A few Words in Defense of our Country
My thoughts below…
So the US image has gone down hill in the world and being that I am an American, this worries me. It also seems to worry Randy Newman.
I agree that Bush is not as bad as some European leaders. But there is more to this issue:
If Bush and his actions do not represent this population why did he get voted in a second time? Why do Americans seems to have an apathetic attitude towards him? Why has he not been impeached? Why are we afraid of our government? In other words, I think saying that Bush is not as bad as others is not a complete answer.
That said, I would be pissed off too if I were a European. Bush lied about the evidence to go war. Flat out lied. And people knew it, such as Scott Ritter. They were ignored and not many people listened, including the most important people, politicians and the those in the White House. We let the government abuse our fear after 9/11 and should be ashamed of such.
When it comes down to it, I think Europeans should look back in history before judging us, but as Americans we have our opportunity to show Bush Policies are a fluke and not representative. What will you do this November?
Welcome to my blog! Topics tend to focus on Science and Technology, but I throw in personal stuff too. I hope you enjoy!
March 28th, 2008 at 6:09 am
I think there are two items here:
1. Scott Ritter is a mixed bag. While he was right towards the end, he was a hyperagressive weapons inspector and ex-US military officer during the first phase. This type of transformation usually occurs because of some internal organizational conflict (i.e. being passed over, or not being listened to, or not getting credit). Although in the end he was right, any American not wrapped in the flag could have been right because there was enough out there to make your mind up with.
2. Randy Newman isn’t justifying our behavior by contrasting Europeans. He’s satirically mocking those that excuse our behavior because others have done stupid things before and pointing out that our empire is adrift (because we let it get adrift). Randy Newman is one of the smartest songwriters out there — examples may be Rednecks (misunderstanding racism), Political Science (lets nuke everyone that doesn’t agree with us), Sail Away (invitation into slavery) and My Country (not to be confused with “A few words for my country”).
In November, I will vote for McCain.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
This comes as an amazing surprise to me. I don’t picture you as someone voting for Republican.
This song by Newman got me interested in listening to his other works. I will have to check out those songs you list.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Like Randy Newman I am often misunderstood.
I voted for Bush in 2000 as a protest against the interventions of 1990s. It would have been futile to vote Nader — he stood no chance whatsoever, so one needs to use the system against itself.
Now that I see that both parties are hacks representing only the interests of the few, I’ll vote for a Republican, hoping that four more years of GWB will radicalize the middle into action. or just push them to the left.
March 30th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
You don’t think Obama represents everyone?
March 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Obama has taken substantial funding support from financial industry lobbyists, and misunderstands the issue of social security at a fairly fundamental level. He will not take on financial re-regulation as it needs to be modified for the next century.
On foreign policy, some of his advisers are troublesome in their views that power should be projected for humanitarian reason (hint: who doesn’t use humanitarian reasons as justification?). No substantive difference — I don’t really expect him to pull the troops out of Iraq; he’ll just drag his feet into the 2020s.
Then, there’s the problem of being a Democrat and having a perennial need to show the will to use force (which is why having a Democrat in office ALWAYS results in attacking some nation — to prove that they have the gonads). Not much comfort there.
You may get him elected; but in the end it will just be kicking the football a bit down the field. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The only way that he could become president is if he provided guarantees that he wouldn’t tip over the applecart.
March 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I would love to see a link or reference for this. He is the only candidate that says no to money from lobbyists. And the lobbyists money he has taken is from people that work for the firms, rather than taking directly from the key players. Rumor has it he has these folks sign forms swearing the money is from their personal funds and not from lobbyist firms.
Now I’m thoroughly confused. Obama voted no for Iraq, has been outspoken against it from the get go, and has called for our country to get the F out. What gives you that impression?
Certainly this is incredibly frustrating and really stupid move on their part. For someone that has been outspoken against doing something because everyone else does or because it’s a politician thing as Obama I don’t think it’s fair to characterize him as this. Maybe I’m just too naive, but I don’t see what makes people think he’s a typical politician.
The man is an Evangelical Christian and told Christians to their face they need to get out of politics. He went to Detroit to tell the automakers their pandering is pathetic. And the lists go on and on. Certainly not typical political moves.
If he gets elected I hope this prediction falls short.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Well, let’s see how it turns out.
He’ll probably be the nominee, and we’ll give him a chance to demonstrate his “change” agency. I simply don’t think that a two party system is the answer.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Once on the campaign trail, the things regarding lobbyists got finessed, but even so, he’s had to assuage AIPAC that he’ll be a friend of Israel. That’s the guarantees on one hand. Then there are guarantees that must be given to the moneyed class; they will not trust just anyone with protecting their money.
My gut tells me that people act differently as candidates (when they’re wannabees) and after they’re elected as the defacto rulers of the planet.
That imperative to act and to make history is pretty strong.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Source one says their data comes from Center for Responsive Politics. So I Googled them and looked up the data. I found something a little different. Namely this link and this link. The second one states on the right-hand side:
I would say it’s a stretch to assume that 100% of the numbers on my second link all come from PACs.
But the other links are just about as useful because people are going to read into the data as much as they want to. I just recommend reading Obama’s statements and seeing how he has committed “political suicide” time after time. Not really a sign of someone easily bought and sold.
I think to understand where I’m coming from you actually have to meet the guy and have a conversation with him. The story I always tell:
My sister worked for the Red Cross a few years back (maybe Summer 03?) and had a chance to meet Obama as he was running for US IL Senator. He stopped by the new Red Cross building and my sister and her friend got to meet him. They both had a chance to talk to him for maybe 3-5 minutes or so.
Two years later my sister is out in Washington D.C. helping the Red Cross manage hurricane Katrina and the some other issues. My father (an administrator at a Community College) has met Obama multiple times and talked to him about community colleges. For those of you that have attempted this with other politicians I am sure you know how difficult this can be as typical politicians don’t care about CCs. There aren’t really any votes in helping CCs.
Anyways, my father invited my sister to a speaking event Obama was attending. After Obama spoke my father and sister went up to meet the man. My father said hi and Obama remembered him and then my father was about to introduce my sister before Obama reached out his hand and said my sister’s name along with, “[…] From the Red Cross right? How are things going?” He proceeded to pickup the conversation from 2 years ago as if it never ended.
I am still waiting for something to show me he is a typical candidate. If I am wrong than I guess I will learn a hard lesson in life.
But even if Obama is at the hand of the Rich and PACs, then so are the other candidates, in fact both candidates by themselves double the money taken from lobbyists and PACs. So why vote for the one with the most? I don’t think we are ready for 4 more years of Bush, and neither is the world.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Well, I think that’s the fundamental problem. Both parties and all candidates are part of the same system.
Some places that I look at are:
http://www.Whitehouseforsale.org
also
Campaign Finance Institute
I don’t think that I meant to imply that they are all exactly the same, as much as the political channel is narrowly defined by the two parties. The anecdote you state (re: dad and sister) is interesting, but I’m still thinking that the range of actions available t Obama is curtailed.
Having said that, I think that Obama on a personal level is interesting — at least you get the impression that he would understand why people around the world dislike us.
One additional comment: If you get the chance to hear ‘Political Science”, read the lyrics and note how little things have changed since 1972 (some 35 years ago). It could have been written this year — and we all thought we were well loved back in 1972.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
This is a test, can you read me?
April 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Obama does give off that sense that he is an interesting candidate. I am hoping for my sense of naiveness (did I make that word up?) that I am right and he is not the typical candidate. Otherwise I may have a cliché rude awakening to politics.
This weekend I plan on listening to those tunes. I finally have a little bit of free time in my insanely hectic semester schedule.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
That’s way more strategic than I can go. I am weary of a president with no moral compass, though I fear for a good man burdened with fixing the damage he has done.
It feels like our country is sinking. 35% of Americans approve of Bush, and when I turn on the radio in my car, I know why they approve. I am weary of the constant call to dispose of the poor, to attack our enemies at any cost, and of plutocratic policies guaranteed to make more enemies to replace the ones we kill.
In 2000 I didn’t think there was much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. There still isn’t. We are a people desperately in need of inspiration, sick from the nightmare of relentless fear, and unable to face our own shortcomings lest we be thought French.
Obama speaks to our country as it is. I fear for him, but even more for us. We’re past the point where the candidate most likely to do the right thing offers more than a fifty percent hope of turning the country around. But it seems much more likely that four more years of pandering to stupidity will destroy us.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I think of it as doing something personally distasteful for the benefit of future generations. Beats recycling.
That seems to imply that “us” is worth salvaging despite evidence to the contrary.
I think of it like an old car that keeps requiring huge repair investments, but you can’t let go for sentimental reasons. Perhaps the ass imprint on the seat is particularly comfortable. In all other cars one tries, the ass never gets comfy enough and it’s immediately tactile.
Eventually though, it dawns on you that the comfy ass imprint is keeping one from a totally new car which is a better investment all around.
Hint: car = current state of politics.
April 6th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Rusty old car is the wrong analogy. A society - our nation - is a lot more like an organism that has fallen into a moral sleep, and needs to wake up.
The “destruction so something better can come” model is way too optimistic; history provides too many examples of something worse following a revolution. We have changed for the worse; now we need to change for the better. We need to locate our moral compass - it’s around here someplace - and rediscover our bearings.
April 6th, 2008 at 9:29 am
It is interesting that you associate our society with our nation and not as transnational despite the globalized view of business, finance and militarism.
But let’s leave that be; I’d assume that no organism remains static, but that it is forced to adapt in response to external pressures. To revert to a state of idealized “stasis”, an unevolving form where the passage of time does not bear doesn’t seem realistic. Maybe that nostalgic inertia is the concept of reverting back to the idealized constitution — but that does not keep apace with forces of plutocracy, oligarchy, technology. *We* can collectively assume that those forces are ineffective and are not using consolidated media or mainstream parties to hide their impact, but I do not assume that.
And yet many view the French and American Revolutions as something better than what preceded them. At least for a while.
A revolution does not need to be violent, but it does need to have somnabulistic people examine themselves enough so that they’d consider change — sometime through hardship or the taking away of comfort. I no longer believe that we have a standard of living, but instead have a standard of comfort or affluence. A standard of comfort does not encourage one to be particularly self-introspective.
I believe that change can be forward looking (like with range voting and IRV, but conventional forces (plutocracy, oligarchy) have heavily invested in the current political parties and system. Those parties will react violently to changes that threaten their power and influence. They use consolidated media to bring issues to the fore, and to define those issues in terms that suit their goals. This is no more conspiracy than people working toward their self interest goals in accepted business practices.
You desire reversion (a form of backward looking change) when you allude to regaining the moral compass. That’s safe because it assumes that you know what was there — but I look to forward change that may be novel and unpredictable. Hence, change itself in the political economy is risky and would involve the conflict of powers that support the current system, and those wanting to evolve to something that better represents both the will of the people, and the health of the planet.
Coming back briefly to your society as nation idea: Do you think the rest of the world should be concerned about who the President of the United States is? Isn’t it odd that they’d be so interested in our business.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am
American history is not kind to the idea that we ever had a strong moral compass, but there have been voices, and at times we have intentionally set upon doing the right thing. For once I’d like that to be our focus. We have too much power to use it carelessly, and furthermore we need to recognize there is great power to be had in moral leadership.
It doesn’t matter if they should be interested in our choice of president. We tend to throw our weight around so it could matter very much to them who that turns out to be. They have a good reason to be interested.
As Pierre Trudeau once said; “Living next to the United States is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” In our essentially borderless world, everybody is “next to” the United States. And we are next to them.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
To me it seems as though I would rather progress from learned knowledge than destructive means if possible. Seeing how Bush policies impact US and the World, I’m not sure we want a harsh learning lesson yet.
Knowledge as to the destructive nature of Bush policies can easily be seen once EFFECTIVE policies are in place. I consider myself somewhat naive on the issue of politics and humans in general. I give them credit more often than either deserve so this is where my opinions come from.
I think a fair majority of the 33% still favoring Bush are mostly one-issue voters and in the longterm we are going to start to lose one-issue voters. The younger generations are caring less and less about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, religion, and other issues on the same lines. And most young voters don’t seem to vote on just one-issue. I might be wrong here, but this is just my opinion.
But if that viewpoint is right, than the hopes of us learning from the mistakes of Bush policies is even better. Hell even some one-issue voters, such as the Evangelical Christians, are starting to see the downfall to one-issue voting. And this leads me to think our country can start to grow with a candidate like Obama. Giving people hope is a form of strength and it can lead to change.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:34 am
An interesting article on Obama turning away a campaign contribution.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Oops! Forgot this too, the rejection letter…
April 8th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/I_Love_Lisa.jpg
Caption: Bart pinpoints the exact moment at which Ralph’s heart rips in half.
I hope that’s not gonna be you.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
LOL!
I try my best to keep emotions out of issues such as politics.