Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Nylarthotep
Published Letters: 47 Editor's Choice: 4
We're electing a president, not a savior. None of the them are going to be perfect. If the trade off is competence and incremental improvement vs. soaring rhetoric and revolution, often times the revolution fails or brings other, unwanted things, with it. Moreover, we don't need a revolution. We need to solve problems, of which there are many.
Kamiya's evaluation of the Iraq votes are too simple: 'Clinton votes tough, like a man, because she is a woman' etc. We've had a lot of binary decision making in the US for the last several years. Perhaps everyone has bought into this sort of mindset, but such rigid thinking is not appropriate for anything but the most simple problems. While it appears inevitable that binary thinking is going to be pervasive during the election, assuming everyone thinks that way most of the time only validates the toddler-like mentality that has been the norm for the Bush administration.
The generational split is unfortunately inevitable, given the ever present tensions between youth and their antecedants. Every generation thinks they have the right answers and that they are free of the battles of the past. Saying one is "less invested" is simply politics; it is inevitably perceived positively by youth and negatively by the prior generation, because the term is vague. We're all carrying baggage from the sixties, even those who weren't yet here. That's the nature of the generational relationship. The key to moving forward is to respect the past and build on it, both the successes and the mistakes. The candidate that better articulates this common vision, rather than the politics of division so familiar from the Republicans, is more likely to be the successful president. Neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards have managed it yet.
Well, you certainly aren't on target as far as I am concerned. If I thought your mindset were representative of Obama's, then I would be unlikely to vote for him. There have been many people who have been vicious in their attacks, just like you. That sort of approach plays well to the crowd, to those that have the same point of view. However, it typically alienates those who are either uncertain about their beliefs, or your humanity. Perhaps it really is Obama vs. everybody else, and you are just his voice here at Salon. If so, then why are their so many folks that are undecided? The same folks that you are busy alienating.
Edwards has a solid progressive message. While he is probably a better speaker in a courtroom setting than at a rally, the bigger problem for him was personality politics. The relentless emphasis on vapid details rather than policy and potential.
It was a foolish response, both for the nomination and in the long run. For the nomination, the response makes it appear that the Clinton campaign has scored points, on things that are without merit. For the long haul, if we cannot unite the Democratic party, how is going to be possible to unite the nation? While the Clinton campaign has not been all that I would hope, the Republicans are certainly not going to be sweetness and light. Michelle Obama needs to realize this was a mistaken response and move forward. Getting stuck in the nomination confrontation mentality does not benefit the Obama campaign, the democratic party or the nation.
Romney's presentation should remind them that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Not voting for the Democratic presidential candidate this fall because they aren't your favorite is a great way to ensure continued foolishness at the national level, for years to come.
There is only going to be one Democratic presidential candidate. Hopefully the two candidates will know how to act gracefully, whichever roles they end up with. It would be great if their respective supporters could also reign in their gloating or disappointment.
The rapidity of ice loss at the poles has frequently been faster than anticipated. Since ice loss is self-reinforcing, there is reason to be concerned that things are moving faster than predicted.
I wish there was a way I could make money from the willful ignorance displayed here and by many of the general public. Our weekly departmental seminar (at the major Univ. where I am work) is focused on ways of reducing the effects of CO2 induced global warming. Every single speaker comes in with their own independently collected data set and shows how the earth is generally getting warmer (there are cold patches), how much CO2 their particular bit of the environment could potentially absorb, and how much CO2 would be released if some other land management decision was made. The problem is that there is very little biogeochemists or environmental biologists can do to substantively affect CO2 levels, when compared to human effects.
Much of the conservation work done by wildlife biologists and ecologists is at risk by global warming, and these folks are trying to figure out if there is something they can do to save the things that they love. Meanwhile, much of the general public is lost in the wilderness of disbelief and many of the politicians are bought by big money. My research is not directly applicable to global warming, but I wish there was a way I could tap into the willful ignorance that many proudly display to fund my work. At least there would be something positive gained by this foolishness.
In the future it would probably be better to ignore this bit of 'punditry' rather than spread it around. This preoccupation is basically a social disease and is best discussed as such, if at all.
Despite what some might think, folks in the States really are this shallow. Doesn't take anything away from Sen. Obama, it is just the way it is. Just like relative attractiveness of 'mature' men vs. 'mature' women (think 50 years old). Perhaps someday we will get past this, but I doubt it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
