Politics

Why the Blind Support?

by

Palestinian RubbleI have to admit that I don’t understand. I haven’t understood for a long time.

Why… why does the US always blindly support Israel no matter what it does?

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not suggesting that the actions of Hamas and the Palestinians have been any great representation of moral superiority… far from it… but Israel certainly is no better. I’ve heard people say that Israel is just protecting itself from Palestinian aggression, but the same has been said of the Palestinians (who certainly seem to have body count on their side of the argument).

Palestinians seem to have a reprehensible tendency to employ suicide bombings and somewhat random missile attacks (for which I’ll blame Hamas) which tend to predominantly kill and injure Israeli civilians. Israel tends to employ more targeted all-out military actions that kill dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians (including some civilians) and destroy buildings and homes with wanton abandon.

I cannot see how either antagonist in this conflict can, in good conscience, be supported, yet the United States continually and unequivocally sides with Israel. Yes, some officials call for bilateral cease fires and there are numerous impotent “peace plans” suggested and implemented, but all of them start from the assumption that Israel is the victim and deserves our unquestioning and unwavering support.

I fully admit that I am not as well versed in history as I could be in this matter, however I’ve been paying attention to the situation for some years now and I find both sides to be despicable. The history that I do know tells me that this entire situation is a petty religious conflict that has little to no possible chance of being resolved peacefully. Nor does it have a chance of being resolved militarily.

So why the support for Israel? Is it political fear of being painted as an anti-semite? Is it some sense of misplaced duty to uphold a 1947 United Nations resolution? Is it the lack of other allies in the region? Is it some ancient Biblical text promising the land to the Jews? I just don’t get it.

I’ve seen, read, and heard nothing that would justify the blind support of a country whose actions are just as disgraceful as those of their enemy.

So NOW what?

by

I watched Obama’s acceptance speech this morning and as he walked out onto the platform in front of 125,000 supporters in Chicago’s Grant Park, I joked with a co-worker that he’s walking out there thinking, “Wow… I won! OMG NOW WHAT?!?”

I doubt if he was actually thinking that, but that joke and an interview question that my niece asked me yesterday for her school project started my speculation. Now that Barack Obama won the election and will be President of the United States of America come January, what will happen?

My niece’s question was “What do you think will happen if Barack Obama becomes President?” My answer? “I think our standing in the international community would increase dramatically over the first few years.” That was all. She asked the same question about McCain. My answer was, “Nothing.”

I didn’t mean it as a negative against McCain. I don’t think any Presidential candidate can fulfill all the promises and plans made on the campaign trail. He may sincerely want to fulfill them, but when it comes right down to it, the President isn’t the “do’er.” He (or she) has influence (some more than others, obviously) and can help drive things in a certain direction, but it’s Congress who actually “does stuff” when it comes to domestic issues. The President can propose and he can shoot down.

However, the “Commander in Chief” controls the military and controls foreign policy (more or less). I believe that Obama will represent the United States positively to the rest of the world and based on world polls, the world believes that, too. That, in and of itself, will do more for national security than any amount of border control or military action or aggressive posturing, especially in the long run. Representing the United States with strong, positive leadership tempered with humility and a willingness to listen to others’ viewpoints will repair this country’s relationships and make it stronger and safer. I believe Obama can do that.

I’m not as sure about the heavily Democratic Congress, however, when it comes to domestic policy. I hope that Obama can bring any wildly left-wing proposals into the middle, but only time will tell. Up to this point, the gap between political parties has been fairly wide and the gap has gotten increasingly larger in the past 8 years, so hoping for a spontaneous “meet in the middle” would be somewhat naive. I do hope for a nudge in that direction, however… enough to get the ball rolling toward the middle area where it belongs. If Obama can get that to happen, I’d put a pretty big check mark in his “Success” column.

Mix it up.

by

I really would like Obama to win the presidency. If that happens, what I would also like is for Republicans to control at least one of the houses of Congress. Having the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives all controlled by the same party, either Democrat or Republican, is a bad thing, in my opinion. We should never have another “rubber stamp” Congress the way we did for the first six years of Bush’s term (on either side of the fence) since it tends to nullify the system of checks and balances that the Constitution lays out.

An even better solution would be to eliminate the party system altogether, but that’s not going to happen… and is perhaps a topic for another post.

You’ve got to be kidding me.

by

I just watched a video on Fox News of a Sean Hannity interview with McCain and Palin. It had its share of the usual claims that you would expect from either party’s candidate during a campaign, so that was no surprise and was expected. Both McCain and Obama regularly make claims about the other that are misleading (and sometimes blatantly untrue).

What really struck me in this interview, though, was McCain’s statement that Palin is “probably one of the foremost experts in this nation on energy issues.” He backed that up by saying that she was responsible for a 40 billion dollar pipeline bringing natural gas from Alaska and that she’s been on a board that oversees natural gas, oil, and other Alaskan resources. He says, “There’s nobody more qualified to take on our mission of becoming energy independence.” That’s not a typo. That was the quote.

I was dumbfounded by the claim that Palin is one of the foremost experts in this nation on energy issues. …Because she was the governor of Alaska? I suppose if you consider “energy” to be only oil and natural gas, that claim might not be quite so outrageous, but it’s still pretty far out there.

The 40 billion dollar pipeline claim is partially true, but misleading. She was partly responsible for moving the project closer to realization, but construction has not been started and the project isn’t a done deal yet. TransCanada, who is to be the builder, estimates that it will take 10 years to complete and will cost about 26.5 billion dollars, not 40 billion.

Either way, claiming that, because she’s been governor of Alaska, Palin is one of the leading experts in the country on energy is like saying that I have foreign policy experience because I can see Russia from my back yard.

Oh, wait…

Sam Harris on Sarah Palin and Elitism

by

In an editorial by Sam Harris, this passage really struck me.

Ask yourself: how has “elitism” become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn’t seem too intelligent or well educated.

The rest of the editorial expressed similarly thought-provoking views, but this one specifically caught my attention because the whole idea of “anti-intellectualism” has been on my mind lately, especially with regard to religion and politics.

Here’s the link to the entire editorial: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/

Boy, can she handle a gun!

by

Yesterday my wife stopped by the barbershop and, while she was in the chair getting her hair cut, an older man walks in and starts a political monologue while he’s waiting. I’ll be nice and just say he was a “conservative,” but his most memorable comment was…

How ’bout that Sarah Palin! Boy can she handle a gun!

Now I didn’t hear the comment myself, but my wife’s interpretation was that, in context with the other things he was saying, he was indicating that this was a strong point in her Vice Presidential qualifications. I can’t say I was shocked, but I was saddened (and amused, but in a mocking sort of way).

Upon telling that humorous/saddening story to a friend, he made a counter comment which I found hilarious because it mocked the guy at the barbershop AND the current Vice President.

It’d be nice to have a VP who could put her boobs in your face as opposed to a load of buckshot like our current one.

Oh my god.