2008 Election Stakes @ AMERICAN DIGEST

Yup.

I would call it the "2000-2007 culture war stakes" and declare this one lost already...too many good people staying home and watching reruns instead of going out and doing good things. I disagree with you about whether a hero has risen to confront this threat. We're weighing three empty suits in '08, not one of 'em any better than the other two.

But perhaps a hero will rise. I have hope for hope. Facts must be observed though: We've been fiddling around for a very long time, while Rome has burned at a frenzied pace; we have no reason to find anything still standing when the flames die down. None at all. Too much babbling about global warming and wealth-gap, too much ridicule tossed in the directions of efforts to fight terrorism, not enough people standing up to re-inject some sanity into the equation.

Behold: A little-discussed practical purpose of blogging. At least you and some others can say you did your bit. But going forward, if there is somehow a way to dig outselves out of this hole, the first step is to acknowledge that we are, indeed, in a deep and deadly hole.

Posted by: Morgan K Freeberg at March 5, 2008 12:44 PM

Is that a representation of Obama and Clinton trading barbs before the convention?

Posted by: Kar at March 5, 2008 3:30 PM

Hi,

The Nuclear Threat Initiative is co-chaired by Sam Nunn, a senator who is also on McCain's shortlist for VP. NTI's fundraising requests are signed by Nunn.

If Nunn is the choice for VP, you'll bet that stopping nuclear terrorism (by securing nuclear materials, not necessarily wars in the Middle East) will be on the top of the agenda.

In your post here, you dismissingly insinuate that donating to NTI won't make nuclear terrorism go away. But NTI is the cause championed by Nunn, and the goals of NTI and a McCain-Nunn Administration would be quite similar. So you are pooh-poohing a cause that you would enthusiastically support if the very same suggestions were a public part of the McCain campaign.

Maybe you are slightly clouded by overfocusing on Republican-Democrat binary politics? Non-partisan non-profits get things done, too, you know. And the causes of non-profits can become the causes of Presidents, if the non-profits have enough influence. Donating to the NTI could help influence the president -- yes, even a Democrat President -- to take nuclear risks more seriously.

And if you think withdrawing from Iraq automatically means we're going to get nuked, you're full of it. Being in Iraq is only boosting terrorist recruitment and shoving a stick into the hornet's nest.

I am a supporter of fighting against terrorism, but I advocate a more targeted, considerate, and less expensive approach.

I suppose you think Democrats would be soft on terror. Why, then, does Hillary have a hawkish record on foreign policy as a senator, and why did Obama say he'd be willing to order a strike on terrorists in Pakistan?

I could be wrong in any of my assertions. My point is that you shouldn't blindly assume, in a political/partisan fashion, that picking the conservative is the safest choice for America. Or that staying in Iraq is essential to stopping nuclear terrorism. All these things have to be continuously debated with an open mind. And it never hurts to donate to a non-profit with a history of major accomplishments in non-proliferation.

Using an image of a nuclear attack on New York merely to scare up votes is making a complex issue two-dimensional.

Posted by: Michael Anissimov at March 6, 2008 6:17 PM

Well, you’ve got to love your first commenter on your page when he avows:

“I would rather have a nuclear terrorist attack on New York or another major city than have McCain elected US President.
The damage, both short-term and long-term, that another George Bush-esque figure would wreak on the US and the world is far in excess of the ~100,000 people and $1 trillion or so in assets that would be lost during such an attack.”

Sort of proves my point in a grisly way. Clearly a case of a person who assumes that the worst that would happen to the world in the case of a nuclear attack on New York would be what happens to New York.

New York would be, as I am sure you realize, only the beginning. And if that BDS besotted commenter thinks that the Bush/Cheney years have brought him an oppressive life, he should put what few functioning cells he has left to work imagining what sort of government we will have put in place like the law of gravity after a strike on New York. It will give him much more change than he can possibly hope for.

And yes you do not understand my politics which are much more complicated than “conservative.” Not at all binary. Example: Of the national elections I have voted in since 1964 I have voted for a Republican/Conservative exactly once. All other votes have been for Democrats.

As for Sam Nunn, I’ve been following his career since the early 1980s and I agree he thinks right about the issue. But that doesn’t mean he has or will have a significant chip in the game. The VP position is a non-starter.

The potential for being nuked is independent of our actions in Iraq or anywhere else. It is independent of what we do or what we say or are in the field of foreign policy. It is a Black Swan event.

A lot of effort goes into trying to predict and talk about the future, but the hard reality is that we cannot see what the future holds or what will happen. It’s a common bias in humans.
And yes it is indeed sad to “believe that donating to the Lifeboat Foundation and the Nuclear Threat Initiative is going to make it all go away.” Because it just isn’t going to happen, but if it makes you feel good donate away.

You propose “If Nunn is the choice for VP, you can bet that stopping nuclear terrorism (by securing nuclear materials, not necessarily waging constant wars in the Middle East) will be on the top of the agenda.”

Nice. Makes one feel good. That’s the primary purpose of donating to tasks best characterized as “Windmill Quests.” Sadly, here’s the news.

1) The horse has left the Secure Nuclear Materials Barn long, long ago. (Add in the problem of Iran’s Nuke program)

2) We will be having wars in the Middle East for quite a few decades whether we stay or withdraw from Iraq. They’ll just be nastier and more in line with Hama Rules.

Posted by: vanderleun at March 7, 2008 10:30 AM