Election Day 2008

The Iraq War, should we stay or should we go?

I was talking with a 20 year old today about the Iraq War. She has friends and family members who are in the military and she says they believe we should be in Iraq fighting this war. She also shared their view. The only reason she gave in support of the war however was that, "it should not be in vain". I have heard this argument before often from families of soldiers and every time I hear this it bugs me. It's an emotional response, a knee jerk reaction without reason. I tried to explain to her that there are a number of arguments in support of the US being in Iraq but to offer as a reason that we don't want to upset the feelings of some of the soldiers and their families is not a good reason. I asked her if it made sense that hundreds or thousands more should die, including possibly her friends and family members, so that some would not be upset if the war ended without victory. I asked her should not the reason for fighting a war or in this case to stay in the war be based on the merits of war itself? That is, do the benefits of being in the war outweigh the costs? I likened her reasoning to someone driving down a road for many hours only to discover they were going in the wrong direction, and then instead of turning around making the decision to continue down the same road in the wrong direction thinking that since they had invested hours in this direction they didn't want it to be in vain.

The subject of the war had come up because of a conversation about the upcoming election. The young woman was under the firm belief that Obama would pull us out of Iraq immediately in some reckless manner. I asked her where she heard that and she said Fox News. I suggested her information was incorrect and that she might try some other news source such The NYT or The WP at which point she said she was too busy for such things. She does however have time to vote.

If the 20 year old had been interested, I would have told her that 63% of Americans (Gallop, April 2008) now believe the Iraq War is a mistake. This number, by the way, is higher than any number for the Vietnam War. At no point during that war did opposition break 61% (Gallop). I must say that surprises me. I can remember the 1972 election between Nixon and George McGovern (I was a kid). Nixon said he would end the war "with honor." He would not just pull us out but it would be done gradually giving the South Vietnamese a chance to handle things themselves. McGovern on the other hand ran an anti-war campaign. Does any of this sound familiar?

So where exactly does Obama stand on the getting out of the war? I thought it was common knowledge that early on he gave a time table of sixteen months. Of course it's more complicated than that. In fact some progressives now find issue with Obama's position:

Obama's Iraq plan has always left the door open for what could become an "occupation of undetermined length" under a Democratic President. Even as he rejects permanent US military bases in Iraq, Obama has said that no timetable should be "overly rigid." He has indicated that he would "work with our military commanders" to determine a withdrawal plan. He has supported the presence of residual troops, which could number as many as 80,000, to guard a militarized embassy, combat terrorism and provide training and assistance to the Iraqi government.

And what is the cost of the war so far?

4,503 Military casualties - source

30,634 Wounded (as of September 2008) – source

Iraqi Civilian Fatalities 151,000 (as of January 2008) – source

And the economic cost? Former White House chief economist Lawrence Lindsey who was let go by President Bush for presumably speaking the truth about the cost of the war wrote:

The bill for Iraq over the past five years is now approaching a cumulative $500 billion, or about $100 billion per year on average. My hypothetical estimate got the annual cost about right, but I misjudged an important factor: how long we would be involved. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the start of the war, it's worth making a new appraisal of where we are going with this investment. Is the war's total cost going to run into the trillions of dollars, as some economists have asserted? Are those numbers meaningful in terms of what to do next? If we stick around to finish the job, are we throwing good money after bad?

One final point, I could tell the 20 year old was thinking that since I’m not in the military (nor have I ever been) I don’t understand or I’m not sympathetic to military personnel. It is a valid point. I’m not in the military so I don’t have the same perspective. But it doesn’t mean I’m not sympathetic or that I don’t care about our soldiers. While I have not served both of my grandfathers, my father and his brother and my mother all served. I believe strongly in supporting and honoring our veterans. I believe wanting a war that I consider to be a mistake to end is not unpatriotic. It is important that voices speaking out against wars otherwise we would be in many more conflicts and those conflicts would last longer if not indefinitely. Voices of opposition provide needed balance.

Critisism of George Will

Once in a while I read George Will's column in Newsweek. I generally find him annoying. Aside from the fact that most conservatives often annoy me he additionally has the habit of using, in my opinion, too many big words. For example, from a recent column: heepism, (heepism is a made up word) cognitive dissonance, histrionic humility, flamboyant empathy, apocryphal, Metternichian guile, architectural determinism. Now I'm not an ignoramus and for the record I do know some of the terms, in fact I particularly like the term cognitive dissonance. And I also don't believe writers should dumb down for their audience but how many readers of Will's Newsweek column are familiar with these terms? I'm not sure why it bugs me but it does. Will is a conservative who's using some rather erudite language here. Who's he writing for? The one Republican I know happens to like Will's column so I asked him if he understood the terms. He said no. Bottom line, I think Will is trying make conservatives sound smart when they're not. He uses a lot of big words to make his readers, who really don't know what the hell he's talking about, think he must be real smart and therefore knows what he's talking about. Call me crazy.

In this week's column Will says the current economic climate isn't so bad. Oil prices are way down for example and Christmas sales are expected to be slightly higher than last year. And if housing prices are down that's okay because they were too high anyway. This all may be true but what he conveniently neglects to mention is the gigantic 700 Billion government bailout which was done so in fact there wouldn't be an economic meltdown. How can you talk about the economy without mentioning this giant bailout? Omitting this topic pretty much negates the whole of the rest of his argument in my opinion. And what's with the pot shot at FDR which I've noticed Republicans have been doing a lot lately. Are they trying to deflect attention from those saying the current economic crisis is due to the Republicans constant push for deregulation?

If any fans of George Will read this I invite them to defend him here if they think I'm wrong.

More presidential trivia

What U.S. President had a nervous breakdown at the age of 24 and spent time in a sanitarium?

In 1889, at the age of 24, Warren G. Harding had a nervous breakdown and spent several weeks in a sanitarium.

Presidential trivia question

When was the last time the Republicans won the White House without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket?

Answer: 1928

Fiscal responsibility or give up?

I've read quite a few articles about the financial crisis trying to understand what's going on. But for all the explanations and information I still only have what I would describe as vague answers. My first question was how is it that all of a sudden there is a huge financial crisis? Where were all the economists for the last five years, year or six months? As you can imagine, there were people who saw the problem and wrote about it their voices just didn't make the evening news or the front page. In February Ben Stein wrote an article in the NYT, "The Unending Allure of the Free Lunch." A few lines from the article: "ultra-high-interest lending and borrowing, come to mind as I contemplate the subprime problems that face this great nation. In a few words, here is what happened in the subprime debacle:" He then goes on to give a lengthy example that does a pretty good job of describing the problem. But apparently the subprime issue is only part of the problem.

My second question was whose fault is it? The answer to that one seems to be as complicated as the crisis itself. But back to Ben Stein's article, we need regulations to protect us from all the crooks out there. And as much as I would like to just blame the Republicans and their push to deregulate the truth is there is lots of blame to go around. The best thing is to get on with trying to fix the problem. There is a decent article in Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria, "There Is a Silver Lining". He basically says it's time to pay our bill, words that need to be said again and again - Americans borrow too much. The federal gov. has been borrowing an ever increasing amount of money almost since it began. Former Comptroller General David Walker was on Bill Maher's show recently. He was there basically to make the point that America is in deep debt, not 10 trillion but 55 trillion, something like $450,000 per household. On the show he didn't explain this number but his website or rather the foundation he is the pres of, Peter G. Peterson Foundation, states the additional amount is due to Medicare and Social Security. I think we all have to expect to make sacrifices. We should be forgetting about cutting taxes and focus on cutting spending. And if you look at the federal budget it's easy to see that Social Security and the military are where the only meaningful cuts can be made. Those two costs alone make up more than two thirds of the budget (over 800 billion military including our wars, 1.5 trillion for SS and Med.). It seems to me the longer we wait the worse it will get. But one of the problems with a democracy is that difficult choices are not made. Both sides play off each other to the point that taking a stand on difficult issue means political suicide. So it's up to the voters to educate themselves adequately so they can request and then support the needed diffuclt changes. But in reality this will most likely never happen at least not until disaster rains down upon us. Can you say risk management? Time to be an umbrella salesmen.

Last Friday on Bill Mayer

"He's not an Arab he's a good man." Ben Affleck brought up this statement by McCain on last Friday's Bill Maher show. He made the point that just labeling someone an Arab is basically saying they are somehow a bad person. We all know how this came about but I think it behooves us all to fight against the urge to stereotype people we don't understand. I'm glad Mr. Affleck brought it up.

Also on the show were Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont (I) and Martin Short. Senator Sanders had a long list of good talking points, one of which was about McCain's robo calls. He said that if McCain wins there will be millions of Americans who are angry that McCain used dishonest means to get elected and if McCain loses there will be millions of Americans who think their president is a Muslim terrorist.

Below is an excerpt from the show.

Collin Powell - POW!

The NYT, "Powell Backs Obama and Criticizes McCain Tactics"

"WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning, calling him a “transformational figure” who has reached out to all Americans with an inclusive campaign and displayed “a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity” and “a depth of knowledge” in his approach to the nation’s problems."

What if the tickets were reversed?

My sister sent me the following email which was sent to her etc. The point isn't new but it is interesting to see it written down.

Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, what if things were switched around?.....think about it. Would the country's collective point of view be different? Could racism be the culprit? Ponder the following:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes? Correction - It was five planes.
The first crash was a training accident, the second crash was the result of "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral,"
the third crash was due to a flameout, the fourth happened when a rocket from an F-4 Phantom accidently hit his plane while he was waiting for takeoff on the USS Forrestal, and the fifth crash happened during his 23rd mission over North Vietnam in 1967 when his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. McCain ejected from the plane and parachuted down into Truc Bach Lake near Hanoi breaking both arms and a leg in the process. I'm just trying to get the facts right. Some of the crashes may have been his fault and maybe he was reckless at times but you can't fault the guy for being shot down while he's flying a mission.

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

Educational Backgrounds:

Barack Obama: Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations. Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science. Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester. North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study. University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism. Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester. University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Education isn't everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world. You make the call.

McCain robo calls

These last few weeks of the McCain campaign has done several things for me, none of which are good. One, I will be very disappointed if McCain wins. And two, my opinion of McCain has sunk so low I will not have respect for anyone who votes for him. This is no longer about issues this is about who McCain is as a person. McCain has shown himself to be a deeply dishonest and corrupt individual. I had trouble with people who voted for Bush Jr. because I believed he was not qualified and therefore he posed a serious threat. But McCain disturbs me in a different way. He could be worse that Bush Jr.

A NYT article on robocalls.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins is calling on Sen. John McCain to stop paying for automated phone calls.

 

McCain has crossed the line

In my opinion McCain has sunk as low as is humanly possible for a politician. He's shown recently that his ambition knows no bounds. He's adopted the Carl Rove playbook heart and soul thereby abandoned any shred of decency, honesty, or ethics. He's reached so low he's gone to the bottom of the well and continues to tunnel on down.

My apologies to the republicans for such a cheap shot

It's funny though isn't it.

The conservative point of view?

I went looking on the web recently to try and answer the question of why there is so munch rancor among people on politics. And maybe it was because I focused more on conservative blogs rather than liberal but the conservatives seem to be the angriest. But maybe that was just a coincidence. However no one can dispute that that there is much anger and out there. Unfortunately my humble search revealed no real answers so I am left to speculate. Here are my theories.

I looked hardest at conservative articles because that is the point of view I generally disagree with most often and I would very much like to better understand the opposing position. But I am honestly at a loss as to why conservatives believe what they do. And I say that without any intention of trying to antagonize those with a different point of view. I believe one explanation for the anger is the large amount of misinformation being pumped to the public via numerous organizations whose sole purpose is to persuade the American public that the science and facts are incorrect and instead the organization's information is the only truth. For example, there are numerous websites whose sole purpose is to dispute the existence of the climate crisis, A, B, C are a few. I suppose these sites can be convincing if someone has little knowledge of the science as I'm sure is the case for most people – to be honest. One thing these anti climate crisis sites do is to supposedly quote science and scientists but unless you actually know the science yourself you would have no way of knowing that they are making this stuff up. And I chose the climate crisis issue because I know something about it but I think the same could be said for a great number of other issues.

The next question then is why would whole websites be created to refute the claims that there exists a climate crisis or any other issue? To find the answer would mean having to look no further that the corporations who stand to gain (or lose) something. That's pretty obvious. But in addition to corporations or more importantly I think are the individuals involved. Who makes the money, when and where because it's either about money or power or both. Interestingly or maybe not the anti-climate crisis websites will say the same thing. They come up with reasons why Al Gore, for example, is profiting from his crusade against global warming.

So what else is it besides misinformation? I suppose conservatives by nature do not want change they are by definition about the status quo. And the climate crisis is all about change whether we like it or not. So is that it? Does that explain the conservative position? Reluctant to change by nature and fed a steady diet of misinformation? Have I oversimplified? Probably. I never mentioned religion which I think is in fact at the heart of modern American conservative ideology. Anyone care to agree or disagree?

Cruelty to animals

Departing from my usual format I felt compelled to spread the word as best I can. The following link is to a website that has an undercover video of a pig factory. I suggest you only view it if you have a strong constitution. I for one could only watch part of it. I think it's a very sad commentary on the human race.

The overeducated?

My friend Charlie sent me a NYT article by David Brooks called, "The Class War Before Palin". In the article Brooks talks about how the Republican party has driven away conservative "intellectuals". Personally I think the article is baloney from top to bottom. I've seen Brooks many times on PBS's NewsHour and have always thought the guy was a lightweight. Never mind that he writes things like, "Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive". That's just the usual partisan BS but what caught my eye was this line, "The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts". Please please please someone show me anyone who is overeducated? Is he kidding! How can someone be overeducated? Only a conservative could celebrate ignorance and only someone who is undereducated could complain about someone being overeducated.