Category Archives: Politics

Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.

Politics is beginning to get very interesting. I think the 2004 election is going to be a doozie, and it certainly helped that the last election reinforced the importance of voting (I suppose for some people it did the opposite, but I hope we have enough faith in democracy to realize that we’ll do our best to count the votes, but we can’t count yours if you don’t vote). Even if nothing happened during the past three years, this would be an interesting election year. But with September 11, the weakening economy, the rising unemployment, and the sprawling war on terrorism, it’s a huge election.

And the group of candidates is beginning to look as large and ridiculous as the California recall candidates. I hope the Democrats wise up and start trimming the ranks soon. The Howard Dean and Wesley Clark phenomena’s are especially interesting, and I’m eager to see how that plays out.

It gets especially interesting as all the critics and loud-mouths have to put their two cents in. Molly Ivins’ book, Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America, came out this week, which is a scathing analysis of Bush’s first term. You can put that one right next to Shrub: the Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, which came out during the 2000 election. Despite the overwhelming bias, I’m curious to pick up these titles.

And my favorite loud-mouth, Michael Moore is releasing a book next month, Dude, Where’s My Country? It follows his best-selling Stupid White Men and well-received, yet factually questioned Bowling for Columbine. Now I like Michael Moore. He stands up for issues that we don’t normally think about. He stood up for the automotive workers in the 1980s with his documentary Roger & Me. He stood up for workers again in the 1990s with Downsize This. While I don’t agree with all his views, he does make a powerful point on social justice issues.

At the same time, he comes off with this false-humility that just grates on me. When his facts are challenged, he doesn’t stand up. I wrote about this back in April (see April 6, 2003), and examined some of the factual questions relating to Stupid White Men and Bowling for Columbine. Moore has answered some of the issues on Bowling for Columbine, but he doesn’t even listen to himself. He attacks his attackers just like they attack him, trying to discredit his critics rather than just answer them. His writing is packed with arrogance and makes me wish for once he’d admit that he doesn’t know everything. I’d respect him so much more if he stopped playing the innocent liberal, the simple man with a microphone and camera.

I’d also be interested to see Moore’s response to the Nader effect. In the 2000 elections Moore supported Nader, encouraging Americans to vote for a third party and let their voice be heard, refusing to believe that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. Of course that’s exactly what happened. I don’t want to blame it all on Nader, because there should be room for another political party. It’s just a bit odd seeing how anti-Bush Moore is. Of course Moore blames it all on the Supreme Court and the vote counting mess and whatever other conspiracy theories he can come up with. You wouldn’t want to admit you’re wrong.

Of course the biggest question of all is Iraq. There are so many things up the air that could change the race. Weapons of mass destruction were our justification, but none have been found. We can justify the war in other ways, but that’s Monday-morning quarterbacking. That was our justification, we stuck by it, and so far we’re wrong. That’s not cool. The post-war reconstruction is another joke. I’m beginning to wonder how much planning was really done in the first place. We’ve got a first rate military, but all we can do is blow stuff up. We don’t have a clue how to put anything back together. That’s got to change. Bush needs to find a way to put Iraq back together, or it’s going to be one messy election if soldiers are dying as weekly poll results come in. I’m all about finishing the job, but so far all we’ve managed is worsen our image the kind of terrorist state we’re trying to root out.

Ah, the joys of politics. Where does it go from here?

(a half-hour later:)

So after spouting off against Michael Moore, I decided I should read a bit and see his response to the whole Nader thing. He claims that most Nader supporters changed their mind at the last minute and voted for Gore. What was 5% of the vote in early polls dropped to 3% when the actual voting happened. Instead of Nader being issue, Moore decided to unleash his venom on the Electoral College, demanding that the popular vote should decide the election, which would have declared Gore the winner.

Or he could blame Monica.

Or he could blame the Supreme Court.

Sheesh. As for his popular vote comments, I thought the purpose of the Electoral College was that a president is chosen by the proportionate size of each state. It’s a mixing of the Senate (every state gets two senators) and the House of Representatives (each state gets representatives based on its population), so each state is has more of a say in the election. Otherwise candidates could completely ignore states with lower populations because those states don’t matter. Maybe I’m screwing it up, but I thought that was the purpose for a electoral system where you can win the popular vote but lose the election.

But however you work it out, it’s kind of funny how none of these issues are raging anymore. That whole thing is behind us. I don’t know if it’s 9/11 or our fickle nature, but we don’t seem to remember the election mess of 2000, and I wonder if it will come back to haunt us.

At any rate, it’s a lot of fun reading Michael Moore’s rantings. I don’t always agree with him, but man does he get going sometimes.

You are a credit to the great Satan.

The October 2, 2003 issue of RollingStone includes the article “Is the Pentagon Giving our Soldiers Cancer?” by Hillary Johnson, and it’s worth reading (sadly, the article isn’t online, so do what I did and sit down in the bookstore and read it). The article explores the use of depleted uranium in U.S. munitions and the possible damage it’s causing among U.S. troops, as well as non-combatants from Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia.

Munitions are tipped with depleted uranium (DU) because of the armor piercing and pyrotechnic powers of the heavy metal. The burned out Iraqi tanks strewn across southern Iraq and their “crispy critter” inhabitants from the first Gulf War were victims of DU munitions. Upon impact the DU turns into a fine powder that can be distributed far and wide. The leftover material is still radioactive and will be for 4-5 billion years.

While the Pentagon denies that DU can cause any harm, it is the suspected cause of the rash of cancer-like symptoms known as Gulf War Syndrome among veterans of the first Gulf War. In addition to the U.S. troops, Iraqis are experiencing higher rates of cancer and birth defects. As the article states, Iraqi mothers are no longer asking if their newborn is a boy or a girl but if the child is normal.

The international community classifies DU as a weapon of mass destruction, yet the U.S. continues to use it. I’ve heard arguments about DU before, but often in a more radical setting. If these allegations are true, it’s a sad country we live in. Not only would we be unleashing nuclear waste on a country we sought to liberate for having nuclear weapons in the first place, but we would be putting our own service men and women at risk, and lying to them about the potential dangers. It would be sad to compare the honorable and noble view of the Armed Forces on the home front, compared to disposable view of the top brass.

For the sake of our dignity (and the thousands of endangered lives), I hope DU is harmless. But the fact that evidence is mounting and the U.S. government seems unwilling to settle fears with unbiased research leads me to belief that DU is a threat. It’s the Agent Orange of the nineties, and if it’s true, it frightens me to think that my own government would sacrifice innocent lives and our soldiers for the sake of a more effective weapon. The unwilling kamikazes.

A little girl is losing faith in democracy!

St. Paul Central High School has made the news again over Minnesota’s reactionary pledge law. A student refused to stand during the pledge, choosing to opt out of the requirement, which is allowed according to the state law. Instead the student was kicked out of her class for not being respectful. It turns out the teacher was misinformed, and students are not required to stand during the pledge.

While a minor issue, this raises questions of whether you can legislate patriotism, or even respect. It’s somewhat frightening to me that some would think it’s appropriate to discipline someone for not standing during the pledge of allegiance. I certainly understand and respect the sacrifices of those who have gone before us, but they gave us the freedom to acknowledge their actions in any way we want. Forced patriotism is not patriotic. Forced respect is not respectful.

Hey, America, you’re so fine, you’re so fine you blow my mind, America.

Congratulations St. Paul Central High School (which is less than a mile from my house), you made the national news (OK, it’s just CNN’s offbeat news, but it’s still national). Thanks to a reactionary Minnesota law, schools must pledge allegiance to the flag at least once a week. Unfortunately, not all classrooms are equipped with U.S. flags, or even flag holders.

So Central High School improvised and displayed the American flag on the television screens in the classrooms, until they can outfit classes with the real thing. It’s good to know that these are the kinds of things we have to worry about with a slashed budget. Nevermind new textbooks, we bought 2,200 flags and 970 flag holders.

Call me unpatriotic, but this much fuss over pledging alligiance to a flag seems more fascist than it does democratic.

Vote Quimby.

After my election day ranting yesterday, the results are in. For the city council race, Jay Benanav took 80% of the vote, and Denise Gulner took 12%. Both will advance for a showdown in the November election, though it doesn’t look like it will be much of a contest. I can’t help pointing out that Samuel Farley and Mark Roosevelt both had crappy web sites, and they received 3% and 5% of the vote respectively. Notice that Gulner and her semi-crappy web site only took 12% of the vote. The best web site out there took 80% of the vote, and I’m not surprised. You can go ahead and chalk it up to Benanav’s incumbent status and the fact that he’s a major player in St. Paul politics, but I’m going to credit the web site.

I’d also like to point out the campaign of Honey Hervey, running for city council member in Ward 1. Endorsed by the DFL, the United Auto Workers, Teamsters DRIVE, Building and Construction Trades Council, and the AFL-CIO, Hervey took home a whopping 8 votes. All those endorsements and so few votes. You’ve got to wonder who Honey’s friends voted for.

In the school board race, the results are just as interesting. Of the 12 candidates, eight will advance to the general election. And the poor four who didn’t make it? None of them had web sites. When looking at the run down, the four candidates who invested in web sites took first, second, fourth, seventh place. Not too shabby. With four spots open on the school board, I’m pulling for a 75% web site presence among the winners. Sadly though, of all the election web sites I looked at, only one was updated this morning to reflect the election results. It’s good to know that some people are aware of the value of a web site in politics.

The dead have risen and they’re voting Republican.

In my best Homestar voice: "Welcome to my web site."

Those were the words I saw while researching candidates today before the St. Paul primary election for the city council and school board. Is it wrong to dismiss a candidate based on poor web design?

Today was really a lesson in local politics. I spent 45 minutes trying to find out who was even running in today’s election. The Star Tribune’s lone article on the election (buried at the bottom of their homepage) didn’t give names and didn’t link to further resources (though I later found the Star Tribune’s voter’s guide, which they failed to link to or even feature prominently on an election day).

I went to other sites, I went to local government sites, I googled. The first place that told me who was running for city council in my ward? OutFront, a GLBT political group. Finally I stumbled across the Star Trib’s voter’s guide and was able to figure out who was who.

Sort of. All four candidates for the city council position had web sites. I happened to be the 104th visitor to one site, and it was downhill from there. Mark Roosevelt was all about the P.L.A.N.: Public safety, leadership, access to local government, and neighborhoods. That’s as specific as Roosevelt got.

Samuel Farley also had a web site. But I didn’t even need to visit themilitant.com (though I’m not sure what a socialist newsweekly for the working people has to do with Samuel Farley). His essay on the Star Tribune’s site encouraged solidarity with Cubans, Iranians, Iraqis, and North Koreans. Unfortunately, this is the St. Paul city council. Few Iraqis were voting in today’s primary.

The state of local politics isn’t looking good. But it gets better. Denise Gulner has the added bonus of an endorsement from St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly. She’s also anti-crime, pro-youth, pro-affordable housing, and pro-transportation. So’s the rest of the planet. Apparently all these politicians are paying for their web sites by the word.

Finally, we come to incumbent Jay Benanav. Despite his lame design, Benanav either has the financial muscle to pay for a whole bunch of words on his site, or he’s smart enough to realize that the web is limitless, so tell us all you can. His site is loaded with positions, accomplishments, and facts that prove he knows what’s going on in the city.

You can guess who I voted for, and while I did take a look at the issues, the simple ability of each candidate to present themselves decided it. I’m not talking web savvy, I’m talking presentation.

When I explored the school board candidates, I found a much worse problem. Twelve candidates were vying for four positions, yet of those twelve candidates,
only four had web sites. In an election where the most coverage I could find was a buried voter’s guide that offers a one paragraph "essay," two-thirds of the candidates chose not to expand on their positions with a web site. Unbelievable.

You’ll be happy to know I didn’t just vote for the four with web sites, though I probably should have. I went with a mix of the sites I could find, endorsements, and those lame little paragraphs.

It wasn’t easy. Richard Broderick has a fairly nice looking web site, though as a Green Party candidate his web site didn’t help him. He’s more interested in encouraging teens to car pool and offering organic foods in the cafeteria than any of the real crises facing the St. Paul schools. Despite what I’ve said before, Broderick’s web site really hurt him, though only because his positions. In a sense, the system worked.

Kazoua Kong-Thao also had a web site, though she suffered a similar problem as Roosevelt and Gulner. Most people are in favor of safe schools, small class sizes, and academic excellence. Unfortunately, achieving those things is another manner. Fortunately for Kong-Thao, her site did manage to convince me that she’s motivated and hard working.

Eventually I was able to tally my votes and head over to the Hamline Highrise to cast my vote with all the elderly people. My exercise in democracy took way too long and taught me that local politics is pretty lame. I would expect any hopeful city council or school board candidate to actually research the job and know what they’re talking about, to confront the important issues. I would expect them to attend a few of those meetings and know what’s not working and what they could improve upon. Don’t tell me you want better education, tell me how you’re going to do it better than the other guy. If that’s all it takes, I could mount a better campaign than many of these people.

I never read a magazine in my life, and I’m not going to start now.

Excellent article in Christianity Today about the Ten Commandments debate. As you might expect, I don’t agree with their take on the Alabama issue, but the author makes a powerful point about the emphasis on external signs of faith. He basically says what I’ve been trying to say only much more eloquently. (He’s rather gutsy to make the comparison to the Nazis)

We can afford it, we’ve been blessed.

I’ve been debating with a friend about church and state, and it’s caused me to reflect a lot about the nature of Christianity. It’s not an easy faith. It involves sacrifice and humility, neither of which is something we enjoy doing. It’s not something you can just sit back and assume. It’s not about filling a pew or checking a certain box in a spirituality quiz.

Being a Christian in America is easy, and I wonder if that’s contrary to the nature of Christianity. A faith that is easy is never worth much, and consequently it doesn’t stand the trials of life. Christianity flourishes when it’s not so easy to believe. When the church faces persecution, the fringe believers quickly drop off. If you’re not committed to a faith, you’re not going to sacrifice anything for it. What’s left are the true believers, the ones truly ready to sacrifice their lives for their faith. Christianity shines in such downtrodden circumstances because that’s what it’s all about. It’s about sacrifice, humility, hard work, and grace and forgiveness for the little guy.

I’ve been debating all these intricacies of church and state, and I wonder if that’s so not the point. The Bible and Jesus himself were never very concerned with these matters. Obey your authorities and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s. That’s about the extend of it, because nothing else matters. Our concern as the Church is to spread the Gospel, not govern nations (though I suppose some are called to that). If a nation supports us, fine – but we’ll keep our focus on spreading the Gospel and challenging believers to the hard life of faith, not allowing government approval to let us grow lax. And if a nation persecutes us, fine – but we’ll continue anyway, going underground to spread the Gospel and calling believers to the hard life of faith.

Sometimes I wish the U.S. wasn’t such a Christian friendly place. When it becomes so easy to believe, it becomes so easy to be lethargic.

In Rod We Trust

Maybe I’m a flaming liberal. After all, I have expressed doubt about homosexuality, and I wasn’t on board with the one nation under God. Now I’m questioning the Ten Commandments. Something must be wrong with me. Growing up in a Baptist church (“every time a drum beats, a demon gets out of hell”) should produce less discerning citizens.

Alabama state officials moved the Ten Commandments monument yesterday, amid wails and prayers. But less obvious than the righteous grandstanding is the burning hypocrisy. Christians are making a wonderful show of support for a hunk of concrete. But despite their approval of commands to love God and obey your parents, they seem to have forgotten another command to love thy neighbor as thy self.

Melinda Maddox initiated the lawsuit against Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore over the 5,000-pound concrete monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments. As a result, she’s faced eye for an eye justice, in the form of threatening phone calls, pellet guns shooting out windows of her house, and a boycott of her law firm that forced her to leave town. Maddox has become an outcast at the hands of people who claim to love one another.

I can only hope it’s a minority of the intolerant that are making Maddox’s life a living hell, but those who hate their enemies are outshining those who love their enemies in Alabama. If we acknowledge God with the ten commandments, why aren’t we acknowledging God with our actions?

Speaking of troubling actions, the entire installation of this monument is sketchy. Under the cover of darkness Moore and his supporters lugged the concrete block into the state judicial building. They didn’t obtain the proper approvals or go through the required channels. They took matters into their own hands, and the next day bragged about their forced government acknowledgment of God in a press conference. It seems odd that the Bible continually speaks of living in the light and leaving behind deeds of darkness. Acting honestly and in the open is valued, yet Moore seems to have no problem installing his monument under cover of darkness. If his cause is so just, why didn’t he install it in view of the world?

Christians have made an idol of publicly acknowledging God. I’ve learned the hard way that a bumper sticker slogan about your faith means absolutely nothing if your actions don’t back it up. “In God We Trust” means nothing on our currency if it’s not backed up by a people who actually trust in God. But rather than be outraged by our nation serving money over God, we’re outraged at attempts to remove a hypocritical phrase. American Christians, and people in general, are so focused on the outward expression that we completely miss what’s really going on.

I’ve heard so many Christians that get fired up over the Ten Commandments debate, or the pledge of allegiance debate. It’s all building up to the ultimate question of how much religion the government can support. Christians freak out, reminding us that this nation was founded by Christians, therefore it’s OK to acknowledge those roots. But what they forget is that this nation was founded by religious refugees who hoped to escape the religious persecution back home. The goal was to establish a country of religious freedom. With today’s pluralism and diverse religious beliefs, you’d be hard pressed support any religion in any way without offending someone. In the process we lose a public acknowledgment of God, but we gain tolerance: a healthy love and respect for one another that allows us to live together.

What’s a better witness to your non-Christian neighbor? Rallying to keep a God your neighbor doesn’t serve on our currency, or respecting your neighbor enough to let “In God We Trust” go? One seems to open doors while another slams them. We’re like the Pharisees, obsessed with praying on the streets and tithing before others, while Jesus calls us white-washed tombs: we’ve focused on the exterior adornments of faith but neglected the heart. Sadly for those who need God, it’s an outpouring of the heart, not exterior adornments, that make Christianity contagious.

Sorry, I’d rather go to heaven.

I’m not sure if I understand this whole snafu about a 10 Commandments monument in the Alabama state judicial building. A U.S. District judge ruled that it was an unconstitutional promotion of religion and ordered it removed. Now the suspended Alabama judge who had the monument installed in the first place is fighting to keep it. Protesters are gathering and threatening to physically keep the monument from being moved and calling for a nation-wide boycott of any company the government might hire to remove the monument.

I’m all for the ten commandments, but why all the fuss? The protesters are threatening violence and effectively killing the messenger by organizing boycotts. All for a hunk of stone? A graven image, if you will? The amens and hurrahs on the news seem like the gesticulations of an old man. If you care that much about acknowledging the foundations of law, then why not acknowledge them in front of your neighbor in ways that will matter so much more, rather than pounding your black leather bible over concrete.

If the monument listed laws from the Koran the protesters would be crying for a completely different means of justice.

(update: It seems Justice Roy Moore financed the ten commandments monument with private donations and installed it late one night when no one was around. The original source for this story wasn’t loading, so I’m a bit skeptical, but it still sounds rather fishy. Bungling around at night with mobs of people sounds more like the pharisees than the disciples.)