Republicans - The Party of Values

June 25, 2009

With yesterday's admission of an extramarital affair by Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and last week's revelations of Nevada Senator John Ensign's recent unfaithfulness, I am really starting to wonder how the Republican Party can continue to stake its reputation on its apparent concern for maintaining family values, as well as its ability to court "values voters."



Literally my whole life I have been fed the line that Democrats are immoral, and that Republicans are wholesome, Christian, and practically holy people.

I don't mock the premise to denigrate the idea that living by standards and core values has a valuable purpose in individual lives. I mock the premise because of the fact that the same conservatives who wear their values on their sleeve, are outraged when a democrat is caught red-handed, yet seem to justify the actions of their republican standard-bearers when similar conduct is unearthed.

It's not that John Ensign and Mark Sanford screwed up (sorry for the terrible pun), it's that in the past, when they responded to other individuals - for instance, Bill Clinton - they demanded resignation and/or impeachment for such indiscretions.

The question that remains with me is this: if the democrats are the godless, valueless party, why are conservatives so outraged when democrats get caught doing immoral things? What do you expect from a party devoid of core values, or Christian principles (just going off the republican-fabricated premise, mind you)?

However, coming from the likes of people with all the important values that I myself value, you'd think conservatives would be more outraged at the Ensigns and Sanfords of their own tent, since one doesn't expect people with values and principles to act with such utter disregard for those very values held so dear.

Democrats did not brand the Republican Party as the party of values. Republicans took on the mantle themselves. When it comes down to it, we are all human, prone to err, and often betray those values we hold dear. Put more bluntly, in the words of Jon Stewart, Mark Sanford is "just another politician with a conservative mind and a liberal penis."

But a party that derives its worth, to a large degree, from condemning the other side as immoral, and touting their own piety, should expect to be held to the high standard they purport to endorse. When that standard is violated, they should expect to be treated as great disappointments, since we should expect better from the party of values.

Daily Demonization, Vigilante Violence, etc.

June 14, 2009

I have not posted much in the last month or so. I have been reading, and thinking, a lot. And more things have occurred in the news than I can keep up with.

It is hard to know when or where to take a stand on many issues, because it seems like taking a stand means condemnation and demonization of those with whom one disagrees.

We've had several vigilante killings in recent weeks. One abortion doctor, one museum guard, one army recruiter. There has been a lot of discussion. One great source pinpointing many different views on the topic is a blog page by the NY Times called "The Opinionator."

President Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to fill the soon-to-be vacated justice seat of David Souter. Conservatives have cried, "racist!" and other things, while liberals have labeled conservatives as obstructionists, even though they (liberals) acted in a similar manner with the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Obama is now pushing healthcare reform, while his opponents are claiming he wants to turn U.S. healthcare into Canadian or British healthcare. I read an excellent article from The New Yorker this morning about how overtreatment may be one reason why healthcare costs are so high these days. There are many out there trying to scare people away from trying to make meaningful healthcare reform happen. Even if Obama's intentions are good, it is very doubtful he is going to make much progress in his efforts to reform. Take a look at how many prominent legislators have a stake in some form of health care.

Of course, there are other silly issues like David Letterman making jokes about Sarah Palin (which, by the way, I happen to side with Palin on this particular matter).

But what seems to be the biggest problem through all of it is, while there are great discussions and arguments to be made about most of these pressing challenges our country is facing, those discussions more often than not will not even happen. Both sides are too busy demonizing the other side. It is a legitimate challenge to take a position and respect the other side to believe the way they do.

While I still tend to have opinions and sometimes even make a claim to know an answer or two, the more I read and listen to the talking heads, I just want to stay out of the fight. I don't want to be mean and hateful like they so often seem to be. I would rather try to find common ground, and see if there are ways that I agree with those whose ideology differs somewhat.

If I cannot do so, I would rather stay quiet, and let others be critical and angry. There is more than enough of those types of feelings out there without me adding to the pot.

But enough about me. Even though I do not want to demonize, it is lamentable how difficult it is to have respectful, reasoned discussion in our country today. It seems you can only discuss things civilly when you agree with the person with whom you are speaking. One problem is that certain faces on TV are very touchy about others demonizing them, but don't seem to even take note of themselves when they say, as Bill O'Reilly does in the following clip: "I don't demonize you for thinking what you do, but you have blood on your hands."



It causes people to cry foul when David Letterman jokes about Palin's child getting knocked up by Alex Rodriguez, but laugh when Ann Coulter calls Bill Clinton a rapist.



I know I don't have the answer. Right now, I am content to get most of my information from NPR, or the newspaper (the local Laramie Boomerang, or the New York Times). At least those sources are much less combative and negative. And there are plenty of other articles to read in the paper if I don't like the one I'm reading at a particular moment in time.

If others want to demonize, I will leave it to them. I will try to avoid doing so, while still reading, and having opinions. But really honestly, in my gut, I worry that this is just the start of vigilante violence. Another contention about which I hope I'm completely wrong.

Why I Run

May 29, 2009

Last Friday I got my new running shoes after running nearly 700 miles with my last pair. I passed the 700th mile this week in a little over a year. I have really turned things on the last few months. In April I ran 90 miles, and this month I will end up finishing over 100.

Why do I do it? I know some people think running 14 miles all at once is a symptom of mental insanity. But I do it for a number of reasons, and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon.

Last year I was wondering exactly what to do with my life. I went to counseling and was on medication for a little while. One suggestion my counselor gave me to help with my mood was to find a way to be more physically active. I have tried to run consistently for years, but I have a bad knee and back, I told her. She recommended I do something else.

Nonetheless, I decided to invest in Nike+. I got some new shoes, and determined I would not train too hard right out of the gate like I had been prone to do in the past. I ran for a few months, then tapered off last fall/winter when I was riding my bike 100 miles a week. Over time I lost 20 pounds.

When I got back to Laramie, I knew I had to stay active so I could stay in the shape I had achieved in Arizona. Last month I ran over 13 miles in one run for the first time. This month I got 7th place in a 5K here in Laramie, finishing the race in 20:02.

There are several reasons why I love to run. The first obviously stems from the fact that I have already accomplished so much, and I want to keep building on those successes.

I run for peace of mind. My depression has literally disappeared as I've kept active. I can also pop on the headphones, and forget about life for a few minutes. I love the way I feel when I've finished a run, especially a tough, lengthy one. Even though it doesn't usually endure, I feel a sort a mental clarity while I run.

I can enjoy fresh air and the beauty of nature.

I run to wear cool headbands and tank tops (even with my skinny chicken-arms).

I run because I can, but also because not everyone that wants to can, and not everyone that can, does. A close friend once opined that he didn't think human beings were meant to run long distances, especially not he nor I. I then saw an ESPN video of a young man born with cerebral palsy who was not even expected to walk in his life. He learned to walk, albeit awkwardly, and he learned he loved golf, and learned to play despite his handicap. He ended up walking miles and miles of golf course over the course of a full PGA season - he walked every hole of every tournament.

If a guy who wasn't meant to even walk could do that, I can at least run a marathon or two if I work hard enough. So I will keep running, because I want to.

One final admission: I really do not think I have the appearance of a person you might stereotypically think of as a runner - boney thin, with no fat tissue whatsoever. However, I felt proud today when I was about to get a huge needle stuck into my vein to give plasma. The phlebotomist commented on my giant veins and queried, "Are you a runner or something?"

To which I unhesitatingly responded, "Yes I am."

Why Torture?

May 6, 2009

I have hesitated to enter into the fray on the issue of "enhanced interrogations" because it seems to me to be a very difficult, complicated issue. However, even though I think I understand the rationales behind the use of such harsh methods, I have a very hard time deciphering why any person who considers him or herself moral, would have a problem with someone who opposed such mistreatment of other human beings.

I think too many people have been watching 24, and other dramatic television series, and they think those things happen in real life. While there are those who say information gleaned from enhanced methods may have saved lives, I would question with all of my intuitive resourcefulness that there has ever been a time when a terrorist had his hand on the button of a detonator, and has made demands and threats to the United States; otherwise, he would blow up a city.

I thought it was pretty obvious that the plot was far-fetched since Jack Bauer still somehow hasn't died in seven seasons. But I honestly think people believe there are bad guys who are out to get us, and the only way to stop them is by torturing people.

If they want to believe that, fine. If they want to believe that President Obama is putting our nation at risk by eliminating such treatment of prisoners, that's their choice.

I am saying, if we are strictly speaking on moral grounds, I don't really understand how someone who thinks he is moral can have a problem with the position Obama has taken on this issue. Aren't principles and morals supposed to be held more sacred than life itself? Is it acceptable for a supposedly moral person to betray those morals, supposedly to save lives? Hence, even if it's true that lives were saved, we had saved them at the cost of coming down to the level of our reprehensible enemies.

Yet we have voices like Bill O'Reilly out there saying if you diagree with those who choose to torture enemy combatants, and you disagree with God's self-appointed "mouthpiece," that you somehow are unpatriotic, and hate america. People who feel very strongly that we should treat everyone with dignity, enemy or otherwise, are treated like weak and spineless individuals.

I am not declaring definitively that I know the answer. But there is a case to be made for harsh interrogations, in that they possibly keep us safer from threats about which we are unaware. And there is a case to be made that being the great nation we are, we ought to somehow rise above the behavior of animals, and act like civil human beings, brutal enemy notwithstanding.

A Favorite Radiohead Track

May 5, 2009

No No No No No No No No

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no i don't know why you bother nothing's ever good enough for you i was there and it wasn't like that you came here just to start a fight you had to piss on our parade you had to shred our big day you had to ruin it for all concerned in a drunken punchup at a wedding. hypocrite opportunist don't infect me with your poison a bully in a china shop when i turn round stay frozen to the spot. the pointless snide remarks of hammerheaded sharks the pot will call the kettle black in a drunken punchup at a wedding. no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no