(no subject)

[seekingferret]

I want to write about politics for a bit, because I've been feeling a bit lost and I tend to find my opinions by arguing them with people. I'm spoiling for a fight, I think. Please fight.

I really don't like the Republican presidential field. I was going through a serious phase a few weeks back where I was talking myself into Obama. "Well, if Bachman's the nominee, I would vote for Obama over her. If Romney's the nominee, I'd vote Obama over her. If..." The only serious candidate I put over Obama was Gingrich, and I knew how much of a longshot he was even before the right-wing social engineering remark. Which, you know, the Ryan plan is.

Then Obama publicly humiliated Binyamin Netanyahu, poisoned the peace process, and made it clear that what I'd spent the whole last year attributing to Obama's misunderstanding of Israel and Palestine can only be attributed to a fundamental gap between my position on Israel/Palestine and his so fundamental that I can't vote for Obama. There is no explanation for '67gate except that Obama wanted to sabotage any chance of good faith negotiation between Israel and Palestine in the near term. He succeeded, damn him. (Actually there's another explanation, but it's highly paranoid and unlikely. He could be attempting to alienate Israel to give the US diplomatic cover when Israel bombs Iran. I suppose this is vaguely possible. But stupid.)

So now I'm trying to talk myself into Romney. Or Pawlenty. And I'm praying it's not Bachman. I really can't vote for a tea party candidate. But then, I don't much like being a Republican at the moment.


---

On another topic altogether, remixduello is coming up again and I have a problem. My only remaining big non-crossover fandom story is the awkward, ranty "I Hate That Vulcan". And I know I would hate to be forced to remix that story. So though I'd like to participate I don't really have any stories I can offer for remixing.

I'd love to see a remix of "Inventions", which is a Chuck story. Chuck is not really a big fandom, but it's a big Yuletide fandom. Possibly it could be eligible. But if I can't swing that, I need to write a big fandom story in the next few weeks, or finish the draft of something I've been stalled on.

Prompt me. What megafandom would you like to see me write in? What story do you think would be interesting coming from me?

Comments

[erika]

Write in SGA or nuTrek!

[seekingferret]

Hmm... both plausible. Simon Pegg was on the radio yesterday being entertaining. Maybe I should write NuScotty.

[seekingferret]

Just wrote a draft of a 1000 word Scotty fic that seems eminently remixable. Hopefully that'll be posted soon. :)

[jhumor]

(Here via "Latest Things." No, I've never done this before, so if you don't want it for all to see, I won't be offended if you screen.)

I haven't watched the NH debate yet. I think it will be aired on Wednesday here?

There are two things you need to know about me up front:

1) As a general rule of thumb, I hate politics. I love government. It's so interesting to me, but I hate politics with a passion - all the infighting? Got better things to do with my time, thanks.

2) I'm a 'recovering republican'. Which for me, simply means I'm registered officially as "non-partisan" but I was raised republican and I currently 'vote my conscious.' That said, I've not been impressed with either party for far too long. And more often than not end up voting republican because it's the 'lesser of two evils' - I fee more like I know what I'm getting. At the same time, the "lesser of two evils" is still an evil. Anyway...

Low and behold an unknown, though known to me, has entered the picture: Herman Cain. I've known of him since I was in high school because of his Godfather's Pizza connections - my having grown up in the Midwest - Godfather's having been founded in Omaha, NE.

For the first time in a VERY long time, I look forward to watching the debate. Cain turned Godfather's around (from the crap that Pillsbury was turning it into with their "corporate mentality") to the point that he and other purchased Godfather's from Pillsbury.

People are making him sound like Ross Perot. From what I've seen, he doesn't want to run this country like a business, but if he can use his business skills to pull us out of the financial cesspool we're currently in, I'm willing to at least hear him out about what he thinks about things.

Anyway, I just didn't see his name mentioned in your entry and thought I might put it up there for consideration/debate.

[seekingferret]

I don't know what running the country like a business would mean. I have some kind of funny and unpopular opinions about the role of the Constitution. I believe that the Framers designed our partisan system to create tension between the parties, knowing that out of disagreement would emerge fair laws that don't overreach. So that is to say, I like politics and think it's the vital lifeblood of our polis. The lesser of two evils is not an evil, it's moderation. And moderation is good. Moderation is safe. Everything in moderation, even moderation, as I think James Hilton put it.

I didn't know anything about Cain. I'm checking out his website now. I have some disagreements with things he says, and I think his statements on foreign policy betray his total lack of familiarity with the discipline (Did I say foreign policy? The issues section of his website doesn't have anything on foreign policy, rather focusing on 'national security', which is very telling.) But I do agree with a number of his economic proposals, though I'm rather more skeptical of the free market's ability to regulate corporate greed than he is.

[(Anonymous)]

(this is Alai)

It is a well-documented fact that I support people named Cain (or variations thereof), but Herman's one who I wouldn't back. His sketchtastic comments about possibly having Muslims in his administration (at first saying he wouldn't appoint any, then ramping that down to "just" applying special scrutiny) indicate to me that he's most definitely not sane enough that I would be happy seeing him in the White House.

(Well, happy is a relative term. "Happy," in this case, might be Huntsman or Romney (who had the guts to call Cain out on his Islamophobia during the debate apparently), but not Bachmann or Palin - or Cain.)

[seekingferret]

Ah. Eek. Thanks for the heads up.

What's his policy on Secret Muslims?

[(Anonymous)]

They will be Secretly given a litmus test. (It is a well-known fact that Secret Muslims are somewhat more alkaline than the rest of the population.)

[jhumor]

I just put his name out there since it hadn't been mentioned. As I said, I hate politics and pretty much am in strong opposition to everyone who's running (in one way or another - Republicans or Democrats). I'm registered non-partisan, so it's not like I vote in the primaries anyway, which is fine.

Now, should ANY party put forward someone who I'm very interested in seeing make a serious run for the White House, I'd probably declare a party to vote in the primaries, but as it stands - no one's really stood out to me.

[seekingferret]

FYI: I'm now being told Cain has suggested that he wouldn't appoint Muslims to government positions, or that he would apply some sort of special scrutiny to, I don't know, make sure they're not sleeper agents. So it sounds like a vote for Cain is a vote for a return of the Obama is a Secret Muslim nonsense. No thanks.

[jhumor]

1) I don't see how the two are related. But that's mostly because I don't really give a flip about what religion/nationality Obama is (as long as, according to current laws, he was born in the US).

2) I've not heard about this and from what I've known of Cain on the business side, that would be stupid. I don't know if he's actually proposed this or not, but I am aware he was against 'racial profiling' in the past (granted that was before 9/11, but still).

[seekingferret]

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/transcript/herman-cain-defends-controversial-muslim-comments

That's him backing off from his original statement that he would not appoint a Muslim to instead say that he would demand that they make some sort of special loyalty oath before he would appoint them. A loyalty oath he clearly wouldn't demand of a Christian appointee, even though they might be working to change abortion laws to reflect Christian law, for example.

I don't give a flip what religion Obama observes, except in the sense that this Secret Muslim nonsense contributes to a climate of hostility toward American Muslims, who are overwhelmingly loyal, devoted Americans who do not deserve the abuse being heaped upon them.

[jhumor]

Well, there goes my rooting for the underdog/unknown. :S

Anyway, I agree with the hostility towards American Muslims. It's wrong. But I'm pretty open when it comes to these things, which is why I pretty much disagree fundamentally with every politician on one level or another.

[melannen]

I am fairly sure the explanation for Obama's Israel policy is that he's concluded that there's nothing he can do that will lead to Israel and Palestine negotiating in good faith, so he might as well work on our relationships with other Middle Eastern countries instead. (But I usually stay out of Israel arguments because, well, my personal feeling is that there's no chance of Israel or Palestine negotiating in good faith any time soon, so it is hard for me to feel passionate about either side.)

RE: elections: There are always third-party candidates, really obscure people running in the primaries, and sending in a blank ballot. I totally understand how a lot of people will not be able to bring themselves to vote for Obama - I will probably vote against him in the primaries if there's anyone else non-vomit-inducing on my ballot - but I have trouble understanding how one could vote for any of the current Republican candidates with a clear conscience.

[seekingferret]

You may have the right of it. But you know, he could have given up on the negotiations rather than wasting everyone's time pretending he was trying to broker a peace and then lobbing grenades into the middle of the fray. Obviously in the past 5 years both Israel and Palestine have moved toward more hard-line, more militaristic governments. If we're to use the American political language of playing to your base, neither Netanyahu nor Abbas can afford to negotiate in good faith right now if it means looking like you're giving up too much.

And yet! When Netanyahu and Likud took over, the optimists pointed out that the majority of Israel's serious gestures toward peace took place with hardliners like Netanyahu or Sharon in control. The convoluted politics of the Knesset mean that sometimes the hawks have more political capital to spend on the peace process without looking weak. And on the other side, the Hamas/Fatah has the potential to radicalize the West Bank, or the potential to moderate Hamas's rhetoric and eventually lead toward a viable negotiating partner for Israel's government. I think there are reasons for optimism, or there were until the United States's president came out and sabotaged things. Now I think we're looking at another year or two down the line before we get any kind of movement at all, and in the meantime everyone's looking at September at the UN to stir shit up.

[melannen]

See, I used to follow Israel's political situation fairly closely (acknoledging that not being Jewish I have far less stake in it) but after time after time when everything seemed optimistic and some brand-new, more-far-reaching peace agreement was reached, and then within six months both sides were breaking treaties like they were the US Government in the Indian Territory, I stopped being all that interested. Perhaps I am just too cynical, but TBH my opinion on foreign policy in general swings way to the noninterventionist side until there's a mechanized genocide in progress or foreign attacks on our own soil.

...convoluted US politics regarding Israel (complicated by both oil politics and the evil, batshit millenialist Christians that control half the Republican Congressmen and are praying for the whole place to end up destroyed so Christ can come back - and I don't use the word 'evil' lightly) mean there are limits on what the US president effectively can and can't be seen to do. Granted I would rather Obama had just stepped away from the negotiations too, what he did was probably better realpolitik. (In terms of his own re-election chances or ability to get anything done, not so sure.)

[sophia_sol]

Heh, I'd totally fight with you, only I'm really very ignorant of american politics and would not be able to say a single useful thing.

So instead I will suggest a megafandom I think you should write in: Inception! I think it would be very interesting to see what you would do with that one.

[seekingferret]

Hee, my problem is that I don't want to write character fic for Inception because I don't really like any of the characters. I want to write big, sprawling, massively complicated ideafic. I mean, ultimately I want to write IOAWNAT/Inception. But that's hard and I want something I can write that's interesting and makes sense and is remixable and won't consume my life for months.

[sophia_sol]

I can see how that would be a problem! (though for the record I would LOVE to read your IOAWNAT/Inception fic)

Fighty enough for ya?

[(Anonymous)]

(Alai again)

You and I come from pretty different perspectives on the Middle East peace process, so I'm not surprised that we disagree on Obama's statements and their repercussions.

I wind up falling closer to Stephen Walt's (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/23/the_choice), J Street's (http://jstreet.org/policy/issues/borders-and-security-strategy/), and Abraham Foxman's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/adls-abraham-foxman-obama-didnt-throw-israel-under-the-bus/2011/03/03/AFV3Rv7G_blog.html) take on Obama's remarks, which was generally supportive. 1967 with mutually agreed upon swaps is a fundamentally different beast than 1967.

And as for scuppering the peace process, comments by Netanyahu that ""This conflict has raged for 100 years because the Palestinians refuse to end it. They refuse to accept a Jewish state," certainly aren't helping matters.

That said - if you find Obama's stance on Israel to be wholly incompatible with your views, and you'd rather have whoever the Republican candidate happens to be, then that's a fair viewpoint. I can't say that I agree with it, or find it sensible...but it's a fair one nonetheless. :P

Re: Fighty enough for ya?

[seekingferret]

Eh... I'm closer to Foxman than I am to J Street, but the thing that Foxman raises as a possible problem is to me the whole ballgame. Foxman gets it in a way a lot of people rushing to defend '67 with land swaps don't seem to, when he refers to it as the centralizing issue that will bog down any hope of talks. The Israel-Palestine negotiations and prenegotiations and talks about talks are a carefully choreographed ballet dance with incredibly complicated rules. There are ways of expressing things without expressing them, because so many words and phrases related to the conflict are so deeply loaded down with emotional meaning.

If you're going to keep the negotiations moving, you can't step on one of those landmines. Obviously the past several presidents have implied the same thing Obama said outright, but to claim that there's no difference between carefully ambiguous diplo-speak and an overt call to use an untenable border as the starting point for negotiations is to insult my intelligence.

But the thing is, there are a lot of such verbal landmines and many of them are far more subtle. Mention Maaleh Adumim in a certain context and you'll have a lot of people antsy, and yet nobody in America knows the first thing about Maaleh Adumim. Mentioning the '67 border is a sledgehammer. And to do it the day before Netanyahu showed up in Washington? Either Obama's an idiot or he knew exactly what he was doing, that he was intentionally slamming on an incredibly explosive topic in a way that would weaken Israel's prime minister dramatically. You can't mention the '67 border as a negotiating starter because if you have any brains in your head, you know what Netanyahu's response is going to be. He didn't have a choice.

The meat of Netanyahu's comments don't really mean all that much. He had to fight back or he'd have essentially become Obama's whipping boy. But look, Fatah is forming a coalition government with Hamas, whose charter calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. Arafat was offered a state with something like 95% of the disputed area. Abbas was offered a state. I don't dispute your statement that it isn't helping matters, but Netanyahu's pretty much right. There isn't a significant political organization in Palestine that's willing to accept their own statehood if it means letting Israel exist in a viable form.

[zandperl]

Fwiw, as a Masshole, an educator, a public employee, and a union supporter, I am strongly against Romney. If he is still in the primaries by the time it gets to MA, I will be voting in the Republican primaries again just to vote against him.