I never would have guessed that this would be the catalyst for me to start blogging again, but here I am. I just saw a picture of Barack Obama grinning from ear to ear after apparently securing enough delegates to clench the democratic primary nomination. It has been a long, close primary, longer and closer than anyone would have predicted, but I am really very happy to see Obama arrive at this milestone.
If you had asked me four or five months ago, I would have told you that although I ultimately wanted to see Obama win the nomination and the election, I probably would have been almost just as happy with another Clinton in the White House. Ask me now though, and I will tell you that the Clinton campaign has completely turned me off and not only will I be happy to see her fade from the scene, but I would probably also be upset (briefly) to see her picked as the VP. At this point I hope Obama picks someone great other than Hillary to be his running mate, and I then I will hope for and expect an amazing victory in the fall. I think I speak for a lot of other people around my age when I say that never in my life have I been so excited about politics, but I feel like I could just as easily be turned off by the whole thing if he fails. So a lot is riding on this candidacy. He holds not only the potential to become the first African American to hold the highest public office in the country, but also, perhaps more importantly, he has the potential to get a whole generation of American's excited and engaged in the political process again. And hopefully he will even be able to live up to our admittedly high expectations of him once in office.
I realize that there is a high probability that I will look back three or four or more years from now with disappointment for yet another empty promise of a presidential candidate, but right now I am still full of (potentially naïve) enthusiasm for what seems to be a new and fresh and better sort of candidate. Call me naïve, but I'm hoping for the best.
It seems Obama has won the Democratic caucuses in Iowa by a significant margin. Needless to say, I am happy to see it and will look forward to seeing him continue to gain momentum all the way into November.
I generally shy away from blogging here about politics and current events, but it isn't for lack of thoughts and opinions on the matter. As the presidential caucuses and primaries are just around the corner now, I feel compelled to write about a few things. Beware, there might be some soap-boxing ahead.
I have never thought of myself as a particularly political person. I mean, I would not classify myself as an a-political person either by any means, but I have never been very passionate about the political scene. But this year's presidential cycle is different. Never before have I been so interested in or opinionated about the presidential campaign so early on. In past election cycles I would probably not even start to pay much attention until springtime when the contenders had weeded themselves out through the primaries and the parties had made their nominations. This is partly because at this point in the process no one contender usually seems particular better than any of the other contenders, and living in CO the nominations are pretty much already sealed by the time we have a primary anyway. But this time around I have been watching for several months now with more passion and interest than ever before. I already have a strong favorite who I have even donated money to, twice (and I'm pretty stingy, so that's saying something).
Before I say who my favorite-by-a-long-shot is, I should say that I would probably be satisfied with any of the Democratic candidates, and I am also pretty happy to see the Republican field in such disarray. I'm pulling for Barack Obama. Sure, Hillary has more experience than Obama and sure, John Edwards might be... actually I can't think of how John Edwards is better than Obama (better health-care plan? more middle-america down-to-earth-y?), but I'm sure Edwards would be very competent as well, nonetheless, I think that Obama is a different sort of animal and I feel pretty strongly that we need him at the helm now.
Aside from how ridiculously good-looking he is (although John Edwards is also fairly attractive), I think that he is also smart, honest and forthright, pragmatic, bold, and has a lot of integrity. I like that he was against the invasion of Iraq back when that was not a politically popular stance to have. I think it is unfortunate that Iraq is and will be such a big issue in this campaign as I think that there are bigger issues than Iraq (Energy policy, climate change, health care, education, international geopolitical policy in general of which Iraq is just one aspect, etc), but I think that his early opposition is important because it shows his ability to stand up for what he knows is right even if it is not popular (though I guess the same argument can be made for Bush, the difference being that when Obama thinks he is right, he probably actually IS right). On the Iraq note, though, I am actually of the admittedly unpopular opinion that immediate troop withdraw is not the right course of action at this point (oh no, does that make me a republican? Feel free to send me nasty emails telling me why I am wrong. I can take it) and so, that is one point of contention for me not just with Obama but with all of the Democratic candidates.
I also think that Obama is the most honest and forthright of the presidential contenders. For one thing, he has written and spoken openly about his past drug use. I think I like the idea of a president who has some splotches on the record but isn't afraid to show them. Also, virtually all of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors like me (percentage-wise, Edwards has actually done better with individual donations, but Edwards has raised far less money overall. Hillary has accepted significantly more money than Obama from business and lobbies. Check out the link). I also just get the feeling, a vibe perhaps, that Obama is just a more sincere and real person than Edwards and Clinton. I feel like what we see is really what we get with Obama.
I like that he is fresh. I hate to discount Hillary simply because of her last name, but I really do think that we need to break the dynastic cycle and Obama is even better for this than Edwards. Both Obama and Edwards are relatively young senators who come from humble beginnings, but Obama's more diverse and international upbringing definitely earns points with me and seems like a bigger break from the Kennedy-Bush-Clinton dynastic machines.
I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. I'm pulling for Obama more than I've pulled for any other presidential hopeful ever before. Of course the election is still a little over 10 months away and a lot of things can happen in 10 months to tip the scales. Iraq could somehow turn into a success story (doubtful). Osama Bin Laden could be captured and paraded around just in time to influence wish-washy voters. Or perhaps one of the Republicans (Mike Huckabee? I hope not...) could miraculously come from behind to take the race... It's impossible to know, but I think that it will definitely be the Democrats' (and particularly Obama's) race to lose.
I was also going to write about how the primary/caucus system disenfranchises voters because people in states like Iowa and New Hampshire have SO much power over who even makes it on the ballot and how the Electoral College disenfranchises voters by creating disincentives to vote because minority votes in "safe" states (blue votes in "red states, for example) don't really carry any weight. But, I've already ranted enough and I think that those arguments are well-worn, so I'll just leave it at that.
I'll leave off with this video. It is a little heavy-handed, and perhaps a bit subversive, but it is kind of how I feel about Hillary (but if she gets the nomination, I'll support her).
The strangest thing happened to me the other night as I was falling asleep in bed. For some reason, like a bolt of lightning from out of the clear blue sky, I was suddenly overcome with this profound feeling that capital punishment is wrong. I have always been pretty neutral/apathetic about capital punishment. I mean, I never thought it was a good thing, but I thought, "well, they have done horrible things, so it's probably not too bad to do away with them." But then all of the sudden it just seemed like a horrible thing to me. I mean, sure, most of them have done horrible things, but does that make it right to kill them? Maybe this article about the botched 34-minute execution in Florida this past week that I had read earlier that day had something to do with this change of heart.
I don't remember how I came across this video by Psapp a few weeks ago, but it seems appropriate here. *WARNING* this video contains some cartoon violence.
After I took my absentee ballot to the county clerk yesterday I suddenly became much more interested in the election. On a scale of 1 to 10, my interest in the election prior to yesterday was probably only a 4.8, but after handing in my ballot it jumped to probably a 7.3. I was not very passionate about any of the issues, or even any of the candidates, but rather had a broader interest in arresting control of the government away from the GOP and seeing the advancement of progressive social issues. So far it looks like the elections have been satisfying in some areas, and not so satisfying in others.
First, the good news.
The biggest news is that the Democrats took over control of congress by a large margin in the House and by the skin of their teeth in the Senate. There are lots of reasons why this is good news.
Bill Ritter (D) won the governor's seat, soundly beating Bob Beauprez (R), ending 8 years with republican governor Bill Owens who I have not been a fan of (I guess we like to have governors named Bill here in Colorado). For the first time in 12 years there are more Democratic governors than republican ones.
Ed Perlmutter (D) won Colorado's 7th congressional district, adding a democrat to the House.
Democratic incumbents Mark Udall, Diana DeGette, and Ken Salazar all won their districts.
Minnesota elected a Muslim to the House. I really like that.
Boulder showed support for doing something about global warming and climate change by voting yes on Question 202 which will allow for an additional tax on energy bills with the money going towards funding programs meant to help Boulder meet Kyoto Protocol pollution emissions standards. While this is a step in the right direction, I think that this should be a much bigger issue. I'm glad that issues like Iraq and corruption got people out to vote for the Democrats, but in my opinion global warming is a far, far more important issue than either of these things and it should be a major issue at all levels of government, not just at the municipal level here in Boulder. Iraq, same-sex marriage, abortion, marijuana, immigration, corruption, minimum wage... none of them are as important as global warming in my opinion.
And now for the less-good news
In Colorado, Referendum I ensuring equal rights for same-sex couples appears to have failed while Amendment 43 defining marriage as that between only a man and a woman seems to have passed. I'm not very passionate about this issue, but I would have liked to see it pass just because Colorado is usually so conservative and it would have been good to see us pass something progressive like this.
Amendment 44 which would have legalized possession of Marijuana for people over 21 also failed. Again, I don't really care about this issue, but it would have been neat to see Colorado pass progressive legislation like this.
While Colorado did add one democrat to the house, it failed to add three more. Democrats lost to republicans in 3 of the 7 congressional districts. This was to be expected though as those districts are heavily republican, and really that we even added one is good news, but still I would have liked to see more. Of those losses, I am most bothered by Marilyn Musgrave (R) winning her district because she is wacko.
Denver had huge problems with their new electronic voting systems, but on the other side of the coin these problems were partially due to unexpectedly high voter turn-out.
I guess that's it. Overall I think it was a pretty successful election even if Colorado was still a little to conservative for my taste. I also wish people were as concerned about climate change and what to do about it as they are about Iraq. I'm also still a little bit jaded about the American political system in general and think that a two-party system is simply not adequate and that we would be much better off with a multi-party system, but that's a rant for another day...
I don't really understand the American public. First they elect Bush the first time 'round back in 2000. Then for some reason they re-elected him in 2004. And now, since gas prices have receded a few dimes per gallon over the past month or so, Americans have rushed to car dealers in droves to snatch up their big, lumbering, gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs, with their sales in the month of October "doubling from the year before in some cases (Fortune Magazine, "American car buyers get a case of amnesia")." According to the article, not only did sales of large trucks and SUVs increase dramatically this past month, but sales of hybrid vehicles actually declined. This is kind of disturbing news for me
Firstly, from most of the things I have read about gas prices, higher gas prices are likely to become the norm rather than the exception. As oil field reserves around the world peak, oil production (and consequently gasoline production) is stretched to its limits, and as global demand continues to rise, prices will naturally continue to rise. And so any recent drop in gas prices is probably temporary and we will probably see $3 gas again soon enough. Interestingly, by buying these fuel-inefficient vehicles consumers will help to drive demand back up which will probably help to send prices back up to where they were, and higher.
Secondly, Bush is right when he says that American dependence on foreign oil is bad. The combination of our voracious appetite for oil and relatively high international oil prices contributes to volatility in the international system. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, for example, would not be in the position of power and influence that he is if it weren't for all the money Venezuela is making from high-priced oil exports to the US. I don't think Hugo Chavez is really very dangerous for the United States, but he is certainly one of the most vocal and charismatic champions of the anti-American sentiment around the world.
Along this same point, but perhaps more crucial, is the relationship between US demand for oil, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. When I first heard the argument, "we are in Iraq because of oil," I thought it sounded like conspiracy theory. But in my political geography class last semester my teacher spent several class periods giving us a pretty sound explanation of why Iraq and our demand for oil are related. I am not capable of eloquently reproducing that argument here, but the basic jist of it is that Iraq and Iran have the fourth and third largest conventional oil reserves, respectively. By invading Afghanistan which has no real interest for the US other than a strategic location, and by invading Iraq which has large oil reserves but low production due to depleted infrastructure from international sanctions, the US is surrounding Iran.
I know, it sounds like total conspiracy theory, but I think it makes sense. Sure, the US rhetoric regarding all three of these countries has been mostly about security, humanitarian aid, terrorism, and those elusive weapons of mass destruction, but then you have to ask yourself, if it were really just about these things, then why did we go first to Iraq which appears to have been telling the truth when they said they didn't have WMDs (and it appears they didn't have any ties to Al Qaeda either), when North Korea on the other hand has been very clear about its intentions to build WMDs? Well, one possible factor is that North Korea doesn't have any oil. Or why don't we go into Sudan, a hotbed for international terrorists as well as the site of perhaps the worst current humanitarian disaster in the world (with the exception of Iraq, perhaps)? Well, Sudan doesn't have much oil either.
So why would the United States go to such great lengths to invade Iraq and surround Iran? Well, probably to help ensure cheap oil for the US so that Americans can drive their big trucks and SUVs. Until recently it was enough for the US to simply maintain their cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, but in the face of rapidly increasing demand from countries like China and India, in combination with declining oil reserves, it's going to take a much more hands-on approach by the US to keep oil prices low. Of course, if we didn't USE so much of the stuff then this wouldn't be such a big problem for the US. But don't tell the US public this; instead let them keep driving their land yachts because they like to sit high off the road and have a commanding view of the vast American landscape...
Speaking of the landscape, that's the third reason why this news is so disturbing. You don't have to be a climatologist to be able to understand that global warming is real, is coming fast, is our fault, and will probably have disastrous consequences. In fact, you probably don't even need a high school diploma to be able to understand it. Sure, the movie The Day After Tomorrow had a lot of hyperbolic Hollywood entertainment packed into it, and global warming probably won't have quite such dramatic effects, but it still should have made people think. And then there was Al Gore's great movie An Inconvenient Truth, which I still think everyone in the world should see, that spelled it out clearly and accurately. Unfortunately that movie lacked the Hollywood action necessary to lure most American movie-goers. So if simple economics aren't enough, and international security isn't enough either, and not even saving the planet from an unprecedented climatic disaster is enough to make Americans drive more efficient cars, then I don't know what is.
Actually, it seems like simple economics is the most powerful tool here, it's just that as this article claims, Americans have amnesia, and they probably lack foresight too. If we could keep gas prices high enough long enough, maybe Americans would finally start to think differently. Or perhaps if they went high enough then alternative energy sources would become economically viable. So as much as I loved getting change back from my $20 on a full tank of gas a few years ago, I think that in the long run high gasoline prices are actually a great thing, but dang it America, why do you keep buying those gas-guzzlers?
I've heard all the reasons for why people claim to like these behemoths:
"I like to sit high so I can see over everyone" -- You wouldn't have to sit so high if everyone else didn't drive them too.
"I like how safe I feel in a big vehicle" -- Big vehicles are more dangerous to other drivers, and most small cars these days are just as safe. Actually, because small cars handle better and are more maneuverable, in a way they are actually safer!
"I need to be able to haul lots of _______" -- This is only true in a few cases, most of the time you just end up driving yourself and perhaps a passenger or two around town looking for a Starbucks and a gas station. When you do need to haul lots of passengers and their gear, just take two cars! And if you need it to haul around your large family, then that's a different problem because the world population is also getting too big and so you shouldn't even be having that many kids anyway, unless they're adopted I suppose. Also, while you are busy hauling all your stuff around in your big truck, I'll be hauling ass right past you in my speedy little Mini and I'll be getting over twice or perhaps even three times the fuel economy as you too.
"I like how powerful they are" -- Whatever, trucks and SUVs are slow. Even the fastest ones are still not that fast by fast-car standards.
"I like they way the drive" -- Again, you are wrong. They handle like mush.
I love a rumblin' tumblin' gas-guzzlin' V8 engine as much as the next red-blooded American, but it's just irresponsible to drive those things all the time as a primary mode of transportation. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Hopefully technology like that shown in this video can become mainstream:
At the bottom of that Fortune article, there is a link to another article about how obesity also increases fuel consumption. That's a rant for another day though...
