I'm happy to say Dad and I survived the county fair. At least I had more than one person to spell me at the Republican booth, Dad had only one volunteer on Thursday to give him an extended break. Of the many things I learned over the week, the most important is that you really need at least two people in the booth in order to have fun. All the mean spirited attacks happened on Thursday and things were mellow for the rest of the fair. Even managed to have some good political discussions with some of the fair goers during the slower times, I only got one chapter read of the book I took. All in all, it was a good fair for our local Republicans and Dad managed to get 19 signatures on the Fairtax petition at his booth. Not bad for a first time at the fair and I think he'll do better as more people find out what the Fairtax is.
The fair itself was heavily trafficked despite the rain on Thursday and Friday. In fact, those were the two busiest days we had. Maybe the downpours drove people into the barns and buildings, because the big day of the fair on Saturday was a disappointment at the booths. I expected gangbusters business from what everyone had told me, but it was deathly slow at times. By the time evening came, the booth exhibitors and some of the attendees were getting loopy and the silly things began to happen. Sunday was surprisingly busy, that was the day that was supposed to be dead.
One of the great things about a county fair is getting to interact with a wide variety of people. Add to that the opportunity to talk to the old hands in politics and you have a very educational experience. Great fun having conversations with other volunteers kept things moving along, for I put some long hours in. That included two days straight of 12 hours being at the fair. Needless to say, Dad and I are dragging our sorry butts around.
All in all, it was fun if grueling.
Reviews of movies, anime, and the occasional TV show mixed with warnings on Blogger spam. Also to be found are musings on whatever I am thinking about - all from the point of view of being left to watch everything from the sidelines of life.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
A Dangerous Season
Here it is, August 22, 2006. So far, the Iranians haven't blown anything up other than Kurdish villages during their "wargames". That doesn't mean Israel or the West is off the hook, though. From now until September 11th, the potential for terrorist activities and further war in Lebanon will increase. Iran is the key to this and they are doing nothing BUT saber rattling. Here's a link to excerpts from MEMRI that translate the latest from Iranian leaders in their own country's media. What's amusing is they claim that Article 11 of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty allows countries to secretly build weapons if they fear they are threatened. Powerline shows that to be a lie by quoting Article 11, which would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious situation. The "multi-faceted" offer Iran gave the UN today won't do a thing to stop their progress in building the bomb, not when Ahmadinejad is making statements like this:
Update: Iran did attack another country's property. It wasn't the Israelis, but the Romanians! This is interesting if strange, it looks like Iran is starting to flex their military muscles with an aim at controlling the oil in the Persian Gulf.
If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.At least Jerusalem wasn't nuked today and there wasn't a test detonation in the hinterlands of Iran. But it is clear they plan to make the world do what they want.
Update: Iran did attack another country's property. It wasn't the Israelis, but the Romanians! This is interesting if strange, it looks like Iran is starting to flex their military muscles with an aim at controlling the oil in the Persian Gulf.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Why We Fight in Iraq
After being exposed to a great deal of anger driven rants about the war in Iraq over the past few days, it was nice to run into a post at Captain's Quarters that contains this little nugget:
"Free societies cannot possibly apply the kinds of security procedures that would make mass transit completely safe, not if they want to remain free societies. We can adopt better technology and hopefully screen airline passengers more effectively, but in truth that approach alone always puts us behind the terrorist curve. They only have to be successful once; we have to be successful every single time, and still protect the civil liberties of the travelers in our nations. The only way to effectively fight terrorism is to fight it somewhere else."
This is why we must take the fight elsewhere, in my opinion, we can't fight here and win without sacrificing our personal freedoms in a dangerous way. Once gone, freedoms are hard to get back. Stop taking the fight to the Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and you will soon see the fight back on our shores. My greatest fear after 9/11 wasn't another attack, it was that the American public would suffer from a short attention span and forget that day as the years went by. This is a generational war, something not seen in modern warfare. Even WWI and WWII were short wars compared to some in the past, so this is new territory for this age. It will be long, agonizing, and will result in one of three outcomes: Islam dominates all of humanity, the fundamentalists are crushed, or democracy and Western ways spread virally through the autocratic Islamic states. Right now we are attempting a noble experiment in trying to bring about the last option. The other two will be horrific and there is a good chance of that happening as isolationism is impossible today, mainly because of modern technology shrinking the planet. I don't know about you, but I'd rather try to bring freedom to those oppressed and misguided people in the Middle East than nuke them.
The rest of Ed Morrisey's post is well worth reading.
"Free societies cannot possibly apply the kinds of security procedures that would make mass transit completely safe, not if they want to remain free societies. We can adopt better technology and hopefully screen airline passengers more effectively, but in truth that approach alone always puts us behind the terrorist curve. They only have to be successful once; we have to be successful every single time, and still protect the civil liberties of the travelers in our nations. The only way to effectively fight terrorism is to fight it somewhere else."
This is why we must take the fight elsewhere, in my opinion, we can't fight here and win without sacrificing our personal freedoms in a dangerous way. Once gone, freedoms are hard to get back. Stop taking the fight to the Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and you will soon see the fight back on our shores. My greatest fear after 9/11 wasn't another attack, it was that the American public would suffer from a short attention span and forget that day as the years went by. This is a generational war, something not seen in modern warfare. Even WWI and WWII were short wars compared to some in the past, so this is new territory for this age. It will be long, agonizing, and will result in one of three outcomes: Islam dominates all of humanity, the fundamentalists are crushed, or democracy and Western ways spread virally through the autocratic Islamic states. Right now we are attempting a noble experiment in trying to bring about the last option. The other two will be horrific and there is a good chance of that happening as isolationism is impossible today, mainly because of modern technology shrinking the planet. I don't know about you, but I'd rather try to bring freedom to those oppressed and misguided people in the Middle East than nuke them.
The rest of Ed Morrisey's post is well worth reading.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
August 22 and Iran
First, please go here
I think Lewis does a good job of summarizing why August 22, 2006 may be a major day in world history. The current leadership in Iran either belong to or are influenced by a minor Shia sect that believes that through promoting chaos, the coming of the Mahdi (the 12th Prophet or Hidden Imam) will be provoked. Why do they consider that a good thing? Well, when the Mahdi emerges from his well he is said to inhabit (by that sect), Jesus will be his assistant who will lead him to the center of Tehran. From there, a final reckoning will begin and Islam will take over the world, with the unbelievers converted or slain. This is the Shia Muslim equivalent of Armageddon.
Being a devout Latter-day Saint, it always baffles me when I see truly religious people thinking they can manipulate God into doing things. While prayer is a form of direct communications, it is a supplication without a guarantee of success. It is truly humble and a plea for help. This belief that He can be coerced or forced into doing something is incredibly arrogant and misguided.
There has been messianic overtones to Ahmadinejad's statements since he first became mayor of Tehran and at times he acts as if he is a prophet himself. This is blasphemy in Islam and why the mullahs there haven't cracked down upon him is a mystery. They have supreme power in Iran, yet I almost get the impression they are afraid of him. Or more ominously, they actually believe in him. Either way, it is clear they have an unstable, dictatorial peacock in charge -- one who may have the A-bomb in his possession soon.
I think Lewis does a good job of summarizing why August 22, 2006 may be a major day in world history. The current leadership in Iran either belong to or are influenced by a minor Shia sect that believes that through promoting chaos, the coming of the Mahdi (the 12th Prophet or Hidden Imam) will be provoked. Why do they consider that a good thing? Well, when the Mahdi emerges from his well he is said to inhabit (by that sect), Jesus will be his assistant who will lead him to the center of Tehran. From there, a final reckoning will begin and Islam will take over the world, with the unbelievers converted or slain. This is the Shia Muslim equivalent of Armageddon.
Being a devout Latter-day Saint, it always baffles me when I see truly religious people thinking they can manipulate God into doing things. While prayer is a form of direct communications, it is a supplication without a guarantee of success. It is truly humble and a plea for help. This belief that He can be coerced or forced into doing something is incredibly arrogant and misguided.
There has been messianic overtones to Ahmadinejad's statements since he first became mayor of Tehran and at times he acts as if he is a prophet himself. This is blasphemy in Islam and why the mullahs there haven't cracked down upon him is a mystery. They have supreme power in Iran, yet I almost get the impression they are afraid of him. Or more ominously, they actually believe in him. Either way, it is clear they have an unstable, dictatorial peacock in charge -- one who may have the A-bomb in his possession soon.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Why Is Iran Destroying Satellite Dishes?
It seems the news out of Iran is ever alarming, now they are destroying privately owned satellite dishes. The official reason is to prevent Western culture from corrupting the people, but the dishes have been around for years. The timing looks suspicious, what with the recent increase in censorship of the news available in Iran on nuclear issues.
Hate
As I've grown older and gotten personally involved in politics, I've noticed a trend that has been gaining steam of late. That trend is the use of the word "hate", usually in relation to those who oppose your politics. Occasionally, I see it on the Republican and conservative side, but most often it comes from the mouths of those on the left, especially Democrats. It usually comes out in the form, "I hate Bush, he's destroying our country." Lately, I've seen it spread to other Republicans, especially relating to incumbents in Minnesota. What used to be mainly confined to Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) has been applied to the governor and others without any hesitation or real thought. I fail to see any good coming out of this behavior as it polarizes things even further.
But perhaps polarization is what the DNC wants after losing three elections in a row. When Howard Dean said, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for," it became a defining moment for the direction of the Democratic Party. Instead of reaching out to the middle ground, they didn't just drift toward the far left, they ran screaming to it. Hmm, maybe that's why they wanted Dean to be chairman. The recent ouster of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is further evidence of the radicalization going on. Because of his pro-Iraq war, pro-security stance, they railroaded him out of the party despite having a liberal voting record that equals Ted Kennedy! That is plain stupid, as Joe will easily win re-election as an independent. But that is only the beginning, take a gander at Michael Moore's threat to Hillary Clinton here.
This reckless rhetoric is a danger to those moderate Democrats who are still in with the other Donkeys. Right now, it looks like they are getting kicked around by the party base which has abandoned all common sense, not to mention the common folk that make up the majority of our country. So what does all this have to do with the word "hate"?
Hatred is a base, primal emotion that leads to rash decisions (or more accurately, reactions) when confronted with any kind of opposition. What I've been seeing is people reacting emotionally more than carefully contemplating issues. So they say they hate a candidate, usually on one issue and only based on a surface understanding of what is going on. The kicker is that they don't want to hear the facts and don't want to know the context because they enjoy the anger. Anger can be highly addictive and I have known a people who admitted to enjoying being angry.
Many people have a "fight or flight" reaction to anger and that is why the word "hate" is especially dangerous. People will react fearfully in some cases, being cowed and bullied, while others will greet hatred with hatred. Both are dangerous outcomes, with the latter the worst, as it can spiral into a tit-for-tat escalation. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling we have entered an era much like that of the 1830's, when growing divisions started to ferment into the cauldron that became the Civil War a mere thirty years later.
It takes a great deal of self discipline and true sense of caring about others not to reciprocate hate. Both these attributes are in decline in our society, as the basic family structure has eroded since the 1960's. We learn diplomacy in families, we learn to love those we don't necessarily like, and we learn our morals from our parents. With a solid family foundation missing so often these days, people go out into our communities with an attitude of "me first" and an inability to see the needs of the greater good. Of course this is a generalization, but looking at how people treat each other now compared to when I was growing up, there has been a stark change.
Hate is getting in the way of open dialogue and I wish people would think before they bandied that word around. Nothing constructive can come of it. We need at least a thin veneer of civility in order to work together and it isn't that hard to do, is it? United we stand, divided we fall... And we have too many threats in the world coming at us now and in the future. Me, I'm refusing to hate any politician as my small contribution to America.
But perhaps polarization is what the DNC wants after losing three elections in a row. When Howard Dean said, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for," it became a defining moment for the direction of the Democratic Party. Instead of reaching out to the middle ground, they didn't just drift toward the far left, they ran screaming to it. Hmm, maybe that's why they wanted Dean to be chairman. The recent ouster of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is further evidence of the radicalization going on. Because of his pro-Iraq war, pro-security stance, they railroaded him out of the party despite having a liberal voting record that equals Ted Kennedy! That is plain stupid, as Joe will easily win re-election as an independent. But that is only the beginning, take a gander at Michael Moore's threat to Hillary Clinton here.
This reckless rhetoric is a danger to those moderate Democrats who are still in with the other Donkeys. Right now, it looks like they are getting kicked around by the party base which has abandoned all common sense, not to mention the common folk that make up the majority of our country. So what does all this have to do with the word "hate"?
Hatred is a base, primal emotion that leads to rash decisions (or more accurately, reactions) when confronted with any kind of opposition. What I've been seeing is people reacting emotionally more than carefully contemplating issues. So they say they hate a candidate, usually on one issue and only based on a surface understanding of what is going on. The kicker is that they don't want to hear the facts and don't want to know the context because they enjoy the anger. Anger can be highly addictive and I have known a people who admitted to enjoying being angry.
Many people have a "fight or flight" reaction to anger and that is why the word "hate" is especially dangerous. People will react fearfully in some cases, being cowed and bullied, while others will greet hatred with hatred. Both are dangerous outcomes, with the latter the worst, as it can spiral into a tit-for-tat escalation. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling we have entered an era much like that of the 1830's, when growing divisions started to ferment into the cauldron that became the Civil War a mere thirty years later.
It takes a great deal of self discipline and true sense of caring about others not to reciprocate hate. Both these attributes are in decline in our society, as the basic family structure has eroded since the 1960's. We learn diplomacy in families, we learn to love those we don't necessarily like, and we learn our morals from our parents. With a solid family foundation missing so often these days, people go out into our communities with an attitude of "me first" and an inability to see the needs of the greater good. Of course this is a generalization, but looking at how people treat each other now compared to when I was growing up, there has been a stark change.
Hate is getting in the way of open dialogue and I wish people would think before they bandied that word around. Nothing constructive can come of it. We need at least a thin veneer of civility in order to work together and it isn't that hard to do, is it? United we stand, divided we fall... And we have too many threats in the world coming at us now and in the future. Me, I'm refusing to hate any politician as my small contribution to America.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Why Are Zombies Popular?
It is the day to set up the county fair booths, so what am I thinking about after getting up this morning? Is it politics or the logistics of the materials needed for the booth? No, my brain is stuck on the inexplicable popularity of the walking undead, AKA zombies. No, not the drug induced Haitian slaves or the poor souls who followed the Grateful Dead around. I'm talking about cannibalistic, brain chomping, slow shuffling, spreading like lice movie zombies.
It all seems to have started with George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, a low budget B &W movie that tossed in at least a little serious social commentary on race, but mainly was about grossing people out. Ever since then, low budget horror movies about zombies have been churned out with great regularity. True, some of them are direct to video or the SciFi Channel, but they appear to be perennial favorites of horror fans. It has spread to comic books, with an entire miniseries called Marvel Zombies being popular, with heroes like Captain America, Wolverine, and the Fantastic Four becoming villains eating the population.
But why? I can understand the popularity of vampires, because that essentially has been about sex ever since Bram Stoker wrote Dracula and we all know that sex and sensuality sells. Women in particular are drawn to trashy vampire novels and there are even people who live a vampiric lifestyle. Werewolves are popular with the guys and I suspect that has to do with the whole hunting reversal theme in those movies. But what is the appeal of shambling masses of rotting flesh wandering around eating people?
I don't get it. My reaction if this happened in reality would be something like this, "Oh, look. A group of zombies is staggering down the sidewalk. I'd better walk a little faster, maybe cross the street. I bet they'll make good target practice after lunch. I wonder if I left the stove on."
The only reason I can figure for zombies being scary is we have become such a lazy society that a slow moving and unintelligent predator is a threat. Is this horror born of loafing around too much combined with our ever shortening attention spans? "DUDE! I'd have to get off this couch and walk to escape this flesh eating monster. That is so unfair! Oh look, Britney's taking her clothes off in her new video... *CHOMP!*"
Forget nukes, all our enemies need is to invent zombies like in the movies.
It all seems to have started with George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, a low budget B &W movie that tossed in at least a little serious social commentary on race, but mainly was about grossing people out. Ever since then, low budget horror movies about zombies have been churned out with great regularity. True, some of them are direct to video or the SciFi Channel, but they appear to be perennial favorites of horror fans. It has spread to comic books, with an entire miniseries called Marvel Zombies being popular, with heroes like Captain America, Wolverine, and the Fantastic Four becoming villains eating the population.
But why? I can understand the popularity of vampires, because that essentially has been about sex ever since Bram Stoker wrote Dracula and we all know that sex and sensuality sells. Women in particular are drawn to trashy vampire novels and there are even people who live a vampiric lifestyle. Werewolves are popular with the guys and I suspect that has to do with the whole hunting reversal theme in those movies. But what is the appeal of shambling masses of rotting flesh wandering around eating people?
I don't get it. My reaction if this happened in reality would be something like this, "Oh, look. A group of zombies is staggering down the sidewalk. I'd better walk a little faster, maybe cross the street. I bet they'll make good target practice after lunch. I wonder if I left the stove on."
The only reason I can figure for zombies being scary is we have become such a lazy society that a slow moving and unintelligent predator is a threat. Is this horror born of loafing around too much combined with our ever shortening attention spans? "DUDE! I'd have to get off this couch and walk to escape this flesh eating monster. That is so unfair! Oh look, Britney's taking her clothes off in her new video... *CHOMP!*"
Forget nukes, all our enemies need is to invent zombies like in the movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)