THE REPUBLICANS, AND THE REIGNITION OF THE COLD WAR
Content: When the Iraq war started I remember saying to a friend of mine that I was surprised the Russians didn't do more to either try and stop us, or really give us trouble once we went in. After all, they had a lot at stake. Contracts, large sums of money, and strategic concerns. But they were in tranistion, and couldn't really focus on the Iraq situation as much as they might have liked. The Russians stayed out of it.
Now we find ourselves 7 years down the road. Putin has picked Medvedev as his successor, and the price of oil has skyrocketed. Now Russia is an Oil power, and she wants to be taken seriously.
For John McCain and Sarah Palin, the reality of a future world with Russia extends to bringing its former satellites like Ukraine and Georgia into the NATO fold, and boxing the Russians in at every turn.
To me, what's so unsettling about Palin's response to the Georgia question from ABC last week, besides her obvious ignorance of the most basic of foreign policy ideas, was her readiness, without obviously knowing anything about world affairs to commit one of the worst errors in foreign policy. Don't arouse the sleeping bear. Napoleon and Hitler both learned this lesson in the most brutal of ways.
Everyone knows that Russia isn't going away, and as Tom Friedman so aptly put it today on GPS, we're going to have to live in a world where we need Russia to get anything done. From oil to Europe, to engaging the Iranians, to dealing with loose nuclear materials, to getting anything done at the UN, we are destined to live in a world with a more aware Russia, a bolder Kremlin, and a smarter and more savvy Russian population.
If the Republicans succeed this Fall, A reignition of the Cold War could ensue, something that at the least would be counterproductive, and at the most utterly insane. Kennedy stared down Russia at a time when the US was very confident and strong. Mr McCain and Mrs Palin would face a much richer Russia at a time when we are in financial crisis, when our military is stretched t it's limit, and our nation is split down the middle idealogically.
Mr McCain and Mrs Palin seem to have little regard for history. An engaged Russia is a happy Russia. Wave a trout in the face of the bear, and you will get it taken away. Try and provoke her, and she'll take your head off. Perhaps Mr McCain and Mrs Palin should stop their sabre rattling, because as we all know, the Russians are much better at Sabre's than we are.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
PALIN AND MCCAIN ARE SIMPLY WRONG FOR OUR COUNTRY
i'm a bit confused at this whole Sarah Palin thing. I know why conservative, Republican, right to life women would vote for her, but why McCain would think any Democratic women from the Hillary camp would somehow miraculously give up their rights on everything from a womans right to choose, to equal pay rights, to health care rights because he chose a woman as his VP pick is absurd, and shows just how uninformed McCain and his people are.
Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. She didn't shatter, or even dent the glass ceiling. Clinton got 18 million votes. For that matter, Obama got even more. No one has voted for Sarah Palin in this election yet. That's her greatest weakness. She is fluff, someone for McCain to oggle at when he thinks the cameras aren't looking, and a bone throw to the Republican base to keep them quiet and happy. How can any mother who claims to be so concerned about her children never explain the idea of contraception to her very pretty teenager daughter? Why is a public official CCing her private citizen husband on State business. How can a woman who claims to be a law abiding figure subvert her own governments rules to nefariously arrange to fire her sisters ex husband from the Alaska state trooper force. The fact is that John Mccain and especially Sarah Palin WILL appoint justices to the supreme court who will severely curtail if not totally revoke YOUR right to choose?
Now, i'm a guy, and I don't have to face the abortion issues the way women do, but if I was an Independent or Democratic woman, I would never be able to forgive myself if I voted for Palin just because she's a woman. Make no mistake about it, she's a right wing Republican first and woman second, or as she likes to say " A pitt bull with lipstick". Not an attractive look, and definately a very unattractive Vice -presidential candidate, and even worse, a possibly nightmarish president. Women out there better get smart. she might be one of you physically, but that's where the similarity ends.
Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. She didn't shatter, or even dent the glass ceiling. Clinton got 18 million votes. For that matter, Obama got even more. No one has voted for Sarah Palin in this election yet. That's her greatest weakness. She is fluff, someone for McCain to oggle at when he thinks the cameras aren't looking, and a bone throw to the Republican base to keep them quiet and happy. How can any mother who claims to be so concerned about her children never explain the idea of contraception to her very pretty teenager daughter? Why is a public official CCing her private citizen husband on State business. How can a woman who claims to be a law abiding figure subvert her own governments rules to nefariously arrange to fire her sisters ex husband from the Alaska state trooper force. The fact is that John Mccain and especially Sarah Palin WILL appoint justices to the supreme court who will severely curtail if not totally revoke YOUR right to choose?
Now, i'm a guy, and I don't have to face the abortion issues the way women do, but if I was an Independent or Democratic woman, I would never be able to forgive myself if I voted for Palin just because she's a woman. Make no mistake about it, she's a right wing Republican first and woman second, or as she likes to say " A pitt bull with lipstick". Not an attractive look, and definately a very unattractive Vice -presidential candidate, and even worse, a possibly nightmarish president. Women out there better get smart. she might be one of you physically, but that's where the similarity ends.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Lost Generation Finds It's Place
All my life, I've wondered what MY generation would accomplish. I'm one of those tweeners, born after the korean war, and before vietnam. We aren't baby boomers, we aren't generation X'er's, we we're the lost generation. Until now. Finally, I see what my generation has accomplished. As Obama spoke tonight, all of us in the Lost Generation will have finally heard our own voices in one of our own. We were the kids that watched the vietnam war on TV right after Batman. We were the generation that saw Nixon fall as we waited in line during the first oil embargo. We were smart, disillusioned, and frustrated at the unjustices we saw going on around us, but felt helpless to do anything about it. We weren't eliglible for the Vietnam draft, but we saw our brothers just miss being called, and our parents threaten to send them to Canada. We were witness to the struggles and success of our grandparents, and the heartbreaks of our parents as they watched JFK being buried, barely one or two years old ourselves. Tonight, i was proud to say that Barack Obama is my peer. finally, the lost generation,and all generations have thier voice back.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
WHAT'S SO SUPER ABOUT SUPERDELEGATES?
Ok, so now we're in the twilight of this campaign. Hillary Clinton has finally stuck not only her foot, but her leg and her torso into her mouth over this insulting Bobby Kennedy related debacle. We know that not only can't she be the nominee in every metric in everyones account book, she should NEVER be the nominee. You just can't say something like that and expect to be the president. So, now Even Hillary Clinton knows she can't and won't ever be the nominee for president.
That begs the next question. What are the superdelegates waiting for? it's almost as if the remaining superdelegates, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi included should at least have the political guile, stamina and fortitude to say who they are for in this campaign, lest we remind the remaining superdelegates that a brokered convention at this time in our history would be far worse than riots in the streets of Chicago in 68.
it would mean a drastic split in out electorate, a rift that might never heal, and even worse, a democracy in violation of it's own reason for existing. So you democratic superdelegates, whoever you are, get off your butts, and make a decision. The American people are tired of indecisive politicians, and if we have to we'll rewrite the democratic rulebooks to make sure this kind of ridiculousness never happens again. Remember, you work for us. And one part of your job is making decisions. So, like the ad says. JUST DO IT.
That begs the next question. What are the superdelegates waiting for? it's almost as if the remaining superdelegates, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi included should at least have the political guile, stamina and fortitude to say who they are for in this campaign, lest we remind the remaining superdelegates that a brokered convention at this time in our history would be far worse than riots in the streets of Chicago in 68.
it would mean a drastic split in out electorate, a rift that might never heal, and even worse, a democracy in violation of it's own reason for existing. So you democratic superdelegates, whoever you are, get off your butts, and make a decision. The American people are tired of indecisive politicians, and if we have to we'll rewrite the democratic rulebooks to make sure this kind of ridiculousness never happens again. Remember, you work for us. And one part of your job is making decisions. So, like the ad says. JUST DO IT.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
WHO POLLS THE POLLSTERS?
Does it seem to anyone else but me that polls and pollsters have had an inordinately important place in this particular election? There are as many polls as opinions out there, and not surprisingly, every person I've spoken to about this issue has never been polled themselves. So, who are these pollsters, who are they polling, what are they doing to our democracy, and how can we find some way of dealing with their inaccuracies?
Just look at Pennsylvania for example. By the time we finished that election, there were polls ranging from everything like who drinks beer, to who hunts, to who said their last hail Mary, to how many people think Barack Obama should've played basketball to bowling, to the 13 percent of voters who said race played an important role in their choices. Now come on. Who is really going to admit to a pollster that they're racist, or misogynistic.
The fact is, polls hurt everyone in our democracy. In the founding fathers time there were no polls. The first presidential poll was taken in 1824, just as James Monroe was leaving the presidency, and Andrew Jackson, a decorated military hero was about to become president. But not until the advent of television, and more recently, 24 hour news cycle TV has the polling craze become not only trite, and inaccurate, but divisive, and undermining.
If pollsters and polls wanted to make sure they were not only fair, but accurate, then they should be as transparent as they expect their government to be. Biased pre-vote polling does more harm to the system than good, and as far the average American is concerned, all polling is biased as it is by nature a creator of false or misrepresented opinion. And we easily see what can happen when pollsters and conflicts of interest collide, as the case was with Mr. Penn and his embarrassing exit from the Clinton campaign.
it's like asking the wolves to watch over the sheep. How can we the American people feel like our best interests in choosing a candidate for president can be served by trusting voices on phones from organizations we've never heard of, sponsored by media conglomerates and news organizations looking for both credibility and ratings in a 24 hour news cycle world.
That's if we're polled at all. There are hundreds of millions of people in America, and I think to take a hundred or two hundred of them, ask a set of skewered and misleading questions, interpret the answers in ways that favor your constituency, does every American an injustice and a disservice. and not only that, in a 21st political economy, when every 8 year old has a cell phone, how do we accept as accurate polls that only service land-line based Americans.
I know polls are here to stay, and on some level they help candidates see who's out there, and where they might be leaning and what they might be thinking, but the operative word there is "Might". We humans are a fickle bunch, and some of us will vote against a black man, or a woman, or an older man, because we feel compelled to, not because we're told to by some nameless faceless possibly fictitious people. We change our minds a lot, even up until the time we're getting ready to pull a voting lever. We don't need hundreds of pollsters making millions of dollars a year off of our thoughtful indecisions.
Polls can never account for the individual desire to make a decision without being pressured. That's when we humans make our best decisions. Those people that are deciding their votes based on polls deserve the presidents they get from misleading pollsters. Unfortunately those of us who believe in the independent spirit of the ability to change your government, as idealistic as that may sound, are never the ones polled.
So all you erstwhile pollsters out there beware. You're not seeing the big picture, and you're not really aware of what a majority of us think. And that makes you endangered species. Maybe we need a poll on that.
Just look at Pennsylvania for example. By the time we finished that election, there were polls ranging from everything like who drinks beer, to who hunts, to who said their last hail Mary, to how many people think Barack Obama should've played basketball to bowling, to the 13 percent of voters who said race played an important role in their choices. Now come on. Who is really going to admit to a pollster that they're racist, or misogynistic.
The fact is, polls hurt everyone in our democracy. In the founding fathers time there were no polls. The first presidential poll was taken in 1824, just as James Monroe was leaving the presidency, and Andrew Jackson, a decorated military hero was about to become president. But not until the advent of television, and more recently, 24 hour news cycle TV has the polling craze become not only trite, and inaccurate, but divisive, and undermining.
If pollsters and polls wanted to make sure they were not only fair, but accurate, then they should be as transparent as they expect their government to be. Biased pre-vote polling does more harm to the system than good, and as far the average American is concerned, all polling is biased as it is by nature a creator of false or misrepresented opinion. And we easily see what can happen when pollsters and conflicts of interest collide, as the case was with Mr. Penn and his embarrassing exit from the Clinton campaign.
it's like asking the wolves to watch over the sheep. How can we the American people feel like our best interests in choosing a candidate for president can be served by trusting voices on phones from organizations we've never heard of, sponsored by media conglomerates and news organizations looking for both credibility and ratings in a 24 hour news cycle world.
That's if we're polled at all. There are hundreds of millions of people in America, and I think to take a hundred or two hundred of them, ask a set of skewered and misleading questions, interpret the answers in ways that favor your constituency, does every American an injustice and a disservice. and not only that, in a 21st political economy, when every 8 year old has a cell phone, how do we accept as accurate polls that only service land-line based Americans.
I know polls are here to stay, and on some level they help candidates see who's out there, and where they might be leaning and what they might be thinking, but the operative word there is "Might". We humans are a fickle bunch, and some of us will vote against a black man, or a woman, or an older man, because we feel compelled to, not because we're told to by some nameless faceless possibly fictitious people. We change our minds a lot, even up until the time we're getting ready to pull a voting lever. We don't need hundreds of pollsters making millions of dollars a year off of our thoughtful indecisions.
Polls can never account for the individual desire to make a decision without being pressured. That's when we humans make our best decisions. Those people that are deciding their votes based on polls deserve the presidents they get from misleading pollsters. Unfortunately those of us who believe in the independent spirit of the ability to change your government, as idealistic as that may sound, are never the ones polled.
So all you erstwhile pollsters out there beware. You're not seeing the big picture, and you're not really aware of what a majority of us think. And that makes you endangered species. Maybe we need a poll on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
