Sunday, November 21, 2004
Open Letter To President Bush
Mr. President:
I personally did not vote for you either this year or in 2000. I personally do not agree with 95% of your administrations policies. However, I sincerely hope that your views on basic Constitutional law are sincere and not clouded by the fog currently being emitted by many of the religious groups that recently helped re-elect you.
I would like to know, if possible, your opinion on the recent actions of the Federal Communications Commission. By recent actions, I mean the ones that resulted in numerous ABC affiliates decision not to air the movie “Saving Private Ryan” on Veteran’s Day. This comes as part of a recent crackdown by the agency on what the people running it view as indecent content.
While there has not yet been much of an actual crackdown, there are strong hints that there will be one in the future. This in response to some mild swearing by Bono of the rock band U2 on a music awards telecast a few years ago. Then of course we come to the famous Super Bowl halftime show from earlier this year in which millions of people saw a breast. Specifically the breast of Ms. Janet Jackson
Mr. President, through the entire outcry that ensued following that incident, I did not hear as much as a peep from you. I assume that was because you rightly saw the whole brouhaha as much ado about not much. However, some of your biggest supporters took the whole thing to ridiculous extremes.
In fact, it has gotten to the point now where many of them are calling for more laws, more government regulation. Their reason for calling for this regulation is supposedly to stamp out what they view as indecency.
Mr. President, you came to office on a platform of “compassionate conservatism”, as you put it. That platform suggests a less intrusive government that doesn’t butt its nose around in areas where it doesn’t belong.
Those areas including what we choose to watch on television, what we choose to listen to on the radio, what we choose to read, what we choose to see when we go to the movies. That should be our choice. As part of a capitalistic society, TV stations should be allowed to show what they want. We always have the choice of changing the channel, putting in a DVD or turning the TV set completely off and reading a book.
Censorship of any kind goes totally against the ideal of living in a free society. This is a case of potential censorship for one very simple reason: the stations that chose not to air Saving Private Ryan did so on account of fear. Not fear of protest from offended viewers. But fear of governmental action. Governmental action that is against the law of the land. By law of the land I mean the US Constitution.
Now consider the movie they were afraid of showing. This was not hardcore pornography. It was not some cheaply made “Chucky” film. This was Saving Private Ryan, a truly violent movie. But one about a very pertinent subject. Also an extremely patriotic movie. Patriotic enough that Sen. John McCain, a member of your own party, endorsed the airing of it.
Mr. President. If you are not really going to make government less intrusive, could you at least do something about making it less dogmatic? The proposed actions of the FCC come very close to being something less out of America and more out of a third rate banana republic.
I do not expect a personal response to this letter. However, any public comment on the issues raised would be appreciated.
Sincerely
Jeff Wilder
Mr. President:
I personally did not vote for you either this year or in 2000. I personally do not agree with 95% of your administrations policies. However, I sincerely hope that your views on basic Constitutional law are sincere and not clouded by the fog currently being emitted by many of the religious groups that recently helped re-elect you.
I would like to know, if possible, your opinion on the recent actions of the Federal Communications Commission. By recent actions, I mean the ones that resulted in numerous ABC affiliates decision not to air the movie “Saving Private Ryan” on Veteran’s Day. This comes as part of a recent crackdown by the agency on what the people running it view as indecent content.
While there has not yet been much of an actual crackdown, there are strong hints that there will be one in the future. This in response to some mild swearing by Bono of the rock band U2 on a music awards telecast a few years ago. Then of course we come to the famous Super Bowl halftime show from earlier this year in which millions of people saw a breast. Specifically the breast of Ms. Janet Jackson
Mr. President, through the entire outcry that ensued following that incident, I did not hear as much as a peep from you. I assume that was because you rightly saw the whole brouhaha as much ado about not much. However, some of your biggest supporters took the whole thing to ridiculous extremes.
In fact, it has gotten to the point now where many of them are calling for more laws, more government regulation. Their reason for calling for this regulation is supposedly to stamp out what they view as indecency.
Mr. President, you came to office on a platform of “compassionate conservatism”, as you put it. That platform suggests a less intrusive government that doesn’t butt its nose around in areas where it doesn’t belong.
Those areas including what we choose to watch on television, what we choose to listen to on the radio, what we choose to read, what we choose to see when we go to the movies. That should be our choice. As part of a capitalistic society, TV stations should be allowed to show what they want. We always have the choice of changing the channel, putting in a DVD or turning the TV set completely off and reading a book.
Censorship of any kind goes totally against the ideal of living in a free society. This is a case of potential censorship for one very simple reason: the stations that chose not to air Saving Private Ryan did so on account of fear. Not fear of protest from offended viewers. But fear of governmental action. Governmental action that is against the law of the land. By law of the land I mean the US Constitution.
Now consider the movie they were afraid of showing. This was not hardcore pornography. It was not some cheaply made “Chucky” film. This was Saving Private Ryan, a truly violent movie. But one about a very pertinent subject. Also an extremely patriotic movie. Patriotic enough that Sen. John McCain, a member of your own party, endorsed the airing of it.
Mr. President. If you are not really going to make government less intrusive, could you at least do something about making it less dogmatic? The proposed actions of the FCC come very close to being something less out of America and more out of a third rate banana republic.
I do not expect a personal response to this letter. However, any public comment on the issues raised would be appreciated.
Sincerely
Jeff Wilder
Monday, November 01, 2004
Why not to vote for either Bush or Kerry
Tomorrow being Election Day, it is close to time to answer that all-important question: Which chimp should we send to the big house for the next four years?
You can get some mighty persuasive arguments for why you should vote for this side over the other, albeit arguments that often leave out what is so good about their particular side. Then you get arguments about why this side is great and the other side would be a disaster for America.
In the corner for Bush, we have several arguments. One common argument is taxes. Many Bush supporters argue that Bush has at least cut the taxes and that all Kerry will do is raise them. Kerry in turn fires back that he will only raise the taxes on the rich and decrease them on the middle and lower classes.
Both sides’ claims are accurate. Now let’s contrast the Bush/Kerry tax plans with some others. Let’s consider a presidential tax plan that cuts both taxes and government spending. Bush did cut taxes some. But he didn’t cut spending as much as he should have and there is no evidence that Kerry will either
Another major issue (in fact THE major issue) is terrorism and homeland security. We have Bush who did well in the early days of the war on terror in going after Al Qaeda at its Afghan base. But it wasn’t long before Bush went off on a personal vendetta that led us into as Omar Bradley put it, “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong enemy”.
Kerry hems and haws and talks a good game. But does he really have a plan? How about a plan that involved gradually moving on from Iraq and focusing on the major terrorists?
The war on drugs? Pretty hard to distinguish one candidate from the other in spite of their rhetoric on it. How about a drug policy that involves decriminalizing drugs (NOT ACCEPTING THEM) and treating them as a health problem instead of a criminal matter. How about maybe looking at the legitimate uses of Medical marijuana?
Welfare? Well this depends on which candidate you are referring to. Both are in favor of it. Bush and the Republicans support corporate welfare while Kerry is in favor of the current welfare system in spite of evidence that it actually exacerbates the poverty problem rather than improving it. How about replacing the welfare system with a jobs based system? How about eliminating corporate welfare?
Gay rights and gay marriage? Neither party truly gets it here. Who gets married is not the government’s business. It is the individuals business. As for the religious argument, how about electing a president who truly gets it that church and state are meant to be kept separate?
In actuality, I already voted. Voted two weeks ago under Florida’s early voting system. In the presidential race I cast my vote not for Bush or Kerry. But for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik.
Why? Because he is the candidate whose views are closest to mine on how our government should work. Is he perfect? No. But he’s far more on target 90% of the time than Bush and Kerry are who are more likely to spout party rhetoric.
On taxes, Badnarik understands that low spending complements low taxes and that cutting taxes for all is how we need to do it. Not just cutting taxes for your base. You hear that Mr. Bush?
On the war on terror, Badnarik understands that the best way to fight it is to go right after the terrorists, not use the military as a means of removing bad leaders in countries that have them and replace them with Democratic leaders. While it is a good thing that Saddam and the Taliban are out of power, what do we do now with Iraq? How many more Americans will continue to die over there?
On welfare, Badnarik will work to replace welfare for the unemployed with work for the unemployed. And corporate welfare will fall under the axe.
On the War On Drugs, Badnarik realizes that this war is a failure. A failure that goes against living in a free society. A failure that the government is going broke trying to pay for. He will end it and treat it the way it’s meant to be treated.
On Gay rights and gay marriages Badnarik understands (unlike either Bush or Kerry) that the government has no business butting around in personal matters such as these. If two people of the same sex want to get married, let them. Live and let live. That’s part of living in a free society, even if the religious right wing puritan theocrats don’t get that (and probably never will get it either).
So voters face a choice: Elect one of two candidates who have some differences, yet are close as peanut butter and jelly for the most part or elect a real alternative. Here’s hoping they choose the real alternative.
Tomorrow being Election Day, it is close to time to answer that all-important question: Which chimp should we send to the big house for the next four years?
You can get some mighty persuasive arguments for why you should vote for this side over the other, albeit arguments that often leave out what is so good about their particular side. Then you get arguments about why this side is great and the other side would be a disaster for America.
In the corner for Bush, we have several arguments. One common argument is taxes. Many Bush supporters argue that Bush has at least cut the taxes and that all Kerry will do is raise them. Kerry in turn fires back that he will only raise the taxes on the rich and decrease them on the middle and lower classes.
Both sides’ claims are accurate. Now let’s contrast the Bush/Kerry tax plans with some others. Let’s consider a presidential tax plan that cuts both taxes and government spending. Bush did cut taxes some. But he didn’t cut spending as much as he should have and there is no evidence that Kerry will either
Another major issue (in fact THE major issue) is terrorism and homeland security. We have Bush who did well in the early days of the war on terror in going after Al Qaeda at its Afghan base. But it wasn’t long before Bush went off on a personal vendetta that led us into as Omar Bradley put it, “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong enemy”.
Kerry hems and haws and talks a good game. But does he really have a plan? How about a plan that involved gradually moving on from Iraq and focusing on the major terrorists?
The war on drugs? Pretty hard to distinguish one candidate from the other in spite of their rhetoric on it. How about a drug policy that involves decriminalizing drugs (NOT ACCEPTING THEM) and treating them as a health problem instead of a criminal matter. How about maybe looking at the legitimate uses of Medical marijuana?
Welfare? Well this depends on which candidate you are referring to. Both are in favor of it. Bush and the Republicans support corporate welfare while Kerry is in favor of the current welfare system in spite of evidence that it actually exacerbates the poverty problem rather than improving it. How about replacing the welfare system with a jobs based system? How about eliminating corporate welfare?
Gay rights and gay marriage? Neither party truly gets it here. Who gets married is not the government’s business. It is the individuals business. As for the religious argument, how about electing a president who truly gets it that church and state are meant to be kept separate?
In actuality, I already voted. Voted two weeks ago under Florida’s early voting system. In the presidential race I cast my vote not for Bush or Kerry. But for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik.
Why? Because he is the candidate whose views are closest to mine on how our government should work. Is he perfect? No. But he’s far more on target 90% of the time than Bush and Kerry are who are more likely to spout party rhetoric.
On taxes, Badnarik understands that low spending complements low taxes and that cutting taxes for all is how we need to do it. Not just cutting taxes for your base. You hear that Mr. Bush?
On the war on terror, Badnarik understands that the best way to fight it is to go right after the terrorists, not use the military as a means of removing bad leaders in countries that have them and replace them with Democratic leaders. While it is a good thing that Saddam and the Taliban are out of power, what do we do now with Iraq? How many more Americans will continue to die over there?
On welfare, Badnarik will work to replace welfare for the unemployed with work for the unemployed. And corporate welfare will fall under the axe.
On the War On Drugs, Badnarik realizes that this war is a failure. A failure that goes against living in a free society. A failure that the government is going broke trying to pay for. He will end it and treat it the way it’s meant to be treated.
On Gay rights and gay marriages Badnarik understands (unlike either Bush or Kerry) that the government has no business butting around in personal matters such as these. If two people of the same sex want to get married, let them. Live and let live. That’s part of living in a free society, even if the religious right wing puritan theocrats don’t get that (and probably never will get it either).
So voters face a choice: Elect one of two candidates who have some differences, yet are close as peanut butter and jelly for the most part or elect a real alternative. Here’s hoping they choose the real alternative.
