Biggest pet peeve about politics: the smear campaigns. You know what I'm talking about - the black and white crap pics of the opponent, quotes taken out of context, dark, creepy music, and talking about how electing the opponent will bring the end of the world as we know it. I want a candidate who just sits in front of the camera, talks about his views. Sure, talks about the other person's views too, and usually disagrees, but shows respect. What about integrity? What about pride? What about thoughtfulness? What about some consideration here???
Personally, I prefer the flip-flop to a correct decision over a stay-the-course for a route that isn't making any progress. Does this mean I like John Kerry? No, he seems like a rabblerouser to me, but I respect him changing his mind. Does it mean I hate Bush? No, I just don't have much respect for him.
What about abortion? Well, I think each person has a view of what is morally right, and that they ought to comply with that. Say an Irish Catholic woman is pregnant with a kid that tests positive for down syndrome. Probably not gonna consider it acceptable to abort, but better rather to raise the child in a loving, understanding environment. Great, good for her. What about a fourteen year-old girl raped by her father? Can she provide a positive environment for the child? Maybe, but it could be tough. I wouldn't force childbbirth on her. The choice is hers, therefore I'm pro-choice.
What about affirmative action? Let me preface by saying I haven't researched it, and don't know the particulars. But best guess is it naturally favors blacks and latinos. I consider that unfair to whites, and degrading to its recipients. I say, revamp affirmative action: re-classify it as merit-based scholarships, and consider how the students do in comparison to others in a similar environment. Probably, a 4.0 in an inner-city school facing gang and drug problems is a better indicator of drive than a 4.0 in a private prep school. Where you're facing lower expectations, and excelling in spite of them, that's where I see potential. Probably this will still favor blacks and latinos, who typically attend schools with lower expectations rather than elite institutions. But only if they're working their asses off.
What about gay marriage? I have a female friend who was recently proposed to by a french guy who wants to become a US citizen. Never mind that I believe he has a crush on her as well. I was offended, and partially taken aback that I should be offended. After all, how the hell does it impact me? And what does this have to do with gay marriage?
Most Christians (and therefore most Republicans) say marriage is primarily a religious institution bonding a man and a woman - or something to that effect. Being neither a Christian nor a Republican, I don't concern myself with it too much. I've simply considered marriage something you do with the person you love, the person you want to spend your life with. Gay marriage makes the people involved (ie the groom and groom, or bride and bride - not necessarily the relatives) happy - and it doesn't do any harm to the rest of the world, does it? Well, people against gay marriage believe it does. They believe it degrades the institution of marriage.
So here's the comparison: I'm offended because my friend and the french guy would degrade the institution of marriage IN MY EYES. Would it piss me off? Hell yes. Would I attend the wedding? I'd be hella reluctant. Would I start campaigning against marriage giving green cards? No. Angry though I'd be, what they wanna do is their own damn business. Does gay marriage piss me off that way? No, but I finally got a sliver of understanding about what the Christians/Republicans are whining about. But I'm all for gays getting together - and ya know what? They can even call it marriage.
What about immigration? Well, first, what's the problem? Immigrants, primarily Mexicans, are illegally crossing the border, mooching off our lifestyle, driving down wages for our own workers, and then taking money out of our economy by sending it back to their families, still in Mexico. Here's my solution. Crack down HARD on companies or individuals paying below minimum wage. That reduces the problem of lower wages for our own workers. Next, conduct an extensive search for these illegal immigrants. Once we find them, then what? Arrest them? Hell no! Send them people with the necessary forms (etc.) to apply for citizenship. Speed up the process! Encourage them to bring their families here. Let them live the American dream, and give their children opportunities their parents never had! I don't give a damn if the Hispanic population in the US doubles, triples, quadruples in a year. If they're paying their taxes, I have no qualms. And if they skip taxes, or don't apply for citizenship? Jail 'em. They're breaking our laws, and we're not gonna shoulder the burden if they won't put forth a bit of effort.
What about national security? Does anybody actually believe that staying in Iraq and hoping for a lucky break will help for even a month after we pull out? Can Bush even believe that? No way. He wants to hold out for some unforseeable future in which somehow we actually make progress. I say, it isn't working. Pull out now. If terrorists take over the government, or the new government supports terrorists, or is hostile to US citizens, then we'll destroy them. Send a message that anybody supporting a terrorist is as good as a terrorist themselves - I'm looking at you, Ahmedinejad and Hezbollah. And after we take you out, we're not staying to enforce a damn thing. Turn it over to the UN, and support whatever resolutions they take from there. But we WILL eliminate anybody supporting a terrorist.
What about America's reputation? I think we need to solidify our alliances before we can do a damn thing against Iran or N Korea. The last thing we want is the rest of the world turning against us. And with power, we'll get respect and trust by showing all possible restraint.
What about nuclear ambitions? There's more to national security than terrorism. Bush probably shouldn't have endorsed India's acceptance into the nuclear club, but too late for that now. The fewer people with the bomb, the better. But if you look at every country as a person, N Korea's the crazy kid in school with a gun. He's a top priority. And you can't ignore Iran, the influential kid who hires bullies (Hezbollah) to beat up the other kids and is in a market for a gun himself. So what the fuck can you do with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and N Korea all potential threats? The last thing you want to do is start WWIII, because with the bomb, that's a fast war. It doesn't help that we can't be sure what China would do. My theory is a classic one: the best offense is a good defense. N Korea gets a gun, we get a bullet proof vest. America needs to focus all necessary R&D into developing a reliable nuclear deterrent. Could be lasers from satellites, could be ballistic missiles from strategically placed warships, I don't care, we need security. If we have that then ... why do we even care if N Korea gets the bomb? And away goes any leverage they might have had. At that point, we can make some progress at the negotiation table.
What about torture? Here I want to quote Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert):
"My previous view was that torture probably works really well, at least in selective cases, based on the fact that it is so often the method of choice. All of those law enforcement professionals around the world couldn’t be wrong, could they? Plus I imagine that if someone attached electrodes to my scrotum, I’d be talking plenty compared to the “let’s be friends? interrogation method. So torture certainly passes the sniff test. And I apologize for mentioning my scrotum and the phrase “sniff test? in the same paragraph. It couldn’t be helped.
"The media have trotted out expert after expert to say that regular non-torture interrogation is MORE effective than torture. I discounted those experts as selectively chosen by the liberal media. One thing that all of the experts seemed to have in common is that none of them had USED torture. So how would they know torture was worse than the alternative?
"But much time has passed since this debate began. You’d think that the proponents of torture (cough, cough, Fox New, cough) would have produced one credible torturer to say, 'Torture works great! I get all of my information in minutes and I’m home to help the kids with homework by five!'
"Or perhaps the media could find one torture victim who would say, 'I wasn’t going to tell them anything until they started water-boarding me. Man, that stuff works!'
"Now granted, it might be hard to find someone to confess to being a torturer. And it might be even harder to find someone who was tortured who is willing to endorse it. But it seems to me that with all the torturing going on, you could at least find a friend of a friend who saw it work. Or the American government could find some CIA operative who is willing to be filmed in silhouette with his voice garbled saying he’s seen torture produces excellent results.
"But nothing? For years?
"Move me to the skeptical column. The burden is on the proponents of torture to produce some proof that it works. I still don’t rule out the possibility that torture can be effective, but if it’s being done in my name, I want some fucking evidence."
What about a little pride in our nation and our leaders? When's the last time you felt some of that?
Personally, I prefer the flip-flop to a correct decision over a stay-the-course for a route that isn't making any progress. Does this mean I like John Kerry? No, he seems like a rabblerouser to me, but I respect him changing his mind. Does it mean I hate Bush? No, I just don't have much respect for him.
What about abortion? Well, I think each person has a view of what is morally right, and that they ought to comply with that. Say an Irish Catholic woman is pregnant with a kid that tests positive for down syndrome. Probably not gonna consider it acceptable to abort, but better rather to raise the child in a loving, understanding environment. Great, good for her. What about a fourteen year-old girl raped by her father? Can she provide a positive environment for the child? Maybe, but it could be tough. I wouldn't force childbbirth on her. The choice is hers, therefore I'm pro-choice.
What about affirmative action? Let me preface by saying I haven't researched it, and don't know the particulars. But best guess is it naturally favors blacks and latinos. I consider that unfair to whites, and degrading to its recipients. I say, revamp affirmative action: re-classify it as merit-based scholarships, and consider how the students do in comparison to others in a similar environment. Probably, a 4.0 in an inner-city school facing gang and drug problems is a better indicator of drive than a 4.0 in a private prep school. Where you're facing lower expectations, and excelling in spite of them, that's where I see potential. Probably this will still favor blacks and latinos, who typically attend schools with lower expectations rather than elite institutions. But only if they're working their asses off.
What about gay marriage? I have a female friend who was recently proposed to by a french guy who wants to become a US citizen. Never mind that I believe he has a crush on her as well. I was offended, and partially taken aback that I should be offended. After all, how the hell does it impact me? And what does this have to do with gay marriage?
Most Christians (and therefore most Republicans) say marriage is primarily a religious institution bonding a man and a woman - or something to that effect. Being neither a Christian nor a Republican, I don't concern myself with it too much. I've simply considered marriage something you do with the person you love, the person you want to spend your life with. Gay marriage makes the people involved (ie the groom and groom, or bride and bride - not necessarily the relatives) happy - and it doesn't do any harm to the rest of the world, does it? Well, people against gay marriage believe it does. They believe it degrades the institution of marriage.
So here's the comparison: I'm offended because my friend and the french guy would degrade the institution of marriage IN MY EYES. Would it piss me off? Hell yes. Would I attend the wedding? I'd be hella reluctant. Would I start campaigning against marriage giving green cards? No. Angry though I'd be, what they wanna do is their own damn business. Does gay marriage piss me off that way? No, but I finally got a sliver of understanding about what the Christians/Republicans are whining about. But I'm all for gays getting together - and ya know what? They can even call it marriage.
What about immigration? Well, first, what's the problem? Immigrants, primarily Mexicans, are illegally crossing the border, mooching off our lifestyle, driving down wages for our own workers, and then taking money out of our economy by sending it back to their families, still in Mexico. Here's my solution. Crack down HARD on companies or individuals paying below minimum wage. That reduces the problem of lower wages for our own workers. Next, conduct an extensive search for these illegal immigrants. Once we find them, then what? Arrest them? Hell no! Send them people with the necessary forms (etc.) to apply for citizenship. Speed up the process! Encourage them to bring their families here. Let them live the American dream, and give their children opportunities their parents never had! I don't give a damn if the Hispanic population in the US doubles, triples, quadruples in a year. If they're paying their taxes, I have no qualms. And if they skip taxes, or don't apply for citizenship? Jail 'em. They're breaking our laws, and we're not gonna shoulder the burden if they won't put forth a bit of effort.
What about national security? Does anybody actually believe that staying in Iraq and hoping for a lucky break will help for even a month after we pull out? Can Bush even believe that? No way. He wants to hold out for some unforseeable future in which somehow we actually make progress. I say, it isn't working. Pull out now. If terrorists take over the government, or the new government supports terrorists, or is hostile to US citizens, then we'll destroy them. Send a message that anybody supporting a terrorist is as good as a terrorist themselves - I'm looking at you, Ahmedinejad and Hezbollah. And after we take you out, we're not staying to enforce a damn thing. Turn it over to the UN, and support whatever resolutions they take from there. But we WILL eliminate anybody supporting a terrorist.
What about America's reputation? I think we need to solidify our alliances before we can do a damn thing against Iran or N Korea. The last thing we want is the rest of the world turning against us. And with power, we'll get respect and trust by showing all possible restraint.
What about nuclear ambitions? There's more to national security than terrorism. Bush probably shouldn't have endorsed India's acceptance into the nuclear club, but too late for that now. The fewer people with the bomb, the better. But if you look at every country as a person, N Korea's the crazy kid in school with a gun. He's a top priority. And you can't ignore Iran, the influential kid who hires bullies (Hezbollah) to beat up the other kids and is in a market for a gun himself. So what the fuck can you do with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and N Korea all potential threats? The last thing you want to do is start WWIII, because with the bomb, that's a fast war. It doesn't help that we can't be sure what China would do. My theory is a classic one: the best offense is a good defense. N Korea gets a gun, we get a bullet proof vest. America needs to focus all necessary R&D into developing a reliable nuclear deterrent. Could be lasers from satellites, could be ballistic missiles from strategically placed warships, I don't care, we need security. If we have that then ... why do we even care if N Korea gets the bomb? And away goes any leverage they might have had. At that point, we can make some progress at the negotiation table.
What about torture? Here I want to quote Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert):
"My previous view was that torture probably works really well, at least in selective cases, based on the fact that it is so often the method of choice. All of those law enforcement professionals around the world couldn’t be wrong, could they? Plus I imagine that if someone attached electrodes to my scrotum, I’d be talking plenty compared to the “let’s be friends? interrogation method. So torture certainly passes the sniff test. And I apologize for mentioning my scrotum and the phrase “sniff test? in the same paragraph. It couldn’t be helped.
"The media have trotted out expert after expert to say that regular non-torture interrogation is MORE effective than torture. I discounted those experts as selectively chosen by the liberal media. One thing that all of the experts seemed to have in common is that none of them had USED torture. So how would they know torture was worse than the alternative?
"But much time has passed since this debate began. You’d think that the proponents of torture (cough, cough, Fox New, cough) would have produced one credible torturer to say, 'Torture works great! I get all of my information in minutes and I’m home to help the kids with homework by five!'
"Or perhaps the media could find one torture victim who would say, 'I wasn’t going to tell them anything until they started water-boarding me. Man, that stuff works!'
"Now granted, it might be hard to find someone to confess to being a torturer. And it might be even harder to find someone who was tortured who is willing to endorse it. But it seems to me that with all the torturing going on, you could at least find a friend of a friend who saw it work. Or the American government could find some CIA operative who is willing to be filmed in silhouette with his voice garbled saying he’s seen torture produces excellent results.
"But nothing? For years?
"Move me to the skeptical column. The burden is on the proponents of torture to produce some proof that it works. I still don’t rule out the possibility that torture can be effective, but if it’s being done in my name, I want some fucking evidence."
What about a little pride in our nation and our leaders? When's the last time you felt some of that?
Now Obama has been elected president. And I'm feeling pride despite the fact that he hasn't really done anything besides choose most of his cabinet. Okay, I take it back. He stuck to his guns (or the lack thereof) about Iraq, but he flip-flopped on the all-important issue of the flag pin, when it was politically expedient (I know, at least he's not anti-American, but now he's unreliable!). He's pro-choice, but doesn't force the point very often. He's understandably affirmative action, but like I said way back when, I don't have all the info. And even though we disagree on the issue, more important is his notion of college scholarships simply in return for community service. Combining increased advanced education with the betterment of neighborhoods sounds pretty win-win to me! He isn't against gay marriage, although I'm not sure whether he considers it a right. Not a huge issue for me. As far as immigration goes, he's chosen Napolitano, from Arizona, so I get the impression his approach is a more "keep 'em out or track 'em down" approach, which seems surprisingly pessimistic for him. But we'll see - and my ideas might not have been feasible in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have been popular. National security-wise, it should take less effort if we aren't ridiculously unpopular in the world, so we should have a better success rate. But again, we'll see. The first thing I remember about Obama is him saying that he wanted to reach out and mend relationships between us and our allies, that a go-it-alone strategy won't work (Bobby Jindal, where is your international perspective?). That's when I picked him to win, when I was most inspired by him, and the stark difference between him and Bush. With the nuclear option, again, we'll have to wait and see. And Obama was clearly staunchly anti-torture, and when (if) he closes Guantanamo, that will be the capstone of his success.
So, happily enough, it doesn't seem like it's just his oratorical skills that inspire - it's his reasoned, open-minded, teamwork-based, optimistic policy decisions that have me inspired. And I realize this is the future of all our lives I'm talking about here... but I'm sitting on the edge of my seat watching, waiting for Obama to take all his inspiring ideas and turn them into inspiring actions.
The pundits say expectations for Obama are unrealistically high. I laughed when I heard them. At first I thought they really were too high. Then I realized while they are high... it might not be unrealistic.
Thus proving the pundits right.
