#4: Fourth Estate of Mind
Much has been made about the state of our press. Even in the time of Jefferson, newspapers were often thought of as sensationalist exploiters and manipulators, more concerned with circulation than verification. Despite all its faults, though, even these detractors knew that when the press was at its best it was the most effective means of uncovering and disseminating information to the public. So valued was this capability that it was protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution, often thought of as the highest ideal of American Freedom.
Though the medium has changed, its value has not. Radio, television, blogs, all of them have added to the forms through which the press operates. 24 hours a day their eyes are watchful, always looking for the cracks that need exposing. Often thought of as the fourth branch of our government, they serve as a check on not only our politicians, but on every facet of our society.
That is, of course, when they are at their best. To cast such a wide net, to cover so much area and so much information, requires a wealth of diligence, funding, and personnel. As such, corners are cut and costs considered. Some stories go uncovered and others oversimplified to make for easier marketing, and always, information is not just the product but is proprietary: the means to making money. In this competitive landscape where the scoop, the exclusive, is what stands between excellence and the also-rans, access is valued like solid gold.
Reporters know that to be successful, they have to be on the inside. Politicians and celebrities have used that to their advantage, opening their doors to those who offer favorable coverage and closing the doors to those that don’t. Nowhere is this more pronounced and more concerning is in the White House. This administration has been notorious for their manipulation of the press corp, keeping them always at arms length and providing exclusives to only the softest of inquisitors.
The results are obvious. In the run-up to the war in Iraq, the press was complicit in perpetrating a fraud on the American people. Each justification for war was covered without critical examination, a trend that since September 11th had followed the notion that you cannot question your Commander-in-Chief in times of war and still be called a patriot. For this reason, the majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD, that he’d colluded with Al Qaeda in planning those terrorist attacks on our soil, and that diplomacy had been exhausted. With this public support, George Bush steamrolled the Congress and took us into an unnecessary and detrimental war that we have still not completed. So effective was the press’s complicity that even after all those statements had been proven false, most of the public still believed it.
Things have improved somewhat since then, but the fact is that the press, in order to do its job effectively, needs unfettered access and opportunity. A new President can improve both the image of his office and the state of our press by treating them not as a hostile opponent, but as a necessary and valuable conduit to the American people; not just as a means to convey a message but as a voice for the people to power. Instead of merely sending the Press Secretary to hold the press at bay, the President should meet regularly with press to take questions and discuss issues. These press conferences shouldn’t be held only when the President has some initiative to put forward, but at regular intervals so that he is always aware of what matters are important to his constituents and so that the press can always ask what it needs to ask.
The President should also use his time with the media to discuss policy and matters of public importance, and not as opportunities to promote their own public image. If the only question that will be asked is what they are doing for the holidays or which team they are rooting for, that time can be better spent. Above all, the President should not pick and choose who gets access by who gives favorable coverage. If a journalist is responsible, is diligent in seeking the truth, and honest in their reporting, then they should be given access.
It can no longer be acceptable to treat responsible journalists as purveyors of bias, or to demand that all sides of an argument be given equal weight regardless of veracity. When the media is treated as the enemy, the quality of reporting will suffer, and irrespective of whether the truth is told, the public will not believe them. A new administration must work with the press; not around them or coercively with them. Just as our government works best when all three branches are at full strength, so too must the fourth estate be allowed to serve its function, so that in all respects the truth may keep us free.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
West Wing Fantasy Camp: Things I'd Like to See under a New Administration - #3
#3: Trump Le Monde
For now, the United States is the richest country in the world. For now, these United States are the most powerful nation in the world. For now, this country is the sole superpower. However, these often criticized and sometimes disputed superlatives aren’t permanent. With the decline of the dollar, the rise of China, and our overall loss of status in the global community, its not long before we are just one of many wealthy and influential nations bucking for advantage in an overcrowded field. How do we stop from being yesterday’s news, the “once was” or “used to be” of foreign affairs?
Prior to World War II, the United States wasn’t the unequaled powerhouse that we have taken for granted it should be. We had a great deal of influence in the world, but much of the world was still run by Old World powers holding sway across multiple continents. Our economy was in depression, and there were still strong political, ethnic, racial, gender, and financial divisions amongst our citizenry. Trade was imbalanced and many in the United States were happy to ignore the rest of the world’s troubles after the toll it had taken during The Great War.
Needless to say, even then the world was shrinking, and the trouble’s of foreign shores were to wash onto ours regardless of our feelings. Though it took convincing, the United States stepped out. Within only a few years, our mediocre military was built into an unrivaled force with hundreds of thousands of airplanes, armadas of warships, and well armed and armored soldiers from every walk of life. While fighting a war on two major fronts, across three continents and the air and sea around them, our country rallied its industries to supply the war effort. When the war ended, not only did our country have greater internal unity and identity, but our nation had been turned from an isolationist one in economic depression to the rich and powerful savior of world democracy.
With post-war Europe in ruins, and much of the world in post-colonial transition, the United States took the lead in International Affairs. We helped to create the United Nations, and the Marshall Plan provided funds to rebuild Europe, funding which was never expected to be repaid. In the ensuing cold war, we provided financial aid around the world to protect allies from the influence of the USSR and destabilizing effects of poverty. For a time, our help was appreciated and helped to reorder the world so much so that even our former enemies Germany and Japan could grow into competitive economic powers.
During the cold war, though, with each passing year a greater percentage of our money was spent on our arsenal of advanced weapons and less was spent in foreign aid, and even that was often given for military defense and to countries that were most important strategically against the Soviets. In the past 40 years, of even the money we’ve promised in foreign aid, we’ve delivered less than 50 percent. As of last year, 2007, the United States gave out 21 billion dollars which is twice as much as the next on the list, Germany; but in terms of a percentage of our Gross National Income, we are well at the bottom of the list of western democracies. As Germany gives 11 billion in foreign aid, that amounts to 3 times as much as us in terms of GNI. Nations such as Norway which have much less money than the United States still give a larger percentage than the United States.
Clearly, its not merely an issue of how much we give, but where our priorities lie. When only .16 percent of the money we have goes to help foreign nations, it demonstrates a disregard for the rest of the world’s problems, which in time will become our problems. Right now, both our military and financial assets are tied up in two major wars, one greatly necessary and the other of both questionable motive and execution. Had we not undertaken the war in Iraq, major combat operations may have been completed in Afghanistan, and our assets would be free to tackle other problems in the world. While our focus has been on these two nations, political unrest has continued in South America and Africa; genocide has been allowed to occur in violation of stated goals of the United Nations; North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and elsewhere nuclear weapons have been allowed to proliferate; and countless people around the world have been exploited by the very nations that wish to usurp our position atop the International hierarchy.
Change is coming, and we are not prepared for it. As we’ve seen, strife elsewhere in the world will reach our shores, and though we cannot always fight our enemies “over there,” we certainly must stem the problems where they arise because they will become our problems later when it is far more costly in resources and lives to fix it. We must increase our diplomatic presence in other nations, specifically in those we think of as hostile. We must develop a foreign policy approach that uses the might of our force to encourage discussion rather than to force our will at the barrel of a gun. Economic resources must be used to help impoverished nations enter the global marketplace without exploiting their own people, and so that all people of the world can be fed and educated to be responsible world citizens. With other powerful nations, we have to coordinate our influence and resources to bring rogue nations to the light to prevent conflict.
This requires a variety of tactics and approaches, but mostly it requires the kind of leadership and goodwill that was evident after World War II. A greater amount of aid must be given to foreign countries, and allocated not just for defense or to countries that serve our own national interest. It is to our advantage that nations not wallow in poverty, because those nations become breeding grounds for extremism. It is to our advantage that nations have the financial resources to improve their infrastructure, because then they will be able to build their own economy and provide us with new markets. It is also to our advantage that developing nations have the wealth to undertake costly improvements such as building rail lines and renewable power plants, because relying on their own coal and oil will lead to greater damage to our own environment.
We need to take charge globally again, and not in the way we have been in the recent past. The United States needs to take the lead on climate change, on human rights, on nuclear disarmament, on democratic and economic reforms, and most certainly on matters of international cooperation. In addition to greater and better-designated financial aid, we also need to work with our allies to provide people on the ground in areas to assist in peacekeeping operations, public works projects, and in election monitoring. Step one of this whole process should be a national effort to increase participation in and funding of the Peace Corps and other organizations that provide targeted assistance outside our borders. Though our image has been tarnished, it is the Americans digging wells and building literal bridges that remind the world that we are the good guys.
For now, the United States is the richest country in the world. For now, these United States are the most powerful nation in the world. For now, this country is the sole superpower. However, these often criticized and sometimes disputed superlatives aren’t permanent. With the decline of the dollar, the rise of China, and our overall loss of status in the global community, its not long before we are just one of many wealthy and influential nations bucking for advantage in an overcrowded field. How do we stop from being yesterday’s news, the “once was” or “used to be” of foreign affairs?
Prior to World War II, the United States wasn’t the unequaled powerhouse that we have taken for granted it should be. We had a great deal of influence in the world, but much of the world was still run by Old World powers holding sway across multiple continents. Our economy was in depression, and there were still strong political, ethnic, racial, gender, and financial divisions amongst our citizenry. Trade was imbalanced and many in the United States were happy to ignore the rest of the world’s troubles after the toll it had taken during The Great War.
Needless to say, even then the world was shrinking, and the trouble’s of foreign shores were to wash onto ours regardless of our feelings. Though it took convincing, the United States stepped out. Within only a few years, our mediocre military was built into an unrivaled force with hundreds of thousands of airplanes, armadas of warships, and well armed and armored soldiers from every walk of life. While fighting a war on two major fronts, across three continents and the air and sea around them, our country rallied its industries to supply the war effort. When the war ended, not only did our country have greater internal unity and identity, but our nation had been turned from an isolationist one in economic depression to the rich and powerful savior of world democracy.
With post-war Europe in ruins, and much of the world in post-colonial transition, the United States took the lead in International Affairs. We helped to create the United Nations, and the Marshall Plan provided funds to rebuild Europe, funding which was never expected to be repaid. In the ensuing cold war, we provided financial aid around the world to protect allies from the influence of the USSR and destabilizing effects of poverty. For a time, our help was appreciated and helped to reorder the world so much so that even our former enemies Germany and Japan could grow into competitive economic powers.
During the cold war, though, with each passing year a greater percentage of our money was spent on our arsenal of advanced weapons and less was spent in foreign aid, and even that was often given for military defense and to countries that were most important strategically against the Soviets. In the past 40 years, of even the money we’ve promised in foreign aid, we’ve delivered less than 50 percent. As of last year, 2007, the United States gave out 21 billion dollars which is twice as much as the next on the list, Germany; but in terms of a percentage of our Gross National Income, we are well at the bottom of the list of western democracies. As Germany gives 11 billion in foreign aid, that amounts to 3 times as much as us in terms of GNI. Nations such as Norway which have much less money than the United States still give a larger percentage than the United States.
Clearly, its not merely an issue of how much we give, but where our priorities lie. When only .16 percent of the money we have goes to help foreign nations, it demonstrates a disregard for the rest of the world’s problems, which in time will become our problems. Right now, both our military and financial assets are tied up in two major wars, one greatly necessary and the other of both questionable motive and execution. Had we not undertaken the war in Iraq, major combat operations may have been completed in Afghanistan, and our assets would be free to tackle other problems in the world. While our focus has been on these two nations, political unrest has continued in South America and Africa; genocide has been allowed to occur in violation of stated goals of the United Nations; North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and elsewhere nuclear weapons have been allowed to proliferate; and countless people around the world have been exploited by the very nations that wish to usurp our position atop the International hierarchy.
Change is coming, and we are not prepared for it. As we’ve seen, strife elsewhere in the world will reach our shores, and though we cannot always fight our enemies “over there,” we certainly must stem the problems where they arise because they will become our problems later when it is far more costly in resources and lives to fix it. We must increase our diplomatic presence in other nations, specifically in those we think of as hostile. We must develop a foreign policy approach that uses the might of our force to encourage discussion rather than to force our will at the barrel of a gun. Economic resources must be used to help impoverished nations enter the global marketplace without exploiting their own people, and so that all people of the world can be fed and educated to be responsible world citizens. With other powerful nations, we have to coordinate our influence and resources to bring rogue nations to the light to prevent conflict.
This requires a variety of tactics and approaches, but mostly it requires the kind of leadership and goodwill that was evident after World War II. A greater amount of aid must be given to foreign countries, and allocated not just for defense or to countries that serve our own national interest. It is to our advantage that nations not wallow in poverty, because those nations become breeding grounds for extremism. It is to our advantage that nations have the financial resources to improve their infrastructure, because then they will be able to build their own economy and provide us with new markets. It is also to our advantage that developing nations have the wealth to undertake costly improvements such as building rail lines and renewable power plants, because relying on their own coal and oil will lead to greater damage to our own environment.
We need to take charge globally again, and not in the way we have been in the recent past. The United States needs to take the lead on climate change, on human rights, on nuclear disarmament, on democratic and economic reforms, and most certainly on matters of international cooperation. In addition to greater and better-designated financial aid, we also need to work with our allies to provide people on the ground in areas to assist in peacekeeping operations, public works projects, and in election monitoring. Step one of this whole process should be a national effort to increase participation in and funding of the Peace Corps and other organizations that provide targeted assistance outside our borders. Though our image has been tarnished, it is the Americans digging wells and building literal bridges that remind the world that we are the good guys.
Friday, July 18, 2008
West Wing Fantasy Camp: Things I'd Like to See under a New Administration - #2
#2: Won’t Get Schooled Again
Education can be the silver bullet. It’s the rising tide that lifts all boats. It’s the “opportunity” proceeding our “land of.” We have made great strides in this country, from an agrarian society with limited and localized education, to a system in which every child is not only able but required to have years of free education, and then the opportunity to go to colleges and universities which are the envy of much of the world. An educated populace is more engaged in elections, is better equipped to find well-paying jobs, is better able to create and develop new technologies and ideas, and less likely to turn to crime or fanaticism.
Yet, with each passing year, our student’s test scores, knowledge, and competitiveness decline. It’s an international punchline how little most Americans know about the rest of the world, or even our own history. Jay Leno makes hay of it on his mediocre talk show as each person laughs at someone who’s, frankly, no dumber than they are. Are American’s inherently dumber?
No, of course not. We are just as smart, just as clever, and even with our educational system in disarray we still spearhead some the greatest innovations in technology, entertainment, and science. The troubling signs of our diminishing returns, though, is all around us. People from around the globe used to flock to the United States to be educated and work in our superior industries.
Now, they flock elsewhere, and the American economy struggles as innovation declines. The best new cars are being designed in Japan, the biggest scientific breakthroughs coming out of Europe, and profitable green technologies being advanced almost anywhere but here. We’ve become a nation of the status quo. Where once we reached for the stars, we now strive to simply pass muster. No matter what it may say on the report cards we write, we are a nation of C students.
Is it any wonder, though? The base education of our populace, the foundation upon which all future character and knowledge is formed, is paid for with a paltry 70 Billion Dollars by the federal government, and then supplemented by local taxes which, in many of the poorest areas amount to very little. Compare this to the 500 Billion Dollars which we spend on defense, which then ends up being much higher when additional appropriations are added throughout the year, especially in this time of war. Of course, it is necessary to defend our freedoms and our country, but what kind of country is being left behind?
Money is not enough, however, to fix this problem. It takes commitment, and a real understanding of what is necessary. Tens of thousands of dollars are being spent per student, but much of that money and much of our classroom time is being mishandled and misappropriated. George W. Bush tried to make a symbolic move on the issue, back when he misleadingly labeled himself the “education President” before labeling himself even more misleadingly a “war Presdient.” The so-called “No Child Left Behind” law placed school districts under increased pressure to achieve on standardized tests or face a loss of already low funds. In return, the Bush administration didn’t even pay to fund the initiative.
So what is necessary? A lot. Firstly, a massive reorganization of the way schools are funded and held accountable. Money needs to go to educational necessities first and foremost, not to new sports equipment or administrator salaries. While sports and extra curricular activities are an important part of education, they shouldn’t get funding priority or Algebra and History. There needs to be greater involvement at the federal level to help insure that schools can collectively pool their resources when possible, and that there is not disparity between the education received in a rich district versus a poor one.
The solution to this last problem offered by the Republican party as been something called “school-vouchers.” Essentially, this would allow some students to receive money from the government to go towards paying for a private education if their public school is lacking. Where would this money come from?
Well, it would come out of the education budget, meaning that these students would be leaving their schools for supposedly greener pastures, and their former classmates would now have less money for their own educations. The problems, of course, are that this system would benefit only a few at the detriment of others; a sick reversal of the American ideal. Also, this assumes that private education is better, and while private schools tend to have smaller class sizes and better order, the education they provide is comparable to public education as far as test results go. Finally, due to the nature of the free market that these same Republicans think can solve all problems, as more students try to attend these private schools, demand for the limited spots will become greater and tuition will rise accordingly, meaning that these vouchers may not cover the costs and, if they do, will cost the government even more money that they will take away from public education.
So, we need to focus on repairing the system, and not on providing an out for only a few students. Another major step that needs to be taken is improvement in education infrastructure. Some schools end up sending children home early when it gets too cold in the winter or warm in the spring, all because they don’t have proper heating and air conditioning. Student projects are hindered by a limited and outdated library, or a lack of computers in the classrooms. Poorly maintained facilities also create an environment in which students feel like school is unimportant, boring, or just another obstacle to be waited through.
Once the buildings are better, they need to be filled with proper educators. Many teachers in our public school system don’t have degrees in the subjects they are teaching, and some teachers who have lost their effectiveness remain in place. The reason for this lowered standard is that there are too few people going into the field, and the reason for that is that educators are paid too little. A person who’s good in math would make more as a financial analyst than as a geometry teacher, so why would they choose the latter? Teaching positions should be highly valued and highly competitive. They should receive the respect of Generals and they pay of Wall Street traders. The best and the brightest should be recruited to pass on that knowledge and skill to the next generation.
In addition, there should be greater opportunity for all people, regardless of income, to further their education beyond high school. Publicly financed colleges and post-graduate schools should be available to those with limited financial means. The impoverished will always remain impoverished when they can’t get jobs that require a college degree without taking on massive loans that they may not be able to repay.
This will take guts, and the strong leadership that only a President can provide for this nation. Someone bold and brave enough to suggest seemingly radical ideas, such as year-round schooling, which would also take the financial burden off of parents who work during the summer and have to pay for child care. Lengthening the school day, so that more subjects can be taught in greater depth, rather than rushed in half-hour installments between gym, lunch, and assemblies. There should also be a greater focus on Socratic teaching methods that encourage students to explore, discuss, and tackle issues on their own rather than simply memorizing dates and facts for a standardized test; facts and dates that will soon be forgotten without any broader understanding.
It's time for a revolution in American education, to make us not only competitive, but the envy of the world. Other countries should look to our system for emulation. With a better educated populace, our industry and economy would again become dominant in this quickly changing global society, and here at home, we wouldn’t have to overcome the constant challenge of a divided political system where the weak and dumb can be tricked into voting for things with easy and comforting lies. If you need proof, look up the number of people who still believe Barack Obama is a muslim despite constant rebuttal, or that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attacks on September 11th despite all evidence to the contrary, or the shocking number of people who still believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old and science is somehow contrary to faith.
Education can be the silver bullet. It’s the rising tide that lifts all boats. It’s the “opportunity” proceeding our “land of.” We have made great strides in this country, from an agrarian society with limited and localized education, to a system in which every child is not only able but required to have years of free education, and then the opportunity to go to colleges and universities which are the envy of much of the world. An educated populace is more engaged in elections, is better equipped to find well-paying jobs, is better able to create and develop new technologies and ideas, and less likely to turn to crime or fanaticism.
Yet, with each passing year, our student’s test scores, knowledge, and competitiveness decline. It’s an international punchline how little most Americans know about the rest of the world, or even our own history. Jay Leno makes hay of it on his mediocre talk show as each person laughs at someone who’s, frankly, no dumber than they are. Are American’s inherently dumber?
No, of course not. We are just as smart, just as clever, and even with our educational system in disarray we still spearhead some the greatest innovations in technology, entertainment, and science. The troubling signs of our diminishing returns, though, is all around us. People from around the globe used to flock to the United States to be educated and work in our superior industries.
Now, they flock elsewhere, and the American economy struggles as innovation declines. The best new cars are being designed in Japan, the biggest scientific breakthroughs coming out of Europe, and profitable green technologies being advanced almost anywhere but here. We’ve become a nation of the status quo. Where once we reached for the stars, we now strive to simply pass muster. No matter what it may say on the report cards we write, we are a nation of C students.
Is it any wonder, though? The base education of our populace, the foundation upon which all future character and knowledge is formed, is paid for with a paltry 70 Billion Dollars by the federal government, and then supplemented by local taxes which, in many of the poorest areas amount to very little. Compare this to the 500 Billion Dollars which we spend on defense, which then ends up being much higher when additional appropriations are added throughout the year, especially in this time of war. Of course, it is necessary to defend our freedoms and our country, but what kind of country is being left behind?
Money is not enough, however, to fix this problem. It takes commitment, and a real understanding of what is necessary. Tens of thousands of dollars are being spent per student, but much of that money and much of our classroom time is being mishandled and misappropriated. George W. Bush tried to make a symbolic move on the issue, back when he misleadingly labeled himself the “education President” before labeling himself even more misleadingly a “war Presdient.” The so-called “No Child Left Behind” law placed school districts under increased pressure to achieve on standardized tests or face a loss of already low funds. In return, the Bush administration didn’t even pay to fund the initiative.
So what is necessary? A lot. Firstly, a massive reorganization of the way schools are funded and held accountable. Money needs to go to educational necessities first and foremost, not to new sports equipment or administrator salaries. While sports and extra curricular activities are an important part of education, they shouldn’t get funding priority or Algebra and History. There needs to be greater involvement at the federal level to help insure that schools can collectively pool their resources when possible, and that there is not disparity between the education received in a rich district versus a poor one.
The solution to this last problem offered by the Republican party as been something called “school-vouchers.” Essentially, this would allow some students to receive money from the government to go towards paying for a private education if their public school is lacking. Where would this money come from?
Well, it would come out of the education budget, meaning that these students would be leaving their schools for supposedly greener pastures, and their former classmates would now have less money for their own educations. The problems, of course, are that this system would benefit only a few at the detriment of others; a sick reversal of the American ideal. Also, this assumes that private education is better, and while private schools tend to have smaller class sizes and better order, the education they provide is comparable to public education as far as test results go. Finally, due to the nature of the free market that these same Republicans think can solve all problems, as more students try to attend these private schools, demand for the limited spots will become greater and tuition will rise accordingly, meaning that these vouchers may not cover the costs and, if they do, will cost the government even more money that they will take away from public education.
So, we need to focus on repairing the system, and not on providing an out for only a few students. Another major step that needs to be taken is improvement in education infrastructure. Some schools end up sending children home early when it gets too cold in the winter or warm in the spring, all because they don’t have proper heating and air conditioning. Student projects are hindered by a limited and outdated library, or a lack of computers in the classrooms. Poorly maintained facilities also create an environment in which students feel like school is unimportant, boring, or just another obstacle to be waited through.
Once the buildings are better, they need to be filled with proper educators. Many teachers in our public school system don’t have degrees in the subjects they are teaching, and some teachers who have lost their effectiveness remain in place. The reason for this lowered standard is that there are too few people going into the field, and the reason for that is that educators are paid too little. A person who’s good in math would make more as a financial analyst than as a geometry teacher, so why would they choose the latter? Teaching positions should be highly valued and highly competitive. They should receive the respect of Generals and they pay of Wall Street traders. The best and the brightest should be recruited to pass on that knowledge and skill to the next generation.
In addition, there should be greater opportunity for all people, regardless of income, to further their education beyond high school. Publicly financed colleges and post-graduate schools should be available to those with limited financial means. The impoverished will always remain impoverished when they can’t get jobs that require a college degree without taking on massive loans that they may not be able to repay.
This will take guts, and the strong leadership that only a President can provide for this nation. Someone bold and brave enough to suggest seemingly radical ideas, such as year-round schooling, which would also take the financial burden off of parents who work during the summer and have to pay for child care. Lengthening the school day, so that more subjects can be taught in greater depth, rather than rushed in half-hour installments between gym, lunch, and assemblies. There should also be a greater focus on Socratic teaching methods that encourage students to explore, discuss, and tackle issues on their own rather than simply memorizing dates and facts for a standardized test; facts and dates that will soon be forgotten without any broader understanding.
It's time for a revolution in American education, to make us not only competitive, but the envy of the world. Other countries should look to our system for emulation. With a better educated populace, our industry and economy would again become dominant in this quickly changing global society, and here at home, we wouldn’t have to overcome the constant challenge of a divided political system where the weak and dumb can be tricked into voting for things with easy and comforting lies. If you need proof, look up the number of people who still believe Barack Obama is a muslim despite constant rebuttal, or that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attacks on September 11th despite all evidence to the contrary, or the shocking number of people who still believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old and science is somehow contrary to faith.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
West Wing Fantasy Camp: Things I'd Like to See under a New Administration - #1
#1 (not in order of priority): Stand by Your American Indian
They crossed the African continent, following game to cooler climes. Their skin lightened and hair straightened to absorb more UV light in the northern hemisphere where it was both colder and less sunny. They walked across Asia, and a land bridge to the Americas, and spread far and wide, winning the distinction of being here first. Native Americans, American Indians, Eskimos, Pacific Islanders… a group composed of many nations, tribes, cultures, ethnicities, having one thing in common: they were here first, and we screwed them over.
This isn’t white man’s guilt, its just fact. Whenever possible, European settlers pushed them aside, made war, spread disease, or simply made deals and treaties with no intention of keeping them. After all that, how much recognition are they given? They are taught about in broad strokes in elementary schools, they are sepia-toned in our films, they are sometimes fetishized or caricatured in our culture, and to what end? Though once numbering in the millions, in total, all of these groups make up less than 2% of our total population, and much of that is so spread out and integrated into the rest of our society, that truly cultural American Indians make up only a few hundred thousand of our 300 million population.
We pushed them west, we traded them trinkets for acres of valuable land, we forced integration upon them, or encouraged our worst traits. Then, finally, when we outnumbered them in population, in land, in weapons, in wealth, we decided… sure, you can be a sovereign nation. So, on the worst land, with few resources, we let them govern what was left of their nations with financial handouts - growing smaller all the time - from Uncle Sam.
What was left to govern? While the United States unemployment rate wavers around 5 or 6 percent in times of sluggish growth, the unemployment rate on reservations tends to be more like 50 or 60 percent. Water is scarce, because most of the natural sources of water are already tapped by the federal government, and electricity or industry of any kind is sparse. This impoverished existence leads to increased rates of alcohol abuse, and by extension crime, and thus, even more hardship. Within a generation or two, many traditions will be lost, and some native languages will disappear.
So, where am I going with this? Consider this: the war in Iraq has, thus far, cost us about 500 billion dollars in deficit spending. Add to that the cost of lost productivity due to so many of our resources being stretched overseas rather than put to use in the United States. On top of that, add the billions of dollars continuing to be spent in Afghanistan, a war that very well could have been wrapped up by now if not for our disastrous diversion to Iraq. Add the lost GDP of the plunging American Economy due to our mishandling both these wars and our interactions with other nations. Think about the destruction we’ve caused and how much we are spending to rebuild countries that we have torn apart.
For a fraction of that cost, we could be rebuilding a country right within our own borders. Every dollar that we give to Halliburton or other private contractors to - slowly - build schools, roads, and power stations in Iraq could be spent with greater efficiency building vital infrastructure on reservations in the United States. Roads, power lines, water pipes, schools, homes and farms… the basics for a people to lift themselves out of poverty when they no longer have to spend all of their time figuring out how to scrape through another day.
It’s not sexy, it’s not bold, it’s not great politics, but it is valuable. The world views Americans as culturally devoid, as people who demolish their history for a bright, new shopping center. I disagree, but I also think that there is something for us to gain in protecting the heritage of our nation, of the people who came before, and the diversity that exists within our borders. Think what could be possible if Reservations could raise money not through casinos but through cultural tourism, unique Universities, or green industries.
We have so many challenges to face, so much work to be done, so many mistakes to overcome in this coming administration. My hope is that amid the chaos of war and the tumultuous economy, that we won’t forget the debts we owe - the responsibilities we still have - to the people that we stepped on, and then stepped over. These aren’t people that need handouts, or pity, or special privilege. What they do need, and what we would benefit from, is real effort and cooperation to help them help themselves. If the sons of former slaves can become billionaires and politicians, then why shouldn’t the people who were here long before most of us be able to have their own sustainable society without becoming ours.
They crossed the African continent, following game to cooler climes. Their skin lightened and hair straightened to absorb more UV light in the northern hemisphere where it was both colder and less sunny. They walked across Asia, and a land bridge to the Americas, and spread far and wide, winning the distinction of being here first. Native Americans, American Indians, Eskimos, Pacific Islanders… a group composed of many nations, tribes, cultures, ethnicities, having one thing in common: they were here first, and we screwed them over.
This isn’t white man’s guilt, its just fact. Whenever possible, European settlers pushed them aside, made war, spread disease, or simply made deals and treaties with no intention of keeping them. After all that, how much recognition are they given? They are taught about in broad strokes in elementary schools, they are sepia-toned in our films, they are sometimes fetishized or caricatured in our culture, and to what end? Though once numbering in the millions, in total, all of these groups make up less than 2% of our total population, and much of that is so spread out and integrated into the rest of our society, that truly cultural American Indians make up only a few hundred thousand of our 300 million population.
We pushed them west, we traded them trinkets for acres of valuable land, we forced integration upon them, or encouraged our worst traits. Then, finally, when we outnumbered them in population, in land, in weapons, in wealth, we decided… sure, you can be a sovereign nation. So, on the worst land, with few resources, we let them govern what was left of their nations with financial handouts - growing smaller all the time - from Uncle Sam.
What was left to govern? While the United States unemployment rate wavers around 5 or 6 percent in times of sluggish growth, the unemployment rate on reservations tends to be more like 50 or 60 percent. Water is scarce, because most of the natural sources of water are already tapped by the federal government, and electricity or industry of any kind is sparse. This impoverished existence leads to increased rates of alcohol abuse, and by extension crime, and thus, even more hardship. Within a generation or two, many traditions will be lost, and some native languages will disappear.
So, where am I going with this? Consider this: the war in Iraq has, thus far, cost us about 500 billion dollars in deficit spending. Add to that the cost of lost productivity due to so many of our resources being stretched overseas rather than put to use in the United States. On top of that, add the billions of dollars continuing to be spent in Afghanistan, a war that very well could have been wrapped up by now if not for our disastrous diversion to Iraq. Add the lost GDP of the plunging American Economy due to our mishandling both these wars and our interactions with other nations. Think about the destruction we’ve caused and how much we are spending to rebuild countries that we have torn apart.
For a fraction of that cost, we could be rebuilding a country right within our own borders. Every dollar that we give to Halliburton or other private contractors to - slowly - build schools, roads, and power stations in Iraq could be spent with greater efficiency building vital infrastructure on reservations in the United States. Roads, power lines, water pipes, schools, homes and farms… the basics for a people to lift themselves out of poverty when they no longer have to spend all of their time figuring out how to scrape through another day.
It’s not sexy, it’s not bold, it’s not great politics, but it is valuable. The world views Americans as culturally devoid, as people who demolish their history for a bright, new shopping center. I disagree, but I also think that there is something for us to gain in protecting the heritage of our nation, of the people who came before, and the diversity that exists within our borders. Think what could be possible if Reservations could raise money not through casinos but through cultural tourism, unique Universities, or green industries.
We have so many challenges to face, so much work to be done, so many mistakes to overcome in this coming administration. My hope is that amid the chaos of war and the tumultuous economy, that we won’t forget the debts we owe - the responsibilities we still have - to the people that we stepped on, and then stepped over. These aren’t people that need handouts, or pity, or special privilege. What they do need, and what we would benefit from, is real effort and cooperation to help them help themselves. If the sons of former slaves can become billionaires and politicians, then why shouldn’t the people who were here long before most of us be able to have their own sustainable society without becoming ours.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Is It Getting Hot in Here?
Friday, Senate Republicans once again demonstrated tremendous foresight by blocking a bill that would have required fairly major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They did so with a filibuster, the very thing that just a few years ago they called a threat to our Democracy because when they were in the majority it was used so effectively to prevent them from doing whatever they wanted. However, the tables have turned and now the filibuster doesn't seem like such a bad thing, so they pulled it out of retirement to delay our already lagging action on global climate change until next year when the Democrats may have an even larger majority and will certainly have a more receptive Executive.
Why, though, does such a large contingent of the Republican Party, and a few Democrats, drag their feet on such an important issue? A simplistic view would be that these restrictions would raise the cost of business for companies that donate money to the campaigns of many Republicans. As satisfying as that might be to think, it is not accurate or at least not complete. This party which often espouses the superiority of the free market is sadly behind the curve here. Many of the largest corporations in the United States are already investing in so-called "green" technologies and strategies, and benefiting from them.
Toyota, a company that at one time was a joke in America next to the behemoth of General Motors, has seen its market share and reputation shoot to the top thanks in large part to their Prius and other hybrid vehicles, while GM and other American companies are falling behind worldwide because their vehicles can't meet the tighter emissions restrictions of foreign countries. At a time when gas prices are doubling, then doubling again, energy efficiency is not merely trendy, it is financially necessary. This week, Chevy announced its official plans to release the Chevy Volt electric vehicle in 2010, just a little over a decade after GM sabotaged its first electric car.
At the recent Wakefern biennial, the keynote speaker addressed the crowd of executives from ShopRite and Wakefern's other properties about the financial benefits of "going green" to great applause. The often attacked giant WalMart lowered its energy costs in some stores with as little investment as adding doors to their refrigerated displays of milk and dairy. New architecture takes greater advantage of natural light where possible and water reclamation to cut costs to the companies occupying those buildings, sometimes by as much as half.
The economic benefits of using less carbon are clear. If you want to look at the big picture, combating global warming will save us future health care costs and increased food prices as more droughts occur. For once, though, social responsibility and selfishness can come together. Using less energy means less carbon into the atmosphere, but it also means less money spent on energy. Creating eco-friendly products can cost more to produce, but the "green" label can justify a premium price which increasingly eco-conscious consumers will pay for. Multi-billion dollar companies have already discovered that doing right by the environment will also increase their profits and cut their overall costs.
So, again, why do many Republicans fight it? The free market is already rewarding companies that cut their carbon emissions voluntarily, and mandatory regulations could create long-term savings for the companies that are more reluctant to undertake such an effort. The problem is that our stock-ticker corporate culture places a premium on the here-and-now; on what the stock price is today and not what it will be in a year. No matter how much it may save later, many companies don't want to spend money now to change the way they do business, especially when a sudden change in economic fortunes could wipe out their market share. It is not enough for them to remain profitable. They want to maximize profits, which includes not spending money on carbon reclamation efforts. With these maximized profits, they have money and influence to throw around in Washington and elsewhere.
Public perception of this issue has already turned, in large part thanks to the efforts of notable celebrities, responsible companies, and Al Gore whose unlikely documentary became a box-office success. The average person, and especially the well-informed, recognize the danger posed by climate change. More to the point, though, people realize that whether or not this is caused by man or poses an immediate danger, that being environmentally responsible has real benefits not just to polar bears and the rainforest, but to us. The estimated 5-year cost for gasoline for a Hummer or similar vehicle is now equal to or greater than the initial cost of the car itself, and that's based at today's gasoline prices which will surely only go up. Farmers who rent out unused land for to energy companies to build wind turbines can get upwards of $20,000 a year in return. Homeowners who place solar panels on their roof can now sell the excess energy they collect but don't use back to the power company. Carbon-based energy becomes more expensive by the day. Renewable energy is a pay-day to anyone willing to take it.
This bill that was prevented from coming to a vote would have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Most international scientists agree that we have to cut our emissions in half by 2050 to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. Had we passed this bill, it would have shown that the United States was a leader on this issue, that we were serious about combating a problem that we are largely responsible for, and it would have made us economically competitive with the rest of the world in new sustainable technologies. Instead, the buck has been passed to another Congress, another term, another election year.
The public wants change. Many companies are already making a change. When legislators block such progress, they cease to be leaders and become mere obstacles. The public is leading, and it's time that the Republican Party catch up.
Why, though, does such a large contingent of the Republican Party, and a few Democrats, drag their feet on such an important issue? A simplistic view would be that these restrictions would raise the cost of business for companies that donate money to the campaigns of many Republicans. As satisfying as that might be to think, it is not accurate or at least not complete. This party which often espouses the superiority of the free market is sadly behind the curve here. Many of the largest corporations in the United States are already investing in so-called "green" technologies and strategies, and benefiting from them.
Toyota, a company that at one time was a joke in America next to the behemoth of General Motors, has seen its market share and reputation shoot to the top thanks in large part to their Prius and other hybrid vehicles, while GM and other American companies are falling behind worldwide because their vehicles can't meet the tighter emissions restrictions of foreign countries. At a time when gas prices are doubling, then doubling again, energy efficiency is not merely trendy, it is financially necessary. This week, Chevy announced its official plans to release the Chevy Volt electric vehicle in 2010, just a little over a decade after GM sabotaged its first electric car.
At the recent Wakefern biennial, the keynote speaker addressed the crowd of executives from ShopRite and Wakefern's other properties about the financial benefits of "going green" to great applause. The often attacked giant WalMart lowered its energy costs in some stores with as little investment as adding doors to their refrigerated displays of milk and dairy. New architecture takes greater advantage of natural light where possible and water reclamation to cut costs to the companies occupying those buildings, sometimes by as much as half.
The economic benefits of using less carbon are clear. If you want to look at the big picture, combating global warming will save us future health care costs and increased food prices as more droughts occur. For once, though, social responsibility and selfishness can come together. Using less energy means less carbon into the atmosphere, but it also means less money spent on energy. Creating eco-friendly products can cost more to produce, but the "green" label can justify a premium price which increasingly eco-conscious consumers will pay for. Multi-billion dollar companies have already discovered that doing right by the environment will also increase their profits and cut their overall costs.
So, again, why do many Republicans fight it? The free market is already rewarding companies that cut their carbon emissions voluntarily, and mandatory regulations could create long-term savings for the companies that are more reluctant to undertake such an effort. The problem is that our stock-ticker corporate culture places a premium on the here-and-now; on what the stock price is today and not what it will be in a year. No matter how much it may save later, many companies don't want to spend money now to change the way they do business, especially when a sudden change in economic fortunes could wipe out their market share. It is not enough for them to remain profitable. They want to maximize profits, which includes not spending money on carbon reclamation efforts. With these maximized profits, they have money and influence to throw around in Washington and elsewhere.
Public perception of this issue has already turned, in large part thanks to the efforts of notable celebrities, responsible companies, and Al Gore whose unlikely documentary became a box-office success. The average person, and especially the well-informed, recognize the danger posed by climate change. More to the point, though, people realize that whether or not this is caused by man or poses an immediate danger, that being environmentally responsible has real benefits not just to polar bears and the rainforest, but to us. The estimated 5-year cost for gasoline for a Hummer or similar vehicle is now equal to or greater than the initial cost of the car itself, and that's based at today's gasoline prices which will surely only go up. Farmers who rent out unused land for to energy companies to build wind turbines can get upwards of $20,000 a year in return. Homeowners who place solar panels on their roof can now sell the excess energy they collect but don't use back to the power company. Carbon-based energy becomes more expensive by the day. Renewable energy is a pay-day to anyone willing to take it.
This bill that was prevented from coming to a vote would have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Most international scientists agree that we have to cut our emissions in half by 2050 to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. Had we passed this bill, it would have shown that the United States was a leader on this issue, that we were serious about combating a problem that we are largely responsible for, and it would have made us economically competitive with the rest of the world in new sustainable technologies. Instead, the buck has been passed to another Congress, another term, another election year.
The public wants change. Many companies are already making a change. When legislators block such progress, they cease to be leaders and become mere obstacles. The public is leading, and it's time that the Republican Party catch up.
The Feminist Dilemma
Certainly it was about time. This year marked the first time that a female politician had been a serious challenger for the Presidency of the United States. Certainly, other women had run in the past with varying degrees of success. In the case of Hillary Clinton, however, there was not merely strong support for her candidacy, but for a time it was considered a foregone conclusion that she would be the Democratic candidate and very likely would be elected. It was a momentous event, a triumph of progressive values, and, many would say, about time.
For all of the United States' reputation as a land of opportunity, long established but oft-embellished, we were late to this party. Many other Democracies around the world have already elected women to the highest offices in the land, including roughly a dozen presently serving in such posts, and there have historically been many successful female sovereigns. What took us so long?
There have been many hindrances to the advancement of women politically, from the historical to the religious to the biological. Slowly but surely, however, women have made greater advancements socially than politically. There was a time when women were thought not to have the constitution to lead, at least not outside the home or over men. Time and time again, though, women demonstrated that not only could they take charge but that they did so quite successfully. Presidents and Kings were aided by wives who often showed greater sense than they, and while some men went to war or to find their fortune, women handled everything from the education of children to running the finances of family businesses. Long before they had the right to vote, women were an active part of the political process and often essential in helping men to be elected.
While the men made themselves kings, women made inroads everywhere. Finding employment, gaining position in social organizations, building communities. Despite lingering inequities, women make up the majority of students at many Universities, they are CEOs of companies, and are Senators and Governors. Still, though, despite all evidence to the contrary, many people of both genders thought that the idea of a woman as President was nice but unsound.
Yet, when Hillary Clinton first campaigned for a seat in the United States Senate, people spoke about it being a first step towards a Presidential run with hardly a consideration of her gender. People spoke about her qualifications, her drive, her political machinations, but not her gender. She was berated for being too liberal by pundits and being too calculating by liberals, but by and large the talk was not about whether a woman should be President. It was an inevitability that had not merely come but was, in fact, overdue.
Had it been any other year and any other slate of candidates, it would have been a done deal. Frustration with the political establishment, specifically the Republican party and the Bush administration, however had left the populace not merely hungry but desperate for change. This was a year where people were willing to reach far to the other end of the spectrum for something new, something drastic, and that would have been a great time for a woman running for President, but this time another political underclass was being represented. No argument can be made about who's more oppressed or more deserving culturally, but as the son of a black father, Barack Obama was also a milestone candidate. Add to that his eloquence, ability to build a grassroots organization from the ground up, and the fact that he was not considered part of the "establishment" like a Clinton would be, and suddenly her forgone conclusion was a jumping of the gun.
It would be cynical to think that people based their primary votes entirely on her gender and his race, but all other things being equal, it was certainly a factor for everyone including African-Americans and women. That being said, no one thought that their candidate should be chosen because it was time that we had either a black or female president. However, as the campaigns waged and waned, and as the optimism of the spirited debate turned to the diatribes of punditry, the idea of "sexism" came into the conversation.
Racism and sexism both still exist in our society, arguably in a more subtle way that we are often not conscious of, but in this race a vote for one candidate came to symbolize a rejection of either women or black people. With the tide turning against her, Hillary Clinton often commented that the attacks against her by the media or by other politicians were sexist. While this was certainly sometimes true, it demonstrated a certain unintended consequence. Mud is always slung in Presidential races, especially by 24 hour news channels looking to fill time, but since all of the candidates tended to be men, there could be no bias of gender. With Hillary, a conundrum existed; to treat her harshly could be sexist, to treat her more lightly would also be.
Feminism is rooted in the idea that women should be empowered, with the idea that as the equals of men they should not be ashamed to act it. Hillary certainly fit this ideal, and always acted the equal of men. While some of the barbs thrown at her might have contained language against her gender, the question remains of whether it was unequal to the kind of assaults launched at male candidates. More importantly, though, by saying that she was losing because some voters are sexist is, in itself, sexist. In essence, she is saying that her gender is her defining characteristic, so a rejection of her as a candidate must be a rejection of her gender as a candidate.
All, however, is semantic. Even Hillary Clinton knows that her success or victory cannot fall squarely on whether Americans remain more sexist or more racist. This election has demonstrated that a tipping point has been reached where inequality is not the guaranteed state of affairs. Though it may often occur, black people and women are not necessarily always discriminated against, and in fact may be treated equally in the majority of cases. As such, proclamations that it's time a woman be President then become sexist, because it assumes that gender is more important in the decision than character. Many Clinton supporters have lamented that they won't be witness to the first woman in the Presidency, but it betrays that feminist ideal of true equality to think that a woman in the office should be rated differently than a man. Though it may in fact be a milestone, the truly feminist argument would be that the best candidate should win, regardless of gender, so that therefore it shouldn't matter whether the President-to-be should be a man or a woman. To treat it as a special event, or one that should be fought for above alternatives because the candidate is a woman, disregards that ideal in favor of symbolism.
Hillary Clinton's political career is certainly not over, and she very well may one day be in this position again, and make it to the White House. Hopefully, in that time, the focus will not be on whether she is the best woman to be the first female President, but whether she is the best candidate to be Commander-in-Chief.
For all of the United States' reputation as a land of opportunity, long established but oft-embellished, we were late to this party. Many other Democracies around the world have already elected women to the highest offices in the land, including roughly a dozen presently serving in such posts, and there have historically been many successful female sovereigns. What took us so long?
There have been many hindrances to the advancement of women politically, from the historical to the religious to the biological. Slowly but surely, however, women have made greater advancements socially than politically. There was a time when women were thought not to have the constitution to lead, at least not outside the home or over men. Time and time again, though, women demonstrated that not only could they take charge but that they did so quite successfully. Presidents and Kings were aided by wives who often showed greater sense than they, and while some men went to war or to find their fortune, women handled everything from the education of children to running the finances of family businesses. Long before they had the right to vote, women were an active part of the political process and often essential in helping men to be elected.
While the men made themselves kings, women made inroads everywhere. Finding employment, gaining position in social organizations, building communities. Despite lingering inequities, women make up the majority of students at many Universities, they are CEOs of companies, and are Senators and Governors. Still, though, despite all evidence to the contrary, many people of both genders thought that the idea of a woman as President was nice but unsound.
Yet, when Hillary Clinton first campaigned for a seat in the United States Senate, people spoke about it being a first step towards a Presidential run with hardly a consideration of her gender. People spoke about her qualifications, her drive, her political machinations, but not her gender. She was berated for being too liberal by pundits and being too calculating by liberals, but by and large the talk was not about whether a woman should be President. It was an inevitability that had not merely come but was, in fact, overdue.
Had it been any other year and any other slate of candidates, it would have been a done deal. Frustration with the political establishment, specifically the Republican party and the Bush administration, however had left the populace not merely hungry but desperate for change. This was a year where people were willing to reach far to the other end of the spectrum for something new, something drastic, and that would have been a great time for a woman running for President, but this time another political underclass was being represented. No argument can be made about who's more oppressed or more deserving culturally, but as the son of a black father, Barack Obama was also a milestone candidate. Add to that his eloquence, ability to build a grassroots organization from the ground up, and the fact that he was not considered part of the "establishment" like a Clinton would be, and suddenly her forgone conclusion was a jumping of the gun.
It would be cynical to think that people based their primary votes entirely on her gender and his race, but all other things being equal, it was certainly a factor for everyone including African-Americans and women. That being said, no one thought that their candidate should be chosen because it was time that we had either a black or female president. However, as the campaigns waged and waned, and as the optimism of the spirited debate turned to the diatribes of punditry, the idea of "sexism" came into the conversation.
Racism and sexism both still exist in our society, arguably in a more subtle way that we are often not conscious of, but in this race a vote for one candidate came to symbolize a rejection of either women or black people. With the tide turning against her, Hillary Clinton often commented that the attacks against her by the media or by other politicians were sexist. While this was certainly sometimes true, it demonstrated a certain unintended consequence. Mud is always slung in Presidential races, especially by 24 hour news channels looking to fill time, but since all of the candidates tended to be men, there could be no bias of gender. With Hillary, a conundrum existed; to treat her harshly could be sexist, to treat her more lightly would also be.
Feminism is rooted in the idea that women should be empowered, with the idea that as the equals of men they should not be ashamed to act it. Hillary certainly fit this ideal, and always acted the equal of men. While some of the barbs thrown at her might have contained language against her gender, the question remains of whether it was unequal to the kind of assaults launched at male candidates. More importantly, though, by saying that she was losing because some voters are sexist is, in itself, sexist. In essence, she is saying that her gender is her defining characteristic, so a rejection of her as a candidate must be a rejection of her gender as a candidate.
All, however, is semantic. Even Hillary Clinton knows that her success or victory cannot fall squarely on whether Americans remain more sexist or more racist. This election has demonstrated that a tipping point has been reached where inequality is not the guaranteed state of affairs. Though it may often occur, black people and women are not necessarily always discriminated against, and in fact may be treated equally in the majority of cases. As such, proclamations that it's time a woman be President then become sexist, because it assumes that gender is more important in the decision than character. Many Clinton supporters have lamented that they won't be witness to the first woman in the Presidency, but it betrays that feminist ideal of true equality to think that a woman in the office should be rated differently than a man. Though it may in fact be a milestone, the truly feminist argument would be that the best candidate should win, regardless of gender, so that therefore it shouldn't matter whether the President-to-be should be a man or a woman. To treat it as a special event, or one that should be fought for above alternatives because the candidate is a woman, disregards that ideal in favor of symbolism.
Hillary Clinton's political career is certainly not over, and she very well may one day be in this position again, and make it to the White House. Hopefully, in that time, the focus will not be on whether she is the best woman to be the first female President, but whether she is the best candidate to be Commander-in-Chief.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Life is Weird, etc, etc.
Despite being a reasonable person, I still am often optimistic beyond reasonable expectations, which probably explains why I thought that John Kerry would win in the last Presidential election. "Certainly," I said, "President Bush's remarkably low approval rating will encourage voters to pick the other guy." "And of course," I continued, "all of those kids who go to those war protests and write angry blogs will be motivated and turn out record numbers of young people to vote for John Kerry." "And really," I concluded, "you couldn't possibly vote for a silver-spoon duty-dodger over a thrice-medaled war veteran and honest-to-god hero!"
Of course, on all of those counts, I was wrong. I didn't take into account the fact that while people love to complain, very few people ever do anything about it. I also negelected to imagine the sheer number of wild smear campaigns that Bush supporters would enact against John Kerry, most notably the swift-boat bs, nor did I realize how many people would fall for something so stupid and factually inaccurate. And I didn't take into account the voter fraud and irregularities that would occur in swing states like Ohio. Oh, and I nearly forgot, people care more about abortions and gay marriage - which the Republicans love to talk about but never want to act on for fear of losing the issue and because the majority of Americans are on the other side of those issues - than about the safety of our country or the health of our economy for the common person.
It is this same unthinking optimism that has me believing that not only can Barack Obama beat a Clinton - second only to the Bush's as far as modern political dynasties go - but that an African-American son of an immigrant and product of an inter-racial marriage who spent much of his youth outside of the continental United States and has an unusual name that reminds people of villians...will become our next President. It makes perfect sense to me that he will win. Why wouldn't he? He's on the right side of all the issues. He has integrity. He's honest. He inspires with his words and impresses with his dignity. He appeals to our better angels and not our basest fears. Not to mention, he's just plain cool. You'll never catch him doing a tap dance on the steps of the White House like George Bush, or doing some terrible Sopranos spoof like Hillary Clinton. Why wouldn't people vote for him?
Of course, if I can tap into future Chris' consciousness...for the same reasons they never vote for the good guy. Because, in this coming year, and starting already, people will convince them of things that aren't true simply by saying them. Fox News says he went to a Muslim school. It doesn't matter that within a half-hour every news source in the world, Fox News included, debunked that story. People heard it, and they only remember the first part, not the retraction. The majority of voters in the south believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Why? I don't even think there was ever a news story claiming it was true, not even from Fox Noise (thanks, Keith). But they heard he's got a funny name and collectively all decided he was probably a Muslim. Not that it should matter, either, but it's ridiculous since the same people who won't vote for him because they think he's a Muslim are the ones that would vote exclusively for him for being a devout Christian, which he is.
And I'm sure that come election time there will be rumors and allegations of shady business dealings or marital indescretions or secret drug problems, none of which will be true, and no one will remember that the same rumors dogged George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and that it didn't stop them from voting for those guys.
So, I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic that the right man, at the right time, for the right reasons will be elected President. I'm optimistic that it will mean something to our spirit here in America and will repair our reputation worldwide. I'm optimistic that the environment will get safer and the air cleaner. I'm optimistic that good shows will be renewed and that, eventually, people will stop watching that crazy lie-detector show. I'm optimistic that I'll be appreciated and that jerks will suffer.
But hey, who knows.
Of course, on all of those counts, I was wrong. I didn't take into account the fact that while people love to complain, very few people ever do anything about it. I also negelected to imagine the sheer number of wild smear campaigns that Bush supporters would enact against John Kerry, most notably the swift-boat bs, nor did I realize how many people would fall for something so stupid and factually inaccurate. And I didn't take into account the voter fraud and irregularities that would occur in swing states like Ohio. Oh, and I nearly forgot, people care more about abortions and gay marriage - which the Republicans love to talk about but never want to act on for fear of losing the issue and because the majority of Americans are on the other side of those issues - than about the safety of our country or the health of our economy for the common person.
It is this same unthinking optimism that has me believing that not only can Barack Obama beat a Clinton - second only to the Bush's as far as modern political dynasties go - but that an African-American son of an immigrant and product of an inter-racial marriage who spent much of his youth outside of the continental United States and has an unusual name that reminds people of villians...will become our next President. It makes perfect sense to me that he will win. Why wouldn't he? He's on the right side of all the issues. He has integrity. He's honest. He inspires with his words and impresses with his dignity. He appeals to our better angels and not our basest fears. Not to mention, he's just plain cool. You'll never catch him doing a tap dance on the steps of the White House like George Bush, or doing some terrible Sopranos spoof like Hillary Clinton. Why wouldn't people vote for him?
Of course, if I can tap into future Chris' consciousness...for the same reasons they never vote for the good guy. Because, in this coming year, and starting already, people will convince them of things that aren't true simply by saying them. Fox News says he went to a Muslim school. It doesn't matter that within a half-hour every news source in the world, Fox News included, debunked that story. People heard it, and they only remember the first part, not the retraction. The majority of voters in the south believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Why? I don't even think there was ever a news story claiming it was true, not even from Fox Noise (thanks, Keith). But they heard he's got a funny name and collectively all decided he was probably a Muslim. Not that it should matter, either, but it's ridiculous since the same people who won't vote for him because they think he's a Muslim are the ones that would vote exclusively for him for being a devout Christian, which he is.
And I'm sure that come election time there will be rumors and allegations of shady business dealings or marital indescretions or secret drug problems, none of which will be true, and no one will remember that the same rumors dogged George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and that it didn't stop them from voting for those guys.
So, I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic that the right man, at the right time, for the right reasons will be elected President. I'm optimistic that it will mean something to our spirit here in America and will repair our reputation worldwide. I'm optimistic that the environment will get safer and the air cleaner. I'm optimistic that good shows will be renewed and that, eventually, people will stop watching that crazy lie-detector show. I'm optimistic that I'll be appreciated and that jerks will suffer.
But hey, who knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
