Congressman James Greenwood - Press Release
A couple of more things have come to mind recently about this election season.
Since the the speculation of his departure from Congress have come to mind. What if I was wrong about his motivations and timing? What if this really could not be interpreted to be a commentary on his part? Then I read his statement
In the fourth paragraph
"But in my work in health care and particularly with regard to the issues of stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer, I have come to comprehend the enormity of the transformation in human health that is possible with the advancement of cellular therapy"
This is counter to the Bush administration position.
That's one thing.
----------------------
The next thing is the notion of what kind of response at the initial onset of a crisis should a President have? It is fair to measure a candidate's character and integrity as well as their background. We assume that this kind of information will tell us something about how a candidate might respond. In an age of the ICBM and the suit case bomber, is not relevant to ask of candidates how they might respond?
As a voter, if you are going to judge a candidate "strong on defense", is the strength of character to start a nuclear war? Is it not a strength of a defense to know about the sucker punch? Is not rapid-response part of the Rumsfeld style Defense Department? Well, how can the Armed forces respond if a President is unwilling to pull the trigger? President Bush sat for 7 seven minutes before reacting. He gave the Terrorist additional 7 minute head start.
I keep flashing on "Back to the Future" and how the weaker, but smarter, character always won. Are we positioned, as the only super power, to be vunerable to sucker punches? Are we one day going to overswing and miss landing a punch? Al Qaeda is not going to sit still for us to drop a nuke on them.
Clearly the Bush administration that is against "reading newspapers" and stem cell research, is not solititous of new ideas. That the initiative to Mars was only political smoke is further proof that while the Bush Administration is capable of winning a war involving tanks and territory, it will not win a war of ideas.
The war against Terrorism can only be won by starving them of our vulnerabilities without starving ourselves of what makes us American. That takes time, thoughtfull insight and ideas.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
CNN.com - Sources: Greenwood to leave House - Jul 19, 2004
I want to thank Congressman Jim Greenwood for restoring in me a bit of hope and help restoring my faith in my parents and specifically my mother. My parents are passionate, reasonable and educated. In the 1980’s they helped a guy they felt was nice and well suited for the state Senate. My mother was his campaign manager for that early effort of Mr. Greenwood.
I even got to meet him and talk briefly with him about the possibilities of computers and politics. When Mr. Greenwood ran for Congress in the 1990’s, I myself voted for him. He impressed me. He gave me hope about a vision of a possible future I was seeing, because he listened carefully, and intently. I got the impression he genuinely cared. I was most impressed because he used logic and reason when we talked.
At the time I thought it would be naïve to believe too much of this sensation. After all he was a politician. But he was making a bit of sense, because of his logic and reason. My mother, the college professor thought highly of his reasoning even if she happened to disagree. I watched his career with interest.
As time passed, things happened that fed my more cynical side, but I suppressed that sensation. I was a married, educated, professional software developer (a profession that values reason and logic), and I set aside my judgment because it seemed reasonable and Mom said it was ok.
The things that were happening in Congress did not seem to fit the mental image of the guy my mother felt was worthy. The party politics I was seeing in the 1990’s was concerned with one thing – winning. The pattern was that they not concerned with the business of the people. They were into “control” and power.
The man and current occupant of Congressman Greenwood’s old state senate seat, told me in no uncertain terms, that it is more important to have fewer people participating in the process, because it meant more work/effort to control. It is easier to manipulate a few than to lead many.
My disillusionment grew. I even had heated discussions with my mother. She didn’t want to believe that the Congressman was of the same breed that I was seeing. But the evidence mounted of the years. There was the pledge not seek re-election after so many terms. Then there was his “townhall” meeting at BCCC, prior to the war.
While I won’t speak for my mother, I think it is safe to characterize her opinion of the current Bush administration as below low. My parents objections to current Bush administration are so profound that in recent years my mother as made a hollow threat of leaving the country. While I say it was a hollow threat, she did take a teaching position in Bulgaria early 90’s.
Since about 2000, this poster boy of a compassionate conservative left his logic and reason some place. I started to blame my parents for helping the country’s political swing to the right. It was tough, I didn’t want to believe that my parents could be duped.
Today’s news changes that. My parents and I were not deceived or tricked by Congress Greenwood. The notion that fits the facts about the timing suggests that perhaps Congressman Greenwood may indeed feel a bit let down by the current controlling interests of his party.
Perhaps Jim Greenwood, my parents and I were all – “neo-conned” or perhaps out FOXed by people who are into fair and balanced control of power by themselves. I think my parents would agree that participation, and opened reasoned discussion and not party affiliation is what makes our system.
The common enemy is fanaticism. The philosophies that do not allow for alternatives, options. Whether they are on a Islamic Jihad in NY or a bare-beer-bellied, painted-face NY Giants fan going to an Eagles game in Philadelphia, it is the rhetoric and tin ear to a context that leads to violence and war.
Ginny Schrader and Jim Greenwood, in the race for the 8th Congressional seat have combined to make a case for logic and reason over ideological fanaticism. Together they make a case for a faith in the political will and human nature of the people over the dogma of party. I will remember this election season as the beginning of a budding a reunification of logic, reason with “We the people”. There is reason to hope, cautiously anyway.
My interpretation of this is that Jim reasoned more people will benefit by taking a small bit of national control away and giving it back to us, the people.
Congressmen Greenwood, I thank you for this final act as my Congressman. My mother thanks you.
Good Luck Ms Schrader!
I want to thank Congressman Jim Greenwood for restoring in me a bit of hope and help restoring my faith in my parents and specifically my mother. My parents are passionate, reasonable and educated. In the 1980’s they helped a guy they felt was nice and well suited for the state Senate. My mother was his campaign manager for that early effort of Mr. Greenwood.
I even got to meet him and talk briefly with him about the possibilities of computers and politics. When Mr. Greenwood ran for Congress in the 1990’s, I myself voted for him. He impressed me. He gave me hope about a vision of a possible future I was seeing, because he listened carefully, and intently. I got the impression he genuinely cared. I was most impressed because he used logic and reason when we talked.
At the time I thought it would be naïve to believe too much of this sensation. After all he was a politician. But he was making a bit of sense, because of his logic and reason. My mother, the college professor thought highly of his reasoning even if she happened to disagree. I watched his career with interest.
As time passed, things happened that fed my more cynical side, but I suppressed that sensation. I was a married, educated, professional software developer (a profession that values reason and logic), and I set aside my judgment because it seemed reasonable and Mom said it was ok.
The things that were happening in Congress did not seem to fit the mental image of the guy my mother felt was worthy. The party politics I was seeing in the 1990’s was concerned with one thing – winning. The pattern was that they not concerned with the business of the people. They were into “control” and power.
The man and current occupant of Congressman Greenwood’s old state senate seat, told me in no uncertain terms, that it is more important to have fewer people participating in the process, because it meant more work/effort to control. It is easier to manipulate a few than to lead many.
My disillusionment grew. I even had heated discussions with my mother. She didn’t want to believe that the Congressman was of the same breed that I was seeing. But the evidence mounted of the years. There was the pledge not seek re-election after so many terms. Then there was his “townhall” meeting at BCCC, prior to the war.
While I won’t speak for my mother, I think it is safe to characterize her opinion of the current Bush administration as below low. My parents objections to current Bush administration are so profound that in recent years my mother as made a hollow threat of leaving the country. While I say it was a hollow threat, she did take a teaching position in Bulgaria early 90’s.
Since about 2000, this poster boy of a compassionate conservative left his logic and reason some place. I started to blame my parents for helping the country’s political swing to the right. It was tough, I didn’t want to believe that my parents could be duped.
Today’s news changes that. My parents and I were not deceived or tricked by Congress Greenwood. The notion that fits the facts about the timing suggests that perhaps Congressman Greenwood may indeed feel a bit let down by the current controlling interests of his party.
Perhaps Jim Greenwood, my parents and I were all – “neo-conned” or perhaps out FOXed by people who are into fair and balanced control of power by themselves. I think my parents would agree that participation, and opened reasoned discussion and not party affiliation is what makes our system.
The common enemy is fanaticism. The philosophies that do not allow for alternatives, options. Whether they are on a Islamic Jihad in NY or a bare-beer-bellied, painted-face NY Giants fan going to an Eagles game in Philadelphia, it is the rhetoric and tin ear to a context that leads to violence and war.
Ginny Schrader and Jim Greenwood, in the race for the 8th Congressional seat have combined to make a case for logic and reason over ideological fanaticism. Together they make a case for a faith in the political will and human nature of the people over the dogma of party. I will remember this election season as the beginning of a budding a reunification of logic, reason with “We the people”. There is reason to hope, cautiously anyway.
My interpretation of this is that Jim reasoned more people will benefit by taking a small bit of national control away and giving it back to us, the people.
Congressmen Greenwood, I thank you for this final act as my Congressman. My mother thanks you.
Good Luck Ms Schrader!
Monday, July 12, 2004
CNN.com - Officials discuss how to delay Election Day - Jul 12, 2004
There is a scary headline. It feeds the emotional notions sparked by a President who "guarantees" he will be re-elected. A man who does not concede or acknowledge error. This is not a singular emotion. I'm not the only one to have this emotion.
The President claims we are safer today. This statement itself illustrates the limited vision of the administration. The world is indeed a dangerous place. But it always will be. Nature abhores a vacuum. Human nature abhores a vacuum. Evil people and things must exist or there cannot be Good.
It is balance and harmony that should be keywords to U.S. Policy.
Policies of preemption and being on the offensive decidedly tip the balance of power too quickly and too far.
The President may even be right in his assertion that when America was changed on 9/11, America changed the world. But the question is are we changing it for the better? Is it our place to take the world in a direction it may not be ready, willing and able to go?
With power must come discipline and common sense. There are additional capabilities that our powers place in front of America. America should not feel entitled to grab these capabilities, because we can.
Has everybody forgotten Oklahoma City? How about the anthrax mailer? These are American's who are upset with the government. Does it truly matter? Will American terrorists kill fewer?
The administration within a very short period have said "Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence presidential vote" and then "No one is thinking of postponing the elections." If we are talking about how to postpone (while knowing the "when" and "if" are different questions) an election, then have not the terrorist already succeeded in "influencing" the vote?
The truly offensive part of the notion of this issue is that it consolidates power in Washington and not the states. It ignores the reality that a federal election is actually secured by the damned thing that cursed the last election. It is the Electoral College that elects the President.
Nothing could stop the process because it is decentralized in terms of time and space.
Nothing needs to stop the process because it is decentralized in terms of time and space.
Will President Bush leave office quietly the election is close, contested and has been influenced? How badly does he want re-election? Does he want it more than Nixon did? I've yet to see a side of the President or folks in his administration that indicates the kind of internal self-confidence that suggests they would feel that fighting the good fight is enough. They still are selling WMD - and folks "that dog won't hunt".
I'm against voting for Republicans because what they define as "fair and balanced" sounds an awful lot like "offensive". Their "fair and balanced" does not stand up to socratic debate and the search for truth.
There is a scary headline. It feeds the emotional notions sparked by a President who "guarantees" he will be re-elected. A man who does not concede or acknowledge error. This is not a singular emotion. I'm not the only one to have this emotion.
The President claims we are safer today. This statement itself illustrates the limited vision of the administration. The world is indeed a dangerous place. But it always will be. Nature abhores a vacuum. Human nature abhores a vacuum. Evil people and things must exist or there cannot be Good.
It is balance and harmony that should be keywords to U.S. Policy.
Policies of preemption and being on the offensive decidedly tip the balance of power too quickly and too far.
The President may even be right in his assertion that when America was changed on 9/11, America changed the world. But the question is are we changing it for the better? Is it our place to take the world in a direction it may not be ready, willing and able to go?
With power must come discipline and common sense. There are additional capabilities that our powers place in front of America. America should not feel entitled to grab these capabilities, because we can.
Has everybody forgotten Oklahoma City? How about the anthrax mailer? These are American's who are upset with the government. Does it truly matter? Will American terrorists kill fewer?
The administration within a very short period have said "Ridge: Terrorists' aim is to influence presidential vote" and then "No one is thinking of postponing the elections." If we are talking about how to postpone (while knowing the "when" and "if" are different questions) an election, then have not the terrorist already succeeded in "influencing" the vote?
The truly offensive part of the notion of this issue is that it consolidates power in Washington and not the states. It ignores the reality that a federal election is actually secured by the damned thing that cursed the last election. It is the Electoral College that elects the President.
Nothing could stop the process because it is decentralized in terms of time and space.
Nothing needs to stop the process because it is decentralized in terms of time and space.
Will President Bush leave office quietly the election is close, contested and has been influenced? How badly does he want re-election? Does he want it more than Nixon did? I've yet to see a side of the President or folks in his administration that indicates the kind of internal self-confidence that suggests they would feel that fighting the good fight is enough. They still are selling WMD - and folks "that dog won't hunt".
I'm against voting for Republicans because what they define as "fair and balanced" sounds an awful lot like "offensive". Their "fair and balanced" does not stand up to socratic debate and the search for truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)