USA vs. Russia... or so they hope.

My inspiration (and plagiarism) comes from the AP.

My first thought?  Ooh, what fun!  It's like war games, but real, and available to the public! Honestly, I'm still stuck on that one, it doesn't seem like it can be taken seriously yet, and on the surface the article states that the US is officially not taking it seriously either.  Which is funny, because we were in a Cold War with Russia for forty years; there are unquestionably Russian minds that haven't changed yet, and the country is still unpredictable, and seems maybe a little unstable.  They definitely haven't lost their pride, and are nursing a bruised ego.  But their economy has given them a bit of a boost, and they have a strong, popular leader.  Putin, of course, though unofficially.  Medvedev is universally considered a puppet leader.

The question now is, how do they regain the international respect they once had?  Through warfare and aggression?  Maybe later, but right now that would be a lonely war that they aren't ready for.  Were they testing the waters, seeing what kind of reaction they'd get in Georgia? We'll find out when they make their eventual move.

I believe right now they have a more subtle strategy.  They're simultaneously strengthening their alliances with Cuba and Venezuela, and positioning themselves as a threat to the US. Goading us on. If they could be seen as a rival to the US for supremacy again, many USA-haters might choose to rally around their flag, inciting another Cold War.  And with their economy relatively up and ours relatively down, who knows how it might end up.

Happily, our government seems to recognize that.  Consider how jumpy we get whenever we see a threat to US supremacy.  And Russia right in our backyard, talking with the neighbors who keep rabble-rousing with America hanging in effigy?  No, we wouldn't ignore that.  Rather, we're pretending we don't see them.  That way, we don't give them the recognition as our adversary that they're shooting for.

And that's all I'm fairly sure of.  But then there's sheer speculation...

What will Russia do if we keep acting like we're ignoring them?  Maybe they'll act like a jealous sibling and clamor for more attention by escalating the threat to the point where we'd look impotent if we kept ignoring them (I actually think the bluff is already pretty transparent, but for the sake of argument...).  That might take an act of outright aggression... a minor skirmish between battleships, an anti-American summit featuring Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and Iran... anything as obvious as that would get our attention, but would also rally all our old allies around us again.  Maybe they'd be more subtle, and keep finding new ways to get under our skin without seeming to act dangerous.  They could raise the price of the oil they sell us, or boost trade among anti-American nations.  They could start renovating their military... not growing it, just fixing it.  They could increase diplomacy with more Latin American countries. None of this is cause for outright anger, but tensions would certainly start rising.  Not quite another Cold War, but then again...

What will they do if we stop ignoring them?  Obviously, they would cast us as an aggressor (which would be much easier if they could provoke us with Bush in power, rather than Obama, or if we simply overreact), and having taken care not to be overly aggressive themselves, they could develop a convincing case. Potentially, they could neutralize the United Nations and regain their luster, even if their economy doesn't yet match ours.  But who knows?  Maybe their confidence will boost their economy.  All this would be a risky gambit, and it would be the Cold War, pt. II.

Ok, so the United States is smart enough right now to ignore them.  Officially, anyway.  Even if they are just trying to provoke us, they are actually improving their relations with our would-be enemies, and it IS actually a potential threat.  So what are we unofficially doing?  Still ignoring them.  And this is important.  Regardless of what they're doing, we're better off with more and better allies in the world, whether they'll eventually become the next alliance in a war or simply a more effective trading bloc.  And no matter what they do, if we stay calm, friendly, and generous, it will be harder to cast us in a negative light.  And thankfully, the Bush administration is keeping a cool head till Obama replaces it.

UPDATE: Is Medvedev actually destined to be only a puppet leader?  Maybe not.  He recently claimed sole responsibility for Russia, rather than emphasizing his consultation with Putin.  We'll see where this goes.

One nation under God

(My facts came from Wikipedia, from which I liberally plagiarized. Feel free to double-check using other sources.)

Atheists get offended when asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it. Christians (and to a lesser extent those of other faiths) tend to get offended at the suggestion that the words be taken out. What I never realized is that the words "under God" were not in it in the first place.

The pledge of allegiance, as originally written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." He considered adding the words fraternity and equality, but felt they were too controversial, since many at the time did not believe blacks or women deserved equal rights. Later, it was changed to "the Flag of the United States of America" to clarify the meaning, especially for immigrants. In 1951, the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic fraternal service organization) decided the Pledge needed a reference to God. They took the term "under God" from the Gettysburg Address, and lobbied for the official change. At first they were unsuccessful. But then word spread to a preacher who delivered a sermon which President Eisenhower attended. He said that what made the Spartans great was not their walls, shields, or weapons, but their spirits. Similarly, what made the United States great was not the atomic bomb, but the American spirit, the "American way of life." He said what made the United States great and unique was her sense of being what Lincoln described: a nation "under God." He insisted that without these words, the Pledge could refer to just about any nation, so we needed to add these words. Eisenhower, thoroughly convinced, eventually signed it into law. He later paraphrased the sermon: "... These words ["under God"] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble..."

Question: have we remained humble? In fact, have there even been occasions when we might have used the feeling of being "under God" to justify aggressive behavior? Finally, what about separation of Church and State? Certainly, the words "under God" were not, in fact, necessary to clarify that the pledge referred to the USA, since the words "of the United States of America" were already included. And why did we add the controversial phrase "under God" before we added the words equality or fraternity? We can't add both, because too many Americans would fear the similarity to the French motto "liberty, equality, and fraternity." What about equality alone?

I propose a new Pledge of Allegiance:

" I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: a Nation Indivisible, with Liberty, Equality, and Justice for all. "

Why I respect Bush

In 2000 and 2004 I voted Democratic, mostly just because the candidates were "better than Bush."  I soaked up the opinions around me denigrating him.  And I still think he's easy to dismiss as a fool.  From all his oratorical flubs to invading Iraq, from going it alone to the economy's collapse, he has a lot to answer for.  But he's too easily dismissed as a fool.  He's not so easily pigeonholed.  He just took part in an interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson.  This is his legacy he's talking about, not to mention politics.  And I agree with a great deal that he says.  

He pointed to that fateful incorrect intelligence about weapons of mass destruction as "the biggest regret of all the presidency."  Lol, can't disagree with him on that.  Staying there once we discovered the mistake was possibly a mistake we can put on his shoulders, but we can't say for sure how things might have turned out otherwise.  As he says, "That is a do-over that I can't do."  Which is certainly true, but may also be a tactic to encourage us not to leave earlier than he thinks we ought.  Certainly, this is one subject on which we all wish he had not "listened to [his] values."

I wish he had won his battle on immigration.  On that subject, he had my full support.   "I firmly believe that the immigration debate really didn't show the true nature of America as a welcoming society," he said. "I fully understand we need to enforce law and enforce borders. But the debate took on a tone that undermined the true greatness of America, which is that we welcome people who want to work hard and support their families."  Now that's inspirational (Take notes, Obama!).

Some times he's hypocritical.  "I also knew that the president has the responsibility to try to elevate the tone. And, frankly, it just didn't work, much as I'd like to have it work."  Ok, now explain why you kept Karl Rove so long!  Or did he realize his mistake, and that's why Rove wound up leaving the White House?

I still don't believe No Child Left Behind was a success.  Part of that is the obvious opinions of my high school teachers.  Part of that is that I was never in danger of being left behind, and in fact classes were frequently slowed down to accommodate everybody.  How are we supposed to create engineers, doctors, and lawyers if schooling is slowed down???

His phrasing of the economic answers is surprisingly clever.  He points to the action he's taken, affirms that he'll take more if necessary, indicates that the problem is confidence in the market, but doesn't resort to repeating "Buy, buy, buy!", and throws in the token defense that the problem started in the markets, and before his presidency... and he just couldn't do anything to stop it.  I guess he could have listened to those who forecasted this turn of events long before he did anything, or used his prominent post to call for more regulation... but no.

About Obama's election: "I think it was a repudiation of Republicans," he said. "And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me. I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next four years explaining policy."

My opinion: it seems like Bush tried to govern as a moderate, but campaigned as a staunch Republican, and owed all his support to the party.  When he broke away from that, he lost all but his most hardcore base, and the ability to effect any of the change he would have liked.  Obama, hopefully, will have the wisdom to govern as he campaigned.  And Bush's one more thing: "One of my parting words to him will be: 'If I can help you, let me know.'"  I can only hope that Bush recognizes that his values have led him astray... and then that Obama takes him up on his offer, and doesn't tell anybody.  I trust Obama enough not to need to know his sources, and I don't want him to lose the support of everybody who would whine about taking advice from Bush.