Sunday, February 16, 2003
So a part of me feels weird because I'm not going to any of the anti-war protests. I didn't even support the first gulf war. But two people whose political opinions I totally admire, Thomas Friedman from the NY Times and Christopher Hitchens who used to write for The Nation, support the administration's efforts ainst Iraq.
Christopher Hitchens, who said the progress of any nation depends on the education and advancement of women, is a well known left wing socialist political commentator. Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the NY Times, who friends have said is the most balanced and fair political essayist at the NY Times. Both men, coming from different political perspectives, support a US led war against Iraq.
I think I've become more pragmatic as I've gotten older. I mean I've always been practical, but now I'm both practical and pragmatic especially when it comes to politics. The anti-war people haven't offered a more pragmatic solution to dealing with Iraq. All I seem to hear from anti-war people is this war is about oil, even though the US only gets 6% of its oil from Iraq. Or, they say that Bush is continuing the war that his father fought, even though Clinton himself bombed two or three places when Iraq kicked the inspectors out of the country in 1998.
Or, all you hear is anti-Bush rhetoric. I mean, I cannot help but think that if it were Bill Clinton or any other democrat in the White House, the anti-war fervor would not be so great. Deciding international policy based on partisan politics is not the smartest way to decide whether you support something or not.
If only the ant-war people would offer a more pragmatic solution, then maybe I'd protest, although I wouldn't attend the rallies only because they're run by ANSWER, an organization that is anti-american, supports the regimes of Saddam Hussein, communist North Korean, and supports Milosevich, the Palestinan campaign of terror against Israel, and the Chinese government crackdown of student dissidents at Tianeman Square.
Instead, I'd write my congresspeople or my senator. But until I hear a more pragmatic solution to dealing with Saddan Hussein, then I can't protest. We've had the inspectors in and out of Iraq for 11.5 years, and still the man has weapons. Iraq has already said NO to the UN peacekeeping troops in the country, which was part of the UN proposal France and Germany were working on. Iraq has already also said NO to destroying those missiles that violate UN limits for how they travel. Saddam Hussein is not going to ever willingly disarm, and since when has containment ever worked in international policy or in real life. Britian thought it had European aggression contained in the first part of the 20th century, and out of that containment came WW1 and WW2.
The original resolution seems wrong anyway. The onus is on Iraq to disarm and for the UN to inspect. I wish I knew my WW2 history better, because I'm wondering what the japanese terms of surrender were after WW2. From what I remember, Japan was disarmed and it worked. Did the UN not follow the japanse example with Iraq? I'll have to research this.
I mean, come on. What country is going to willingly disarm? It's a messed up situation from the get go, and there is no easy solution to the problem. But right now, the Bush administration seems to have the only pragmatic solutin on the table.
Christopher Hitchens, who said the progress of any nation depends on the education and advancement of women, is a well known left wing socialist political commentator. Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the NY Times, who friends have said is the most balanced and fair political essayist at the NY Times. Both men, coming from different political perspectives, support a US led war against Iraq.
I think I've become more pragmatic as I've gotten older. I mean I've always been practical, but now I'm both practical and pragmatic especially when it comes to politics. The anti-war people haven't offered a more pragmatic solution to dealing with Iraq. All I seem to hear from anti-war people is this war is about oil, even though the US only gets 6% of its oil from Iraq. Or, they say that Bush is continuing the war that his father fought, even though Clinton himself bombed two or three places when Iraq kicked the inspectors out of the country in 1998.
Or, all you hear is anti-Bush rhetoric. I mean, I cannot help but think that if it were Bill Clinton or any other democrat in the White House, the anti-war fervor would not be so great. Deciding international policy based on partisan politics is not the smartest way to decide whether you support something or not.
If only the ant-war people would offer a more pragmatic solution, then maybe I'd protest, although I wouldn't attend the rallies only because they're run by ANSWER, an organization that is anti-american, supports the regimes of Saddam Hussein, communist North Korean, and supports Milosevich, the Palestinan campaign of terror against Israel, and the Chinese government crackdown of student dissidents at Tianeman Square.
Instead, I'd write my congresspeople or my senator. But until I hear a more pragmatic solution to dealing with Saddan Hussein, then I can't protest. We've had the inspectors in and out of Iraq for 11.5 years, and still the man has weapons. Iraq has already said NO to the UN peacekeeping troops in the country, which was part of the UN proposal France and Germany were working on. Iraq has already also said NO to destroying those missiles that violate UN limits for how they travel. Saddam Hussein is not going to ever willingly disarm, and since when has containment ever worked in international policy or in real life. Britian thought it had European aggression contained in the first part of the 20th century, and out of that containment came WW1 and WW2.
The original resolution seems wrong anyway. The onus is on Iraq to disarm and for the UN to inspect. I wish I knew my WW2 history better, because I'm wondering what the japanese terms of surrender were after WW2. From what I remember, Japan was disarmed and it worked. Did the UN not follow the japanse example with Iraq? I'll have to research this.
I mean, come on. What country is going to willingly disarm? It's a messed up situation from the get go, and there is no easy solution to the problem. But right now, the Bush administration seems to have the only pragmatic solutin on the table.
The rest of Saturday I spent trying on jeans. I got so tired of my baggy jeans, that I made myself go shopping. I tried on Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger and Jones New York jeans. The size 8 for all brands fit, even the slim Tommy Hilfiger jeans. I ended up buying a pair of Ralph Lauren and a pair of Tommy Hilfiger jeans.
I probably could have squeezed myself into a pair of size 6 jeans, but I've been wearing loose fitting jeans for so long that I started liking my jeans to fit loose and not tight. I never thought jeans fit right unless you had to lie down to put them on, but I must be getting old because now I like my jeans well fitting but not so skintight they leave marks in your legs.
God, I remember two years ago trying to buy a pair of Tommy Hilfiger jeans and not even being able to squeeze my body into a size 16, which is largest size they sell. I mean, I could get them on but they were so darned tight. Now I'm the proud owner of a pair of size 8 jeans that are fit, but aren't tight. I mean it's not like my life has radically changed or anything with me buying a smaller pair of jeans, but I am totally tripping on my jeans shopping adventure.
Of course, now I'm like thinking about trying to get into a pair of size 6 jeans since I haven't even gotten to my goal weight yet. But I know that's not good. I should enjoy the pleasure of buying a pair of size 8 jeans, something which I haven't done since college. And now that I did spend some money on my size 8 jeans, I'm kind of hoping to stay a size 8 for awhile just to make the jeans investment worthwhile.
I probably could have squeezed myself into a pair of size 6 jeans, but I've been wearing loose fitting jeans for so long that I started liking my jeans to fit loose and not tight. I never thought jeans fit right unless you had to lie down to put them on, but I must be getting old because now I like my jeans well fitting but not so skintight they leave marks in your legs.
God, I remember two years ago trying to buy a pair of Tommy Hilfiger jeans and not even being able to squeeze my body into a size 16, which is largest size they sell. I mean, I could get them on but they were so darned tight. Now I'm the proud owner of a pair of size 8 jeans that are fit, but aren't tight. I mean it's not like my life has radically changed or anything with me buying a smaller pair of jeans, but I am totally tripping on my jeans shopping adventure.
Of course, now I'm like thinking about trying to get into a pair of size 6 jeans since I haven't even gotten to my goal weight yet. But I know that's not good. I should enjoy the pleasure of buying a pair of size 8 jeans, something which I haven't done since college. And now that I did spend some money on my size 8 jeans, I'm kind of hoping to stay a size 8 for awhile just to make the jeans investment worthwhile.
On Saturday morning, I went to the opening of the Gavin Newsome for Mayor Headquarters on Van Ness at California. Everyone was marveling at the turnout, especially on a three-day weekend. 300 people jammed the room to hear Gavin and his wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, an assistant DA for the city speak.
Three well-dressed and expensive looking Pacific Heights matron types were talking about Newsome's future, since you can only be a mayor of San Francisco for two terms. They were saying maybe state senator, state representative, and the biggest prize of California poltics, the governorship.
Well, he's definitely go the Gray Davis style of fundraising down. Newsome's campaign has already gotten more money than the all the SF mayoral candidates combined. I'm even thinking of donating money. The man definitely has something. I don't know what it is, star quality maybe. He's got that special gift of making everything he says sound so sincere and so from the heart. I don't know him well enough to know whether he really means what he says, but even if he does or doesn't, I think he will always sound like he does.
Newsome did say that contributions from his campaign came from every zipcode in San Francisco. I wonder if this happens to all front runner candidates. The crowd gathered on Saturday was definitely a mix of people from the City.
I think most of the people there are like me, tired of business/politics as usual in San Francisco, the cit that can't seem to ever get anything done. I think what I like about Gavin Newsome is he's a pragmatist, not an idealist. I think he will shake things up at City Hall and try to get something done, and not just spout idealistic pronouncements and hope the city will take care of itself. It's almost worth voting for Gavin Newsome just to get back at all the left wing political freaks who have made it impossible to get anything done or passed in the city. I think Newsome will lead the city back to the center, and perhaps lift the malaise that has descended on San Francisco city politics.
There is nobody else I would really support. I don't want to elect someone who will polarize the city. The City has some serious problems, and we need someone who can get support from the right and left in the city. Yes, despite what you read in the paper, on the internet and hear in the media, there are conservatives in San Francisco. Not very many, but I think there are at least 10 - 20% who will actually admit to being a republican. My neighborhood is about 15% republican, and there were plenty of Bush/Cheney signs in people's windows during the 2000 election.
Personally, I would place the republican figure higher, but it's San Francisco and you just can't say you're a republican because you'd be ostracized, so the safe thing to say is you're an independent. But then if you don't register with a political party, you don't get to vote in the primaries, which I what alot of people I know do. They only vote in the General election, or worse, they just don't vote which is too bad.
Three well-dressed and expensive looking Pacific Heights matron types were talking about Newsome's future, since you can only be a mayor of San Francisco for two terms. They were saying maybe state senator, state representative, and the biggest prize of California poltics, the governorship.
Well, he's definitely go the Gray Davis style of fundraising down. Newsome's campaign has already gotten more money than the all the SF mayoral candidates combined. I'm even thinking of donating money. The man definitely has something. I don't know what it is, star quality maybe. He's got that special gift of making everything he says sound so sincere and so from the heart. I don't know him well enough to know whether he really means what he says, but even if he does or doesn't, I think he will always sound like he does.
Newsome did say that contributions from his campaign came from every zipcode in San Francisco. I wonder if this happens to all front runner candidates. The crowd gathered on Saturday was definitely a mix of people from the City.
I think most of the people there are like me, tired of business/politics as usual in San Francisco, the cit that can't seem to ever get anything done. I think what I like about Gavin Newsome is he's a pragmatist, not an idealist. I think he will shake things up at City Hall and try to get something done, and not just spout idealistic pronouncements and hope the city will take care of itself. It's almost worth voting for Gavin Newsome just to get back at all the left wing political freaks who have made it impossible to get anything done or passed in the city. I think Newsome will lead the city back to the center, and perhaps lift the malaise that has descended on San Francisco city politics.
There is nobody else I would really support. I don't want to elect someone who will polarize the city. The City has some serious problems, and we need someone who can get support from the right and left in the city. Yes, despite what you read in the paper, on the internet and hear in the media, there are conservatives in San Francisco. Not very many, but I think there are at least 10 - 20% who will actually admit to being a republican. My neighborhood is about 15% republican, and there were plenty of Bush/Cheney signs in people's windows during the 2000 election.
Personally, I would place the republican figure higher, but it's San Francisco and you just can't say you're a republican because you'd be ostracized, so the safe thing to say is you're an independent. But then if you don't register with a political party, you don't get to vote in the primaries, which I what alot of people I know do. They only vote in the General election, or worse, they just don't vote which is too bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)