How much longer must we tolerate mass culture?

More election thoughts

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:26:35 -0700

I was looking at a photo of the democratic candidates for President, when it struck me that there's an advantage to being a female candidate. It's a small one, and there are certainly more disadvantages than advantages, but the advantage I see is not insignificant: it's in the clothes. At events, when camaras are likely to be there, Male candidates are expected to be in Dark suits, while the fashion choices for women are far more wide-open. Seems silly, I know, but when all of the men are in matching dark suits, and the female candidate is in a Bright Orange Pants-suit type female office wear, it makes her stand out. The other candidates become her Pips, while she's Gladys Knight, you see?

Then, again,I can be persuaded. It just takes some effort. In that spirit, I've got a suggestion for a speech for Barack Obama (or, any other politician with the guts to say the same message):

For the past few months, I've been a candidate for the office of The President of the United States of America. For a few years before that, many people have been calling for me to run, based upon the very strong speech I gave at the last convention. In my official role, representing the people of Illinois, I've done as good a job as any other representative, perhaps even a little better. But, my unofficial role has grown enormously. At this point in time, I'm supposed to represent Black People, Young People, Disenfranchised Voters, and Anti-War voters. That's an extremely tall order for anyone, let alone someone of my limited experience. In fact, that inexperience has led me to make some mistakes in my campaign. But, my mistakes have been no greater than those mistakes made by far more seasoned politicians, and I have a way to correct those mistakes. I recognize that I am only a man, and a young man for the role I seek to fulfill. In that recognition, I have advisors. That situation will not change. If you choose to vote for me, you are not voting simply for Barack Obama. You are voting for a team of politicians and advisors with varying levels of experience, that taken together, adds up to a formidable number of years spent in service to the American public. I am just the public face of that organization, chosen because I look good, and I can deliver a speech better than any of them can.

Now, this is no different to any of the other candidates. Especially Ms. Clinton. I'm referring to her as "Ms. Clinton" because that's how you see her. You don't see her as a senator with little more experience than I have. You see her as the former First Lady, married to a popular former President who still commands enormous respect, and affection. Furthermore, in that role, you know how much she antagonized the more right wing elements of the Republican Party, a group you believe has screwed you over mightily, between stolen elections and private wars fought on the public's dollars. You also know that she's a strong woman, so you call her "Ms." Not "Mrs.". But the difference between Ms. Clinton and myself is that I am now showing you behind the curtain. I am willing to be open about who I have working for me, and who I would like to work for you. Another difference is that not only do I antagonize the right wing, I do so by my own merits. I'm Black enough that they hate me. I have a Muslim-sounding name. They hate that, too. I won't vote for their plans, and with a democratic congress, I won't have to veto them. This country is already headed for a different direction than it has gone. Putting in another Clinton will only be an attempt to steer back to a direction that has failed.

But, I'm not just running against Ms. Clinton. I'm running against the Republican candidates, most of whom support both the War in Iraq, which is now a civil war, so the comparisons to Viet Nam have never been more apt. Many of them support torture, as well. Oh, sure, they'll dress it up in fancy language, but that's what they're saying, and you know that as well as I do. They support torture even when it's been proven time, and again, to give us faulty information. Well, consider that faulty information gave us the attacks on September 11, 2001 and faulty information has prevented us from either bringing those responsible for those attacks to justice, or bringing those to justice who have perpetrated other attacks, like sending Anthrax through the mail. Boots on the ground serves us well, but negotiations serve us better. Some of these candidates have a hard time believing that the Earth is round, let alone believing in the ability to negotiate a country away from disaster. Please also notice than where I am trying to make my campaign transparent, some of them have quite a bit to hide. Mayor Giuliani has tried to claim credit for rising to the occasion of the attacks of September 11, but the real heroes there were the firefighters, police, and service personnel of New York, New Jersey, Washington DC, Maryland, and Virginia, as well as the thousands of volunteers who came to help. John McCain used to ride the 'straight Talk Express' as a maverick, but for the past 8 years has trailed behind his rival George W. Bush, like a puppy trails its master, and all for the easily seen payoff of a Presidential bid as a party loyalist. Mitt Romney doesn't seem to know what party he belongs to, nor which religion is his, but I know both: He serves himself, and will suit his persona to fit the audience, in order to serve his ambitions. While these are all worthwhile men, they are not worthy to be President.

Even more important than our foreign policy, and the character of the candidates, is our environment. If we threw as much money into trying to curb Global Warming and the destruction of our planet as we have thrown at an unwinnable, ill-advised war, we would have far fewer worries about the health of our children. But, if we aren't even concerned enough to pass legislation to help insure our poorest children, we cannot be trusted to live on this planet, let alone run it. Ms. Clinton has a plan, but that plan has less of a chance than the current plans had of passing, veto-proof, into law. For this, I do not blame Ms. Clinton. I blame you. You, voters, should be rioting in the streets, demanding that we take care of our health, and take care of our environment before we take care of Haliburton or Countrywide. The panic shouldn't be over defaults on mortgages, but on the default on the promise to insure domestic tranquility. So, yet another plan stands no chance, unless you make it known that you want it to happen, with no uncertainty. My plan is your plan. If you choose to do nothing, and wait for the end, I'll look dignified as I wait with you. But, if you want something to happen, come forward, and I'll march with you.

To sum up, I'm young, tall and charismatic, but that doesn't matter as much as it matters that you have a President you can trust, with a team you know and understand. No more backdoor deals, and no more lies, and no more evasions. I will respond to what you request, because that's what Politicians do. How I go above and beyond that is by telling you these things that you already know, but no other politician will admit.

There. Do you think it has any chance of happening?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A whole bunch o' Politics

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:31:16 -0700

In Pakistan, military coups are as often as not, the preferred method of securing a government. However loathsome that may be, it's the driving force for the current turmoil. With Bhutto finally seeing that amnesty or no amnesty, Musharraf has tricked her, and plans to keep power, as he assigns cronies to government and military posts, we might not be concerned. All that is the usual SNAFU (spell out the acronym) in Pakistan. What's new is the inability to control Waziristan, and the re-opening of the Red Mosque. Bhutto opened the door to the Taliban before, and the talks with her might very well have been ploys to do it, again. My bottom line; on the current course, the taliban are coming to pakistan. I don't believe that Musharraf wants it, but I think he sees a deal as being his only way to cement power for himself. I do not believe the US should either cut deals nor do I think we should use military force against Pakistan. I think we should get off our Star Trek-inspired prime directive, and get involved diplomatically in re-establishing democracy in pakistan. Step one would be to talk directly with Pakistan's Supreme court about the legitimacy of Musharraf. Step two would be to apply pressure to have Nawaz Sharif be brought out of exile. If any one politician can get Pakistan out of its death-dance with Islamicists, He's it. Why? He's a moderate-to-conservative Muslim, with many connections both to Saudi Arabia, and to moderate Arabs in much of the Middle East, but has no ties to extremists, and, in fact, was able to control the Red Mosque factions. Step three would be to make sure that progess is made on the natural gas pipeline, which will do more to stabilize the middle east than any war ever could.

By the way, lest anyone think that I'm "soft' on islamic extremists, I'd like to point out that I fully support Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and wish that both of "my" governments did as well. She has not had adequate support from either the US government, nor from The Dutch. She deserves both round the clock bodygaurds, and a bully pulpit so that she may express her well-founded, and insightful views, and the spread of that information should be prized! We should ALL read her book "Infidel".

Oh, and on the topic of the Middle East: I also support the so-called "soft partition" plan of Joe Biden. While I don't necessarily want him as President, I think between the Kurds making their own Oil deals, the Shi'ia making deals with Iran, and the Sunnis bouncing between the US and Al Qaeda, it's clear that our options are hard partition, soft partition, or occupying Iraq indefinitely. Of the three, the best, and most workable, right now, would be a semi-federal state, as Biden has planned out.

Oh, and speaking of Presidents, and the Election: while I disagree with James Dobson on many, many fronts, he wrote in the NY times a few sentences that I think are spiffy;

"Polls don't measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles....Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear."

That's exactly how I feel, Dr. Dobson. Only, what I hold most dear isn't about abortion or gays, or other things conservative christians hold dear. I hold dear such things as individual liberty, collective well being, and intellectual debate. Show me a candidate who can truly preserve that, and I'll vote for them, whether they stand a chance, or not.

Speaking of standing a chance or not:

Have you ordered an XO, yet? (www.xogiving.org) For $400, you get a laptop that's spill-proof, dust proof, fanless, six hours per battery charge, and looks cool , to boot, but even better, an identical laptop will be sent to a third world nation for use by a child (or children) that otherwise wouldn't get a chance. Think about that. What's a better leg up than connectivity to both the Web, and a word processor, and computer literacy? Think about what having computers has done for india.

Granted, it's not like a new Dell, or what-have-you, but I think saving a life is better than a big hard drive. If this catches on, imagine the sea-change when a place like Ethiopia is at 80% literacy, and 45% computer literacy, with vast numbers net-savvy. Can you see a junta taking root? Can you imagine the kind of lockdown China has?

Speaking of Sea Changes, Congress is now looking to monkey with Sub-prime loans. Ummmm, no. I don't think that's a good idea. They failed for a reason. Rather than easing off on borrowers, and independant private mortgage companies, i think, if the government gets involved at all, it should be to regulate the industry to conform with the european model: loans come from institutions with money, not securities, and loans are made to people who can prove their ability to pay them back. It's not a right to own some McMansion on two acres, when you earn barely above the minimum wage. You have a right to an opportunity, not to a give-away.

But, that isn't to say that Bush is right to veto the S-chip. Quite frankly, he wants to kill us all, so it doesn't surprise me. Still, if we are to socialize anything, I hope it's health care. We've got so many agricultural and corporate subsidies that shouldn't be, that there's a myth out there that we've got a free market economy. Our Military practices socialized medicine. So does our congress. I'd be willing to give up every tobacco subsidy, every subsidy given to every contractor in Iraq, and every other socialized cushion given to corrupt millionaires, if it meant that my tax dollars went towards proper medical care for children. As I've always said: I'd be willing to pay much more in taxes, if I could see the benefit to my society, not just to my government.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I'm sorry, Obama

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:29:13 -0700

Barack Hussein Obama was my best hope for this upcoming election. After this statement that's no longer the case.

I realize that I have friends and family that still plan on voting for Obama. I think he's my wife's 2nd choice, behind Hilary Clinton.

But, I cannot support a man who says that he'll talk with the leaders of enemy nations, but, then, when criticized for being too soft, says that he'll unilaterally attack on foreign soil, ignoring that nation's sovereignity, in an effort to continue the bogus "war on Terror", and then, when criticized for that impressively bad idea, says "Oh, but I'll never use nuclear weapons". The man has lost credibility with me. I suspect he has no real position. He makes great speeches, but really appears to have lost whatever beliefs he might once have had.

This is upsetting to me. I realize that you have no reason to care. I'm just "some guy". But, I've heard rhetoric like those answers before, and they were coming from members of the current administration, mostly concerning Iraq. I think it's never a good idea to act unilaterally against another country. So, as far as I'm concerned, if that's what Obama truly believes, he has lost my vote. If that's not what he truly believes, he's lost my vote, as well. We've seen too much of politicians who have no convictions. That's why I cannot vote for Hilary.

I cannot vote for any of the republicans, either. McCain sold himself out on Iraq. Romney is a liar, flat out. Giuliani is a lying opportunist, who is despicable for using the events of september 2001 for his own gain. So on, and so forth it goes. About the only ones left with any credibility at all, to me, are the ones with absolutely zero chance of being elected. I'd vote for Biden, I guess, but I have grave reservations about him, too.

It's upsetting because once again, I'm cast into the role of "alienated voter". I'm truly sick at heart over that. It would appear that there are no decent leaders left who have any chance at all. Maybe I'd be better off not voting at all. Disgusting. Utterly disgusting.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend