Some pretty silly signs

Yesterday our family took a nice long bike ride along the White Pine Trail.

As we started out I noticed a car along the way with a "John Kerry" bumper sticker side by side with a "What would Jesus do?" bumper sticker. I though it was an absurd juxtaposition since Jesus certainly would not have campaigned for John Kerry. From what I know about Jesus he would have done what he was  famous for doing:

• Telling people to stop sinning (e.g. adulterous woman confrontation)
• Forgiving people who were seeking forgiveness
• Teaching people about God
• Feeding and healing people

When Jesus was confronted about politics he seemed to have very little to say and certainly did not seemed to get worked up or excited about the topic.

We rode for 15 miles before stopping at a Belmont primary school for a chance for my daughter to enjoy a playground. (She rode in a tag along bike connected to mine so she needed to get out and stretch for a bit.)

At a public parking area along the bike trail I also noticed the "Handicapped Parking Only" signs closest to the trail access. How absurd was that? Someone is going to park next to a 95 mile bike trail and they really need to be 50 feet closer to the trail access?

We then headed the 15 miles back with my daughter commenting how pretty nature was and my son doing a great job on a pretty strenuous ride. Once we got back he said he really enjoyed the exercise. Certainly the short ride to the Tao Kwon Do academy or downtown (a few hilly miles away) seem easy in comparison - the next long ride might be 40 miles to Rockford.

That evening I caught part of "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office" by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky on BookTV. This is an example of another silly sign one might come across. I thought it would be interesting to hear the logic that someone might put together to justify this position and I wasn't disappointed. Lindorff had a litany of 'criminal charges' but perhaps the most telling statement was that Bush's first crime in coming into office was 'stealing the election' from Al Gore.  He then listed additional indictments including crimes such as mishandling Katrina [ironically wanting the federal government to usurp local power is exactly what they decry in Bush] and not do enough to prevent global warming (including opposing Kyoto protocol). The crime he thought was most serious was Bush's 'crime against peace' in that Bush launched a war without provocation. Olshansky is a constitutional lawyer for a civil rights group and was visibly upset when recalling that the only two US presidents who were impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. She felt that holding non US citizens without the benefit of the rights that US citizens enjoy is criminal and that the Bush has usurped power for the Federal government (a basis for constitutional crisis). It is apparent that these two are very sincere in their beliefs and I believe that despite my disagreement with their position that they do indeed have opinions with validity and some measure of truth. Indeed I thank God that there are people who care for and fight for civil rights and our ecological health - they just don't always see the bigger picture and their judgment must also be balanced with the rest of our citizenry and the will of the majority.

They rightly state that impeachment is not really a criminal indictment but rather a political one. This is why their position is ultimately wrong. They treat Bush's actions in a vacuum as if our nation was not attacked first and truly in a state of war. What so many people fail to realize is that we aren't some much at war with Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden but with those in power in the 3rd world who have declared war on us. On 9/11 (and also at times prior to a lesser degree) the 3rd world hit the US with a sucker punch attacking the heart of the financial free world, the military center of the dominant world power and tried to hit the political center of democracy and freedom. So George W. Bush took the advice of people that understood this and struck back where it mattered:

He took down the Taliban as the refuge of Al Qaeda and a maggot's nest of terrorism.

Then he changed the balance of power and the political landscape of the 3rd world by taking down Saddam Hussein. He had three great reasons that people weren't hearing: Saddam Hussein was a butcher who reigned millions in torture and rape leading the 3rd world as an icon of what the rest of the world tolerated; Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of international terrorism - he harbored international terrorists in impunity and publicly offered and paid suicide bombers to attacks Israeli civilians; Saddam Hussein had a strong relationship with the rest of the world and was a symbol of how to corrupt it (such as the UN oil scandals with the EU so that the same officials that represented the law actually subverted the law for their own profit); and Saddam Hussein actively taunted and goaded the US and the UN (whether it was in attacking Kuwait, kicking out nuclear inspectors, attempting to assassinate George H Bush, or acting as a clearing house for incitement against peace in the rest of the world. Where Afghanistan was a maggot's nest of terrorism Iraq was a global manufacturer of terrorism. 

The American public (and our duly elected representatives) understand that George Bush has acted to protect this nation against a real and imminent danger and this is why it is silly to think that he should be impeached. This administration's gravest sin has been its inability to clearly articulate the foreign policy it has learned to embrace perhaps out of fear that the American people wouldn't understand or would be unnecessarily frightened.

We should respect the passion and sincerity of people but also question their wisdom.

Comments

[Joy M.]

I just found your blog through a link on someone else's. Just wanted to say "hello" and "Amen".

[Scot Hacker]

So... you're saying you think Jesus would have supported killing 30,000 innocent people, creating a terrorist breeding ground, spreading fear and hatred around the globe, and decimating a huge financial surplus that could have been used to provide 71,717,012 people with health care or to fund 5,472,330 elementary school teachers or 61,230,780 Scholarships for University Students etc., all without any evidence of ever having been attacked by the occupied / destroyed country?

Huh. The Jesus I know is basically good. But I guess it's OK to see Jesus as a humanity-hating destroyer.

[Stu]

C'mon Scot - you are being ridiculous.

Jesus certainly would not have supported killing innocent people - regardless of who they are and what they believed in.

"creating a terrorist breeding ground etc." - no - blame Al Qaeda and other extremists - Jesus didn't seem to mind who he pissed off and what their reactions were since truth seemed more important to him

"financial surplus..." that is a flawed perspective - what would the cost have been if terrorists continued attacking us? (See my more recent post and Christopher Hitchens reference).

I don't see Jesus as a hater - but plenty of those who cloak themselves in peace seem filled with hatred.

[Scot Hacker]

"creating a terrorist breeding ground etc." - no - blame Al Qaeda and other extremists

So you disagree with the observation that there are many more terrorists in Iraq now than there were before we occupied it? Seems like our presence has greatly increased in terrorist activity in the region. Just like all the liberals said it would.

what would the cost have been if terrorists continued attacking us?

I don't for a moment think that America is any safer from terrorist attacks now than it was before the whole thing started. In fact I think it's much more vulnerable, since we've given reason for so many more extremist groups to hate us.

[Stu]

"So you disagree with the observation that there are many more terrorists in Iraq now" - non sequitur

"I don't for a moment think that America is any safer from terrorist attacks now " - also a non sequitur - if you want to look at the cost of responding to terrorism then contrast with the cost of not responding. Calculating the efficiency of the response is not the issue even if your premise is debatable (again see Hitchens, Fadhil or Harris in recent posts).