IMPEACHMENT!
Bush pardons himself
IMPEACHMENT!
Politics
Why Iraq Matters
Let’s ask 2 questions:
1. In retrospect, was it a good idea to invade Iraq?
2. Given that we are in Iraq, what is the best course of action?
My answers: 1) Of course not. It represents a complete failure of foreign policy. This is universally agreed upon with the exception of the ultra-wacko-wing of the Right wing. 2) We should transition to an international non-US-led peace-keeping and reconstruction effort and we should completely withdraw troops from Iraq except to the extent that we participate in that effort.
What would McCain say? What would Obama say? What do you say?
‘Cause the thing is — the answers to these questions basically tell you the foreign policy philosophy of the respondent. If you don’t question our actions in Iraq given what we know today, you are a hardcore imperialist hawk. Given what we know today it did not warrant unilateral US military action in Iraq, no question about it. We could have kept playing the diplomacy game just like we do with North Korea and Iran. Only people who want to control the Middle East for strategic control of the oil think Iraq was a good idea.
For #2, given #1, can we admit a mistake? Can America be humble? Can we do the right thing after a mistake?
As for the war on terror, it is separate from the war in Iraq. The sects in Iraq will have to come to some equilibrium. Everyone wants to start putting things back together. The terrorists, to the extent they are there at all, will be demotivated by peace and prosperity. The US military is impeding, not aiding, the transition to self rule. That “the surge is working”, if it is, is proof of this. Peace is proportional to the number of troops on the ground in that way of thinking. It’s untenable. Peace has to be proportional to less troops on the ground if we are to be successful.
McCain is Bush on Iraq. I know he would try his best to solve it his way. We would all hope that President McCain would be a greater leader and inspire greater leadership from his cabinet. But his policy is still basically the same as Bush’s. How can anyone be convinced that the Bush doctrine in Iraq is credible!
No matter how much you disagree with my answers, Bush’s answers are the problem and McCain basically agrees with Bush on Iraq. QED, McCain cannot be trusted with the presidency.
Insanity
Your Deep Thought for the 4th of July — the notion that Saddam Hussein was such a clear and present danger to the US that we needed to spend 3 trillion dollar and sacrifice 5000 soldiers to dispose him is insane. We should not be in Iraq. McCain, nice guy that he is, will continue this insane agenda.
Mugabe: criminal, liar, incompetent fraud
Isn’t it amazing? During the 1st round of the election in Zimbabwe Tsvangirai won a slim majority of votes. In the runoff he got only 10% of the vote. I guess a lot of people changed their minds?
Shouldn’t someone kill Mugabe?
Let's have a good, clean Presidential campaign
We have 2 good presidential candidates in Barack Obama and John McCain. I like John McCain more than I ever liked Bush and I like Barack Obama better than either Al Gore or John Kerry. These are two good candidates and two good men.
Now it’s inevitable that the extremists in either party will sling mud and pull all sorts of dirty tricks. All they need to do is hide behind empty shell companies and buy advertising. Given the current laws we have, we can’t stop these assholes from playing dirty. Thus we must do our best to ignore it. The candidates on both sides should denounce it emphatically and ask people who are supporting them to not do it.
The fair game, in my opinion, is 2 issues:
1. What qualities does the candidate have as a person and a leader.
2. What are his positions on the issues.
Those are the only two valid discussions we should have.
Now to the issue of guilt by association — it’s a gray one, in a sense, because whom you choose to associate with does lend insight into #1 above. On the other hand, we should never take some other person’s views as a proxy for the candidate’s views. The candidates can speak for themselves! So if some advisor to Obama is a racist, for example, we cannot infer something about Obama’s views from this. If McCain has a supporter who is an ardent theocrat, we can’t assume that McCain shares that view.
If McCain, though, goes to Bob Jones University (or Obama goes to, say, The Sierra Club) and proclaims what a great institution it is, then he is inviting assumptions.
Above all I’m praying to God (and that from an atheist) that the candidates themselves take the moral high ground. Both campaigns will be looking for every advantage, but being above the pissing match should be an advantage. Let’s pick the candidate who stays on the issues, has intelligent views on the issues and who avoids the slash and burn bullshit of “Swift Boat” politics.
The War on Science
The folks at Effect Measure have a great post on the war on science and they make a very tangible point:
The attack on the science has two components. The first is the most obvious: to use what appear to be scientific arguments to cast doubt on what the scientific community deems valid arguments about climate change. But the second may be the most important: to do it in a way that casts aspersions on all kinds of scientific argument. The attackers don’t care if they are accused of political or economic bias in making their own scientific arguments because one of their objectives is to establish a covert narrative that says science is always biased and tainted by political corruption. The aim is to destroy the moral authority of science, not its factual basis. They then erect a new standard based on economic promise and the virtues of “progress” and modernity.
I’ve said before that scientists tend to be liberals. It’s just a fact, just like big business guys tend to be conservatives. I don’t think either side needs to apologize for this. But the Right Wing hates this because science does hold a special place in our debates. You can’t argue about issues like climate change, embryonic stem cell research or natural selection without involving science and the fact that all the scientists are on the Left makes it seem, to some, that “science” is just a political tactic to win debates. The above quoted paragraph makes quite clear how the Right Wing has chosen to fight this: just claim that all science is biased!
I interviewed a particle physicist lately (which I will soon post over at Slacker Astronomy) and he said, and I quote, “I don’t believe anything.”. He has trained himself as a scientist to not believe things — he either knows or he doesn’t know and “knowing” involves a file cabinet full of data and research. He has purged himself of belief because it is a liability as a scientist.
So, I’m sorry, you sad little Righties. Science is not a tactic and when your beliefs are in opposition with science your beliefs needs to be modified.
Tim Russert
This sucks. Tim Russert was one of the best guys out there.
Smart, educated and well-informed people should run this country
What I am pointing out also goes to why you Obama cultists are so clueless. You all do not understand America, or the American electorate. You elitists long for this country to be something that (hopefully) it will never be. You don’t understand the majority of “gun-loving, bitter, religious, stupid people†that must be won over in order to be elected to lead them. You just do not get it. You all are so smart you’re stupid. You live in these bubbles where your views are continually reinforced, so much so you start to believe they are mainstream.
The problem with this point, Micadelic, is that it is really 50/50 in this country, as we saw in the last couple of elections. I agree, there are many people who disagree with me. There are also many, many people who agree with me.
I am wondering about the word “elitist”. I think your average gun-loving, pro-life, fag-hating redneck is wrong about a lot of things. That is not to say they are bad people, they are not, and I know and love many a gun-loving, pro-life, fag-hating redneck. But I argue with them and I argue based on thinking. I admit it! I base my arguments on thinking. I try to gather facts and information and think about all sides of an issue. Then I try to use my best judgment, based on balancing my principles with what I think is practical and achievable.
Let’s use guns as an example, the data is in and the US has more guns deaths, by far, than any other westernized country. The US also has the most gun proliferation in the westernized world. Prior to discussing what our policy should be, you have to be an idiot if you don’t see causation between the vast proliferation of guns in the US and the vastly higher incidents of gun deaths.
I’m not anti-gun. I have no desire to deprive rednecks of their guns. But the streets of Minneapolis are very different from the farms of northern Minnesota. Cops are in grave danger every day due to the proliferation of guns. Do you think we can take that into account when we debate gun policy? Am I an “elitist” because I think that, yes, god dammit, we have to be able to debate gun policy?
The 50% of the people you are supporting in the above paragraph think that gun policy should be off the table. They hated the Brady Bill and they’ve worked to thwart any effort to debate gun policy. They are wrong and I’m not going to pander to them to get their vote.
If you think gun policy should be off the table, that doctors should be thrown in jail for performing abortions and that gay people should be denied spousal rights and benefits, you’re wrong. I can’t care if you have a majority or not, you’re wrong. A majority of people were in favor of slavery, too. Populism can be just as bad, or worse, than elitism.
I think smart, educated and well-informed people should run this country. I think ignorant, uneducated and uninformed people should not. Do you disagree? One could argue that “smart, educated and well-informed” constitutes an elite. If so, I’m an elitist.
OH NO! 8 years ago Franken wrote some comedy!
It’s sad to see that U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum has trouble with context switches. Yes, 8 years ago Al Franken wrote an off-color piece for Playboy. She said:
“As a woman, mother, a former teacher and an elected official, I find this material completely unacceptable,” McCollum told the Star Tribune.
I bet you don’t subscribe to Playboy then, huh? Good! That’s how the marketplace of ideas works. If you don’t want to read things like people joking about pornography, you are not required to read it.
Franken’s office responded:
“Al understands, and the people of Minnesota understand, the difference between what a satirist does and what a senator does,” Franken campaign spokesman Andy Barr told the Associated Press. “It’s unfortunate that she’s trying to create divisions in our party rather than working with other DFLers (Minnesota Democrats) to take on the special-interest senator.”
Listen up, Democrats: you’ll recall we had a governor in this state named Jesse Ventura. You floated up a limp whale of a candidate against him and you lost. The people of Minnesota are real people and we don’t mind that our elected officials are real people. Al Franken is a huge liability if you think like the people who lost against Jesse Ventura. He’s a huge asset if you think that honesty, humor and non-career politicians are a good thing. Franken will trounce Coleman unless you guys keep on this puritan bullshit. Al Franken has spent most of his life being a comedian. There are all sorts of off-color remarks in his past. We don’t care.
Obama is more experienced than Reagan
People keep trying to bring up Obama’s “inexperience”. I have two objections to this. 1) He is a very accomplished person professionally and 2) Why is it, all of a sudden, that people think the only ones capable of being President are career politicians? Who else has direct foreign policy experience except people in government? Are we non-politicians so stupid and so ill-informed that we could never be considered for President?
No, of course not. Obama has a law degree from Harvard and he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was professor and a lawyer before serving in both the state senate and the US Senate. He has more government experience that probably 99.99% of the people in the country.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan was the governor of California for 2 terms. That is the sum total of his political experience. Note that this includes no foreign policy experience. Oh I guess I should mention he was the president of the Screen Actors Guild.
Obama is more experienced and more educated than Reagan was and much better prepared to be President.
Obama is not perfect. I disagree with some of his positions. But STFU with this bullshit that he is incapable of doing the job. He is completely capable and he represents a welcome change from the 8 years of incompetence we just endured.
lolife 
You must be logged in to post a comment.