20 years experience, or the same year 20 times?

McCain claims 20 years deep experience in foreign affairs, but, if it is true that USA is in the sheeet-hole for the past 20 years, then how much does that recommend McCain, if he played some role in that bowel-movement that we call U.S. foreign policy?

Sometimes "20 years experience" means the same year TWENTY TIMES!


Bryan: I think of how the U.S. is in a bad spot can only be negative for McCain, who has had greater influence and for a longer duration than Obama

Me: McCain seemed more catty (snide, snotty) and would not make eye contact (mom thinks, to control his hair trigger temper). Snottiness is an important trait in a president or prime minister.

Obama seemed more sincere in his attempt at congenial tolerance.
I think being an African American (that N word is so ugly) gives one much practice in equanimity, patience, tolerance.


Oldbearded1 on Myspace:
Your question implies that he would have sole responsibility for the past twenty years of foreign affairs, rather than just "some-role". That's quite a leap!


Me:

Massive Leap!? GoodGodAllMighty!! If I were one of a 1000 engineers who worked on the Titanic, I would not feel responsible, but neither would I feature it on my resume. Perhaps these are times when "years of experience" are not the best thing or what is needed. Perhaps we need someone who is not quite so deeply entangled in the massively corrupt machine of politics.

I am reminded of that 1988 film "Big", where Tom Hanks is a boy who magically becomes an adult.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Big

That boy-man becomes a roaring success in the toy industry PRECISELY because he has no experience, and is not jaded by years of "thinking inside the box."



Quite frankly, I feel that no one person will make a positive difference. I see inevitable doom as the handwriting on the wall. One person (like another crack-pot Bush), COULD, in theory, make things far worse far more quickly, but no single person is going to turn around and change the dynamics of environment, economy, and politics which have been at work for the past century or two. Frankly, Palin and McCain seem to me like such goody-two-shoes self-righteous clowns, standing upon their high moral ground of Protestant piety and American chauvinism.

Au contrere, mon frere, I see YOUR conclusion regarding MY conclusion as a massive leap.

I see our society and culture as rotten-to-the-core, but I have no better
alternative to offer, and I don't have that much longer to live either, relatively speaking. I do care, or I would not take the time to write all this down. But there is not much I can do to change things. Even if everyone in the world tomorrow, read my blog and agreed with me, I don't think it would change things.

If I hear McCain harp on his prisoner-of-war-hero-status one more time, I think I shall become violently ill. Just imagine, for a moment, that various Asian nations came to world power and held Nuremberg type trials judging the criminal actions of the Viet Nam war. Then, what would McCain do? Would he plead that he was "simply following orders?" Remind you of anything? Oh, abortion and pro-choice are a terrible thing? Killing fetuses is a terrible thing? I wonder how many fetuses McCain killed in Hanoi when he dropped those bombs? How many men has Obama killed, I wonder? I am guessing zero? OK, Barack, fess up! How many people have you killed?

You mean, we cannot have a decent leader unless he was a general like Eisenhower, or a u-boat commander like Kennedy, or a prisoner-of-war, like McCain? If that is true, then if the day ever comes that we achieve world peace, that will be the day that we run out of qualified leaders!

When the senators of ancient Rome campaigned for office, they would stand in the market-place, open their togas, and show their battle scars to the public, to prove their valor in combat, and their patriotism. I suppose, if we take seriously Gibbon's life work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", then it was when the citizen warriors were replaced by paid mercenary troops that the empire of 1000 years was doomed to fall to the hairy, unwashed, tribal barbarians.


Did you ever stop to think how warped and twisted and distorted American cultural values have been for the past two centuries? It is only about 150 years ago that people of color were property, possessions, and the Bible was used to justify that (Paul's Epistle to Philemon, advising a slave to be content with his lot, and Moses Torah mitzvahs regarding the treatment of slaves). It is only about 90 years ago that women could not vote. In 18th century Connecticut, one could not vote unless one was a member of a certain church denomination (Presbyterian, Congregational, I forget).

Can you tell me the eye color of all the U.S. presidents since George Washington?
Stupid question, right? Eye color makes about as much difference as skin color.

Now we could not have Lieberman as president, because, God forbid, Lieberman is not a Protestant Christian. And it is unthinkable to have a Mormon as president. And Obama is not a good choice, because he happened to go to a church where the pastor hollered about how rotten whites are. Well, I am white, and I too think that whites are rotten. So where should you holler about things that irk you if not in your church. Jews get together an holler every year about the pharaoh of Egypt saying "less straw, more bricks". That's why we call those religious observations "Holler Days". Oh, but that's some 2500 years ago, you say? Time to forgive and forget, you say?

I think that Nixon had Quaker roots! I must Google to be certain. But how on earth did a Quaker sneak into the White House?

http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Richard_Nixon.html

People think it is terrible that Obama attended the church of Rev. Wright. OK, but here is how I see it. Pres. Bush is a born-again Christian, giving up 20 years of alcoholism, because of his walk on the beach with Billy Graham. And like every other president of modern times, Bush felt compelled to tell the voting public that he has accepted Jesus as his "personal savior". Well, now, what should it mean in "theory" to have a commander-in-chief who takes Jesus as his guide. Didn't Jesus advise, not merely to forgive your enemy, but to LOVE your enemy. So, when the World Trade Center was toppled, where was all our Christian charity and forgiveness and love. I should imagine that anyone who takes Jesus as his guide and model would not only be a pacifist, but, would actually avoid any form of government involvement. Did Jesus run for mayor of Jerusalem? NO, Jesus said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "my kingdom is not of this world." And who was it who said "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword?" (I honestly don't remember and I get tired of Googling for things. Go and Google it yourself if you are curious.)

So, you didn't care for Giuliani as a candidate, because his first wife and kids don't like him? If you wanted someone to run an efficient corporation, would you expect him to be the "husband of one wife"? You don't think a mean nasty S.O.B. could be a successful C.E.O? How about a good general? You don't think a mean ruthless S.O.B. could be a great general. Myth number 1, the Protestant reformation stresses salvation by forgiveness, and discourages the veneration of Saints. But, where is all the forgiveness when someone topples the Twin Towers? Where is all the forgiveness when Bill Clinton is tempted by his sexual passions. When we vet a political candidate, we dig all the way back to high school and beyond, to assure ourselves that our candidate is saintly and sinless.

If we keep electing war heroes, do you think we will have a shot at world peace. Suppose McCain had been so taken with the teaching of Jesus that he had moved to Canada to avoid killing people with bombs? Oh, but then he would have been unpatriotic! A traitor!

By the way, do you happen to know the very first nation in modern times to have a woman as prime minister? It was Sri Lanka (former Ceylon). She was the wife of the Buddhist prime minister, and he was assassinated by a Buddhist extremist. So, of course, the country wanted his WIFE to serve out the term of office. Well, so much for the progressive nature of 20th century nations.

The way I see it, the First Lady was not active or important until Eleanor Roosevelt. Now, it seems that the spouse is an important part of the Presidency.