mccain would be the oldest president to take office during his first term - 23/10/08

From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

McCain would be the oldest president to take office during his first term. Reagan was 78 when he left his second term as president, McCain is now 72. If you're reading about his survival expectancy from the New York Times, the newspaper that made false, unsubstantiated claims about an affair he was having and about his involvement in the Keating 5 incident, I'd be interested to know how they made those calculations without his medical records...

Didn't know about the money being from the party. I certainly don't support that She's clearly trying to play up the attractive, successful, woman card, which, honestly, is a strategy that has been working for her. My mistake on the haircut... but still, $400... I'd be interested to see more details on the Iraqi oil because there are people (like Obama) upset at Iraq's not using their newly found oil wealth. If the U.S. is getting 87% of the oil, that wouldn't be such a big deal, and at the price oil has been at, if we were getting Iraqi oil, the war probably wouldn't be costing us very much at all. The China thing I believe was a contract to build pipelines or drills or something. Still more proof that the U.S. isn't controlling everything.

"And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the
instability was brought on by US presence."

How is that relevant now? It's something to keep in mind next time we're thinking about invading a country, true. And it shows that it was a mistake to go in (or at least our strategy and optimism was flawed), but still the instability being as a result of our invasion is more reason why we should stay in until things are stable. The instability is mainly not from insurgents attacking U.S. soldiers, a lot is Shiite vs. Sunni and the risk of civil war. It's all the militia groups that would like to gain power through force. Granted this instability is because the U.S. led a poorly organized invasion but that's all the more reason to insure that we fix the mess we made. Now on to your next e-mail... can't keep up here.


From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

If you're reading about his survival expectancy from the New York Times, the
newspaper that made false, unsubstantiated claims about an affair he was having
and about his involvement in the Keating 5 incident, I'd be interested to know
how they made those calculations without his medical records...

The article was critical of all candidates not giving FULL disclosure of their health records, and was written by a physician who has covered the health of presidential candidates for the past 36 years:

"If Mr. McCain's 2000 left-temple melanoma was a metastasis, as the Armed Forces
pathologists' report suggested, it would be classified as Stage III. The
reclassification would change his statistical odds for survival at 10 years from
about 60 percent to 36 percent, according to a published study." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20health.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&sq=doctor&st=cse&scp=2

I'd be interested to see more details on the Iraqi oil because there are
people (like Obama) upset at Iraq's not using their newly found oil wealth.

Yeah, I wish I could remember where I read that ... I'll find it eventually. Also I was reading about the falling prices of oil affecting oil rich countries:

"Now, plummeting oil prices are raising questions about whether the countries
can sustain their spending — and their bids to challenge United States
hegemony." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/world/21petro.html?scp=1&sq=oil%20rich&st=cse

"And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the
instability was brought on by US presence." How is that relevant now?

It's relevant now because some people present US presence like it is a selfless act without recognizing that it was one of the main causes to instability in Iraq. And I agree that the US should not leave until they have righted that.


From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

What people also forget is what was there before the U.S., someone guilty of genocide. The problem was not that something was done, it's what was done and how it was done. Just saying something else that's often overlooked and forgotten.

i thought it would get a good reaction out of ya. sorry. - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

Were you reading the republicans for change thing? I can't read it at work, it won't show up on the screen, but i thought it would get a good reaction out of ya. Sorry.

So fucking sad that this is what politics is. "I want change... blah blah blah."
My dad put it really well, Obama has pretty much just become a screen onto which
the world is projecting what they want from a president. It doesn't matter what
he wants to do, what his proposals are, what he's done. He's presented himself
in such a way, that people see whatever it is that change means to them.

I agree again, 100%. And it is very sad. The GLCP will hopefully bring real change, here and abroad. And about the election machines, I know what you mean. I recently read an article about the election campaigns here and I had to save the paper. Its a really good read, I'll give it to ya when i see ya. And again, I agree that a well run campaign does not equal a good president. Usually the opposite is true - if they need to dump so much money and manpower into the campaign they are covering up something, hiding something, or present themselves favorably when they in fact are not...

Also, this from the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002:

Sec. 323
'(a) NATIONAL COMMITTEES-'(1) IN GENERAL- A national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) may not solicit, receive, or direct to another person a contribution, donation, or transfer of funds or any other thing of value, or spend any funds, that are not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.'

(2) APPLICABILITY- The prohibition established by paragraph (1) applies to any such national committee, any officer or agent acting on behalf of such a national committee, and any entity that is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such a national committee.


From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

Dammit Brent. You have the best job ever. I'm not even working and I can't keep up!

john edwards' haircut was $400, not $4000 - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:

I was reading the articles you posted on facebook, although trying to give the appearance i'm working at the same time lol.

John Edwards' haircut was $400, not $4000.

And it wasn't Palin's "own , hard earned money", it came out of the pockets of the National Republican Party.

I recently read an article saying that the us had negotiated something like 87% of Iraqi oil for itself and the other 13% for Iraq to do what it would with it. Hardly seems like a sovereign governments idea of independence. And Iraqi stability hinging on US presence is only necessary because the instability was brought on by US presence.

lol, the pumpkins are hilarious. i know what i'm carving up this hallowe'en!

"Good news is that McCain will not hit the average U.S. life expectancy during
his first term, nor will he even be the oldest president in his first term (that
would hit during his second term when he would pass Reagan). Not only that, but
the life expectancy isn't totally applicable as he will probably have access to
the best doctors in the world."

I was just reading an article in the NYtimes yesterday about the lack of full disclosure of medical data from all candidates, but that McCain would be the oldest president to take the office, and that his survival expectancy for his first term was 60%. And if he was lying about one of his melanoma's, which a military biopsy suggested, that it would drop to 36%.

Also, if we're going to question McCain's judgement, what about Obama's? He's
associated himself with people like Rezko, Ayers, and Wright for many many years
and now has taken council from people like the former C.E.O. Fannie Mae. I'm
just saying, "let's focus on the issues that the American people really care
about, like the Economy."

I agree 100%.

conservativesforchange.com - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008:


lol, and this: http://www.conservativesforchange.com/


From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

Oy, had to stop half way through. Some of things were uneducated. It's really clear that not only has McCain run a poor campaign that doesn't reflect how he would be as a President (because I've read things about him now and how he was before that are drastically different then how he presents himself through his campaign) and also how clever and brilliant of a campaign Obama has run. It's really sad.

Quick note, how well you run a campaign surely does not reflect how good of a president you will be. Bush ran brilliant campaigns in 2000 and 2004, one of the best campaign machines in decades, and well... we know where that got us.

So sad that this is what politics is. "I want change... blah blah blah." My dad put it really well, Obama has pretty much just become a screen onto which the world is projecting what they want from a president. It doesn't matter what he wants to do, what his proposals are, what he's done. He's presented himself in such a way, that people see whatever it is that change means to them.

The guy that said he wants Obama because we've moved too far to the right and so he hopes this will move us back in the other direction, is clearly a bit misguided. First both candidates are more to the left and McCain disagrees with Bush on many key conservative issues. Second, there's going to be a Democratic majority in congress even larger than there is now! maybe even a veto proof 60 in the senate. C'mon

the U.S. doesn't really believe that the situation in Iraq is fully stable yet - 10/23/08

From Buck on October 23rd, 2008:

But the U.S. doesn't really believe that the situation in Iraq is fully stable yet. They don't want a timeline for withdrawal but a withdrawal with preconditions that can be reversed if things get bad and unstable again. Thus since they don't believe the country is stable enough for their own standards, they want to make sure that if things go wrong in the country, at least the embassy and its residents will be safe and with power.

I don't think it seems like the U.S. is trying to secure resources for themselves. This can be seen in the fact that first, there were free elections in Iraq and someone was voted in who is now trying to negotiate the withdrawal of U.S. troops. More evidence of U.S. not only being in it for themselves is the fact that there are contracts and agreements being made with Chinese oil companies. Granted the U.S. does hold a lot of influence and steers more deals towards themselves, but this sort of does make sense since for a large part of the past few years, Iraqi stability has been hinging on U.S. presence and intervention. But still, I don't see how one large embassy is being built to ensure political dominance over resources, money, the country etc... when the gov. that was voted in that has been doing things that don't necessarily benefit the U.S. but rather that it shows U.S. lack of faith in Iraqi stability as well as wanting to maintain an influential presence in a country that we hope to maintain as a strong ally in the region.

Oh, and those pumpkins are nauseating.

And as for the Palin stories...Did you know John Edwards got a 4,000 dollar haircut??? His whole platform and stump speech was about fighting for the poor and class equality and all that. How do you spend 4000 dollars on just a haircut??? That's ridiculous. It does seem a little hypocritical of Palin, but at the same time, she's a self-made woman. Owned her own business, built herself up in politics, and had 5 kids all at the same time. She has the right to indulge herself with her own hard earned money. I don't see the Republican party as so much "looking out for the little guy" but more the party of "we want to make this possible for the little guy to one day achieve, and once you achieve it you can do whatever you want with your hard earned money." Of course that doesn't come off as sympathetic/empathetic. Unfortunately though, it is going to hurt her with the public because that how the public is and politics has to react appropriately: the guy who can mold his image the best is going to win, not who's honest.

Also, I do question McCain's judgement a bit about Palin. Initially, it proved to be a brilliant pick. He pulled way ahead after the announcement. Unfortunately that's wearing down now. It's true though, that I don't think I'd like Palin as president but for the same reasons as I wouldn't want Obama as president. She's got ties to an extreme pastor, she's inexperienced in many areas (still more experienced than Obama though), and she's a bit too far right in the spectrum (where as Obama is left). Good news is that McCain will not hit the average U.S. life expectancy during his first term, nor will he even be the oldest president in his first term (that would hit during his second term when he would pass Reagan). Not only that, but the life expectancy isn't totally applicable as he will probably have access to the best doctors in the world.

Also, if we're going to question McCain's judgement, what about Obama's? He's associated himself with people like Rezko, Ayers, and Wright for many many years and now has taken council from people like the former C.E.O. Fannie Mae. I'm just saying, "let's focus on the issues that the American people really care about, like the Economy."

P.S. you should check out the articles I posted on facebook last night. I got a bit of an urge to get some stuff out there all of a sudden. One is the Kennedy article I sent you. The other is a pretty non-partisan article on how foreign policy rhetoric has changed for the two candidates, and the third is about Obama's tax policy.

we should work towards global disarmament - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008

"To your point about why it has to be the case that there is a game of chicken
is that there is a large amount of distrust. It seems to be a part of human
nature to not only be distrustful but also deceitful which just keeps the cycle
going. This is the case most of all when looking at extremist Muslim ideology.
Eventhough it is held by a very small minority, there is the thought that your
and others sacrifice are worth the cause of jihad. That's something that makes
the thought of Iran and north Korea with nukes so scary because they are known
to fund and supply jihadist groups."

Fair enough. Obviously Iran and N Korea with nukes is scary and must not be allowed to happen, but I feel the same way about any nation. I think we should work towards global disarmament of nuclear weapons.

"The embassy is another issue. Lots of countries have embassies in other
countries, granted the size is an issue. In Peru the US embassy is bigger than
any other Peruvian government building but no one is protesting the US military
presence in Peru... It does however give a bad impression of US egos."

True. But the size is an issue, and does show the ego of the US. It's like a "remember, we are the strongest and most dominant".

"It sounds like a lot of the size of the embassy is as a result of it wanting to
be self sufficient which would reflect the lack of faith in Iraqi stability in
the near future which would make sense and also of the US being a target of
violence for still some time. But there is nothing wrong with an embassy."

Absolutely nothing wrong with an embassy, but just because you call a structure an embassy doesn't make it so. This is a lot more like a military compound than an embassy. And it does show lack of faith in Iraqi stability, which would make you wonder how they can conceivably withdraw when they obviously don't think the country is stable enough for their own standards. And this ties back to the point you made about, rather than competing for economic dominance, the CIA incites revolts and props up US-favorable regimes. The same appears to be happening in Iraq - it appears as if they want to secure resources for themselves.

Obviously this is debatable and only time will tell, but I'm not ruling anything out. Probably will have to save euchre night as Pam is working Saturday and unsure when she is getting off. You let me know when and where is best for you and I'll be there!

And on a lighter note: http://yeswecarve.com/ lol!

where the selection of palin was once seen as an asset ... - 23/10/08

From Brent on October 23rd, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102201645.html?referrer=reddit

Palin considers herself an intellectual, and would like to name one of her kids "Zamboni"! lol.

From a story today in the washington post:

"Where the selection of Palin was once seen as an asset, a majority of voters now say McCain's vice presidential pick reflects poorly on the decisions he would make as president, according to the Post-ABC News poll. Overall, 52 percent of likely voters said they are less confident in McCain's judgment because his of surprise selection of Palin; 38 percent are more confident because of it. That represents a marked reversal from the initially positive reaction to the pick. Several GOP sources expressed anger about the damage the clothing story was likely to do to the ticket, coming just as the campaign is making its closing argument by employing "Joe the Plumber" in an appeal to average Americans. "That's what grates me. We're the party that talks about looking out for the little guy," said one top Virginia Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the GOP ticket. "Then something like that pops. It smacks of being hypocritical.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203346.html?hpid=topnews

The clothing story they refer to is: "the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 on makeup consultations and clothes at high-end department stores such as Neiman Marcus and Saks in New York and St. Louis." In case you didn't know...

interesting poll - 21/10/08

From Buck on October 21st, 2008

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/poll-troops-support-mccain/


From Brent on October 21st, 2008

Haven't read all of the article but it is an interesting poll. I think it demonstrates the racial polarization of the American military - a very scary thought. Also, the poll was taken before the debates - I'd be interested to hear the results of a poll now, although I don't think they'd be drastically different.

Also, polls are irrelevant.

lol!

And the poll was before Powell endorsed Obama.


From Buck on October 21st, 2008

True, all polls are irrelevant but some may be less irrelevant than others, and I say this one is less so than the international opinion polls, seeing as how the troops have much more invested in the outcome of this election.

The reasons polls are irrelevant is because their meaning simply depends on how you interpret them. That poll could show racial polarization because black people are going to tend to vote for Obama because he's black, or it could show that whites don't want to vote for the black guy. It also could just show that blacks tend to vote democrat (which they do). I think though that people in the military would be less inclined to vote for reasons of race because of their lives literally being at stake. Maybe they are more for McCain because they realize that with a son in Iraq and another son in the Navy, and with personal experience in combat (and being tortured) he will make prudent decisions with regard to foreign policy, particularly involving the military. Anyway, didn't quite get the racial thing except maybe blacks generally being for Obama as in civilian polls, but you are right about Colin Powell maybe having some influence, don't know about after the debates though because people have seemed to generally agree, neither did really spectacularly well. Anyway, just thought I'd throw a poll of my own at ya!

mccain/obama comedy dinner! - 17/10/08

From Buck on October 17th, 2008

McCain-Obama comedy dinner!

From Brent on October 17th, 2008

Lol, I gotta watch that dinner!

I'll get back to the emails you sent me over the weekend, including the global polls thingy.

obama's tax-plan disaster - 15/10/08

From Buck on October 15th, 2008

And just to even it out...

Didn't necessarily mean to get the politics emails going again but this is too disturbing to skip.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGExY2UzNjQ5YjAyNWUzZmI2MDQyNmU4MmU2NGI3ZDg=


From Brent on October 17th, 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/17/uselections2008-barackobama1

What did you think of the debates? And I haven't got around to reading your links yet or posting my trip on rubberontheroad, been really busy past two nights. this weekend will be nice for catching up on that sort of thing.


From Buck on October 17th, 2008

Eh, that world opinion stuff is irrelevant, you haven't addressed my points on that yet.

Didn't get a chance to watch the whole debate cause I've been pretty busy with work. I watched certain parts, highlights and what not, looked pretty good. Definitely the best one and I think McCain did quite well from what I saw and heard.

sorry, dad, i'm voting for obama - 15/10/08

From Buck on October 15th, 2008

It's not a trick, I swear. Haha.

http://thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/

those crazy latin commies - 11/10/08

From Buck on October 11th, 2008

In response to those crazy latin commies ; )

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzZkN2YxMzVlZTBhOTNiMTBlODBhNDlkNGU4NmIwNTY=

And this is from a larger essay on the financial crisis. Gives a bit of an idea of what's at stake with having a far left president and far left congress:

Finally, on top of the survey in uncertainty and collapse in credit we also have the specter of a damaging political response. One of the major factors compounding the Great Depression was that politicians moved to hinder free trade and encourage anti-competitive practices. The infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was introduced by desperate US policymakers as a way of blocking imports to protect domestic jobs, but helped worsen the recession by freezing world trade. At the same time policymakers were encouraging firms to collude to keep prices up and encouraging workers to unionize to protect wages, exacerbating the situation by strangling free markets. The current backlash against capitalism could lead to a repeat, with politicians swinging towards the left away from free-markets. This happened after the Great Depression, it happened after the major recession of 1974/75 and I think it will happen again now. This will lock in the short-run economic damage from the current credit crunch into longer run systematic damage from anti-growth policies.

This is a bit of an old article, but still kind of applies. Scary to think that had Obama been president starting in January 2008 or 2007, there could very likely be the next depression by now (this links into the above quote):

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWYzNzZlOTgyZGU2ZDFiYTdiM2QwYmE2OTRiM2Y3N2Y=&w=MA==

No rush to respond though, just enjoy the weather and the ride and happy (Canadian) thanksgiving!

getting more disillusioned with chomsky - 10/10/08

From Buck on October 10th, 2008:

I gotta say, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with Noam Chomsky. So much of what he says seems so one sided. It would take a very big time commitment for me to research the whole Israel/Palestine issue, including, like I said in the previous e-mail, to simply find out more on the history of "palestine" which is more specifically a name for a general area in the middle east, literally. It seems to me the more apocalyptic image he can create and horrific situations he can describe the more he'll be believed because he's an MIT professor. There's a lot to be said about this strategy, sometimes you need to exaggerate a situation to get the necessary amount of attention in order to help form a solution, sort of over shoot things in the hopes of reaching a middle ground. However, at least in my eyes, he's losing some credibility. Like I said, I'd need A LOT of time to look into the history of the Israel/Palestine issue, but what I am aware of is that Israel did agree to grant Palestine sovereignty if Hamas took out those sections of their constitution, they refused. I also know that Israel started evacuating the settlements which constitute a significant point of contention within this conflict, not to mention that Hamas has recently fired rockets at an Israeli school. Chomsky says Israel uses the West Bank as target practice, and doesn't mention that Palestine does the same thing. C'mon, this is so one sided! This is against the founding principle of our party, the thing that the two of us are in total agreement, there are two sides to a story, and usually, both sides are to blame. Chomsky, in his role as one of the most influential intellectuals in the world, should make it a priority to tell the whole story. Given his status in the academic word, the simple act of ommision communicates a tremondous amount. The impression I got from this excerpt is that the state of Israel should be dissolved (not to say that that's what he believes, but that is the honest impression I got from the language he was using).

On to the next thing:

That is fair, but I did say that this was a superficial point and that I didn't agree with it for those reasons. I don't think either candidate will bring about any major change, but the appearance to the rest of the world of a democrat of mixed race as president after 8 years of bush comes as no surprise to be popular. Its too bad for McCain because the deck is already stacked against him, just being an old, white, republican following eight years of the very unpopular Bush.

The point I was trying to make about this, wasn't quite that it's a superficial reason to vote for him but that the opinion polls themselves and peoples reasons for saying he would be better for the U.S. or that they would vote for Obama are superficial. What I mean by this is that there does not seem to be any legitimate, solid foundation for why the international world would prefer Obama (other than "he said..."). The initial boost to U.S. favorability as a result of Americans voting for a black man would wear off after a few months and return back to regular levels. The same would happen after any drop as a result of McCain winning because again peoples reasons for not wanting him are purely superficial. So when faced with the reality of McCain and his pro-green environmental policies, favoring diplomacy, better leadership for the economy, the drop would be offset and return back to regular levels, and most likely better than Bush. What it seems like you think I meant by it being superficial is the same way people would vote Liberal in Canada just so Conservatives won't be in power, sort of like that's not a good reason to vote for a guy just because people have irrational desires to have Obama as next president of the U.S. But the reason i think it's superficial is because beyond possibly 6 months it won't really be any more of a boost to international opinion than McCain winning.

And third, the Space race.

A few things I take issue on with the Chomsky quote. First of all, he says:

"Nobody really believes that the US is trying to protect itself from North Korea. That's not serious"

Well I agree that that's not the reason we're developing our space program, but to dismiss N. Korea so easily is almost just as foolish. They have spent time working on missiles that could reach the western U.S., Hawaii and the coastal areas. That is pretty serious, and should not be so easily dismissed. Next, is his comparison to the development of Navy technology, which is an extremely good example:

You know, the development of space technology, including space warfare today, is similar in its technological-industrial significance to the development of navies a hundred years ago. If you look at say, England and Germany a century ago, which had the most advanced navies then, they were dealing with extremely tricky technological problems. Putting a huge gun on a moving platform and ensuring that it could hit another moving target was one of the hardest technical problems of the early twentieth century.

In fact, Clinton-era publications of the US Space Command describe control over space as a parallel to control over the oceans a century ago. Then, countries built navies to protect and enhance their power in commercial and strategic interests. Today, the militarization of space is intended to protect US investments and commercial interest and US hegemony around the world.

So what is Chomsky saying here? What I can gather is that since he believes the U.S. should abandon its ambitions for space and he is making this comparison, then he similarly believes England, which is the closest parallel to the U.S. today, should have abandoned their naval ambitions. Seriously? Do you think that would've been a good idea? Do you think the Germans would have abandoned their naval development if England did? Aside from the civilian benefits that come from military research, this is a ridiculous idea. It would have been terrible for England to stop developing their navy, and silly to think that Germany would have stopped if England did. In fact the best proof of this is the exact example that Chomsky himself uses about the U.S. and the militarization of space:

We're looking at the dawn of a new arms race. For example, Germany technically opposes the US space militarization program, but is bound to get involved. Otherwise it will be left behind in the development of advanced technology. Germany understands that very well. The US understands it too, and they fully expect that Germany and other countries that they want on board will go along with the program. The Bush Administration recognizes that US power is so overwhelming that it can't really be opposed, even if countries object to US actions.

So in the case of Germany, they would've been happy to continue developing their navy, including their devastating U-boats used during WWII, if England had stopped. It just means that they get a bit of time to get ahead while England watches on, until they realize they might as well hop on the bandwagon. That brings me to my third point, that none of this addressed what I said about China, that China would be happy to continue their space research even if the U.S. were to stop theirs. They don't pursue militarizing space just to make sure they keep up with the U.S. They also do it because there is a strong Chinese belief that not only should they keep up with the West but also that China is the center of everything and the most important, and they have the right to supremacy, see their central belief of "The Mandate of Heaven" which parallels very nicely to "Manifest Destiny." Again, all you have to do is look at their treatment of Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong. They believe they have every right in the world to those sovereign states, they historically "belong" to China, and so it is one of their central goals to bring that forward.

Finally, there's this point:

"Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market."

This is another example of Chomsky looking at only one part of the picture, and the more apocalyptic he sounds the more authority he seems to have, because why would you exaggerate the "destruction of the species"? What Chomsky failed to mention here is that what we're also taught in economics are theories of externalities and the "tragedy of the commons." Basically they outline how to deal with the environment etc... that we actually are better off, from an economics perspective, caring for the environment etc... and not exhausting resources and all this. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, but I can write more about it in another e-mail if you want.

Anyway, you're up!

p.s. How beautiful has the weather been/going to be this weekend?? It's awesome, definitely wanna go for some motorcycle rides... stupid homework...

we are witnessing the death of a nation - 10/10/08

From Brent on October 10th, 2008:

Lol, this made me chuckle: "Latin leftists gloating over 'Comrade' Bush's bailout"

And something else from Chomsky that is anti-Obama, concerning the Israel/Palestine conflict. Note I am transcribing this from a lecture of his ...

"
We are witnessing the death of a nation, something that doesn't happen very often, called 'politicide' ... What does Obama have to say about this? ... You can look at his website and you'll find this: "Our first and incontrovertible commitment in the middle east must be to the security of Israel, which is America's strongest ally in the middle east." Well there is a security problem, namely for the Palestinians. The question for them is survival and it isn't clear that they will survive. But there is nothing here about our commitment to security for the Palestinians, and for good reasons. They at most could be a weak ally of the USA, and there is a general operative principal that human rights are essentially determined by your contributions to power, privilege, and ideological needs, and Israel makes major contributions, so therefore they have rights, and Palestinians make no contributions, maybe even a negative contribution by their existence, so they have no rights. And Obama is quite clear about that.

Obama also tells you on his website that he favors increases in foreign aid, and gives his reason: "To ensure that funding priorities to Israel are met, military and economic, so for that reason we have to increase foreign aid. Also, Israels right to exist as a Jewish state must never be challenged." As far as I can tell, he's not on record saying that the existence of any country as a white state, or christian state, or muslim state, must never be challenged. You can check and see. But in the case of Israel, yes, it has to be. Can't be challenged.

Furthermore, we can't recognize Hamas, he says, which is correct. It is logically impossible for the USA to recognize Hamas, it would be like Germany recognizing the Democratic Party. It's a party, you can't recognize it. So we won't recognize the elected government in Palestine, which happens to be led by Hamas. And that makes sense on the basis of our conceptions of democracy, in fact it is very illustrative of them.

Palestinians voted the wrong way in a free election, therefore they have to be punished. That is so obvious that you can't even find a comment about it in the free press or anywhere else, cause it's obvious. You vote the wrong way in a free election you must be punished, that's democracy ...

It's totally irrelevant that Hamas has repeatedly called for a peaceful two state settlement of the Israel/Palestine problem, in accord with the overwhelming international consensus, which is barred and opposed only by the United States and Israel... Washington and Israel oppose it, therefore it doesn't matter if Hamas supports it along with everyone else ...

Where does this leave us with regard to the Palestinians? We have two possibilities: one is that the USA will join the international consensus, and Israel will go along with it, as it has no choice. Meaning the USA will accept a two state settlement on the international border, a position the USA has unilaterally blocked for 30 years, with very rare and brief exceptions, and Israel as well.

The other possibility is that the USA and Israel will continue doing what they are doing, right before your eyes, a policy that the Prime Minister of Israel called 'convergence' to rousing applause in the United States... meaning Gaza is turned into a prison where the people can rot, Israel can use it for target practice. As far as the West Bank is concerned Israel will annex everything inside the so called separation wall, which should be called the annexation wall, it's no longer in doubt, which includes valuable land and resources... All of this is totally illegal, there is an authoritative opinion in the world court, unanimous, including the US justice in a separate declaration, that any settlement in the West Bank is illegal in violation of International Law. No disagreement about this in the world, except the Israel High Court, and some people here, so it's all illegal... but that doesn't matter, the government supports it so it doesn't matter ...
"

the dawn of a new arms race - 09/10/08

From Brent on October 9th, 2008:

Even you, as a Canadian that is extremely interested in american politics, wasn't aware of Obama's blatant refusal to have any kind of debates or town hall meetings prior to the conventions, or McCain's desire for Nuclear disarmament, and I don't think you knew much about McCain's green ambitions either (McCain-Lieberman for cap and trade). So how straightforward really is the significance of the foreign polls, when people are so ill-informed.

That is fair, but I did say that this was a superficial point and that I didn't agree with it for those reasons. I don't think either candidate will bring about any major change, but the appearance to the rest of the world of a democrat of mixed race as president after 8 years of bush comes as no surprise to be popular. It's too bad for McCain because the deck is already stacked against him, just being an old, white, republican following eight years of the very unpopular Bush.

Now, regarding the space race. I'm sending the following quote from an interview with Noam Chomsky:

"
Noam Chomsky:

Take what's called the Missile Defense Program, which I think is mislabeled. It's actually a "militarization of space" program. The missile defense component is a minor feature that nobody takes very seriously. Nobody really believes that the US is trying to protect itself from North Korea. That's not serious. But the militarization of space is quite serious. Like a lot of Bush's policies, this one goes back to the Clinton period, but it's being enhanced. We are looking at the extension of military force from armies, to navies, to the air and now to outer space. You know, the development of space technology, including space warfare today, is similar in its technological-industrial significance to the development of navies a hundred years ago. If you look at say, England and Germany a century ago, which had the most advanced navies then, they were dealing with extremely tricky technological problems. Putting a huge gun on a moving platform and ensuring that it could hit another moving target was one of the hardest technical problems of the early twentieth century.

In fact, Clinton-era publications of the US Space Command describe control over space as a parallel to control over the oceans a century ago. Then, countries built navies to protect and enhance their power in commercial and strategic interests. Today, the militarization of space is intended to protect US investments and commercial interest and US hegemony around the world.

MADRE:

It's well known that the militarization of space is both extremely hazardous and easily avoidable. It would be possible to terminate it right now, before it even begins. Why isn't this happening?

Noam Chomsky:

We're looking at the dawn of a new arms race. For example, Germany technically opposes the US space militarization program, but is bound to get involved. Otherwise it will be left behind in the development of advanced technology. Germany understands that very well. The US understands it too, and they fully expect that Germany and other countries that they want on board will go along with the program. The Bush Administration recognizes that US power is so overwhelming that it can't really be opposed, even if countries object to US actions.

In fact, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans militarization. Potential adversaries of the US, and even its allies, are so far behind that these countries are very interested in maintaining the treaty. Europe and the rest of the world want a strong reaffirmation of the Treaty and the US is unilaterally trying to derail it. Termination of the treaty would mean that the US could develop satellite weapons, put offensive weapons in space. It would probably mean using nuclear power in space. All of this leads to some very dangerous scenarios, including destruction of the species.

MADRE:

The Outer Space Treaty is one of many international agreements that the Bush Administration has violated or terminated. What's the logic behind this trend?

Noam Chomsky:

It's actually quite rational. Take the Kyoto Protocol. Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market. The market is regarded as democratic because everybody has a vote. Of course, some have more votes than others because your votes depend on the number of dollars you have, but everybody participates and therefore it's called democratic.

Well, suppose that we believe what we are taught. It follows that if there are dollars to be made, you destroy the environment. The reason is elementary. The people who are going to be harmed by this are your grandchildren and they don't have any votes in the market. Their interests are worth zero. Anybody that pays attention to their grandchildren's interests is being irrational. Because what you're supposed to do is maximize your own interests, measured by wealth, right now. Nothing else matters. So destroying the environment and militarizing outer space are rational policies, but within a framework of institutional lunacy. If you accept the institutional lunacy, then the policies are rational.

"

To you, sir.

an incredibly optimistic view of the world - 9/10/08

From Buck on October 9th, 2008


So first off, I think it's an incredibly optimistic view of the world to think that China is only going after the weaponization of space in reaction to the U.S. Granted that is part of it, but I can tell you from my experience with China, the Chinese, and studying its people and culture (especially in modern times), there is a very good chance, almost guaranteed, that China would pursue it regardless. China is extremely nationalistic and has had a kind of inferiority complex ever since about the mid 19th century as a result of the west not only having surpassed them technologically and economically but also having effectively colonizing. Ever since, there's a very strong effort to define what is China and to ensure that what is China is the best or among the best in the world. You can see this with Tibet, the huge exhibitions of pride when they gained control of Hong Kong, their relations and threats toward Taiwan, their total disregard for the environment (another kind of Chicken race), and the whole mind set of their olympic games. And that's where the game of chicken comes in. The U.S. is not willing to take the risk that China will end their space race if they do it first.

As for the polls, it's true that the poll is straight forward but I would argue that its significance is not so much. First, like I said I believe that those opinion polls would only be reflected within the first few months after the election, if Obama were to win it would jump initially with McCain it would drop or stay flat. Then it would come back to an equilibrium, because as we seem to agree, there seems to be little actual difference between the two in terms of actual policy which is what ultimately will have the largest impact on opinion. Also it seems that there is a general optimism about both candidates, and for myself I'm pretty happy with the choices we have (at least with regard to foreign policy and world opinion). The real way to see how they would affect international opinion in the long run is to see their record in foreign policy. McCain has a very strong record, he's had good associations with foreign leaders for example, and is generally seen in a favorable light. He is also in favor of diplomatic strategies and would like to begin pulling out of Iraq because of the stabilization that has been happening there, not to mention what I said about his nuclear policy.

Second, in terms of the international polls, I think it's a really bad idea to base a decision based on those polls. Like I said there are other things that would determine long term public opinion. Second, as much as the international community may have invested in this election, the U.S. and American citizens have much much more. For example and most importantly at the moment, the economy, which I think Obama would not be very good for. It is especially not a good idea to be looking at international (particularly european) choices in this election just by looking at the point they're in. They're financial situation and political situation is a mess, a complete mess. Nobody knows what to do or is putting forward any ideas. There was a big summit called yesterday I believe, and Germany, the biggest economy in the EU didn't even show up! Not only that, but you have to look at what effects public opinion. The U.S. itself has a generally very left leaning media not to mention an entire entertainment industry that literally is in love with Obama. A good example to see how controlled the information is, I had a friend in San Diego that had just spent 4 months in Europe, and you know she said that most Europeans she met thought the election for president was between Obama and Clinton?? Even you, as a Canadian that is extremely interested in american politics, wasn't aware of Obama's blatant refusal to have any kind of debates or town hall meetings prior to the conventions, or McCain's desire for Nuclear disarmament, and I don't think you knew much about McCain's green ambitions either (McCain-Lieberman for cap and trade). So how straightforward really is the significance of the foreign polls, when people are so ill-informed?

Now I'm slacking from lunch! I'm starving and gotta head off to work soon. Stayed up til 5:30 last night too writing a paper, jeesh. But political e-mail debates always come first!

the weaponization of space: the U.S. and China - 9/10/08

From Brent on October 9th, 2008

Polls are a funny thing. They can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose as
well as the meaning of the results skewed accordingly.

Granted. But surely not all polls are so biased, especially when the question is as simple as: "Who is your prefered candidate in the US Presidential Election?"

Of 22 countries polled, the overwhelming answer (4 to 1) was Obama. The options given were: Obama, McCain, Either/Neither/No Difference, Other, and Don't Know. Again, relating this to what I said yesterday, this doesn't ask who would bring the best change but re-affirms my argument that he would be best to improve global relations.

Actually, that was also one of the questions: "The poll also explored the expected impact of the US election. In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view is that, if Barack Obama is elected president, America's relations with the rest of the world are likely to get better. ... On average 46 per cent think that US relations with the world would get better with Obama, 22 per cent that relations would stay the same, and 7 per cent that they would get worse. However only 20 per cent think relations would get better under McCain. The largest number - 37 per cent - think relations under a McCain presidency would stay the same and 16 per cent think they would get worse." http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/533.php?lb=brglm&pnt=533&nid=&id=

Also did you know that McCain has supported dismantling our nuclear arsenal. Getting rid of em all in like 10 years (can't remember exactly what it was).

I was unaware that McCain had that policy. I'll look it up!

The trouble with the space race and nukes is it's like a game of chicken where
both sides would disarm but no one wants to risk being the first. Anyway, I
better get back to class!

I can understand that argument regarding nuclear weapons, but don't think it applies to the space race. With little currently in place, it is hard trying to argue that one wouldn't want to be first to disarm. Currently, the US is investing the most in the weaponization of space. This will CREATE an arms race, for other powers' fears of being targeted. Thus the Chinese test to blow an orbiting satellite out of space... Just my lefty input!

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/05/content_6298849.htm

re: global polls - 9/10/08

From Buck on October 9th, 2008

Polls are a funny thing. They can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose and the meaning of the results skewed accordingly. I think if the questions were posed like "Do you think our country should eliminate nuclear weapons even if this country still keeps them?" or "Should our government pursue nuclear weapons while these countries still have them?" or "Should our country still have them if this country that has relations with and a history of supporting terrorists is developing them?"

In fact I've seen such polls, and there are very different results (unfortunately I can't remember where I saw them).

The thing with Iran is no one really has a problem with them creating the tech for power. But there are much smaller amounts of fuel needed for energy than weapons. Iran was processing much more than would be necessary for energy alone, and this is what the concern is.

Also did you know that McCain has supported dismantling our nuclear arsenal, dismantling in something like 10 years (can't remember exactly what it was)? The trouble with the space race and nukes is it's like a game of chicken where both sides would disarm but no one wants to risk being the first. Anyway, I better get back to class!

the view of the people can be manipulated - 8/10/08

From Buck on October 8th, 2008

Pretty interesting to me. I think it is a trend that might spread...

A trend of countries using similar currencies to strengthen political ties? It even says in the article that the motivation is not that they think the U.S. dollar is weak (in fact it's actually been continuing to get stronger against foreign currencies throughout the financial crisis) and that they think the U.S. dollar is still more stable than their own. It's just as a way to strengthen political ties.

I agree about Obama having a better impact on foreign perception. However, I believe that that kind of thing can be fleeting.

It'll last a few months, maybe a year, and that's about it since Obama probably won't take a radically new direction. Also since I believe McCain would be very strong in foreign policy, and would rely much more on diplomacy than Bush and more than what Obama and his supporters would lead you to believe.

You say you have a problem with the foreign policy of the U.S. If you haven't yet, you really should read that article I sent you from the Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24467159-5013460,00.html) But here's the quote that pertains to how you think Obama will be better for foreign policy:

"Obama is, formally at least, now terrifically hawkish on the use of force. Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. No military option will be taken off the table. The UN cannot have veto power over US action. He will support Israel, one of America's closest allies in the world. He will attack in Pakistan if there is solid evidence of the presence of an important terrorist. Hunting down and destroying al-Qa'ida must be America's No.1 national security priority. Every time genocide or ethnic cleansing occurs and the US doesn't intervene militarily, it is diminished.Good grief. If George W. Bush were still saying things like that there would be a warrant issued for his arrest at The Hague. In response to Obama's alpha-dog swagger on national security, McCain read him a little lecture on the limits of US power and the need to intervene only when it can clearly do some good. Presumably Obama wanted to look tougher and McCain less threatening."

You really should read the article, it's pretty short and it's fantastic.

Yeah, unfortunately I don't really have time even to watch the 14 minute clip right now. I will get to it by this weekend though. It's true that government should represent the view of the people, that's the great thing about democracy. The problem with that though is that the view of the people can be manipulated (as I believe it is in the case of Obama). Also, it's not just the president that doesn't represent the view of the people, congress in the U.S. also has the lowest approval rating in history.

after the presidential debate - 8/10/08

From Brent on October 7th, 2008

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/07/content_10159106.htm


From Buck on October 8th, 2008

Well, this Argentina & Brazil thing doesn't seem like that big of a deal. They're still tying the exchange rate to the U.S dollar anyway. Good for them that they want to start using their own currency.

This link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24467159-5013460,00.html) is really good. It's pretty in the middle, criticizes both sides, and pretty much expressed my feelings exactly on the economy, etc...

Also I'd like to say that I think Obama is 95% hype. What makes you think that he'll bring change or improve things? And if the answer (as with most people I believe) starts with "he says" or "he said" or some other version of him saying something, well you can guess where I'm gonna go with that...

Haha, sorry I was just brooding a bit over it, thought I'd vent.


From Brent on October 8th, 2008

Well this Argentina & Brazil thing doesn't seem like that big of a deal. They're still tying the exchange rate to the U.S dollar anyway. Good for them that they want to start using their own currency.

"Although the SML seeks to gradually eliminate the dollar from the bilateral trade, the currency will continue its presence in transactions between Brazil and Argentina, as their central banks will set the exchange rate for the real and the peso with respect to the dollar."

"The new paymnet system has more political importance than technical importance because it will strengthen ties between Argentina and Brazil, the biggest economies of the Mercosur."

"If the mechanism works out without incidents between Brazil and Argentina, it will be adopted by other countries of the Mercosur, like Paraguay and Uruguay, Brazilian authorities said."

Pretty interesting to me. I think it is a trend that might spread...

Also I'd like to say that I think Obama is 95% hype. What makes you think that he'll bring change or improve things? And if the answer (as with most people I believe) starts with "he says" or "he said" or some other version of him saying something, well you can guess where I'm gonna go with that...

Well, Obama said ... lol. Just teasing.

I don't think he'll necessarily improve things or make 'big' change, but I think he will do more for global perception of the USA than his rival. This is coming from someone who has a strong opposition to US foreign policy - particularly over the past 8 years.

If you have time, check out this lecture from Noam Chomsky (I think it is almost 2 hours but is definitely worth a watch. You can get it as a podcast from the iTunes store for free as well):

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=224

If you don't have time to watch that, there is a little clip here of more or less the same stuff:

http://www.bigthink.com/the-world/the-middle-east/9128

A particularly strong point I think he presents is that policy should reflect the opinions of the population. He also points out that this is not the current state of things, and that the opposite is actually true. This is one of the things I think should change, but I don't think either candidate will do that.

Even on a completely superficial level (which you know I don't prescribe to) having Obama in office would be a major boon to America in terms of global opinion. Admittedly this is a sad point that I wish were not true, but the choice between him and an old, wealthy, white, ex-military man with a not so stellar academic record (never mind him joking about making North Korea extinct, bombing Iran, and "never forgiving gooks") - I think the point I'm trying to make is obvious.

Haha, sorry I was just brooding a bit over it, thought I'd vent.

Fair enough! I too was brooding last night and decided not to be so inciteful, particularly when it is not a point I agree with, and that we should not bicker unless it has a beneficial direction.

And it is funny because I can't vote.