grinninfoole: (Default)

Joe Biden's terrible showing in the debate with Donald Trump on June 27th has gotten me thinking about what we expect, what we should expect, from the president of the United States.  Like many decent and/or sane people, I'm alarmed by Mr. Trump returning to the White House; however, I also think that it helps to stay focused on the specific issue at hand, and not the multitude of terrible futures that could unfold.

In this case, let's get down the prosaic bottom line of this, and every other, election: it's a job interview. We have done a national search, gone through a number of debates, primaries, and other winnowing processes and wound up with two final candidates. We may not like either of them, but the simple truth is that it's too late to start over from scratch and the presidency is too important a position to leave vacant, so we're stuck with an unavoidable binary choice.

So, how do we pick between them?  Or, for those of us who aren't fools or fascists, how do we stomach the idea of voting for a doddering old man whose feebleness and confusion were plain for all to see?

As I see it, there are two things to consider here: the extent of President Biden's debility and actual requirements of the office of the president.

Dreadful as he was last Thursday, the President was lively, focused, and engaged back on March 7th when he gave the State of the Union address. Moreover, he was back in the same feisty form the day following the debate at a rally in North Carolina. It seems, then, that Pres. Biden isn't completely decrepit; indeed, he seems to be capable of functioning at the same level he's displayed throughout his first term, during which he he passed groundbreaking climate change legislation, cut unemployment in half, reduced the federal deficit, reduced child poverty and student debt, and rallied NATO to oppose the
 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Altogether, I think Pres. Biden is still quite capable, but with some obvious limitations. Like many people his age, he 'sundowns' later in the day, but if he limits the hours he works, he's still 'got it'.

Which brings us to the second issue: can a president who works 9-5, but only 9-5, do the job? Broadly speaking, presidents do a few things: oversee the day to day workings of the 438 federal agencies; sign or veto new laws; meet with foreign leaders and direct our relations with other countries; propose annual budgets and other policies to Congress; and marshal our national resources in emergencies. 


That's a lot, obviously, but every president has literally thousands of subordinates from interns and file clerks to ambassadors and cabinet secretaries to help. Surely, if FDR could lead the country through World War 2 with his impairments, Joe Biden can manage with his, too. But what about the dreaded 3 AM phone call, bringing news of some terrible crisis? We don't want the guy we saw the other night handling that, right?

No. Of course we don't.  But that weak old man doesn't have to; Vice President Harris is alive, well, and only 56. President Biden could simply give standing orders that he's not to be disturbed between, say 10 PM and 6 AM, and an emergency that requires a snap presidential decision is thereby delegated the VP.  (You know, the woman we elected to succeed him if he dies or otherwise can't do the job?) He can take up the reins again the morning.

You may not, gentle reader, like the notion of Ms. Harris stepping up like that, but you have been living with the reality of her in such a role for nearly four years now, and all that time she's been learning how to be president from Mr. Biden, so she's better prepared for the job than almost anyone else on earth.

So, in sum, with some obvious caveats, I think Joe Biden is still capable of handling the job of President of the United States, and if he takes steps to address the physical challenges of his advancing years, people can vote for him with something resembling a clear conscience.


*=Even in his failures, like the Israeli invasion of Gaza, we're still better off with him than Mr. Trump, alas.

grinninfoole: (Default)
Back on the 7th, over a thousand soldiers from the Hamas terror group staged a surprise breakout from the Gaza Strip concentration camp and proceeded to attack a number of Israeli military bases... and also towns. They gunned down over 1,300 mostly unarmed people, many of children, in an indiscriminate rampage. Pretty much everyone in the world who hasn't sided with Hamas in its war with Israel has rightly condemned the attack.

In response to this pogrom, the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu lost its mind and started bombing Gaza with abandon while cutting off all outside food, water, and electricity. The 2 million people there (half of whom are kids) are facing incredible misery and danger.

I don't want to take a side this fight; I don't want to join the fight at all. I want us to use our vast wealth to help people in need. I sent the president a letter about this on Monday. I wrote:

I am alarmed by Israel’s response to the pogrom conducted by Hamas on October 7th. The sickening brutality of terrorism cannot be an excuse for war crimes in response, and the total blockade, the extensive bombing, and planned invasion & displacement of a million people all qualify. The truth of General Sherman’s observation that war is unrefinable cruelty is on display for all to see.

The central insight of America’s founders is that everyone matters; it’s the basis for all of our rights as citizens and our raison d’être as a nation. We are–or should be–the place no one is disposable. Too often, to our shame, we haven’t been, but it is never too late to make better choices, and now is a moment for living up to our own standards.

You understand as well as anyone the pain of losing a child; please don’t use my tax dollars to inflict that agony on families in Gaza. In this moment of conflicting passions, let us heed the wisdom of John Adams, and prioritize protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty. Let us be truly American and support the life, liberty, and happiness of all the people of Israel and Palestine.


Since then, the courtyard of the Ahi Arab hospital in Gaza was hit by a huge explosion, killing hundreds of people displaced by the bombing who took shelter there because they had nowhere else to go. (It was also where the hospital was storing the bodies of those who had already died, since they were already using every available space to treat the living inside.) I don't know who fired the missile( or whatever) that killed all those people. The IDF is the obvious candidate, but the Israelis and the USA both insist that it wasn't Israel, it was another terrorist group shooting a rocket that misfired and crashed near its launching point. Since this is what Israel would say regardless of whether or not it's true (all governments lie, after all), I withhold judgement.

Outside the narrow context of who should be facing murder charges however, it hardly matters. War is cruelty, and we're getting lots of new demonstrations of that ghastly truth.

The people of Gaza are a poor, tired, hungry, huddled mass yearning to breath free. I think the USA should offer immediate refugee status with a special path to citizenship to anyone there who wants to leave. It won't solve the problems faced by the Palestinians or the Israelis, but it would help thousands of people directly (and thousands of eager young folks looking to start a new life will be good for us, too) and relieve many of the serious points of tension between the two peoples.
grinninfoole: (Default)
In response to an article on the AV Club about James Cameron passing off the disappointing box office performance of T:DF, I noticed a number of commenters missed the point of the movie, and in particular were upset with the decision to kill of the character of John Connor, the one-time future savior of humanity, in the first ten minutes. But I think that this is actually central to the point of the film. With the armageddon that makes him the savior of humanity averted, with the time loop created by sending his father back to 1984 broken, John Connor isn’t a figure of destiny anymore, he’s lost his plot armor and is instead just a teenager. Because he and his mom have already saved the world, his death on a beach in Mexico a couple of years later is no more meaningful or tragic than any other human’s.

Moreover, the movie reinterprets the ‘lather, rinse, repeat’ cliche of sequels like this, and instead of it undoing everything Sarah and John accomplished just so they can do it all over again, they have a totally different apocalyptic future reaching back to snuff out humanity’s savior before they begin.

This has three important functions: 1) it means that the first two movies still count–every person on screen is only alive because the Connors averted nuclear war; 2) it means that we can introduce all new characters and put them in this familiar story with similar threats and stakes. 3) it takes ‘the same damn thing over and over’ of it and makes it into part of the movie’s message. Yes, it’s a whole different AI tyrant from different desperate future, but that’s not (just) because Hollywood has no new ideas, it’s because history actually does rhyme, if not quite repeat itself.

Yes, Sarah destroyed the Cyberdyne factory and tech that made Skynet possible, but some other group of researchers comes along and invents something functionally similar, because of course they do. Individual people can learn from mistakes, but humans collectively? We’re going to keep on doing the same terrible shit over and over again.

To put it another way: Sarah and John saved the world from nuclear war back in the 1990s, but so what? Col. Stanislav Petrov absolutely prevented a nuclear in 1983 in real life by keeping his cool (and we should honor his memory), but the world has moved on, and those accomplishments are just old news. The nuclear detente of the Cold War was hugely consequential at the time, and that we didn’t have a global holocaust is 100% good, but we still have to face the rising tide of tyranny, a domestic fascist movement, COVID not going away, and of course climate change.

This is the Dark Fate we all face, that today’s present is tomorrow’s footnote, that all past is prologue, and just because we saved the world today doesn’t mean it will stay saved tomorrow. And that’s why John dying anticlimactically on a beach in Mexico not only works, but is central to the movie’s message.
grinninfoole: (strangelove)
I never posted the obituary I wrote for my brother. This appeared in the Boston Globe, Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, and the Andover Townsman.

David S. Dow, RIP )

Profile

grinninfoole: (Default)
grinninfoole

November 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829 30

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 2nd, 2025 03:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios