ive long been a fan of Fareed Zakaria, which is something like saying that i get turned on by reasonable foreign policy and diplomacy. the same could be said about optimistic but realistic approaches to most problems that face us.
i have had the privilege to have traveled outside of the country and to live in a city where people from all over the world live. i really like to engage people in all sorts of conversations, frequently political. im generally curious to find their opinion on things. some are more willing than others to engage in this type of talk. ill get in a cab and engage the driver in small talk, and try to mention some hot topic in the news and try to tie that in to the politics. i want to know what people different from me think. i want to know how they think. i want to know why they think what they do. and having met people from all over the globe, the one thing i can connect between them is that they are generally good and just want the best for themselves and those that they care about.
it seems people see the world as generally a good place, but some folks are messing with it. they frequently see Iraq and Darfur and other such tragedies as the exception, rather than the rule. they are optimistic about the future and about the world.
now comes the part where i get political. you knew it was coming. John McCain seems to hold a different view. he appears to see the world as a scary place that we must defend ourselves from. he follows the Bush lead of lumping states into categories of friendly or terrorist. he doesnt shy away from insulting superpowers like Russia(advocating removing them from the G8) and China (advocating keeping them out of the G8 and a proposed League of Nations, which is a whole other issue...).
Barack Obama has been called naive, idealistic, and foolish for wishing to sit down and talk, without conditions, to leaders of troubled countries. people criticize him and his speeches for being too grandiose. they say talk is cheap. its true. but there are times where the cheaper, talking option, is preferable. had we talked to Iraq there may have been a different outcome. if we can talk to Iran and North Korea we may be able to avoid the same fate with countries who are known to have nuclear capabilities.
Obama hasnt promised to know the answers. the answers are probably not known. you sit down and talk and find them. I think he shares my view that most people are good and if you get to know them and what makes them tick, you can find common ground and in it a kinship. its a lot more effective than being a hawkish blowhard and offending some friendly nations in the process of further giving the unfriendly nation your bashing more reason to dislike the US. the adage is to keep friends close, and enemies closer, and i think that foreign policy is one place where that holds true. keep open the lines of communication. lets start perceiving the world in a different way and maybe the world's perception of us will improve with it.
now that ive meandered and espoused my way off the initial topic of Fareed Zakaria, im going to bring him back into the conversation. he has an article in PostGlobal that i think says what i want to, but entirely more eloquently, especially the concluding paragraph.
In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology -- temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
ed, you kayshun
i had the benefit of growing up in a pleasant suburb with responsible parents who just happened to be teachers. we had good schools and i had parents who pushed me to do well. i did. and i am where i am today because of where i came from.
however, there are plenty of people who come from single parent households and live in poor school districts and lack the advantages that i had. education is at the core of what our country is and will be. the most prosperous countries tend to be the best educated. they follow each other. one leads to the other which leads back to the other. but we in the US have been slipping. we were once the best educated country in the world, but others have advanced while we have stagnated and squandered resources.
money is a problem, but its not the only problem. failed policies and procedures are part of the problem too. the no child left behind act has made standardized testing the bar over which students and teachers must hurdle. but rather than teach students all they need to know, they teach for the tests. students miss out on a lot due to this.
still, there has been very little talk about how to fix the system. neither candidate has laid out a plan. they get up on their stumps and babble about gas prices and ignore the failing schools and undereducated kids. this is a big issue and it needs attention. for all the lip service that the pushes paid the education system, theyve probably done more harm than good. our children, and therefore shools and teachers, need the best tools possible to keep our place as a world leader. the cliche is that kids are the future. sometimes cliches make sense.
watch the video and sign the petition.
however, there are plenty of people who come from single parent households and live in poor school districts and lack the advantages that i had. education is at the core of what our country is and will be. the most prosperous countries tend to be the best educated. they follow each other. one leads to the other which leads back to the other. but we in the US have been slipping. we were once the best educated country in the world, but others have advanced while we have stagnated and squandered resources.
money is a problem, but its not the only problem. failed policies and procedures are part of the problem too. the no child left behind act has made standardized testing the bar over which students and teachers must hurdle. but rather than teach students all they need to know, they teach for the tests. students miss out on a lot due to this.
still, there has been very little talk about how to fix the system. neither candidate has laid out a plan. they get up on their stumps and babble about gas prices and ignore the failing schools and undereducated kids. this is a big issue and it needs attention. for all the lip service that the pushes paid the education system, theyve probably done more harm than good. our children, and therefore shools and teachers, need the best tools possible to keep our place as a world leader. the cliche is that kids are the future. sometimes cliches make sense.
watch the video and sign the petition.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
maybe we can fuel our cars with redbull...
heres the biggest reason why i like Obama and one reason why i dont like McCain: Obama seems to react to issues more realistically that McCain. it seems the Arizona Senator goes what sounds good and what will immediately draw support. some call it pandering. the Senator from Illinois seems to look at the issue and make a more realistic and thought out decision that can turn out to be less popular.
lets take a look at energy policy. Bush has repealed the executive moratorium on coastal drilling for oil. McCain fully supports offshore development as "very helpful in the short term for resolving our energy crisis." but industry experts agree that any oil production from the coastal US would not affect and oil market for years or even decades to come. first the government must issue leases. then oil companies need to explore the possible reserves to find out what is there. then rigs must be built and installed before any additional oil hits the market. if you factor in that US refining capacity is about maxed out and to have any significant price effect new refineries would need to be built as well. its not to say that all this cant and wont happen, but its effects will not help anything in the short term. it may help when im nearing retirement age, but i have serious doubts that McCain, or any other senior, will ever see the benefits of this. Obama has stated that. he doesnt support offshore drilling because of the environmental effects and because the benefits are too far distant to know what they will be. in 20 or 30 years when offshore oil would hit markets, theres no sure way to know what the market would be.
McCain also supports nuclear energy while Obama thinks we need to invest in renewable sources of electricity. i have to agree with Obama, but the reality is that our power grid cannot be based on these sources. the only uninterrupted renewable source is hydro, which is probably the most expensive to bring online with costs to build dams and plants, not to mention the environmental effects of flooding vast tracts of land. solar and wind tend to be cheaper and quicker to bring online, but are less reliable. the wind doesnt always blow and the sun doesnt always shine. but the alternatives of coal and nuclear have their downsides. coal will always pollute, gasified or not. and there will always be nuclear waste that must be dealt with. so what then? push green sources like wind, solar, and small scale hydro. theres no reason that these energy sources cant account for 25% of our power needs in 20 or 30 years. at that point you keep improving nuclear and coal technology to keep power up with demand. nuclear seems to me to be the better option when compared to coal, seeing that the waste is concentrated and you can hide it inside a mountain when the greenhouse gasses from coal plants end up in the atmosphere contributing to the warming.
our energy needs require more than one solution. there is no great panacea. offshore drilling isnt going to solve our problems any more than some windmills or a new nuclear plant. electric cars wont do any good if theyre charged up on coal power that just move the pollution from the roads to the plants. Obama hasnt claimed to have a cure all, he has noted the complexity of the problem and has proposed good solutions. McCain has proposed band-aids and quick fixes that arent even quick. dont get me wrong, i dont think Obama has our energy problems solved, but hes got a much better idea on how to start than McCain does. but neither have yet proposed bringing in cheap and efficiently made ethanol from Brazil. granted, its still outsourcing energy, but its coming from a country we all pretty much like, rather than a oil regime. but that probably wont become and option until next year when we have a new president, because neither candidate can afford to piss off all the corn growers who love the high cost of food thats starving people in the third world.
as you can see, nothing exists in a vacuum. you cant do anything without affecting something else. Obama seems to have a better grip on that reality than does McCain. Obama also seems to be better able to formulate a realistic nuanced approach, while McCain seems more inclined to act now and worry about the details later. ive had enough of that approach.
NPR Story
NPR's site to help you decipher what the candidates say and mean.
CNN's elections site. needs some updates...
im going to keep looking for more sources of info... there seems to be a shortage of easily accesable info out there...
lets take a look at energy policy. Bush has repealed the executive moratorium on coastal drilling for oil. McCain fully supports offshore development as "very helpful in the short term for resolving our energy crisis." but industry experts agree that any oil production from the coastal US would not affect and oil market for years or even decades to come. first the government must issue leases. then oil companies need to explore the possible reserves to find out what is there. then rigs must be built and installed before any additional oil hits the market. if you factor in that US refining capacity is about maxed out and to have any significant price effect new refineries would need to be built as well. its not to say that all this cant and wont happen, but its effects will not help anything in the short term. it may help when im nearing retirement age, but i have serious doubts that McCain, or any other senior, will ever see the benefits of this. Obama has stated that. he doesnt support offshore drilling because of the environmental effects and because the benefits are too far distant to know what they will be. in 20 or 30 years when offshore oil would hit markets, theres no sure way to know what the market would be.
McCain also supports nuclear energy while Obama thinks we need to invest in renewable sources of electricity. i have to agree with Obama, but the reality is that our power grid cannot be based on these sources. the only uninterrupted renewable source is hydro, which is probably the most expensive to bring online with costs to build dams and plants, not to mention the environmental effects of flooding vast tracts of land. solar and wind tend to be cheaper and quicker to bring online, but are less reliable. the wind doesnt always blow and the sun doesnt always shine. but the alternatives of coal and nuclear have their downsides. coal will always pollute, gasified or not. and there will always be nuclear waste that must be dealt with. so what then? push green sources like wind, solar, and small scale hydro. theres no reason that these energy sources cant account for 25% of our power needs in 20 or 30 years. at that point you keep improving nuclear and coal technology to keep power up with demand. nuclear seems to me to be the better option when compared to coal, seeing that the waste is concentrated and you can hide it inside a mountain when the greenhouse gasses from coal plants end up in the atmosphere contributing to the warming.
our energy needs require more than one solution. there is no great panacea. offshore drilling isnt going to solve our problems any more than some windmills or a new nuclear plant. electric cars wont do any good if theyre charged up on coal power that just move the pollution from the roads to the plants. Obama hasnt claimed to have a cure all, he has noted the complexity of the problem and has proposed good solutions. McCain has proposed band-aids and quick fixes that arent even quick. dont get me wrong, i dont think Obama has our energy problems solved, but hes got a much better idea on how to start than McCain does. but neither have yet proposed bringing in cheap and efficiently made ethanol from Brazil. granted, its still outsourcing energy, but its coming from a country we all pretty much like, rather than a oil regime. but that probably wont become and option until next year when we have a new president, because neither candidate can afford to piss off all the corn growers who love the high cost of food thats starving people in the third world.
as you can see, nothing exists in a vacuum. you cant do anything without affecting something else. Obama seems to have a better grip on that reality than does McCain. Obama also seems to be better able to formulate a realistic nuanced approach, while McCain seems more inclined to act now and worry about the details later. ive had enough of that approach.
NPR Story
NPR's site to help you decipher what the candidates say and mean.
CNN's elections site. needs some updates...
im going to keep looking for more sources of info... there seems to be a shortage of easily accesable info out there...
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
civil disobediance
this one defies categorization. im really impressed by the sheer oddity of this and the number of coincidences that made this possible and then "void ab initio"- invalid from the start.
two guys, one who evidently looks very much like a woman, obtain a marriage license in VA and are married by a circuit court. then the female looking male goes to change his name to Penelopsky Aaryonna Goldberry. the clerk, possibly out of curiosity, asks flat out if hes male or female. then it comes out that hes male, the marriage is nullified.
at any rate, a gay couple was married in VA for a few days. well, thats assuming that that Penelopsky's boyfriend knew that he was a he, seeing as a police officer in a traffic stop noted his sex as female. you have to think he did. i have to beleive that this was an act of civil disobediance. i also think that we should let wierdos and normals marry eachother, regarless of sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, or race. come on conservatives, if you really are conservative, you shouldnt want us to regulate much at all.
two guys, one who evidently looks very much like a woman, obtain a marriage license in VA and are married by a circuit court. then the female looking male goes to change his name to Penelopsky Aaryonna Goldberry. the clerk, possibly out of curiosity, asks flat out if hes male or female. then it comes out that hes male, the marriage is nullified.
at any rate, a gay couple was married in VA for a few days. well, thats assuming that that Penelopsky's boyfriend knew that he was a he, seeing as a police officer in a traffic stop noted his sex as female. you have to think he did. i have to beleive that this was an act of civil disobediance. i also think that we should let wierdos and normals marry eachother, regarless of sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, or race. come on conservatives, if you really are conservative, you shouldnt want us to regulate much at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
