Three things should never be discussed in polite conversation:
Sex, POLITICS, and Religion
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly
The beauty and curse of living in a democracy is that we have no one to
blame but ourselves.
If our government is "of
and by the people", then "we, the people," are ultimately responsible for what our government does.
George Bush III ? (seriously): Sept. 24, 2008
The reason for George Bush's 30% approval rating is not that 70% of Americans disagree with his decisions or how they were made; it's because we're unhappy with the results: an expensive and long war, the current state of the economy. This is an important distinction, because it raises the question of what the experience of the last eight years has taught us as a country.
Which brings me to the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. As so many people have noted, she is a likeable person, as was (and still is): George Bush. But don't the events of the last eight years suggest that "likeability" is not nearly enough to qualify one to be President of the United States? (Oddly, no one required this of Dick Cheney.)
It's worth noting, I think, that the delegates at the Republican convention who received Palin so enthusiastically are a pretty good representation of the 30% of Americans who still think that George Bush is doing a good job. A lot of that enthusiasm is because Bush and Palin have very similar world-views.
As it applies to international relations, it's a simplistic world-view, one that basically sees the world as divided into two camps: good and evil; "for us" or "against us". Essential to this view is the assumption that "God is on our side." This kind of thinking lead directly to disaster in Iraq.
(Interestingly, Abraham Lincoln had exactly the opposite view. He felt that we should be striving to be on "God's side". In fact, Lincoln was afraid that God might not be on "our" side at all! He was concerned that the Civil War might be His judgment on the nation for the sin of slavery.)
Sarah Palin also appears to share Bush's preference for ideology over science as the best way to determine what is “true”. (That is, what you believe determines the facts, not the other way around.) This might not be important - as a practical matter - in a discussion about the origin of the universe, but Bush's willful disregard for scientific evidence has resulted in an eight-year delay to the development of a coherent energy policy, as well as a meaningful response to global warming.
A third similarity is that both Bush and Palin have a track record of valuing loyalty over competence in the people they choose to help them govern. This is important because so much of a president's effectiveness depends on the quality of the people who fill the key positions of an administration. (Ironically, Bush seems to have gotten better at this in his second term.)
I think it's fair to say that John McCain's years of experience at the national level have given him a somewhat more nuanced view of the world than that of Sarah Palin; he's not an ideologue; and he has demonstrated a willingness to reach across party lines. Yet the fact that he chose her for such a position of responsibility is not unimportant.
Campaign 08: January 17, 2008
I am apparently the only one who thinks that way too much was made of Barak's Obama's spur-of-the-moment comment regarding Hillary Clinton's "likeability". ("Hillary, you're likeable enough.") The comment - composed without the benefit of writers, who are on strike - struck me as an honest attempt at humor, in an awkward moment. And frankly, not all that bad.
I am also apparently the only one who thinks way too much way made of Hillary's comment regarding Lyndon's Johnson's contribution to the civil rights movement, which did not strike me as in any way disparaging of Martin Luther King. In fact, the point she was making (in support of her campaign premise that experience is important) was perfectly valid. In order to have change, you need both the visionary (King, among others) and those on the "inside" (Johnson, among others) who get it done.
I was struck in the last Democratic candidate debate, that no one had a particularly good answer to the question: "is the surge working?" Of course, it's working; if the U.S. had had sufficient troops on the ground four years ago, thousands of lives would have been saved.
The obvious problem is that this is not sustainable. The armed forces are way overextended, and at some time in the near future, the troops have to start coming home. Then, what?
I've been saying for months that when all the dust settles, Republicans will come to their senses, and back to John McCain. I really hope that's true; it would make for a far more edifying general election campaign.
Fixing “Fraud” October 1, 2007
I
sometimes refer to myself as "an expert at the obvious." This falls into that category.
A number
of states have recently enacted legislation requiring picture identification
for voters, on the premise that this reduces the potential for voter fraud.
Some observers have speculated that these laws are actually motivated by the
desire for political advantage.
What
strikes me as obvious is this: if you are legitimately concerned about fraud,
why not issue picture voter registration cards (just like at the DMV), at
government expense? I think it would be
fair to question the motive of anyone who would oppose such a proposal.
On a
related subject: the overwhelming majority of Americans have come to the
conclusion that the only reasonable and acceptable solution to the voting
irregularities that nearly caused a constitutional crises in 2000 are electronic
voting machines with a verifiable paper trail. (A paper receipt is printed that
the voter inspects for accuracy, and is saved by election officials in case it
is needed for a recount.) Why have so many politicians been so far behind the
curve on this? Why would anyone be
against it?
Another Anniversary: Sept 11, 2007
Concerning Iraq, there have been a couple of developments over the past few months, unofficial, and somewhat subtle.
Although the administration has not articulated a current vision for "success" in Iraq, the American people have started to develop a pretty clear picture. A consensus has formed around the modest idea that an Iraq after the American military departs cannot be a sanctuary for terrorists, nor can it be the scene of a full-scale civil war.
The overextension of the military means that maintaining our current troop levels for more than even a few months is not possible; some troops will come home. It also seems clear that the administration's strategy is to run out the clock: it is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in policy before the next administration takes office.
I think this has interesting implications for the presidential campaign. Since circumstances are unlikely to change significantly, the candidates can begin to talk about what they would do if they take office in January of 2009. What would be the strategy, not only for Iraq, but for addressing the broader threat of terrorism? (This is what Americans care about, anyway.) What, if anything, would they do differently?
The big lie still works: Feb 28, 2007
This
story was egregiously overlooked by the main stream media (with the exception
of Howard Kurtz of Reliable Sources): A January 19th report by Fox
"News" (who else) that Hillary Clinton's campaign had leaked a story
about Barak Obama, claiming that Barak had attended a radical madrassa as a
student. There were two problems with this story: 1) Barak did no such thing
(he grew up in Hawaii)
and 2) Hillary's campaign didn't leak it.
However,
the story accomplished two things: 1) it managed to attach Barak to American's
fear of radical Islam, and 2) it libeled Hillary's campaign for going
"negative". (Never mind the
lack of journalistic ethics just in reporting a story that isn't true.) There is no question that Fox has crossed the
line into deliberate propaganda, and people should say so.
Sept. 11, 2006
An honest conversation
As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, here’s where
we are:- After a successful military conquest of the Taliban in Afghanistan, we
have allowed that country to deteriorate into the world’s largest opium
producer, a crop that had almost disappeared under the Taliban.
- We successfully overthrew Saddam Hussein’s government, but
we never had enough troops to maintain any semblance of law and order, seal the
borders, or prevent the looting of ammunition dumps, supplies from which are
still being used to kill American soldiers and over 1000 Iraqi civilians every
month.
- Over three years after our invasion, most of central Iraq is
far more dangerous than it ever was under Hussein; oil revenues - which were
supposed to pay for the war- are still down, and electricity is less
reliable. With a thousand Iraqis dying
each month in violence, we cannot begin to make the claim that Iraq is better
off now than it was under Saddam Hussein.
- The moral standing and good-will that the United States
had throughout the world has completely eroded, particularly among Arab
countries.
- Our military resources, especially personnel, have been
depleted to the point where the armed forces and national guard can not meet
enlistment quotas, and we would not be able to respond to a major military
situation elsewhere in the world.
- The CIA still lacks sufficient language translators, and the
Army’s mission is greatly hindered by the lack of same.
- The budget surplus that existed in 2000 has turned into the
largest deficit in history, while the most wealthy citizens have received tax
cuts.
- By declaring a rhetorical “war on terror” for a war that has
no definable end-point, the administration has written itself a blank check for
accumulating power to the executive branch.
Thoughts:
The lack of sufficient troops could be partially blamed on
bad intelligence, but it was mostly the result of bad ideology- a worldview that expected parades in the
streets of Baghdad
to welcome the conquering army. The claim that a morally superior form of
governance can be imposed by force on a people is about as conservative an idea
as Leninist communism, and would never have been supported by the American
people as a sufficient justification for war.
The problem with coming up with an alternate strategy for
Iraq is that we have yet to have an honest conversation about what it is we’re
trying to accomplish there. As the centerpiece to the “war on terror” it is a
terrible misappropriation of resources - a tiny fraction of the cost of the war
could have been spent instead on hiring and training foreign language
interpreters, or inspecting shipping cargo.
As an opportunity to replace a tyrannical regime with a Western
democracy, it is among the worst of many opportunities - far better prospects
exist throughout the African continent.
I suspect that an honest deliberation by the American people would
conclude that it is our responsibility - and probably, the only attainable goal - to not leave Iraq worse off
than we found it. What we should have done (too late now!) is install a puppet dictator and then slowly turn over power an Iraqui government. (Kind of like we did with Japan.)
Aug 8, 2006:
Do you feel safer?
Someone
has finally confirmed my long-held suspicion that the $5 billion we
spend annually on airport security is basically for show - to create
the perception in the public’s mind that our government is “doing
something” about terrorism. “The inspection process is mostly security
theatre, to make people feel safe about flying” (John Mueller, Ohio State). I want my nailclippers back.
If you want to experience “real” airport security, competently and unobtrusively managed, fly El-Al. When their agents ask if anyone has handled your luggage, it’s not pro-forma. They actually look you in the eye - they’re trained to see if you are lying.
Aug 7, 2006:
Body counts:
3,030 people died as a result of the Sept 11 attacks. So far, 3,011
coalition soldiers have died in our military response to that
attack. How will we commemorate the date when more Americans will
have died as the result of our response to the attacks than to the
attacks, themselves?
P.S. 3,438 Iraqi civilians died from violence in July of 2006
Aug 4, 2006:
You heard it here first:
It is very possible that the Democrats will lose in the upcoming fall
elections, for lack of an affirmative vision for the country. The
only thing they have going for them is the plausible claim that "we
won't screw up things as badly as the Republicans." As bad as things
are, that may not be good enough.
Ok, so I wasn't first.
According to September's Atlantic Monthly, oddmakers in Las Vegas give
Republicans a 54% chance of holding their House majority this
fall. Someone should tell the Democrats.
When I first
heard the concept, a couple of months ago, of the "party of the public
good" I thought that was an idea to run with. But shocking to me, so
far, no takers.
Editor's note: OK, so I was wrong about this one, but that was probably only because Mark Foley couldn't keep his hands to himself.
Best political commentators
- Mark Shields and David Brooks (PBS) Brooks is really smart.
- Cokie Roberts, George Will, Fareed Zakaria and George Stephenopolis (ABC)
Best political cartoonists
Favorite political columnists
Gone, but still appreciated: Meg Greenfield, Mike Royko
Best TV news anchor: Jim Lehrer
Worst TV news anchor (retired): Dan Rather - the irony is that Mr. Rather was
(remember Vietnam?) a pretty good reporter. But behind
the desk he sounded like Keith Jackson, the football announcer, whom I
didn't much like, either. (Whoa Nelly!)
Easiest (most fun) politicians to listen to
- Charles Rangel
- Bob Dole - politics aside, a genuinely funny guy
- Bill Clinton - the best President since JFK, and certainly the most entertaining.
- Barney Frank
I'm with Andy Rooney on this - I'm pretty weary of the politician's blessing - "God Bless America". How about "God bless the
world?".
The Common Sense Party
Here's my suggestion for a new third party platform: (if no one else wants it)
We believe in what works. Independent of ideology, we support ideas which produce results.
We are willing to try new ideas, with the understanding that if something doesn't work, we will try something else.
We believe in an open and honest discussion of the issues. We
will not distort the views of another in order to win an argument. We believe that even when there is intense disagreement on an issue, there is always some common ground. We believe that almost every issue produces the opportunity for a win-win solution.
For years I have participated in the local version of the National Issues Forum.
One of their major tenets is that people who have very different
opinions on an issue can come together and find areas of agreement -
"common ground for action".
"More damage is done each day by incompetence than by a month's worth of evil." - me
The reason I bring this up is that the day after the attacks at the
World Trade Center, I could have predicted the headlines for a year or
so later: "Somebody Screwed Up". I don't think the FBI ever recovered
from the J. Edgar Hoover era; it is one of the most bureaucratic and
self-protective organizations in government.
HISTORICAL POSTS
Real Scandals: October, 2001
I'm not sure which is
the greater outrage -that the FBI/CIA had to place help-wanted ads to
recruit people who can translate Arabic, or that Republicans in
Congress, under the cover of patriotism and the ruse of economic
stimulus, took the opportunity of a national crisis to reward rich
campaign contributors with ten years of tax forgiveness.
As for the airline bailout, wouldn't we be better off if the major
airlines - with the exception of Southwest - actually went bankrupt and
were replaced with a bunch of smaller airlines who actually competed
with one another in a free market?
I find it interesting that the Democrats are immediately
accused of "class warfare" when they point out that the proposed tax
cuts primarily favor the wealthiest. Aren't the tax cuts the real class
warfare?
More than Conquerors
It should not surprise Americans that we are sometimes resented for
being the world's richest and most powerful country - and for the ways
in which we sometimes use that power. One of the silver linings of the
Sept 11th tradgedy is that the American public is no longer blissfully
unaware of the consequences of United States foreign policy. A major
story lost in the shadow of Sept. 11: in the early 1970's, the
President of the United States and the Secretary of State conspired to
prevent the democratically elected president of a foreign country from
taking office - through a CIA-sponsored assassination! His U.S.
supported successor tortured and killed thousands of their citizens
over the next fourteen years. You know, it's a pretty fine line between
that situation and the attacks on New York and Washington. Similarly,
later in the 1970's we brought the Iran hostage crises upon ourselves
through our support of the corrupt Shah of Iran. In the Middle East,
even now many see us as an occupying force, propping up a tyrannical
dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. We are not seen as the freedom fighters
who liberated Kuwait, because, to be honest, we're not. We fought the
Gulf War to protect the world's oil supplies - which may have been
reason enough - but we need learn to see how others in the world see
us.
Critics would say this is blaming the victim - but it really, really
doesn't matter who is "at fault". What IS important is finding out what
can be done to help prevent similar tragedies in the future. For
starters, it would probably help if moderate Muslim clerics in the
Middle East were more vocal in their condemnation of the use of Islam
as a justification for hatred. In the short-term, military action also
has merit, to the extent that we can eliminate those who have the means
and motive to do us harm today.
As a matter of public policy. We should be spending as much money and
effort on bringing relief to the Afghanistani people as we are spending
on the military. The case can be made that the most successful
government policy of the last fifty years was the rebuilding of Germany
and Japan following World War II - when we could have ruled them as an
occupying power. We took two HATED enemies and turned them into two of
our most reliable allies and two of the world's strongest economies
(and not incidentally, two of our largest trading partners). If we want
to maintain our current peace and prosperity, perhaps we need to give
more of it away - not in arrogance, or condescendingly, but out of
self-interest. (And just maybe we should consider getting out of the
business of being the world's arms dealer!) A conqueror is someone who
has soundly defeated his enemy. A "more than conqueror" turns his
enemies into friends.
If it doesn't work, fix it
An obvious example of what doesn't work is our practice of
incarcerating non-violent drug offenders. The cost to society is huge,
both human and financial, with almost no resulting benefit. Rarely does
a drug user receive any treatment, meaning that when they are released
from prison, they are more likely to be addicted, and more likely to
commit crime, than when they went in.
In fact, our entire prison system is an example of what doesn't work.
The typical inmate receives little if any education or job training -
that might be considered coddling - so that when they are eventually
released (which most are, we tend to forget) why are we surprised when
the majority return to crime? This is insanity. Revenge is a lousy
motivation for a public policy.
Ammendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Are we concerned enough about the erosion of the privacy rights of the
American citizen? Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that
police do not need a search warrant to record a telephone conversation
between an informant and a suspect. Most remarkably, in the Court's
opinion, the suspect's assumption that his conversation was private
"was not something that society would recognize as objectively
reasonable." Well, that's good to know. According to the Court,
therefore, we should ASSUME that all our phone conversations are being
monitored! Add this to the fact that law enforcement officials already
have the right to spy on us from the sky (looking for drugs), and to
stop us without cause on the highway (sobriety checkpoints).
Ironically, had it not been for the votes of two of its most
conservative members (Scalia and Thomas) the police would have the
right to peer into our homes using infrared waves. No justification for
any of this surveillance is required - that's what search warrants are
theoretically for.
The courts have also ruled that school students have essentially no
legally protected private space, and that it is perfectly legal to
require drug testing as a condition of extracurricular activity. Is
this what we want to teach our children, that they are not to be
trusted? 75% of employers routinely monitor their employees' phone
conversations, emails, and/or web usage - all legally. (You know the
saying "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after
you?" Well, several years ago, management in our department replaced
all of our brand new Macs - which are harder to spy on - with PCs.
Recently, we were "upgraded". The benefit? We no longer have the
software that at least lets us know when we are being spied on!) No one
considers the affect of this constant surveillance on employee morale
or productivity. Is this the kind of society that we want? Until
recently, probably the greatest deterrent to snooping on a grand scale
has been that it's just too much trouble. How large a bureaucracy would
you need to watch everybody? - but technology is about to solve that.
Record everything, and let the computers sort it out. How long before
some data bank is able to match our credit card statements with our
television habits , looking for deviant behavior? (And send a print-out
to the local police.)
A country where official snooping has become accepted practice seems a
long way from a nation founded on the principle that people have an
inalienable, and self-evident right to "liberty and the pursuit of
happiness." What would the colonists have thought if King George had
routinely opened everyone's mail?
The Law of Supply and Demand
An interesting idea
occurred to me the other day. If marijuana were legalized (no, don't
tax it, that would defeat the purpose), everyone who wanted to would
grow what they needed in their own backyard. The price would drop to
practically zero, which would eliminate it as a source of illegal
income. (Isn't the biggest argument against drugs the crime that is
produced as a result?) Buyers of marijuana would no longer exposed to
dealers of the more dangerous drugs, nor would they want to be. Who would
want to risk their life, money and freedom in a dangerous and unfamiliar
neighborhood, if it wasn't necessary? Just a thought..
More Honesty in Politics
A lot has been made of the
lack of honesty/integrity in politics; most of which misses the point.
Anyone who claims that they "always tell the truth" has lied already. A
philosophical debate on lies, "white lies" and misstatements is really
not necessary.
The political arena is the place where public policy is debated and
implemented. The real question is how does a politician's integrity, or
lack thereof, affect the political process. Is a politician willing to
distort his views, or those of his opponent, in order to win votes
(sometimes called pandering), or score political points?
Also, when a politician makes a promise to another politician, can it
be counted on? This has relevance, in that it impacts his ability to
make the compromises which are essential to getting anything
accomplished. It also certainly impacts the political atmosphere. (This
is why the tone in Washington won't change just because someone wishes
it so; too many lawmakers have not been honest with one another.)
Thoughts on the presidential election
Losing this
election must have felt like losing the Super Bowl on the last play of
the game, when the referee refused to review a questionable call. But
as Joe Paterno might say, the game was actually lost back in the third
quarter when they failed to convert on third down. If either candidate
had been able to persuade even 51% of the electorate, none of this
would have mattered. ...
This election was a choice between a candidate who didn't mind letting
you know that he was smarter than everyone else, and a candidate who
didn't seem to have that problem. ... Jim Lehrer made the best
observation. Isn't it interesting that what people thought about
"chads" fell so precisely along party lines? What are the odds of that?
... Anyone who claims that machine counting of punchcard ballots is
more "accurate" that a handcount is simply not telling the truth. So
much for "restoring integrity..." ... Clearly, the best solution in
Florida would have been to re-count all the votes in the state by hand
by a single standard. Isn't that rather obvious? ... How incredibly
disingenuous was the Supreme Court's claim that Florida's recount was a
violation of the equal protection clause? Doesn't the fact that
different regions of the state use different voting technologies -
resulting in varying degrees of undercounts - make the entire election
a violation of the equal protection clause?
Electoral College
In my naive youth, I remember
thinking that it was time to abolish electoral college. But now, I
think the recent close election
makes a very good argument for its continued existence, in some form.
If an entire election appears to hinge on just a few thousand votes,
would we really
want to wait for a recount of every vote in the country?
The
best suggestion I've heard so far: the winner of each congressional
district gets one electoral vote, the winner of each state gets an
additional two votes.
For what its worth
The politicians in Congress who
impeached President Clinton - essentially for having an affair and then
lying about it - did far more damage to our political system than did
Mr. Clinton. They probably deserved impeachment.
The truth be told
When Americans claim to wish that
politicians "would just tell the truth", they are only lying to
themselves. (Remember when Michael Dukakis said during the 1988
presidential campaign that he would probably have to raise taxes?
That's how the electorate rewards honesty!) One of the great things
about a democracy is that we usually get what we deserve - and if we're
really lucky, just a little bit better. Those who are old enough will
recall the universal gnashing of teeth when it turned out that Richard
Nixon really was a crook. But who decided to hire him for the job? We
did.
The price of intellectual dishonesty
Some - but
certainly not all - of the antagonism in Congress dates to the Clarence
Thomas confirmation hearings. Democrats should have had the courage of
their political opinion, and opposed his confirmation on the basis of
his judicial and political views. Instead, the main issue of the
hearings were ten-year-old charges of sexual harassment, which, even if
they were true, were committed in an entirely different cultural
environment, and should have been judged in that context.
Learning how to Think
As I watched the broadcast of the
60 Minutes' interview with Timothy McVeigh, it occurred to me that this
man never learned how to think for himself.
Teaching future citizens to think for themselves ought to be one of the
highest priorities of public education. Every high school graduate
ought to be able to see and articulate two - or more - sides of an
issue, understand the underlying assumptions, be able to identify the
inconsistencies of the arguments, and defend their own conclusions.
Ideally, they should be at least minimally aware of their own biases
and assumptions.
Is this asking too much? I don't think so. If our children wait until
college -if then- to learn how to think, what about the 75% who don't
go to college? Can a democracy afford to continue to have citizens who
are unable to evaluate the claims of politicians, and who cannot tell
when they are being pandered to?
Teaching our children to think for themselves is a tricky thing,
however. It means that we have to be willing for them to challenge
authority (including ours), question assumptions (including ours), and
come to conclusions different than our own. It is a price that parents
and educators are not always willing to pay. It is time consuming. It
sometimes means having to justify our decisions. It may require that we
examine our own beliefs and opinions. It is much easier to teach our
children that "this is the way the world is" (a variation of "because I
said so") than to have them see the world in shades of gray. In this
interview, Mr. McVeigh made it plain that this was not something that
he gleaned from his education. After enlisting in the army, he went to
the Gulf War, as he said, with the same perspective as "everybody else"
- that we were the "good guys" and the Iraqis were the "bad guys". Now,
while certainly not true of everybody, this simple-minded concept of
the "enemy" was probably fairly common. How else do you motivate tens
of thousands of men to risk their lives in a dispute over the world's
oil supplies?
(Consider that the nearly universal hatred for the Japanese and Germans
during World War II served the useful purpose of motivating the country
to make the sacrifices that were necessary to win the war. This does
not call into question whether our entry into World War II was just or
necessary - or, for that matter, whether the Gulf War was just or
necessary - but as late as Dec. 6, 1941 the United State had no
interest in fighting a foreign war just because it was the right thing
to do. Yet part of the cost was that it took many years for the
average citizen to let go of prejudices that had previously been so
"useful".)
One day in the Persian Gulf, McVeigh had an epiphany: the human beings
at the other end of his rifle scope were not at all unlike himself, men
who had left their families to fight a war on their government's
say-so. These men had no personal hatred for him, they - like he - were
just doing what they were told.
Suddenly, everything that McVeigh believed was called into question.
Lacking a belief system based on personal observation and thoughtful
analysis, McVeigh latched onto the closest "truth" at hand: the
conspiratorial anti-government rantings of the crowd with which he hung
out. In McVeigh's mind, if what the government said wasn't true, then
what these guys said must be true. McVeigh was deeply offended that
innocent women and children lost their lives at the hands of
the government in Waco, Texas. But to him, to kill innocent women and
children in response seemed perfectly reasonable. He lacked the
mechanism for evaluating the logic and validity of his beliefs.
The thing is, there are a lot of Timothy McVeighs out there. It has
become an accepted maxim in America that everyone has a right to his or
her beliefs, no matter how ridiculous. But every right has a
corresponding responsibility; in this case, we should be teaching our
children to accept responsibility for what they believe, because ideas
matter. As Solomon said, "as a man thinks, so is he."
January 24, 2000:
Flag Polls
I don't get a chance to listen to talk radio much, but I was listening
to the local AM station when they announced the results of their
admittedly unscientific listener poll. Inasmuch as we live in Central
Pa, and talk radio listeners tend to the conservative side (at least by
my observation), I was rather astonished by some of the results. If I
heard correctly:
- A majority believed that gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military,
- A substantial majority thought that Elian Gonzalez should be returned to his father in Cuba.
Given
that, I found it all the more astonishing that 62% of listeners thought
that South Carolina should continue to fly the Confederate flag over
its state capitol! Rather ironically, a recent poll suggests that only
52% of South Carolinians agree with them! What's up with that? As Leonard Pitts
said in his Jan. 22 column: "What would we say to the Germans if they
chose to fly the swastika above their capitol?... if they said they
were simply honoring the heritage of forbears who fought for what the
believed?"
e-mail me