I wonder, are two are related?

Considering how recently presidential campaigns were actually informative, civic and less-dirty, the exponentially-increasing rate of nastiness is probably comparable to the exponentially-increasing level of technology.

Nader, again

I can't say I'm very happy with Nader entering the presidential race. I don't think he'll get much more than last round, because there is no niche for him to fill, really. Kerry didn't do it for a lot of Democrats in 2004, but between Clinton and Obama, many if not most Democrats feel like they have sufficient choice and for the lack of a better descriptor, an actually democratic platform. At least in words, the candidates care about things like the environment, restricting privileges for big business and redistributing the tax burden.

On the other hand, he may pull independents, and that's crucial in an environment where that faction may make the election for the winning candidate. Republicans and Democrats are pretty set in their ways and from what I can tell are split about evenly.

As much as I would love to see a viable third party, especially a Green one, I'm not sure Nader is now the man to lead it, nor is now the time to enter the fray. McCain includes as part of his platform many aspects of the current policy I despise, and the last thing I want is any kind of a continuation of the current administration. Which means I want a Democrat, any Democrat to win, and if Nader makes that not happen, I will personally write him a very nasty letter. I really wish he'd learned his lesson in 2000 and done something more productive with his time. Until his latest announcement, I thought he'd do just that.

Russians and Republicans

I'm having an interesting conversation about the said topic in another venue, but I'm going to copy it here (edited for brevity). To be updated.

Me: Primaries and caucasus, caucasus and primaries!
I think people feel more comfortable voting for Obama, now that he's made a strong showing. He swept this weekends' contests, and I think that shows people realize he's a viable candidate and that both turns out the vote and attracts fence-sitters.

Maybe, just maybe, I won't have to live with McCain?

XM: oh, that would be nice!
i have a question for you -- why do you think russian democrats (in Russia) are pro-McCain? and overall people living in Eastern Europe are pro-republican in general? they seem to have no doubts that the republicans will win (wtf?), as if the elections in the U.S. are predictable in any way! it's not Russia with its 'referendums,' helloooo...
i mean, i understand that the russian opposition feels that McCain will try to be as annoying as possible to the current russian men in power, but how true is it really? i have my doubts... in the 70s during the Cold War anti-russian meant 'fighting the global threat of communism,' but that's hardly the case today... that would mean being anti-China first of all. :) and i'd like to see McCain do that. :)
anyway, i'd be very interested to hear your expert opinion about this. :)

Me: I'm baffled by that one myself. Are you basing your survey off of Rusam? Cuz that's full of crazies, you know. I am frankly baffled as to why Russians move to America and become hard-core Republicans (anti-taxes and anti-immigration). It may be that they are racist and aren't used to paying taxes in order to receive their social services. Granted, some are in reality closer to Libertarians, but who knows.

I know [Russian opposition activist Valeria] Novodvorskaia is for him, and I kind of give her a little discount for that. She's for SPS, and the Republicans are more comparable to that in the general Republican precepts - small government, business rules and general fiscal conservativism. But unfortunately, the U.S. Republicans haven't followed those tenets for decades, which sucks - I could feasibly support some fiscal conservativism. The thing is, to Americans like us, the economy and the tax code are deeply enough installed that we more worry about things like gays, abortions and other frivilous freedoms. Russia still has to worry about the big stuff, and thus, Republicans are more palatable. I, if you couldn't tell, am very pro-choice (which doesn't mean pro-abortion) and pro-gay-rights, and that prevents me from liking most Repulicans.

As for McCain, if he does get elected (which I am really unsure about), he's not going to push the red button and nuke Russia on his first day, as some have supposed. The geopolitical and strategic constraints are far too embedded in the system for one crazy to come in and shoot. He may not be terribly nice to Russia, but Russians have to realize something: an American president, any one of them, has very little way to interfere in Russian internal affairs. They can pressure Russia to do some things on the UNSC, but that's becoming less and less relevant (witness U.S. actions in Iraq for one). Seriously, Russia and the U.S. are not major trading partners or anything (and here's where your comment on China comes in). Russia can exert lots of influence on Western Europe by shutting off the natural gas (and oil, but that's an easier contingency), but come on, the U.S. can't do that much to fix that, and the Europeans know and don't come crying but instead are expanding their own options.

About the predictability of elections - a lot of what they say on the topic sounds like conspiracy theory to me. I read (I think it was Rusam again) that the Masons and the oilers and the second amendment kooks made a pact and everything is decided upon that. Right - and monkeys will fly out of my butt!

XM: so, one guy from Siberia was mentioning his strong pro-Republican views, and he was also mentioning that he had placed a bet on the Republicans winning the election. and then Novodvorskaia, and then other Russians on "Ekho Moskvy..." "real" Russians, you know, not Russian immigrants.

yeah, it really is a surprise why Eastern-European immigrants tend to favor Republicans, since many of them had taken full advantage of various social programs when they first arrived, not mentioning that they had actually immigrated here in the first place (short memory maybe?) you're probably right -- it could be the racism. i myself am strongly pro-choice and pro-gay-rights, and no way in hell would i ever vote for somebody who's against that. i did like Giuliani (but then he is pro-choice and pro-gay-rights), but also i'm a bit bias towards him because i really liked what he has done as an NYC mayor. he had cleaned up the city tremendously!! he really deserves a lot of credit for this. if he could do the same on a federal scale -- that would be great!

so, basically, lately i'd define myself more as a democrat. i used to like Ralph Nader a lot before he went all weird. i used to like Hillary when she was trying to pull through the healthcare reform, but then she got bought and went all quiet, and that was the end of my respect for her. i think the current healthcare situation in the U.S. is an outrage. i think Canada got it right... yes, i think that healthy people should pay for sick people. why? because, as my mom says, "every sick person was healthy at some point in time." it's amazing how so few seem to care about getting royally screwed... healthy people don't care, and sick ones can't do much (they have other priorities -- such as fighting with HMOs).

my friend has an interesting theory. he feels that "American dream" messes with people's heads. an average person truly believes that one day he or she will have lots of money (why? and how? -- yeah, "i will win the lottery," of course, what else). hence, these people associate themselves with the rich already, even though they might have median or below median income... crazy... and why would lots of money suddenly make anyone happy? oh, wait, of course -- a person can go buy tons of useless shit such as diamonds, "Porsche," mansions and fur coats... that's, apparently, where true happiness lies -- not in a feeling that if you get very sick tomorrow, your HMO won't qualify your treatment as "unnecessary."

but, getting back to Russia... i think it tends to be overly concerned with the U.S. it's like an obsession. and Russians seem to think that Americans are just as obsessed with Russians. yeah, right! did you see how much noise was going on in Russia about Putin being appointed "Man of the Year" by "The Time" magazine? i really can't imagine Bush being too interested if "Izvestia" or "Ogonyok" would give him some sort of a similar title. it's nuts!! so, of course, Russians believe that the bad things that happen in their country have definitely been caused by Americans, or that Americans will help them restore democracy, or something along those lines... the fact that U.S. has other things that its population is a lot more concerned about than Russia completely eludes the Russian mind...

as a Ukrainian, i'm definitely in the loop about Europeans searching for alternatives for gas suppliers. the latest big thing in Ukraine is the "White Stream" project.

Me: ...As for Guiliani - I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you there. Yes, he did a lot for the city. But turning that into a qualification for the presidency? He overplayed the 9/11 card to a ludicrous extent, not to mention done some things that hindered the rescue/recovery effort - come on, placing the control center at WTC? A president has to be more than a one-issue man.

Nader would have been an excellent candidate had we had a parliamentary representational system like in a lot of European states. Greens do relatively well in the northern European countries, and if there was room for a third-party, he wouldn't be so bad (but yes, previous to all the loony tunes business). Hillary... as much as I'd like to see a female president, and as much as I would like to have Bill's influence in the White House (you gotta admit, he's a damn smart guy), I don't like her. She's a demagogue and a panderer, and I'm not the only one who's used those exact words.

I totally and absolutely agree with you about Canada. Yes, many of our immigrant friends remember none-too-fondly the wait at the polyclinics for basic healthcare, but when a private/faster option is in place, that's fine by me. As long as everyone has the basic, minimal, preventative (!) healthcare, I'm willing to wait for the non-emergent stuff. But that's also the procrastinator in me talking.

As for your friend's theory... probably not too far off the mark. Americans notoriously live beyond their means and are sunk in debt, which I think is ridiculous. I equate the lack of basic financial management skills to a lack of basic life management skills - I once dated a perfectly nice guy whom I had to dump because he was awfully stupid with money and that translated into allowing people to walk all over him in all other aspects of his life. Ugh.

And yes, getting back to Russia. Yes, Americans don't really care. A recent posting on LiveJournal, which got more than a thousand comments, had a lot of this "Americans really hate Russians" bullshit. Someone even said that they hate Russians more than they hate Mexicans and black people because it's ingrained in them from the Cold War. Yes, I read all of the 1000+ comments because they were so fucking ridiculous! A grand total of maybe a dozen people made sense and agreed with me, that America (much like many other places, with the exception of Russia) is what you make it. Seriously.

And yes, you are basically right about natural gas - there are a few more expensive nuances, too. If you've heard about last year's scare how Russia and Iran are going to establish a natural gas cartel, you should join me in laughing very hard.

Also, I'm not sure how viable White Stream is. Nabucco, yes, that one is viable and has a good potential for adequate funds. But that amount of underwater construction in an FSU country is hardly feasible at this point, unless they bring some major foreign investment and expertise in. And (I really hate to be the one to break the news to them), Shah Deniz is not an infinite resource. It's had tons of problems since its much-delayed launch, horrible delays since, and less than stellar conditions. And on top of that, if they plan to supply it with the TransCaspian, I'd like to see some maritime demarcation signed first - they can't lay a pipeline in a sea whose borders are not established.

Ding, dong, the witch is dead!

If I didn't have a broken leg, I'd jump up and knock my heels together in the air, whatever that maneuver is called. That's how happy I am that the flip-flopper from Massachusetts (the real one, Romney) is not going to be our president! I am entirely unsure by how much McCain is better and I still hold out hope for Obama, but this is one bad guy out of the race!

So, with Romney out, where does that leave us? Well, from what I hear, a lot of Republicans really hate McCain. Many of them will still vote for him as per the lesser evil theory, but even with Romney gone and Huckabee in, he'll have enough delegates to be the nominee. But I think he will not that that great of a turnout. Now, if Obama is the democratic nominee, he will have a high turnout and thus has a chance against McCain. This is on the premise that he will get quite a few independents as well. If Hillary is the nominee, the turnout will be less, not in the least because a lot of democratic-leaning people I know will be less inclined to vote for her (as the lesser evil).

So, this has me playing my old tune again - vote for Obama, while you still can.

Gizmodo's Super Tuesday Tech Specials

Democratic and Republican editions.

Bill Clinton and some of his role.

There's this article in Newsweek about Bill Clinton's relationship with Viktor Pinchuk, Leonid Kuchma and Nursultan Nazarbayev, among others. These would be a Ukrainian businessman, his father-in-law the former Ukrainian president, and the current president of Kazakhstan. Clinton's other such friends (and donors to his causes) include other foreign and American businessmen, but let's not go there now. Anyway, the article basically talks about how Bill Clinton gets to be friends with all kinds of people who have all kinds of reputations, and this does not legally impact Hillary's campaign because he's a private citizen and does not have to make reports on those kinds of things.

The first thing that comes to mind, of course, is that I think this kind of kompromat can be found on all the candidates (or at least all the viable ones). And Hillary is kind of at an advantage because she can have Bill's name on all the papers. Of course, this is because the candidates are entrenched in the existing political system no matter how much they say otherwise, because they do need to raise money, and because they do need friends in high places, and all of those needs do bring acquaintance with a wide variety of people and moral codices.

But of course, the other thought is that the former Soviets who are mentioned here are at least a little bit sketchy, and maybe quite a bit sketchier than those who live under U.S. law. Just maybe.

Obama time

Since I have last written, Richardson has dropped out of the race. He did not really have a chance, so his choice was warranted. He may still compete for a senate seat or be chosen as a running mate, but I would be glad to see the likes of him in government.

My choice now falls to Obama. While I know that with Clinton, we would in effect be getting two presidents in one, and I have lots of respect for Bill, Hillary is divisive. While she is experienced, she is also a demagogue and a panderer.

I have not registered with a party since I have moved to a different state, and here, I am able to vote in the Democratic primary as an independent. I have not yet decided whether I will support Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but it may again be the case of lesser evil and my choice will be largely determined by how much I hate the chosen Republican candidate.

Lesser Evil

This, unfortunately, is what all elections have become since some time ago - we are all left to vote for the lesser evil rather than the candidate whose platform we actually support. Nowadays, we hardly even know what the individual candidates' platforms are - but we are much more aware of how much they spend for haircuts.

My friend Dave blogged about USA Today's Candidate Match Game, which tells me (correctly) that the candidate with the views closest to mine is Dennis Kucinich. But I realize that Americans are not ready for any kind of socialist-leaning candidate. That's not to say that he wouldn't make a good president, but our compatriots are still in that Red Scare phase, I guess.

Even the candidate with the most experience and qualifications in the race (Richardson, the object of many previous entries) doesn't stand a chance. He'll be lucky to be gunning for VP. So, I am left with voting for the lesser evil, again. Although I much prefer Obama, I would pinch my nose and vote for Clinton because she is very slightly less evil than Romney.

I'm going with my mother's prediction of Romney here because nothing has yet happen to prove it improbable. But, I must again agree with Dave and say that Huckabee (that charming bastard) is one to be concerned about. He does one of the biggest things I want a candidate to do: answer the damn questions. But, alas, America hasn't learned what it means to have a president with with a religious agenda. So no matter what kinds of speeches Romney makes or how genuine Huckabee seems, god will be everpresent in our government, whether I like it or now.

And I won't even get my lesser evil.

A little bit of Russian

In explaining to my token American the significance of the recent arrests in Russia, I said this: It's as if there was a rally in Washington, and Howard Dean, Harry Reed, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Duncan, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner were arrested and charged with crossing the street on a yellow light.

How can Russia (and let's be specific, Putin and United Russia) be so obnoxiously bold? And how can a ruler like that stay in power and be popular?

The old prevailing theory is that the Russian people need a bat'ka, or a father/overseer. The currently popular theory, to be perfectly brief, is the "it's the economy, stupid" one. In short: Democracy came to Russia at the same time as extreme economic shifts and in the majority of cases (with glaring exceptions), sudden negative change to the financial situation. Economic downturn, democratization in whatever shape it took, and first Russian president Yeltsin are permanently lumped together and forever labeled as a bad, bad thing.

With Putin came financial stability (through graft, of course) and substantial currency reserves. The oil prices played no small part in this, so it's not surprising that Putin is taking every opportunity to perpetuate various conflicts in the Middle East (to the extent that they do not interfere with his agenda, of course).

Meanwhile, the United States is in many ways incapacitated because of the two wars it's running in the said regions, plus playing roles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and is not disinterested in Syrian-Lebanese and Israeli-Lebanese relations, to name a few. Which means that the U.S. has extremely limited political, diplomatic and military bandwidth, and varying degrees of support from any allies that actually matter.

Which just means that Putin has maneuvered himself into a situation where he is not only domestically secure, but is also safe from foreign political pressure, much less military action. Sly little fucker. I would say I hope he pulls a Sonny Bono, but whoever is next in line can't be much of an improvement.

And as for my thoughts on the Russian elections, I have never seen anything more predictable. The Duma will be made up of a constitutional majority of Putin supporters. Putin will call himself Prime Minister or whatever he wants - it doesn't matter, we know who's in charge. And so does the next president, if he knows what's good for him.

Bill Clinton

I like the guy. I liked him when he was president. I even liked him throughout the whole Monica thing, what is he other than a human being?

He's doing good things with his post-presidency. He remains active and he actually gets things done. The New Yorker wrote well about him, but I also saw him on the Daily Show the other day, and I love that he said he doesn't regret anything in his political life. I bet even Monica was good - he likely enjoyed it at the time. Although I think cheating is a terrible thing, but look at it this way - the economy and the political situation in the country were good enough at that time that the thing we focused on was our president's personal life.

Charity, his current focus, is great, because what he's doing is accessible, practical and applicable for many more people than other such initiatives. I like people who use their visibility in such ways. Bill Clinton's Global Initiative (http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=1399&srcid=-2) and Foundation (http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm) are certainly signs of a rich popular man with no other job, but when choosing among that kind, I'll take Bill any day.

Naturally, he's supporting Hillary for 2008. I don't deny the fact that she is very smart and an astute politician, and I do think she is experienced enough. But these are also some of the things about her that I don't like as much - her political sense of where on the spectrum she should place herself demonstrates more politicking than principles. Of course, I can't expect otherwise in the current culture of special interests and partisanship.

I will support her if she is the Democratic nominee. I will do so grudgingly as she will be the lesser evil (unless the Republican party completely self-destructs and Ron Paul becomes the nominee).

So far, looks like the citizens of this great nation prefer a white woman over a black man. I can not predict how the primaries will go, I think Obama still has a good chance. While I would much rather have him in office than Hillary, my only consolation is that if she makes it into the White House, women will be empowered. And, hopefully, Bill will remain somewhere in the picture.