Last week Obama write an Op-Ed in the New York Times about his plan to withdraw from Iraq. Today McCain tried to put an Op-Ed in the paper and it got rejected. Of course, the right wing and the McCain campaign will take this as just another example of liberal media bias, and they're already up in arms about it, but the NYT was totally correct not to publish it. It was nothing more than a recitation of Republican Talking Points and innuendo about what Obama must be thinking. McCain doesn't offer a single new piece of information about himself or his plans in the piece. I'm not going to go through it point by point. Jason Linkins already did a great job over on HuffPost:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/inew-york-timesi-spares-m_n_114117.html
All I will say is that, whenever a candidate starts trying to tell me what the other guy is thinking, or what the other guy's actions MEAN, I cringe and instantly think they're full of shit. It's fine to criticize the guy's policies, but it's not okay to make assumptions about the other guy's motives. And it's not the responsibility of legitimate newspapers to give that kind of bald political posturing a forum.
It's almost funny at this point, because the McCain campaign seems almost incapable of simply explaining any of it's positions. It can only talk about what Obama says or does and try to tell us what that means about him as a candidate. Hopefully the rest of the country finds this as transparent as I do. I can't wait for the debates.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
What dues has Hillary Clinton paid again?
I've been reading a lot of articles lately about Obama's VP selection. In most of those articles, there's some version of the idea that Hillary Clinton's supporters are pissed off because their candidate was snubbed after she "paid some serious dues". My question is, what dues? She married the most savvy politician in the last few decades and rode his coattails into the white house without getting elected on her own merits. Isn't that the exact opposite of paying dues?
I'm sure HRC did pay some dues before that, and since, but how is that different than any of the other thousands of politicians who labor away on a local or state or small national level but never become President? What about Bill Richardson? What about Wesley Clark? What about anybody else? Did they get "cheated" out of the Presidency by the rise of Obama? Or in their case, was it just a case of someone coming along that more perfectly captured the mood and flavor of the rising generation? How come Hillary is the only one who got "passed over"?
Maybe I'm just a misogynist, but a lot of feminist griping about getting passed over strikes me in this way. One article I read said that Clinton's supporters were so die-hard in their anger because the way that she was slighted reminded them of how they had passed over in their own lives by "men they had trained as Junior Executives who became the CEO."
It's hard not to feel that a lot of these complaints are just that, complaints. It's very easy to say that someone got a promotion ahead of you because they were a man - It's an impossible charge to disprove. It's also a much easier pill to swallow than admitting somebody passed you up because they were more talented.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that sexism isn't real. Of course it's real, but it's overblown in today's society. I'm 25, and in my life I've perceived more disadvantages than advantages from being a white male. Nobody has ever handed me anything because of my color or gender, but when I applied for college I didn't get to check any of those nice boxes that let everyone know how disadvantaged I've been. I don't discriminate against people because of their gender or race, but as a white male I get to fight against the assumption that gender and race factor into my every decision.
The one real advantage I've gotten from being a white male is that I grew up in a supportive home with plenty to eat and good parents who valued education. But guess what - So have a whole lot of women, including Hillary Clinton.
When a woman executive is passed over by someone younger for the CEO spot (or whatever spot), it's easy and nearly universal to blame sexism on some level, but they should remember that there are white men passed over for CEO's jobs all the time in favor of younger candidates: They just don't have a ready-made excuse for it. In fact, men, including me, from the time they become teenagers, learn to shrug off rejection without looking for excuses...That is to say, they start trying to get dates.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose the primary campaign because she's a woman. She lost because she allowed Mark Penn to terribly mismanage her campaign, she made false assumptions about an early end to the Primary process, and because Barack Obama ran a disciplined, tenacious campaign and did a better job connecting with the voters. Some media pundits made sexist remarks, but some made racial remarks about Obama. Overall the coverage was consistently crap, as it has been for a long time and still is. Clinton and her supporters should stop moaning about how unfair it all is, and face up to reality: If John McCain wins this election, Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned and abortion is going to be made illegal in this country. Wake the fuck up and watch out for the real misogyny that lurks just around the corner.
I'm sure HRC did pay some dues before that, and since, but how is that different than any of the other thousands of politicians who labor away on a local or state or small national level but never become President? What about Bill Richardson? What about Wesley Clark? What about anybody else? Did they get "cheated" out of the Presidency by the rise of Obama? Or in their case, was it just a case of someone coming along that more perfectly captured the mood and flavor of the rising generation? How come Hillary is the only one who got "passed over"?
Maybe I'm just a misogynist, but a lot of feminist griping about getting passed over strikes me in this way. One article I read said that Clinton's supporters were so die-hard in their anger because the way that she was slighted reminded them of how they had passed over in their own lives by "men they had trained as Junior Executives who became the CEO."
It's hard not to feel that a lot of these complaints are just that, complaints. It's very easy to say that someone got a promotion ahead of you because they were a man - It's an impossible charge to disprove. It's also a much easier pill to swallow than admitting somebody passed you up because they were more talented.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that sexism isn't real. Of course it's real, but it's overblown in today's society. I'm 25, and in my life I've perceived more disadvantages than advantages from being a white male. Nobody has ever handed me anything because of my color or gender, but when I applied for college I didn't get to check any of those nice boxes that let everyone know how disadvantaged I've been. I don't discriminate against people because of their gender or race, but as a white male I get to fight against the assumption that gender and race factor into my every decision.
The one real advantage I've gotten from being a white male is that I grew up in a supportive home with plenty to eat and good parents who valued education. But guess what - So have a whole lot of women, including Hillary Clinton.
When a woman executive is passed over by someone younger for the CEO spot (or whatever spot), it's easy and nearly universal to blame sexism on some level, but they should remember that there are white men passed over for CEO's jobs all the time in favor of younger candidates: They just don't have a ready-made excuse for it. In fact, men, including me, from the time they become teenagers, learn to shrug off rejection without looking for excuses...That is to say, they start trying to get dates.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose the primary campaign because she's a woman. She lost because she allowed Mark Penn to terribly mismanage her campaign, she made false assumptions about an early end to the Primary process, and because Barack Obama ran a disciplined, tenacious campaign and did a better job connecting with the voters. Some media pundits made sexist remarks, but some made racial remarks about Obama. Overall the coverage was consistently crap, as it has been for a long time and still is. Clinton and her supporters should stop moaning about how unfair it all is, and face up to reality: If John McCain wins this election, Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned and abortion is going to be made illegal in this country. Wake the fuck up and watch out for the real misogyny that lurks just around the corner.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What Campaign Finance Reform?
The headline on Huffpost right now is "$52 Million Dollar Man = Underdog". What's interesting to me is the numbers they give on what sort of personal donations are possible. It makes me wonder about the viability of either candidate claiming they are in favor of campaign finance reform.
The numbers you often hear tossed around are that a single donor can give a candidate $2300 during the primary (meaning until the convention) and $2300 during the actual election. This seems like it would help ameliorate the impact of single donors capable of making huge donations without an impact on their bottom line.
What I was unaware of until today is that each person is also allowed to give up to $28500 directly to the political party. That's a huge number, and it makes Obama's fundraising numbers even more significant. It means that individuals can donate over thirty grand to a political party in a single election cycle, which doesn't say much about the reform of campaign finance in this country. This is, of course, on top of free office space and homes for fundraisers and 527 and other 'unaffiliated' groups with no cap on donations.
What this adds up to is that, despite McCain's bluster about how much he wants to reform Campaign Finance, he's taking the same huge dollar donations from a minority of people in order to convince the lower-middle class majority that somehow tax cuts are good for them, and the Democrats love terrorists.
What this means to Obama is less clear, but I also don't think it's great. While it's true that much of his campaign funds come from small-dollar donations, he also takes maximum contributions from many people, and many such people also give big dollars to the Democratic party. The problem, as we have seen with the "Hillraisers" over the last few months, is that once you let someone put thirty grand into the party, they feel they have a right to say what goes on. Frankly, they have a point. They can say: "I donated a hundred times what some of these other people did, my voice should be heard louder than theirs." It's hard to tell those people they're wrong, because the Democrats NEED those donations.
The only real solution is to restrict, much, much more severely, the ability of single people to contribute. Get rid of the 527's and all this other bullshit. Limiting the ability of a single person to effect the outcome of an election with money is not limiting freedom of speech, any more than it is to censor someone from running an ad claiming that John McCain drinks the blood of children. Until we get some of that, we don't have any real campaign finance reform.
The numbers you often hear tossed around are that a single donor can give a candidate $2300 during the primary (meaning until the convention) and $2300 during the actual election. This seems like it would help ameliorate the impact of single donors capable of making huge donations without an impact on their bottom line.
What I was unaware of until today is that each person is also allowed to give up to $28500 directly to the political party. That's a huge number, and it makes Obama's fundraising numbers even more significant. It means that individuals can donate over thirty grand to a political party in a single election cycle, which doesn't say much about the reform of campaign finance in this country. This is, of course, on top of free office space and homes for fundraisers and 527 and other 'unaffiliated' groups with no cap on donations.
What this adds up to is that, despite McCain's bluster about how much he wants to reform Campaign Finance, he's taking the same huge dollar donations from a minority of people in order to convince the lower-middle class majority that somehow tax cuts are good for them, and the Democrats love terrorists.
What this means to Obama is less clear, but I also don't think it's great. While it's true that much of his campaign funds come from small-dollar donations, he also takes maximum contributions from many people, and many such people also give big dollars to the Democratic party. The problem, as we have seen with the "Hillraisers" over the last few months, is that once you let someone put thirty grand into the party, they feel they have a right to say what goes on. Frankly, they have a point. They can say: "I donated a hundred times what some of these other people did, my voice should be heard louder than theirs." It's hard to tell those people they're wrong, because the Democrats NEED those donations.
The only real solution is to restrict, much, much more severely, the ability of single people to contribute. Get rid of the 527's and all this other bullshit. Limiting the ability of a single person to effect the outcome of an election with money is not limiting freedom of speech, any more than it is to censor someone from running an ad claiming that John McCain drinks the blood of children. Until we get some of that, we don't have any real campaign finance reform.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
We are neither winning nor losing the war in Iraq
It seems to me that much of the recent debate in this Presidential campaign hinges on whether you believe we are winning or losing the war in Iraq. The problem is that none of the Presidential candidates are willing to clearly define (perhaps because they can't) what victory or defeat would look like.
It is fundamentally misleading to use the phrase "we are winning", as Bush and McCain so often do, because this is not a basketball game with a set amount of time on the clock. There's no scoreboard to look at and see where we are relative to the opposition. This is in part because there is no organized opposition, just a collection of small bands of people who hate us.
So what does it mean, we are winning? My understanding is simply that "we are winning" means "we haven't left yet". Such statements make a misguided assumption that there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq, one called victory and the other called defeat. Let me assure you, NEITHER of these outcomes are viable.
Real, unadulterated 'victory' would mean a democratic Iraq free from sectarian violence, free from regional influences (read: Iran), and capable of providing critical services to all of it's people. We are about as far from this goal as the day that we invaded Iraq, possibly farther.
However, 'defeat' is an equally meaningless term. If we 'lose' in Iraq, our way of life here at home won't be effected. We won't lose our land. We won't fall under the yoke of a foreign government. In fact, in a worst-case scenario in Iraq, America itself is not under direct threat, despite what the Hawks might try to say. (Remember, those talking about creating a haven for terrorists are the same ones who said that Sadaam was harboring and sponsoring terrorism before 9/11.)
So I call on the candidates to stop talking in absolutes about winning and losing in Iraq. There are an infinity of possible scenarios to resolve and end this war. They ALL involve us pulling out troops out at some point, and they ALL involve some unpleasant consequences and side effects. Let's decide what's best on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the situation, rather than who can say the word 'winning' in just the right way.
It is fundamentally misleading to use the phrase "we are winning", as Bush and McCain so often do, because this is not a basketball game with a set amount of time on the clock. There's no scoreboard to look at and see where we are relative to the opposition. This is in part because there is no organized opposition, just a collection of small bands of people who hate us.
So what does it mean, we are winning? My understanding is simply that "we are winning" means "we haven't left yet". Such statements make a misguided assumption that there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq, one called victory and the other called defeat. Let me assure you, NEITHER of these outcomes are viable.
Real, unadulterated 'victory' would mean a democratic Iraq free from sectarian violence, free from regional influences (read: Iran), and capable of providing critical services to all of it's people. We are about as far from this goal as the day that we invaded Iraq, possibly farther.
However, 'defeat' is an equally meaningless term. If we 'lose' in Iraq, our way of life here at home won't be effected. We won't lose our land. We won't fall under the yoke of a foreign government. In fact, in a worst-case scenario in Iraq, America itself is not under direct threat, despite what the Hawks might try to say. (Remember, those talking about creating a haven for terrorists are the same ones who said that Sadaam was harboring and sponsoring terrorism before 9/11.)
So I call on the candidates to stop talking in absolutes about winning and losing in Iraq. There are an infinity of possible scenarios to resolve and end this war. They ALL involve us pulling out troops out at some point, and they ALL involve some unpleasant consequences and side effects. Let's decide what's best on the basis of a comprehensive analysis of the situation, rather than who can say the word 'winning' in just the right way.
I can no longer hold my silence!!!
I haven't written in this blog for nearly a year. My energy to do so is fed by anger, and around August of last year I moved beyond angry into depressed, so I stopped posting. Now I am angry again! I am going to try and update this blog at least once a day up until the election. We'll see how long my anger can last this time...
Monday, August 13, 2007
Karl Rove's departure is a generally ominous sign...
Karl Rove is set to leave the White House at the end of August, and the news asks more questions than it answers. I don't really understand it, and I don't really like it, although I feel like I should like it. I've been waiting for this guy to be out for five years, but I always hoped it would be under some cloud of suspicion, or as the result of one of his many scandals. This farewell is downright joyful, and the guy (according to Bush et al) is set to go down as some sort of national hero.
Now I know that Bush would say he was a hero no matter the circumstances. Witness Rumsfeld and all the other incompetents who WERE forced out in shame, only to be immortalized by a wonderful speech from Bush. But this departure really does smack to me of Rove simply realizing that there is nothing more that needs to be done with this Presidency. I mean, the guy has less than 18 months left in office, which pretty much means that he can't be impeached. It's just too late, unless somebody finds a 12-year-old boy handcuffed and ball gagged in one of the Lincoln bedroom closets. If the scandals thus far haven't been enough to finish him, nothing will be.
Likewise, it has become pretty clear that we will still be in Iraq when Bush leaves office. If the Democrats haven't sacked up and made the move thus far, it is unlikely they will be able to before they get a Democratic President.
Every other issue on the table has clearly already been won or lost. Immigration is not getting fixed before Jan 09, the tax breaks aren't getting repealed, social security will still be broken, gay marriage will still be illegal, abortion will still be legal, etc, etc, etc.
So Rove leaves with a bit of a victorious smirk on his fat, balding face. Fuck that guy, I hope he has a heart attack and dies tomorrow. He's in a neck and neck race with Cheney for evilest guy in the country.
Now I know that Bush would say he was a hero no matter the circumstances. Witness Rumsfeld and all the other incompetents who WERE forced out in shame, only to be immortalized by a wonderful speech from Bush. But this departure really does smack to me of Rove simply realizing that there is nothing more that needs to be done with this Presidency. I mean, the guy has less than 18 months left in office, which pretty much means that he can't be impeached. It's just too late, unless somebody finds a 12-year-old boy handcuffed and ball gagged in one of the Lincoln bedroom closets. If the scandals thus far haven't been enough to finish him, nothing will be.
Likewise, it has become pretty clear that we will still be in Iraq when Bush leaves office. If the Democrats haven't sacked up and made the move thus far, it is unlikely they will be able to before they get a Democratic President.
Every other issue on the table has clearly already been won or lost. Immigration is not getting fixed before Jan 09, the tax breaks aren't getting repealed, social security will still be broken, gay marriage will still be illegal, abortion will still be legal, etc, etc, etc.
So Rove leaves with a bit of a victorious smirk on his fat, balding face. Fuck that guy, I hope he has a heart attack and dies tomorrow. He's in a neck and neck race with Cheney for evilest guy in the country.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
One Crystallization of our basic problem in Iraq
A huge Shia march is planned for this week in Iraq, and there is significant (and justified) fear about a Sunni attack on the column of pilgrims. One of them had the following to say:
Sami Faraj, a 52-year-old government employee, said they would march nevertheless. "We do not care about the bombings and the terrorists. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the cause and for the sake of the prophet's descendants," Faraj said.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070807/iraq/
By the way, this guy isn't a zealous preacher. He's the Iraqi equivalent of the fat guy with the lazy eye and hippie beard who takes the bus to work at the Department of Ecology. He's a nobody.
And yet he's talking in personal terms about the basic disagreement of a religious dispute that has been going on for nearly two thousand years. The furor over the succession of Mohammed was THE reason the Shias and Sunnis became the Shias and Sunnis, and this guy announced into a microphone that he was willing to die for it. And he MEANT it. There is a measurable percentage chance that some Sunni nutjob puts a bomb in the middle of that march. That's how personal this conflict is t the average Iraqi.
Ask yourself how many people you know in America would march for their religion. Not even march against abortion or something, just march for being right. Now ask yourself how many people in this country would bomb religous marchers. Finally, think of how many of those few (I assume it is few, unless you live in Utah) people-willing-to-march that you know would STILL MARCH if they knew there were people in the same CITY that were fully planning if possible to, in fact, kill them.
It is beyond folly to think that Sunnis and Shias are EVER going to live in the same physical space. They are fundamentally different than we are. They have not had a revolutionary event (In the Jeffersonian sense) to galvanize them into caring more about Iraq than about Mohammed. Until and IF they do, we have no shot, and it's irresponsible of politicians to pretend otherwise.
Sami Faraj, a 52-year-old government employee, said they would march nevertheless. "We do not care about the bombings and the terrorists. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for the cause and for the sake of the prophet's descendants," Faraj said.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070807/iraq/
By the way, this guy isn't a zealous preacher. He's the Iraqi equivalent of the fat guy with the lazy eye and hippie beard who takes the bus to work at the Department of Ecology. He's a nobody.
And yet he's talking in personal terms about the basic disagreement of a religious dispute that has been going on for nearly two thousand years. The furor over the succession of Mohammed was THE reason the Shias and Sunnis became the Shias and Sunnis, and this guy announced into a microphone that he was willing to die for it. And he MEANT it. There is a measurable percentage chance that some Sunni nutjob puts a bomb in the middle of that march. That's how personal this conflict is t the average Iraqi.
Ask yourself how many people you know in America would march for their religion. Not even march against abortion or something, just march for being right. Now ask yourself how many people in this country would bomb religous marchers. Finally, think of how many of those few (I assume it is few, unless you live in Utah) people-willing-to-march that you know would STILL MARCH if they knew there were people in the same CITY that were fully planning if possible to, in fact, kill them.
It is beyond folly to think that Sunnis and Shias are EVER going to live in the same physical space. They are fundamentally different than we are. They have not had a revolutionary event (In the Jeffersonian sense) to galvanize them into caring more about Iraq than about Mohammed. Until and IF they do, we have no shot, and it's irresponsible of politicians to pretend otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)