polls, and more polls
kerry now leads bush in newspaper endorsements 45-30. and there are a growing number of papers who endorsed bush in 2000, that now either cannot support either candidate, or has endorsed jkf'04.
i think florida will again decide the election this year. in my "research" on the electoral process, lately being done through poly-sci papers and non-network/broadcast sources, i've realized that the magic number is 50.
no incumbent president has ever won re-election with public approval ratings below 50 percent. every president, i.e. reagan, clinton, nixon, etc. that has had a 50 rating or above during the final days on a campaign, has won. following the gop's $150 million dollar convention, bush was riding high (for him) at about about 47. (by anyone's standards in the "reality communities", this is still techinically an unpopular president)
right now he's at 48-50 depending on the bias of the polling. no president involved in a re-election run has ever received higher voter turn-out than the last poll indicated before the election - in modern poll history (1952-2004).
there will be unforseen (and foreseen) variables. all of them are fascinating.
1.the electoral college is bulging bigger numbers (points) in some states that have had population increases - fl., tx., ca., etc. and is dwindling in others...ny., central states, etc. new families, new parents, new workers, new college grads. of course this is the case every four years. but look around. america is more culturally and socially diverse than it was the morning after y2k.
2.on the fence. states that went to the gop in 2000 are swinging toward kerry... penn. and az. are once again in play - and the much televised news regarding the 1/4 of a million jobs lost in ohio certainly weaken bush's hold on that state. it appears that in general (and this will change again) swing states are caving, at least a little, to kerry. bush's base is the most solid base a gop candidate has had in a generation... but what about the swing voter? we'll leave that one unanswered.
3.voter registration is pandemic (and that's a good thing). everyone knows this next fact - higher voter turnout... better for democrats. lower turnout, easy re-election for gop incumbents. although the rabid efforts to sign up millions of new, or newly eligable voters will probably dissappoint the left-leaning idealogues of the '04 election, come election day, one thing is to be sure... we will not have historically low voter turn out among young, middle aged, or senior voters. that's everybody.
there's gonna be a lot of people at the polls, either in the pre-election weeks in some key states, via absentee, or at the booth on 11/2. some former members of the gop leadership have famously said that if all eligable, registered voters turned out for every election, there would probably no longer be a gop. they thrive on the public having little facts, limited access, and low voter turn-out. that's probably why they have the word "old" in the middle of their party name. the gop is surely not the progressive party.
4.new voters. although everyone knows that vote for change, rock the vote, your vote matters, move-oon.org etc. has been pro-kerry, a new voter is a timid voter. there's only one poll that ultimately matters.
5.the vote from above? the spanish armada was a well equipped fleet intent on defeating queen elizabeth. they probably should have been victorious. but the weather wasn't on their side. some say god intervened. apparently god was anglican, not catholic at the time. this leads me to ponder...
is god a democrat? of the mass of hurricanes that hit florida this summer, only one county received damage from all of them. in fact there's only one county in u.s. history to have been hit by this many storms in such a short period - polk county, florida.
this happens to be where i was born and raised for 20 years. while florida in general has been hit hard, losing a 1/4 of the citric crop, flooding, fell trees, etc. it seems that the poorest, largest county in the state was worthy of multiple hits. during the national broadcast of npr's weekday afternoon news show, all things considered reporter melissa block did a remote story from my hometown of auburndale florida, noting that voter precincts were damaged, people have lost homes and property... even jobs... and the prospect of voting, at least for some... has been put on the backburner.
granted, some people will vote no matter what, but considering the perceived in-convenience of voting... wouldn't the storm-damaged population of florida be less likely to turn out on 11/2?
considering many of the counties damaged in the storms typically are conservative or republican leaning counties... could natural disaster turn the tide in what is sure to be a bloody battle in florida even after the election?
now this is a paradox... the gop benefits from low voter turnout. but in this case low voter turnout can hurt them. what the fuck?
we'll call it - "base atrophie"
even republicans who like a low voter turnout, which usually ensures a limited minority vote, need their base. the gop is historically slower at developing and converting a new voter base. democrats, typically rally, organise, and fund with more agility.
this means that if one party has a base that is slower to expand, and that base, (i.e. polk county voters) is at the very least - "somewhat distracted" - those 537 floridian votes that allegedly justified the presidency going to the gop, could very well go the other direction this year.
we'll find out, hopefully by christmas. fortunately this year, pro-bono attorney volunteers are signing up by the hundreds.
6.here vs. there. say what you want about the occupation. and let's be honest, that's what it is. there was no war. world war 2 was a war. iraq 2 (electric boogaloo) was not a war. it was an invasion, followed by occupation, and now -surprise- a rebel insurgency. - we all have our thoughts on it. nonetheless, there's also a domestic policy debate, from two very different sides.
the guy who wins has to convince a 50/50 electorate that they can reconcile both domestic and foreign issues. that's a tall order, considering bush (even buy gop standards) is waaaayy out there on the right, and kerry, having exposed vietnam atrocities, fought for women, civil rights, and the -gulp- the environment, is very progressive... of course conservatives have a word for that. but let's say for the sake of argument that he's surely to the "left" of clinton, who was essentially a reagan democrat, without the voodo0 economics.
pop quiz. who coined the phrase (in public) "voodoo economics"? daddy bush. of course he was aginst it, uh... before he was umm... for it.
i could open an ice cream shop based on the various flavors of hypocrisy present in this election cycle.
two americas
the u.s. is probably, truth be told, more acutely divided now than in the 2000 election. the rift was put out on national display as we witnessed the winner of the popular vote, hand over the presidency to the (contested) winner of the electoral college. that's the way the system works, and accordingly, mr. gore bowed out in style. so now that we are at "war" with an abstract concept - "terrorism" and america has been cut in half... who is that going to help? nobody? a divided country isn't the end of the world, but it creates a rougher terrain on which to move forward. it's good, and/or bad depending on how one observes and interprets the wants and needs of a free society. it just seems that right now, in the mainstream at least, there are two societies. of course the poor, un-educated, or the super rich are both marginalized. so... how is this being exemplified in the polls?
taken from usa today 10/18/04: "voters also are more polarized. of republicans, 71 aid they "strongly approve" of the job bush is doing; 58 percent of democrats said they "strongly disapprove." no president in modern times has ever had such a high disapproval rating from the other party. in the month he resigned, richard nixon had a 59 percent disapproval rating among democrats; bill clinton had 57 disapproval by republicans during his impeachment." -by jim drinkard.
"the most important election of our lifetime."
wake up people. history is happening all the time. there's more than one reason that this election is called the "election of our lifetime." the next president will appoint new supreme court justices. this should scare every freethinking female to run, not walk to the polls and vote for kerry. it should. but that won't neccessarily happen. we don't elect policy. we elect people, who write policy.
the next president could hinder or help future funding for alternative energy, science, and the environment. we are slowly inching along into this new century. alternative forms of fuel, (an absolute must by the year 2020) - don't fall from the sky. the current u.s. energy consumption rate is staggering. we need a plan.
the next president will break, or solidify the philosophy of u.s. foreign policy at the turn of the century. keep bush? welcome to rome, the sequel. wrong taxation, wrong energy policy, wrong wars, wrong enemies. elect kerry? well hell, at least he's familiar with the art of dimplomacy and statesmanship. it was good enough for the founding fathers. oh... and he's had to kill people in battle. does this make him a great patriot? certainly. will it make him a great president? nobody can say. we do know what he won't do... throw our volunteer troops into a protracted engagement for no definitive reason. and what about the new europe? is it getting any less influential? nope.
we might be the only superpower, but our inter-dependence on the world for food, durable goods, technology, oil, and yes... even talented immigrant students... cannot be under-estimated by a christian fundamentalist crusade, operating under the facade of "compassionate conservatism." where is the compassion? the under-funded, uber-frustrating, concrete-thought-policies of no child left behind? higher co-pays for the few troops that are aloud to rotate back into society? ...another question that voters will hopefully address.
"w" is for whack.
i see bumper stickers... not the retarded "black dubyas", but the one that says, "it's a matter of character." well, no shit. do i believe that mr. bush believes, that he is a man of character? yes i do. do i believe that he has the right kind of character, and disposition to function coherently in the most important executive capacity on earth? are you kidding me?
there's an invisible elephant in the room... and everyone knows this... he's not very smart. period. over and over and over again... we watch him, and we all know. quietly sometimes, sometimes we openly laugh... he's a middle aged, rich party boy who slagged his way through life. are we to think that electing someone who's only experience with energy resources in the public or private sector, until now, has been to run oil companies into the ground? bush, is going to deliver us a balanced, far-sighted, plan for the "new-energy"?
please. go dig up nixon, spray him down in lime. tie his bones together, prop him up in the oval office, and tell kerry to go back to his estate. really. i would much rather have the rotting bones of a currupt, paranoid asshole running the largest/only superpower in the world, than a guy who speaks of "internets", a private healthcare plan that will drive the already 44 million without healthcare, into the ground, with millions of new "non-covered." - and yes, a guy who said that osama isn't that much of a worry. osama declared war. osama has blood on his hands. osama runs the jihad. paramilitary factions currently operating out or iraq, iran, syria, would-be palestine, etc... these are circling schools of fish. osama is the great white.
the passion of the anti-christ
how is it that a right-wing fundamentalist concentration of power, in the highest offices in the government... one with the power, we now know, to invade at will, topple governments, etc. - how is it that they don't view osama as the anti-christ?
now i haven't been to church in - a long long time. I'm not particularly religious. the bible, koran, dr. suess, etc. just happens not to inform my world view. however, due to my cultural soup, i tend to lean towards a general respect for all religions. i just happen to prefer to inform my own world view. do statements like this cause small bits of anxiety in the stomachs of some religious people? possibily. but i would like to think that it is a reaction to conditioning.
but i digress....
does this mean that i have no concept of the far-reaching historical influence of christian based leadership? no. do i think that christianity, however poorly implemented throughout history is at the very least, a more superior and humane religion than islam? absolutely.
do yourself a favor. i did. once in college, and once shortly after the occupation began... read some of the koran.
or even better... go to this website > and watch for yourselves, an honest to goodness, beheading of an infidel. that's you. that's me. that's your grandmother, and your pilates instructor. even if you are a muslim. if you aren't killing infidels, and turning the spoils and glory over to allah, then you are a bad muslim in the eyes of the prophet of islam. i'm not making this up. what's worse than an infidel? a bad muslim.
so being that extremist islam has no place in the 21st century, how is it that the "faith based president" started a holy war with the wrong fucking muslim? of course we propped saddam up in the 80's. of course he was our puppet, just like noriega. but he was old news. we had already beaten him down. he was over. over. no matter what his "plans" may have been... he was a rat in a vice.
meanwhile in a cave in the middle east. osama, undisputed leader of jihad, millionare financier of the 9/11 attacks, and the most obvious candidate for an anti-christ figure since adolph hitler... and p o o f up in smoke. anyone that can't see that we went after the wrong guy for the wrong reason is probably not fit to operate a shopping cart.
so bush got it all very very very wrong. will kery hunt down osama? who knows, probably not. he's a millionare from boston. but he also has the same war experience, more senate experience, the same background, base, belief system, intelligence grace, and balanced determination as john f. kennedy. now is anyone here gonna stand up and say that he wasn't good for america?
can't we all just get along? what about the emerging democracies? india? russia? iraq? which version of the school book are they going to be given to read? if bush wins a solid victory ... (which i doubt) he would be entering his second term with the most dangerous weapon in his arsenal... a mandate.
it's up to the voters to justify, or revoke the dangeous, short-sited overtly imperialistic stance that we've held. is there something wrong with an aggresive posture? of course not. there's nothing wrong with showing strength... but it has to be the right kind of strength. have we shown the new europe, and the new democracies that we can safely and efficiently handle a pre-emptive non-u.n. backed occupation? far from it.
war was declared on us on 9/11, we retaliated by attacking the closest thing that we could find, that resembled our enemy. since we weren't attacked by a country, we had no recourse but to write new rules.
-there's arbitrary agressive posturing... or as bush likes to say "we're stayin' on the offense." - and then there's measured, well planned, decisive action focused in the best possible direction. we almost did that in aphganistan. the money pit / graveyard / terrorist resort / timebomb that is pre-election iraq is another story.
so who gives a bucket of shit what the u.n. thinks? are we sissy europe? no. our policy posture says -"we're 'merica and we do what's best for us..."
uh... not so fast. there's nothing, short of hollywood, that american workers can produce, that another emerging, orpre-existing industrial power can't do just as well, and often cheaper. other nations don't flush the toilet 15 times a day, and waste resources anywhere as fast as we do. we can be out-done. that's reality. that's where we are. isolate the wetsern world? display missguided, and unjustified hostility toward the (already loopy) arab world?
come on. we are a global economy. the time to be an isolationist ended at pearl harbor. we are engaged... immersed in the world. our economic and military presence is nothing short of a global blanket of influence. short-sighted missteps, a foreign policy based on "faith" and not facts... a recipe for disaster. remember, it was our foreign policy that tipped the extremists in our direction.
the arab world has never been a progressive, democratic consensus of empowered capitalists. they worship the vengeful allah, with his mercenary/rapist/pirate/prophet mohammad. the west will never understand islam, because islam has been percolating longer than the post-enlightenment-west has been in existence.
with the insemination of a free jewish state, new arab countries drawn in the sand by british marshals, and the possibility of nuclear leverage... the second half of the 20th century pretty much insured that the beginning of the 21st centry wasn't going to be a love-in. one guy can do much to shape, or reshape the world in his image. it's a scary concept, but then again, so is liposuction.
of course, the future hasn't happened yet. this could end up being a bigger farce than 2000. anything is possible.
kerry now leads bush in newspaper endorsements 45-30. and there are a growing number of papers who endorsed bush in 2000, that now either cannot support either candidate, or has endorsed jkf'04.
i think florida will again decide the election this year. in my "research" on the electoral process, lately being done through poly-sci papers and non-network/broadcast sources, i've realized that the magic number is 50.
no incumbent president has ever won re-election with public approval ratings below 50 percent. every president, i.e. reagan, clinton, nixon, etc. that has had a 50 rating or above during the final days on a campaign, has won. following the gop's $150 million dollar convention, bush was riding high (for him) at about about 47. (by anyone's standards in the "reality communities", this is still techinically an unpopular president)
right now he's at 48-50 depending on the bias of the polling. no president involved in a re-election run has ever received higher voter turn-out than the last poll indicated before the election - in modern poll history (1952-2004).
there will be unforseen (and foreseen) variables. all of them are fascinating.
1.the electoral college is bulging bigger numbers (points) in some states that have had population increases - fl., tx., ca., etc. and is dwindling in others...ny., central states, etc. new families, new parents, new workers, new college grads. of course this is the case every four years. but look around. america is more culturally and socially diverse than it was the morning after y2k.
2.on the fence. states that went to the gop in 2000 are swinging toward kerry... penn. and az. are once again in play - and the much televised news regarding the 1/4 of a million jobs lost in ohio certainly weaken bush's hold on that state. it appears that in general (and this will change again) swing states are caving, at least a little, to kerry. bush's base is the most solid base a gop candidate has had in a generation... but what about the swing voter? we'll leave that one unanswered.
3.voter registration is pandemic (and that's a good thing). everyone knows this next fact - higher voter turnout... better for democrats. lower turnout, easy re-election for gop incumbents. although the rabid efforts to sign up millions of new, or newly eligable voters will probably dissappoint the left-leaning idealogues of the '04 election, come election day, one thing is to be sure... we will not have historically low voter turn out among young, middle aged, or senior voters. that's everybody.
there's gonna be a lot of people at the polls, either in the pre-election weeks in some key states, via absentee, or at the booth on 11/2. some former members of the gop leadership have famously said that if all eligable, registered voters turned out for every election, there would probably no longer be a gop. they thrive on the public having little facts, limited access, and low voter turn-out. that's probably why they have the word "old" in the middle of their party name. the gop is surely not the progressive party.
4.new voters. although everyone knows that vote for change, rock the vote, your vote matters, move-oon.org etc. has been pro-kerry, a new voter is a timid voter. there's only one poll that ultimately matters.
5.the vote from above? the spanish armada was a well equipped fleet intent on defeating queen elizabeth. they probably should have been victorious. but the weather wasn't on their side. some say god intervened. apparently god was anglican, not catholic at the time. this leads me to ponder...
is god a democrat? of the mass of hurricanes that hit florida this summer, only one county received damage from all of them. in fact there's only one county in u.s. history to have been hit by this many storms in such a short period - polk county, florida.
this happens to be where i was born and raised for 20 years. while florida in general has been hit hard, losing a 1/4 of the citric crop, flooding, fell trees, etc. it seems that the poorest, largest county in the state was worthy of multiple hits. during the national broadcast of npr's weekday afternoon news show, all things considered reporter melissa block did a remote story from my hometown of auburndale florida, noting that voter precincts were damaged, people have lost homes and property... even jobs... and the prospect of voting, at least for some... has been put on the backburner.
granted, some people will vote no matter what, but considering the perceived in-convenience of voting... wouldn't the storm-damaged population of florida be less likely to turn out on 11/2?
considering many of the counties damaged in the storms typically are conservative or republican leaning counties... could natural disaster turn the tide in what is sure to be a bloody battle in florida even after the election?
now this is a paradox... the gop benefits from low voter turnout. but in this case low voter turnout can hurt them. what the fuck?
we'll call it - "base atrophie"
even republicans who like a low voter turnout, which usually ensures a limited minority vote, need their base. the gop is historically slower at developing and converting a new voter base. democrats, typically rally, organise, and fund with more agility.
this means that if one party has a base that is slower to expand, and that base, (i.e. polk county voters) is at the very least - "somewhat distracted" - those 537 floridian votes that allegedly justified the presidency going to the gop, could very well go the other direction this year.
we'll find out, hopefully by christmas. fortunately this year, pro-bono attorney volunteers are signing up by the hundreds.
6.here vs. there. say what you want about the occupation. and let's be honest, that's what it is. there was no war. world war 2 was a war. iraq 2 (electric boogaloo) was not a war. it was an invasion, followed by occupation, and now -surprise- a rebel insurgency. - we all have our thoughts on it. nonetheless, there's also a domestic policy debate, from two very different sides.
the guy who wins has to convince a 50/50 electorate that they can reconcile both domestic and foreign issues. that's a tall order, considering bush (even buy gop standards) is waaaayy out there on the right, and kerry, having exposed vietnam atrocities, fought for women, civil rights, and the -gulp- the environment, is very progressive... of course conservatives have a word for that. but let's say for the sake of argument that he's surely to the "left" of clinton, who was essentially a reagan democrat, without the voodo0 economics.
pop quiz. who coined the phrase (in public) "voodoo economics"? daddy bush. of course he was aginst it, uh... before he was umm... for it.
i could open an ice cream shop based on the various flavors of hypocrisy present in this election cycle.
two americas
the u.s. is probably, truth be told, more acutely divided now than in the 2000 election. the rift was put out on national display as we witnessed the winner of the popular vote, hand over the presidency to the (contested) winner of the electoral college. that's the way the system works, and accordingly, mr. gore bowed out in style. so now that we are at "war" with an abstract concept - "terrorism" and america has been cut in half... who is that going to help? nobody? a divided country isn't the end of the world, but it creates a rougher terrain on which to move forward. it's good, and/or bad depending on how one observes and interprets the wants and needs of a free society. it just seems that right now, in the mainstream at least, there are two societies. of course the poor, un-educated, or the super rich are both marginalized. so... how is this being exemplified in the polls?
taken from usa today 10/18/04: "voters also are more polarized. of republicans, 71 aid they "strongly approve" of the job bush is doing; 58 percent of democrats said they "strongly disapprove." no president in modern times has ever had such a high disapproval rating from the other party. in the month he resigned, richard nixon had a 59 percent disapproval rating among democrats; bill clinton had 57 disapproval by republicans during his impeachment." -by jim drinkard.
"the most important election of our lifetime."
wake up people. history is happening all the time. there's more than one reason that this election is called the "election of our lifetime." the next president will appoint new supreme court justices. this should scare every freethinking female to run, not walk to the polls and vote for kerry. it should. but that won't neccessarily happen. we don't elect policy. we elect people, who write policy.
the next president could hinder or help future funding for alternative energy, science, and the environment. we are slowly inching along into this new century. alternative forms of fuel, (an absolute must by the year 2020) - don't fall from the sky. the current u.s. energy consumption rate is staggering. we need a plan.
the next president will break, or solidify the philosophy of u.s. foreign policy at the turn of the century. keep bush? welcome to rome, the sequel. wrong taxation, wrong energy policy, wrong wars, wrong enemies. elect kerry? well hell, at least he's familiar with the art of dimplomacy and statesmanship. it was good enough for the founding fathers. oh... and he's had to kill people in battle. does this make him a great patriot? certainly. will it make him a great president? nobody can say. we do know what he won't do... throw our volunteer troops into a protracted engagement for no definitive reason. and what about the new europe? is it getting any less influential? nope.
we might be the only superpower, but our inter-dependence on the world for food, durable goods, technology, oil, and yes... even talented immigrant students... cannot be under-estimated by a christian fundamentalist crusade, operating under the facade of "compassionate conservatism." where is the compassion? the under-funded, uber-frustrating, concrete-thought-policies of no child left behind? higher co-pays for the few troops that are aloud to rotate back into society? ...another question that voters will hopefully address.
"w" is for whack.
i see bumper stickers... not the retarded "black dubyas", but the one that says, "it's a matter of character." well, no shit. do i believe that mr. bush believes, that he is a man of character? yes i do. do i believe that he has the right kind of character, and disposition to function coherently in the most important executive capacity on earth? are you kidding me?
there's an invisible elephant in the room... and everyone knows this... he's not very smart. period. over and over and over again... we watch him, and we all know. quietly sometimes, sometimes we openly laugh... he's a middle aged, rich party boy who slagged his way through life. are we to think that electing someone who's only experience with energy resources in the public or private sector, until now, has been to run oil companies into the ground? bush, is going to deliver us a balanced, far-sighted, plan for the "new-energy"?
please. go dig up nixon, spray him down in lime. tie his bones together, prop him up in the oval office, and tell kerry to go back to his estate. really. i would much rather have the rotting bones of a currupt, paranoid asshole running the largest/only superpower in the world, than a guy who speaks of "internets", a private healthcare plan that will drive the already 44 million without healthcare, into the ground, with millions of new "non-covered." - and yes, a guy who said that osama isn't that much of a worry. osama declared war. osama has blood on his hands. osama runs the jihad. paramilitary factions currently operating out or iraq, iran, syria, would-be palestine, etc... these are circling schools of fish. osama is the great white.
the passion of the anti-christ
how is it that a right-wing fundamentalist concentration of power, in the highest offices in the government... one with the power, we now know, to invade at will, topple governments, etc. - how is it that they don't view osama as the anti-christ?
now i haven't been to church in - a long long time. I'm not particularly religious. the bible, koran, dr. suess, etc. just happens not to inform my world view. however, due to my cultural soup, i tend to lean towards a general respect for all religions. i just happen to prefer to inform my own world view. do statements like this cause small bits of anxiety in the stomachs of some religious people? possibily. but i would like to think that it is a reaction to conditioning.
but i digress....
does this mean that i have no concept of the far-reaching historical influence of christian based leadership? no. do i think that christianity, however poorly implemented throughout history is at the very least, a more superior and humane religion than islam? absolutely.
do yourself a favor. i did. once in college, and once shortly after the occupation began... read some of the koran.
or even better... go to this website > and watch for yourselves, an honest to goodness, beheading of an infidel. that's you. that's me. that's your grandmother, and your pilates instructor. even if you are a muslim. if you aren't killing infidels, and turning the spoils and glory over to allah, then you are a bad muslim in the eyes of the prophet of islam. i'm not making this up. what's worse than an infidel? a bad muslim.
so being that extremist islam has no place in the 21st century, how is it that the "faith based president" started a holy war with the wrong fucking muslim? of course we propped saddam up in the 80's. of course he was our puppet, just like noriega. but he was old news. we had already beaten him down. he was over. over. no matter what his "plans" may have been... he was a rat in a vice.
meanwhile in a cave in the middle east. osama, undisputed leader of jihad, millionare financier of the 9/11 attacks, and the most obvious candidate for an anti-christ figure since adolph hitler... and p o o f up in smoke. anyone that can't see that we went after the wrong guy for the wrong reason is probably not fit to operate a shopping cart.
so bush got it all very very very wrong. will kery hunt down osama? who knows, probably not. he's a millionare from boston. but he also has the same war experience, more senate experience, the same background, base, belief system, intelligence grace, and balanced determination as john f. kennedy. now is anyone here gonna stand up and say that he wasn't good for america?
can't we all just get along? what about the emerging democracies? india? russia? iraq? which version of the school book are they going to be given to read? if bush wins a solid victory ... (which i doubt) he would be entering his second term with the most dangerous weapon in his arsenal... a mandate.
it's up to the voters to justify, or revoke the dangeous, short-sited overtly imperialistic stance that we've held. is there something wrong with an aggresive posture? of course not. there's nothing wrong with showing strength... but it has to be the right kind of strength. have we shown the new europe, and the new democracies that we can safely and efficiently handle a pre-emptive non-u.n. backed occupation? far from it.
war was declared on us on 9/11, we retaliated by attacking the closest thing that we could find, that resembled our enemy. since we weren't attacked by a country, we had no recourse but to write new rules.
-there's arbitrary agressive posturing... or as bush likes to say "we're stayin' on the offense." - and then there's measured, well planned, decisive action focused in the best possible direction. we almost did that in aphganistan. the money pit / graveyard / terrorist resort / timebomb that is pre-election iraq is another story.
so who gives a bucket of shit what the u.n. thinks? are we sissy europe? no. our policy posture says -"we're 'merica and we do what's best for us..."
uh... not so fast. there's nothing, short of hollywood, that american workers can produce, that another emerging, orpre-existing industrial power can't do just as well, and often cheaper. other nations don't flush the toilet 15 times a day, and waste resources anywhere as fast as we do. we can be out-done. that's reality. that's where we are. isolate the wetsern world? display missguided, and unjustified hostility toward the (already loopy) arab world?
come on. we are a global economy. the time to be an isolationist ended at pearl harbor. we are engaged... immersed in the world. our economic and military presence is nothing short of a global blanket of influence. short-sighted missteps, a foreign policy based on "faith" and not facts... a recipe for disaster. remember, it was our foreign policy that tipped the extremists in our direction.
the arab world has never been a progressive, democratic consensus of empowered capitalists. they worship the vengeful allah, with his mercenary/rapist/pirate/prophet mohammad. the west will never understand islam, because islam has been percolating longer than the post-enlightenment-west has been in existence.
with the insemination of a free jewish state, new arab countries drawn in the sand by british marshals, and the possibility of nuclear leverage... the second half of the 20th century pretty much insured that the beginning of the 21st centry wasn't going to be a love-in. one guy can do much to shape, or reshape the world in his image. it's a scary concept, but then again, so is liposuction.
of course, the future hasn't happened yet. this could end up being a bigger farce than 2000. anything is possible.