The President-elect has come up with another bad idea: Increasing nuclear weapon capabilities:
Expanding the nuclear weapon capabilities of the United States, as well as allowing Japan and South Korea to develop them, is an extremely bad idea. Why is Hillary Clinton's main election opponent living in the 1960s? This isn't the Cold War era - he needs to stop living in the past. President such Barack Obama, George W. Bush and even Ronald Reagan reduced nukes, not increased them.
Then again, his tweet did come after Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia should do the same. Since the two are buddies, perhaps they are trolling.
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 December 2016
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Melissa Gilbert's Congressional run
Actress and former President of the Screen Actors Guild Melissa Gilbert is running for Congress is Michigan's 8th District. She moved to Howell - a town in the district - in 2013 after she married her current husband. Her reasons for running can be summarized as, "wanting to help others".
What are Gilbert's chances of winning? The media has described the seat as "solidly Republican" and, to be fair, the seat has been held by that party since 2001. That being said, it's certainly not impossible for Gilbert to emerge victorious: it's a swing area on the presidential level (Clinton x2, Bush x2, Obama, Romney) and its current incumbent was first elected in 2014 with 54.6% of the vote to the Democrats' 42.1%. Before the main election, though, she still needs to pass the primary.
Why am I writing about Gilbert? To the general public she is known for her prominent role as Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1970/80s TV series Little House on the Prairie and for her work with the Screen Actors Guild; however, I saw her in some episodes of the 1990s science fiction show Babylon 5, in which she performed with one of her former husbands, Bruce Boxleitner. I remember being disappointed when that marriage concluded.
All I can do with her run is watch what happens. I'll be sure to post about Gilbert again once she's undergone the primary and - if she succeeds in the former - the main election.
What are Gilbert's chances of winning? The media has described the seat as "solidly Republican" and, to be fair, the seat has been held by that party since 2001. That being said, it's certainly not impossible for Gilbert to emerge victorious: it's a swing area on the presidential level (Clinton x2, Bush x2, Obama, Romney) and its current incumbent was first elected in 2014 with 54.6% of the vote to the Democrats' 42.1%. Before the main election, though, she still needs to pass the primary.
Why am I writing about Gilbert? To the general public she is known for her prominent role as Laura Ingalls Wilder in 1970/80s TV series Little House on the Prairie and for her work with the Screen Actors Guild; however, I saw her in some episodes of the 1990s science fiction show Babylon 5, in which she performed with one of her former husbands, Bruce Boxleitner. I remember being disappointed when that marriage concluded.
All I can do with her run is watch what happens. I'll be sure to post about Gilbert again once she's undergone the primary and - if she succeeds in the former - the main election.
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Sacagawea dollar
When, yet again, looking through some of my belongings, I found this:
It's a Sacagawea dollar and one of the first of its kind. The Sacagawea dollars were introduced in 2000, initially suggested as a replacement for the Susan B. Anthony dollar, which was one of the most unpopular coins in American history. In December 1997, then-President Bill Clinton signed the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act, which contained a section in its writing giving the United States Mint permission to create a new coin. That new coin became the Sacagawea dollar.
The Sacagawea dollar underwent a change in 2007 when then-President George W. Bush signed the Native American $1 Coin Act, which required the reverse side of the coin to undergo an annual redesign. The purpose? To celebrate and honor American Indians by featuring different images highlighting their cultures, achievements and contributions to the United States.
American Indians rarely get the respect and honor they deserve, which is why I find it disappointing that the Sacagawea dollar, as with the Susan B. Anthony dollar, is unpopular. Unlike too many other portrayals of American Indians, this coin respects them rather than uses them for comic relief.
The Sacagawea dollar underwent a change in 2007 when then-President George W. Bush signed the Native American $1 Coin Act, which required the reverse side of the coin to undergo an annual redesign. The purpose? To celebrate and honor American Indians by featuring different images highlighting their cultures, achievements and contributions to the United States.
American Indians rarely get the respect and honor they deserve, which is why I find it disappointing that the Sacagawea dollar, as with the Susan B. Anthony dollar, is unpopular. Unlike too many other portrayals of American Indians, this coin respects them rather than uses them for comic relief.
Sunday, 25 November 2012
Republican presidents brain teaser answer
Before I present the answer to yesterday's post, I'd like to clarify that the "fact" I was referring to wasn't presented as a "brain teaser" when I initially read about it. That aspect was my idea, and so if any part of yesterday's puzzle was confusing (especially in light of what the answer is), that's entirely my fault. Now I'm hoping the answer won't be a let down!
Remember, for my first clue I posted the names of all five elected Republican presidents and their running mates, and I advised to "carefully look" at those names. If you want to have one last guess, don't read beyond this point.
All right then, the answer is "Nixon and Bush": the last five Republican presidents to have been elected all had someone with the last name "Nixon" or "Bush" on the ticket. Since 1948, the Republicans have not won without them:
Gerald R. Ford was discounted despite having served as president from 1974-1977 because he was never elected: in his capacity as vice president, Ford took over when Nixon resigned. I included Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis in yesterday's post as the final clue because 1928 was the last election in which the Republicans won the presidency without someone named Bush or Nixon running for president or vice president. Hoover was defeated in a landslide in 1932.
A small amount of research into all presidential elections from 1928 onwards will confirm that the party has not won without a Bush or Nixon since that year. Putting "without a candidate named Nixon or Bush" into Google will also turn up a few items on this subject.
Perhaps the Republicans should consider a complete Nixon/Bush ticket in 2016 and nominate Cynthia Nixon and Sophia Bush. Both are actresses (from Sex and the City and One Tree Hill, respectively), and Reagan was once an actor and he won election to president in a landslide in both 1980 and 1984 (granted, he was a governor prior to becoming president); the only major problems I can foresee with this particular ticket is that neither women are directly related to the aforementioned Nixon and Bushes, and both women are Democrats!
Remember, for my first clue I posted the names of all five elected Republican presidents and their running mates, and I advised to "carefully look" at those names. If you want to have one last guess, don't read beyond this point.
All right then, the answer is "Nixon and Bush": the last five Republican presidents to have been elected all had someone with the last name "Nixon" or "Bush" on the ticket. Since 1948, the Republicans have not won without them:
Dwight D. Eisenhower/Richard Nixon - 1953-1961
Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew, later Gerald R. Ford - 1969-1974
Ronald Reagan/George H. W. Bush - 1981-1989
George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle - 1989-1993
George W. Bush/Dick Cheney - 2001-2009
From 1952 to 1972, the Republicans won four elections in that period with Richard Nixon on the ticket; from 1980 to 1988 they won three elections with a Bush on board, and in 2000 and 2004 they won with another Bush (with the two Bushes being father and son, not merely two people with the same last name). Nine presidential elections were won with these men: Nixon, 4; H. W. Bush, 3; and W. Bush, 2. Nixon has one defeat as he lost the 1960 election against John F. Kennedy, and H. W. Bush was voted out in 1988. It does not matter if they were running as president or as the vice president: the fact of the matter is, Nixon or a Bush were present on all these tickets.
Gerald R. Ford was discounted despite having served as president from 1974-1977 because he was never elected: in his capacity as vice president, Ford took over when Nixon resigned. I included Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis in yesterday's post as the final clue because 1928 was the last election in which the Republicans won the presidency without someone named Bush or Nixon running for president or vice president. Hoover was defeated in a landslide in 1932.
A small amount of research into all presidential elections from 1928 onwards will confirm that the party has not won without a Bush or Nixon since that year. Putting "without a candidate named Nixon or Bush" into Google will also turn up a few items on this subject.
Perhaps the Republicans should consider a complete Nixon/Bush ticket in 2016 and nominate Cynthia Nixon and Sophia Bush. Both are actresses (from Sex and the City and One Tree Hill, respectively), and Reagan was once an actor and he won election to president in a landslide in both 1980 and 1984 (granted, he was a governor prior to becoming president); the only major problems I can foresee with this particular ticket is that neither women are directly related to the aforementioned Nixon and Bushes, and both women are Democrats!
Saturday, 24 November 2012
Republican presidents brain teaser
I discovered an interesting fact a few days ago; it's a small and most likely useless item of history (as well as not really a "brain teaser" as such), but one I feel worth sharing. To begin with, I'll list all Republican Presidents of the United States since 1948 who won election to the position:
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
So other than being president, what is distinct about these five men? Have a think for a moment, but if you'd like a clue, carefully look at these names:
Dwight D. Eisenhower/Richard Nixon - 1953-1961
Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew, later Gerald R. Ford - 1969-1974
Ronald Reagan/George H. W. Bush - 1981-1989
George H. W. Bush/Dan Quayle - 1989-1993
George W. Bush/Dick Cheney - 2001-2009
I excluded Ford (1974-1977) from the first list because he was never elected to president. Do you see any pattern now? I'll give you one more hint:
Herbert Hoover/Charles Curtis - 1929-1933
I shall reveal the answer in tomorrow's post. Until then, feel free to guess away!
Monday, 5 November 2012
On my support for President Barack Obama
For today's post I am taking a break from writing about my recent visit with family to cover something I haven't gone into a lot of detail about before: some insight into why I support Barack Obama for re-election as President of the United States. Tens of millions of people will be voting tomorrow and tens of millions more have participated in early voting: it seems fitting for me to write this today.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.
When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.
Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.
Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.
The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.
I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.
2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.
As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.
On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.
I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.
3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.
Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.
While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.
4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.
5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.
Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.
I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.
Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.
One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.
Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
Sheer disrespect
Discussions about politics often become heated. This is to be expected, but normally the conversations are respectful and there are no hard feelings by the end. This year, politics are extremely hot given the major election that has been taking place for the last ten months; even so, people should try their best to keep a cool head on and avoid insulting each other and their respective preferred candidates.
Which is why it appalls me to read hateful comments on Internet articles about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. There is a huge difference between disagreement and sheer disrespect/irrational loathing of a political figure. I am an Obama supporter, but I will listen to and sometimes even agree with reasoned argument and criticism; however, I will always dismiss offensive and hateful comments about him.
Over the past week alone I have read comments that contain insulting variations on his name and frequently call him a traitor, un-American, or that he outright "hates America". A number of comments say that Obama should be arrested, imprisoned, and some have even said he should be executed! The fact that Obama has not done anything to justify any of those things notwithstanding, I find the name-calling and potential violence these people spout to be blatantly disrespectful to someone who is the President of the United States and considered the most powerful man in the world. I could not imagine this sort of language ever being allowed to flourish under George W. Bush, and during his presidency I would have disagreed with anyone who suggested that he should have been executed (I haven't changed from this opinion).
It's at the point now where most comment sections I read on articles about American politics have immediately devolved into a thread devoted to hating the president and anyone who supports him - and these include British news sites. When someone writes "liberals are a cancer" or "death to Obama supporters" it makes me angry, but at the same time it upsets me that there are ordinary people who believe that stamping on their political opponents is the way to win elections and "take the country back" - that is what happens in dictatorships, not democracies.
To be fair, I have seen hateful comments directed at Obama's main challenger, Mitt Romney, although they are less vitriolic and I've yet to read anyone say that Romney should be executed or that his supporters are un-American and should be killed. On several occasions I have observed people who do not plan to vote for Obama argue against and scold people using hateful or violent commentary against him.
In the case of the First Lady, I almost always dismiss any criticism of her because I believe that she has not done anything to warrant it, she does not create policy or change any laws, and because she has not commented negatively about her husband's political opponents. I disliked criticism of Laura Bush, too - for the same reasons as Michelle Obama; both are decent women.
I worry that, regardless of who wins, the rhetoric will continue after the election has concluded. People need to stop the insults and pure hatred and go back to getting along and compromising (and by "compromising", I mean that everyone makes the effort to get along/work with others, not one side gives in to the other). As I said earlier, keeping a cool head is the way to go.
Which is why it appalls me to read hateful comments on Internet articles about President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. There is a huge difference between disagreement and sheer disrespect/irrational loathing of a political figure. I am an Obama supporter, but I will listen to and sometimes even agree with reasoned argument and criticism; however, I will always dismiss offensive and hateful comments about him.
Over the past week alone I have read comments that contain insulting variations on his name and frequently call him a traitor, un-American, or that he outright "hates America". A number of comments say that Obama should be arrested, imprisoned, and some have even said he should be executed! The fact that Obama has not done anything to justify any of those things notwithstanding, I find the name-calling and potential violence these people spout to be blatantly disrespectful to someone who is the President of the United States and considered the most powerful man in the world. I could not imagine this sort of language ever being allowed to flourish under George W. Bush, and during his presidency I would have disagreed with anyone who suggested that he should have been executed (I haven't changed from this opinion).
It's at the point now where most comment sections I read on articles about American politics have immediately devolved into a thread devoted to hating the president and anyone who supports him - and these include British news sites. When someone writes "liberals are a cancer" or "death to Obama supporters" it makes me angry, but at the same time it upsets me that there are ordinary people who believe that stamping on their political opponents is the way to win elections and "take the country back" - that is what happens in dictatorships, not democracies.
To be fair, I have seen hateful comments directed at Obama's main challenger, Mitt Romney, although they are less vitriolic and I've yet to read anyone say that Romney should be executed or that his supporters are un-American and should be killed. On several occasions I have observed people who do not plan to vote for Obama argue against and scold people using hateful or violent commentary against him.
In the case of the First Lady, I almost always dismiss any criticism of her because I believe that she has not done anything to warrant it, she does not create policy or change any laws, and because she has not commented negatively about her husband's political opponents. I disliked criticism of Laura Bush, too - for the same reasons as Michelle Obama; both are decent women.
I worry that, regardless of who wins, the rhetoric will continue after the election has concluded. People need to stop the insults and pure hatred and go back to getting along and compromising (and by "compromising", I mean that everyone makes the effort to get along/work with others, not one side gives in to the other). As I said earlier, keeping a cool head is the way to go.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
A thought on the debate in Denver
The media in the United States - and to a point, here in the United Kingdom - is currently buzzing with activity over President Barack Obama's unexpectedly flat performance in last night's debate. Not surprisingly, my family and I have been discussing the debate extensively for much of today, and there was something we thought of that may help explain why Obama wasn't on his game: Syria.
Just before the debate, the situation in Syria had changed with a mortar explosion in Turkey, and Turkey retaliated against Syria. Naturally, everyone is worried about the situation in the Middle East and in Syria especially, but the media, the general public, and even other presidential candidates are not privy to the same information that the president is.
We think there's a possibility that Obama was informed about the changing circumstances in the Middle East before the debate. We think that any intelligence briefing prior to the debate could have contained incomplete facts about Syria and Turkey (not because of poor reporting, but because not all information may have been available yet), and given how volatile the Middle East is he could have been expecting a far worse briefing after the debate, which could have said that the two countries were at war. If that had happened, I doubt anyone would have wanted to have been in Obama's position at that particular moment...even his opponent.
If this was the case, it does not show weakness on behalf of the president: he is entitled to worry about the situation in the Middle East as the rest of us are, and anxiety may have caught him at the wrong moment. On one hand, I think Obama is concerned about the continued loss of life and the affect the conflict may have on the rest of the world, but on the other it is likely that he would be blamed - regardless of whether or not anything was his fault - if the situation exploded...and so he could have been worrying about that, too.
We are speculating, of course, but let's face it: Obama is the president. He has been running the country for four years, and he hasn't exactly had an easy time. This year has been especially difficult for him, with having to govern the country and face excessively challenging international challenges while running for re-election in the most vitriolic presidential race we have ever observed. Even George W. Bush had a difficult time in his debates against John Kerry, and he was under less pressure than Obama currently is. One could just say "deal with it, you're the president, forget any sympathy/leave if you can't handle it" or mock him outright, but he is human, and all sane and reasonable people will find intense pressure too much. The important thing is to find the path to bounce back, and it will be interesting to see how Obama recovers and handles the next debate.
Again, this is all only a possibility, maybe there is another reason. I don't know all the facts and I do not speak for the president, nor do I want this post to be interpreted as "making excuses" for him or making some sort of questioning of his mental state when that is not the intention. I think Obama and his team are very much aware that he will have to pick up the pace in the next two debates and avoid the mistakes of the first round.
Just before the debate, the situation in Syria had changed with a mortar explosion in Turkey, and Turkey retaliated against Syria. Naturally, everyone is worried about the situation in the Middle East and in Syria especially, but the media, the general public, and even other presidential candidates are not privy to the same information that the president is.
We think there's a possibility that Obama was informed about the changing circumstances in the Middle East before the debate. We think that any intelligence briefing prior to the debate could have contained incomplete facts about Syria and Turkey (not because of poor reporting, but because not all information may have been available yet), and given how volatile the Middle East is he could have been expecting a far worse briefing after the debate, which could have said that the two countries were at war. If that had happened, I doubt anyone would have wanted to have been in Obama's position at that particular moment...even his opponent.
If this was the case, it does not show weakness on behalf of the president: he is entitled to worry about the situation in the Middle East as the rest of us are, and anxiety may have caught him at the wrong moment. On one hand, I think Obama is concerned about the continued loss of life and the affect the conflict may have on the rest of the world, but on the other it is likely that he would be blamed - regardless of whether or not anything was his fault - if the situation exploded...and so he could have been worrying about that, too.
We are speculating, of course, but let's face it: Obama is the president. He has been running the country for four years, and he hasn't exactly had an easy time. This year has been especially difficult for him, with having to govern the country and face excessively challenging international challenges while running for re-election in the most vitriolic presidential race we have ever observed. Even George W. Bush had a difficult time in his debates against John Kerry, and he was under less pressure than Obama currently is. One could just say "deal with it, you're the president, forget any sympathy/leave if you can't handle it" or mock him outright, but he is human, and all sane and reasonable people will find intense pressure too much. The important thing is to find the path to bounce back, and it will be interesting to see how Obama recovers and handles the next debate.
Again, this is all only a possibility, maybe there is another reason. I don't know all the facts and I do not speak for the president, nor do I want this post to be interpreted as "making excuses" for him or making some sort of questioning of his mental state when that is not the intention. I think Obama and his team are very much aware that he will have to pick up the pace in the next two debates and avoid the mistakes of the first round.
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
Naming a United States Supreme Court case
A few weeks ago Dad read something about a significant portion of people not being able to name at least one United States Supreme court case (I have been trying to find the article, though I am not sure if he read it in an offline magazine). I thought about the subject again today, and I was able to think of four:
Plessy v. Ferguson (declared that black people and white people were "separate but equal" was constitutional)
Brown v. Board of Education (declared that separate schools/facilities for blacks and whites was unequal, and essentially overturned the aforementioned case)
Roe v. Wade (protected abortion rights for women)
Bush v. Gore (ended the dispute of the vote count in Florida in the 2000 presidential election; George W. Bush declared the winner)
I may be able to name a minimum of one, but four is still an incredibly low number, especially considering that there are hundreds of Supreme Court cases. Excluding these four (though please state if you could name them), how many cases can you name?
Plessy v. Ferguson (declared that black people and white people were "separate but equal" was constitutional)
Brown v. Board of Education (declared that separate schools/facilities for blacks and whites was unequal, and essentially overturned the aforementioned case)
Roe v. Wade (protected abortion rights for women)
Bush v. Gore (ended the dispute of the vote count in Florida in the 2000 presidential election; George W. Bush declared the winner)
I may be able to name a minimum of one, but four is still an incredibly low number, especially considering that there are hundreds of Supreme Court cases. Excluding these four (though please state if you could name them), how many cases can you name?
Monday, 27 February 2012
United States presidential elections 2000 and 2004
Here are some statistics about the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections in the United States that I find interesting. In 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush won the presidency by winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote; meanwhile, then-Vice President Al Gore lost the electoral vote but did win the popular vote. Bush won 271 electoral votes and 50,456,002 popular votes while Gore won 266 electoral votes (though should have won 267 but there was a faithless elector in Washington D.C.), and 50,999,897 popular votes. Florida was highly disputed in that election, and had the state been given to Gore he would have won both votes.
In 2004, then-President Bush was running for re-election, and his challenger was Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Bush won this election, this time winning both the electoral vote (286) and the popular vote (62,040,610); while Kerry only won 251 electoral votes (he should have won 252, but an electoral voter in Minnesota accidentally voted for Kerry's running mate instead) and 59,028,444 popular votes. The margins of victory here, while a little too close for comfort, are more significant than in 2000; however, the state that was most disputed in this election was Ohio, although not to the extent Florida was.
Had Kerry won Ohio, Bush would have been narrowly defeated in the electoral college with 266 votes to Kerry's 272 (or 271 when factoring in the Minnesota voter, making the result 271-266 as it was in 2000, but this time it would have been the winner who would have lost a vote), but won the popular vote by more than three million voters. Bush would then have had the record of being the first person to have been elected president without winning the votes of the people, and subsequently voted out after losing in the electoral college but winning the larger share (and even majority) of the popular vote. I am not sure if that would be a record anyone would want to hold, but I suppose it would be better than having the record of winning every state in one election to end up losing them all in the next.
Of course, this outcome did not happen, but I do find these statistics fascinating. I also find it interesting that both Gore and Kerry did not receive the total amount of electoral votes they should have (one because of the faithless elector making a protest, the other from an error), and that had Bush lost Ohio in 2004 he would received the same amount of electoral votes as Gore.
In 2004, then-President Bush was running for re-election, and his challenger was Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Bush won this election, this time winning both the electoral vote (286) and the popular vote (62,040,610); while Kerry only won 251 electoral votes (he should have won 252, but an electoral voter in Minnesota accidentally voted for Kerry's running mate instead) and 59,028,444 popular votes. The margins of victory here, while a little too close for comfort, are more significant than in 2000; however, the state that was most disputed in this election was Ohio, although not to the extent Florida was.
Had Kerry won Ohio, Bush would have been narrowly defeated in the electoral college with 266 votes to Kerry's 272 (or 271 when factoring in the Minnesota voter, making the result 271-266 as it was in 2000, but this time it would have been the winner who would have lost a vote), but won the popular vote by more than three million voters. Bush would then have had the record of being the first person to have been elected president without winning the votes of the people, and subsequently voted out after losing in the electoral college but winning the larger share (and even majority) of the popular vote. I am not sure if that would be a record anyone would want to hold, but I suppose it would be better than having the record of winning every state in one election to end up losing them all in the next.
Of course, this outcome did not happen, but I do find these statistics fascinating. I also find it interesting that both Gore and Kerry did not receive the total amount of electoral votes they should have (one because of the faithless elector making a protest, the other from an error), and that had Bush lost Ohio in 2004 he would received the same amount of electoral votes as Gore.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)