Well, at least this time - here's hoping I never have to go through that again! Anyway, now I can get around to finding out about what's happened in the rest of the world the last couple of weeks - looks like we might have some sort of compromise on health care, Obama's approval ratings may or may not be plummeting and somehow McDonnell the crazy right wing extremist has taken a commanding lead over moderate-to-right wing Deeds for my fair Commonwealth's governorship. We're gonna have to get to work on these things!
Just in case anyone was wondering, McDonnell is anything but the moderate he's recently been claiming to be. He opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and health of the pregnant woman (and repeatedly tried to find ways to limit this right in the state legislature), he backed Gilmore's tax cuts that nearly bankrupted the state, and he has opposed orders by Kaine and Warner forbidding discrimination against homosexuals as well as attempted to prevent the appointment of a judge because she was gay. I'll write more about all this soon, but it's important that people know that whatever moderate stances he may be pretending to adopt now, McDonnell is anything but. We've gotta get Deeds in office.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Neocons and Hating Everyone
While there are times (becoming ever more frequent as the bar exam approaches) when I, too, feel like I hate everyone, I don't think I've ever felt that quite as frequently as the neocons, and especially Charles Krauthammer appear to. He had a column in the Washington Post today complaining about Obama, as he is wont to do, because Obama is *gasp* trying to create better relations with Russia.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
As I assume everyone knows, Russia is a nuclear power and has been doing a somewhat less-than-fantastic job of keeping up security on its nuclear weapons in the last fifteen or twenty years. It also tends to have somewhat different views from the U.S. as to the best approach to dealing with other nations, particularly Iran. It's also had a somwhat volatile political atmosphere for the last, well, forever, really, but Putin's machinations have been tending towards attempts at restoring totalitarian rule in Russia in the last decade. So, I understand why Krauthammer would be suspicious of them. However, hasn't he ever heard the saying "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?"
Meanwhile, it isn't as though Obama's inviting them over to become our new closest allies or anything of the sort. He's merely trying to smooth diplomatic relations between our two countries, which had been deteriorating towards the end of Bush's presidency. This is much like the whole fake-controversy over Iran during the election here, when people claimed that Obama was basically going to start hanging out with Ahmadinejad and perhaps even Bin Laden, simply because he said he didn't think that freezing people out of diplomatic relations was the best way to, well, have good diplomatic relations with other countries, and that he would like to start moving towards a situation where there could be talks with Iran.
I suppose what I'm driving at here is that Obama's approaches to all of these countries are methodical, and generally aimed towards preserving and increasing diplomatic relations. Meanwhile, the neocons scream bloody murder any time Obama isn't just a complete warhawk and basically threatening to bomb everyone who ever does anything we don't like. Now, I clearly disagree with the neocons on most things, but I admit that, at least the ones publishing in major national newspapers, are generally intelligent and well-educated. I do not, however, understand how anybody who fits that description can possibly think that America is currently in a position where we can just take on all comers, and refuse to work with anybody! I'm not sure that Krauthammer and the other neocons who espouse these various positions realize that's what it looks like they're advocating for, but it really does seem to be the case. If we're worried about Russia, it seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to try to work to overcome the problem. It's not so easy to do that when you refuse to talk to the other countries.
It reminds me of something David Sedaris wrote in one of his books - and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't remember which one it's in - but he said something about how as Americans, we often go around thinking our country's the best, because we're taught all our lives that it is, but what we fail to realize is that other countries have nationalistic slogans of their own - and none of those is "We're Number Two!" Other countries don't want to be treated like disobedient children by America when we disagree with them - nor should they be. We can't just try to send them to their rooms without dinner. We have to engage with them. That is the only way we can truly make the world a safer and better place.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
And then there were three...
According to a post at The Mudflats, only three of the 1200 governors elected to a first term since 1900 have quit - McGreevy, Spitzer and Palin. McGreevy is the New Jersey governor who quit while coming out of the closet and admitting to an affair with the man he'd appointed his Homeland Security advisor, and of course Spitzer was having *ahem* affairs. This data makes Palin's random resignation appear all the more bizarre, but that's not what it got me thinking about.
For a century, nobody just quit as governor during his or her first term. Why is it suddenly becoming, if not commonplace, in the realm of possibility? Is it just because there's so much less privacy possible for public figures now, so everything ends up out in the open? Is it part of some greater, creeping moral turpitude that induces people not to live up to their commitments? Just seems so strange to have 3 in 5 years after having none for a century.
For a century, nobody just quit as governor during his or her first term. Why is it suddenly becoming, if not commonplace, in the realm of possibility? Is it just because there's so much less privacy possible for public figures now, so everything ends up out in the open? Is it part of some greater, creeping moral turpitude that induces people not to live up to their commitments? Just seems so strange to have 3 in 5 years after having none for a century.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Senator Franken
It's official! He's in. I think he'll be a good senator - I love his attitude. He's all about working hard, which is just what we need in our Senators. I'm quite pleased. Plus, 60 votes - except that Lieberman's basically not a vote for anything, but still, theoretically.
Meanwhile, the Pubs, are, of course, doing weirdo twisting uneducated gymnastics over on the other side of the aisle: "The Democrats have total control. No checks. No balances... In 2010, you can hold them accountable." That's from a new ad. Well, first of all, I'm pretty ok with the electorate holding the Dems accountable in 2010, because I think so far we're doing a pretty good job, I just hope the economy continues to look like it's recovering and the jobs start coming back. But, second of all - no checks, no balances? Not only is it absurd to just assume that everything is going to come down to a straight party-line vote, but aren't they forgetting someone? Paging Justice Roberts... The Founding Fathers didn't put the judiciary into the Constitution for show.
Meanwhile, the Pubs, are, of course, doing weirdo twisting uneducated gymnastics over on the other side of the aisle: "The Democrats have total control. No checks. No balances... In 2010, you can hold them accountable." That's from a new ad. Well, first of all, I'm pretty ok with the electorate holding the Dems accountable in 2010, because I think so far we're doing a pretty good job, I just hope the economy continues to look like it's recovering and the jobs start coming back. But, second of all - no checks, no balances? Not only is it absurd to just assume that everything is going to come down to a straight party-line vote, but aren't they forgetting someone? Paging Justice Roberts... The Founding Fathers didn't put the judiciary into the Constitution for show.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Michael Collins
I'm watching this movie again - it's been a while. I watched Braveheart last weekend for the first time ever, and Waltz with Bashir during the week. I guess part of me is thinking how terrible it is that people go around killing each other all the time, but another part of me is thinking how terrible it is that people find themselves in situations where they feel a need to do such things.
Michael Collins was essentially an early terrorist, but somehow this movie makes you root for him. And my Irish blood and the reality of the Republic of Ireland today makes me glad he more or less won, and I'll cry when he's shot again at the end. Freedom is a great thing - I just wish it didn't cost so many lives and so much suffering.
Michael Collins was essentially an early terrorist, but somehow this movie makes you root for him. And my Irish blood and the reality of the Republic of Ireland today makes me glad he more or less won, and I'll cry when he's shot again at the end. Freedom is a great thing - I just wish it didn't cost so many lives and so much suffering.
I love America
I know this is more like a sixth grade essay topic than anything else, but here goes. I love America. I am the proof that those crazy Republicans during the 2004 campaign were wrong - liberals not only can be patriots, but often are. No, I'm not proud of everything my country has ever done. We've done unspeakable things. But I am proud, nonetheless, of our country's general principles of liberty, freedom, and especially the rule of law. Certainly, we have not always lived up to our own standards, and we are far from perfect. Today there is rampant sexism and racism in this country, not to mention xenophobia and occasional disregard (possibly even by Obama himself) of the human dignity of all people, especially non-citizens.
However this country provides incredible opportunities, and through more than two centuries, we've avoided dictatorship, martial law and theocracies. People are free here to practice whatever religion they want, or to refuse to practice it. We live at a higher standard of living than any other country I know of, and yet are capable of great generosity of purse and spirit, much of the time. We don't always live up to the ideals we're taught, and generally imbibe, as young schoolkids, but I do believe that our ideals are great, and that for the most part we try to. Regardless of party, most of us just want what's best for the country, and most of us have shown ourselves willing to try to make those things happen.
I'm proud of us, and I'm thankful today that Obama's our President and that Democrats are in control of Congress. However, I'm also grateful to the Republicans, even those I disagree with strongly, for their efforts to steer America towards a bright future. Happy Birthday, America!
However this country provides incredible opportunities, and through more than two centuries, we've avoided dictatorship, martial law and theocracies. People are free here to practice whatever religion they want, or to refuse to practice it. We live at a higher standard of living than any other country I know of, and yet are capable of great generosity of purse and spirit, much of the time. We don't always live up to the ideals we're taught, and generally imbibe, as young schoolkids, but I do believe that our ideals are great, and that for the most part we try to. Regardless of party, most of us just want what's best for the country, and most of us have shown ourselves willing to try to make those things happen.
I'm proud of us, and I'm thankful today that Obama's our President and that Democrats are in control of Congress. However, I'm also grateful to the Republicans, even those I disagree with strongly, for their efforts to steer America towards a bright future. Happy Birthday, America!
Sarah and Mark
Does anyone else find it odd that after the craziness with the Mark Sanford saga over the last couple of weeks, it's a different governor that's stepping down? Nutso as Palin seems to be, she still had a duty to serve out her term. Nobody was calling for her resignation, she hadn't apparently stolen (much) money from her state, etc. Meanwhile, Sanford has lost every claim to honesty he ever had, is dragging his family through the shredder, and apparently made a habit of abdicating his office for days at a time whenever he felt like it - plus, a lot of people seem to want him to resign. So, he remains in office, and Palin...?
Well, who's next to implode? Pawlenty, Romney or Barbour?
Well, who's next to implode? Pawlenty, Romney or Barbour?
Happy Fourth of July!
Happy Birthday, America! I'm so proud and glad to be an American. Plus, I LOVE fireworks!
Friday, July 3, 2009
Sarah's Stepping Down?!?!
Ok, this has got to be the biggest surprise since, well, since McCain picked her as his VP, or maybe since the various shocks of her incompetence during the campaign. So, Sarah Palin is stepping down as governor of Alaska? Why? Why now?
My thinking is that there's GOT to be something more to this story, and I imagine, and hope, that it will come out. Perhaps that baby Andrew Sullivan kept asking about really wasn't hers? Perhaps there's something else out there we don't know anything about? Perhaps someone's blackmailing her?
Clearly, the woman has been a pretty terrible governor. All kinds of problems with abuse of power and questionable ethical decisions. The embarrassment caused by her complete idiocy displayed all over the country during the campaign with McCain. Plummeting approval ratings since people started looking at her closely after McCain's obtuse selection of her. Still, though - why not just avoid running for re-election? I can see absolutely no way in which this helps her political future. So weird!
My thinking is that there's GOT to be something more to this story, and I imagine, and hope, that it will come out. Perhaps that baby Andrew Sullivan kept asking about really wasn't hers? Perhaps there's something else out there we don't know anything about? Perhaps someone's blackmailing her?
Clearly, the woman has been a pretty terrible governor. All kinds of problems with abuse of power and questionable ethical decisions. The embarrassment caused by her complete idiocy displayed all over the country during the campaign with McCain. Plummeting approval ratings since people started looking at her closely after McCain's obtuse selection of her. Still, though - why not just avoid running for re-election? I can see absolutely no way in which this helps her political future. So weird!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Bar Exam
Studying for the bar is terrible. If you're reading this and haven't already, don't go to law school.
I've been practicing Constitutional Law questions today, and some of the questions just seem completely unreasonable. Most recently, I came across one that made my blood boil because it had to do with abortion protesters, something I've been particularly uptight about since the murder of Dr. Tiller. Think I could end up failing the bar because I'm too partisan to answer the Con Law section objectively?
I've been practicing Constitutional Law questions today, and some of the questions just seem completely unreasonable. Most recently, I came across one that made my blood boil because it had to do with abortion protesters, something I've been particularly uptight about since the murder of Dr. Tiller. Think I could end up failing the bar because I'm too partisan to answer the Con Law section objectively?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
