I dig politics. It gets me energized. You probably know the feeling-- the issues suck ya in and leave ya stranded in a coliseum of thought.
Today I've been madly swimming from YouTube video 3 of 10, to 4 of 10, to 5 of 10 of last night's debate all the while becoming increasingly discouraged by the media and it's failure to ask the tough questions.
There is no debate. And I'm not the only one crying bloody murder--the media has been going down a road of paleness and has not looked back; news organizations have not been responsive to citizens who have individually demanded a change.
And it's time we responded. Moveon.org sent me an email attached with a petition this afternoon calling for a response by citizens. Here's the interest group's explanation of their petition:
Editor & Publisher called this week's ABC presidential debate "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years."
Moderators George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about--gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channelling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously.
Enough is enough. The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year. Can you sign the petition to ABC and other media outlets and pass it on to friends who are also fed up?
A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to ABC and other media.
And here's the actual clear and concise petition (sign it):
"Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions--ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives."
MoveOn writers pose a few refined opinions and I dig them, but I have my own. Here's what accompanied my electronic signature:
"There are larger issues here and ABC's failure to address those issues is a travesty. From energy independence to future cries of war by Neocons to insane trading policies that leave our country's workforce behind. Our election cycle is turning into something that closely resembles Entertainment Tonight.
This is a major reason I did not watch the debate last night, but after seeing a portion of the proceedings YouTube, my assumptions were fairly accurate. What a colossal waste of time asking inflammatory questions was.
It's simple: Either you continue down the moronic path you're on, ABC, and you lose viewers like me. Or you pave a sustainable path that actually enriches our democracy and informs the public on issues of sustenance!
The power is yours--Captain Planet."
One other thing that I'd like to point out is the fact that Obama has an impressive ability to step back and assess situations. He knew this debate was headed to the Love Canal. And he called it.
So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.
Unfortunately Air America talk show hosts like Thom Hartmann hit it right on the button. "Hillary Clinton responded apparently saying, good idea, but the American people aren't really smarter than that."
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.
And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.
And so my criticism of Hillary Clinton is the usual: she remains content validating these weak arguments; these sideshows; these non-issues. It's like a perpetual election comedy of gossip questions. Is that what the media thinks Americans want to hear?
Here's what took place last night.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Let me first put this out there: I loathe MoveOn.org. It's abhorrent. And so, it truly pains me to say, I actually agree with what they're saying there. I watched the debate briefly, and was pretty disappointed that the questions being asked had little relevance to national policy and important issues; it was all "sensationalist" reporting and ratings grabbing.
I've always liked Charlie Gibson and ABC's World News Tonight, but the questions that he and Georgie were asking were simply forcing the candidates to defend themselves and their characters, instead of their policies.
Then again, maybe it doesn't matter. Aren't Obama and Clinton are the same candidate with two different faces anyway?
Well, if they're so identical--
why is the percentage of voters-- who say they wouldn't vote for the other candidate if they got the nomination-- such a high number?
And what's with the unchecked aggression against MoveOn?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
hahaha perhaps I sometimes get over zealous with these blogs. In fact, I pretty much always do. But I stand by my distaste for MoveOn.org. I like to think of myself as a political centrist (which isn't always so easy to do), but MovOn.org is just too far left for me. And then, of course, was the "General Betray Us" fiasco. When the War in Iraq started, I was only 14 but opposed to it all the same. Now, four years later, I still don't like the war and I see that Iraq is far worse than it was before, which is exactly why I support General Petraeus and finishing the war. In other words, since we made Iraq worse, we have to at least remedy the conflict before we leave (and that does not mean "cut and run").
It is interesting that, even though I claimed Barack and Hill were identical, they're so polarizing among Dems, like you said. My first response to this was that there are those who have called the Dem battle a "personality contest," because Hill and Barack are "identical" in terms of policy and issues, so the only way to differentiate between the two is to vote for a candidate with a prettier face, better personality, etc. Which is why I said they are the same candidate (on the issues) with two different faces (differing personalities).
Also, I think my comment would seem more justified if we would compare the Dem primary to the GOP primary: the ideological rifts between McCain (the moderate Repub) and Romney or Huck (conservative Repubs) were far more divisive and dissimilar than the rifts between Barack and Hill (both liberal Dems). I guess what I'm saying is that when I called Obama and Clinton "identical," I was relatively speaking.
No, I understand what you were implying, but I don't see the two candidates waging a personality contest. Fearing that this statement might seem reproachful, I understand your point. It may seem their policies are nearly equivalent to a centrist, especially when you compare them to the other party's candidates.
I agree with you about the climate in Iraq. It was indeed a terrible mission... then things got weird. Ground conditions and Iraqi living conditions have gotten worse and worse. So what do you propose we do? Stay until it gets better? Occupy another country until we can wave another 'mission accomplished' banner? Sounds like a Nixonesque policy, doesn't it?
Our federal government has ruined our credibility throughout the country. The most positive thing, I believe, we can do is vote for the candidate who will construct a multilateral plan to develop an independent Iraq. Is that just a crazy, undeveloped plan?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Well, I've always thought we should trust the guys over there who know the military and civilian situations best- Petraeus and Crocker - but then again, there are a lot of people who say exactly the opposite of them. And also, the President has been completely trusting of Petraeus' plans, but technically, he's the Commander in Chief and should be calling the shots.
Overall, I think we need to stay until the mission really is accomplished. "The mission," though, isn't the same as what we started out to do. What our politicians are saying about Iraq becoming a terrorist hot bed seems to be true to me, and we need to commit our troops long enough to give Iraqis a solid hold on their own problems- like Iran's muddling influences or al-Sadr's militias.
What should have happened in the first place was what you called a multilateral plan (not unlike the first Persian Gulf), but when I look at the United Nations' past, I think they're pathetic and incapable of making any real change in the world. It's too late now for that anyway, since the rest of the world has copped out of Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Britain recently withdrew the majority of their troops; is anybody save Americans left in significant numbers?
And yes, our worldwide credibility is ruined. Winning a "victory" in Iraq would help correct that, and I think regardless who is elected President, the world will welcome a new face at the helm.
I have to say, the enormous realm of possibilities is what makes politics and world affairs really interesting...
Yeah I've heard all that. Like I said, there will be citizens who not only believe this is another Vietnam but also that the only reason there was no "victory", as you call it, in that country was lack of support from people like me.
Terrorists; fear; terrorists; fear. Lets be realists for a moment here. Iraq is going to be unstable whether we occupy it for 10 years or 100 years, because the artificial borders group such an adverse population together. You know the United States cannot solve cultural issues. And until the only other Shia majority in the region claims responsibility for a well-earned stability, there will be no lasting change that the UN or NATO can offer.
"I understand that this car is pretty expensive but it has more to it than any Ferrari can give to our earth and people." -- crystalcraze13, a ProU blogger
Fortunately, Iraq is still far short of Vietnam proportions, in terms of both servicemen lost and the length of conflict, but I'll concede that it certainly has the potential if the "mission" isn't executed correctly.
American troops should expect to occupy Iraq for many years to come. The US still maintains troops in places like Germany and Okinawa, fifty years after that war ended. And it will probably take that long for Iraqis to start to getting along- Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds. It's possible, and I often cite America's own generations-long struggle to integrate blacks into society as an example. It may be best to not risk an implosion of Iraq by immediately vacating the country.
It's such a sticky situation. But let's have the debate!
Lets question our leaders decision to "maintain troops in places like Germany and Okinawa" and South Korea. That strikes you as crazy, right? Why in the hell are we TEAM AMERICA, defenders of international bullshit. I could seriously dig some of the isolationist rhetoric that came out of the Wilson presidency and I welcome the debate, because I think for many Americans there's a disconnect between policing the world and tax dollars. A lot of the time I don't think we're asked whether this is in the public's best interest.
I submit to you that part of the reason terrorists are such a force these days is this "they occupy us" mind frame. How much would you disagree with that?
"I understand that this car is pretty expensive but it has more to it than any Ferrari can give to our earth and people." -- crystalcraze13, a ProU blogger
I agree that the so-called American "empire" is imperialistic in nature and our military is way too overstretched. While keeping troops in foreign countries may have been a good idea when the threat of communism pervaded the entire world, that's not the case anymore. The new world wide enemies are terrorists and extremists, and the type of warfare they wage does not require the US to keep a military presence in so many other countries.
I wouldn't go so far as isolationism, though. The world is on an unstoppable and inevitable path to globalization and international interdependency. Total isolationism, whether it be militarily or economically, would be detrimental to American and global interests.
As for terrorists occupying our frame of mind, I assume you are referring to the way they have measled themselves into the American psyche, resulting in a unjustified and irrational fear of them, which empowers them. Two things: first, I don't think this is entirely true, and second, what truth there is in that statement is really, well, true, and not just irrational American fear.
First, terrorists are the new bad guys. We see new attacks on TV everyday, villains in movies are always some stereotypical Arab extremist, and security (especially on airplanes) has become suffocatingly constrictive. But despite all that, I don't think Americans are really that afraid. Whenever the Dept of Homeland Security issues a warning or changes the "alert color" (what is that supposed to do anyway?), Americans carry on with their lives, unphased. We still go to the movies, sporting events, travel abroad, shop at the mall, etc. I think that "officially," since terrorists are the new enemy, we're supposed to be afraid of them, but in reality, we aren't. I'm not worried about a plane dropping out of the sky every time I go out.
Second, there still is that small chance that we will be attacked, so some fear of terrorists is justified. There have been several attempted attacks and plots uncovered since 9/11, like the Miami/Chicago plot, the trans-Atlantic flights plot (the one that gave rise to the no liquid rule on airplanes), and the thwarted Fort Dix attack. Terrorists are still operating and trying to kill Westerners, and the US needs to remain vigilant.
So, I agree with the statement on the surface, but I think I have a fundamentally different interpretation of it...
Your reaction was interesting, your assessments and analysis were equally interesting.
Though that wasn't my point. The mindset is one of people in the Middle East who see their land occupied, and certainly that plays a part in their daily lives. Terrorists like OBL have admitted being influenced by occupation in Saudi Arabia. I think It's insane that this is not part of the American dialogue. Last year I saw the pin-- "Congratulations George W. Bush, Top Al Qaeda Recruiter 2007". Every political science class/ university lecture I've seen with the Middle East topic has made note to occupation as the impetus for new terrorists and last motives.
I really think it's our generation's mission to articulate this to our leaders just as many of the intellectual community does right now. We will have this fear, and some would say rightly so, until there is a fundamental change in the way our foreign policy is directed...
"I understand that this car is pretty expensive but it has more to it than any Ferrari can give to our earth and people." -- crystalcraze13, a ProU blogger
Ah, I see what you meant. I was thrown off by the ambiguity of the pronoun "they." Ok, so "they" refers to American forces occupying Iraq. Got it.
Are we occupying Iraq? Yes, though I see American and NATO troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as "liberators," and not "conquerors." But now, they're occupation forces all the same. America is supposed to be the arsenal of democracy, but for some reason we're trying to install democracies in two nations that have never, at a single point in their three thousand year old pasts, had a fair, democratic government. Their society and culture developed in the throes of absolutism, theocracy, and dictatorship, so it's no surprise that when we spring democracy upon them, it doesn't go too smoothly.
I agree with your statement. Most Middle Easterners are bitter from centuries of imperialism and occupation from Western powers, and this only perpetuates the extremist ideology.
What to do about it though? I think we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If the US left Iraq and Afghanistan, or if Israel freed the Gaza Strip, we'd have terrorists running amok. But by staying in these countries, those two nations are causing more and more frustrated citizens to turn to extremism as a means to deal with their situations. The US and Israel oppress other Middle Easterners in order to fight terrorism, but in the process radicalize the formerly moderate, even pro-Western, natives.
What to do, what to do... we can't leave immediately, but we can't stay indefinitely. I see some hope in the fact that some Middle Eastern countries are slowly being Westernized and liberalized: Egypt, Turkey, and the UAE. We need to encourage these nations to help peacefully quell extremism in their neighbors, negating the need for American military intervention (which was necessary in Afghanistan, but not Iraq).
It's a catch22, and i believe it was intentional. So by investing a trillion dollars and 8 years on the Middle East for foreign oil and so-called Iraqi terrorism, we're no closer to solving the serious problems: Afghanistan, forming a lasting peace in Gaza and an addiction to foreign oil.
I don't see things getting better unless people like you and me get involved and pressure our representatives. What we need to rewrite terrible policy with is public engagement. Tag you're it!
"I understand that this car is pretty expensive but it has more to it than any Ferrari can give to our earth and people." -- crystalcraze13, a ProU blogger
True, but what specifically can be done? Wrap things up in Iraq as soon as safely possible? Even that could take years. I suppose we could throw responsiblity for Iraqi security to under equipped Iraqi national forces, while lending a hand in the reconstruction of the nation (which, of course, we were responsible for destroying in the first place.)
People should actively participate in government more often. Those people in Congress are elected by us, but few of their constituents take the time to actually let Congressmen know what they want. There's kind of a disconnect between Americans and their representatives in government, and the Congressional authorization to invade Iraq is a clear example of this.
Americans need less talk, more action, right? The slow moving gears of our enormous bureaucratic government make action difficult to achieve.