Hyperbole

I've said it to anyone who would listen, and now I'm going to blog it. I have no polls, facts, figures, statistics, or damned lies to back this up; this is solely my personal opinion based on "gut" instincts. Here it is:

In a (H.R.) Clinton vs. McCain presidential contest, McCain wins in a landslide.

That's it. If you are a Democrat (by registration, anyway), and you want a Democratic president to be elected in November, vote for Barack Obama; he has a fighting chance against McCain for independent voters. In a Clinton/McCain bout, independents will fly to McCain who they recognize as one of the most independent (read, not beholden to party leadership) members of the Senate. (Conversely, Hillary Clinton is perceived by independents as a party wonk.)

Incidentally, IMHO (assuming McCain wins the Republican nomination) all McCain need to do to win the presidency against any challenger is to enlist his Senate Democratic counterpart (his comrade-in-laws) Russell Feingold as his running mate; the two of them would be unstoppable.
<EOM>

P.S. - Yes, I'm still alive.
P.P.S - I am a registered Democrat because of more issue alignment, though not a partisan.
P.P.P.S. - Barack Obama is the only of the field of Democratic candidates I can vote for without "holding my nose." I actually like him as a candidate. He's not the guy I actually wanted, though.

Posted by gefilte at 06:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Whatever you may think about the state of war and peace in the world, it is clear
we continue to melt down our ploughshares only to reforge them as swords.

And this is the world I have brought my children into...

Posted by gefilte at 01:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This article in the New York times talks about Wal-Mart's foray into organic food. I have to agree with some of the critics here: our standards for "organic" are about the food itself and how it isn't produced (e.g., chemical fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) but not so much about sustainable farming methods and equitable farm labor practices. It is likely that the former will be respected, the latter will be abused, and the public-at-large will remain ignorant of the issue. Shanda

Posted by gefilte at 07:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is the inscription etched on the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Here is the reality of life for those seeking asylum in this country from torture and oppression today:
Asylum Seekers Treated Poorly, U.S. Panel Says

And to add insult to injury, the New York port of entry (home of the beloved Lady Liberty) has the worst offenses in this area.

Posted by gefilte at 06:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out this article from the New Yorker: "America Without Oil".

Here's the final quote:
"Sooner or later, we are going to have a lot of hybrid cars, electric cars, and, perhaps, at some time in the future, we are going to have a hydrogen economy," Robert Mabro told me. "But, until we get there, to talk about energy independence is foolish. The two candidates, with due respect, are lying to the people, or they don't know what they are talking about."

This reminds me of a quote from the "End of Suburbia" film, in which the interviewee exclaims (albeit somewhat hysterically, IMHO) that we will elect any sort of madmen who will tell us we can keep our SUVs and other such energy-suckers.

Posted by gefilte at 01:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've added the Iraq Body Count banner to my sidebar. Use it as you see fit.

Posted by gefilte at 06:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, this one's been bugging me for awhile, I'll sneak it in here as well:

I'm tired of hearing that we "can't switch horses in the middle of a race." This line of thinking is so contrary to our ideals and our chosen form of government. The logical conclusion of this is that in four years from now, after Bush has served for eight years as U.S. President and of course still fighting the so-called "War on Terror" (and probably still fighting militants in Iraq or any other country we decided to invade in the next four years), we should repeal the 22nd Amendment to ensure that we keep betting on the same horse. Sound crazy? Of course it does...

Posted by gefilte at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

On Monday President Bush made a much ballyhooed comment on the "Today" show to Matt Lauer in reference to the war on terror, "I don't think you can win it, but I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
(Reference)
The Democrats (I believe it started with John Edwards) immediately seized on this and panned Bush for "admitting defeat". I think this entirely misses the point.

I think that in this comment Mr. Bush is showing the cards in his hand -- not cards which were dealt to him, but cards he has chosen for himself. I think that this slip (and clearly the insane spinning by the Republicans which followed it marks this as a slip) is a tacit admission of the real agenda -- war without end.

President Bush is a war president and only through fear of terror, threat, and destruction can he maintain his hold on power. But it's deeper than that. Only through control of the world's energy resources can American hold on to the hegemony its leaders so desperately want to maintain, but the only path to that control leads to more war.

No, I don't think the President was expressing defeat, or a lack of confidence that we will "beat" the terrorists and "dig them out of their holes." I think he's saying that we're right where he and his ilk want us to be: war without end.

Posted by gefilte at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

wonko told me I had to watch this documentary, so given my limited time, I watched it in 15-minute chunks. It's been over a week since I finished it, and it has been haunting me ever since.

I think that I might have dismissed the contentions of this movie out-of-hand as the work of apocalyptic cranks were it not for one of the interviewees featured throughout the movie: Matt Simmons. Matt Simmons is a top investor in energy companies, and is highly connected with that group. He's also a member of the well-connected Council on Foreign Relations. He should be on the side of the oil companies, and indeed he generally is (he supports opening ANWR, and basically drilling everywhere we can to head off the forestalling of oil production.) I disagree with his approach to the problem, and probably disagree with a great many things he thinks our country should do. But this is precisely the reason why he held my attention. As I see it, the companies he invests in would suffer terribly if the things he (and other interviewees in the movie) said were to become common knowledge. But Simmons pulls no punches -- his position on the problem aligns with the other more radical interviewees in the film (even though his suggested response to it differs.) In short, he is not the guy you would expect to be saying these things, and yet he is in the most credible position to say them as he has the most at stake.

So I am forced to consider the implications of this film. And consider I do -- almost every day now I look around me and consider what it took to bring the things around me to where I am, and as a result how much more expensive that item will become to produce/ship/employ if and when energy becomes a scarce commodity.

In some respects, this film only added specifics to what I considered to be general knowledge before. In the 1990's we all said the oil was going to "run out" -- the earliest date we usually suggested was 2050. But we never talked about what that really meant -- just that we would all have to get our cars to run on something else. These salient points emerge from the film:

1. It's not just about oil. It's about fossil fuels in general -- natural gas is as much as a problem (in terms of scarcity) as oil.


2. We will never "run out of oil." It will simply continue to become more and more expensive to produce energy from fossil fuels, until it reaches a point where it costs almost as much energy to produce energy as is produced. (That is, each calorie of energy will consume almost one calorie of energy in its production.)


3. Alternative sources of energy production will never be able to match the price nor capacity dictated by our current level of demand.

and finally,

4. We may be approaching this point very quickly -- it could take a little as five years before it happens.

As I was watching the movie, I started to draw stark, logical conclusions from the divers evidence they were presenting, and was disturbed to find that the film's conclusion presented many of the same conclusions. The point I think which has stuck with me the most is that ALL we consume -- electrical energy, food, water, etc. -- will need to be produced locally if it is to remain affordable. This is in marked contrast to the direction we have been going as a society -- globalization aside, even if your stuff is all "made in the U.S.A" it probably isn't made within the same region you bought it from. Globalization simply magnified this trend which was already in motion, extending the distances even further, and requiring even more of our land resources to be dedicated to energy production. No, the communities of the future will need to be far more efficient if they are to survive.

I could go on writing for awhile on this topic, and will likely revisit it again. For now, I suggest you see the film, and research it further yourself. I haven't made up my mind about this movie -- I think it's possible things could go very differently than they predict. But I don't doubt that we will reach this point of energy scarcity -- I'm just not sure what that will mean to me, my family, my community, and the world. Should I start worrying about this now? (I'm far too good at worrying to let myself simply worry about things willy-nilly.)

Finally, I'll leave you with this fascinating (albeit lengthy) essay from Harper's: The oil we eat: following the food chain back to Iraq.

Posted by gefilte at 05:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I once considered myself to be proud to be an American. This pride is being stripped away as I observe how our country has descended into darkness. Those of you who know me probably know how I think the policies of the current executive government are tearing down much of our way of life, so I won't belabor the point here, other than to say that in was with that where the pride started to deteriorate into shame and embarrassment.

Today however I am thinking of the abuse and torture of our military's prisoners which has come to light recently. I just can't stand to hear any more how the abusers are "bad apples". Sure by calling them "bad apples" we implicitly declare that their actions are contrary (even deplorable) to our cultural mores. But how many military abusers, how many governmental abusers of power, citizens, and the environment, how many executive corporate malfeasants, how many gun-happy gang bangers, how many get-rich-quick snake-oil hucksters, how many "bad apples" before we decide that these are not merely "bad apples" but rather reflections of our culture today in America.

The soldiers responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib were truly "bad actors" (as Sec. Rumsfeld is wont to say.) I can't help any more but see them also as a product of our culture -- our culture produced these people. And if it is true as commentators are beginning to say now on the radio that the events of September 11, 2001 have made us amenable to exacting torture upon our fellow human beings -- if that is really our response to being attacked -- then our culture is truly bankrupt.

Posted by gefilte at 07:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I started writing this as a comment to this entry in Brain Flossing, and realized my response was too long for a comment. So I'll post it to my own blog, thank you very much. ;-)

The problem is, few thinking people "tow the party line" on all issues -- many of the left side of the aisle side with the right on some issues, and vice versa. What's more, majorities on one side or the other can behave in a manner which is entirely contrary to the other without in fact being properly labelled as opposite. Case in point "fiscal conservatism":
to be fiscally conservative means to abhor deficits, eschew excess spending, and above all seek to "live within your means" (read, balance the budget.) Liberals are classically scapegoated for violating this, yet Clinton (regarded by many as a liberal), with a good deal of Democratic support, balanced the budget. On the contrary, the various popular "conservative" movements over the last few decades ("supply-side economics", flat tax movement, etc.) are fiscally very liberal -- they have sought to cut taxes while at the same time increasing spending (generally more on guns then butter.) So who is the conservative here? Budget-balancing Clinton, or deficit hiking Reagan and G.W. Bush? (To his credit, G.H.W. Bush was a fiscal conservative as well -- it cost him his reelection.) Many politicos on both sides of the aisle are fiscal conservatives, and many are not.

So if I hold views which are liberal and others which are conservative, am I then a "moderate"? I used to label myself that -- but what does it mean? What if I really believe the which would garner these former labels -- do I have to attenuate that believe with "moderation"? This is silly.

I could go on and on, but I'll stop with this one (a nice hot button to press), my view (short version) on abortion. (After all, if I don't make it personal, then it's all just abstract.):

I think abortion is awful. It's one of the most awful things mankind has wreaked upon itself. It is a terrible black mark upon our nation's psyche, and the hearts of countless women and girls who choose to do it. Am I "pro-life"? Am I a Conservative?

I think abortion must absolutely always remain legal. Sometimes to rule out an abortion means that the mother will surely die, possibly leaving other already-born children without a mother. Sometimes women and girls are impregnated against their will, and ever too often by a close family member. What's more, if abortion were not legal, it would still continue to be practiced, but unregulated and unaccountably. Countless women would become ill, injured, or even killed by improper technique and lack of adequate postoperative care. I will always support the right for a woman to terminate her pregnancy. Am I "pro-choice"? Am I a Liberal?

Conservatism and Liberalism, Conservatives and Liberals, these are straw men. People believe things, follow their consciences, follow their pocketbooks, and sometimes follow the desires of their benefactors. Parties organize around particular issues, put them in their "platform", then members of the parties either agree, compromise their differences with silence, or defy leadership and break ranks.

Posted by gefilte at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Read this:
U.S. Ends Military Aid to 35 Countries - Reuters

Why should our miscreant military and political leaders be exempt from prosecution in the World Court? Why shouldn't we be held to the same standard as the rest of the world? What makes us so special? What are we afraid of? That maybe old Gen. Westmoreland is going to get carted off to The Hague to face justice? Or maybe Robert McNamara? Would that have been such a bad thing? I mean that not as a rhetorical question -- I really don't know. Still, I don't understand why now, in 2003, we are resisting the idea of international standards of conduct and justice.

The worst part of this, is that we've already signed the treaty! Shouldn't the president honor treaties signed by past leaders? Doesn't he want future leaders to respect the agreements he signs?

Okay, I'll stop ranting, but this one really chapped my hide.

Posted by gefilte at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check this out: http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1314813

This is probably the funniest thing I've heard on NPR for a long time. I was literally in stitches. Truly Mr. Rumsfeld has raised obfuscation to a form of high art.

(NPR audio can be heard with either RealONE player or Windows Media Player.)

Posted by gefilte at 09:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)