American Entropy is dedicated to the disruption and discrediting of neoconservative actions and the extreme ideals of the religious right.
The State Letter to the Editor [6/17/06]
3 great letters to the editor were published Saturday in The State. It made the opinion page actually seem somewhat reasonbale. The first deals with the new Republican party and its departure from ideals once embraced. The author then looks ahead at the choices and concludes that "the are all the same," embracing the standard stereotype of politicians. For the author this is the sterotype the GOP was once above, but no more.
Grand Old Party is losing its way
I have been a Republican since the year of my birth — 1932. I have seen the good and the bad, the achievements and the disappointments, the mistakes and the greatness of the "Grand Old Party."
I worry particularly about local leadership in my party today. We do not have the great and the solid folks who once gave rise to the GOP. We have those who talk conservatism and then allow Sen. Glenn McConnell to squander money that needs to be used for education, health or other pressing needs.
I thought it interesting that any number of my Republican senators were afraid to stand up and request an audit of Hunley expenditures. Thanks to Gov. Sanford for his stand.
My voting record now is so diverse. It is getting to a point that I all but close my eyes and push the button. In other words, Who cares? They are, with a few exceptions, "all the same."
DW - Columbia, SC
I would add one thing here, politics to me is about the lesser of two evils, with an eye on a full spectrum of issues. Which flows to our next letter that deals with the closed-mindedness of the usually Republican, single-issue voter.
Here-and-now issues should determine vote
I have many friends who are single-issue voters. They vote for the candidate who is against abortion and against gay marriage because their faith tells them to. There are political groups in America who take advantage of these "faith" voters.
Even though many of these faith voters have been laid off work and have children who will pay for the war in Iraq through tax dollars in future years, they will no doubt vote for another Bush in the next election because of their beliefs.
It is very difficult to reach these voters, because there is no reasoning with faith, it is simply a belief system. I hope their children will feel good bearing the burden knowing their parents were faithful.
Christians should think about what is happening now. Take a look at the growing deficit. Be educated about current events and where your country is headed.
Your kids can always choose their moral path, but with no financial means to support themselves, morals will be of little help when they are adults and gas is double or triple the price it is now.
PM - Irmo, SC
And expanding on that, the final author touches on his ideal faith community as one embracing "love, tolerance and acceptance."
Accepting differences leads to better world
I am of the belief that God doesn’t hate; that attribute is anything but spiritual and probably responsible for more misery throughout history than any other single human characteristic.
Hate is a powerful word and a force providing a basis for murder, terrorism, discrimination and all sorts of injustice. One day, I hope to find a community of faith that believes in love, tolerance and acceptance. Maybe that is too much to hope for, but it certainly works as a personal creed.
It is inconceivable to me that any of the world’s great religions would advocate hatred. If we could learn to tolerate the differences we see in each other, it would be a better world, not just for the gay community, but for all of us.
JRA - Lexington, SC
Oh, what a world that would be...
Now for a brief observation...
Liberators not always what they seem
There has always been a thin line between "invader/occupier" and "liberator." Why this was not considered three years ago is beyond me.
DS - Columbia, SC
Posted by Geoff
Some thoughts on the so-called Iraq debate in the House
The House today, at the request of concerned Republican and Democratic law makers will host a 10 hour debate on the Iraq war. The issue should be accountability, strategy, and oversight but the House majority leadership is bypassing honest debate for political posturing and to reestablish the connection between Iraq and the Global War on Terror - a connection that only surfaced after the 2003 invasion and occupation. While the Democratic Party has healthy debate - which unfortunately includes the specter of immediate withdrawal - on the war in Iraq. Republican leadership seek to divide and deceive, in effect damaging our democracy and security as well as alienating well-intentioned, open-minded Republicans.
The debate guidelines presented by the majority House leadership (disclosed yesterday at ThinkProgress.org) seek to exploit 9/11 (which is completely unrelated to the Iraq war), attack critics without presenting facts, and offering utopian assessments, goals, and predictions. The debate will not be a debate but an attempt to mislead Americans for political purposes. "The rules of debate will not allow the resolution to be amended, nor will alternative resolutions be allowed on the floor for a vote." writes WaPo.
This pander and propaganda is not being well received by the Democrats - as expected - nor Republicans - which is refreshing.
"I can't help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don't have that sense of urgency," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.), a usually soft-spoken Republican who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. "To me, the administration does not act like there's a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn't act like there's a war going on. If you're raising money to keep the majority, if you're thinking about gay marriage, if you're doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who's about ready to drive over a land mine?"
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), who supports the war, called the resolution "strategically nebulous and morally obtuse." [link]
Democrats should make brief statements about their feelings and let the Republicans gush over this unpopular, misled, and misguided war, then simply leave. Consenting Republicans should do the same. The appropriate time for legitimate debate will come. It is up to the Republicans if it will be timely, or too late.
Posted by Geoff