Fair and balanced

Well, fair, anyway. And balanced most of the time.

In a move that will surprise many, I plan to listen to the president tonight before fully deciding my views on the course our nation should take in Afghanistan. I am leaning toward supporting his decision to send in more troops, but I want to hear more about exit strategies and timetables.

Contrary to what some think, I listen to both sides of an issue before making my decision. In doing so, I can express my opinion in an educated manner.

Sometimes an issue is decided, and I no longer feel the need to listen to the viewpoints of those who disagree with my position. An example is the science of evolution. Intelligent design is not science, so I don't listen to those arguments. This is not to say that people cannot believe in intelligent design or even creationism, and that doesn't bother me, until they try to pass it off as science and incorporate it into our educational system. This wastes valuable teaching time, and does nothing to prepare our children for higher education and life in the real (scientific) world.

I feel the same way about the origins of homosexuality. It is not a choice, and I won't waste my time arguing with people about that. But on occasion, I have to address the issue when somebody says something really stupid.

As for Afghanistan, there are certainly national security issues, and the very real question as to whether success is actually possible or not. American lives are at stake. So I am very interested in hearing what the president says.




I hope this does not become a daily thing, but BC (Bessemer conservative) has made some more statements about me. It doesn't bother me that a conservative is expressing his views, but when he writes something that is wrong, I will correct it.

He wrote this:

He (referring to me) also points out that democrats did not remove prayer from schools or take the Ten Commandments from government buildings. He points out that the Supreme Court did this. Really, they just came up with this idea and ruled on it? No, democrats cried and whined that it offended them, got it to court and it was then ruled on by democratic judges and the like.

Technically, that may be correct, but it is misleading. The composition of the Supreme Court that ruled on Abingdon School District v. Schempp (which consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), the 1963 case which is associated with school prayer and Bible reading, included 5 justices appointed by a democratic president and 4 appointed by a republican president. Eight of the justices, including Chief Justice Earl Warren (an Eisenhower appointee) agreed or concurred with the majority, and only 1 justice , Potter Stewart (also an Eisenhower appointee), was in dissent.

So the decision was a pretty balanced one with 3 Republican appointees and 5 Democrat appointees in agreement.

He also says this about me:

He also finds it necessary to point out that Jefferson County and Bessemer were won by obama during the election. Maybe that is why Jefferson county almost went bankrupt... Since the democrats have taken office in the area, both city and county governments have taken a turn for the worse.

Actually, Jefferson County "almost went bankrupt" while Republicans held (and still hold) a majority on the Commission. You can't get much more republican than Jefferson County Commission president Bettye Fine Collins.

And he's one to talk about taking a turn for the worse, after his hero George W. Bush led the country into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

About me, he says this:

His beliefs undermine "his equality for all" stance that he is always preaching. What he does not get(because he is lead by guilt, sin and the misgivings of those in power) is that the progress he is for will never come from taxing anything and everything we Americans buy, use, do and say.

Never mind what he is trying to say (?), I am concerned with this phrase - "he is lead (sp) by guilt, sin and the misgivings of those in power."

I am led by "guilt" and "sin"? I am really trying to understand what he means by this. I hope this is not going where it appears to be. Even though we disagree on the issues, this seems pretty judgmental to me, and I thought he at least believed in the common humanity of man. Maybe I was wrong.