Arkansas Governor and Republican president hopeful Mike Huckabee got some bad news yesterday. His son David was arrested after the x-ray machine at the airport detected a .40 caliber glock handgun, complete with 8 rounds in the gun and a full magazine to boot in his carryon. Woopsadaisy.
Read more from Reuters here: Presidential hopeful's son arrested in Ark. with gun
Friday, April 27, 2007
Looks like Grandpa Gravel forgot to take his meds; or, On the First Democratic Presidential Debate
So the first debate of the 2008 Presidential season has come and gone with little fanfare. The Democrats were in the limelight last night on MSNBC. They were at South Carolina State for the first debate to ever take place at a historically black college. Overall, it was uneventful and rather boring. The major candidates were calm and calculated, with Hillary and Barack playing it safe and the second-tier candidates doing little to help their chances.
Here are my thoughts and grades (on a scale of 1-10) for each candidate's performance:
Hillary Clinton: 8/10 overall; tie for 1st place
Hillary was very well rehearsed and plain tonight. She gave the standard answers that one would expect from her. She stopped short of fully apologizing for her vote to authorize the war, saying again that had she known then what she knows now, she would have voted differently. Taking John Edwards' indirect criticism that she needs to do some "soul searching," she calmly said that if the president does not end the war, she will end it as soon as she gets into office; this is her standard policy of looking ahead to 2009. Her strongest parts of the debate came when she criticized the president and the GOP and made strong centrist responses on national security and terrorism. When asked about Rudy Giuliani's comments that the nation will be in danger if a Democrat wins in 2008, she was in good form, saying that the "administration has tried to hype the fear" without actually doing much to secure the nation. She said she wants to dispel the myth that the GOP is strong on national security. On the question of a hypothetical attack on two US cities, she was strong but convoluted, saying that she would "move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate." She added that she would respond against nations that had aided and abetted the terrorists in this attack, but would not go looking to pick a new fight like Bush did in Iraq. I guess it made sense. She gave an awkward answer when Brian Williams told her that some Republicans are hoping that she wins the nomination because of how polarizing she is. She said she takes it as "a perverse form of flattery." OK? Tone down the superiority complex a few notches, Senator. And she looked confused and uncomfortable when she was comparing Virginia Tech to Columbine. That's not doing anything to comfort the people who think you lack real human emotion.
Barack Obama: 8/10 overall; tie for 1st place
I was kind of disappointed in Barack tonight. I know it was his first major televised debate, but he was off his game. He started off very slowly, stumbling in the first three or four questions. His answer to what he would do about Iraq was not as smooth and well-rehearsed as he normally gives. He looked a bit uncomfortable and wasn't as clear and concise as he should have been; he missed the time limit on the third question. He also screwed up on the "Elephant in the Room" question about his business dealings with a corrupt Chicago businessman. He called the guy ethical when he meant unethical and he missed the opportunity to really segue into the grassroots, new kind of politics portion of his stump speech. But as the night went on, he got much better. He was on point in his answer on partial birth abortions, saying that they are not great but are rare, before taking the topic to a discussion of issues that he said all the candidates could agree on, like reducing teen pregnancy rates and offering better alternatives for young people. The answer was a good, standard liberal message, even though I don't agree with it. He gave a good answer on the US's three biggest allies; he managed to lump all of Europe together by choosing the EU, and he acknowledged the rising specter of China in the East, saying that the US's relationship with China was ambivalent. He forgot to mention Israel here, but cleaned it up nicely on Brian Williams' follow-up. When asked the theoretical attack question, he initially was a bit weak, saying that he would look to improve first responders' capabilities and would try to better utilize the intelligence community. He followed up later on by changing from energy policy to mentioning that there are real enemies in the world that America must deal with, including a nuclear Iran. He covered his tracks nicely here. Overall, Obama was not his usual brilliant self, but he didn't do anything to hurt his chances. He came out unscathed, and that's what matters for his campaign. He is already making significant headway against Hillary, with a year of primary campaigning left.
John Edwards: 7/10 overall; 4th place
Edwards did the most to hurt himself tonight at least of the major three. He did a very poor job in answering the question about his $400 haircuts, saying it only that it was a mistake and that he does indeed live a "privileged life." He then tried to remind us of his roots as a poor son of a mill worker by regaling the audience with a story from his youth. It missed the mark completely. This, coupled with his answers on national security only further ingrained his image as weak on defense. Bill Richardson did the best job of characterizing his stances last night, when he said that Americans "don't want blow-dried candidates." He didn't mention a single word about retaliation when asked about the terrorist attack and did not raise his hand when asked if he believed there is a Global War on Terror. He's not helping himself with conservative commentators and moderates here; Rush Limbaugh already caricatures him as a woman. His best answers came on health care and on America's role in foreign policy. He stressed that he had a concrete, viable health care plan for America. He also said that in order to change what is happening in the world, America needs to change its image in order to "re-demonstrate its commitment to humanity." He was good on domestic and humanitarian issues, but bad on everything else.
Joe Biden: 7.5/10 overall; 3rd place
Biden was by far the best of the second tier candidates. He did a pretty good job of laying out his policy for fixing Iraq;. He stated that he made a mistake in voting to authorize the war. When asked who are the three biggest threats to America, he said North Korea, Iran, and, in a risky move, Russia under Putin. North Korea was an obvious answer, as was Iran, but he missed the overall point on the threat Iran poses. By saying Russia and bringing up Putin's anti-democratic actions, he pointed out a serious message that needs to be emphasized, while condemning Bush for trusting "Pootie" too much. He also gave the best response of the night on his "Elephant" question. Williams asked him if about his stupid comments from the beginning of his campaign and if he could avoid his tendency to be verbose in the future. He response of "Yes" was about as un-verbose (did I just make that up?) as possible. He helped himself more than anyone else tonight, but did not make the top three a top four.
Bill Richardson:5/10 overall; tie for 5th place 6/10 overall; 5th place
Richardson was bad tonight. He was sweating like Richard Nixon in 1960. His awkward faces made him look uncomfortable and confused. He kept leaning over towards Brian Williams as if he somehow couldn't hear him. He was very strong and direct on Iraq, but he basically gave Joe Biden's plan as his own. He did a very poor job of answering the Gonzalez question, though he was direct and did get a nice back-handed jab at Edwards. He on health care reform was ok; he was the only candidate to emphasize focusing on prevention. In his foreign policy question on Russia, he criticized Bush, saying that "being stubborn is not a foreign policy." He was also the first person to mention Darfur, which is a big deal to me. I'm disappointed in Obama for not bringing it up. Extra point to Richardson here. Despite this, he and Edwards did the most to hurt themselves tonight.
Chris Dodd: 5/10 overall; 6th place
Chris Dodd was Chris Doddian tonight - ho hum. Most of his answers were fairly average. He gave a pretty good answer on partial-birth abortion, saying that abortions should be "rare, safe, and legal." His answer on Iraq was unimpressive; all he said was that he supported the Reid/Feingold Bill from the Senate to pull out by March 31, 2008. What a rebel. He seemed confused on whether or not people on welfare should have to take drug tests. He tried to run away from it as fast as possible. I don't even understand what he was talking about. (by the way, I'm really not that opposed to this idea. I had to pass a drug test to work at freaking Sears, and I was worried I would fail because I ate a poppy seed bagel that day.) Overall he was Chris Dodd.
Dennis Kucinich: 3/10 overall; 7th place
I was disappointed with Dennis the Menace. He is normally where I turn for comic relief, but he got out-crazied by Mike Gravel tonight. He was very crass and arrogant, which is typical Dennis. His best moment was when no one else supported his attempt to impeach Cheney and he reached into his pocket to pull out his pocket-sized Constitution (which was next to his sling-shot, no doubt) and lectured everyone about morality and civics. Thank you, oh enlightened one. Oh, and did anyone else see him standing next to his wife? She's got at least six inches on him. He's a leprechaun.
Mike Gravel: 2/10 overall; last place
Wow. What can I say about former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel? Did he forget to take his meds before the debate. This guy is crazy with a capital C. He has one vocal tone - condescending yelling. I know he was a big player in ending Vietnam, and it shows. He acts like he's still living in 1973. The only time I've ever seen someone even close to this angry at a debate was in the third presidential debate in 2000, when I thought Al Gore was going to walk over and punch Bush.
Here are some of Gravels greatest hits from last night:
"I wonder how the hell did the rest of them get here!...Some of these people frighten me!"
"Osama bin Liden must have been rolling in his blankets!"
[to Barack Obama] "Who the hell are we gonna nuke!"
Winners: Clinton and Obama
Losers: Edwards and Richardson
Honorable Mention for entertainment value: Mike Gravel
Obligatory American Idol reference: Dennis Kucinich - "This process is an American Idol here."
Hopefully as the campaign gets a bit older, the candidates will smell some more blood in the water and take a few more jabs. I can't stay that excited over this crap for another year. My only solace is the thought that Mike Gravel and Kucinich will stay in until March.
Here are my thoughts and grades (on a scale of 1-10) for each candidate's performance:
Hillary Clinton: 8/10 overall; tie for 1st place
Hillary was very well rehearsed and plain tonight. She gave the standard answers that one would expect from her. She stopped short of fully apologizing for her vote to authorize the war, saying again that had she known then what she knows now, she would have voted differently. Taking John Edwards' indirect criticism that she needs to do some "soul searching," she calmly said that if the president does not end the war, she will end it as soon as she gets into office; this is her standard policy of looking ahead to 2009. Her strongest parts of the debate came when she criticized the president and the GOP and made strong centrist responses on national security and terrorism. When asked about Rudy Giuliani's comments that the nation will be in danger if a Democrat wins in 2008, she was in good form, saying that the "administration has tried to hype the fear" without actually doing much to secure the nation. She said she wants to dispel the myth that the GOP is strong on national security. On the question of a hypothetical attack on two US cities, she was strong but convoluted, saying that she would "move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate." She added that she would respond against nations that had aided and abetted the terrorists in this attack, but would not go looking to pick a new fight like Bush did in Iraq. I guess it made sense. She gave an awkward answer when Brian Williams told her that some Republicans are hoping that she wins the nomination because of how polarizing she is. She said she takes it as "a perverse form of flattery." OK? Tone down the superiority complex a few notches, Senator. And she looked confused and uncomfortable when she was comparing Virginia Tech to Columbine. That's not doing anything to comfort the people who think you lack real human emotion.
Barack Obama: 8/10 overall; tie for 1st place
I was kind of disappointed in Barack tonight. I know it was his first major televised debate, but he was off his game. He started off very slowly, stumbling in the first three or four questions. His answer to what he would do about Iraq was not as smooth and well-rehearsed as he normally gives. He looked a bit uncomfortable and wasn't as clear and concise as he should have been; he missed the time limit on the third question. He also screwed up on the "Elephant in the Room" question about his business dealings with a corrupt Chicago businessman. He called the guy ethical when he meant unethical and he missed the opportunity to really segue into the grassroots, new kind of politics portion of his stump speech. But as the night went on, he got much better. He was on point in his answer on partial birth abortions, saying that they are not great but are rare, before taking the topic to a discussion of issues that he said all the candidates could agree on, like reducing teen pregnancy rates and offering better alternatives for young people. The answer was a good, standard liberal message, even though I don't agree with it. He gave a good answer on the US's three biggest allies; he managed to lump all of Europe together by choosing the EU, and he acknowledged the rising specter of China in the East, saying that the US's relationship with China was ambivalent. He forgot to mention Israel here, but cleaned it up nicely on Brian Williams' follow-up. When asked the theoretical attack question, he initially was a bit weak, saying that he would look to improve first responders' capabilities and would try to better utilize the intelligence community. He followed up later on by changing from energy policy to mentioning that there are real enemies in the world that America must deal with, including a nuclear Iran. He covered his tracks nicely here. Overall, Obama was not his usual brilliant self, but he didn't do anything to hurt his chances. He came out unscathed, and that's what matters for his campaign. He is already making significant headway against Hillary, with a year of primary campaigning left.
John Edwards: 7/10 overall; 4th place
Edwards did the most to hurt himself tonight at least of the major three. He did a very poor job in answering the question about his $400 haircuts, saying it only that it was a mistake and that he does indeed live a "privileged life." He then tried to remind us of his roots as a poor son of a mill worker by regaling the audience with a story from his youth. It missed the mark completely. This, coupled with his answers on national security only further ingrained his image as weak on defense. Bill Richardson did the best job of characterizing his stances last night, when he said that Americans "don't want blow-dried candidates." He didn't mention a single word about retaliation when asked about the terrorist attack and did not raise his hand when asked if he believed there is a Global War on Terror. He's not helping himself with conservative commentators and moderates here; Rush Limbaugh already caricatures him as a woman. His best answers came on health care and on America's role in foreign policy. He stressed that he had a concrete, viable health care plan for America. He also said that in order to change what is happening in the world, America needs to change its image in order to "re-demonstrate its commitment to humanity." He was good on domestic and humanitarian issues, but bad on everything else.
Joe Biden: 7.5/10 overall; 3rd place
Biden was by far the best of the second tier candidates. He did a pretty good job of laying out his policy for fixing Iraq;. He stated that he made a mistake in voting to authorize the war. When asked who are the three biggest threats to America, he said North Korea, Iran, and, in a risky move, Russia under Putin. North Korea was an obvious answer, as was Iran, but he missed the overall point on the threat Iran poses. By saying Russia and bringing up Putin's anti-democratic actions, he pointed out a serious message that needs to be emphasized, while condemning Bush for trusting "Pootie" too much. He also gave the best response of the night on his "Elephant" question. Williams asked him if about his stupid comments from the beginning of his campaign and if he could avoid his tendency to be verbose in the future. He response of "Yes" was about as un-verbose (did I just make that up?) as possible. He helped himself more than anyone else tonight, but did not make the top three a top four.
Bill Richardson:
Richardson was bad tonight. He was sweating like Richard Nixon in 1960. His awkward faces made him look uncomfortable and confused. He kept leaning over towards Brian Williams as if he somehow couldn't hear him. He was very strong and direct on Iraq, but he basically gave Joe Biden's plan as his own. He did a very poor job of answering the Gonzalez question, though he was direct and did get a nice back-handed jab at Edwards. He on health care reform was ok; he was the only candidate to emphasize focusing on prevention. In his foreign policy question on Russia, he criticized Bush, saying that "being stubborn is not a foreign policy." He was also the first person to mention Darfur, which is a big deal to me. I'm disappointed in Obama for not bringing it up. Extra point to Richardson here. Despite this, he and Edwards did the most to hurt themselves tonight.
Chris Dodd: 5/10 overall; 6th place
Chris Dodd was Chris Doddian tonight - ho hum. Most of his answers were fairly average. He gave a pretty good answer on partial-birth abortion, saying that abortions should be "rare, safe, and legal." His answer on Iraq was unimpressive; all he said was that he supported the Reid/Feingold Bill from the Senate to pull out by March 31, 2008. What a rebel. He seemed confused on whether or not people on welfare should have to take drug tests. He tried to run away from it as fast as possible. I don't even understand what he was talking about. (by the way, I'm really not that opposed to this idea. I had to pass a drug test to work at freaking Sears, and I was worried I would fail because I ate a poppy seed bagel that day.) Overall he was Chris Dodd.
Dennis Kucinich: 3/10 overall; 7th place
I was disappointed with Dennis the Menace. He is normally where I turn for comic relief, but he got out-crazied by Mike Gravel tonight. He was very crass and arrogant, which is typical Dennis. His best moment was when no one else supported his attempt to impeach Cheney and he reached into his pocket to pull out his pocket-sized Constitution (which was next to his sling-shot, no doubt) and lectured everyone about morality and civics. Thank you, oh enlightened one. Oh, and did anyone else see him standing next to his wife? She's got at least six inches on him. He's a leprechaun.
Mike Gravel: 2/10 overall; last place
Wow. What can I say about former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel? Did he forget to take his meds before the debate. This guy is crazy with a capital C. He has one vocal tone - condescending yelling. I know he was a big player in ending Vietnam, and it shows. He acts like he's still living in 1973. The only time I've ever seen someone even close to this angry at a debate was in the third presidential debate in 2000, when I thought Al Gore was going to walk over and punch Bush.
Here are some of Gravels greatest hits from last night:
"I wonder how the hell did the rest of them get here!...Some of these people frighten me!"
"Osama bin Liden must have been rolling in his blankets!"
[to Barack Obama] "Who the hell are we gonna nuke!"
Winners: Clinton and Obama
Losers: Edwards and Richardson
Honorable Mention for entertainment value: Mike Gravel
Obligatory American Idol reference: Dennis Kucinich - "This process is an American Idol here."
Hopefully as the campaign gets a bit older, the candidates will smell some more blood in the water and take a few more jabs. I can't stay that excited over this crap for another year. My only solace is the thought that Mike Gravel and Kucinich will stay in until March.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Strategery; or, On Barack Obama's 4/23 Foreign Policy Speech/A Critique of the Administration's Doctrines
Monday, Senator Barack Obama delivered his first speech on foreign policy agenda during his campaign for president before the Chicago Council of World Affairs. It was the first of what is to be a series of speeches over the next several weeks on the issues of foreign policy and international affairs which Obama hopes to use to increase awareness and understanding of his stances on such matters, as well as to improve his sense of experience and credibility among the American people. (transcript of the speech can be found here).
Obama used the speech to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy moves over the past six years, saying that "This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more." He spoke of the perceived decrease in the status of the United States around the world. "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision."
He used the speech to again criticize the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, reiterating that he opposed this decision in 2002 "not only because it was an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, but also because it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light."
In the speech, Obama laid out a 5-point plan by which he would improve America's standing around the world. He explained that the effort to renew the US's power and prestige around the globe "will require a new spirit not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence." He also added that it will require new leadership in the White House, a new day for the nation.
The 5-point plan:
1.) Bringing about an end to the War in Iraq and refocusing on the challenges the US faces in the Middle East.
- Obama has the strongest position on Iraq of any presidential candidate. He is the only person, other than Dennis the Menace Kucinich, who openly opposed the war before the invasion. I have been unsure about my feelings on the war for a few years. Like Obama, I too opposed the war before we entered Iraq. I went on the record, albeit in a considerably less public manner, by writing a column in my high school newspaper in 2002 and giving a speech in Public Square downtown during a rally against the war in early March of 2003. Since that point, however, I have been hesitant to draw a conclusion. The problems we face are apparent and almost certainly unsolvable. As Obama said in his speech, " there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi'a factions." This war has developed in a manner similar to Vietnam (a point which I will cover at a later date.) But in Vietnam, the situation was actually better in a many ways. Whereas in the Vietnam civil war we had the support and backing of the established, but worthless and corrupt South Vietnamese government, in Iraq we do not have the support of either faction. We have the backing of the Iraqi government and the Iraq security forces, but these are weak and ineffective; much of the nation, the most militant and active sects at least, give their allegiance to sectarian militia leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr. The Sunni triangle is still a state of absolute chaos, regardless of the surge. Monday was one of the bloodiest days in Baghdad since the start of the war; at least 150 civilians died. Our response is to build a wall. Wonderful. While we still have the hearts and minds of most Iraqis, this seems to stem from the fact that they fear the consequences of our withdrawal. Unfortunately, Iraq has become a quagmire that it appears only the Iraqis can settle among themselves. This nation has always been one dominated more by clan politics and tribal allegiance, rather than by national unity or patriotism. I saw a stat in a New York Times which said that around 50% of Iraqis marry their first cousin. This included Saddam Hussein. Because of this tightly-knit culture in Iraq, building a broad coalition is a monumental task that the administration never considered. It is one that - it pains me to say - may take a man with the authoritarian power of will like Saddam. I fear that we may never truly be able to democratize Iraq. It is a noble effort, and one that we cannot simply abandon; thus comes the source of my moral dilemma on this issue.
I have begun to come around the Obama and some other Democrats' viewpoint on this. Obama has called for a phased re-deployment of US forces to areas just outside of the region. He has called for "an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists." I feel that this is ultimately our best option. We need to leave some troops - to place an arbitrary number on it, 25,000 - in Iraq to attempt to keep the peace and to fight off the homicidal efforts of insurgents. We also need to put troops on the borders to Iran and Syria in order to prevent the influx of insurgents into the nation. In addition, we need to increase our naval and aerial presence in the Persian Gulf, both as a warning to deter attempts to overthrow the al-Maliki government, as well as to deter any further militaristic aims of the crazy ass Iranian government. In my opinion, the Obama plan is the best option for this. I trust his leadership abilities, and I believe that he will react accordingly should the situation on the ground dictate doing so.
2.) Increasing the size and strength of the US military to meet the demands of the 21st century and use wisdom and discretion in our military policy.
- Bingo again, Barack. As Obama pointed out in his speech, while the administration continues to pronounce they support the troops and condemn any dissidents as hurting the military and emboldening the terrorists, their actions have not backed up their talk. As we were entering Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld and co. were cutting the size of the Veterans' Administration, i.e. they were cutting funding and decreasing staffing and services to a department that handles the affairs of soldiers as we were sending tens of thousands of soldiers overseas. Brilliant. Add to this the lack of body army and vehicle armaments, Abu Ghraib, the Walter Reed scandal, Rummy's "you go to war with the army you have" statement, etc. and you have a recipe for disaster and hypocrisy. Obama gave some damning statistics. "Two-thirds of the Army is now rated 'not ready' for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency." Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan - all of these have demonstrated the fact that the American military is stretched too thin and cannot answer the call to solve all the problems facing the world. Our position of leadership is at risk. Thus, Barack Obama has called for the addition of 65,000 soldiers to the Army, 27,000 to the Marines, and an increased focus on recruiting specialists who can speak Arabic, Mandarin, and Korean, among other skills. Fewer than 1% of our military can speak these languages, the languages of our enemies and our much-needed allies. That's pathetic.
3.) An increased effort to secure and destroy nuclear weapons around the globe, as well as a greater movement towards nuclear non-proliferation.
- To quote liberally from the speech:
"There are still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium – some of it poorly secured – at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries around the world. In the former Soviet Union, there are still about 15,000 to 16,000 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium capable of making another 40,000 weapons scattered across 11 time zones. And people have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market."
Obviously there is a serious issue here. Terrorists all around the globe are salivating to get their hands on those kinds of weapons. If any of you watch 24, I don't have to remind you of the show's depiction of the threat we face from terrorists detonating a suitcase nuke on American soil. There was also a British documentary a few years ago that showed what might happen if a "dirty bomb" went off in London. It was a chaotic, horrific scene that, if we don't take further action to stop, could end up happening in New York, LA, Washington, Chicago, or somewhere else. I have seen and heard about the places Homeland Security considers to be in the gravest danger. I have heard the assessments. I'm sorry, Secretary Chertoff, but Iowa and Indiana are not where we should be focusing our efforts. Maybe you want to rethink that?
4.)Prevent other nations, i.e. Iran and Syria, from joining the Nuclear Club by increasing fuel stores and leading by example.
We need to develop greater fuel stores to provide these nations with alternatives to nuclear power. I don't know about you, but setting up a few thousand solar panels in Damascus and Tehran sounds a HELL of a lot better to me than a few more nuclear reactors in Ahmadinejad's hands. That dude is scary. This will involve, wait for it, a better energy policy! See how it all comes around like that?! Not only will increased investment in alternative fuels and carbon-neutral options decrease the development of global warming, it will improve our national security worldwide. What a concept.
And, as Obama said, if we want to deter these nations from joining the Nuclear Club, it's hard to do so when we keep creating new types of nuclear weapons like candy. You can't speak from a platform when you are buried up to your neck. In addition to giving us credibility on this issue, Obama's policy plans would also increase our sway over Iran and North Korea by reconciling us with the international community and re-establishing our firm hold on power throughout the world.
5.) He said it better than I can, so: "invest in our common humanity to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow."
- All around the world, the poor and disenfranchised are yearning for America's help. The voices of 400,000 dead in Darfur clamor for it. The 1 billion people living on one dollar a day are struggling to raise a chorus. The 27 million people living in slavery (more than at any time in the history of the world, including during the height of the US slave years) are begging to be heard. The US must back up our overtures of moral superiority. If we are to be a "shining city on a hill," we must let that light shine not just for the world to see and behold, but for the world to live by. By decreasing our commitment in Iraq, we can finally muster the necessary force and power to push the Sudanese government to stop killing innocent Darfuri, to push for some sort of stability in Somalia, to clean up the chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to stop the spread of Hugo Chavez's bs around Latin and South America.
The time is now for America to make the 21st century the greatest the world has ever seen. I think electing Barack Obama on November 4, 2008 is a start.
P.S. I apologize for the length. I'm really verbose.
Obama used the speech to criticize the Bush administration's foreign policy moves over the past six years, saying that "This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more." He spoke of the perceived decrease in the status of the United States around the world. "We have seen the consequences of a foreign policy based on a flawed ideology, and a belief that tough talk can replace real strength and vision."
He used the speech to again criticize the administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, reiterating that he opposed this decision in 2002 "not only because it was an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, but also because it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light."
In the speech, Obama laid out a 5-point plan by which he would improve America's standing around the world. He explained that the effort to renew the US's power and prestige around the globe "will require a new spirit not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence." He also added that it will require new leadership in the White House, a new day for the nation.
The 5-point plan:
1.) Bringing about an end to the War in Iraq and refocusing on the challenges the US faces in the Middle East.
- Obama has the strongest position on Iraq of any presidential candidate. He is the only person, other than Dennis the Menace Kucinich, who openly opposed the war before the invasion. I have been unsure about my feelings on the war for a few years. Like Obama, I too opposed the war before we entered Iraq. I went on the record, albeit in a considerably less public manner, by writing a column in my high school newspaper in 2002 and giving a speech in Public Square downtown during a rally against the war in early March of 2003. Since that point, however, I have been hesitant to draw a conclusion. The problems we face are apparent and almost certainly unsolvable. As Obama said in his speech, " there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi'a factions." This war has developed in a manner similar to Vietnam (a point which I will cover at a later date.) But in Vietnam, the situation was actually better in a many ways. Whereas in the Vietnam civil war we had the support and backing of the established, but worthless and corrupt South Vietnamese government, in Iraq we do not have the support of either faction. We have the backing of the Iraqi government and the Iraq security forces, but these are weak and ineffective; much of the nation, the most militant and active sects at least, give their allegiance to sectarian militia leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr. The Sunni triangle is still a state of absolute chaos, regardless of the surge. Monday was one of the bloodiest days in Baghdad since the start of the war; at least 150 civilians died. Our response is to build a wall. Wonderful. While we still have the hearts and minds of most Iraqis, this seems to stem from the fact that they fear the consequences of our withdrawal. Unfortunately, Iraq has become a quagmire that it appears only the Iraqis can settle among themselves. This nation has always been one dominated more by clan politics and tribal allegiance, rather than by national unity or patriotism. I saw a stat in a New York Times which said that around 50% of Iraqis marry their first cousin. This included Saddam Hussein. Because of this tightly-knit culture in Iraq, building a broad coalition is a monumental task that the administration never considered. It is one that - it pains me to say - may take a man with the authoritarian power of will like Saddam. I fear that we may never truly be able to democratize Iraq. It is a noble effort, and one that we cannot simply abandon; thus comes the source of my moral dilemma on this issue.
I have begun to come around the Obama and some other Democrats' viewpoint on this. Obama has called for a phased re-deployment of US forces to areas just outside of the region. He has called for "an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists." I feel that this is ultimately our best option. We need to leave some troops - to place an arbitrary number on it, 25,000 - in Iraq to attempt to keep the peace and to fight off the homicidal efforts of insurgents. We also need to put troops on the borders to Iran and Syria in order to prevent the influx of insurgents into the nation. In addition, we need to increase our naval and aerial presence in the Persian Gulf, both as a warning to deter attempts to overthrow the al-Maliki government, as well as to deter any further militaristic aims of the crazy ass Iranian government. In my opinion, the Obama plan is the best option for this. I trust his leadership abilities, and I believe that he will react accordingly should the situation on the ground dictate doing so.
2.) Increasing the size and strength of the US military to meet the demands of the 21st century and use wisdom and discretion in our military policy.
- Bingo again, Barack. As Obama pointed out in his speech, while the administration continues to pronounce they support the troops and condemn any dissidents as hurting the military and emboldening the terrorists, their actions have not backed up their talk. As we were entering Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld and co. were cutting the size of the Veterans' Administration, i.e. they were cutting funding and decreasing staffing and services to a department that handles the affairs of soldiers as we were sending tens of thousands of soldiers overseas. Brilliant. Add to this the lack of body army and vehicle armaments, Abu Ghraib, the Walter Reed scandal, Rummy's "you go to war with the army you have" statement, etc. and you have a recipe for disaster and hypocrisy. Obama gave some damning statistics. "Two-thirds of the Army is now rated 'not ready' for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency." Hurricane Katrina, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan - all of these have demonstrated the fact that the American military is stretched too thin and cannot answer the call to solve all the problems facing the world. Our position of leadership is at risk. Thus, Barack Obama has called for the addition of 65,000 soldiers to the Army, 27,000 to the Marines, and an increased focus on recruiting specialists who can speak Arabic, Mandarin, and Korean, among other skills. Fewer than 1% of our military can speak these languages, the languages of our enemies and our much-needed allies. That's pathetic.
3.) An increased effort to secure and destroy nuclear weapons around the globe, as well as a greater movement towards nuclear non-proliferation.
- To quote liberally from the speech:
"There are still about 50 tons of highly enriched uranium – some of it poorly secured – at civilian nuclear facilities in over forty countries around the world. In the former Soviet Union, there are still about 15,000 to 16,000 nuclear weapons and stockpiles of uranium and plutonium capable of making another 40,000 weapons scattered across 11 time zones. And people have already been caught trying to smuggle nuclear materials to sell them on the black market."
Obviously there is a serious issue here. Terrorists all around the globe are salivating to get their hands on those kinds of weapons. If any of you watch 24, I don't have to remind you of the show's depiction of the threat we face from terrorists detonating a suitcase nuke on American soil. There was also a British documentary a few years ago that showed what might happen if a "dirty bomb" went off in London. It was a chaotic, horrific scene that, if we don't take further action to stop, could end up happening in New York, LA, Washington, Chicago, or somewhere else. I have seen and heard about the places Homeland Security considers to be in the gravest danger. I have heard the assessments. I'm sorry, Secretary Chertoff, but Iowa and Indiana are not where we should be focusing our efforts. Maybe you want to rethink that?
4.)Prevent other nations, i.e. Iran and Syria, from joining the Nuclear Club by increasing fuel stores and leading by example.
We need to develop greater fuel stores to provide these nations with alternatives to nuclear power. I don't know about you, but setting up a few thousand solar panels in Damascus and Tehran sounds a HELL of a lot better to me than a few more nuclear reactors in Ahmadinejad's hands. That dude is scary. This will involve, wait for it, a better energy policy! See how it all comes around like that?! Not only will increased investment in alternative fuels and carbon-neutral options decrease the development of global warming, it will improve our national security worldwide. What a concept.
And, as Obama said, if we want to deter these nations from joining the Nuclear Club, it's hard to do so when we keep creating new types of nuclear weapons like candy. You can't speak from a platform when you are buried up to your neck. In addition to giving us credibility on this issue, Obama's policy plans would also increase our sway over Iran and North Korea by reconciling us with the international community and re-establishing our firm hold on power throughout the world.
5.) He said it better than I can, so: "invest in our common humanity to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow."
- All around the world, the poor and disenfranchised are yearning for America's help. The voices of 400,000 dead in Darfur clamor for it. The 1 billion people living on one dollar a day are struggling to raise a chorus. The 27 million people living in slavery (more than at any time in the history of the world, including during the height of the US slave years) are begging to be heard. The US must back up our overtures of moral superiority. If we are to be a "shining city on a hill," we must let that light shine not just for the world to see and behold, but for the world to live by. By decreasing our commitment in Iraq, we can finally muster the necessary force and power to push the Sudanese government to stop killing innocent Darfuri, to push for some sort of stability in Somalia, to clean up the chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to stop the spread of Hugo Chavez's bs around Latin and South America.
The time is now for America to make the 21st century the greatest the world has ever seen. I think electing Barack Obama on November 4, 2008 is a start.
P.S. I apologize for the length. I'm really verbose.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The sky is falling, the sky is falling - no seriously, look up; or On Global Warming (Part I at least)
So Saturday was Earth Day, the one day a year on which the Earth asks for a little recognition. It deserves it; it's been a good planet, way better than Uranus. NASA reports that they found a planet with a similar climate and environment to Earth about 20 light years away. They call it Gliese 581c, because it's the third planet from the dwarf star Gliese, but Gliese 581c just doesn't roll off the tongue the same as "Earth" does. Anyways.
Barack Obama celebrated Earth Day by holding a huge event on the campus of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa (those Iowans like that word).
According to the campaign, Obama spent the day meeting with volunteer who were planting tree seedlings purchased by the campaign. He then delivered a speech in which he called for better environmental and energy policies and pushed for greater limits on carbon emissions. He called for national standards that would reduce the amount of carbon in fuel by 5% by 2015 and by 10% in 2020. He said that this would essentially be the equivalent of taking 32 million cars off of America's roads. (as a side note - I would like to actually see 32 million cars come off of our roads, considering the fact that 42,000 people die in car accidents every year.) Obama also pushed for greater fuel efficiency standards for America's cars, saying that by raising the standard to 43 miles per gallon, the US could effectively end its dependency on foreign oil.
Obama was one of a chorus of voices calling for greater environmental awareness in the past week. Fellow Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and former-VP nominee John Edwards both held events Saturday to promote similar values. Even Republican Senator John McCain got in the act, calling for the US to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to invest in alternate energy sources( here). Not to be left out of the fun, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) delivered a statement on Friday in which he called for "celebrity activists to take the 'Gore Pledge,'" which is a personal commitment to reduce one's energy usage and carbon emissions. He went on to say, "Activists in Hollywood who assert that mankind only has 10 years left to act in order to avoid a climate catastrophe...should make personal energy sacrifices themselves before demanding others do so." (courtesy of Inhofe's Senate page). Inhofe insists that Vice President Gore refused to take the "Gore Pledge" while testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which Inhofe is ranking member and former chairman. (Yes, James Inhofe as the ranking member of this committee is like putting Tom Selleck in charge of ATF or making Sanjaya the conductor of the Cleveland Orchestra). What Inhofe does not mention and conveniently ignored in that hearing is that Gore purchased his house, not built it. And he spends extra money on green energy which is carbon-neutral so that he does not increase his carbon footprint. Gore pays for the equivalent of 5 kilowatt hours for every 1 hour of green energy he uses and has fought against his town to allow him to install solar panels on his home.
And just to remind everyone, this is the same Jim Inhofe who called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and compared global warming activists to the Third Reich in an interview with the Tulsa World newspaper.
Now, on to my thoughts on global warming. We all hear the ongoing debate as to whether or not all of the data is in on this issue and whether or not the scientific community has come to a consensus. Consensus or not, the data is there. Our carbon dioxide emissions have grown exponentially over the past 30 years and almost absurdly since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the US. The past five years have been the warmest on record (not just the summers, the whole year). The number of severe storms and hurricanes per year have been steadily increasing.
All over the country there have been records set not just for temperature highs, but for lows and snow fall. In Cleveland, 2005 was the snowiest year on record. And YES, this IS because of global warming. The continued melting of the polar ice caps puts more water into the Atlantic Ocean, which inhibits the function of the Gulf Stream. This is the major phenomenon that regulates weather across the eastern US and Europe; it essentially brings warm water up from the waters around the Equator and warms the northern regions. Because this has been hindered due to increased water quantities, winters have become longer, colder, and snowier.
It is time for the United States to stand up and take action on this issue. We have reneged on our world leadership here for too long. The Bush administration has pulled out of Kyoto and steadfastly refused to honestly acknowledge climate change. They claim that the data is still out (though they seem to be coming around) and that any real changes like those promoted in Kyoto will be catastrophic for the economy.
I have also heard arguments that global warming is a natural occurrence that we cannot affect, so why bother trying? Some have said that even if we curb our CO2 emissions, India and China will simply make up for it with rapid industrialization.
My question for all of those people who say these things is what can it hurt? So we curb our emissions, what's the big deal? What, will we become less dependent upon oil from the Middle East? OH NO! We will create new technological industries based on new energy sources, which will necessitate the creation of new American jobs. How awful!
And in terms of China & India, you're right, they are increasing emissions. But how will us sitting on our hands help the problem? By doubling it? If we want these nations to follow our lead, we have to lead. Perhaps if we actual stand up and accept responsibility they will feel the pressure of the international community with the US at its head to make good decisions and promote good policy.
For too long we have not stood up on the issue of global warming. The time to stand up is now. The US is supposed to stand for justice and change. Hopefully with Barack Obama in the Oval Office we can make that change. What have we got to lose?
Welcome to the Monkey House; or, my first post and thoughts on Virginia Tech
This is the first time I have written a formal blog entry. I guess I'm finally cool.
So, in terms of the title of my blog, "e pluribus nonnullus," it's Latin for "out of many, some." I guess it's a little pun on the US's time-tested phrase e pluribus unum. You can take it however you want; I didn't put too much thought into its meaning. But I knew that four years of high school Latin would finally pay off.
But on to the content. Last week, as you all know, we witnessed the worst school shooting in American history. Thirty-two Virginia Tech students and faculty members were killed by Seung-Hui Cho, a 23-year old South Korean student.
First of all, I would like to extend condolences to all of the victims' families, friends, classmates, acquaintances, etc., as well as to all of Virginia Tech and Blacksburg. You are in our thoughts and prayers throughout this entire ordeal, which is difficult beyond words.
I also want to extend sympathies to Cho's family. They too lost a child. They have to live both with the awful reality that their son will be remembered as a mass murderer and with the abuse of a few ignorant pricks. They have to spend the rest of their lives re-living this past week and constantly second-guessing their decisions as parents. I'm sure they feel in at least some sense personally responsible for this. And to all of the insensitive people out there sending them death threats, screw you. You're not helping.
From what I have been hearing and what I have seen of Cho from the NBC footage, he suffered from schizophrenia. Now, I am not going to try and excuse what he did, because I know we live in a society focused on blame and retribution. Regardless, schizophrenia is the worst form of mental illness a person can have. It is known as the "cancer" of mental illnesses. This illness pushes its victim into bouts of full-blown madness. People may shake or have little control over their body, may speak or babble incoherently, and suffer from severe bouts of depression and/or paranoia, among other things. This illness is a horrible, destructive pariah. The only way to maintain any control over it is through extensive medication, which we now know Cho did not use. I have no doubt that, if he indeed did suffer from schizophrenia, his profound maddening disease played a large role in dictating his actions.
What Cho did was deplorable and unthinkable, but hopefully it can be used to bring to light the breadth and extent of mental illness in the United States. It is estimated that at least one out of every five Americans will suffer from some sort of known mental illness during at least some part of their lives. We have had a sorry history of understanding and treating these diseases. One recent and blatant movement away from progression on this issue took place during the late 70s and early 80s, when the federal government took steps to de-institutionalize the nation and pull federal funding from mental health programs. Accordingly, thousands of people who knew little or nothing about life outside the hospital were simply thrown out alone into the world. Many of these people could not find or hold down a job and were incapable of dealing with their diseases on their own. This one awful policy decision still rears its ugly head today everytime I see someone with an obvious mental deficiency living on the streets.
Now, to touch on the hot-button issue in all of this. As a college student, I do have a facebook account - a decision I am sure will come back to haunt me a few years down the road. Immediately following the shooting, I began to notice a steady flow of gun rights' supporters creating groups on the website with names like "Gun Control Costs Lives at Virginia Tech," "If students could carry guns, We would all be safer," and "Virginia Tech lives could've been saved it if wasn't a gun free zone." (you can find these groups here: Facebook) I would like to go on the record as saying that allowing college students and other personnel on college campuses to carry concealed firearms - or unconcealed for that matter - is one of the worst ideas that I have ever heard. It will NOT solve the problem. If anything, it may only make it worse. Allow me to make a few points as to why students carrying guns would not have helped this situation:
1.) The first shooting took place nearly two hours before the second one in the engineering building. Police took this shooting as a domestic dispute and assumed that the shooter had fled, because they did not find any indication that he had not (Cho traveled to the post office first and then made preparations for his next murders. He was not there). They had no way of knowing what was to come.
2.) Students were not informed about the first incident until the second incident was beginning. There was no way that they could have prepared themselves or had any armed officers there to protect them.
3.) Cho chained the exits to the building from the INSIDE. In other words, there was no way that anyone could have gotten in who may have been armed to stop him. An innocent bystander who happened to be armed would have been incapable of doing anything once Cho entered the hall. The only way that anything could have happened would be for students or faculty members inside of the building to be packing. If you honestly believe this is the answer, I think you are insane.
As a college student, I see no merit in allowing us to have concealed weapons in the classroom. Knowing that the person sitting next to me may have a pistol in his pocket or in her purse would not make me feel secure. If anything, it would make me scared for my life and unable to focus on anything else.
And let's just think about the merits of arming college students, shall we? Really? College Students? Obviously there is nothing on a college campus that could possibly impair the judgment and decision-making abilities of a student. I know that no one drinks or uses drugs in college, right? That's just what we need. A drunk kid pulling out a gun in the middle of an argument at a frat party, or a guy with a gun in his belt walking in on his roommate and his girlfriend in a compromising situation. Brilliant idea. Obviously no harm could possibly come of this.
Let's try and be logical before we go making decisions that affect the lives of those around us. There is no reason for allowing students to bring guns into a football or basketball game or a class. I have heard of far too many tragedies that took place for exactly this reason. Sure, the shooter may not have been legally licensed to have his gun, but simply having a card in your wallet does not make you incapable of overreacting or making a poor decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)