For a great introduction to libertarianism, go to http://www.libertarianism.com/ where you will find more information about
Last week the Iraq Study Group finished reviewing conditions in Iraq and issued a statement that the “situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating”. It is a pessimistic review, but it sounds realistic to me, based on other, independent information coming out of the war-torn country. Now it is up to President Bush to step up, admit that things are not going well and chart a new, more productive course for our military engagement in the middle-East.
The December 8th issue of the Pueblo Chieftain printed an AP article by Terence Hunt titled “Bush gives chilly response to Iraq report”. Never one to give in to negative thinking, the President appeared reluctant to grasp the seriousness of the situation. The President is quoted as saying, “I thought we would succeed quicker than we did. And I am disappointed by the pace of success.”
Well, aren’t we all!
But just stop a minute and think about that phrase–”disappointed by the pace of success.” I’m sure we can all find new opportunities to trot out that phrase.
“Sorry, Bob, we’re going to have to give you the opportunity to find employment elsewhere. We just aren’t happy with the pace of your success at our company.”
“But Mom, those F’s don’t mean anything. I’m just not succeeding as quickly as the teacher thinks I should.”
How many more lost lives and how much more money will be spent on Iraqi Liberation before we can admit that our invasion and our policies have not been successful? How much more misery can we inflict before we recognize that “not succeeding” means that we are failing? In my humble opinion, the first step to turning things around is to take a good hard look at where we are, at the mistakes we have made and then begin to do things differently.
I seriously hope that the leadership of the United States will face the facts and take the necessary steps to allow us to find some measure of success for Iraq.
An AP article by Chase Squires came out this weekend, covering Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ remarks at the Air Force Academy. During his speech, the Attorney General expressed his disagreement with the recent ruling against the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. I was not able to find the entire text of his speech and can only refer to his remarks as presented by Mr. Squires.
Quoting from the article:
Gonzales, told about 400 cadets from the academy’s political science and law classes, that some see the program as on the verge of stifling freedom rather than protecting the country. “But this view is shortsighted,” he said. “its definition of freedom — one utterly divorced from civic responsibility — is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people.”
I found myself wondering how Alberto Gonzales would define freedom as opposed to the definition of freedom held by those opposing warrentless surveillance. I wish that I could ask him to expand upon his remarks and tell me what freedom looks like in his world.
I am fond of dictionary entries, and so I turned to my 1989 World Book Dictionary for a concise definition of freedom. I liked what I found:
The state or condition of being free: In this then consists freedom…in our being able to act or not to act, according as we shall choose or will (John Locke). Not being under another’s control; power to do, say or think as one pleases; liberty…
Where does ‘civic responsibility’ come into play? Can we say that true freedom is the freedom to choose to ignore our civic responsibilities, to behave badly or indifferently? I’ve often heard it said that ‘with freedom comes responsibility’. Is that true? Perhaps we should say instead ‘with freedom comes risk’. What do you think freedom means? Is freedom even possible in our complicated and dangerous world? Is Alberto Gonzales right in saying that freedom divorced from civic responsibility is superficial and a grave threat to our liberty and security? Or is he twisting the meaning of freedom in some sort of 1984 doublespeak to fulfill some less than honorable goal of government?
You’ve heard the benefits of libertarianism, but have you ever heard someone speak about the drawbacks of it? This article describes some of those drawbacks, and after reading it you no longer will be at a loss for words when arguing with a Republican or Democrat about the merits of the other political parties. Confused? The drawbacks of libertarianism are our very STRENGTHS!
Read on at http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-11-num-22.html#Cloud
I was flipping through TV channels this morning and came across a surprising documentary titled “Hacking Democracy”. The program originally aired on HBO on November 2nd, but was being replayed Sunday morning. Put out by Black Box Voting, the film covers instances of possible voter fraud in the last election as well as potential security risks inherent in Diebold electronic voting systems. It grabbed my attention and I couldn’t turn away. Fascinating–and frightening–and certainly relevant to the election in progress. I hope the film will be shown again. If you get a chance to see it, don’t miss it!
HBO’s Hacking Democracy …tells the story of Bev Harris, a grandmother and writer who started investigating the subject of electronic voting in 2002 after questioning her county’s switch to electronic touch-screen voting machines. Unsatisfied with their explanation, Harris set out to learn about electronic voting systems on her own, and in doing so stumbled upon shocking revelations about the vulnerability of the software and hardware. Harris, who went on to form the watchdog group BlackBoxVoting.org, recently spoke with TVGuide.com about her illuminating, though unsettling, journey.
Read More….
For more information, visit Black Box Voting on the web
Discussion Group
2nd Wednesday of every month
6:30 pm
Dew Drop Inn
Pueblo, CO
