged in terrorism. The French responded in kind, using equally vicious detention and interrogation techniques. The net result was Algerian independence in 1962 and the mass exodus of the pied-noirs (European descent Algerians) to France.

Here's the point...it's easy to make history support your side, but it's also easy to make it contradict your side. And in this instance, it seems that the most appropriate example seems to contradict Coulter's argument. Which is not suprising, as she supports torturing people. In other words, throwing morals out the window in order to win the "War on Terror".

I know one thing however. I do not want to be embarassed by my country. I don't like having to aknowlege that my coutry enslaved people, carried out a near genocide against the Indians, and certain other attrocities. So I would like it if my country would take the moral high ground. Perhaps victory is not depending on it (I doubt more torture will help us...or hurt us, strategically speaking), but the soul of the nation is.

Current Events

There appears to be quite a bit going on in the world these days. Well, there's always something going on in the world, we just seem to stop paying attention to the lingering things after awhile. There's simulaniously wonderful and awful things happening all over the place. But now, there's two open wars going on in the Middle East, neither of which, strictly speaking, had to happen. In other words, the United States could have just ignored Saddam Hussein and Israel could have just ignored Hezbollah and things would have gone on just about the same as they were. Of course, was anyone really happy with the status quo?

And that's the rub. War is the worst of all possible outcomes, but it can be a spectacular agent of change, either positive or negative. A few years back, I heard this statement which startled me quite a bit. I was struck not only by the simplicity of the statement, but the matter of fact cynical correctness it held. "People use violence because violence works". In other words, I could explain to you that I need money quickly and all the reasons I need your money for food and medicine and the horrible desperate situation I'm in. You might give me money out of kindness and pity, but more likely you'll just brush me aside. Of course, if I point a gun at your head, you'll probably comply. It's easy to forget that King George III wasn't bowled over by the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. We had to fight a war afterwards. It wasn't the ideals that gained us our independence, it was gunpowder. Which is a sad fact. In the end, all too often, might makes right rather than right makes right. Sometimes might stacks up in the correct corner, but unfortunately, there are times it doesn't. Which brings out the biggest problem of war. War is a big risk proposition, not always favoring the correct cause.

Since 9/11 though, there has been a rise in militaristic Americanism however. This is the coupling of a belief in American liberal ideals with a belief that America should flex its might to spread it's ideals. The problem with this is that might is a tricky thing to measure. Napoleon said, "God is on the side of the biggest battalions", but that was said when bigger battalions were a good measure of might. Our mission is not necessarily to protect ourselves anymore, but rather to remake the world in our image. In this sense, we've made our larger battalions smaller by increasing the goal. We are trying to use a hammer to do a screwdrivers job. Sure it might work, but it will be a destructive and difficult process. Unfortunately, the people in power only seem to see American strength in terms of military prowess, not in terms of overall might.

I will admit that I initially supported the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein is a horrible man, an enemy to American ideals, and a dangerous person in the region. He started two wars, carried out a policy of murder against the Kurds, and other attrocities. Which is why it is so difficult to be against this current war. I was frustrated with the then status quo which kept Hussein in check, but hurt his poplulation. But a military solution was not the correct one. It was one of impatience and ultimately has hurt America and Iraq more than it has helped. We tried to put in a screw with a hammer.

However, this stance should not be confused with a loss of faith in American activism. Rather it is a dismissal of the use of American militarism. Bill Clinton once said, "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed with what's right with America." I would like to amend that slightly, and said that there is nothing wrong with the world that can't be fixed by what's right with the world. And there are few thing righter with the world than the United States of America. While recent actions have been questionable or wrongheaded, there have been throughout America's history, plenty of mistakes. But we can overcome them and return to our ideals. America can be a very powerful agent of change in the world. We can open up our universities to the world and give people everywhere some of the best education possible. We can open our borders to people who want to work here and make their lives better. We can use our knowlege to help fight disease and famine. We can use our resources to support people all over the world. But we must use our military might wisely, and with the international community in mind. I can think of no greater honor than to simply be a citizen of one of the greatest world power in the history of humanity.

There are things that must occur for us to change course, but first and foremost is to make sure that our government remains open. George W. Bush has remained too secretive and too arrogant to be a great American leader. We are an open society for a reason. So that the people and the other branches of the government can make a real judgement of our actions. I can think of no more immediate need for America than to elect truly great people into office who will take the responisibilities of being an AMERICAN leader on. That means holding the right of the average citizen to know and consent to their actions as the highest responsibility. That also means remembering John Winthrop's words about his Puritan community in Massachusettes that carry over to American in general, "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us." When you go to the ballot box this fall, it would be nice if people put petty issues aside and instead voted based upon these considerations. It would be a new dawn for America, and would save it from the unfortunate direction we are heading currently.