Monday, November 19, 2007

The Problem with Hillary: Though it’s Not Really about Her Anymore

I quit my job on Thursday. It was a phenomenal experience. Liberating, invigorating, man-damning. Originally I had a post planned relating to my departure (reasons for quitting, the meetings with the higher-ups, etc.) But quite frankly, the discussion that has naturally evolved out of the last few days of blog topics (blogics, if you will) is of much greater interest to me. I hope you all feel the same. I’ll eventually post on quitting my first real job, but for now let’s continue with some issues of greater importance.

I’m saving any affirmative action related thoughts, since this is the issue which seems most likely to spark controversy. I’ll address other comments, questions, concerns as I see fit.

But first, I’ll reveal the answer to my Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? I suppose I’m not surprised that no one came up with the answer (it is just a crack-pot, paranoid theory of mine).

I think it’s safe to say that threat number one to American security is jihadism. The religious fanatics declaring jihad are Islamic fundamentalists that have a long and well documented history of disrespecting, oppressing, and abusing women (Google Islam+womens’ rights, genital mutilation, burqa, etc). These terrorists- in-training already hate the infidels of the west and what they see as a debaucherous culture. How will they respond if a woman, who they wouldn’t allow to drive a car let alone run a country, takes command of the most powerful nation in the world; the nation that also happens to be their sworn enemy? Will they take seriously her efforts at diplomacy? Her threats of sanctions? Will they think her capable of protecting her citizens?

Or will it be open season on American soil?

I realize there is no solid evidence that a woman in office would result in increased terrorist attacks. Germany is run by a woman (Chancellor Angela Merkel), and they seem to be hanging in there. I just don’t know that I’d like to put my theory to the test.

For getting the right answer I’ve awarded myself a fabulous prize. Congratulations, Zot.

On to some thoughts from Thursday and Friday’s discussion: (most will be addressed to Mr. A, since many of your thoughts focused on the minority issue).

I was just playing devil’s advocate with the objectification of women stuff. Of course Hillary unfairly has to put up with a lot of rubbish that her male counterparts don’t because she is the first woman seriously seeking the presidency. But I, too, am tired of being seen as just a piece of ass. So is Barack: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

You raise an interesting point about the problem with over-analyzing every word a politician says. Because the media pressure and public scrutiny are so intense, they’re forced to prepare every thought ahead of time, stripping them of any possible spontaneity (and we all know what happens when spontaneity gets the better of a candidate: www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). We are left with hollowed out, one-dimensional caricatures of politicians and are deprived any hint of the very real, multi-faceted, talented and interesting people that they potentially are.

So what is it that we want? As a society, we demand blood. We thrive on the weakness of others. We want to be there when a candidate makes a fatal mistake. And when they do, we ask for their heads. We want our politicians to go for the jugulars of their opponents. And the media delivers. Truly, we are no better than the Roman masses.

This practice will be put to an end when I finally ascend to my rightful position of ruthless dictator and take full control of the media.

On the next topic, concerning how to vote (issues or character), I’m thinking that we’re further separated by terms than we are by practice. Each candidate has certain pet issues, things they are passionate about, and certainly we can agree that these personal projects are largely informed by their ideology. Edwards has social welfare, Clinton has universal healthcare, Barack has audacity (or is it hope?), Romney has polygamy, Giuliani has adultery, McCain has old man crotchery.

Joking aside, the issues a candidate is passionate about are the best barometer of that candidate’s ideological stances. This is the primary reason that I lean left. For me, social welfare is much more important, ideologically, than unreasonable efforts to prevent homosexual marriage.

In response to the blowup about Barack Obama not placing his hand on his heart during the National Anthem: it’s much ado about nothing. It was initially the result of a misleading caption (another example of either careless or deliberately manipulative journalism) that claimed Barack refused to put his hand on his heart during the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. The picture was later found to have been taken during the singing of the National Anthem, not the reciting of the Pledge. Barack went on to explain (clearly exasperated by repeated questioning) that he was raised to simply sing the National Anthem and to put his hand on his heart for the pledge. Interestingly, though, he was breaking a law: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode36/usc_sec_36_00000301----000-.html
Even so, this is exactly the kind muckraking journalism that we all agree creates divisive, ineffective politics. In the end, I agree with Mr. A. Come on, people.

Now think about this: I have made a personal decision to no longer recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It would be hypocritical. Think about what the Pledge of Allegiance forces you to say: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I don’t. I never will. I hope that if and when I decide to pledge my allegiance to anything it is a far greater good/power than the flag or what it stands for. I’ll speak for all of us when I say we each have strong and carefully considered belief systems. We all have things we stand for, would fight for, and ultimately would die for. Are we really going to tie this to a flag? To a country (which is defined merely by the geographical region in which we were born)? I admire America and what it has done. I respect America and what it stands for. But will I ever pledge my allegiance to America? Absolutely not.

Does that make me unpatriotic? I’ll let you decide.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. As expected, this post got long before I even touched on affirmative action. Maybe it’s all a ploy to keep putting the issue off…Or maybe it’s coming tomorrow.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

I disagree with your decision to never "pledge allegiance" to the flag. I try to do it most mornings with my students and I think it shows respect for how fortunate we are to live in a country like this. Where can we share our beleifs and live the way that we do with out hardly any worries of what tomorrow brings? Pledging allegiance, to me, is showing my loyalty towards this beautiful country we live in and all the opportunities that are provided, along with my promise to shape our future leaders as best as I can.

Question: Where can you quit your job and be certain that there is another one around the corner? Answer: The U.S.A.

All of that aside. I never thought about your Hillary question? You bring up a good point about the risk of more terrorist attacks brought on by a woman in the hot seat. It could very well be true, all more reason for me to not vote for the Hill.

When it comes to the question on Character vs. Issues, I heard a debate about this while at Bethel. I for one try to look at the person's character and what morals they have. If I truly know those things I don't have to worry about the descions he/she will make.

Possible more later..I need to pick my students up from Library.

Anonymous said...

Oh Gruber... I'm kind of speechless. In all honesty I think that is disrespectful, your objection to saying the pledge of allegiance. I can respect the fact that you have a belief and are acting on it, but I disagree with your belief as I understand it.

I think it is being disrespectful to the thousands and maybe millions of people that have died for the country you live in that allows you to say what you just said. You don't have to agree with all the foreign policies or our diplomacy, but your allegiance should still be to your country. If not to your country, then were does your allegiance lie?

I have many friends and loved ones that don't always do things that I like or agree with, but I can assure you that my allegiance to them remains constant.

Maybe we just define allegiance different, or maybe we should have a further discussion to make sure I am understanding your stance correctly.

I think one of the major problems with our country is that there is a dying sense of patriotism. Sometimes I think there are just as many people in this country that would burn our flag before pledging allegiance to it (I'm not saying you are one of them).

I pledge my allegiance to this country simply for the memory of all the people that have gone before me and built our country into how great it is (yes, great can be defined many ways). I do it for the belief that everyone has a right to be free and make there own decisions no matter how much I disagree with them. I do it for this great place we live, the place we take for granted every day. We don't wake up and worry if we are going to find food to keep our family alive (even the poorest of us). We don't worry if I might get bombed on the way to work. We don't worry about our wives and children being taken from us and used as shields so the Americans won't shoot at them. The examples can go on and on, but I think the point is pretty clear that we are very lucky.

Like the saying goes, we are standing on the shoulders of giants and we owe this country our allegiance simply for their memory if nothing else. But I would argue we owe our allegiance to the future generations to strive to keep this country (and yes, change it back in some ways) as it was intended to be by the men and women who founded it. To me, pledging to our flag is a symbol of all I have just spoken of, so yes, I will tie that to the flag.

Zizzle-Zot said...

I don't intend to disrespect America or the countless men and women that have sacrificed themselves so I can live the life I do. I will forever be in their debt. America has my gratitude, my appreciation; I will fight to maintain the tenets it is built on. I will work to better it for future generations.

But my allegiance must go to something greater.

Maybe it is a difference in how we define allegiance. In my mind, I can only truly pledge allegiance to one thing. Allegiance, for me, is complete and unquestioning devotion. We can be loyal to friends, family, country. We can stand by their side and fight for them in trying times. But to pledge allegiance to these things means to be forever indivisible. To pledge your allegiance means you will never turn against.

If it came down to a choice between your country and your greater belief (whatever that may be), which would you side with? That, in my mind, is what you pledge allegiance to.

Anonymous said...

That clarifies it a lot for me Gruber, I think we are on the same page for the most part, the confusion came in the way we were defining allegiance. I think your understanding and definition is somewhat more weighted than mine.

Phew, now we can be friends again.

Zizzle-Zot said...

That's good. I hated you for about 5 minutes. Now you're cutesies again. (I figured it was a difference in definitions).

Anonymous said...

Gruber, your clarification makes it a little easier for me to understand. The definition of the word allegiance is seen differently. I see it more in the way Pat does, but it makes sense the way that you use it.

Do you think we can be friends again too? Also, what are you doing with your time?

Anonymous said...

Grubes,

On a more important note...What are you going to do about the most recent poll? I mean with no deciding winner on it, is it really possible to put all the females photos up?

My suggestion, just put up One picture of Jessica Alba...Just throwin it out there

Zizzle-Zot said...

It might take some hard work, but I think we can probably be friends again.

I still have to work for a few more days. Past that, I'm still undecided. I got offered another job, and will most likely take it. Either way I hope to have a couple of weeks off.

Say hi to that beautiful wife of yours.

Zizzle-Zot said...

I've been trying to think of a good solution to that problem. If everyone would have voted it might not be an issue. Some people must be too busy to take the polls seriously.

I like your proposal. One picture of Jessica Alba to represent all that is great about actresses.

Anonymous said...

Jessica Alba is pretty. I vote for a picture of her too.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to vote. My vote is for Reese Witherspoon. She is so cute with her little chin and she did a good job in "Walk the Line"

Anonymous said...

I agree with Zot and refuse the American Pledge of Allegiance. I derive this stance as a Christian from the teachings of Jesus. I believe a Christian should pledge allegiance only to the Kingdom of God and never to a secular government aka "kingdom of the world". I think pledging allegiance to the US is nationalism rather than patriotism. I am not interested in fighting for the interests of the US over other countries and governments. THis in no way is a hit on America, but is my proclaiming trust and allegiance to the the kingdom of God ONLY. How could I pledge allegiance to both?

If you think about it biblically, would Jesus have pledged allegiance to an established government or country? I don't think he would. Not that it is altogether wrong or sinful, but I think the commitment (or allegiance) of a Christian is to build the kingdom of God through serving/loving others and ridding the world of any oppression, injustice, and poverty. My hope and allegiance as a Christian is not to American interests but to the wellbeing of all humanity (that is inclussive of America, but not solely to America). So I would say that I pledge allegiance to the wellbeing of all peoples.

WHo's with me? Anybody? Any one? Bueler?

Anonymous said...

Late Night, sorry but I think you're going overboard. I do not believe you can have allegiance to only one thing. Yes to our God first, but I don't think that having allegiance to our country in any way contradicts that. In fact I think that Jesus would and does teach to have allegiance to your country.

He didn't come to separate us from that. He came to teach us how to live within the context of society. Give to God what is God's and give to Caesar what is Caesars. We are never told to leave society because they might be contradictory to our beliefs, we are told to influence it by our actions.

Having allegiance to your country doesn't mean we have to be all gung ho for everything our country does. It does mean having a commitment to further our country by what we think is right under God.

Don't forget, God is the creator of nations and different groups of people. All people were the same and together until God separated them and forever made them different from each other for the specific purpose of limiting interaction.

Anonymous said...

PC, I am sticking with you on this one. You and me vs. Chris and Zot. I think we can take them, no problem. Even on the basketball court.

Yep, I said it Gruber, what now?

The Friendly Liberal said...

I object to your assumption that a woman president won't be able to deal with a mysoginist middle east.

I just deleted 5 paragraphs that talked about Hillary dealing with Islamic States and not terrorists. Oops.

The middle east does not expect us to abide by Islamic law. They simply ask that we not meddle with their cultural and political affairs. That's simplifying the scenario, no doubt, but take a look at this picture:

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/10/23/image3400509.jpg


There's a more famous picture that I was searching for, but this one works. Fundamentalists only care about Western culture if it is imposed on them in some way. They don't care about women senators, but they probably care about MTV being pumped into their televisions.

I mean, do you think they care about Singapore's female prime minister? Do you think they care about Singapore at all? It's all about what is being imposed, not what is different. Hillary wouldn't be any more imposing of western culture than George Bush.

Granted, her being a woman might find its way into a Mullah's speech, but it isn't bringing new faces through the door. In fact, I would argue that this claim trivializes what they are fighting for.

I guess I just don't think Hillary and her femdom would lose that many points with the Islamic Fundamentlists because we already lost those points many years ago.

Do you know what has recently flooded the ranks of Al Quida more than any other thing (as declared by the State Department)? The invasion and occupation of Iraq.

When you say that the terrorists will unleash themselves on America because Hillary is a woman...I'd say that this possibility is completely insignificant when compared to the consequences of how we deal with Iran (and Iraq for that matter). At this time, I'm not arguing in either direction, but the policies we pursue in the middle east will have FAR more of an impact on the terrorist community than the gender of whoever is making those policy decisions.

...are we ignoring the positive impact Hillary MIGHT have on the middle east? I can remember hearing about Singapore, Germany, Margret Thatcher, and many other examples of female heads of state and that had a major impact on me. What once seemed unlikely, suddenly became a matter of circumstance. Hillary might not be able to export equal rights to Egypt, but the image of a confident and capable woman leading the most powerful country in the world might push things along in a much more indirect way.

That's it, I'm done. I have spent far too many words polishing up a canidate that I DON'T EVEN SUPPORT! What is this all for? Mental Masturbation is my best guess.

Zizzle-Zot said...

I agree, Mr. A, that Hillary Clinton could potentially have a positive impact on the Middle East. She is, after all, a Clinton, and Clinton’s make excellent diplomats. Even Condoleezza Rice has had some (limited) success dealing with these governments, and certainly Hillary is more capable than she.

But I think you make a dangerous mistake when you assume terrorists possess reason or logic (and I would like to further emphasize my distinction between terrorism and Islamic States). They don’t care about Singapore for the same reasons America doesn’t care about Singapore: because Singapore isn’t a major player. Their hatred for America comes from the fact that it is the most powerful nation in the world, and yes, American culture gets stuffed down everyone else’s throats. But our president is a part of that culture, and don’t you imagine there is a possibility that they would see a female American President broadcast on Al Jazeera as an affront to their fundamentalist law?

Like I said, it’s just a crack-pot theory of mine, and one that most likely won’t play out. But still…

And by the way, these people are cold-blooded murderers. I have no qualms about trivializing their fight. Terrorists don’t deserve our respect.

In response to the other debate that is going on, one thing caught me off guard. P Corcs, in your last paragraph you said: “Don't forget, God is the creator of nations and different groups of people. All people were the same and together until God separated them and forever made them different from each other for the specific purpose of limiting interaction.”

I don’t know the context/background of this. Did God really intend to limit interaction? It makes it seem like God favors segregation, which doesn’t really mesh with my world view. Anyone care to expand?

The Friendly Liberal said...

When I say "trivialize", I mean to say that this symbolic notion of a woman president doesn't penetrate what I believe the terrorists (if you can lump them into one group) are angry about and fighting for. This doesn't grant them respect. It is simply an attempt to better understand the enemy. Turning them into cartoon villains that hate all that is good and free, is an enormous distraction when confronting them. I know that's not what you are arguing, but I wanted to use an extreme example.

Essentially, this whole debate comes down to hypotheticals that can't be proven. However, if you think that the image of Clinton on Al Jezeera would bring about more hatred than the image of Bush, then I would just naturally disagree. It's not like we're revealing a secret that women are in positions of power here in America. Also, looking at the messages that have corresponded with previous terrorist attacks, it's clear (to me) that they are far more focussed on middle east policy than western culture.

If Clinton managed her foreign policy better than Bush, I think that would have much more of an affect than her gender. Now I'm just repeating myself.

In the end, your guess is as good as mine.

Anonymous said...

It is basically the story of Babel. Everyone was of one language and one people. The wanted to "build a tower to the heavens" Basically it was an act to glorify themselves for what they could do as a united people. It was an act of defiance to God. God purpose was for his people to spread and populate the earth.

In order to stop man from being united in resistance to himself he gave them different languages and spread them out across the earth. Now instead of one nation and one language and one race there were many. No longer could they achieve unity and work as one to glorify themsleves above God. There was competition now and barriers (language, distance, etc).

In the world we are living in today, it is the first time since babel that all humanity can easily be united and is actually pursing this. Will we continue to strive for unity and glory for ourselves. Once we have achieved this will we sit back and say "look how awesome we are because of what we did?"

It is because of how man is that God separated us. We become too conceited and start praising our own acts like we are divine. This is what I believe the story of Babel teaches us and in that way, yes, God did segragate us. Are we still supposed to be that way??? I don't know for sure, I have my opinions but I'll leave that alone for now.

Christopher Kevin Casselman said...

Pcorcs- I think you have misinterpreted Babel. There are two camps of thought on the meaning of the Babel narrative. One believes God's act was that of punishment for the sinful pride (hubris) of humans wanting to be "like" God. The other camp believes there was no sin or punishment but a divine act of grace. This second camp believes this bc there is no explicit judgment as there is in other judgment narratives in the Pentateuch.

Also, the second camp sees the Babel narrative as alluding to Gen 1:28 where God commands humanity to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." God commands this again after the flood where humanity gets a second chance. God tells Noah and his fam to "be fruitful and multiply...fill the earth (Gen 9:1). The issue for Babel was the failure to do this, so God does it for them.

Thus, the Babel narrative is not a punishment for pride, but a graceful act in which God "scatters" the people so they will "fill the earth." I (if you couldn't tell) hold to the second camp. God's ideal is for God's people to spread amongst the earth. We are not to be one monoculture, but our God is the God of all peoples, and we should seek to be the people God wants us to be.

Pcorcs wrote-
"...yes, God did segragate us. Are we still supposed to be that way??? I don't know for sure, I have my opinions..."

It sounds like your reading of Babel suggests that God is a God who segregates rather than binds? Or God doesn't want diversity? I think our God is the exact opposite of segregation, but of unifiying love. Either way your response is question-begging.

I think the way to see it is not that "God did segregate us," but as the narrative actually is translated, God "scattered" the Babylonians. "Scattered" and "Segregated" are far different words with far different conotations. Our God is not a God of "segregation" but a God who "scatters" His/Her people so that they may be a light to the world (Matthew 5), not individual monocultures.

Disclaimer: I love Pcorcs and if I was a female, I'd want to have his lower case pcorcs'! He's just sooo cute! Now debate me Pcorcs!

Anonymous said...

Late Night, You're cute, thanks for giving your thoughts. I don't think I have misinterpreted it. Before I explain any further, I need you to do something.

I also said that they were to populate the earth, "God purpose was for his people to spread and populate the earth." So we are on the same page there. Where I need more information from you before I give a response is you need to explain your reasoning for God changing their languages and confusing them. You skipped over that part, so I first need to know your thoughts on that.

Also, don't jump to conclusions on my quote at the end there. I left it open ended on purpose.

Anonymous said...

I argue that God confused the speech of the Babylonians for the simple yet pragmatic reason so that they wouldn't be able to recreate their Babylonian monoculture. It forces them to "scatter". Again, its not a punishment.

Sorry if I was jumping to a conclusion. I more wanted to comment solely on the "segregate" language you were using. I just wanted to point out that I think "segregate" has very evil conotations.

Hey Werd Yelof: Do you believe in God. I believe in God!

Anonymous said...

I believe in God

Do you believe in God? Well...do you?

The Friendly Liberal said...

You guys are somehow turning me homophobic.

Anonymous said...

Stop being such a cutie Mr. A!