11 posts tagged “honour”

I can say that my ANZAC Day was unique. I have done the odd service, but this was the first time I marched in an ANZAC Day parade, with the Miss New Zealand contestants, in the town of Levin last Saturday. We began outside the library and went to the cenotaph for the service. The girls had to leave early because of make-up and hair appointments, but we oldies stayed on for the duration and put our poppies down at the memorial.

Here’s another example of why I say anti-war types can be miserable when it comes to normal, civilized discussions.
   I know the pro-war movement has its culprits, but I just don’t see as many of them. Perhaps they are closeted.
   Commenting at Digg in what I thought was an apolitical fashion about American veteran suicides, I wrote:

I know a few American vets from the most recent conflicts. The brother of a friend was near suicide not from PTSD but from people critical of the War on Terror back in the US who took it out on him, calling him a murderer, etc. I don’t know if these other victims had similar experiences from their compatriots but it would be awful if that were the case.

   An honest appraisal. I do know a few vets, maybe not as many as most Americans. One friend does have a brother who went through some horrible experiences after he returned to the US. I even say I don’t know what caused the other suicides—but if other Americans were critical of their own to that degree, it would be a terrible situation. It is worth advancing this viewpoint for the sake of veterans who have taken their own lives—just in case this contributed to their suicides. Because the US Government is evidently not doing enough for members of the armed forces who returned home.
   I would say this was a modest way to put it—neither pro-war nor anti-war, in fact, and leaving generous room for opposing views.
   Some disagreed, and relayed their own experiences where they said they had anti-war friends who respected the troops who returned. That is great—and it answered the ‘I don’t know’ part. I am glad that my friend’s brother’s experience was not shared by other troops. If his experience was in the minority, then it is valuable to know that so that people can focus more on other reasons leading to their suicides.
   But then we had to have the loony fringe:

Yup. I'm going to go out on a limb and say jackyan is a liar.

Hey jackyan, you're a liar.

   I thanked the writer for taking the guilty-till-proved-innocent approach. We also had:

Jachyan - just making up ways to blame the anti-war folks for this, huh?

I'm with humanerror - I smell a lie.

   Sad, really.
   I don’t expect anyone to check out my background and find out I ran for a party with staunch anti-war, anti-imperialist policies, but to call a man a liar shows how low some people are today. Or to find out that I have been attacking the technocratic way on which this planet’s economy is run for a long time—and that I believe these very ideas have been responsible for many wars and deaths.
   Disagree, agree or inform, but calling a man a liar is a last resort where I come from. I’ve had disagreements, sometimes pretty “vocal” ones, but I like to think I approach them from the spirit of advancing conflicting views as we all seek the truth. Perhaps calling someone a liar isn’t a big deal these days? And isn’t their behaviour, where they’d attack a regular guy for stating his view, confirming the existence of the type of person who would also spit on returning US troops? ‘Hey boys and girls, you’re fighting for people who don’t give a s*** about honour. Yours, their own, or that of anyone else who they perceive to be less extreme than they are.’
   Folks, we regular people are allowed to have a voice, too, and while we might not be spouting hate on the internet, we actually outnumber you.
   I can only imagine that their pasts contain a majority of people in their lives who have lied to them, hence their willingness to take this as their first position—in which case I feel very sorry for the sad world they must have grown up in. They then see a neutral, apolitical comment as pro-war, not realizing that not everyone belongs to the fringe. How everyday life must anger them regularly. How do they get through the day? Fuming, blood pressure boiling?
   The great irony is these who are quite willing to attack others’ honour exhibit the very opposite of the pacifism and progressiveness that they say they stand for. An automatic mistrust goes against basic human values and even my own belief in humanism. In my book these people are more likely to be the type who would start wars if they were given the power to do so, based on their over-reaction to everyday viewpoints being advanced, and their inability to disagree in a normal fashion. They are the type to strike first and reason later, and we should be thankful the internet is a way they can vent without really harming others.
   And those of us who are more centrist with our views—the overwhelming majority of us who are OK with civilized discussion—should not feel shy in expressing ourselves.

Just after I commented on another blog that Republicans were generally more civilized when arguing for their candidate, I hear that some have chanted death threats against Sen. Obama. Way to go. (I am being sarcastic.)
   And now, there’s news from The Times—from the same owner as Fox News—that indicates a philosophical split inside the campaign.
   Paikea, who is a Vox friend of mine here and who is a Democratic supporter, blogged a reference to an article that painted Gov. Palin as narcissistic. And that, I have to concur, summarizes some of the more disturbing elements about her that I could not identify.
   It appears, according to The Times, that John McCain is merely an inconvenience in the presidential run of Sarah Palin.
   Rallies now have gone from something resembling a tiny senatorial race for Sen. McCain to mass crowds after Gov. Palin’s arrival. And she knows that that’s her contribution, using it to her advantage. She knows that there were many holding back from supporting Sen. McCain because of his RINO image.
   Even when there are divisions among the Democrats, as there is today between Sens. Obama and the Clinton family, they aren’t stupid enough to air their dirty laundry in front of the world.
   I have expressed my doubts about Sen. Joe Biden, believing that he is a typical Beltway type who is not going to listen to a black senator. Sen. Obama might be labelled a visionary by his allies—so does that mean that Sen. Biden is going to be the details man, in which case it’s going to be more of the same politicking? His record indicates yes, and I think there’s going to be a power-play if the Democrats get in.
   But the Democrats successfully hid their rifts in 2004, with their whole party behind Sen. John Kerry, never mind what was there behind the scenes.
   I know the Governor’s words excite a group of Republicans, but for all the criticisms of militant Democrats, the parties are looking more and more similar in the behaviours these candidates are eliciting among their audiences.
   I am not sure if this could be called inspirational.
   While there is nothing technically wrong with a vice-presidential nominee overshadowing a presidential one, the presidency, if the Republicans took the White House, is John McCain’s, not Sarah Palin’s—and as a former navy captain I am sure he would not desire insubordination.
   In the Republicans’ defence, one could argue that Gov. Palin had to get tough in opposing the Democrats for the easy ride Sen. Obama has been getting in the media.
   While another Democratic friend of mine says the ACORN furore is a horrid smear campaign, I cannot imagine a Republican candidate getting off fairly scot free on issues like that of the Tony Retzko connection or Sen. Obama’s nationality whilst in Indonesia. (The media were, as I have once said, quick to endorse the Killian memoranda against President George W. Bush, even if it was remarkably easy for a professional like me to pinpoint the cut of the Times typeface and what laser printer they came off.)
   I don’t believe that Sen. Obama is not American, that his middle name is Mohammed, or that possible dual nationality prevents his run under Art. II, s. 1 of the US Constitution. However, the secrecy surrounding a possible Indonesian nationality (still not answered, from what I can tell) and his 1961 birth certificate (versus a certification) should concern the fourth estate as well as US voters.
   Since Sen. McCain was unwilling to conduct a dishonourable campaign, or so he claims (does he truly ‘approve this message’?), he might be unwilling to throw accusations that are not fully checked. Gov. Palin may well have taken the initiative with attacks, using less evidence than the Senator would find comfortable.
   And since the Republicans themselves have had their share of attacks without much of a defence in the media, the Governor may well think she needs to get headlines if she’s going to get the GOP POV in the news.
   Conclusion: both sides are split, one more openly than the other.
   As a foreign observer, the campaign has arrived at a new low, not because of any one side, but because no matter who Americans vote I am not certain there will be much real change. (I feel the same, incidentally, about Labour–National in New Zealand, hence my third-party run.)
   Attitudes on both sides do not set a presidential example for Americans internally, or inspire confidence in allies and observers externally.
   It’s hardly up to McCain and Obama. I think their number twos are calling the shots in a very unwarranted way—one after the election if the Democrats get in; the other before the election, acting as though it were her campaign and John McCain is her vice-presidential running-mate. Neither is ideal, and both are worrisome.

Fox News Channel farewells a former colleague. These are some of the people who knew him best, talking about Snow’s honour, decency, strength in his faith, generosity of spirit, and the love of his family. Brett Baer got teary in recalling Tony Snow’s caring, when Baer’s son faced open-heart surgery. Former president George Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush also offered their tributes in this clip.

   The John Walter Weyland quotation that Brett Baer read is, ‘The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.’
   He is right: this describes Tony Snow.
   Fifty-three is too young. My own mother passed around the same age from cancer, so I know full well the effect this will have on his widow and children. My thoughts and prayers go to the Snow family.

In the spirit of July 4, I thought it would be interesting to explore the idea of the United States retaining its influence in the 21st century.
   What many see is dire. Beyond the anti-war types’ opposition to the War on Terror, there are corrupt institutions, political and corporate, impeding progress on so many things, from innovations to ways society can function more progressively. The same institutions have led to a financial crisis. Economic management has led to a weak dollar, to the point where some reject it for the euro.
   So with the rise of India, and less so of Red China, where is the United States in all of this? How can I be so bold as to say it will remain the American century?
   Because of Americans. Individuals. Those who have access to their own speaking platforms, highlighting what they see is wrong with their country, and having a nation that protects their free speech as sacrosanct.
   The country that has championed individuality may well be saved, karmically, by individuals themselves.
   No anti-American I know stands firmly in his or her country and disses individual Americans. They spit their venom at the government or their corporations. The Iranian blogs that I visited, to see where their root cause of anti-Americanism lay, targeted abuse through globalization. Maybe they have a point, because Americans themselves are not too happy about outsourcing.
   And because many Americans have the skills to put their words across, in what remains the internet’s lingua franca—English—and because they can identify the sources of their problems, they can address them.
   What we, in the rest of the world should be doing, is engaging this dialogue. Putting forth our point of view.
   It’s frightfully easy for people to either have a case of nation envy or tall poppies, dragging down the richest country on earth and pointing out its problems for a short-term feeling of superiority. This is childish at best. While I do not deny the US has its faults—and Americans themselves would be the first to admit that—we should give each other perspective.
   I talk about our healthcare system: not the best in the world, but I would rather be sick here than in the US, because of universal coverage. And if we chat to our friends in the US about this, it will give them ideas on how they might accomplish it—or avoid it, if they see faults in our model. The idea of the internet is a beautiful one, even if spammers and pornographers threaten its sanctity: the ability to have a small world where we can have one-on-one discourses, and better ourselves.
   That free speech has to be defended at all costs, because even if the United States restricts the movement of people and the movement of capital, it needs to at least allow the movement of ideas.
   It is something to be guarded jealously and taught in its schools.
   It is, meanwhile, denied to many in Red China, unable to grow through dialogue. Instead its economy grows from the influx of capital, going in on growth figures that have been verified by none except a communist dictatorship, or from the misappropriation of intellectual property. Red China understands the latter cannot continue and has put up some restrictions—but until the opportunities for growth are open to all, then it will not have the support of its citizenry in the way the United States does. Red China can only become a great nation if all of China rethinks the republic, perhaps a commonwealth, but certainly one based around the principles of Confucius and Sun Yat-sen. It can happen as suddenly as the collapse of the Soviet Union, or it may take many more years than we imagine.
   Till then, the nation that may yet benefit is one that has great dialogue with the United States, and embraces it, seeing it as a blending of cultures and an opportunity for growth.
   That nation is India and while its opportunities have not flowed through to everyone, and it, too, has its internal problems, it is poised to rise through the freedom of people, capital and ideas. The Indian century may follow the American century, but it may take a familiar form. Not far from now, if current trends continue, the Indian middle class will grow. It will form the basis of a strong national infrastructure. And the Indian century, too, will be based around freedom and liberty.
   However, in the immediate term, provided the United States can unite itself around its real values, those principles that, in reality, are not uniquely American after all, I see no reason for the American century not to continue.
   It is fortunate to have a holiday like the Fourth of July, a chance to remind everyone that freedom and justice are not buzzwords. That these principles really do mean something to the rest of the world—and that they need to be honoured. And that the power rests with everyone, because everyone has a voice.

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441. 
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded. 
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure? 
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

American Infidel posted an excellent piece from Cross Action News on how the US political system has been compromised, by Carl Parnell. Some excerpts:

   However, as seen in these different opinions, politicians have been blamed for the failure of America’s political system. But, one respondent to the survey voiced a strong opinion that put the blame on average Americans. Her opinion was:

Our Constitution frames the best form of government on the planet. The balance of powers and the system of checks and balances provided a framework that allowed our young country to grow and develop and remain despot free for the last 220 years. The government itself is not what I have lost faith in. “We the People” is what I have lost faith in.

   And advice for the electorate follows (my emphasis), and I have to agree with it as I have never, in the elections I have participated in, voted for personal gain. Even for those who do not believe in God or in prayer, the remaining advice is still useful:

   “Of the people, by the people, for the people” means the people should educate themselves and elect leaders at all levels that work for them. The people should watch what those elected officials do and boot them out of office when they no longer work for the people. The caliber of citizens and politicians has declined in the last 220 years.
   Therefore, America’s political system is at a crossroads in 2008. When the American electorate votes for the President of the United States and for any members of Congress in November 2008, they must absolutely know the true facts about each candidate. Citizens of the United States must not permit the race, gender, or political party of the candidate be a determining factor in who wins the election. Citizens of the United States must not let personal economic gain become the deciding factor in which candidate they vote for in any election. Citizens of the United States must vote for candidates who have the true qualities of great leaders, such as those possessed by America’s forefathers. Some of these qualities would be honesty, integrity, morality, faith in the nation they serve, faith in the people they serve, having the character of a statesman instead of the character of many modern-day politicians. Of course, true representative leaders of the United States should always pray to God before voting on any legislation that affects the greatest nation in the world.
   However, if America continues to elect people to office that assume the role of a politician instead of a statesman, America may lose more than just the faith of its citizens toward its political system. America may possibly lose its status as the greatest nation in the world.

   There is still support for the US around the world—but they need a beacon to look up to rather than to criticize. In November, vote to make America great again—not just in economic terms, but in terms of the true leadership and morality that it can stand for.

The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
   He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
   Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
   In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
   While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
   I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
   The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
   I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
   I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
   This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
   The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
   In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
   They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
   They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
   Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
   Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
   If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
   Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
   This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.

I am not Sen. John McCain’s biggest cheerleader by any means—heck, I even made fun of him on national television—but there are aspects of his life where you think, ‘Man, this guy has served his country.’ And when I say ‘served his country,’ I don’t mean taking a trip to Bosnia with Chelsea Clinton and coming under sniper fire. Some quotes about his past, which might explain just why he has his fans. First, from VietnamWar.com:

John McCain’s 5½ years of captivity in North Vietnam were divided into two phases. Early on, this son and grandson of high-ranking Naval officers was accorded relatively privileged status. Then he refused early release—which he saw as a public relations stunt by his captors—insisting that POWs held longer than him should be granted their freedom first. Thereafter, McCain was treated much more severely, but he also had an opportunity to bond with his fellow prisoners.

   So this captured PoW, a Naval Lieutanant Commander, who had suffered two fractured arms, a fractured leg, a bayonet wound in the foot, said: I’m not going home early, no matter how bad.
   He was then beaten every two hours in the second phase, while suffering from dysentry, and later two to three beatings a week. While not the worst given out to PoWs in Vietnam, McCain said he discovered where his breaking point was.
   When running for Senate, and accused of being a carpet-bagger, McCain responded to a journalist:

Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.

   I know this is McCain in his past, and not everyone agrees with him today, but these aspects don’t seem to be brought up much in the media. He holds a Silver Star, Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross, and retired in 1981 in the rank of Captain.
   If the American election is about experience, as Sen. Clinton says, then John McCain looks pretty unbeatable. But, this election is about so much more.

An excerpt from a discussion between some of us here on Vox and on Facebook—the part I can share. (Thanks to Ninja and Randy for their thoughts in this.)

I believe in men being gentlemen, women being ladies. I believe in respect, grace, honour, integrity and keeping my word. I believe in facts before assumptions, I believe in truth and not BS.
   I believe in self-determination of people and respecting their paths.
   I believe that no one can complete me. A relationship is about my sharing who I fully am with someone, not needing someone to complete how I see myself.
   But we real men, those of us without sex and footy on the brain, are plain not represented widely. So when mothers consider locking up their daughters, do men like me get grouped with the assholes of this planet? You know, the guys who think Ralph is sophisticated literature?
   And when a magazine domestically says that Marc Ellis is the typical Kiwi male, what heck hope do the rest of us have?
   The last time anyone close appeared in the cultural Zeitgeist was Brendan Fraser in Blast from the Past. And he was made out to be a freak who grew up in a fallout shelter.
   We now return you to our regularly scheduled programme.