Today I had a lot of time to think while I was driving (and watching for moose). I also had a lot of time to listen to NPR and hear the same stories over and over. One show focused on the new book titled Beyond Tolerance. In some part of the discussion, a caller referenced the possibility of a nuclear strike from a "rogue" state.....or maybe it was the incapacity of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and the chaos which may ensue if he dies, and what would happen to their nuclear capability that prompted my line of thinking. In any case, what occurred to me is that one who is a "maverick," defined by online dictionary.com as "One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter" might also be considered to be a "rogue," defined as "no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop."
We're very worried about nuclear technology falling into the hands of a "rogue" government. I wonder if the rest of the world is worried about the possibility that the U.S. may elect two top leaders who are touting themselves as "mavericks." If they're so all-fired likely to "stand up" to their party, and they have the lock on what is "good" versus what is "evil," then who will control them? I think we've come very close to a rogue president in George Bush - he seems to think he is only answerable to God - and we cannot afford to have the next President and V.P. so far outside the mainstream of American history and philosophy that they don't understand the separation of church and state; they don't understand that just because they think something is true doesn't mean it is; they don't understand that until Bush II, we have never pre-emptively struck at another nation. In a democracy, mavericks have no business being at the head of government. Our government is allegedly government of the people, by the people and for the people. That seems to have escaped them so far.
Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin tonight did nothing to allay my fears. She clearly didn't know what was meant by the "Bush Doctrine," and she was able to say with a straight face, that because she was able to see Russia from her state that she somehow had foreign policy experience. She also can't pronounce the word nuclear, choosing instead, the Bush pronunciation, "nuculer." UGH. When asked about her understanding of national security issues, she talked about her work in Alaska on energy matters. I can only hope that she firmly plants her foot in her mouth during her debate with Joe Biden.
And could she get a real hair do??
No comments:
Post a Comment