Well, Sue and I are back home to Vancouver tomorrow after spending Christmas here in frigid Ontario with our families. We're both sick as dogs too, so we may just make it off the plane.
The end of another year is coming up. Here's a blurb from Tom Friedman's last column of 2004.
We face two gigantic national challenges today: One is the challenge to protect America in the wake of the new terrorist threats, which has involved us in three huge military commitments - Afghanistan, Iraq and missile defense. And the other is the challenge to strengthen American competitiveness in the wake of an expanding global economy, where more and more good jobs require higher levels of education, and those good jobs will increasingly migrate to those countries with the brainpower to do them. In the face of these two national challenges, we have an administration committed to radical tax cuts, which, one can already see, are starting to affect everything from the number of troops we can deploy in Iraq to the number of students we can properly educate at our universities. And if we stay on this course, the trade-offs are only going to get worse.
Ah... he has me longing for the good old days already.
That's a very good piece. I just read it again.
I hope he's wrong but I am afraid he's bang-on.
Have a safe trip home.
Posted by: robert | December 27, 2004 at 08:12 PM
I don't see any threat to America except America itself. It gorges on self. It re-elects a president whose foreign and domestic policies bankrupt the nation morally and financially. It distorts the gospel to justify these ends.
60,000 people have died in Asia and the count is rising by the minute. Surely such natural tragedy should silence guns and rhetoric alike.
But no, the navel gazing, the gun blazing continues. Who will be left to stand and shovel when America buries itself in a cardboard box.
Posted by: Connie Knighton | December 28, 2004 at 08:50 PM
Connie,
I am not a fan of the current administration either but you must admit that a country capable of producing the iPod can't be all bad.
Tragedies like this should make us aware that its important to keep some slack in our capacity because we never know when lightning could strike.
One of the sad truths about the current administration's policies is that it has so strained the American financial capacity in Iraq that when crisis arise, the world's most powerful country is itself constrained in its ability to help. History will be the judge.
Posted by: robert | December 28, 2004 at 09:02 PM
The USA-Iraq travesty of justice boggles the mind, if only on the financial side of things. (And we cant forget the daily loss of lives, both USA, British Iraq and others.)A long-range cruise missile costs $600,000:a L/R Boeing nuclear bomber is worth $200 million, a B 52 $74 million, a Stealth $1.3 billion. God only knows what the USA economy will be like in another 4 years and meantime 1000's are dying in South Asia for the want of a drink of clean water.It's insane.
David.
Posted by: DAVID | December 29, 2004 at 05:10 PM
Where to begin?
Connie, can you cite some specific examples of domestic policies that have bankrupted this nation morally and financially? And can you define bankruptcy for us? Or are you prone to empty rhetoric lacking substantive support because it's all you inwardly digest and confuse as honest information? I'd mildly suggest that you widen your sphere of influence to include sources other than Marxist myopics with a hate America pathology.
Indeed Robert... and in less than a week's worth of history that has passed since your bombastic accusation, history has proven, once again, that leftist thought is what is in reality bankrupt.
350 million dollars worth of direct aid to tsunami affected areas, and that figure will rise, but will that be enough to silence the rhetoric of this administration's critics, critics who are usually quick to decry hatred and bigotry and yet ironically (or is that hypocritically), they engage in some of the most hateful and bigoted statements themselves when speaking about this President?
Insane?
Hey David, are you purposefully ignoring the billion dollar plus scandal also known as as oil for food, an honest to goodness travesty on what some of you like to call justice? And aren't you also turning a blind eye to what those programs you are so quick to criticize do in protecting freedom and liberty the world over? Might I suggest you spend some time in countries that have been unable to guarantee your freedom to voice ignorant opinions? I wonder if you might be singing a different tune assuming that your vocal cords would not have been severed by the hands of the enemies those programs you criticize obliterate... hmmm?
Of course not.
After all, it's hip, it's "with-it", it's "where it's at man" to be seen to criticize US policy today. Led by the cultural elites in Hollywood, the media, and in ivory towers at our institutes for higher learning, Robert, Mike, Connie, David and others do what must be done to be cool and to be seen as being on the cutting edge of societal evolution...
Without substance or evidence except that manufactured by elitists with an agenda, it's way cool to launch ad hominems and other logical phallacies against the Bush administration...
... which of course tends to lessen the impact honest criticism my have on policies that do indeed need to changed.
You people are your own worst enemies...
I'd suggest a sabbatical of sorts, where you all can sit around campfires and while solving the world's problems without actually having to get your hands dirty you do some serious navel gazing and ponder why it is you're led to attack an administration based on falsehoods, based on logical constructs that defy even superficial deconstruction, based on lies, half-truths and ignorance of history, especially the good that America has brought to freedom loving nations.
Only then should you come out to speak you banalities...
Only then...
Posted by: RickinVa | January 02, 2005 at 10:22 AM
Hey RickinVa,
First, know that I too was moved to respond when reading the comments of Connie and David. I was hoping to open a dialogue to understand their positions better. I’m not sure what the purpose of your response was. If it was to shut down dialogue, I would guess you were successful – not because of the points you raise, but because of the tone you raise them in.
If I would read the following aimed towards me…
‘…you widen your sphere of influence to include sources other than Marxist myopics with a hate America pathology”
“…Robert, Mike, Connie, David and others do what must be done to be cool and to be seen as being on the cutting edge of societal evolution”
“…I'd suggest a sabbatical of sorts, where you all can sit around campfires and while solving the world's problems without actually having to get your hands dirty you do some serious navel gazing”
…I would wonder if the person writing them was truly interested in dialogue or merely diatribe. I wouldn’t respond, and wouldn’t expect anyone else too either.
And a couple of points…
1. To accuse Robert of not understanding American history or of not being able to back up his arguments with fact or not understanding the important role America plays in the world is to clearly demonstrate you haven’t taken the time to get to know Robert. Robert understands the facts as well as anyone I know. He knows American history better than 99% of the Americans I’ve met. Robert and I have had hours of discussions on much of what you raise here. Those discussions are, as a rule, civil and educational. In the end, we may or may not have changed positions – but, I believe, we both are better informed as a consequence.
2. As for Mike, I know him less well than Robert. Again, our politics are, in general, polar opposites on many issues. But to in any way accuse him of ‘navel gazing’ and not ‘getting his hands dirty’ is again…how do you say it “…without substance or evidence…” Mike has given up more and done more as direct result of his beliefs than anyone I can think of.
3. And finally – I don’t know Connie or David at all – and as I said I had a similar reaction to their comments. So…
a. To Connie: I hard lesson I learned was to start statements like the ones you made with a simple phrase ‘In my opinion’ or ‘As I see things’ – you get the picture. I have learned that it sets a different tone. Otherwise, the reader is to assume you have some inside information and what you state are facts not opinions. If they are facts, then there are over 60,000,000 people who voted for Bush who were just too dumb to figure it out. Maybe that’s what you meant to say. Or maybe…there are 60,000,000 people who actually live in the country holding the election who have a different opinion/interpretation than you do. Those are different messages. I would also join RickinVa in asking for specific examples of a domestic policy that demonstrates the moral bankruptcy in my country. And, are you serious… the only threat you see to America is America? I’d guess that would be a tough one for you to defend.
b. And David, sorry, but I just missed the point. It seems to run something like this…if the US spent less money on the military then there would be more clean drinking water in Asia. Seems to me there’s a connection or two missing in that argument.
Posted by: Brad | January 03, 2005 at 01:54 PM
Brad,
I accused Robert of nothing... read my words again...
Yes, my tone was... tough. Yet no tougher than the tone I was reacting to.
You're you Brad, and I'm me. Don't expect me to act like you, and I'll return the favor.
I thought the tone of the original post and the comments thereafter were strident, in your face, and ultimately based in ignorance.
I answered in kind (strident and in your face) and attempted to point out that nothing of substance had been posted to backup all the stridency.
As to shutting down dialog... I'm not that powerful. People don't react for a variety of reasons... some of them might involve that they have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.
Posted by: RickinVa | January 03, 2005 at 05:51 PM