Appeal for Sanity

I've had several friends, who are unhappy with the current administration, and who don't like McCain, tell me that if Hillary gets the democratic nomination, they'll vote for McCain because they "hate Hillary." They can't offer any solid reasons, but they "don't like her." I'm not fond of Hillary, although I think she's competent and could do a good job. I want my friends to think about what they're saying. Would they really vote for 4 more years of the same policies we've suffered under just because they "don't like" Clinton? Keep your eyes on the prize--if you want to change the direction this country is headed, we need a change in leadership, not more of the same (McSame).

The Job of the President

"Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has — to protect the lives of the American people."--Sen. John McCain, 3/26/08
(What about the lives of the 4,000 troops killed in Iraq? Do they count? Has their dying saved anyone here?)

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."--Presidential Oath of Office

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."--The Preamble of the Constitution

As I said in an earlier blog, McCain is going to use fear-mongering (terrorism, terrorism, terrorism) in his bid for the White House. The United States government is based upon the rule of law, not of people, the Constitution being the document the people established as the guarantor of our collective rights.

According to our Constitution, it is the duty of Congress to:
"provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"--Article I, Sec. 8

It is the duty of the President to:
"...take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"--Article II, Sec. 3
(Nothing in there about peppering new laws with "signing statements" saying the President doesn't have to abide by the new law...)

Is It Really Working?

If the violence in Iraq continues to increase, it puts the lie to all the claims that the "surge" is working. I've been afraid all along that any decrease in violence due to increased US forces would only be effective for as long as the troops were there, and that with any draw-down would come an increase in violence, with no end in sight. The part the Mehdi army cease-fire has played in the drop in violence is becoming obvious, possibly more important than the actual surge. The central government in Baghdad, if you can call it a government, has made almost no progress towards reconciling the various factions in Iraq. If we provide stability only while we're there in large numbers (and that is far from certain), and the Iraqi government makes no progress (which is also far from certain), this is going to be a long haul. If we pull out, some say, Iraq will fall into full-blown civil war. If we stay, it may do the same thing anyway. I've heard people say that if we leave, Iran will invade Iraq (an Iranian invasion would be one thing that would quickly unite Iraqis). The Iranians don't want to be in the situation we're in, which they would be if they tried it. Iraq in chaos would not be any more of a threat to the US than it is with our troops there, and the money we're spending now could be put into homeland security. I'd love to be wrong, and see things improve drastically, but I doubt it. We'd be much better off with our ass out of the region.

Dials

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Don't get green-dye poisoning. Celebrate responsibly.

From John Adams, June 30th, 1813

"The real terrors of both Parties have allways been and now are, The fear that they shall loose the Elections and consequently the Loaves and Fishes; and that their Antagonists will obtain them. Both parties have excited artificial Terrors and if I were summoned as a Witness to say upon Oath, which Party had excited, Machiavillialy, the most terror, and which had really felt the most, I could not give a more sincere Answer, than in the vulgar Style "Put Them in a bagg and shake them, and then see which comes out first."

How true, how true...

Sad Day for Us Geeks

Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, died at age 69 a couple of days ago. When I was in high school, I was part of the (small) crowd that played D&D just about every day (which may explain why I was such a failure at dating...). I decided to dig up a few drawings I did of some D&D characters and post them in tribute.

Brace Yourself...

I heard an interview with a guy who has a book out about the 1932 Presidential campaign between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. During the interview the author summed it up as "Fear vs. Hope." As I see it, this has a vague parallel to the upcoming campaign. My prediction is that regardless who the Democratic nominee is, McCain's campaign is going to be simple fear-mongering: i.e. voting for a Democrat is voting to surrender to the terrorists, the terrorists will win, we won't be safe from terrorists, etc. McCain will try to avoid talking about the economy or health care or immigration reform. Hillary is already trying to use this tactic (not as boldly) on Obama, suggesting that we will be safer with her than Obama. I'll be watching to see if my prediction is accurate or not.