The Company They Keep

The old saying goes, “You can tell a lot about a man, based on the company that he keeps.”  Recognizing that politicians cannot be experts in everything (just like the rest of us) is important.  That fact makes me more aware that, for those areas where they have weaknesses, they must choose a knowledgable person to advise them.  While this choice might be motivated by little more than selfish ambition, the best past and present examples of national leaders have obviously chosen their closest “disciples” with care.  The advisor’s traits matter to these politicians, visionaries and social reformers who have sought advice from people that they felt represented their values and that were knowledgable where the national leaders were not as strong.

Take, for instance, a candidate that is well-versed in foreign policy and domestic education issues, but lacking in Economics and Supreme Court Legislation.  The best candidate (read: human being) would seek the advice of a person that shares the same basic principles–but also could fill in the gaps with economical statistics and strategies, or share their knowledge of constitutional law.  If the campaign staff is filled with virtuous, talented people, then it stands to reason that the campaign will be run with virtue.  If the campaign staff filled with cut-throat or less-than-honest characters…well, you get the idea. 

I think that our presidential nominees’ choices–from their vice president, all the way through their list of campaign advisors–should be a good indicator of their judgement abilities.  The selection of Biden and Palin speak for themselves…Palin is a moron…but I searched the internet for a list of Obama and McCain’s staff. The only place I found them listed all together was on the BBC NEWS site, which was useful because the BBC listed the advisors side by side, in their respective roles.

View the post here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7642256.stm
…but there are two choices in particular, that caught my eye.

The McCain campain chose chief operating officer, Steve Schmidt, who worked with Karl Rove in George Bush’s election campaign team. The BBC states that he brings an “attacking style” to the campaign. This concerns me, because I’ve felt that the attacks on Obama have been shallow. Obama’s campaign chose his long-standing campaign manager, David Axelrod, who managed his Senate bid in 2004, and worked for John Edwards in the 2004 presidential election. The same Edwards that cheated on his cancer-stricken wife (although this might not be indicative of David’s qualities, read the first sentence of this post again).

In light of our foreign difficulties, Obama’s choice for chief foreign policy advisers are Susan Rice and Tony Lake, respectively assistant secretary of state for African affairs, and National Security Adviser under Clinton. Both opposed the Iraq war, although some critics will say that the Clinton Administration got us into this mess in the first place. I can’t really agree with that, though. Senator McCain’s advisors are cause for more concern–neo-Conservatives who back pre-emptive action, including chief foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann, and former CIA boss James Woolsey.

Make your own choice, keeping in mind that the candidates have chosen this group of people to help them get elected.  It is reasonable to assume Obama and McCain are actively using their advisors’ views and strategies, so be sure you agree with more of the campaign than the candidates themselves.

The Great Debaters

With the Oxford, MS debate last night, my personal jury is still out.  One belief of mine—that we are entitled to some naivety, some faith in humanity’s ability to be reasonable—keeps coming to me as I read the transcript of the debate (I missed it on TV, closing at work again).  The positions and policies that the candidates set forth made me question what the real priorities are, in order for our children to even know the United States our generation grew up in.

Now, as some argued in defense of Palin’s ABC interview failure, a transcript does not give the fine nuances of speech. But I hope I can look objectively at the substance of Obama and McCain’s words. The assumption that Americans refuse to consider ourselves on the same level as the members of other countries…in Europe and some less “established” areas…as human beings makes me a little mad.  But when leveled at us from other countries, I can see the perspective of a French or Italian person that sees a United States bullying around the world, diplomatically, with cheers from the “sidelines”. If they had the opportunity, talking with the average U.S. citizen would reveal that we didn’t want anything but peace and prosperity for all peoples. I can’t think of a single person that wants people to suffer all the time—I feel like even those of us that lost loved ones in the September 11^th attacks would not want other families to suffer as they have had to.

In my opinion, our foreign policy has deeply embarrassed the nation.“World Police” is not exactly a compliment. So the candidates’ responses are important to me, in light of my faith in people.

In every country where tension currently exists, the candidates have distinct policies. Obama tends toward diplomacy, especially where at least some of the tension is our doing. Maybe once we establish with Ahmadinejad what the main reasons for nuclear enrichment are (and I think we might be surprised at Iran’s need for reliable nuclear power—in average citizens’ homes, that is), we can find ways to convince them not to use it for other purposes. Maybe propose ways to help them develop nuclear plants, lending our expertise (or best research) that will form some mutual respect, possibly earning some profit for our science and technology fields at home. Offer to lend them our brightest researchers—only if their safety can guaranteed. Or, bring their brightest developers and scientists to the U.S. for research, assuring them of the best resources and tools we have at our disposal. I agree that preconditions for talks should exist, but we must have some positive reinforcement to go along with any conditions we might set. If I’ve learned anything through teaching, I’ve learned that you get more flies with honey…

Concerning Russia, Obama said:

Now, we also can’t return to a Cold War posture with respect to Russia. It’s important that we recognize there are going to be some areas of common interest. One is nuclear proliferation.

They have not only 15,000 nuclear warheads, but they’ve got enough to make another 40,000, and some of those loose nukes could fall into the hands of Al Qaida.

This is an area where I’ve led on in the Senate, working with a Republican ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dick Lugar, to deal with the proliferation of loose nuclear weapons. That’s an area where we’re going to have to work with Russia.

But we have to have a president who is clear that you don’t deal with Russia based on staring into his eyes and seeing his soul. You deal with Russia based on, what are your — what are the national security interests of the United States of America?

McCain, however, seemed more on the offensive with his positions:

Again, a little bit of naivety there. He doesn’t understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia. And Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro-dollars that is basically a KGB apparatchik-run government.

I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes, and I saw three letters, a “K,” a “G,” and a “B.” And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior.

If we put ourselves in Russia’s shoes…say there is some disturbance in Mexico…and it threatens the stability in our region, what would we do? If the past decade is any indication, I’d say U.S. response would be similar in scope. I’m a little young to truly understand what KGB power means to the world, but I do see his point, in that a rational government would have come to Georgia’s aid, unless their government’s agenda is more sinister than we know. I just feel that the smartest thing we could do is know enough to keep an eye on the situation, and remain diplomatically friendly enough with the Russians that they’d be willing to keep us “in the know”. We have kind of betrayed the world’s trust by acting impulsively lately.

McCain also said something about a small part of our financial crisis–the loss of domestic, blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and other industries:

Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent.

Now, if you’re a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it’s 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you’re going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera.

I want to cut that business tax. I want to cut it so that businesses will remain in — in the United States of America and create jobs.

While I realize that many of these jobs will never come back from China, I would like to know the factcheck on this information. I will admit that this part of the crisis stems from some Clinton-era trade deals and some of the deregulation of the present administration, but would McCain’s policy actually help? 

Near the end of the debate, McCain says (in reference to being safer since 9/11), “We have to work more closely with our allies. I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them.” My reading comprehension is average, at best, but everything stated in the debate suggested that McCain’s strategy or tactic (whichever one’s definition you understand better) could be influenced by impulse, or gut reactions.  We need a leader that will carefully weigh out the possibilities and consequences of national actions, and I can’t really trust that Senator John McCain is that man.

It is true that Senator Barack Obama does not have even a decade of experience in one of the premier legislative branches of the nation.  But how much worth can we attach to experience in “the way things have always been”? Our best chance to adapt to the 21^st century is to change the way we do things in America.  Obama isn’t old enough to be an “institution” in legislature, but he does have rational ideas, and a sensible approach to foreign policy.  It is usually new ideas that lead the United States around the next corner (remember the internet), so we can’t afford cling to policies that no longer work in this brave new world.  He has been criticized as having socialist policies, but I think that maybe balancing out the capitalism in our country with a few facets of the socialist ideology is a good idea, and part of a better long-term solution to our financial woes. 

Perhaps the suggestion (I won’t attribute it to anyone—I can’t remember who said this) that when the government creates the bail-out package, and every American taxpayer pays for it in some way or another, why don’t we award every American taxpayer with a stake in the affected institutions?  A stimulus check comes only once—then it is quickly spent.  How healthy would the economy be if everyone reaped the benefits of the bull market as stockholders? I bet that a little extra cash flow into average citizens’ pockets would boost the economy greatly, especially if it is regarded as a reward for paying taxes in the country.  But, I digress—that issue is another post altogether.  However, If Obama’s views lead us in a similar direction, where every family stands to benefit from taking a chance on saving our country in unorthodox ways…why not try his approach? 

Jihadists hellbent on destroying us aside, all people–not just Americans–have needs of safety and reasonable prosperity.  If we can come to a diplomatic understanding through reasoning with other world leaders, then a little open-mindedness is certainly called for. But these are my opinions. 

Form yours.  Here is a link to the transcript; read it.  Or if you’re more comfortable, watch it. We have to take this election seriously, because there has never been more at stake.

Palin bakes cookies for next door neighbor, Russia.

Okay…I was trying to get right off that Palin bandwagon and focus on the Obama/Biden ticket.  I was trying, but this was just too much. Here’s the link for the transcript of Gov. Palin’s ABC interview. Reading the excerpts here will let you know that her responses were beyond unimaginable for a VP pick.  But folks…watch it somewhere on the ‘net too.

Btw, read a sampling of the comments at the end.  Repubs are outraged. Dems are outraged. Hillary loyalists are outraged.  I’m outraged…that with her public experience she gave answers like this (in an admittedly hostile environment–but I wonder if it was the position of his superiors, or that she was bumbling along from the get-go), and outraged that she has made it this far.

In Her Defense, However, her leap into the public spotlight has been like making the jump from singing Karaoke in the corner bar to singing a lead role at the Metropolitan Opera.  If she was not adequately prepared in her public life or by the Campaign people, this was not fair to her or the McCain ticket…or Republican voters hoping for a real candidate.  Either she has a secret weapon that has something to do with oil, or–like what has been stated over and over, ad nauseum–that McCain chose her solely because she’s a woman (I sure hope she has that secret weapon).

I am also a WOMAN, and would be so proud to know that after 232 years of the ideas and movement that are the United States, a qualified woman worked her way to the White House.  By the looks of it right now, I’m sorry, but Governor Palin is not that woman–if all she can really say about Russia is that they’re “right next door”. 

That is my rant, and I refuse to discuss her at any great length for a while.

Obama on 9/11 and legislation about Hurricane Katrina

Some may call this following statement “unpatriotic” (just like not wearing that flag pin). Really, I think these words show a leader’s finest traits of good judgement.

Obama’s response to the events of 9/11 and the course of action we must take as a nation was published on September 19, 2001 in the Hyde Park Herald:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.

Obama went on to say:

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.

I hope we can glean some insight into that on today, our darkest of days. Though we are now somewhat desensitized to the tragedy, as a nation (a little bit more absorbed in ourselves nowadays), the clarity with which he saw the situation in the weeks following, should let us know that, as president, he would not react to tragedy with panic–a move which we have seen only creates more tragedy, not only for ourselves (our servicemen, servicewomen, contractors, etc) but for our allies, and “enemies” alike.

***

He has the ability to make informed decisions.  For the critics of Obama, that state he never wrote or sponsored any real legislation, let me inform you that he sponsored a bill for special-needs evacuation plans. In light of the recent Hurricane Gustav Hysteria, this might prove to be more “mud” to throw at the Republican response. Especially read the legislative outcome at the end.

Obama sponsored including special-needs people in emergency evacuation plans
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to ensure the evacuation of individuals with special needs in times of emergency.
SPONSOR’S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: One of the most striking things about the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina is that the majority of stranded victims were our society’s most vulnerable members–low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, the disabled. Many did not own cars. Many believed themselves unable to flee the city, unable to forego the income from missed work, unable to incur the expenses of travel, food and lodging. Some may have misunderstood the severity of the warnings, if they heard the warnings at all. Some may have needed help that was unavailable. Whatever the reason, they were not evacuated and we have seen the horrific results.

This failure to evacuate so many of the most desperate citizens of the Gulf Coast leads me to introduce today a bill to require states and the nation to consider the needs of our neediest citizens in times of emergency. It appears that certain assumptions were made in planning and preparing for the worst case scenario in the Gulf Coast. After all, most of those who could afford to evacuate managed to do so. They drove out of town and checked into hotels or stayed with friends and family. But what about the thousands of people left behind because they had special needs?

Communities with special needs may be more challenging to accommodate, but they are every bit as important to protect and serve in the event of an emergency. What we saw in the Gulf Coast cannot be repeated. We may not be able to control the wrath of Mother Nature, but we can control how we prepare for natural disasters.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; never came to a vote.

Source: Emergency planning bill (S.1685) 05-S1685 on Sep 12, 2005

Americans We

I haven’t had a lot of time for writing this weekend since I’ve been working a lot.  But…I’ve had time to read about the election in the paper, on NPR’s website and on various blogs. 

So today, I’m up early (enjoying a rare day off) and a couple of sentences from Manasto Jones‘ blog caught my eye:

 It’s not even a campaign about politics any more… it’s really only about your Americanness, whether your American enough to deserve to be an American (if that makes any sense).

What an idea. And yet, so true. Political candidates have been appealing to our sense of patriotism, and have been since the Primaries–no–since 9/11, when Washington became so heartless as to prey on our fragile emotions. So obvious, and I missed it, somehow. But why not turn this sad fact about the state of political maneuvering into a real question for the candidates and all of America’s voters?  This shouldn’t be a serious query…no, I’d rather poke fun at the system and those of us that were “duped” by it to some degree. 

button ideas

So…long story short, I got on Zazzle.com and designed…BUTTONS! Ha! Take a look at  them here in better detail:
http://www.zazzle.com/MofSigma
Maybe McCain’s campaign staff can raise the rest of their campaign funds selling them.  Better yet, let’s get some to the “Obama Camp” too.  Maybe the wearing of buttons for both candidates could start trouble in some circles, but the ensuing firestorm could, at least, be entertaining. Imagine, a Repub Pin-wearer to a Dem Pin-wearer:
–So you think you’re American enough? Yeah…American enough to (fill in anti-Dem rhetoric here) _________________.
Insert “kill innocent little babies,”  and you could possibly have a formidable fistfight on your hands.

While I agree with Manasto, I can see possiblities on the flip-side.  The question, “Are You AMERICAN Enough?” could be the framework for artful debate as well; a posit for our candidates and ourselves, that might help us decide who is best suited to run the country.
“Are you AMERICAN enough…to work towards domestic energy independence in the U.S.?”
“Are you AMERICAN enough…to adopt a foreign policy that focuses on dialogue rather than force?”

Both candidates have their own opinions on the questions posed above–when we figure out what answers (to this and many other questions) we feel comfortable with, maybe we’ll all have a better picture of what change we need for our country.

update 9/8: just figured out that the buttons weren’t visible in the gallery. Go there now to see them.