Children, Children, Future, Future

To those turning in for my post on the bailout, I must apologize. Things have been a little unsettled and crazy this week (quitting your job will do that), so it's not quite ready yet. I should have it up in a couple days. In the meantime, I've decided to introduce you to the next great Role Model: Danny Donkey. Remember, the children ARE our future.

On One's Mission In Life

On Handling Bullies

On Waiting Your Turn

On Dealing With People

On Being An Activist

On Tough Decisions

Again, my latest vitriol should be ready soon. Until then, bang your head against a wall as you wish you had thought up the preceding concept.

Spin the Choice

Those of you who read this on a regular basis recognize that I was fairly excited for the possibility that this year's presidential race would be between Senators Obama and McCain, as I believed both were intelligent, sensible men who refused to "go with the flow" of partisan politics. I thought for quite some time that either would restore some integrity to an office that has sorely lacked it for the last 15.6 years (mind you, I thought Clinton did a fairly decent job, but his personal issues destroyed his credibility both as a leader and as a human being). And yes, I fully realize that this means I'm saying that there was some credibility to the office when Bush Sr. was in office; believe it or not, the more I look at his presidency, the more I can respect some of his decisions (did you know he was the one who signed the ban on further development of offshore oil reserves?).

My excitement, however, has waned, disappeared, and transformed into utter revulsion as Senator McCain has mutated into Right-Wing Man, Beholden Both to Special Interests And The Whims Of The Party. I watched him change his positions drastically from those he held as recently as 18 months ago (link here) to correspond to those of the Republican platform. I watched him embrace people (both literally and figuratively) that he publicly excoriated, and rightly so, in 2000 for the sole purpose of "rallying the base." And now, I watch as he runs what might be the worst presidential campaign since Walter Mondale ran on the "I Will Raise Taxes" platform. My dissatisfaction with Senator McCain and my disgust at what he has become cannot be measured.

Why do I mention this? I do so because I'm about to use the rest of this post to catalogue Senator Obama's potential choices for vice president, including both front runners and dark horses, listing both strengths and weaknesses that each could potentially bring to his campaign. I simply wanted you to know, my readers, that I had not forgotten about Senator McCain, nor had I forgotten that he too must choose a VP soon. It's not that I don't care who he chooses, it's that I already know that there's no way the choice will be either interesting or independent. It will simply reflect who he believes will reach his new best friends, the standard Republican core of conservative voters. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if he picked Michael Phelps.

With that out of the way, let us launch into a discussion of the pros and cons of potential Democratic VPs. You might want to save this for when you have some time to spare.

The Front-runners

Joe Biden (Sen., Delaware): One of the most experienced, well-respected, and likable members of Congress. Has experience on both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Foreign Relations. Pros: Tons of experience; highly intelligent and respected; several interesting ideas regarding Iraq and other foreign affairs. Cons: support for the Iraq war, both in the beginning and recently; strong personality may clash with Obama's; would seem to be a better Secretary of State pick.

Tim Kaine (Gov., Virginia): Current governor of a potential swing state. Has the credentials (worked as a Roman Catholic missionary in Honduras) to potentially sway Southern Christians toward voting Democrat. Delivered the rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union in 2006. Pros: Could draw Christian voters; most of his views are very similar to Obama's, specifically regarding abortion and same-sex marriage; recognized as a leader in the field of fair housing. Cons: Relatively inexperienced; not much popular appeal outside his home state.

Kathleen Sebelius (Gov., Kansas): Similar credentials to Gov. Kaine: governor of a battleground state, rebutted Bush's State of the Union in 2008, longtime association with Catholicism through education. Appears to be meant to bring back those voters who oppose Obama because he isn't Hillary. Pros: See above; views on gun control are relatively centrist. Cons: Views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty, while in line with the party in general, somewhat oppose Obama's and place her well to the left; some worry that her inclusion could present too radical a choice for voters (which I feel is ridiculous, but hey, most of the public's opinions are ridiculous).

Evan Bayh (Sen., Indiana): If there were a real-life Harvey Dent, this would be it. Experience as both governor and senator, with substantial popular appeal. Could single-handedly swing Indiana. Here's hoping no one throws acid in his face. Pros: "Pretty boy" appeal a la John Edwards (though these days, that association may not be a good thing); substantial experience; relatively moderate views; excellent ideas regarding education and fiscal responsibility. Cons: Supported both the Iraq war and the reauthorization of the Patriot Act; "pretty boy" appeal could be considered by idiotic public as lack of substance; ties to Hillary represent major hurdle.

The Dark Horses

Wesley Clark (Retired General): Intelligent and well-respected. Military experience a definite plus. Support of Hillary and numerous controversial comments, not so much. Not the best speaker, and lacks experience in most domestic issues. Pros: See above; gives Dems massive boost when it comes to national security issues. Cons: See above.

Jim Webb (Sen., Virginia): Former front-runner now relegated to the back burner since Gov. Kaine became a potential candidate. The fact that he has publicly stated he doesn't want the job doesn't help. Served in numerous roles during the Reagan administration. Rebutted Bush's State of the Union in 2007 to high regard and recognition. Probably the most independent of all possible candidates, as his allegiance lies with no one person or party. Pros: military service; Cabinet experience; independent streak. Cons: Numerous controversial incidents; doesn't want the job.

Bill Richardson (Former Gov., New Mexico): Tons of foreign policy experience and an automatic link to the Hispanic vote. Stellar record regarding fiscal responsibility. His ties to the Clinton administration hurt his chances, as does the possibility of his selection as Secretary of State. Pros: Excellent foreign policy experience; helps with the Hispanic vote; top-notch credentials regarding economics and energy. Cons: Lacks popular appeal; previous ties to Clinton administration (though his early support of Obama helps to move him away from them); like Biden, probably better suited to be Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton (Sen., New York): No. Just...no. Pros: Gains bitter middle-aged feminist vote; possibly gains bitter elderly vote. Cons: Loses everyone else; would constantly clash with Obama; choice would immediately increase likelihood of Obama's assassination by 40% (yeah, I made that number up, but it's probably pretty close).


So, with all that said, who's the right choice? That remains to be seen. Personally, I'd love to see him pick Chuck Hagel (Sen., Nebraska). As one of the very few moderate Republicans left and as a man unafraid to ignore the wishes of his party to serve the greater good, Sen. Hagel is one of the few men I respect and admire in the Senate, and it's unfortunate he won't be serving another term. His selection would show Obama's willingness to work in a bipartisan manner and would substantially help his credentials regarding national security. That being said, he's the leading candidate for Secretary of Defense in an Obama White House, so he's probably not very likely to be the choice. Honestly, any of the above candidates probably wouldn't be a bad choice (except for Hillary), as Obama has the personality and charisma to ensure his own ideas would be foremost (unlike Senator Kerry, who seemed a touch overshadowed by Senator Edwards at times) while also possessing the intelligence and forethought to take into account his VP's ideas and specific appeals and apply them to situations as best befits them. Whoever he selects, I expect that his decision will be based in careful assessment and rational discussion, and I expect that will serve him well as the slog to Election Day continues.

Besides, I doubt any of them will shoot an old man in the face.

TTRWPHLABAHCHMTWLR: Part I

The author would like to predicate this column by noting that he is an avowed moderate and as such has no inherent bias towards or against liberals, just against stupidity.

Some time ago I was looking at the Opinions section of the local newspaper (that last bastion of idiocy for the bored senior citizen or opinionated housebody) and I noticed a letter in which the writer made several blatantly ignorant statements that reminded me of why it's so difficult to get even slightly enlightened ideas across anymore. Thus, I'd like to present part one of my new ongoing threepart series, The Three Reasons Why People Hate Liberalism And, By Association, How Conservatives Have Made The Word Liberal Reviled:

1. Liberals Hate America

The idea, as I understand it, is that liberals find fault with America for something that happens, so they must hate it. This is also the idea behind "liberals who like things foreigners do." The simple fact of the matter is that this is a gross distortion of the facts, at the very least. There are some who take it too far (those who blame America for the violence in the world by claiming it's the result of our imperalistic hegemony come to mind), but finding fault in the way things are doesn't inherently imply disgust with the ideals of America, just with a single specific practice within the country. That's the way we grow as a nation: by finding the things about our country we don't like and changing them for the better. The statement that claiming our country isn't as good as it could be is treasonous both insults the intelligence and betrays the foundations of the country (lest we forget, a Mr. Jefferson believed that a revolution every so many years was a necessity and good for the health of the nation). Along with this concept comes something that's come up lately in the presidential race. Michelle Obama stated that lately, she hasn't been too proud to be an American, a point the McCain campaign seized on and fed into its grist mill of spin: "I'm proud of America every day! I've always been proud to be an American!" and so on. If you've always been proud to be an American, then you either haven't been paying attention or you haven't done enough reading. Maybe it's just my bleeding-heart nature clouding my vision, but Indian massacres and Japanese internment camps don't exactly scream patriotism and liberty to me. Oddly, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo don't seem to be helping. Ignoring the faults and disgraces of your people is both ignorant and dangerous. As the old saying goes, those who forget their mistakes are destined to repeat them, and while for some the idea of rounding up all Arabs and marching them to Oklahoma seems like the perfect solution to a "grave problem," to me such a notion offends every aspect of my being.

Yet somehow, this idea has actually worked! It kind of falls in with the "if you don't support us, the terrorists win" idea in its use of jingoism to cloak xenophobia in the clothes of patriotism. There's one hell of a logical leap between not liking the monitoring of library lists and strapping on a bomb and running into a crowded marketplace screaming Ahallu Ackbar, and anyone with half a brain would make this as much of a wide, ugly ditch as Lessing and Kierkegaard made rational religious belief. Fortunately for conservatives, there's an easy way to circumvent logic, especially among the dimwitted: utilize fear and patriotism as twin tools. People against Halliburton? They're spreading liberty into the Middle East. My Lai massacre got you down? Those boys are fighting for our freedom so we don't have to fight tyranny and evil here. See how easy it is?

As I've mentioned, some self-titled liberals take it too far and do blame America for everything (consumer culture, moral breakdown, global violence, etc.) without placing fair blame where it's due. These people need to understand how their ill-guided extremism does just as much damage as the "We're Never Wrong" attitude does (though since these people are often pacifists, the physical damage is usually negligible). Importantly, though, most liberals wouldn't be crazy or stupid enough to push the thought to these extremes. The reasonable notion of placing blame where it's due and seeking to fix that which ails the country should be one of the guiding principles by which people determine what it is they want from their lives and their government. But most people are too buried in their flag pins and pledges to pull their heads out of the sand and listen.

What would Fox News do without them?