Travis Pettijohn: Blog

The presidential election is over, cleanly and decisively. I tried my best this year to avoid the pundits in entirety and instead listen to the candidates themselves. I haven't watched any of the 24-hour news channels in years. Somewhere along the way I realized that the pundits create more drama and perpetuate an "us versus them" mentality. I hear it in the media and from my friends: people attack not the candidate but the caricature of the candidate. This is called the straw man logical fallacy; rather than argue against your opponent's position you state a superficially similar and easier to attack position and credit it to him. You then attack the caricature.

Two great examples are that Obama wanted to spread the wealth and that McCain was just another Bush. Neither of these statements faithfully represent either of the men, but they are widely held as truths by many.

If you only listen to the pundits of "your" side, then you come to accept their straw men as reality. I saw it today in friends' Facebook statuses: Now begins America's slide into Socialism, Welcome to the Soviet States of America, etc. This is a reflection of the caricature, not the man.

As I listened to candidates, I came to see that I liked a lot about both Obama and McCain. Either way we would have had a new, strong leader and a break from the past eight years. A chance to revitalize our country's image on the world stage. A fresh start by an intelligent, dedicated man. Sure, there were differences in how they wanted to achieve their goals, but they both wanted the best for the country.

This year I voted for Democrats, Republicans and Greens, because I listened to the candidates and not "my" side's caricature of "the opponents." I'm proud of myself for staying out of the fray and voting for the people, not their parties, and looking for the good in the individuals. It's a good day for America, and I'm looking forward to the future.

Check out this video clip from Scarborough Country. Good times. The study claims that the host of the fake news show is a danger to American democracy because he makes voters more cynical and thus less likely to vote.

I was eating lunch at Papa Del's today with a couple of friends. At some point, a small family came in with a toddler. The toddler had a Happy Meal from McDonald's. Their waiter informed them that no outside food was allowed in the restaurant. The family protested, "It's just a kid; he can't eat anything from here; give me a break; that's ridiculous," and so on.

After a minute or two of this, some random guy on the other side of the dining room shouts, "That's bullshit!" He stood up and marched across the dining room, chest puffed up, and inserted his opinion into the conflict. "That's bullshit," he reasserted. "You can tell your manager that I'm never going to eat here again. And I'll tell all of my friends that are parents to never eat here, too."

Ahh, my hero, sweeping in to save the fair maiden. I will be eating there again (or maybe not, since I'm moving). Restaurants (and their lawyers) have to cover their asses; no outside food is standard policy at most establishments. Plus they have awesome deep dish pizza.

A Wal-Mart in Quebec is closing after workers voted to unionize. Sounds like everyone lost. Wal-Mart closed a store. Workers lost jobs. Wal-Mart gets to maintain its zero-union track record. Maybe this will inspire other Wal-Mart employees to attempt to unionize (and maybe even succeed), leading to a more friendly (if slightly more expensive) Wal-Mart.

Via somedotorg.org.

I saw this on The NewsHour last night (emphasis added):

Speaking at a Geneva conference two weeks ago, Jan Egeland said: "Measured in human lives lost, I think that Congo is the number one problem in the world today." Egeland added that the number of casualties amounts to: "...a tsunami every month, year in and year out, for the last six years..."

From ABC News, excepts from a GOP talking points memo about Terri Schaivo, circulated to Republican Senators. Emphasis added.

• This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.
• This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.

Remember that CBS poll where 74% of respondents answered, "advancing a political agenda" when asked, "why do you think congress got involved?" I think they were right.

Edit, 2005-04-06: The source of the memo has stepped forward. It was an aide to Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL).

According to a US Government report, in 2005 the US will consume 20.4 million barrels of oil per day. That same report states that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has 10.3 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil. That comes out to about 500 days worth of oil at our current consumption rates (but since consumption keeps rising, it will actually be less). That's not very much. In my opinion, it's not enough to risk the possible devastation that could occur in Alaska. And I don't believe that such a small amount will provide relief from foreign oil as proponents want you to think.

But a provision to allow drilling at the ANWR was tacked onto the budget in the Senate. A tricky move since Senate rules forbid a filibuster on the budget, thus ensuring its passage. Today, a vote to remove that provision failed 49-51. Our country just moved one step closer to drilling in Alaska. If the House passes it in their budget, that will be that.

Richard Clarke (click for bio), former "Terrorism Czar" and author of Against All Enemies, spoke this evening at the U of I. He gave a fascinating talk on the status of the war on terror. I managed to get a seat in the second row (I had to jump over empty seats to bypass the jam in the aisle.) Here are some pictures that I took with my camera phone. I'll share from my notes. At the end of the talk, I asked a question, and then later got an autograph of my copy of his book.

• He began by defining the war. Terrorism is an methodology; you can't fight a war against that.
• We are at war with Jihadists who practice a "perverted version of Islam." Also people that support the ideas of Jihadists, both politically and financially.
• We must "win this war as a war of ideas."
• Polling shows that the United States government has essentially "zero credibility in key Islamic countries." Thus, the we cannot be the ones fighting the war of ideas.
• Are we making progress in the war on terror?
• Comparing the amount of terrorist activity worldwide in the 36 months before and the 36 months after 9/11, Jihadist attacks have doubled since 9/11.
• In Iraq, there are 60 to 70 attacks against U.S. forces every day.
• Bush stresses that we are fighting the war overseas so that we don't have to fight it here at home.
• Bin Laden recently told Zarqawi to send terrorists from Iraq to the U.S.
• Clarke asserts that, "Because we are fighting in Iraq, terrorists are coming here."
• "How are we doing in the war on terror? Not very well."
• 3/11 in Madrid (bombs in subway) left over 2,000 dead.
• Carried out not by suicide bombers, but people who got on, left backpacks of explosives on the train, and got off.
• ABC did the same thing in New York (with cameras instead of explosives). No one did anything to check the bags.
• 60 Minutes placed a bomb-look-alike package at a chemical plant next to a quantity of chlorine that could kill 100,000 people if released into the atmosphere. No one stopped or questioned them.
• "You can't stop everything...."
• It would cost $9 billion to implement working homeland security.
• We've spent $100-some billion in Iraq, which is exporting terrorists.
• Clarke points out that we're training police and firemen in Iraq, yet Bush's recent budget proposal will reduce those numbers here at home.
• "Frankly, I think we made a mistake after 9/11," in our emotional state, we allowed the PATRIOT Act to be passed, which is abusive.
• PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to force librarians to hand over records.
• See José Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held without having been charged, without access to a lawyer, and without a trial by a jury of his peers.
• We should "advocate better homeland security...and at the same time advocate for the Constitution."
• Referenced the Benjamin Franklin quote: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
• His book is titled "Against All Enemies." The presidential oath, part of the constitution, states that the president-to-be shall defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

He took questions. I asked the second question: Do you feel like you're preaching to the choir? That the people who should be listening—like the policy makers who get things done—aren't listening?

Somewhat, yes, he said. There are some people who will never say anything bad about the Bush administration; these people watch FOX News (the crowed roared with approval). But we all know people who need persuading, so we need to wear them down.

Someone else asked if he thought it would matter if Bin Laden were captured now. Clarke said no. Bin Laden has become a symbolic leader. If he were gone, it wouldn't really change things. (See Che Guevara after he was arrested by the CIA.) We should have captured or killed him in the mid-90s when Clinton authorized it. Or in the months following 9/11.

Someone else asked about Bush's vision to spread democracy in the Middle East. Clarke reminded us that terrorism can still be bred in democracies (see Timothy McVeigh). He also reminded us that "the Iranian-backed party won the election" in Iraq. So there are doubts about just how democratic Iraq will be.

He was also asked if he would consider going back into public service or run for office. No, not at all, he said. He feels that he can make a greater impact from the outside than he could from the inside.

After that, there was a book signing. As he signed my copy, I told him, "I saw you on the Daily Show...I saw the smear campaign that the Bush administration had launched against you...I bought your book the next day." He smiled, gave me a wink, and said, "I wish that they had kept it up; it was great for book sales." We shook hands and I thanked him for coming.

This was a very cool experience. Clarke is a very interesting and intelligent man with a very unique point of view. I learned a lot and I hope that you learned some, too.

It's also fun to think about the people that I'm connected to through him; you know, like the degrees of Kevin Bacon game. Not only presidents, but Jon Stewart.

I got mailings from NRDC and The Sierra Club recently. I was trying to decide which one to donate to, and I ended up donating to both of them. With four more years of the Bush Administration's assault on our environment, I figure I ought to lend a hand.

The BBC is reporting that senior Vatican Cardinal Georges Cottier was quoted as saying the use of condoms may be legitimate to stop the spread of Aids in poor countries. He said it was no longer a question only of allowing the transmission of life, but of actively preventing the transmission of death to a sexual partner. Well said, Cardinal.

In a related story, Andrew Sullivan (hat tip to Jason for introducing me to him) has a great piece running in The New Republic. He talks about Hillary Clinton's pro-life/pro-choice position. Her position, her writes, is "quite simple: a) the right to legal abortion should remain and b) abortion is always and everywhere a moral tragedy." This is a position that I've held for a long time. Sullivan also says, "And if she and the Democrats can move the debate away from the question of abortion's legality toward abortion's immorality, then they stand a chance of winning that debate in the coming years." It's a good read.

On today's Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn back home. This was a jolting issue in USA Today newspaper on Friday, that, "Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same. The campaign...required commentator Armstrong Williams `to regularly comment on NCLB [No Child Left Behind] during the course of his broadcasts,' and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004."

Senators led by Democratic leader Harry Reid have written the president, Albert Hunt, to say that Mr. Williams should give the money back, that this was a violation against the law of blatant government propaganda.

Wait a second...my tax dollars are sponsoring this kind of propaganda?

On The McLaughlin Group last night, John brought up the topic of tsunami relief aid pledged by governments, per capita. I touched on this in a comment here earlier. I found a breakdown of not only per capita data, but also per capita normalized by GDP. The leader in the normalized data is Qatar, with $53.46. The United States comes in 27th with $1.19, right behind France with $1.50. It's interesting data for sure. I've put it in a CSV, sorted by the normalized data. I'd also like to see something like this for private donations, but a quick search didn't yield anything.

I made a mistake today. I read the comments on a politics.slashdot.org story. There were a few worth sharing here. The first one is about how bills get passed in Congress.

I write a bill. It is good. It goes through committees and ends up with a hundred unrelated riders.

Now, my friend, he doesn't mind those 100 riders, so he votes on the initial bill. The bill doesn't get enough votes, gets sent back to committee.

In that committee, it gets reworked, a few more riders. Gets sent back to congress. It gets voted for debate (my friend votes for the debate to happen), and then in the process a few more motions get approved that tack a few more provisions on that bill.

Now, one of those provisions says that some state can take more water from the Colorado River than it already does. The Colorado River is already under huge pressure from water users, and my friend is a representative from CO. Therefore, when the bill comes up, he votes against it because he can't approve a legislative measure that would deprive his already drought-conditioned constituents of even more water.

The problem is that the bill would have provided affordable housing for 250,000 families across the country.

So, when my friend is up for election, his staff pulls the voting records and--presto! My friend is "against affordable housing for working class families". Even better, he flip-flopped on the issue, because "he voted for it before he voted against it."

And another one, referencing a Simpson's quote on the notion that America is safer since we started the War "on Terror:"

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

In a speech that President Bush made this afternoon, he had this to say in regard to America's current foreign policy: "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, freedom is the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."

Since America is Iraq's liberator and since we gave freedom to the people there and in Afghanistan, is Bush implying that his actions are sanctioned by The Almighty? Is he implying that he's carrying out God's will?

How can anyone argue with that? If you're acting on God's behalf or carrying out divine will, well, that's it. There is no higher power, no one to answer to. Your actions are not only right, they are the only morally responsible actions.

Islamic Jihadists also claim to be on God's side. It is God's will that the infidels be brought down. It is God's will to create a Muslim state...by the barrel of a gun if needed.

I'm not trying to say that Bush is a terrorist. Far from it. But Bush does seem to have a belief in right or wrong, black and white, with us or against us, saved or damned. We need to remember that there are grey areas and that there is room for doubt. We should not claim that we're spreading The Almighty's gift to the world...especially when it's by the barrel of a gun.

"A man never tells you anything until you contradict him." -George Bernard Shaw

I came across that quote a few years back and I think that it has really shaped my life. If we all go along in life agreeing with everybody and stroking each others egos, no progress can be made. You only get superficial rhetoric until you put someone on the defense and make them back up their statements.

It is for this very reason that I subscribe to a few Bush/Cheny '04 RSSfeeds, as well as a Kerry/Edwards feed. The feeds are great at rebutting each other. It is also the reason that I check out Rush Limbaugh's web site every now and then and see what his current rant-of-the-moment is. I don't always disagree with what he initially says. But by the time he expands on it...by the time he's really told me what he means and his thought process to bring him there...I seem to always be shaking my head in disbelief.

In this weekend's Weekly Radio Address by the President, Bush said, "And although teen birth rates have declined, about 3 million of our teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases each year. So we've requested a doubling of federal funding for abstinence-only education programs."

Ahem. You're going to prevent the transmission of STDs by telling teens to not have sex? What about the 40% of 15 year olds that are already having sex?

It's fine for people to have conservative values. You may abstain if you want to. But you can't ignore the facts. A surprising number of teens have sex. Sure, you can tell them not to. But many of them are going to do it anyway. You need to inform them of the options. Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to not get pregnant or an STD. But condoms can really help. So can a committed, monogamous relationship. If you're going to choose to have sex, you need to know how to be safe about it.

Does President Bush understand the science behind his abstinence-only desires? Do you think he was a virgin during his coked-up, alcoholic years? Is he making these speeches simply to appease his base? I don't know the answers. But I do know that I think abstinence-only sex ed is ineffective and valueless.

I'm back, safe and sound. I got into Chicago Saturday afternoon...I'm still piecing my life back together (bills, cleaning, laundry). It was an amazing trip, to say the least! I'm working on a web site. I took over 1,000 photos (using the burst shooting mode when a cheetah is walking across the road in front of you, for example, leads to lots of pictures).

Actually, I haven't worked on the website tonight. Instead, I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I was in Africa when it came out, and I just couldn't wait to see it! I mean, I've always believed that this war was about economics and oil, but Moore presents more facts than I could ever dream of uncovering. Weapons? Liberation? Nope. Just a guise. Hopefully John Edwards can give the Kerry campaign the boost it needs to get Dubya out of office. (BTW, Edwards announced his presidential candidacy on the Daily Show. He won my support right there and then!)

I came across this news story this weekend and I just thought it was terrible.

Vatican officials, in an official church document released Friday, discouraged marriage between Catholics and Muslims -- especially Catholic women and Muslim men.

When "a Catholic woman and a Muslim wish to marry," the document says, "bitter experience teaches us that a particularly careful and in-depth preparation is called for."

With the current world situation, I am forced to wonder why the Catholic Church would make an official statement that would help to drive a bigger wedge between Christianity and Islam than already exists. Aren't there enough problems with relations between the two religions? This kind of sentiment will only widen the gap and worsen already trying relations. The implications of this statement sadden me. We need to encourage tolerance and unity. We need to celebrate the similarities rather than dwell on the differences.

A friend of mine made a comment about "the link between al Qaeda and Iraq." I about blew up at him. Then he clarified what he meant: that there was not a link before the war, but now there is. I was relieved to hear him say that. But I still feel compelled to write a bit about my feelings here.

After 9/11, both the FBI and CIA told Bush that Iraq did not sponsor al Qaeda and that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. But at the time of the war, 70% of the people in this nation believed that Iraq had something to do with it. Do you know why? Because that's exactly what the Administration wanted you to think! They didn't directly make the claim; they just talked about 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath to give the impression. The administration played on the patriotism and fear of the people after 9/11 and drove us into the wrong war. We should have gone after al Qaeda. We should have gone after their state support with diplomatic sanctions (Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the biggest supporters). Instead we're making their anti-America case stronger. Now we have Iraqi's being abused in prisons and Americans getting their heads cut off. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. And people keep dying.

This is an edgy piece about the war.