Why one should vote for McCain (?)
Maybe you all fine readers could help me with this little quandary that I'm in.
Why is that I can't find any decent/ well thought-out arguments to support McCain? It's not that I'm not looking for them, I really do. But these are the only "reasons" that McCain's people seem to give.
(1) He has experience. Obama does not. This is an idiotic argument. First off, what is "experience"? Does experience mean propagating standard American doctrine of ignoring the population in the quest for lofty ideals (cf, Iraq)? Furthermore, there seems to be an implicit connection that more experience equals good. I'm sorry, but how? Why? If we always wanted our politicians to have experience, how could we ever vote for anyone? Also WHERE are they getting this experience? Why is being a CEO more important or rather more valid (cf. Romney) than being a community organizer? It seems like just scratching at this question uncovers a panoply of cynical Washington politics as usual.
(2) He wants to decrease spending. Obama wants to increase spending through evil communist-lite programs. This has been the mantra of the Republican Party for decades. But weren't we promised this *exact* same thing in 2000/2004? Where are we now? Why will this (clearly failed) economic policy suddenly work? But the circumstances will be different, Bush after all was not a leader like McCain. Sorry? Why/ how all of a sudden can the RNC predict that McCain's revision of Bush's plan will succeed? Furthermore, a war ain't cheap. Is it just me, or would more people generally like to have the billions of dollars spent in Iraq spent oh I don't know, on Americans in America. Call me a pinko-commie, but that makes more sense to me.
(3) McCain knows foreign policy. Obama doesn't. Perhaps this relates to the experience question, but the same basic argument arises: how does McCain know "more" about foreign policy? Okay he's sat on more meetings, maybe met with more people... fair enough, but in ever instance I do not see McCain straying far from Bush II's vision of foreign policy. McCain can fight terrorism, you see. McCain wouldn't talk to the enemy, he would crush them with the might of the American army. Is that foreign policy? It has been American policy for decades now, destroy weak governments in a quest to secure US investments, oh I mean, spread democracy. But sorry Zimbabwe, Sudan, &c. we can't give you democracy; no oil. I mean time. Let's be reasonable here, Obama is not going to suddenly divest in Iraq -- US Oil &co would never go for it -- but he would definitely attempt to stabilize a region which McCain's good old pal Bush seemed to have screwed up miserably. But I am being harsh, and pointed in my words. So let me just say this: as I see it, as McCain has never really convinced me otherwise, he would continue and further the American Imperial Strategy of complete domination in the Middle East. Let's also be fair: Obama would do the same, but I don't think his first reaction would be let's invade Iran! I don't think McCain would be one to stop and think, as Obama most probably would. (At least he gives off that impression, and at this point impression is all we can go on).
(4) Obama has an anti-American wife. After the three possibly good arguments above we suddenly begin the idiotic ad hominem attacks. Schopenhauer, a man I sincerely McCain has never heard of much less can pronounce, laid out 38 ways to win an arguement. The 38th being, when all your arguments fail, attack your opponent. One more thing, why is Michelle some how dangerous, but Cindy, daughter of a Beer fortune, okay. Is it because Cindy does what she was meant to do? Stay home, and look pretty & smile for the cameras? This is typical media bias: we saw it with Clinton, and it is even more obvious with Obama. American media and the RNC &co are afraid of women who are possibly smarter than they are (I mean honestly Michelle v. McCain? is this a joke?).
(5) McCain is a patriot. Obama might not be. From here the arguments just devolve into dribble. The first question, which is answered implicitly, is what exactly is a patriot. Answer: someone who fights for this country. Someone who loves America. Someone who spends time in a POW camp. Those are some pretty high requirements for being a patriot, and I bet unless you looked very hard you wouldn't be able to find many patriots in the US. Oh, oh, but I'm wrong? That's not a patriot? It seems like anyone can be a patriot, but McCain is the most patriotic of them all. (?) This way he can say that Americans love America (implied tautology) and so does McCain, but not Obama. This argument makes NO sense. And the flag pin? Apparently that is a required badge of patriotism. Again, if you walked around with a flag pin on, people would probably laugh at you.
Okay so these are the reasons by which the McCain team is trying to convince me that Obama is the antichrist and we shouldn't vote for him. Not very convincing.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, so can you find any good reasons why I should vote for him? Not negative reasons (Obama is the antichrist), but rather positive reasons (McCain is....).
I really don't understand how any one could seriously vote for this man.
This does not exempt Obama from critical review. Perhaps I will do him another time....
Why is that I can't find any decent/ well thought-out arguments to support McCain? It's not that I'm not looking for them, I really do. But these are the only "reasons" that McCain's people seem to give.
(1) He has experience. Obama does not. This is an idiotic argument. First off, what is "experience"? Does experience mean propagating standard American doctrine of ignoring the population in the quest for lofty ideals (cf, Iraq)? Furthermore, there seems to be an implicit connection that more experience equals good. I'm sorry, but how? Why? If we always wanted our politicians to have experience, how could we ever vote for anyone? Also WHERE are they getting this experience? Why is being a CEO more important or rather more valid (cf. Romney) than being a community organizer? It seems like just scratching at this question uncovers a panoply of cynical Washington politics as usual.
(2) He wants to decrease spending. Obama wants to increase spending through evil communist-lite programs. This has been the mantra of the Republican Party for decades. But weren't we promised this *exact* same thing in 2000/2004? Where are we now? Why will this (clearly failed) economic policy suddenly work? But the circumstances will be different, Bush after all was not a leader like McCain. Sorry? Why/ how all of a sudden can the RNC predict that McCain's revision of Bush's plan will succeed? Furthermore, a war ain't cheap. Is it just me, or would more people generally like to have the billions of dollars spent in Iraq spent oh I don't know, on Americans in America. Call me a pinko-commie, but that makes more sense to me.
(3) McCain knows foreign policy. Obama doesn't. Perhaps this relates to the experience question, but the same basic argument arises: how does McCain know "more" about foreign policy? Okay he's sat on more meetings, maybe met with more people... fair enough, but in ever instance I do not see McCain straying far from Bush II's vision of foreign policy. McCain can fight terrorism, you see. McCain wouldn't talk to the enemy, he would crush them with the might of the American army. Is that foreign policy? It has been American policy for decades now, destroy weak governments in a quest to secure US investments, oh I mean, spread democracy. But sorry Zimbabwe, Sudan, &c. we can't give you democracy; no oil. I mean time. Let's be reasonable here, Obama is not going to suddenly divest in Iraq -- US Oil &co would never go for it -- but he would definitely attempt to stabilize a region which McCain's good old pal Bush seemed to have screwed up miserably. But I am being harsh, and pointed in my words. So let me just say this: as I see it, as McCain has never really convinced me otherwise, he would continue and further the American Imperial Strategy of complete domination in the Middle East. Let's also be fair: Obama would do the same, but I don't think his first reaction would be let's invade Iran! I don't think McCain would be one to stop and think, as Obama most probably would. (At least he gives off that impression, and at this point impression is all we can go on).
(4) Obama has an anti-American wife. After the three possibly good arguments above we suddenly begin the idiotic ad hominem attacks. Schopenhauer, a man I sincerely McCain has never heard of much less can pronounce, laid out 38 ways to win an arguement. The 38th being, when all your arguments fail, attack your opponent. One more thing, why is Michelle some how dangerous, but Cindy, daughter of a Beer fortune, okay. Is it because Cindy does what she was meant to do? Stay home, and look pretty & smile for the cameras? This is typical media bias: we saw it with Clinton, and it is even more obvious with Obama. American media and the RNC &co are afraid of women who are possibly smarter than they are (I mean honestly Michelle v. McCain? is this a joke?).
(5) McCain is a patriot. Obama might not be. From here the arguments just devolve into dribble. The first question, which is answered implicitly, is what exactly is a patriot. Answer: someone who fights for this country. Someone who loves America. Someone who spends time in a POW camp. Those are some pretty high requirements for being a patriot, and I bet unless you looked very hard you wouldn't be able to find many patriots in the US. Oh, oh, but I'm wrong? That's not a patriot? It seems like anyone can be a patriot, but McCain is the most patriotic of them all. (?) This way he can say that Americans love America (implied tautology) and so does McCain, but not Obama. This argument makes NO sense. And the flag pin? Apparently that is a required badge of patriotism. Again, if you walked around with a flag pin on, people would probably laugh at you.
Okay so these are the reasons by which the McCain team is trying to convince me that Obama is the antichrist and we shouldn't vote for him. Not very convincing.
I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, so can you find any good reasons why I should vote for him? Not negative reasons (Obama is the antichrist), but rather positive reasons (McCain is....).
I really don't understand how any one could seriously vote for this man.
This does not exempt Obama from critical review. Perhaps I will do him another time....
Advertisement
How can a judge not be an activist?
I must admit that I have never really understood this notion of "activist judges". Surely the very act of judging is in and of itself an "active" action: whether they rule for or against something.
But I want to understand what this term actually means. This I think is the argument that conservatives, and in some cases liberals use when them deploy the term.
I suppose it has something to do with the idea that judges "should not impose their beliefs willy-nilly upon a democratic nation." The people should decide. The idea that a court of 7 can overturn what the "populous" thinks is abhorrent. Who after all, are they (the 7) to decide?
pause. one moment. Superficially, this (might) make(s) some sense; but if you examine it surely one can begin to see it fall apart at the very seams.
First:
This argument seems to presuppose the idea that the "mass" is always right, that democracy is the be -all and end-all of a social and political system.
But America is not a democracy. It's a republic. We elect people who supposedly represent our beliefs/ morals/ convictions &c... They make decisions for us. Obviously they are going to make "bad" (in our opinion) decisions. If enough people believe that they have made "bad" decisions, come the next election the officer will pack up and go home. (in theory)
Furthermore, how can one ever know what the populous wants. Yes there are statistics, but for anyone who has watched Yes Prime Minister, you can word a survey to make them believe what ever you want.
So who do we turn to? We are only left with the opportunity of looking to the elected officials. Through the vicissitudes of political parties' fates, the country trudges ever onward.
But we are now veering off in the direction of political theory... let us try to return to the question at hand: activist judges.
Second:
The notion that a judge "overturns" the status quo (however that is to be discovered) is assume that the job of a judge is to enforce the status quo rather than to uphold justice. Clearly, it is ludicrous to assume that judges solely exist to legitimize a part (be it the minority or the majority) of the public sentiment.
They are meant to uphold and interpret the laws at hand. Do these laws, which vicariously the populous has approved, obey some greater law (justice), or are they incongruous with it? That is the simple quiddity of judges, surely.
Question:
Does a judge ever impose his personal belief when making ruling?
Another more natural question would be: when does s/he not?
It seems impossible that a judge would be expected to separate his/her moral beliefs with his/her notion of justice. When a judge decides gay marriage is okay, s/he surely imposes eo ipso his own interpretation of justice. Likewise when a judge decides the opposite, s/he does the same.
I do not want to suggest that justice is either some mountain which can easily be understood, rather it is a question of interpretation. Dare I say active interpretation.
So:
Was this decision to allow gay marriage "just"? I suppose I could now marry my boyfriend if I wanted to, so for me it is. For other people, it represents the start of the end of marriage as we know it.
I don't know which is better. Who am I to say?
So coming back to our original question: what makes a judge an activist judge? It seems to me that a judge is an activist, and has to be. I think it would be silly to say that a judge ruled for this decision simply because he wanted to jam some "homosexual agenda" down the throats of the already gagging conservatives.
I would like to think that it was a call to justice.
But courts have been wrong before, maybe this one will be also... time shall tell -.l.b.
But I want to understand what this term actually means. This I think is the argument that conservatives, and in some cases liberals use when them deploy the term.
I suppose it has something to do with the idea that judges "should not impose their beliefs willy-nilly upon a democratic nation." The people should decide. The idea that a court of 7 can overturn what the "populous" thinks is abhorrent. Who after all, are they (the 7) to decide?
pause. one moment. Superficially, this (might) make(s) some sense; but if you examine it surely one can begin to see it fall apart at the very seams.
First:
This argument seems to presuppose the idea that the "mass" is always right, that democracy is the be -all and end-all of a social and political system.
But America is not a democracy. It's a republic. We elect people who supposedly represent our beliefs/ morals/ convictions &c... They make decisions for us. Obviously they are going to make "bad" (in our opinion) decisions. If enough people believe that they have made "bad" decisions, come the next election the officer will pack up and go home. (in theory)
Furthermore, how can one ever know what the populous wants. Yes there are statistics, but for anyone who has watched Yes Prime Minister, you can word a survey to make them believe what ever you want.
So who do we turn to? We are only left with the opportunity of looking to the elected officials. Through the vicissitudes of political parties' fates, the country trudges ever onward.
But we are now veering off in the direction of political theory... let us try to return to the question at hand: activist judges.
Second:
The notion that a judge "overturns" the status quo (however that is to be discovered) is assume that the job of a judge is to enforce the status quo rather than to uphold justice. Clearly, it is ludicrous to assume that judges solely exist to legitimize a part (be it the minority or the majority) of the public sentiment.
They are meant to uphold and interpret the laws at hand. Do these laws, which vicariously the populous has approved, obey some greater law (justice), or are they incongruous with it? That is the simple quiddity of judges, surely.
Question:
Does a judge ever impose his personal belief when making ruling?
Another more natural question would be: when does s/he not?
It seems impossible that a judge would be expected to separate his/her moral beliefs with his/her notion of justice. When a judge decides gay marriage is okay, s/he surely imposes eo ipso his own interpretation of justice. Likewise when a judge decides the opposite, s/he does the same.
I do not want to suggest that justice is either some mountain which can easily be understood, rather it is a question of interpretation. Dare I say active interpretation.
So:
Was this decision to allow gay marriage "just"? I suppose I could now marry my boyfriend if I wanted to, so for me it is. For other people, it represents the start of the end of marriage as we know it.
I don't know which is better. Who am I to say?
So coming back to our original question: what makes a judge an activist judge? It seems to me that a judge is an activist, and has to be. I think it would be silly to say that a judge ruled for this decision simply because he wanted to jam some "homosexual agenda" down the throats of the already gagging conservatives.
I would like to think that it was a call to justice.
But courts have been wrong before, maybe this one will be also... time shall tell -.l.b.
