Fareed Zakaria is dreamy...

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.

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.

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...

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.

stop or ill sue!

the supreme court just turned over the DC law outlawing hand guns. this is a sticky issue. im all for freedom, but im also all for not getting shot. however, i lived most of my life in states with pretty liberal gun laws and have not been shot yet. also, i think if i were to be shot, it probably wouldnt be by a legal gun owner. i have to say that most people i know with guns are very responsible with them and i think that people should be allowed to hunt, shoot for fun, and protect their homes even if that does seem a little Mad Max to me.

here i go, siding withi Dick Cheney of all people. but i do share the court's dissenters concerns "that would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."those regulations that concern me are those that exist to limit the sale of machine guns and background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people. i honestly would be in favor of very strict restrictions on who could own guns and very thorough checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who might misuse them, but allow those who are responsible to have the privilege, but i dont support an all out ban.

what do you think?

WaPo

Livonia multiculturalism

there have been a lot of op-ed pieces popping up lately about the two Muslim women who were turned away from their prime seats at the Obama rally last week in Detroit. im trying to figure out why. its old news, and it wasnt much when it was new news.

sure, it never should have happened and whoever the hapless volunteers were who made the decision feel terrible, im sure. its over. Obama called the women to apologize, and in the most recent Free Press article i read, one of them is still throwing her support his way and the other didnt comment. because the thing is, it wasnt Obama who asked them to move. and if anyone is going to open the minds of america its Obama.

when this happened last week, i thought back to the first person i knew who wore the hijab. she was a girl i went to high school with. it took me a couple years to figure out it was a religious thing. i just thought she did it for the sake culture, rather than religion. like i said before, i had a very culturally open upbrining, and really didnt think twice about it. one day, someone in a class said to me 'you know shes muslim. thats why she wears a that headdress.'
'headdress??? its a scarf. and who cares if shes muslim? come back when you find a cannibal.'

come to think of it, i was good friends with a girl who's father is from India, but i dont know what religion she is/was. but i do know that she is a vegan, which i found to be interesting and very respectable. i crushed on another girl whos family was from Lebanon and absolutely mystified me. talk about culture shock... that was my first direct contact with arab christians. they sure arent like catholics. then i was best friends with a girl who spoke Ukranian at home. i was there enough to start understanding the constant fights with her mother. for coming from one of the whitest cities ever, i had some pretty multicultural friends. maybe thats where my naive notion that we can all get along if we quit being assholes comes from. becuase i had planty of differences with them, but we got along great. for the most part i was fascinated and just tried not to ask offensive questions. and if a pretty enthusiastinc carnivore like me can date a vegetarian, i think theres hope. and really, isnt that the idea? well, that and ending an unjust war, ballancing the budget, fixing health care, and generally restoring our image in the world... theres more to worry about than the blunders of a couple of campiagn volunteers. lots more.

Detroit: a leader?

its true. and not just in urban decay, foreclosures, and crime anymore. Detroit id now home to an increasing number of urban farms. as settlers did hundreds of years ago, a group called Urban Farming is working with Wayne County and the city to use public owned land to start gardens which are not fenced off. anyone is welcome to plant and harvest in the gardens. whats left is donated to food banks.

check it out.

were not living like we should

theres a lot of hubub about the price of oil and gas lately. no one should be surprised. but in looking for a solution, ive heard everything from absurd pandering to actual plans. the one thing that should be evident here is that we need to reduce our dependance on oil. not just foreign oil, but oil in general. its harming the economy and the environment.

there is a myth that there lies a wealth of US owned oil in US coastal areas that envirnomentalits have padlocked. thing is, most of the domestic oil is open to drilling. in Aleska, the Gulf of Mexico, and beneath the Rockies. and many of these places have existing leases that oil companies are not even using. they are attempting to grab as many leases and permits as possible before the oild friendly bush admin leaves office.

the reality is that even if we opened up the small amounts of oil reserves on the coasts and began developing them, they wouldnt impact the market for 20 years. and its wholly unrealistic to think that the US, with 3% of the worlds oil, can increase production to a point where it has any significant effect on global prices. the reality is that we control a minority interest in a asset that we consume 50% of. the way to change for the better is to lessen our dependence on oil through research in to biofuels, fuel cells, plug in cars, hybrids and other technology we havent even thought of.

McCain's backing of absurd plans to have a gas tax holiday, open up coastal drilling, and open 30 nes nuclear reactors shows that hes interested in now, and not protecting our future. more and more it seems like he will do anything to get in the whitehouse. whether its good policy or an obvious blunder, whatever garners a vote, and really, dont we, and future Americans deserve better. it becomes more and more clear to me that McCain realizes that he wont be around much longer and wont have to suffer tha consiquences of his own actions. just about every day the idea of President McCain makes me ever more sick.

Obama is not perfect, but he realizes that our problems cant be solved by quick fixes. at some point you have to face the music. we cant keep passing the buck. we need a president, a government, who will tackle these tough issues. someone to look at the reality and the options and make the tough decision to do the right thing, not the patch.

a stitch in time saves nine. had we come up with a viable energy policy after the 70's crisis, the current fossil fuel pinch would be much less acute. maybe we can learn this time around that a quick fix isnt the right way to go. maybe we can elect a government that will help America become the great country it once was. it wont happen over night. i cant happen overnight. it will take time, but it can happen if we all open our eyes and make the right choices.

NYTimes

i think he has a point

Iraqi prime minister Nouri al Maliki has joined the chorus of voices criticizing the US plans for staying in Iraq. hes right. at this point were doing very little good. we are only suppressing some of the violence and terrorism that we create there. not to mention all the ill will we are creating by being there anymore.

the negotiations are to replace the current UN agreement that governs our presence over there. the current one expires at the end of the year. Maliki wants continued protection from outside influence in Iraq, but doesnt want to give US troops and especially not contractors immunity from Iraqi courts. sounds reasonable to me. scale back the presence to a few forts, mostly supporting air power and continue to help train Iraqis and get our battered troops home.

the American side wants immunity, but its a good check on power. you think we'd give any other nation's military immunity inside the US. no way. plus, the shoot first, aske questions later policy becomes a lot less viable when you know that an Iraqi court might hand down a death sentence for your murder of a civilian. the way i see it, we need to be gone. we ought to support from the outside, but lest take the internal training wheels off at least. its what they want, and its what we need.

it DOES exist

there is a spine. the supreme court has found what the congress and especially the senate lack: a back bone. well, a 'liberal' back bone. sure Bush and his cronies have no problem asserting their authority, but all those democrats elected in 2006 have had a lot of trouble standing up to Bush as they had promised. they still let the republican minority push their agenda. but thats another story that Rolling Stone has already covered, albeit in a Fox News for liberals format.

anyway, in an entirely too close for comfort 5-4 vote, the constitution and core American values do in fact matter and must be respected. the supreme court struck down the law that Bush pushed through that basically stripped prisoners in Guantanamo(and elsewhere???) of the rights of Habeas Corpus. so prisoners there, like anyone imprisoned by the US has a right to know who accused them, of what, and what the evidence is, AND has a right to fight the charges in federal court.

as Eugene Robinson asks 'we really need the supreme court to tell us that?' i dont think so. but we do need it to tell Bush that. its especially pleasing after Bush was able to appoint a couple of hyper conservatives to the bench.

Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." like times of war. they have existed throughout a civil war and two world wars and should have persisted during this war. not to mention we shouldnt have started and shouldnt be fighting this war.

the constitution contains our core values. the constitution spells out what is at the heart of America. not the Bible. not the Koran. not Fox News, not CNN, not Rolling Stone, and certainly not George Bush. thankfully our highest court has in one decision affirmed that and shown us that checks and balances were put in place for a reason. for the highest reason. because there are certain things that we stand for.

now im going to steal Robinson's words, because he sums it up quite beautifully.

I say "amazingly" because it's still hard for me to believe that arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention and torture continue to be debated, as if there were pros and cons. The Supreme Court has now made clear that while justice and honor may be mere inconveniences for Bush, they remain essential components of our national identity.

"The nation will live to regret what the court has done today," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, warning that the ruling "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Everyone hopes he's wrong, of course. But if the only thing that mattered were security, why would we bother to have an independent judiciary? Why would there be any constitutional or legal guarantees of due process for anyone? We could just lock up anyone who fit the demographic profile of the average armed robber, say, or anyone with psychological traits often displayed by embezzlers.

The Guantanamo decision will create headaches for the federal courts. The process of granting hearings to the detainees will be messy, imperfect and at times frustrating. I'm confident that in the end the system will work. George W. Bush may not trust America's basic values and highest ideals, but I do.

WaPo