Powered by Gregarious (42)
I had the best intentions, prior to the election to write a series of articles about some topics of importance to me, not the least of which was to be a follow-up to my McCain post about why I like Obama so much. Considering the internet's current position as my life's red-headed stepchild, those posts didn't get written. Ah well.
(Also, you may note, I have taken a page from Brian's recent posts, and reinstated the CAPITAL LETTER into my bipolar repertoire.)
So, in light of the fact that the election has already happened, and I now have the President-elect I actually wanted for a change… I thought I'd take a moment to discuss my opinions of the various election results.
(warning: as usual, "a moment" became more like "an hour", be forewarned)
1. President-elect Obama
Well, aside from the fact that this is absolutely hair-tinglingly fantastic, the election of Barack Obama has, in some measure, restored my faith in the people of this nation. Regardless of the historical significance of electing a black man to the nation's highest office (a great thing, to be sure), I saw this election as being about something above and beyond race, it was more about an acknowledgement that the last eight years' fiscal and social policies have, to a large extent, failed. It was about the people finally recognizing that we can only pull ourselves out of this mess, by pulling all of us out of it, together. The President-elect has been a consistent voice of hope and inspiration, a welcome change from past election cycles, where the public discourse, when not dominated by infantile personal attacks and questions of character, couldn't break away from a message of fear and disillusionment. Not so this time. The President-elect was able to maintain his clear message, and speak above the ignorant masses who desperately attempted to demean him by spreading blatant falsehoods.
But I digress… the election of Barack Obama would seem to be indicative of a major shift from the politics of isolationism and moral superiority to one of national unity and moral inclusionism. As I say, would seem to be…
2. Ballot Measures
As with previous elections, there were a few states voting on special ballot measures on topics including women's rights and marriage equality.
In light of the Presidential election results, it is somewhat surprising to see the across-the-board victory of morally repugnant anti-marriage laws. It seems almost unconscionable to me, that an individual or group, in this day and age, would deign to claim a right for themselves that they would deny to other people… Have we not learned from our past mistakes? Other, more eloquent people have spoken recently about the issue of gay marriage, and I fully intend to more deeply explore my reasoning for supporting it at a later time. So, at this point, I'll just say that I am incredibly disheartened that, in this time of unity, understanding, and inclusiveness, that we would do such harm.
It was somewhat enlightening to me, however, to see the results of some of the ballot measures intended to increase restrictions on abortions. Surprisingly, to me (since a significant portion of my family is firmly in the "pro-life" camp), these measures were soundly defeated. I wouldn't say I'm surprised thatthey were defeated, but at the depth of the defeat–there was a measure to amend the constitution in Colorado to define a "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization," which was defeated resoundingly at 73% against. That is a staggering defeat of what I see as the most critical point of contention between the pro-choice/pro-life groups. Again, I'm not going to get into my personal feelings about this debate here now.
Somewhat related however, and disheartening in its own way, was the passage of a measure prohibiting adoption by unmarried "sexual partners." While the ballot language apparently specified both same and opposite sex couples, at least CNN lists the measure as a "Ban on Gay Couples adopting children." The reason this irks me to the extent it does is not precisely because "unmarried couples" can't adopt, but because of those–religious and "pro-life" groups–who I'm sure were behind and rooting for this piece of legislation. It just strikes me as… I don't know… frankly mean as well as counter-productive. I mean, you have a group who says, "I'm sorry, but you can't get married because… well, because I say you can't… and because I say you can't get married, well, now you also can't have children. So… nyah, to you." I mean, really? Then, of course, you turn that coin over, and it's the pro-lifers who are saying "Abortion is bad because it's killing kids needlessly… there are alternatives like adoption to consider here! Oh… well, not for YOU people." Like saying there are all these loving families just waiting for children, lined up around the block, and you're now saying an entire segment of the population will not be allowed to bolster your argument just on principle. It's just stupid, and a big part of the reason why I can't align myself with religion as a social organism. But again, another post for another day.
Lastly, it was interesting to see, among the above mixture, some positive votes for, of all things, SCIENCE! In this age of Jenny McCarthyism, measures were passed to allow the use of medical marijuana, and to allow stem cell research (though that last one was apparently a state constitutional amendment, which seems bizarre to me…). So… yay science!
3. Senate and Super-Majority
The day after the election, I pretty simply thought that the populace of Alaska must be under some form of mind-control… to think that senator (and convicted felon) Ted Stevens was actually leading in votes was absolutely incredible to me. Thankfully, as the vote counting has continued, his opponent has taken the lead, and looks likely to be victorious.
I know very little about Al Franken's opponent (the incumbent Senator) in Minnesota, but I do like Al Franken.
With three Senate seats still up for grabs, it's not impossible that the Democrats could pull off a super-majority. I've had a few conversations with friends about the possibility, and basically I see it as a potentially good thing, though also potentially disastrous. For one thing, I think the legislative branch has been stymied for too long with partisan bickering just for the sake of being oppositional. Yes, the Rethuglicans and the Demobrats have genuine differences on some important points of policy, but I think the partisanship in the last 10 to 12 years has been disgustingly beyond the bounds of governmental propriety. The partisan divide has led to bills laden with pork, with incentives and honey pots to get fence-sitters to vote, and with poison pills to get others not to vote. Some good bills have been lost, and many bad ones have been passed, in the name of getting "something" accomplished, and in the interest of saving face. So, if a super-majority can lead to some cleaner un-encrusted legislation getting passed quickly, perhaps it's a good thing. Perhaps it will force legislators to work together to actually write good law, instead of just being obstinate.
That said, a super-majority could also be fraught with peril. The Democrats could run roughshod over the government, pass many questionable–even potentially dangerous and de-stabilizing–bills, and set themselves up as a national menace. They could, at the least, sully the good-will the party currently enjoys nationally, and set themselves up for big losses in the next election cycle.
Fortunately, I think congress will happily follow the lead of the President-elect, and that the President-elect will confidently and intelligently guide them to create good and appropriate legislation to achieve the goals he's set, and put our country back on the right path. So, though I think the manifestation of a super-majority unlikely, and while I recognize the potential pitfalls, I also think it might be a good thing.
The bottom line…
All this leads to the fact that the Democratic party, and liberals and progressives in general, are in the place they've been hoping, wishing, and praying for since Al Gore's loss in 2000. They finally have control, almost exclusively, to push through some far-reaching progressive legislation–to set this country right; to help this nation become a better, more inclusive union; to help stabilize, guide, and enlighten the world; and to set us on a clear path to the 22nd century.
Can they do it? Yes, they can.
But only with our help, and guidance.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Javan said:
All I can say is that it is very sad that you place more trust in the minions of a psychotic dictator than the President of our own great country. Believe me, these people do not care about you any more than they care about their own people.
Saddam is posing a threat to other nations. Sabri practically admitted to terrorist support in this statement: "This policy has brought about disasters to the U.S.". What do you honestly think he is talking about? This Bush administration has brought about no immediate disaster to our country and is doing its best to protect us from any further harm.
Why should Bush step down? He has done nothing to embarrass himself. Don't even suggest impeachment. Somehow I have a feeling you stood up for an immoral Clinton through his impeachment trial (though I do not know that, but going by your political position…) and that you would not stand up for this honorable man who has done nothing.
I admit that there are other countries out there that probably have the same kind of problems as Iraq. But we can't rid the world of all it's evil all at once!
brian. said:
javan, i'm gonna keep this short and sweet:
the main reason bush should step down is this: he didn't fucking win the election. through a series of dubious counts and recounts, ballot doctoring, and a cointoss by the supreme court, he suckered his way into that post. as your brother can attest, i didn't vote for him and i have absolutely nothing positive to say about him or his "foreign policy."
m@ said:
two things:
1) it is *not* our place to "rid the world of … evil…". at best, it is the world community's place to do so. still, and as i told my gf tonight, there are so many moral ambiguities and implications that i *cannot* say for sure whether this war is warranted or not. i cannot say whether the ends (war) justify the means (disarmament and deconstruction of a very real threat to many lives). but this is beside the point. i'm not here to argue about the many things we and they have done to warrant our and their actions, beliefs, and feelings. just remember that *all* coins have *two* sides.
2) i do *not* trust Bush. not as far as i could throw him. i do not trust his cabinet or our government. and Clinton, while perhaps not a "moral" man, was an *intelligent* man, and he and his cabinet had what was a least a generally rational foreign policy. Clinton at least kept our allies on our side, which is something that Bush has repeatedly proved incapable of doing.
my greatest fear is that, after this is over, Bush won't know when to quit. sometimes action must be taken, sometimes it is the only recourse, but i'm afraid that Bush doesn't understand that it should be a last resort–that he'll continue to pursue our "enemies" in like manner, and that the entire world community (at least what's left that we haven't "liberated") will turn against us.
my greatest hope is that, now that war is inevitable (Bush obviously will not be deterred, so it becomes a moot point to argue), that action will be swift and precise, and that "collateral damage" will be kept (as they're promising) to a minimum, that we'll succeed in deposing Sadam, that we'll successfully establish a free Iraqi society, that WMD will be found (to at least save face for us in front of the world community), and that things will stop there. do it, finish it, let it go.
the threat of terrorism still needs to be addressed (does anyone remember bin Laden?), but through means other than conquering other countries.
m@ said:
ok. so that was kind of three or four things, but still.
brian. said:
amen, brother.
Javan said:
I am glad you think a man who "smoked marijuana but did not inhale" is an intelligent person. very intelligent.
And if Bush did not win the election, who did? And don't anyone forget, Gore was the one who instigated the recounts and probably doctored more ballots than Bush, so he is definately the "Sore Loser-man". Therefore, Bush DID win the election.
I do trust Bush. You see, he is not a radical on either side like some people. This means that he will keep open his eyes to all sides, and listen to everyone, unlike some people.
War is imminent. All we can do is pray for the fewest casualties as possible.
I look forward to a more peaceful world.
anonymous said:
Javan. STOP.
I'm getting tired of reading this bullshit. You're a cool kid, but you don't know what you're talking about.
brian. said:
I like how war is your idea of a peaceful world.
anyhowways, you want to point fingers at Clinton being a pothead? Bush is a cokehead alcoholic.
some sources for you to peruse:
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
now, seriously, i'd shut the fuck up about Clinton and his pot.
Javan said:
I am finsihed with this side of the blog. I am no longer wanted here, you will not listen to my opinions, I am wiser than you think.
m@ said:
well, i had this really long response for you, but decided against it.
suffice it to say, it's not that you're not wanted, and it's not that we're attacking you personally.
if you throw a piece of meat in the middle of a pack of dogs, they *will* tear it apart. if you come into the midst of this pack of liberals you should expect some response. if you throw out the bait, don't be surprised when there's a hit on the line.
m@ said:
now, to respond to your points.
yes, it would have been better if Clinton had just said "yes. i smoked marijuana once or twice." but still, at least he could make an unprepared speech without making up new words, misusing common ones, and generally making a fool of himself verbally.
as for the election, the whole thing was questionable. the final fight came down to a state where GW's brother was the governor and the Sec. Gen. was another Bush-ite? (or something, may not be entirely accurate, but the person directly in charge of the electoral process in the state *was* connected to the bush camp in some way). prevailing opinion is that bush *lost* the popular vote, then was finally appointed by the supreme court.
if you *do* trust bush, then you're lucky. those of us who don't are stuck with a great feeling of unease and fear. all we can do is hope for the best.
…
and brian, i think javan's point about "looking forward to a more peaceful world." was meant to refer to the world *after* the war, assuming that the goal is achieved–saddam deposed, terrorism stamped out. i don't really think my brother equates war and peace.
Javan said:
OK, I am going to break my word. I am back, I am sure, to your dismay.
Thank you Matthew, you interpreted my statement about peace correctly. I did not think that it could be taken any other way.
Now I will draw attention to the fact that the "evidence", better said "accusations", is highly unreliable. Try this link, I can hardly see how you missed it, brian…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/index1.html
I will admit that the evidence against Bush for the DUI is probably true, I have even heard that before. At least him didn't lie, and that gives me even more reason to trust him.
I am not going to PROP the thing again, but notice that there are no backup sources in most of those articles referenced by Brian, especially the one about Bush and Crack. The author is obviously anti-Bush, giving him a reason to distort.
And I think I do remember the popular election, however, the Electoral College is still the key to determining who wins the election, I remind you, and Bush won it there.
Also, I suppose you all know that by now Bushs' foreign policy must be working a little bit better now, as there are more than 40 nations in the coalition…
BTW, anonymous, I absolutely DETEST your comment about me. I greatly appreciate your informing me that what I write about it bullshit and that I don't know what I am talking about… au contriare, mon ami. I think you forget that even though I have never been in the military, like Matthew, or been around as long as any of you, but that I am a living, thinking person that actually does know what I am talking about, but that I am in a bunch of liberals that will do, well, like Matthew said.
brian. said:
The last link in that list shows the actual police document of Bush's DUI arrest. I'd label it a lot higher on the truth scale than "probably."
Javan said:
you are "probably" right
m@ said:
just because there's no hard evidence to back up accusations of crack/cocaine use, don't forget how deep the Bush family is intertwined in the judicial/political scene and how much pull they have. this is another "baseless accusation" but i'd bet that either of the Sr. or Jr. Bush's wield enough influence to get any records of cocaine use "swept under the rug."
besides the possibility of cocaine use is only one minor aspect among the hundreds that make us wary of Bush.
and as for his foreign policy being "justified" by his "Coalition of the Willing"… i'd call the "willing" part a little questionable considering Afghanistan is included on the list. In fact, i'd say that contributes to making his whole coalition notion a bit farcical. sure, we've got britain, and promises of *defensive* support from some other countries, but other than that the rest of the list is pretty… weak, really. we'll still have to foot for 98% of this total war bill on our own.
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's further in debt we go!
oh, and finally, regarding your election comments… i know we've discussed my opinion on the whole electoral college thing before, but since you brought it up.
the point you made is exactly the point i would make. if this is a govt. "of the people, for the people", then why does the people's choice not matter? why can a select group of individuals *override* the will of the people?
the technology is there to accurately, quickly, and securely (limiting vote fraud) tally the vote of every single member of our nation. so why do we hang onto the outdate Electoral College process that was implemented when horseback courier was the fastest way to get voting results from one place to another? it doesn't make sense to me. but, this whole electoral college debate is probably best saved for another time.
Javan said:
I would say that most Arabic nations dislike Saddam, as his own people hate him. No nations are forced to join the coalition, I would say they are all willing.
There are so many accusations against public officials. Every one of 'em. Most of them are probably not true.
Yes, this is an expensive war, but it is being paid for by a reduce in tax cuts.
Now, I never did say I agreed with the Electoral college. The original purpose of the college was to take the total power of election out of the hands of the uneducated masses and give it to an educated group elected by the public. So, in some ways, it is still needed, but in some ways I do not agree with it.
My point on this, however, is the fact that our opinion at this point in time (on that subject) does *not* matter, because the Electoral college is the *law*. Bush won the election by the college, so we need not waste our breath on it, but rather on the next election.
The college, in my opinion, did us a great favor last election, but whether it is needed or not is another subject.
m@ said:
yes, unfortunately, just eliminating the electoral college is not the answer. more things need to be taken into account. but at the very least the electoral process needs to be seriously redesigned.
and as for the reduction in tax cuts "to pay for the war", thank god for checks & balances, and thank god some of our elected leaders still have enough sense to at least attempt to stop the constant exponential growth of our national deficit (which was, i might point out, nearly eliminated under Clinton's administration).
also, don't be lead into the trap of thinking that even *most* Arabs dislike Saddam. I'm sure there is a large percentage of the Arab world that doesn't like him, but probably there are many who see him as a strong leader, and who are (as evidenced by the "stiff resistance") quite loyal to him.
whether the electoral college really did us a "great favor" or a "great disservice" will be told by history, not by you or i.