Today at around 9PM, about 12 hours from when the polls will open for the Pennsylvania Primary, a friend told me that she was up in the air about which candidate to vote for. She said that the single most important thing to her is that whichever Democrat is chosen can beat John McCain. The problem she said was that she has been told that Obama stands a much better chance, but it is Hillary whose stands she agrees with.
The fear she is expressing is not one, which I have not heard expressed before either about this election or about any other in the past.
However, the more I think about it the more it seems to me that, in this case, to vote with your beliefs is in no way a mistake, nor does it in any way mean that McCain will be the next President.
According to the most recent polls (USA Today, Rasmussen, Gallup) if the General Election were tomorrow then Obama would beat McCain by an estimated 1% and Clinton would loose to McCain by an estimated 0.1%. If we are being very conservative then the margin of error on these polls is about 2% so in fact, we know nothing.
What I think it is safe to say is that if enough people decide that voting against their beliefs makes the most sense and they end up with a candidate they are less then happy with then all they have done is filled a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is not the same as, say voting for Nader in the last election, and then kicking yourself because you ended up having to put up with another 4 years of W. So please, VOTE ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE!
Again, the polls now tell us nothing about a General Election and, it is possible, that the close in the gap in Pennsylvania between Obama and Clinton is less about people liking Obama and more about the mob mentality that nobody likes Clinton.
*Do not take this blog to mean that I am voting for or against Hillary. Voting is a private thing and should remain so.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
McCain's War
On his webpage, www.johnmccain.com, McCain gives a Government Spending Plan which promises to “Lower Taxes and lead to Economic Prosperity”. In his plan McCain says he will, “work to ensure that money spent by Congress, and contributed by hardworking American taxpayers, is used wisely and prudently on legitimate national priorities, not squandered on wasteful pet projects and special interest earmarks.”
Indeed, he advocates that members of congress who are funding their “pet projects” have to report and explain these projects in full to the American Taxpayers. Only through this can we: lower the deficit, lower government spending which will lead to lower taxes, and of course, continue to finance the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are all fine things to advocate, but is it reasonable to expect that meeting these promises is in any way realistic?
Four years ago, when America was just beginning its war on Iraq Larry Lindey, Bush’s Chief Economic Advisor, said that in the end the war could end up costing $200 million dollars. In an attempt to avoid a public outcry the administration rushed to assure people that this was a “gross overestimate” of the potential costs.
Well, perhaps on account of the fact that the administration lacked the information they now have, it turns out $200million dollars may not have been as much of an overestimate as originally thought. Still, according to the Government Study released in 2006 we had only spent something on the order of $370 million.
But how accurate was the study?
Last year, Linda Blimes (Professor at the John Kennedy School of Law at Harvard University) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Professor at Columbia University and 2001 Nobel Prize Recipient) co-authored a paper entitled “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict”. The paper factors in not only the costs of what we are spending on the ground in Iraq but also, “long-term costs, such as veterans' disability and healthcare payments.” It also includes the war’s/occupation’s impact on the economy. Adding in these factors raises the government’s estimates by almost 600% bringing the total costs to over $1 trillion dollars.
$1 trillion dollars! A number which is 600% higher then what the government is saying. And, equally as important a number which is more then 600% higher then what John McCain is basing his economic platform on.
Again, we ask, is his proposal realistic? Can he lower taxes?
The answer, clearly, is that even if we define “pet projects” as all social programs the government is in anyway involved in we still can not finance McCain’s War, never mind lower taxes.
But, that is not where the problem ends!
In my piece on Clinton (“Bill Speaks”) I made reference to the fact that there is a shortage of troops and so the idea of keeping our soldiers in Iraq and upping the number of soldiers we have in Afghanistan is preposterous.
To McCain’s credit, the first bullet point on the “Strategy for Victory” piece on his website is, “Bolstering Troops”. He clearly recognizes that in order to accomplish our mission in Iraq we must have more enlisted men this is to say nothing of the men we will need to fight/dismantle al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed his piece on why we need more troops is as good as any of the candidates. However, his recognition of this in no way affects his policy on the war.
I do not know if John McCain’s policies are the result of righteous rage or an attempt to pull in a Conservative Base which has been vocal about not supporting him. What I do know is that when you boil McCain’s policies down to their bottom line, what you’re left with is nothing but contradictions and unrealistic goals. And, if elected the Author of these contradictions will walk into the White House head held too high to see the people whom he was elected to serve. And from their these plans will march our enlisted men and women onto battlefields far bloodier then the ones which have already taken more then 4000 American lives and a trillion American dollars.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.html
www.johnmccain.com
Indeed, he advocates that members of congress who are funding their “pet projects” have to report and explain these projects in full to the American Taxpayers. Only through this can we: lower the deficit, lower government spending which will lead to lower taxes, and of course, continue to finance the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
These are all fine things to advocate, but is it reasonable to expect that meeting these promises is in any way realistic?
Four years ago, when America was just beginning its war on Iraq Larry Lindey, Bush’s Chief Economic Advisor, said that in the end the war could end up costing $200 million dollars. In an attempt to avoid a public outcry the administration rushed to assure people that this was a “gross overestimate” of the potential costs.
Well, perhaps on account of the fact that the administration lacked the information they now have, it turns out $200million dollars may not have been as much of an overestimate as originally thought. Still, according to the Government Study released in 2006 we had only spent something on the order of $370 million.
But how accurate was the study?
Last year, Linda Blimes (Professor at the John Kennedy School of Law at Harvard University) and Joseph E. Stiglitz (Professor at Columbia University and 2001 Nobel Prize Recipient) co-authored a paper entitled “The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict”. The paper factors in not only the costs of what we are spending on the ground in Iraq but also, “long-term costs, such as veterans' disability and healthcare payments.” It also includes the war’s/occupation’s impact on the economy. Adding in these factors raises the government’s estimates by almost 600% bringing the total costs to over $1 trillion dollars.
$1 trillion dollars! A number which is 600% higher then what the government is saying. And, equally as important a number which is more then 600% higher then what John McCain is basing his economic platform on.
Again, we ask, is his proposal realistic? Can he lower taxes?
The answer, clearly, is that even if we define “pet projects” as all social programs the government is in anyway involved in we still can not finance McCain’s War, never mind lower taxes.
But, that is not where the problem ends!
In my piece on Clinton (“Bill Speaks”) I made reference to the fact that there is a shortage of troops and so the idea of keeping our soldiers in Iraq and upping the number of soldiers we have in Afghanistan is preposterous.
To McCain’s credit, the first bullet point on the “Strategy for Victory” piece on his website is, “Bolstering Troops”. He clearly recognizes that in order to accomplish our mission in Iraq we must have more enlisted men this is to say nothing of the men we will need to fight/dismantle al Quaeda in Afghanistan.
Indeed his piece on why we need more troops is as good as any of the candidates. However, his recognition of this in no way affects his policy on the war.
I do not know if John McCain’s policies are the result of righteous rage or an attempt to pull in a Conservative Base which has been vocal about not supporting him. What I do know is that when you boil McCain’s policies down to their bottom line, what you’re left with is nothing but contradictions and unrealistic goals. And, if elected the Author of these contradictions will walk into the White House head held too high to see the people whom he was elected to serve. And from their these plans will march our enlisted men and women onto battlefields far bloodier then the ones which have already taken more then 4000 American lives and a trillion American dollars.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11495.html
www.johnmccain.com
Thursday, April 3, 2008
President Clinton Speaks
I admit it, this blog is long overdue. This is not because I have had nothing to say, or that, thanks to my blog about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright I have been to embarrassed to say anything at all, but that my computer has been on the fritz. (P.S. While throwing ones computer from a three story window may be cathartic it will, in the long run, not help you and not really bother your computer, what with it being an inanimate object.) At any rate, I am back now and have no shortage of things to say.
First off, I went, on March 19th, to see former President Bill Clinton speak at Stroudsburg High School. And, if you have not already seem him speak, I can not recommend enough that you do.
The President took the stage 90 minutes late, and yet, he quickly recaptured an audience that anybody else would have lost for good. He gives facts and figures, outlines policies and procedures, and recalls both his own history and the histories of those administrations which came before his without once referring to a single note. Add this to a charisma that simply can not be expressed in words and, whether you agree with him or not, you can not help but be impressed and, hopefully, take a lesson about how public speaking should be done.
Okay, now that I have built an alter to the man’s abilities as a speaker; let’s get down to the business of what he had to say about Hillary Clinton’s proposed policies.
IRAQ/U.S. MILITARY:
Hillary has said that over the course of her first 16 months as President she will pull the troops out of Iraq. There are several reasons for this but, according to what Bill Clinton said, the primary one is the need to go into Afghanistan.
Both the current President and John McCain are saying we can do both, stay in Iraq and go to Afghanistan. The problem with that is that we currently have a lack of enlisted men/women. This is evidenced by the fact that the Marines and Navy are now being trained in Army combat. What is worse is that our Government/Army is breaking contracts with those soldiers we do have. Soldiers who were promised ten month tours can find themselves overseas for as many as 3 years.
And yet, we are being told by the Republican Administration and Republican’s Candidate for President that we can be in both places at once!
Also, former President Clinton explained, the reason we went into Iraq was so that they could set up a Democratic Government. What we have failed to recognize is that so long as we are there the Iraqis have no catalyst to start up or maintain this form of Government (which is not to say it is something they would do anyway). What we are asking the Iraq’s to do is take on a great responsibility and, so long as we are there to shoulder that burden there is no reason why they would.
CARING FOR OUR VETERANS:
Former President Clinton explained that roadside bombs literally rattle the brains of the people standing anywhere near them. This leads to our soldiers having deadened sensors in their brains. This can, in turn, lead to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and a multitude of other problems.
Veterans become home bound because their brains can no longer process how to go to the store, or to work, or to take the dog for a walk. If they do leave the house there is the risk that they will not be able to retrace their steps and find their way home.
But, these sensors which have been cut in their brains can, with the proper care, be regenerated. In order for this to happen we need to start devoting the kind of money needed to build Veterans’ Hospitals devoted to helping these people lead normal healthy lives.
EDUCATION:
Hillary Clinton recognizes the failure that is No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the premise that all students must reach proficient or higher by a given year. What is more, the standard used to judge proficiency is left entirely up to the individual states or even districts. So, if the standard is reached it means only that we have been able to manipulate numbers and change standards so that we can give the appearance of producing better educated students.
What Hillary has suggested is that we come up with some hard and fast standards and educate our teachers on how to reach these standards. The way to do this is not to insist that they reach some arbitrary benchmark but rather that we find schools (20 of them Elementary through High School) who are producing well-educated well-rounded students and take what they are doing to other schools.
“Well-Rounded” is a term which is still thrown around but it no longer has any meaning. We need, as Bill Clinton said, to bring back Music, Art, and Gym classes. Not only will this help raise well-rounded students but these breaks between Science, Math, and English classes will help our students to better concentrate in all of their studies.
First off, I went, on March 19th, to see former President Bill Clinton speak at Stroudsburg High School. And, if you have not already seem him speak, I can not recommend enough that you do.
The President took the stage 90 minutes late, and yet, he quickly recaptured an audience that anybody else would have lost for good. He gives facts and figures, outlines policies and procedures, and recalls both his own history and the histories of those administrations which came before his without once referring to a single note. Add this to a charisma that simply can not be expressed in words and, whether you agree with him or not, you can not help but be impressed and, hopefully, take a lesson about how public speaking should be done.
Okay, now that I have built an alter to the man’s abilities as a speaker; let’s get down to the business of what he had to say about Hillary Clinton’s proposed policies.
IRAQ/U.S. MILITARY:
Hillary has said that over the course of her first 16 months as President she will pull the troops out of Iraq. There are several reasons for this but, according to what Bill Clinton said, the primary one is the need to go into Afghanistan.
Both the current President and John McCain are saying we can do both, stay in Iraq and go to Afghanistan. The problem with that is that we currently have a lack of enlisted men/women. This is evidenced by the fact that the Marines and Navy are now being trained in Army combat. What is worse is that our Government/Army is breaking contracts with those soldiers we do have. Soldiers who were promised ten month tours can find themselves overseas for as many as 3 years.
And yet, we are being told by the Republican Administration and Republican’s Candidate for President that we can be in both places at once!
Also, former President Clinton explained, the reason we went into Iraq was so that they could set up a Democratic Government. What we have failed to recognize is that so long as we are there the Iraqis have no catalyst to start up or maintain this form of Government (which is not to say it is something they would do anyway). What we are asking the Iraq’s to do is take on a great responsibility and, so long as we are there to shoulder that burden there is no reason why they would.
CARING FOR OUR VETERANS:
Former President Clinton explained that roadside bombs literally rattle the brains of the people standing anywhere near them. This leads to our soldiers having deadened sensors in their brains. This can, in turn, lead to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and a multitude of other problems.
Veterans become home bound because their brains can no longer process how to go to the store, or to work, or to take the dog for a walk. If they do leave the house there is the risk that they will not be able to retrace their steps and find their way home.
But, these sensors which have been cut in their brains can, with the proper care, be regenerated. In order for this to happen we need to start devoting the kind of money needed to build Veterans’ Hospitals devoted to helping these people lead normal healthy lives.
EDUCATION:
Hillary Clinton recognizes the failure that is No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the premise that all students must reach proficient or higher by a given year. What is more, the standard used to judge proficiency is left entirely up to the individual states or even districts. So, if the standard is reached it means only that we have been able to manipulate numbers and change standards so that we can give the appearance of producing better educated students.
What Hillary has suggested is that we come up with some hard and fast standards and educate our teachers on how to reach these standards. The way to do this is not to insist that they reach some arbitrary benchmark but rather that we find schools (20 of them Elementary through High School) who are producing well-educated well-rounded students and take what they are doing to other schools.
“Well-Rounded” is a term which is still thrown around but it no longer has any meaning. We need, as Bill Clinton said, to bring back Music, Art, and Gym classes. Not only will this help raise well-rounded students but these breaks between Science, Math, and English classes will help our students to better concentrate in all of their studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
