John McCain for President
With my choice for the Republican nominee, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, long long gone (although he would be enjoying the status that Mike Huckabee is currently benefitting from, if only he would have scored just a few percentage points higher in the Iowa Straw Poll that we spoke of so long ago), I think it is time to follow who Sam Brownback has placed his support behind: Senator John McCain.
Like him or not, Senator McCain is, of all the major candidates (whether Republican or Democrat) a man who puts his principles ahead of his popularity. During the early stages of his candidacy he promoted an Immigration plan that incurred the very wrath of the people that would be voting in the Republican primaries. It almost killed his campaign, and the life he has recently found, I don’t think anyone imagined possible during those long summer months for him, yet (whether or not one accepts the failed Immigration plan) it is an example of him putting principle over politics, doing what he thinks is right, and to hell with everyone else. Perhaps he is not all the different from Dubya.
Most critical for me, is that John McCain is pro-life when it comes to abortion, and while abortion isn’t the only topic of concern during an election time, how a nation treats its most vulnerable should be central to every person’s voting conscience. While the unborn are not the only ones who are vulnerable, as much as the Democrats succeed in talking about other vulnerables (in my opinion usually only the ones that it is fashionable to speak about), the unborn receive no attention at all from them. (For those curious, in Abortion and Politics, both in the post and the comment section, I attempt to identify some reasons for the centrality of this issue).
McCain, is seen as a ‘maverick’ and enjoys somewhat of an anti-establishment reputation (an odd reputation for a 72 year old, and seasoned politician to have) and yet he is widely respected across party lines, and enjoys strong support from the registered Independents. All this will help him in the general election. While polls quickly change, at present he is the only Republican candidate that appears able to compete with the Democratic contenders (I suspect Giuliani would have no trouble keeping up, but in pinning his hopes on winning the Florida primary, it is entirely possible the Giuliani will not make it to the general election).
McCain appeals to people because of his bluntness and honesty, and because he places his principles above his politics, and especially above his chances for political gain (like winning the Republican nomination). People across party lines can, and do, respect this (that is why there were rumors that John Kerry in 2004 wanted McCain as his running mate, despite coming from different parties, and that is why Al Gore’s running mate, Joseph Lieberman, who was turfed by the Democratic party for his support of the Iraq War, has endorsed McCain).
Whether it will be enough to help him overturn the deep voter cynicism regarding the Republican Party as a result of the Bush Administration remains to be seen, but Robert Novak has recently suggested that a Romney loss in Iowa could translate into a McCain win in New Hampshire, and ultimately in his winning the Republican nod. The first two came to be. And tonight is the Republican primary of South Carolina. No eventual Republican winner has ever lost in South Carolina, and with McCain competing with Huckabee at the top of the pack in South Carolina polls, there’s hope.
K.
Update: Sen. McCain takes South Carolina with 33% of the vote with 97% of the precincts reporting.
I prefer Huckabee over McCain, but your analysis is essentially correct, Kelly. Other than being pro-life, the single issue that affects me most is being pro-nuclear energy. None of the Democrats are pro-nuclear energy, and Edwards openly opposes nuclear energy. Given the effects of global warming and fossil fuel depletion, we need nuclear energy to continue to fuel our high tech civilization. Coal (which supplies 52% of US electricity) kills 30000 annually from lung disease caused by particulate emissions from coal power plants, and coal releases far more radioactivity into the environment than nukes do; this is because of the naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium in coal that ends up in all the fly ash that gets dumped into the environment. Solar power doesn’t work at night or on snowy or cloudy days. Wind power doesn’t work when you need it the most: hot summer days when there’s no wind. Renewable energy is a joke. Only nukes, natural gas and coal work for baseload power, and only nukes do NOT pollute. Indeed, we can recycle spent nuclear fuel and make Yucca Mountain a moot point. Uranium, thorium and plutonium are the perfect answers to our energy problems and McCain knows that. So does the rest of the Republican field. But all the Dems are opposed to life for the unborn whom they kill with the knife and life for the born whom they kill with air pollution. Mark my words: the reason why we are involved in Iraq, tyring to stabilize the oil-rich Middle East is directly because of Democrat opposition to nuclear energy. The Dems - NOT Bush - are to blame for this mess, starting with all the so-called Dem Catholics who KNOW better: Kennedy, Kucinich, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. The only good Dem is the one voted out of office.
Comment by Anonymous — January 19, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
I didn’t realize you were inviting me to review a comedy piece,
John McCain? Who ran against Bush and called him a “Pat Robertson Conservative?”
Let me make it quite clear: No one who voted for the Iraq war is getting my vote this year. Unless Giuliani is the GOP nominee- in which case anyone would be easily better. Rudy G. is simply the scariest of al the candidates, bar none. Not only is he not pro-life, but he’s pro Patriot Act, and hasn’t a clue as to what causes Terrorism.
What causes Terrorism is easily understood: Think of how you would feel if China had military bases in the US on the justifcation that they were protecting their oil interests?
Who still disengeniously supports American interferrence in the Middle East, the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act?
Your blog entry reflects why Evangelical Christian involvement in politics has been a busted cistern fo rseveral years now. You can with a straight face call someone “pro-life” who favors bombing the children of other people into eternity. Doesn’t wash, and the Jesus who talked about Sheep and Goats disagrees.
I don’t have time to fully reply to this, but I did something different: I posted a link to your ediitorial on groups.myspace.com/christiansdforsocialjustice and asked the particpants to respond. For the record, I’m a Ron Paul supporter.
I’ll be happy to talk about this futher when time is more conveinient.
Comment by Kevin Wayne — January 19, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Kevin Wayne is sadly incorrect. John McCain believes in defending our Republic against Islamic fascists. He does NOT support bombing women and children. And as I already said, if it weren’t for Democrat opposition to nuclear energy, then we would not need to stabilize the oil-rich Middle East. Apparently the facts are lost upon Kevin.
Comment by Anonymous — January 19, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
OK, I’m commenting again. This is a very important topic. People need to read the actual positions that John McCain has on the issues:
Strategy for Victory in Iraq
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
Now be advised that we are in a three way struggle between Christendom, Islamic Fascism and Atheist Humanism. In 1571, however, we were in a two way stuggle between Christendom and Islamic Fascism. Because at that time the people of God prayed, the Ottomans were defeated and Islamic incursion into Europe was stopped. A dhimmitude of Europe did NOT occur.
Today, however, the west is weakened by the appeasement policies of atheist humanism. Germany, France and Britain already support large numbers of Muslim enclaves that are virtually autonomous. The next battle of Lepanto will not be a Naval one, but an internal civil war for who gains dominance over Western Europe. Dhimmitude will start, and its impact will reach far into the heart of our own Republic. John McCain understands this.
Now I see that Kevin supports social justice, and so do I; but there is NO social justice under Islamic dhimmitude. The Catholics of 1571 recognized that you’re either for God or against God - no in-between roads. They made a choice to defend Europe against dhimmitude. Indeed, Pope Pius V instituted a new Catholic feast day of Our Lady of Victory to commemorate the victory of the battle of Lepanto against the Islamic fanatics, which is now celebrated by our Catholic Church as the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. Can we in 2008 do any less?
Learn from history, Kevin. Sometimes, sadly, the people of God DO have to fight, as regretable as that is, and as reprehensible as I find it. Peace at any price - the cry of Neville Chamberlain - is one of appeasement to the forces of satan.
Comment by Anonymous — January 20, 2008 @ 6:45 am
Kevin,
Well this wasn’t intentionally a comedic piece, but in light of your response, thank you for continuing the theme.
You’re not reading carefully. I said that McCain was pro-life when it comes to abortion, and I said that while abortion wasn’t the only issue of importance, it is important, and it remains something that Democrats are unwilling to address in a satisfactory way. I didn’t use the term ‘pro-life’ broadly, and I am hesitant to do so, because being pro-life is more than being against abortion. This I have discussed elsewhere I think.
Thanks for the rhetoric (it got the laugh you no doubt intended) when you said McCain favours bombing the children of other people into eternity. People that didn’t know you were joking might respond that in reality, McCain believes that the War in Iraq is justified and that the particularly bad things that happen during such a war are not the intention of it, and certainly not what one like McCain ‘favours.’ To suppose he does, such people might say, reflects your own inability to make credible claims in this regard.
Also, you appear a servant to the political labels that are thrown around, in the space of actual knowledge of a person’s policies. Were you aware that McCain has stood up to the Bush administration regarding the question of torture, and has claimed that waterboarding is in fact a method of torture, much to the dismay of certain Republican colleagues, who weren’t, as McCain was, tortured in Vietnam during his POW days?
Further, I didn’t know that the root causes of terrorism were so easy to identify. It strikes me from your post that you have an extremely simplistic understanding of very complex matters in this regard.
A final thought. This post was not so much a defence of McCain’s policies (although I agree with his pro-life stance regarding abortion), as it was a defence of his person and character. Odd that someone you paint as such an extremist has the sixth most liberal voting record of the Republican candidates, odd that he was sought out (or rumoured to be) as the VP candidate to John Kerry of the Democrats, and odd that former VP candidate to Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman, has endorsed John McCain over and ahead of the members of his former party. McCain has bi-partisan appeal which makes him a strong candidate and what we need, especially after the Bush administration. He is a candidate that can sit down and reach consensus across party lines. That is the only way progress can occur. McCain’s reputation, and his history in politics, suggest that he has more of a chance at success in this regard that most of his colleagues on both sides of the party divide.
K.
This comment has been editted. An overly sarcastic paragraph, written by myself, has been deleted.
Comment by K. — January 20, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Anonymous, Huckabee doesn’t strike me as being a realistic national candidate and so I wonder, why waste the time standing behind him.
And I am skeptical of your absolute distain for all things Democrat. I find your approach very dangerous. As I mentioned when we last discussed this, you come off as promoting the Republican party as the Party of God, as the Party of the Church, and it is not the Church’s job to take sides in this sense. As I mentioned before, you might want to read Tony Campolo’s “Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?’ and I would hope you come to Campolo’s conclusion that the answer is ‘neither.’ Because Democratic tolerance of abortion, forms the basis for your distain of the Party, I’ll simply repeat what I said before, which went unanswered publicly by you:
K.
Comment by K. — January 20, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
It seems that your blog might attract a bit of different traffic with this post. Hopefully your page won’t be inundated with the words of too many soldiers in Ron Paul’s army of undead bloggers. Isn’t it neat how all of the ‘relevant’ political issues, like energy, abortion, security, and economics, can all be tied up in the all important ideological struggle between Christendom and Islamic-fascism? I think so too.
If you want to read an interesting article on nuclear energy, here is one. I think it raises many issues that aren’t being mentioned very often. My position is that Nuclear energy doesn’t really provide a good solution to the energy problem.
http://www.newint.org/features/2005/09/01/keynote/
I guess I don’t have too much to say on many of the issues in our country at the moment, but I guess one thing that I find interesting about the mindset of many Ron Paul supporters is the incredibly amero-centric mindset. They talk about things like dhimmitude, and that the preportion of Muslims in America is rising, but I don’t really find that something to be concerned about. The reason? The center of Christianity in the world is in the process of shifting globally from the north to the south. Even if the north becomes under the influence of Islamic hegemony, the south is what is important. Simply put, I find the events occurring in this country increasingly irrelevant.
Comment by anon — January 20, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Wow, Kelly, aren’t yopu the sanctimonious one. Well, the GOP might not be the part of God, but the DNC is certainly the party of satan. Yes, even more reprehensible is the Democrat open-eyed support of infanticide. There is not a single candidate for President on the Democrat side who does NOT support infanticide. Except for Rudy Giuliani, ALL Republican candidates support the individual right to life. One may disagree with the some of the Republicans on the War in Iraq, but there is one - Ron Paul - who opposes the war and opposes infanticide. There is NO Democrat in the position. Indeed, page 38 of the 2004 platform of the DNC states:
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Here is the web link to the entire DNC platform.
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
When Democrats state that they firmly stand against Republicans who undermine “the right to choose”, they are also standing against what the Holy Catholic Church teaches. In contrast, the Republican Platform has been and is consistently pro-life:
http://www.gop.com/images/2004platform.pdf
In fact, this platform openly supported the Vatican against the United Nations as page 25 states:
Republicans continue to oppose the ideological campaign against participation by the Vatican in United Nations conferences and other activities. The United Nations was
created to benefit all peoples and nations, not to promote a radical agenda of social engineering. Any effort to address global social problems must be firmly placed within a
context of respect for the fundamental social institutions of marriage and family. We reject any treaty or convention that would contradict these values. For that reason, we
support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion.
If we wonder why there is so much evil throughout the world, then we need to start looking in our own backyard at the dead and dying infants whom we treat as the waste of society. Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry and all the other so-called Catholics who support infanticide must be defeated or we as a nation shall suffer the same fate as Judah did when Manasseh restored the graven images and altars to the Canaanite gods of death after the passing away of his father Hezekiah.
Comment by Anonymous — January 20, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Post number 7 is another freakin idiot. People who don’t know about nuke power don’t deserve an opinion. I got no time for this piece of crap blog.
Anonymous (whose identity I know) is now under total moderation for his language to a fellow commenter. He is welcomed to be hostile to me (because I can, and will, give at least as good as I can take) but abuse of fellow readers will not be tolerated.
K.
Comment by Anonymous — January 20, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Well Anonymous, thanks for only calling me “sanctimonious” here, and not the “SOB”’ that you called me by email (at least you finally got the gender right). Very Christian, Professor.
I maintain that the claim that the Democratic Party is “the Party of Satan” is ridiculous. While you are correct that each parties position on abortion is important, and crucial to the voting conscience, you forget that the unborn are not the only vulnerables in society, and that the Democrats do talk about other vulnerables. To me that is not enough to warrant support, because of their refusal to grant legitimacy to anti-abortion concerns about life in the womb. But there is life outside the womb as well, and we have to recognize the good that both parties attempt to achieve by actions that effect life outside the womb. So the Satan designation of the Democratic Party is in my mind rubbish.
That’s not an endorsement of them either (I was humoured how in your email to me you said “You’re just another liberal excuse for a human being. I’ve got no time for you,” even though in your original comment on this post [Comment 1] you said that my analysis was essentially right. Strange how things so quickly change).
In Comment 9, where you call another reader a “freakin idiot,” simply because he has a different opinion regarding nuclear energy than you, so please realize that I consider this language unacceptable. I don’t mind if you want to call me that (I’d rather you not, but I can give at least as good as I can take it), and I don’t mind if you want to display for everyone the Christianness of your speech, but I won’t allow you to call another commenter that.
Until I receive an explanation for that, consider yourself under total moderation.
K.
Comment by K. — January 21, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
K,
While I appreciate the gesture of your moderation, I haven’t taken any offense to the comment either. In fact, to be honest, some of the words in my post were a bit sarcastic in tone, and essentially unkind. I was hoping to generate some discussion, instead of flaming, but I would also like to apologize, as it seems that all I ended up doing was provoking another commenter.
That is all.
Comment by anon — January 21, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Oh, just to be clear, that is an apology to both K, and to Anonymous. Sorry if what I said was out of line.
Comment by anon — January 21, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Anon (different from Anonymous),
While the gesture of moderation has something to do with you, it does not depend on your assent.
Your post may have been sarcastic in places (and that is perfectly fine…) but the person’s responding to you was completely unintelligent, and coupled with an insult (’freakin idiot’) I don’t expect to see him around here much more.
The person is known to me, and blows up every so often. It’s his cross to bear I suppose, it’s just humourous when it is combined with his Christian declarations of faith, which he at least spared us in his comment.
K.
Comment by K. — January 22, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
It would be terribly unfortunate for another Republican to be elected president of the U.S.A. This neo-liberal ideology starting with Reagan has killed millions & the ideology, action & results of these neo-conservative presidents like Bush is worse than any other of the world’s criminals, be it Hitler, Stalin etc.
McCain may be softer than Bush on certain issues, but he’s nevertheless a conservative & will continue to promote neo-liberal capitalism as did Republicans before him.
Kucinich is by far the best candidate in the race to the White House, since he’s out, Obama or Clinton will do at least better than any Republican could.
Long live Socialism!
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — January 23, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Before I get intothe meat of my reply, a slight clarification might be in order: I “think” (not sure) that the phrase “Who still disengeniously supports American interferrence in the Middle East, the Iraq war, and the Patriot Act?” might have been intended to be applied to Giuliani. Not sure, but it does appear to have come unhooked from something else I was talking about.
Regarding the “Pro-Life” record of McCain, NRL rates the canddiates on 3 issues: Embryonic Stem-Cell research, Roe v Wade, and the Partial Birth abortion ban. McCain falls on issue #1 but does ok in 2 & 3. Ron Paul however, is 3 for 3.
You comment that my taking McCain to task for being for the destruction of women and children in a war is somehow ludicrous. In fact, the late Pentacostal Evangelist Leonard Ravenhill made a similar statement once: That the Moral Majority on the one hand cried “save our children” but then called for arms buildup on the other hand. That this is contradictory is a well-defended and broadly held opinion by some, and I stand by it. To not see this is to fall into the same logic trap of the Pro-Choice movement, wherein they claim “I’m not for abortion, I’m for a woman’s right to choose.” If you are “for” the choice of abortion, you are for death by abortion happening. The same is true for war.
And for a hos tof other reasons, I have to say that McCain’s continued disengeniouness in supporting the Iraq war shows a lack of ability to discern when it is justified, and a lack of abilty to govern properly. To that end, Ron Paul supports a poilcy wherein the USA becomes as non-agrressive as possible. Iraq never attacked us, and therefore it falls accoring to Just War critrium. But of course, this issue is broader than what I have to say here, and it’s not really prudent for me to spend time taking apart the pro-Iraq war ratioanle point-by-point.
You call my isllustration on Terrorism “simplistic.” Of coruse it is. Any illustration by definition is going to be a simplfication of the larger pciture. In fact, Ron Paul used the same one last week on one of the talk shows (Conan or Carson- not sure which one.) It happens to be the opinion of a host of individuals who reguarly write about the US place in world and how foregin policy is or isn’t doing us a favor overseas. Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Noam Chomsky and a host of other highly intelligent people ae in agreement here: They hate us because we are over there. I suggest you look into these individuals if you haven’t had a chance too.
Out of time again, and the bottom line is I don’t budge an inch on anything, as I’m sure is true for yourself.
Comment by Kevin Wayne — January 23, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Kevin,
While I disagree completely with Ron Paul on practically every social issue, I like him because he often raises good points that the other candidates don’t agree with. I don’t disagree with Ron Paul because he is necessarily wrong as to the type of Federal government described in the constitution, I disagree because we have very different ideals about how this country should be run.
But, for example, when Ron Paul raises the issue of why the 9/11 attacks happened, and why many people in the Middle East hate Americans, (not to generalize too much, of course) and provides a very different answer than the rest of the candidates, he shouldn’t be ignored. At a fairly recent press conference, he suggested that they hated our presence, rather than our freedoms. In response, poor Rudy went into a trance like rage, reiterating his mantra as much as grammatically possible.
Simply put, it is a position that is ignored. And if what he says is true, our presence is perpetuating the problem. But abandoning the effort entirely isn’t a good solution either, as I am convinced that it would make the region even less stable. Much like the U.S. government funding the war in Afghanistan in the late 80’s. Once the Soviets were ousted, little was done in order to rebuild the country. That it came back to bite us is somewhat of an understatement.
There is a fairly incredible history of the U.S. presence in Iraq as well. You probably know that we helped Saddam gain power, and then armed and funded him in the Iraq-Iran war. Thusly, it is fitting that we should depose him from power and take over his country. It has really been a U.S. interest for quite some time.
Comment by Anon — January 23, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Andreas, I can understand if you do not favor the Republican Party, that you would believe it to be unfortunate were another Republican to take office. After the divisive reign of President Bush, similarly, past Republican voters are clearly thinking twice about Party allegiances.
However regarding the grouping of President Bush and like-minded individuals with figures such as Hitler and Stalin, this is what I feel is a symptom of what some have called ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome,’ wherein mention of his name, causes otherwise intelligent individuals to produce thoughts that appear to be rather deranged (like drawing a moral equivalency between Bush and Hitler and Stalin…).
Further, I think you are missing the fact, and so far no one else here has picked up on it, that what is needed desperately is a candidate with bi-partisan appeal. On the Republican side, McCain qualifies (evidence: Democrat Kerry rumored to want him as running-mate in 2004, Democrat Al Gore’s VP Candidate Joseph Liebermann, has endorsed him for the presidential election in 2008).
Can someone as extreme as certain people are painting him here, really be able to draw the support of such Democrats, and the ire of certain Republicans?
K.
Comment by K. — January 23, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Kevin, regarding how I was talking about how being pro-life means a lot more than being against abortion, do you find it odd that NRL rates candidates on only three issues, and all three have to do with the pre-born figure? (Mind you they perhaps do not claim to be a wholly ‘pro-life’ organization, but rather take a more limitted approach in the right to life, so perhaps that is why there scope is limited to the unborn).
Now you misunderstand my criticism of your comments regarding the consistency of McCain’s beliefs. I do not criticize you for seeing McCain’s support for war and his opposition to abortion as being inconsistent. Philosophically I don’t think there has to be an inconsistency there. But I understand why it could be seen as such. What I criticize you for is the bizarre nature in which you expressed this perceived inconsistency. You clearly said McCain favors the “bombing of women in children,” which I maintain is a ridiculous comment. That would be like me generally claiming that someone who supports the right of abortion favours the ripping to pieces and murder of children. Have I ever said that?
Motivations are difficult to judge. With your comment about McCain you appear to have had an easy time doing so. That was my problem. Fair?
It is your right to claim that based on McCain’s support for the War he has shown a lack of ability to discern when such wars might be justified, and that based on this he is unfit to govern. I disagree again, but had your previously articulated this, the discussion could have gone from there. Instead I feel you did a poor job, and settled for claims difficult to substantiate.
But you’re right: I don’t budge an inch if I think I am right. But I don’t want to stifle discussion because of disagreement. I don’t mind for a minute that people disagree.
K.
Comment by K. — January 23, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Kelly I had a breif reply, but I’m finding the service you are using for thsi blog more than a bit annoying. It’s lost my text on here more than once. I think I’m done discussing on here for good.
Kevin, you’re not the first person to mention problems, but given my amount of computer knowledge, there is very little I can do about that. I do know that if you include more than 2 links in your comment, it goes into instant moderation, but that hasn’t been you’re problem, so I don’t know what to tell you…
K.
Comment by Kevin Wayne — January 23, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Hi K.
Thanks for the reply. I understand what you’re trying to come to.
Firstly, apart from the Iraqi & Afghani invasion, it’s not about Bush in particular, it’s all those Republican neo-conservatives since Reagan. What makes these neo-conservatives all the more pernicious than dictators like Hitler & Stalin, is the fact that within these dictatorships, there was at least a glimmer of hope for those who opposed the regime, in the sense that they had a State against which they could resist. In this neo-liberal era, we have the West plundering & pillaging the natural resources & riches of the South, doing so by enacting laws & allowing the multinationals to move in & do the dirty work. Neo-colonialism has replaced colonialism. Colonialism had a ‘face’; it was the colonialists; those who lived under oppression could resist. With neo-colonialism, there’s hardly a ‘face’ against which the South can resist, especially the poor, common laborers, that’s what’s really tragic here. We’re talking of millions of deaths every year as a direct or indirect cause of neo-liberalist policies. Just because millions of people die neither in ones back yard, nor in one’s country or continent, doesn’t meant that it isn’t a tragedy of the utmost proportions.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — January 24, 2008 @ 2:53 am
Regarding the second part of your comment, we need a president (& I say we because even those of us who are not in the U.S.A. are also affected by this country’s policies), a president who will put an end to the outrageous policies that I mentioned in my previous blog. The Republican Party should ideally not even exist, much less be in the position to govern. (I’m referring to the Party, not the people who make up the Party). Unfortunately those who make up the Republican Party are money hoarding capitalists, as well as Evangelical fundamentalists, who in many ways aren’t any better than Islamist extremists. This Republican Party & all right wing parties on this planet are a danger not just to prosperity & social justice on a worldwide scale, in the long term they menace the very existence of mankind. (Consider the unending use of the world’s limited natural resources defended by the capitalist economic dogma: ‘economic growth’. We cannot outgrow our planet without destroying it.) These policies need to come to an end immediately. A democratic president is a very small but necessary step in the right direction.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — January 24, 2008 @ 3:11 am
Hey, Andreas, Im not an evangelical, but I don’t remember them blowing up any airplanes lately. What an incredibly silly thing to say, there ought not to be any republicans allowed. Where the heck are you coming from? I haven’t heard such dribble in a long, long time. Kate
Comment by Kate — January 24, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Hi Kate, thanks for your comment. Evangelicals fundamentalists may not blow up airplanes, certain create or accept the killing of hundreds of thousands of people through their imperialistic warmongering policies. I’m thinking specifically of a certain current president of the U.S.A. What about Pat Robertson who publicly called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, even though he did later apologize? The very idea shows the kinds of ideas & sometimes actions that these fundamentalists have. The fight shouldn’t be Christians versus Muslims, the necessary fight should be waged against American, Israeli & European imperialism, who’s actions are directly or indirectly terrorizing & killing millions of people.
Comment by Andreas Saint-Prix — January 25, 2008 @ 8:50 am