Apparently, everyone is claiming victory. The city of San Francisco, the Chinese, and the protesters, well, they're not really happy, but I'd say they probably won. I'm not sure how hiding the torch so no one except the randomly lucky can see it is a victory for San Francisco or China, but I get confused easily.
The protesters were upset they didn't get to do their chanting or cause a ruckus...gee, now there's a surprise. They got the entire city of San Francisco to act like a giant coward and they're not happy?
Sounds like they got exactly what they wanted. Quit protesting for the sake of protesting. You got your message across now shut up and go home.
I'm watching coverage of the Olympic Torch "run" through the streets of San Francisco. For anyone who doesn't know anything about what's going on, there have been protests around the world (wherever the torch is) about China's treatment of Tibet.
Ok, I get it. China's treatment of Tibet=bad. I don't support the Chinese government but I fail to see how this is in any way productive.
Which one of the torch bearers is actually oppressing anyone?
It's a protest. Have your protest, but don't actually stop the event. The Olympics are NOT about you. There was a group of Buddhists who apparently walked across the Golden Gate Bridge in protest this morning. They didn't stop anything but they were noticed. That's what a protest is supposed to be.
That being said, the Olympics are supposed to be non-political. Granted, one can make many references to them being a political event: Jesse Owens (can't have a Black man showing up the Aryan race and Hitler in front of Germans)/Berlin, Israel/Munich, US (protesting USSR's invasion of Afghanistan)/Moscow, USSR (retaliation for US not going to Moscow)/Los Angeles...but the fact is it's supposed to be about the athletes. These people that have spent their lives (albeit short at this point, most are in their 20s) trying to get here.
Yes, the run is symbolic, but I don't see how anyone is learning anything new about Tibet based on stopping a torch run through a city. I understand protests and getting one's point across, but to me this is just stupid.
It's that time again. We're in the primary season. Doug posted his comments on the whole process here, and I have to agree with him, but like it or not, it's the process we have so one may as well either pay attention or not care (either is understandable).
Understanding the primaries is tricky, but CNN has a scorecard for the primary race. It's pretty simple, hit the magic number and you're in. I think perhaps the poor showing by Hillary in Iowa was a godsend for her, because it's very likely that triggered Hillary supporters to flock to the polls in New Hampshire. Granted, neither state has huge numbers ... but the American public is fickle. They like frontrunners and don't pay attention to the details. Look at the CNN site. From a locked in delegate standpoint, Hillary is kicking ass right now (183 to 78 at the time of this post ... 2025 required. On the Republican side, Romney is winning 30 to Huckabee's 21, 1191 required). It's still early, but we love to bandwagon in the United States. I'll be surprised if Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee.
As for president...that depends on who the Republicans decide to throw up (yes, pun intended) against her.
Democratic standings.
Republican standings.
From what I see of the choices, regardless of the winner, may God help us all.
What is American Culture?
Three today. In an effort to post daily (or more frequently), I'm going to start asking something every day...or such is the thought. Today, since it's my first installment, I'm going with three.
1. In a country of 300 million people, how come we can never find anyone who can lead?I'm overthinking these days, not pissing off.2. Why is the United States unilaterally blamed for the problems in the Middle East?
3. Why is Islam consistently referred to as a "religion of peace," and why don't the Buddhists ever claim that title?
At least not yet.
The presidential race has begun. Oh boy, two years of politicians wooing the voters with rhetoric about what they plan on doing with no real desire to do anything but what they need to do to get into (and stay) in office. Granted, with the presidency, staying is only for two terms, but the point is politicians spend entirely too much time trying to get into office and entirely too little time trying to do what the people in their districts (in this case the country) want. I have never stated to be a complete supporter of either party. When it comes to politics I have my preferences, but there are no real loyalties.
Recently I was given the opportunity to check out a group who, at least it appears, agree with my sentiments. This group is called "Unity '08." There is a general belief among the members that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats properly represent the portion of the country that needs to be addressed, the middle class. Both parties spend too much money pandering to the fringe elements, and as a result the center of the pack, where most people exist economically, politically, socially, "morally," etc., is completely ignored. Their beliefs are outlined pretty clearly here. Also check out the frequently asked questions.
I had a discussion with Doug about it, and he was concerned that they wouldn't be able to affect any change by only controlling the presidency. Personally, it seems much more prudent to control the presidency in this way. I was always a supporter of the two party system at the highest levels. I've never posted on it but it's a discussion I've been in frequently. Having a "centrist" as the president should keep the country generally moving in a consistent direction. Multiple parties at the local levels (Congress, e.g.) would allow for more views to be heard and expressed. San Francisco can elect a left-wing radical who favors gay-rights (e.g.) and Houston can elect a right-wing reactionary who supports religious initiatives (e.g.)**
This would allow each individual area of the country to believe and possibly legislate what they wanted (within the confines of the Constitution). Ultimately, practically everything is a state right. There are very few things that should fall under federal jurisdiction, and yet the federal government has found a way to make everything a national issue (and there is no specific president to blame for that).
So, check out the Unity '08 site and really think about whether or not you agree with their premise: the majority of the people should be the ones our leaders follow.
** NOTE: please don't focus on my choice of what the extremes will support, the point is neither is a "centrist" issue. While an advocate of gay rights would say their issue is centrist and religion is a fringe element, the religious supporter would argue the exact opposite. Realizing that religion is discussed in the Constitution and gay rights are not, I just as easily could have used anti-abortion as my example, which would have probably been more appropriate, but it also elicits a visceral reaction that I'm trying to avoid right now.
The Washington Post published a brief description, with weblinks, of who they believe to be the big contenders in each party. I've included my brief thoughts on some of them as well.
First of all, what the hell is an "exploratory committee?" Seriously, I can figure out what it means, but why doesn't the candidate just call it what it is, chicken. It's a candidate who wants to run but is unwilling to say so. Just say you're running for president, be done with it. Ultimately, there's really no need to do research on it. So, (Tom Tancredo (R) and Ron Paul (R), either shit or get off the pot.
And as discussed at the beginning, why start so early? Nearly two years prior to the election, a full year prior to the normal presidential election cycle, and already we've got eight Democrats and eight Republicans officially throwing their hats in as contenders. The reason is simple: they want name recognition. Study after study shows that name recognition is always among the top reasons candidates get votes. It's one of the reasons actors and athletes are so popular in elections. This being said, those with name recognition, Barak Obama (D), Hillary Clinton (D), John McCain (R), and Rudy Guiliani (R) could probably all take their hats out of the race for now and save us the trouble of listening to them for at least a few months. Let the little guys get their faces in the paper. Maybe (though this is a pretty novel thought) they could focus on their consituents' wants as opposed to winning an election a full two years away. Wouldn't the money spent on these campaigns be better spent on real issues? Barak is partially forgiven, he's still young and has a support base mostly in Illinois. Hillary, John, and Rudy have no excuse.
Focusing on these sixteen that are officially in the race, if one goes to their websites, Hillary (D), Mike Huckabee (R), and Tommy Thompson (R) don't have an issues section on their sites. I forgive Al Gore (D) and Fred Thompson (R) (the latter of which has an understandably weak website) for not having issues sections, they haven't said they're running. Anyone who officially starts into the race however, should have something up on their belief system and what they support. Or do they simply not care, knowing they won't win but would like to waste everyone's time and at least gain a moment or two in the national spotlight. Or worse yet, do they already know what issues they need to support already because that's where they get the money?
What about age? If the retirement age is 65, wouldn't one think that 65 would be a good guideline for this job? Granted, a person doesn't go senile at 65, I know plenty of extremely sharp 80 year olds, but I'd think that 70 is probably a bit old to start thinking about first term. Saying that, Mike Gravel (D) will be 78 when the election takes place and McCain will be 72. What the hell are they thinking? My grandmother at 75 was a wonderful woman, but I'm not sure she would have been a great selection as commander in chief.
Not to leave anyone from the Washington Post out, in order to maintain that everyone got their election site plug here on my page, are some final thoughts (or not).
Joe Biden (D)
Chris Dodd (D)
John Edwards (D) - who amassed his fortune on the ever popular class action lawsuit. Based on his past I highly doubt he's not going to be working up the sympathy vote.
Dennis Kucinich (D) - Yes, it's a simple statement, but this guy is a nutjob.
Bill Richardson (D)
Sam Brownback (R) - no, he's not going to get by anyone wanting to make the jokes about the movie and "Brownback Mountain." It's like that name recognition thing, he's too closely associated with something else and as a result it will end up being a big joke.
Jim Gilmore (R)
Newt Gingrich (R) - how in the hell does a guy named "Newt" ever win anything (see Brownback, above)?
Chuck Hagel (R) - no actual dedicated site to his presidency, but he's forgiven as he hasn't said anything about running.
Duncan Hunter (R) - His website is "gohunter08." Is his campaign manager paying attention?
George Pataki (R)
and finally,
Mitt Romney (R) - Mitt. Enough said.
I just read an article by John Mueller (Ohio State University) suggested by Doug on his site. I'm a bit perplexed by how to react. It isn't hard to feel one isn't going to be the object of a terrorist attack. In fact, even were a person to shout epithets against Islam in Times Square, it is probably still very likely that person won't be attacked by a terrorist. One may be threatened, insulted, but the victim of terrorism? Not likely.
That's about the extent of the article and one can’t argue. He’s right. But a pretty clear fact doesn’t necessarily prove anything. If I state that 4+7=11, I am not praised as a great mathematician.
Mueller brings up a couple of different points about the government's response to terrorism since 9/11, I've mentioned some of the highlights below.
1. Terrorism should be ignored and it will go away.Islamic terrorists, by their own admission, are not looking for attention. They are looking for either the total conversion of everyone or the annihilation of anyone who isn't a Muslim. They don't care which, they see both as a victory. To assume that ignoring them would help the problem go away operates under the belief that this is a group of rational people. It is not. They have an agenda, “Join us or die.”
(right after the caption, "Responding to Terrorism"). It is as if he is a parent instructing one sibling to ignore the other when being teased, for the real fun in the teasing is the reaction.The government doesn’t help by stating,
"Be scared; be very, very scared -- but go on with your lives,"
but stupid government quotes don’t justify an argument.
Nor do changes in tactics by the terrorists. They used to take a plane/vehicle, make demands, and then try to achieve a specific result. Now they just blow themselves up with the plane. This shift in terrorist policy actually refutes the whole, "ignore it and it will go away" premise, because the reason for the shift is a likely response to the non-negotiation stance that the world has taken against terrorists. Unfortunately however, this has simply led to the escalation of terrorism. Granted, most are still in little to no danger of being the victim of a terrorist attack, but the “ignoring” policy clearly didn’t work.
2. Weapons of Mass destruction.
Very few people have died from weapons of mass destruction. This is true. In fact, the chemical weapon “heyday,” World War I, produced very few actual deaths. Unmentioned however, is the fact that soldiers are generally prepared for enemy tactics, and the existence of gas in a foxhole would make one exposed to enemy fire when they exited the foxhole because of the gas. How many combat deaths from gunfire were the result of an attempt to get away from the gas?Biological weapons exist, but like nuclear weapons, most who know how to use them are mostly unwilling to do so…what about the nukes?
The Cold War, Mueller suggests, was blown way out of proportion by the media and government officials who would, "[spin] out elaborate doomsday and worst case scenarios" (making a comparison between the government's over-reaction to the terrorist threat to the Cold War). Is it possible that those scenarios weren't overblown, but rather those in control were actually rational human beings who had the ability to destroy the world 15-20 times over but no real desire to do so? Such an ability is pretty powerful. I don't find the government or the media worrying about that to be overkill.
Islamic terrorists do not have access to nuclear weapons yet. Can one possibly deny that if given the opportunity they would hesitate? One hydrogen bomb killed an estimated 66,000 people in Hiroshima (in the initial blast and the following months, not including the fallout years later). Hiroshima, with a population of 255,000. That’s 26%.
I will grant that few people have died from attacks from weapons of mass destruction, and aside from Saddam vs. Kurds post Gulf War I (chemical), the US vs Japan (nuclear) in World War II, and chemical weapons in World War I, they aren’t used much. But ONE nuclear weapon, detonated in Central Los Angeles (population around 3 million), killing 26% of the population, would kill 860,000 people. Of course, Mueller would argue that’s only .2% of the US population, an acceptable risk.
3. More people are killed in automobile accidents than in terrorist attacks.
Wow. That's quite an observation. Considering pretty much everyone drives a car I'm not even remotely surprised. Or how about the study mentioned in the article by Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan, who stated that if the same number of people to die in 911 type attacks as die in automobiles, there would have to be a September 11 type incident every month. I guess the conclusion is we really have nothing to be worried about.I have a serious problem with the continual reference to car crashes and plane crashes for a number of reasons, but one seems very clear to me. Pilots are highly trained. When my grandmother (who is now dead) gets a letter from the state asking her if she wants to renew her driver's license by mail, I'm guessing the requirements for driving are pretty limited. I would bet that if the FAA were to allow dead people to fly planes the number of crashes would go up significantly.
4. Many lives have changed since 911.
Whose? Aside from the people actually fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, or those that the government has a reason to believe might be dangerous with respect to terrorism, whose life has actually changed? I posted on this a while ago. I’m not going to argue that the government is acting completely rationally, but if the government is really going after people why haven’t they tracked me down? Shaved head, white as a sheet. I’m almost a poster child for white supremacy. No knocks on my door. No strange people hanging by the telephone poles outside my house trying to see what I’m doing. I don’t buy it that the government is out of control infringing upon human rights.
For practical purposes, Mueller is right. The government has blown the terrorism threat to proportions that are likely a bit more “doom and gloom” than they need to be. He’s correct that “hysteria is hardly required,” but what other option does the government have? The primary objective of any government is to protect its people. When people are being killed and the government has done absolutely nothing to stop it, that government is incompetent. The violence is not random. It targets specific groups of people that are non-Muslim, in particular, the West and the Jews. Speaking of which, I wonder what Mueller thinks of the Holocaust. 2.3 billion people in the world in 1939. 6 million Jews killed in gas chambers. That’s only .2% of the population, and I’m not Jewish. Why should I care? It's not my problem.
Indeed.