Ellington

Dear Mr. President, Saddam is right here in my neighborhood. He is in the third house on the right. Yeah, the one that is all boarded up. So please send the planes, tanks and military to blow up my neighborhood. He has been in this area for quite some time now and quite frankly he is getting on my nerves. After all, my neighborhood could use a remodeling job just like the one Iraq is going to get.

No, I am not going to receive the $50 million reward for Saddam because he is not really in my neighborhood … or is he? The president has stated on numerous occasions that Saddam represents a threat to homeland security, hate, economic oppression and violence against people. Well if that is the case, I have a whole batch of Saddam Husseins in my neighborhood right here in the United States of America, but for some strange reason the president has yet to send anyone to either investigate these facts or attempt to solve this problem.

Just look around so many city neighborhoods where there are plenty of drug dealers and violent offenders who directly affect HOME-land security. So, why does the president not apply the same time and effort to first help the citizens of the United States instead of those in Iraq?

The Department of Homeland Security should be protecting my home, my land and my security. Yet, it is doing everything but that. Don't get me wrong, I care about people in the rest of the world, including those in Iraq. But I must worry about my own home first. Just imagine if the White House decided to devote as much money, resources and time to communities around the U.S. as they are pouring into the budget for the war with Iraq. Money to create more jobs, resources to aid low-income families, and time to show the American people that the president really cares about them. That would be a huge boost to Homeland Security and the morale of the American people. Oh yeah, and I will give you a discount rate. Instead of spending $87 billion; just give us $500 million and watch what we can do with it.

Many people wanted to impeach President Bill Clinton because he committed adultery. Sure, adultery violates religious principles. Sure, adultery is viewed as morally wrong. Yes, he lied about an act that he committed in his personal life. Yet, neither Clinton's lie nor his adultery led to people's loved ones dying or spending over $87 billion on another country when our country's unemployed could have used that money. By no means am I condoning President Clinton's actions, but where is the outcry to impeach Bush in the face of his untruths?

Just look at a few facts. In a report about the ever-so-popular weapons of mass destruction, U.N. special investigators said they had found no evidence of the feared weapons of mass destruction. Wait a minute: President Bush told me on national TV that, without a doubt, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. As of now, that is an untruth. And just like adultery, not telling the truth is a sin.

Now, what about the fact that the United States wants so spend $164 million on the Iraqi army, $54 million on the Iraqi post office, $200,000 on each individual that is in the witness protection program there (give me $200, and I will play like I know whatever you want to know), and $100 million to rebuild seven communities.

Rebuild communities? Now, how does the White House have the nerve to spend that kind of money on Iraq when right here in the U.S., poverty is rising and incomes are declining again: 12.1 million or 17 percent of children here live in poverty. The president likes to talk about his "No Child Left Behind" education plan. These kids are not being left behind; they are being ignored. What about when they get out of school and go home to face reality and boarded-up buildings in their neighborhoods? How can they do their homework when they are concerned with what they are going to eat or if they will have somewhere to sleep?

Some will say it is not the president's responsibility to worry about those kids, that the burden should fall on the parents. To an extent, I agree. However, many of those parents desire jobs, but each time that they fill out an application or go into an interview, they see the initials "EOE" (equal opportunity employer) mentioned one way or another, but none of the employers seem to be an EHE (equal hiring employer). As the great philosopher Mahatma Ghandi said, "Economic equality is the master key to non-violent independence." And that economic equality isn't yet a reality, however many people want to fool themselves into thinking that it is.

Mr. President, we need help rebuilding our neighborhoods and making sure all Americans have what we need before we spend all our money rebuilding Iraq. I say we should worry about our own Kool-Aid first before we worry about how others are making theirs.
Brian Fry works directly with youth in the Jackson area.

Previous Comments

ID

68484

Comment

Hindustan Times: Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals from Iraq http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_399454,00050004.htm

Author

Philip Scarborough

Date

2003-10-02T12:23:18-06:00

ID

68485

Comment

Yeah, I've heard this kind of rhetoric before and I agree with it. We need to fix our country before fixing the world. So many of the pro-war, America is the greatest crowd thinks we don't need fixing. At the same time, this crowd claims we are the greatest nation in the world because our military is so mighty. Might does not make right and historical examples can be stated to prove this point (so many, I'm not going to bring it up). We are not the greatest country in the world. We are not for many reasons. If one were to look at the poverty of West Jackson, they should be able to deduce that we have no moral authority whatsoever when it comes to world conflicts. If we were the greatest nation in the world we'd acknowledge our own problems and work toward correcting those problems.

Author

Diogenes

Date

2003-10-08T11:24:42-06:00

ID

68486

Comment

Well, gosh - if Saddam was in my neighborhood - I'd go claim the reward! Diogenes, I'm curious - what is the greatest nation in the world?

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-08T13:27:28-06:00

ID

68487

Comment

Is that a trick question?

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-08T22:55:13-06:00

ID

68488

Comment

I think the greatest nation right now is New Zealand. Awesome scenery, and the home of Xena, Warrior Princess. Seriously, I thought this was a great article. Hit the nail on the head, with style.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-10-09T09:45:58-06:00

ID

68489

Comment

I've never been to New Zealand, but I know a few Kiwis. And given what I've heard them say about their country, I've often wondered if they don't have a social policy that engenders mediocrity. I'm floored by the idea that they actually pay musicians a government stipend to play/sing at local bars and pubs. And apparently it's enough to live fairly decently off of. I can't help but wonder whether some of those musicians wouldn't be better at their craft if they had to sacrafice and compete openly for the chance to play for an audience. Have you been there, Kate? Back on topic: This article definitely hit the nail on the head.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-09T13:26:50-06:00

ID

68490

Comment

I'm glad y'all like Brian. I met him recently at the Mayor's Children Summit when he was willing to stand up and challenge the older folks in the audience about exactly what they were doing to reach out to young people. I was SO impressed by him, and he's going to be writing a regular column.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-09T13:29:52-06:00

ID

68491

Comment

It is a pleasure to speak for people who voices are not heard. It would be an honor for all the people who read this column to froward it to family and friends. Maybe, it will find its place in the right person' s email box. Thanks again

Author

Brian

Date

2003-10-09T16:29:16-06:00

ID

68492

Comment

Forwarding now....BTW, it's REALLY a big plus to know that the authors read the responses to their pieces and join the discussion.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-09T17:15:03-06:00

ID

68493

Comment

Fielding, Why does a nation have to be considered the greatest? We, in America, seem to think that our values are the only ones that the world should pursue. What are our values, one might wonder. Well, we have alot of good values in this country but we also have alot of bad values. Some of the bad values are our arrogance and hubris, thinking that we have the moral authority, the moral purity to push our agenda on every other nation. We also seem to value material wealth above all other things and we believe the only way to being the "greatest" nation in the world is to making alot of money. Money is not the only thing to life (but it does help). While we do have a good standard of living, for the most part, in this nation, some material possessions are more troublesome to our spiritual development than need be. I agree with the response that New Zealand is pretty great. They have a wonderful libertarian social and political environment there. I would also say that Canada is pretty great because I've been there several times and people are so nice to Americans and to one another (other Canadians). You never really hear of "Canadian hegemony." Their country is involved in the war on terrorism, and many humanitarian efforts around the globe. The difference between us and the Canadians is they don't start bombing people for any reason. They furthermore don't push their foreign policies on other nations like we do. It's not the Canadian way or B52s flying over your cities. While I agree with the war on terrorism to some point, our involvement in Iraq was foolhardy. Lastly, a great nation, IMO, focuses on its own problems before tackling the world's problems.

Author

Diogenes

Date

2003-10-10T13:35:10-06:00

ID

68494

Comment

Don't forget that 17 percent of U.S. children live in poverty, as Brian stated in this column. Might the "greatest country in the world" figure out something to do about that double-digit figure? When I see the "What Would Jesus Do?" slogan around, as I do often here, I think: What would Jesus do about poverty? So many domestic and international problems would be solved if we'd decide to seriously concentrate on alleviating both the incidence and the causes of poverty. Here in Jackson, people like to complain about crime, but often refuse to face its primary cause. Poverty. And folks can call me bleedin' heart all they want ("thanks," I respond, as I suspect would Jesus) or a damned "liberal" -- but the evidence is unequivocable that alleviating poverty is the primary priority, not a side concern. Also, I actually don't think we have to choose between U.S. concerns and international concerns. If we really focused our priorities on alleviating poverty here and abroad, we would alleviate a great deal of world hatred toward us, as well as the incubation conditions for terrorism. Now, alleviating poverty isn't as simple as handing out money and food, although that must happen as well to keep people from starving. It means holding U.S. companies (and the government) accountable for what we're doing in and to other countries for our own financial benefit. That's where so much of our hubris goes -- into thinking it's OK to cart American jobs outside the country where they can pay measly wages. Meantime, this is out of sight, out of mind for so many of us -- until a major act of terrorism hits, and we wonder: Why do they hate us?

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-10T14:12:39-06:00

ID

68495

Comment

I don't think anyone has equated "greatest" with "perfect," Diogenes. I have agreed with others that we (the US) can do better - but IMHO that doesn't diminish our stature. Perhaps it's a matter of focus or what we think is important - I see our country as a force for good in the current conflict - you don't - that's your choice. I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong - or even the reverse. As Donna mentioned earlier, almost all issues have more than just two sides. I will continue to think that we live in the greatest country currently existing - and you believe what you will... I will state without reservation that the people of Iraq (getting back to the original subject of this thread) are better off now than they were before we went in. Were we justified to go in? I believe we are and all the factrs are not yet in. In point of fact, the information we have - publicly - thus far does not fully support either side - pro intervention or anti intervention. I look forward to seeing the data further develop and if I am wrong - I will freely admit it - are you willing to do the same?

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-10T14:44:36-06:00

ID

68496

Comment

Wow, you people are *way* too serious. The New Zealand comment was a joke. I figured the Xena reference would be enough to tip you all off. Or maybe none of you ever watched Xena, Warrior Princess, being too busy watching the news.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-10-10T15:36:54-06:00

ID

68497

Comment

Hey, I knew it was a joke -- although, I must say that Todd always talks about escaping to New Zealand when life gets too stressful. I always say no. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-10T16:11:13-06:00

ID

68498

Comment

Of course I am, Fielding. I want to be wrong on Bush and the war. The information I see and hear on a daily basis tells me that I was right about the war, i.e. Saddam was not a threat to us, and going to war to promote democracy doesn't work. I, furthermore, believe the president handled the whole Iraq war poorly, e.g. firing his middle east research team when they predicted the difficulties our military is facing today. Back in March, Bush 86ed about 20 people from a Mid-East research team hired by his administration. They were to advise the president on what post invasion conditions would resemble. One aspect of their research was dealing with a nation in which 68% of the workforce would be unemployed after a U.S. invasion (68% of the Iraqi workforce was employed by the Baathists, now unemployed because their army and the Baath aparatus is no longer in existence), thus causing discontent and ill will toward the U.S. military. Bush and his cabinet did not like the research findings, so they fired them all. They also predicted some Iraqis would call for an Islamist regime to replace Saddam, a regime much like one in Iran, and we all know that is unacceptable. Bush said a government to replace Saddam would be for all Iraqis by Iraqis, but if they want a fundamentalist, Islamic regime then they can't have it. So is it for the Iraqis? Or is for us?

Author

Diogenes

Date

2003-10-10T16:14:46-06:00

ID

68499

Comment

I just remembered another thing the research team advised the president on. They said the reconstruction of Iraq would not be successful unless the nation was partitioned into three or four new nations. This was unacceptable for the Bush administration, so they fired the research team. Isn't it kind of weird Bush has stated that he does not watch the news, doesn't read papers, doesn't listen to the radio. Some aids said the only TV he watches is sports, baseball and football. No wonder why some say that "Bush really believes he's doing the right thing..." That is because he hasn't heard anyone criticize him. The only ones that I know of who have, the research team, he fired them! What does this say about our commander in chief? During the last national election, I asked my GOP friends who served in the military how they could support Bush over McCain. The answer I got from some was 1. Bush can win, McCain can't. I want to vote for a winner. 2. McCain is a liberal and disgrace to his party. When I asked about McCain's status as a war hero, they responded, "yeah, and 7 years in the Hanoi Hilton made him go nuts." I think McCain would have been better at diplomacy. I think McCain would have listened to well-reasoned and insightful criticism of his own policies.

Author

Diogenes

Date

2003-10-10T23:56:33-06:00

ID

68500

Comment

Kate, you're hilarious! :-) I pitifully, somewhat shamefully admit that I never watched Zena and therefore didn't recognize the joke. Some of my friends tell me it's a great show for little girls, which didn't stop those grown women fom watching it and probably wouldn't have stopped me either. I don't watch TV very much. But you're right though: I was busy reading the news online. The NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Le Monde, BBC.com, ABCnews.com, etc. I think it's very hard for New Yorkers to have a sense of humor about all this. Perhaps because so many of us lost so much on 9/11. If not relatives or friends, then a job or livelihood. Thanks for the reminder. :-)

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-11T00:44:17-06:00

ID

68501

Comment

I am very pleased to see the article causing so much dialouge. It is very important to express your opinion. Your opinion is definitely a learning opportunity for others. Thanks and take care of yourselves. It would be interesting to hear what a government official would say about the article. How could they justify giving another country billions of dollars when here the unemployment rate is soaring, the working poor are still living in poverty, health care costs are soaring and the medicine needed for the elderly still costs an arm and leg. I care less if you are a republican or democrat. The bottom line is we need to help those in the United States first, then we can began to help others'.

Author

Fry

Date

2003-10-12T13:51:38-06:00

ID

68502

Comment

Would you then cut off all foreign aide, Fry? Foreign aide is a small part of the federal budget and the goodwill it produces can often be well worth the funds. Diogenes, we haven't seen all the evidence discovered yet - my instincts tell me that there is more to come... I don't remember the Bush (43) Adminstration firing those MidEast analysts - so I can't comment with any authority - but Bush is a better candidate & President than McCain would have been. I have seen McCain in one of his beserko rages and I DO believe he is whacko...

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-13T10:32:19-06:00

ID

68503

Comment

So wacko is so much worse than war-mongering and stupid? People who really believe that should have voted for Nader.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-13T11:37:41-06:00

ID

68504

Comment

Would definition of "war-mongering and stupid" be broad enough to include the Clinton Administration's forays into Bosnia? Seriously, Nia, I have to state that major dementia would be worst case.

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-13T12:33:53-06:00

ID

68505

Comment

Don't be daft, Fielding. If McCain had dementia he couldn't hold office. Then again, you may be right: Reagan did it. Re Bosnia, the US didn't invade a sovereign nation with the specific intent to kill its leaders and install its own shadow government while handing multibillion-dollar contracts to long-time personal friends of its leaders. And the situation in Bosnia hardly compares to the US-alone-and-defying-international-treaties-and-world-opinion-while-also-destabalizing-an-already dangerous-situation that Iraq is.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-13T13:01:28-06:00

ID

68506

Comment

No, I will not cut off foreign aide. But I would not place it before home aid. Think about this, if a father did not take care of his own kids, but paid for other kids to go to school, he would be considered a dead beat dad with good intentions. First, you take care of your own citizens then help out other countries. 87 billion worth of foreign aide? Come on now, there is an estimated 17 million kids that live in poverty, the elderly are struggling to pay for their medication, and people are losing their jobs right and left. Now, tell me how is the 87 billion going to Iraq going to solve any of those issues? I do not mind helping others, but I must first make sure all of my US citizens are being taken care of. No matter what side you are on, you must look at common sense. And common sense says you help your own before you go out and try to help others. The End....

Author

Fry

Date

2003-10-13T14:25:51-06:00

ID

68507

Comment

Except, perhaps, if helping people is not your first priority.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-13T14:32:32-06:00

ID

68508

Comment

Fielding---Oh yeah, you mentioned the possibility of goodwill that may occur later on. Carpe Diem, means seize the day. Because I may not live tomorrow. You tell those unemployed people to try and pay their rent or utilities with goodwill, or tell those elderly people to go into a pharmacy and pay for their medicine with goodwill or tell those kids that live in poverty that pretty soon (because of the goodwill that we have done by shipping 87 billion to another country) you will no longer have to worry about if you will have somewhere to live or something to eat. The last time that I checked goodwill is not a form of payment that anyone is willing to accept. However, cash is accepted just about and and everywhere especially 87 billion worth.

Author

Fry

Date

2003-10-13T14:34:51-06:00

ID

68509

Comment

This Moveon.org daily alert seems apropros for this discussion; the list of sources at the end is interesting to click through: "President Bush attempted to slash money from the program that pays to educate the children of military money and women even while saying, 'Our men and women in uniform give America their best and we owe them our support." http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1507099&l=6226

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-13T15:06:34-06:00

ID

68510

Comment

Well, Nia, I seem to have touched a sore spot - dementia has seldom been a rationale for removing an elected official from office and sometimes it hasn't even kept someone from attaining political office - but I'll take Reagan any day of the week and twice on Sundays over any of the last 5 Democratic presidential candidates... Actually, Bosnia is quite comporable to Iraq: a. "the US didn't invade a sovereign nation" - well it was NATO, but the US supplied almost all the technology and troops - sounds similar - unless you count the bombing from 10,000 feet and the accompanying civilian casualties - that is certainlyu dissimilar... b. "with the specific intent to kill its leaders" - granted, and perhaps if we had targeted the leaders there would have been less time for them to spend on genocide... c. "install its own shadow government" - grant you that one, although I seem to remember something called the Dayton Accords that was sponsored by the US and organized by the US and negotiated in the US - well, maybe I shouldn't grant you that one after all... d. "handing multibillion-dollar contracts to long-time personal friends of its leaders" - then tell me what former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was doing, if not giving a guided tour of the region to Clinton Administration donors... e. "the US-alone" - funny how everyone seesm to forget about the British, Australians and Polish troops there from the very first... f. "and-defying-international-treaties" - you meant that as an example of what Saddam was doing, right? g. "and-world-opinion" - I rather have a leader than a craven internationalist - personal preference only, not everyone feels that way... h."while-also-destabalizing-an-already dangerous-situation that Iraq is" - that deserves a quote from the State of the Union speech - "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." Once again someone has said better than I ever could...

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-13T15:24:01-06:00

ID

68511

Comment

Fry, that's straw man reasoning... If a Dad doesn't help out his kids, then he deserves to go to jail - but there's nothing wrong with that same Dad trying to clean up the neighborhood in order top make safer for his children to play... "No matter what side you are on, you must look at common sense. And common sense says you help your own before you go out and try to help others. The End.... " Well, not really... What part of common sense says to let the bad guys take over the streets outside and create a bad environment in which to let your children go out to play? At some point common sense also says you take the fight to the other guy instead of allowing them into your own home to fight. And that's what is happening - this is a fight between the bad guys (terrorists - whatever their rationale) and the US. Additionally, Goodwill is something citizens of the US have always had in abundance - and IMHO the US budget is big enough to take care of all priorities.

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-13T15:34:43-06:00

ID

68512

Comment

"What part of common sense says to let the bad guys take over the streets outside and create a bad environment in which to let your children go out to play?" Fielding, I think your example is just as simplistic (and I think breaking down complex issues into simple examples can be very helpful, so I'm not faulting that). I think your statement I quoted above is interesting for the larger argument of what kind of "environment" we create in the world and in our neighborhoods. Allow me to posit more simple logic: Certainly, I agree that the U.S. should use our resources to make the world a "better place," but to use our resources to not make the world a better place (notwithstanding what we've used our resources to do good as well, but those aren't the particular conditions that are incubating the current round of terrorists) and then to spend billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to "take the fight to the other guy," as you urge, in order to pre-emptively kill the people who might rise up and hurt usórather than seeking a more multi-level approach with strong international backingóseems extremely simplistic and shortsighted. (And that was one helluva bad sentence.) I believe Fry is onto something far beyond lining up straw men. Even as we figure out the best way to divvy up our resources to help ourselves and others, we've *got to* fortify the communities in this country if we are to survive as the "greatest" nation, as someone put it recently on the site. If not, we're going to crumble from withinóand three-strikes sentencing isn't going to help. And in so doing so, we will show by example that we mean this great American dream that we all talk aboutóand perhaps make more people in other countries want to emulate us. As it is, if you're sitting in another poor country, suffering from the results of U.S.-led globalization and you hear that nearly a fifth of American children live in poverty, you might start wondering what all the hoopla's about. Oh, and if the U.S. budget is so capable of handling all its priorities, it would be lovely if Bush would fully fund public education as he promised when he was elected. That sounds like common sense to me.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-13T15:57:02-06:00

ID

68513

Comment

I ceratinly won't argue with funding public education - but I don't remember Bush (43) saying he would FULLY fund it... Guess I'll have to look that up. And I agree that my reply was overly simplistic - I was trying to respond in kind (not a criticism, just an observation). We do need to spend monies on fortifying our communities - on that I heartily agree - there are even some areas in which I think we could be paying a little more in taxes (heresy from you?! they cry! ;-0) - but that doesn't mean we leave those same "bad guys" free rein to do as they wish = when their actions have a direct impact on us <- that being the important part of the statement. The rationale for pre-emption is a pretty final one. And one that we use only when we (the US) have done due diligence on other options. I think we had gotten down to the lick-log with Saddam and what we did was justifiable.

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-13T16:09:50-06:00

ID

68514

Comment

Fielding--LOL Straw Man's Reasoning. Yeah my view is very simple and so is the answer to this discussion. This is not a complex issue where we have to play chat tag. Once again, no matter how you look at it common sense says take care of your own house before you go meddling in your neighbor's business. What do I look like telling you about the wrong going on in your country when there are many many more of the same wrongs going on in my own? Now, let me get real intelligent and disect your response. Sure there is nothing wrong with a dad trying to clean up the neighborhood that his kids play in. But first, Iraq is not our neighborhood. If you want to clean up the neighborhood and rid it of Saddam like people there was no need to go to Iraq to do that when you can do that in several of the communities right here in the United States. The white house THINKS that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. In my neighborhood I am not going to tell you the saying about, you think in one hand and what you do in the other, but what I am going to tell you is I do not think that in the United States there are millions of people homeless, millions of kids in poverty, many unemployed , many working poor, and many elderly living without the ability to buy their medicine. I do not think those things. I KNOW THEM and I did not have to use the FBI or CIA to find those facts out either. I can tell the white house definitely has their priorities in order. You spend 87 billion to help a country that you tore up based on a thought that they might have weapons of mass destruction, when right here in the united States there are facts not thoughts that exemplify the same problems exist right here. Like I said come in my neighborhood and I will show you all of these Saddams that are more of a direct threat to my homeland security than Saddam himself. No one knows where Saddam is but I can tell you where several of his impostors are right now threatening my HOME LAND SECURITY. Remember, the war was not to rid the country of Saddam, the was because Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destuction. Now, if you refuse to see either the truth or the light then go to Iraq and see if you can see those wapons of mass destruction. You are a smart person. Just go home and tell your family that you would like to ignore taking care of your own home and began taking care of someone else's and tell me what they say. Straw man's reasoning also known as Common Sense....

Author

Fry

Date

2003-10-13T17:28:43-06:00

ID

68515

Comment

LOL Fielding. You haven't touched a sore spot, at least not for me (BTW, I'm still waiting for your response on the church and homosexuality). I think it's sad and funny that you defend the man who stands against everything you claim to stand for. Bush didn't say he'd cut funding for education either, but that's exactly what he did. Aren't you the least bit annoyed, if not angry, that your selected president cut funding for public education? Define "bad guys," Fielding. War in Iraq may have been inevitable, I believe it was. But I also believe that to enter this particular war at the time we did was just plain stupid. And it wasn't begun for the noble reasons Bush sold to underinformed Americans. Since we're employing simple analogies: If you needed transportation to get to work and ferry your four kids to school, would you go out a buy a $400,000 two-seat Ferrari on your $25,000/year salary?

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-13T17:47:37-06:00

ID

68516

Comment

Hate to double-post, but: A-D. I'm hardly defending the US response in Bosnia. I am saying that the histories of the two conflicts are entirely different. (More specifics on tha later.) Sad, Fielding, that you can find no wrong with Republicnas and see only bad in Democrats. Talk about straw man's logic.... E. Everyone knows the British simply signed onto our campaign, our plan, our weapons, our idea. The Polish contributed what...a couple of hundred troops at best? And the Australians contributed what? Verbal support? F. Since when does "He hit me first" make sense? G. We don't live in the world alone, and we can't survive without "those people." H. Since you refuse to view the situation as anything other than a war or nothing dichotomy, there's no use trying to convince you.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-13T17:58:58-06:00

ID

68517

Comment

Ooo, I'd love to say more now, but I'm hard on a deadline. I must send an "amen," though, to one thing Nia said: It kills me when people defend everything a president (or whomever) of one party does and hates everything someone of another party doesówithout convincing arguments but because of blind partisanship. I regularly voice my disdain for a lot of what Clinton did (doing an intern in the Oval Office, NAFTA, national zero tolerance, to name three), but the "other side" loves to try to belittle my desire to actually think outside the party or the ideology and even accuses me of making it up (that's so insulting and idiotic). I simply can't imagine defending a war (or anything) simply because "my" party did it, and blasting one because "the other side" did it. But that is the prevailing logic (if you can call it that) as is often proved on these blogs. Frankly, I question the motives (and critical thinking) of anyone who either (a) defends everything Clinton did or (b) everything Bush does, God knows, (c) everything Reagan did. And such divided thinking sure ain't going to solve diddley squat in this country or the world. (And I'm not trying to pick on you, Fieldingóso don't mad at us and leave; your posts are thought-provoking and welcome here. And you seem like a gentleman. ) OK, back to work I go.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-13T19:02:49-06:00

ID

68518

Comment

I've read a few of Brian's posts and a few of Fieldings. I'll get to the others later. Fielding, if Brian has committed any fallacy of logic then it is a weak analogy, and actually, I think is analogy is quite strong. A strawman doesn't apply here. The definition of a strawman is to claim your opponent is arguing something that your opponent is NOT arguing. Strawman fallacies are set up so that one believes the opposition supports a position that nobody supports, so that the "strawman" can easily be knocked down. Consider this example: Arguer 1: The death penalty was set up to deter crime, to deter murder. But it does not work. People continue to committ murder regardless of how many people are put to death. Quite simply, the death penalty is wrong and it should be abolished. Arguer 2 (in response): Well it is easy to determine that Arguer 1 is pro-criminal and she wants all criminals let off the hook and murder to be declared legal. In the above example, Arguer 2 has demonstrated the classic strawman. Arguer 1 said nothing about legalizing murder, she was talking about the death penalty and how its deterrent intent is not working. Strawman fallacies are used in a variety of situations. Usually during a debate in which one cannot offer any criticism or logical objections to another's argument. For further information, just read Ann Coulter books.

Author

Diogenes

Date

2003-10-13T19:26:59-06:00

ID

68519

Comment

Here's another example of a strawman fallacy, one utilized very much these days. Arguer 1: George Bush has committed an illegal war. He claimed Saddam was threat to us and in fact, Saddam was not a threat. The no-fly zone contained Saddam and was rather inexpensive to operate than all-out war and occupation of the Iraqi nation. The Bush White House claimed Saddam had illegal weapons and chemical agents, which have not been found. Bush claimed the U.S. and its citzenry was under imminent danger from Saddam and his band of international terrorists, but since no weapons have been found, and no terrorists have admitted ties to Iraq, these claims are easily disputed. The Bush administration, furthermore, said that a U.S. takeover of the Iraqi nation would stabilize not only Iraq but the entire mideast region. Actually, the mideast region is under more turmoil and chaos now that the U.S. holds Iraq. More U.S. fighting men and women have died there as a result of U.S. invasion than before the war. In conclusion, the Bush led war was foolhardy, illegal and immoral. Arguer 2: Well it is obvious that arguer 1 is a malcontented communist, who hates the United States and supports evil dictators like Saddam. It is obvious that arguer 1 wanted the Saddam regime to attack the United States much like Osama bin Laden did two years ago. This has two fallacies, committed by arguer 2. She has added an ad hominem abusive fallacy by calling arguer 1 a "malcontented communist." The last part of arguer 2's counterargument is the strawman.

Author

Diogenes

Date

2003-10-13T19:34:57-06:00

ID

68520

Comment

yeah what Diogenes said LOL, but I always welcome a difference of opinion, yet I respect facts and the truth alot more.

Author

Fry

Date

2003-10-13T19:55:33-06:00

ID

68521

Comment

Also, Fielding, you should get up to speed on "No Child Left Behind." I'm not talking about some grand, er, "liberal" education idea that isn't getting fully funded by this president; Bush reneged on the funding he promised when Congress went along with his "No Child Left Behind." And you can find a lot of information on that if you look for it. (Just please don't quote a WSJ editorial back to me on this one. Or the Manhattan Institute. Or the Washington Times. At least find sources that haven't decided from get-go that public education should be dismantled. They come at these issues with a certain take, as you can imagine. Public education is bad. Period.)

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-13T22:29:50-06:00

ID

68522

Comment

Donna, I share your dismay at the behavior of people from both parties who tow the party line without thinking about what it means. And I confess that I typically vote Democrat only because they're usually--though certainly not always--less idiotic than their Republican counterparts. Clinton's list of misdeeds is long, and Monica is way down the list of destructive things he did in office: Bosnia; Al Gore; Rowanda; Al Gore; the destruction of friendly, democratic Caribbean economies to benefit US big business, etc. Did I mention Al Gore? But like most other nonwhite people, I also know that although Republicans say they're compassionate, the policies they enact don't show much compassion for nonwhite people. As a party, they espouse policies and laws that discriminate overtly (Rockefeller Drug Laws and their like, Three strikes, No Child Left Behind). And that's why most black people don't trust conservatives, despite the fact that nonwhites--black people in particular--tend to be more conservative than their white counterparts. It's no accident that JC Watts is the only black Republican Congressman. Or at least he was until he realized the Republican party doesn't trust him either. He was just pretty black window dressing for them. I'd love to interview him about his career with the party. I wonder if he has any regrets or any passing thoughts for his white Republican counterparts.... (I guess I should have posted this in that other thread about blacks and Republicans.)

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-14T15:39:43-06:00

ID

68523

Comment

Had to work todfay - no time to post - will get back tommorow... as an aside, I'll gladly point out the good things done by Dems and bad things by Reps - examples to be posted tomorrow same bat time same bat channel heh heh

Author

Fielding

Date

2003-10-14T18:14:37-06:00

ID

68524

Comment

What will be, will be. All nations have had their chance to rule the known universe. No man can stop the ultimate way of nations. They eventualy pass. Never to rise again. ......side note....this press isn't that free if I have to leave my email address to post a msg. Reality. Check.

Author

truth

Date

2003-10-14T19:34:28-06:00

ID

68525

Comment

But I guess *women* can stop the ultimate way of nations, eh "truth"? yeah, yeah, "this too shall pass", but it's fun to snark about it while it's happening. And I'm not sure how identifying yourself limits your freedom.

Author

Kate

Date

2003-10-15T10:12:34-06:00

ID

68526

Comment

Note that "truth" didn't have to identify itself. Some folks will complain about anything. BTW, all, I'm back now that the new paper's getting the streets. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going in my absence.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-15T13:23:04-06:00

ID

68527

Comment

Actually Truth is onto something. Freedom is not actually real. Well, there's more than one kind of Freedom. There's political freedom and there's negative Freedom (notice one is has a capitalized F). Political freedom is often misunderstood as negative freedom and vice-versa. Political freedom deals with voting and making money, living in a society, and class standing and whatnot. Negative Freedom is a different bird altogether. First, Freedom is the ability to do whatever we want, when we want to do it. My wife is free to parade around the bay-windows, completely nude like a prostitute does in Amsterdam. I am free to throw myself into an abyss should the desire strike me. These two examples are what I mean by negative Freedom. It is not very comforting to have these kinds of Freedoms. The answer then lies in being able to reconcile your freedom with your responsibility. There's a give-and-take here. Only if we can responsibly act (or not act) then that should be the course. Remember that we must be responsible to ourselves first and foremost, before we can reconcile our Freedom with our responsibility.

Author

Diogenes

Date

2003-10-15T14:41:59-06:00

ID

68528

Comment

Diogenes---That was wonderful. Finally, someone who reemphasizes the main point of the article. Just take care of our own first. Then we can think about helping others'.

Author

Fry

Date

2003-10-15T16:57:29-06:00

ID

68529

Comment

I still don't get what that has to do with identifying an email address or how doing so impinges on freedom of any kind.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-10-15T18:02:30-06:00

ID

68530

Comment

Brian, someone just send around this link to a Web site about the cost of war in Iraq. It seems tailor-made to go with your column above. I haven't checked the sources, but on its face, it seems interesting.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-10-23T17:27:55-06:00

ID

68531

Comment

People are always talking about the truth yet whenever somone points out the truth relating to the war they are either ridiculed for not supporting the troops, not being patriotic or belonging to a particular political party. One day I hope that we wake up and look at the truth and embrace it.

Author

Fry

Date

2003-10-26T19:14:59-06:00

ID

68532

Comment

Brian, today's Clarion-Ledger cartoon by Marshall Ramsey illustrates this story perfectly. Maybe he was inspired by your column... http://www.clarionledger.com/news/editorial/index.html

Author

ladd

Date

2003-11-09T11:39:04-06:00