She is an insult to Hillary Clinton supporters. John McCain picked Sarah Palin in hopes that women, stung by Hillary's loss, will be just that much more likely to vote for him. McCain said that, in his VP choice, he would go after someone who shared his values. And Palin is known for going after pork-barrel spending. And using her power to get her brother-in-law fired. But Hillary supporters won't likely begrudge her that, so much as her pro-life stance, anti-gay marriage stance, and conservative record that is much more regular than John McCain's.
She is a separation from Obama, and an outstreched hand to the Republican Party's right wing. McCain is making it clear that his administration will not be the progressive, compromising, bipartisan, "Maverick" administration he'd seemed so set on in 2000. Aside from the fact that she is a woman, Sarah Palin represents a continuation of Bush's social policies limiting the rights of gays and lesbians, limiting the right of women to choose, short-sighted energy policy, and poorly conceived foreign policy.
Most importantly, she is sign that John McCain doesn't take the issues facing America seriously. Sarah Palin's lack of experience completely erases any concerns about Barack Obama's. I've got more political experience than she does. The world we live in today is one of the most dangerous in history. Barack Obama has met with foreign leaders as a member of the foreign relations committee. He's shown that he can bring America respect around the world, in his trip to Europe. And he's picked a Vice President that is, arguably, better prepared to serve in the White House than John McCain is. Has Sarah Palin ever left Alaska? She's been governor of a wilderness state, when we need people in the White House that understand America's place from a global perspective.
McCain's old. His VP is the most likely fourty-fifth president if he is elected. He may have picked the lest qualified option he had.
Also, she's hot - but that doesn't make her either more or less qualified.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
McCain is the Wrong "Wartime" President
Why, oh why, am I talking about a wartime president? The wheels are in motion to leave Iraq. And Kabul is talking about getting us out of Afghanistan. Wartime is-a-comin' to a close. Surely, though, surely, we won't go to war with Russia over the whole Georgia thing. Right?
Well, Sort of.
NATO ships have moved into the Black Sea. For humanitarian aid, of course. Right? The Russian President Medvedev has suggested that he's up for a Cold War. That's just rhetoric, though. Right? And Vladimir Putin is a crazy, unstable, power-hungry liability to world peace. But he's not the President anymore, right?
Depends who you ask. Senator John McCain proudly proclaimed that "We are all Georgians," a dubious claim to a country that is hard for even geography buffs to find on a map. As much as Russia's aggression seems unwarranted, what can the United States really afford to commit to? Georgia's President Saakashvili wasn't completely innocent in the conflict that has garnered so much attention stateside. Of course, John McCain didn't become a Georgian until they invaded a disputed province within their borders. Always looking for another excuse to keep us at war, wether we need to go or not.
Now, this doesn't mean we can just let Russia run roughshod over the former Soviet Satellites, but come on. War, aside from being violent, horrific, often unilateral, damaging to our reputation throughout the world, deadly to thousands of our soldiers, devastating to thousands of their families, injurous to tens of thousands more soldiers, traumatic for those that aren't physically harmed, and, lately, innefective at securing our stated goals for entering into conflict, is expensive. Everyone knows that $86 billion per year is the low number for Iraq spending. That's debt we are going to have to pay to China. That's money we could spend improving life at home, promoting trade, creating jobs, bolstering our economy.
Remember before when we were at Cold War with Russia? And everyone was afraid of a nuclear attack. Those nukes haven't disappeared. They're still pointed at our cities. How did we deal with them then? Diplomacy. The Cuban Missile Crisis took an intelligent, articulate, passionate politician who was able to negotiate - against the wishes of his military advisors - a truce, without, in those oh-so-familiar words, a shot being fired. The Berlin Wall was felled not by engaging in conflicts over small provinces in small countries, but by a speech (in front of thousands of Germans, I might add) by a man who, for whatever you may fault him, was called the Great Communicator. The worst foreign policy blunder possibly in all of recorded history, however, happened when a colonized state had to be "liberated" from "Soviet influence" in Vietnam - our only large "hot" conflict of the Cold War.
So who's it going to be? The War Hawk who defends the costly war in Iraq and seems scarily close to declaring the "liberation" of South Ossetia? Or the man in the mold of Kennedy, the smooth talker who will at least try to talk to other nations, who has proven that he will be heard by other nations? We can look as tough as we want, but if we go in guns blazin', like McCain would have us do, we become the Evil Empire. We don't want to be the bully in a world that outnumbers us. We don't want to threaten a China that is stronger than us, we don't want to try to push around a Russia that, because of their oil exportation, is growing as wealthy as us. We don't want to say "we don't need you" to a Europe that exceedingly doesn't need us. We must be a leader in the world, true. But with John McCain, we will be a leader that no one follows. A crazy old man dottering around in the woods.
Well, Sort of.
NATO ships have moved into the Black Sea. For humanitarian aid, of course. Right? The Russian President Medvedev has suggested that he's up for a Cold War. That's just rhetoric, though. Right? And Vladimir Putin is a crazy, unstable, power-hungry liability to world peace. But he's not the President anymore, right?
Depends who you ask. Senator John McCain proudly proclaimed that "We are all Georgians," a dubious claim to a country that is hard for even geography buffs to find on a map. As much as Russia's aggression seems unwarranted, what can the United States really afford to commit to? Georgia's President Saakashvili wasn't completely innocent in the conflict that has garnered so much attention stateside. Of course, John McCain didn't become a Georgian until they invaded a disputed province within their borders. Always looking for another excuse to keep us at war, wether we need to go or not.
Now, this doesn't mean we can just let Russia run roughshod over the former Soviet Satellites, but come on. War, aside from being violent, horrific, often unilateral, damaging to our reputation throughout the world, deadly to thousands of our soldiers, devastating to thousands of their families, injurous to tens of thousands more soldiers, traumatic for those that aren't physically harmed, and, lately, innefective at securing our stated goals for entering into conflict, is expensive. Everyone knows that $86 billion per year is the low number for Iraq spending. That's debt we are going to have to pay to China. That's money we could spend improving life at home, promoting trade, creating jobs, bolstering our economy.
Remember before when we were at Cold War with Russia? And everyone was afraid of a nuclear attack. Those nukes haven't disappeared. They're still pointed at our cities. How did we deal with them then? Diplomacy. The Cuban Missile Crisis took an intelligent, articulate, passionate politician who was able to negotiate - against the wishes of his military advisors - a truce, without, in those oh-so-familiar words, a shot being fired. The Berlin Wall was felled not by engaging in conflicts over small provinces in small countries, but by a speech (in front of thousands of Germans, I might add) by a man who, for whatever you may fault him, was called the Great Communicator. The worst foreign policy blunder possibly in all of recorded history, however, happened when a colonized state had to be "liberated" from "Soviet influence" in Vietnam - our only large "hot" conflict of the Cold War.
So who's it going to be? The War Hawk who defends the costly war in Iraq and seems scarily close to declaring the "liberation" of South Ossetia? Or the man in the mold of Kennedy, the smooth talker who will at least try to talk to other nations, who has proven that he will be heard by other nations? We can look as tough as we want, but if we go in guns blazin', like McCain would have us do, we become the Evil Empire. We don't want to be the bully in a world that outnumbers us. We don't want to threaten a China that is stronger than us, we don't want to try to push around a Russia that, because of their oil exportation, is growing as wealthy as us. We don't want to say "we don't need you" to a Europe that exceedingly doesn't need us. We must be a leader in the world, true. But with John McCain, we will be a leader that no one follows. A crazy old man dottering around in the woods.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
America, Home of the cautious?
Why is it that the only answers to our "energy crisis" we hear are "drill drill drill" and "more corn ethanol"? Wind energy is the greenest option yet, completely domestic, and completely renewable. Solar is right there with it. T. Boone Pickens' plan suggests that Natural gas is a possible domestic source that is already a reality in many areas of the country, and has the added benefits of being both comparatively priced with gasoline, and emissions free.
There is no reason - not one SINGLE reason - that we shouldn't be investing all of our efforts, all of our money, all of our resources, into developing these new technologies, and developing the infrastructure needed to make them viable. Again, every one of them is more environmentally friendly than drilling or ethanol, is a better long-term solution because of renewability than drilling or ethanol, and are even a better short-term solution than offshore drilling (not one drop of oil for 20 years...). But lets look at them from a few different points of view:
National Security - This seems to be a still salient issue with a large number of Americans. While many seem to believe that our country is "fed up" with Republicans, polls don't show that to be the case. McCain's ability to "hang in there" is largely because he is seen to be stronger on national security, and there are still plenty of Americans who believe that remaining in Iraq is necessary (look at my last post). The reason? Islamic governments in Arab nations, they will say, are sponsoring and funding terrorism. Let's pretend this is correct because, if you break the money chain down, eventually it is. Every single one of these states has built its fortunes on oil. It is their only resource, and the United States has long been their number one customer. No other country can afford to import oil at its current price in the quantities that the United States does. By cutting off the $700 billion per year that we send to these very nations, we will be cutting off a major source of their funding.
Of course, that's just one angle. Don't forget the '70s. Another OPEC embargo would cripple us right now. An attack on our oil supply lines would be devastating. Unrest and corruption in Africa and the Middle East makes this an ever-present possibility. Even offshore drilling rigs are more vulnerable to attack than production within our borders would be.
Environment - Well, this should be obvious. Gasoline powered cars produce 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. It wouldn't be difficult at all to begin switching government fleets over to natural gas, which many city buses already run on, and which burns 80% cleaner than gasoline or diesel. And electric cars powered by windmills have zero emissions. Same with solar panels. Even if you think global warming is a myth and don't care about the environment, it would be something to hold over the rest of the world.
And let's not forget about the other guys. Offshore drilling isn't the worst thing for the environment, but it could create unnecessary problems. ANWR is a small piece of Alaska's wilderness, but the roads and pipelines created in order to extract oil are invasive. Most of all, they are impacts that are not worth what we will get from them - a paltry stream of oil after 20 years of development.
Corn-based ethanol is one of the least efficient biofuels on the market. Nearly every other commodity more efficiently converts to ethanol. Look at how our production rates compared to Brazil, for instance, whose sugarcane ethanol produces nearly twice as much fuel per acre as our corn ethanol, using much less land, and fewer input fuels to produce.
Technology - It boggles me. GM, an American company, produces 18 or 19 natural gas vehicles, none of which are available in the U.S., and almost every automaker has produced electric vehicles, few of which are available in the US. A California company builds an electric supercar, and a British company has built a better one (an individual motor in each wheel?!). Germans have produced a standard fuel car that exceeds 120 mpg (not that that has that much to do with the energy plan...). We should be embracing these technologies. Why isn't the US using the high-capacity batteries it has developed in cars? Why aren't we building 250-mph bullet trains to travel between cities (run by clean, wind-produced electricity)?
We have the technologies, but they won't be produced until there is demand (http://www.pickensplan.com/news/, "Ask Boone," Aug. 13). To build demand, we need the infrastructure. Natural gas filling stations on every corner will make people think that, maybe they need one of those cars. Just look at how Hybrids have taken off. The technology will only get better, but it will only follow investment.
Economy - Remember in the 1930s, when the TVA and all those government projects created jobs and pulled the country out of a depression? And remember in the 1950s, when a concentrated national effort (WWII? Manhattan Project?) led to a time of great national prosperity and lower wealth disparity? And how the same thing happened with going to space in the 60s? Remember in the 1970s and 80s, when dependence on a single commodity (guess what it was...) ruined our entire economy? And then remember the 90s, when a bold new industry in Silicon Valley energized our entire economy, and created an entirely new industry, where growth is, apparently, unlimited? History repeats itself.
We have a chance to take $700 billion that we are sending overseas this year, and growing every year, and instead, spend it here. Offshore drilling and ANWR and converting all of our land into corn Ethanol production won't approach that. Sugarcane ethanol in Brazil can be created cheaper than corn ethanol (but we put a tariff on importing it) and without government subsidies. The oil we keep talking about drilling for simply isn't enough. More importantly, though, it will run out. If we build the infrastructure for renewable domestic energy now, we would greatly redue the risk of another energy crisis when our oil runs out. Building this infrastructure can create thousands and thousans of jobs - building railroads, transmission lines, windmills, constructing and converting filling stations. Investments will be made in the US, and the best part is, that the dollars spend on energy will stay in the US.
So Now What?
It's quite a mountain ahead on this project, but nothing that we shouldn't be able to easily cross, if we put our minds to it. There's a lot out there about "green" energy, and a lot of it is good, but the question will always be "What can I do?" The list gets longer every second.
You already know to conserve energy, to drive a small car more, and SUVs less, to take the train, to walk more often. So do it. You'll find that it's rare that you actually need an SUV.
But to make the big changes that will wean us off of foreign oil, it will take a little more work. First of all, write your lawmakers. The Tax Extenders bill (S. 2886) must pass. All you have to do is write a letter or make a phone call to your members of congress, and say "please vote yes on the Tax Extenders bill." And get all of your friends to call. Get ten people together, and take turns calling. It will take ten minutes, and if enough people call, it will shake things up.
Next, join this site: http://www.pickensplan.com/. Sign up, donate money, tell people, and volunteer. The man spearheading this effort is an expert on energy, and can create an infrastructure that will work.
There is no reason - not one SINGLE reason - that we shouldn't be investing all of our efforts, all of our money, all of our resources, into developing these new technologies, and developing the infrastructure needed to make them viable. Again, every one of them is more environmentally friendly than drilling or ethanol, is a better long-term solution because of renewability than drilling or ethanol, and are even a better short-term solution than offshore drilling (not one drop of oil for 20 years...). But lets look at them from a few different points of view:
National Security - This seems to be a still salient issue with a large number of Americans. While many seem to believe that our country is "fed up" with Republicans, polls don't show that to be the case. McCain's ability to "hang in there" is largely because he is seen to be stronger on national security, and there are still plenty of Americans who believe that remaining in Iraq is necessary (look at my last post). The reason? Islamic governments in Arab nations, they will say, are sponsoring and funding terrorism. Let's pretend this is correct because, if you break the money chain down, eventually it is. Every single one of these states has built its fortunes on oil. It is their only resource, and the United States has long been their number one customer. No other country can afford to import oil at its current price in the quantities that the United States does. By cutting off the $700 billion per year that we send to these very nations, we will be cutting off a major source of their funding.
Of course, that's just one angle. Don't forget the '70s. Another OPEC embargo would cripple us right now. An attack on our oil supply lines would be devastating. Unrest and corruption in Africa and the Middle East makes this an ever-present possibility. Even offshore drilling rigs are more vulnerable to attack than production within our borders would be.
Environment - Well, this should be obvious. Gasoline powered cars produce 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. It wouldn't be difficult at all to begin switching government fleets over to natural gas, which many city buses already run on, and which burns 80% cleaner than gasoline or diesel. And electric cars powered by windmills have zero emissions. Same with solar panels. Even if you think global warming is a myth and don't care about the environment, it would be something to hold over the rest of the world.
And let's not forget about the other guys. Offshore drilling isn't the worst thing for the environment, but it could create unnecessary problems. ANWR is a small piece of Alaska's wilderness, but the roads and pipelines created in order to extract oil are invasive. Most of all, they are impacts that are not worth what we will get from them - a paltry stream of oil after 20 years of development.
Corn-based ethanol is one of the least efficient biofuels on the market. Nearly every other commodity more efficiently converts to ethanol. Look at how our production rates compared to Brazil, for instance, whose sugarcane ethanol produces nearly twice as much fuel per acre as our corn ethanol, using much less land, and fewer input fuels to produce.
Technology - It boggles me. GM, an American company, produces 18 or 19 natural gas vehicles, none of which are available in the U.S., and almost every automaker has produced electric vehicles, few of which are available in the US. A California company builds an electric supercar, and a British company has built a better one (an individual motor in each wheel?!). Germans have produced a standard fuel car that exceeds 120 mpg (not that that has that much to do with the energy plan...). We should be embracing these technologies. Why isn't the US using the high-capacity batteries it has developed in cars? Why aren't we building 250-mph bullet trains to travel between cities (run by clean, wind-produced electricity)?
We have the technologies, but they won't be produced until there is demand (http://www.pickensplan.com/news/, "Ask Boone," Aug. 13). To build demand, we need the infrastructure. Natural gas filling stations on every corner will make people think that, maybe they need one of those cars. Just look at how Hybrids have taken off. The technology will only get better, but it will only follow investment.
Economy - Remember in the 1930s, when the TVA and all those government projects created jobs and pulled the country out of a depression? And remember in the 1950s, when a concentrated national effort (WWII? Manhattan Project?) led to a time of great national prosperity and lower wealth disparity? And how the same thing happened with going to space in the 60s? Remember in the 1970s and 80s, when dependence on a single commodity (guess what it was...) ruined our entire economy? And then remember the 90s, when a bold new industry in Silicon Valley energized our entire economy, and created an entirely new industry, where growth is, apparently, unlimited? History repeats itself.
We have a chance to take $700 billion that we are sending overseas this year, and growing every year, and instead, spend it here. Offshore drilling and ANWR and converting all of our land into corn Ethanol production won't approach that. Sugarcane ethanol in Brazil can be created cheaper than corn ethanol (but we put a tariff on importing it) and without government subsidies. The oil we keep talking about drilling for simply isn't enough. More importantly, though, it will run out. If we build the infrastructure for renewable domestic energy now, we would greatly redue the risk of another energy crisis when our oil runs out. Building this infrastructure can create thousands and thousans of jobs - building railroads, transmission lines, windmills, constructing and converting filling stations. Investments will be made in the US, and the best part is, that the dollars spend on energy will stay in the US.
So Now What?
It's quite a mountain ahead on this project, but nothing that we shouldn't be able to easily cross, if we put our minds to it. There's a lot out there about "green" energy, and a lot of it is good, but the question will always be "What can I do?" The list gets longer every second.
You already know to conserve energy, to drive a small car more, and SUVs less, to take the train, to walk more often. So do it. You'll find that it's rare that you actually need an SUV.
But to make the big changes that will wean us off of foreign oil, it will take a little more work. First of all, write your lawmakers. The Tax Extenders bill (S. 2886) must pass. All you have to do is write a letter or make a phone call to your members of congress, and say "please vote yes on the Tax Extenders bill." And get all of your friends to call. Get ten people together, and take turns calling. It will take ten minutes, and if enough people call, it will shake things up.
Next, join this site: http://www.pickensplan.com/. Sign up, donate money, tell people, and volunteer. The man spearheading this effort is an expert on energy, and can create an infrastructure that will work.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Why would this bother me?
I got an email forwarded to me recently, containing the text of a young Air Force Academy Cadet's essay on why one would choose to serve in the military. It was read in the Congressional Record in 2006 by Senator Allard (R-CO), and is pretty inspiring. It lets you know that there are young men and women in our military that--even if, like me, you don't support the war--you can be very proud of.
But then I thought about who had sent it to me. An unapolagetic neo-con who preaches the party line, I could taste the insults pointed at me, his "liberal" friend. The essayist speaks about "listening to our 'friends' who are home from State or Ivy League schools chock full of wisdom about how our war in Iraq is unjust and unworldly." I'm the only person on his forward list who went to an Ivy League school. And the way that "friends" was put in quotes; it just felt like an attack, like he was saying, "if these soldiers feel this just about their mission, how can't you?"
And so I though, why can't I? I thought about my conservative High School, where I would have been hard pressed to find people--in classes both above and below mine--who would have supported my stance. They were all fiercely pro-war. They would argue with me tooth and nail that we had to "take the fight to the terrorists" and keep our country safe from another attack, and so on.
Yet almost none of them signed up for military service - and most of the few who had did so in order to afford college. Almost none of them applied, like the essayist above, to the military academies, or enrolled in their respected colleges' ROTC programs; and those who did were the kids who had been talking about academies since they were Cub Scouts (and none of them will be serving in Iraq or Afghanistan).
So, here in my anonymous post, I ask how anyone can claim to be such a proponent of the war, to claim to support the troops, without, themselves, serving? It's no new revelation that this war was presented as one that should be "easy" and even, through oil, "profitable". It was going to be quick, and the American public hasn't had to sacrifice. Why not? If we are so at danger, why don't more supporters volunteer to fight? How can they resist taxes (especially the rich, who are least likely to fight) that are needed to pay fo the war effort?
We are in a war that has provided us no benefit, and untold losses. Our military has become stretched thin. We've had to pay millions for private security contractors. We've had to extend troop deployment times, and we've increased the length of enlistments. But the people circulating these kinds of letters, the people who call for supporting our troops, and the people who refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that it is time to leave Iraq, refuse to stand behind their beliefs. They want to spend more on the military, they want to commit to open-ended conflicts, but they don't want to enlist, they don't want their kids to enlist, and they don't want to pay the taxes to fund it. They only want the political implications that being part of the wartime party affords them. We aren't any safer because of Iraq.
But they will gladly use the bold words of a young cadet to forward their political agenda.
But then I thought about who had sent it to me. An unapolagetic neo-con who preaches the party line, I could taste the insults pointed at me, his "liberal" friend. The essayist speaks about "listening to our 'friends' who are home from State or Ivy League schools chock full of wisdom about how our war in Iraq is unjust and unworldly." I'm the only person on his forward list who went to an Ivy League school. And the way that "friends" was put in quotes; it just felt like an attack, like he was saying, "if these soldiers feel this just about their mission, how can't you?"
And so I though, why can't I? I thought about my conservative High School, where I would have been hard pressed to find people--in classes both above and below mine--who would have supported my stance. They were all fiercely pro-war. They would argue with me tooth and nail that we had to "take the fight to the terrorists" and keep our country safe from another attack, and so on.
Yet almost none of them signed up for military service - and most of the few who had did so in order to afford college. Almost none of them applied, like the essayist above, to the military academies, or enrolled in their respected colleges' ROTC programs; and those who did were the kids who had been talking about academies since they were Cub Scouts (and none of them will be serving in Iraq or Afghanistan).
So, here in my anonymous post, I ask how anyone can claim to be such a proponent of the war, to claim to support the troops, without, themselves, serving? It's no new revelation that this war was presented as one that should be "easy" and even, through oil, "profitable". It was going to be quick, and the American public hasn't had to sacrifice. Why not? If we are so at danger, why don't more supporters volunteer to fight? How can they resist taxes (especially the rich, who are least likely to fight) that are needed to pay fo the war effort?
We are in a war that has provided us no benefit, and untold losses. Our military has become stretched thin. We've had to pay millions for private security contractors. We've had to extend troop deployment times, and we've increased the length of enlistments. But the people circulating these kinds of letters, the people who call for supporting our troops, and the people who refuse to acknowledge even the possibility that it is time to leave Iraq, refuse to stand behind their beliefs. They want to spend more on the military, they want to commit to open-ended conflicts, but they don't want to enlist, they don't want their kids to enlist, and they don't want to pay the taxes to fund it. They only want the political implications that being part of the wartime party affords them. We aren't any safer because of Iraq.
But they will gladly use the bold words of a young cadet to forward their political agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
