I actually wonder about this subject quite a bit.  If you listen to debates in Congress, people will say "The American people [need/want/expect/demand] [policy statement here]." However, they never quite explain why the American Government should be the one to do it.  What is it that government should and shouldn't be doing?  Which leads to the question on this thread. What is the purpose of government?

Okay . . . War in Iraq time.  Seems appropriate since the Senate is having a hell of a time deciding what should be debated, and the House is just going to ignore everybody that has that scarlet letter "R" after their name.

Though I'm likely to take a great deal of crap for this, I am personally of the opinion that we have to see this through.  Regardless of the reasons, the failures, the tactics, and the stupidity, and the lies, we're in it.  We broke it, we bought it, and we are responsible (though not solely responsible) for the consequences.  However, should it ever become the case that the people decide that the consequences of withdrawing are less than the consequences of completion, then thats what we do, and we will be responsible for those consequences too.

While the Republicans say  "support our troops" and the Democrats are saying "this is not the right war," I am forced to agree with both.  The trick is about accountability and responsibility.  Somebody needs to be held responsible for this mess, for bad decisions, for poor thinking, for lackluster planning, and for failure to verify the truth.  Normally, a person like that would be fired.  I think the President should be held to account if the buck truly stops with him.  I wish I knew how.  Honestly, I think if the President was thrown under the bus, and the Dems and the GOPs came up with a new strategy for Iraq, then you would see a lot more national unity, and a lot more support for what we are doing in Iraq.

While the Republicans are stressing the point that people want to kill America and everything it stands for, and the Democrats are saying that the President is a bad bad man who wants to take away our liberties, I started to think about the movie Men In Black. During the movie, Will Smith tries to shoot the big bad alien dude out in the open, and Tommy Lee Jones stops him, saying "There’s always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they Do… Not… Know about it!"

It seems stupid sometimes how movies can open my lines of thought, and this raises a whole slew of questions for me. The first is in response to the Republicans whole "there are people that want to kill us". Isn't there always somebody that wants to kill us?  The British during the colonial era, the Communists in the cold war, the Nazi's and the Japanese in World War II...half of us tried to kill the other half in the Civil War.  I'm sure I'm missing somebody somewhere.  There is always somebody that isn't going to agree with the way the US thinks, or the way it does something. Do they hate us? Fine.  Do they wish we would die? Let them wish all they want.  Is somebody hating us a good enough reason to kill them?  I think we need to be very careful about the difference between somebody wanting to kill us, and somebody trying to kill us.  Is Iran blathering? Let them blather!  When they DO something (like we find out about their covert plans for a bombing in the US, NOT waiting for them to blow us up), we can go after them.  What, you say? We don't have the intelligence but we "know" they are going to get us.  In that case, the answer is not to make a guess.  Get better intelligence.

To the Dems: At some point, the President does get to be the Commander in Chief.  It is what he is there for.  Also, at some point, when the threat is real, and the game is afoot, some things get moved aside to make sure we don't die.  Sometimes that does mean we don't know about it.  Thats okay.  This doesn't mean you stop being pissed off when he abuses that power to the point of controversy or worse.  The Alien and Sedition Acts, Exec Order 9066, Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, are examples of Presidents possibly going a little bit too far.  Please, get angry when its appropriate, but not when its just politically sound.  Please don't whine about the conduct of a military engagement that you authorized.  I hate to break it to you, but your voting for it or not is water under the bridge.  We made a mistake in my opinion, but 'fessing up to it doesn't absolve us of the consequences.  Do what you need to do out of good conscience, but let The People decide the punishments and consequences for the choices our government has made.  Only in that way can we be responsible for the consequences of our government.

...as soon as you figure out what it is and what it means.

Though I normally try to wax philsophical about vague concepts and remote issues, I felt that even I couldn't miss the Iraq Study Group's Report. I warn you, it is long and it is dry, but it has information in it, and its a pretty interesting read for those who like that sort of thing.

I'm still digesting the information presented in the report myself, though it seems every news outlet on the face of the earth has managed to sort out its meaning almost before it was published. I salute those masters of ESP, Mind Reading, and pursuers of untamed Branta Canadensis.

I think what is most interesting is not the solutions and reccomended steps, but the information they provide on Iraq itself. Though I assume some accuracy, I actually give the report a bit more creedence because it doesn't seem to guaruntee anything at all. But for those of you who can spare the time, I suggest at least reading through the first 20 pages of the report. More comments when I am more awake.

or Ass-kickers and Elephant Hunters? (aka Dumb Asses and Fat Asses)

As the campaigns carry on, I wonder if its about what democrats are doing and what republicans are doing, or if its about what each party has done to piss people off. Listening to President Bush's "The fundamental difference is ..." speech and the "Ticking clock to Jihad" ad, and the democratic "Its time to change the course" and "Culture of Corruption" lines, I know what they stand against. However, what they both stand FOR is a greater mystery to me.

"There are 6 and a half billion people in the world, Mr. Colbert, and ALL of them want to come into the United States."

-Jim Gilchrist, Founder of the Minuteman Project

Though I try desperately to avoid making political commentary on this particular lj, I just heard what I consider a dumbass question about why people in the 18-25 group aren't getting involved in politics and government like they were in Vietnam. The response: because they don't have a personal stake in it. Close. So close.

Most of the people I know and talk to seem to arrive at the same conclusion. Its not that we don't have a stake in what the government does. Its not that we don't think that the government should be watched because the unchecked government is dangerous. It is DEFINITELY not that I think that the government is running in peak condition in good order.

I have given up on you, United States Government.

Now, anyone that knows me moderately well knows that I love government. I am a student of law, and an observer of politics, and I watch C-SPAN in a way that makes baseball fans flinch. However, I have decided to place my focus on the law and not congress or the executive, because I feel its not possible to fix it anymore. Again and again, I see the opportunity for change, and again and again, I hear the pathetic rhetoric that the party puppets say, asking for another chance, and showing us how we have no alternatives. It has become more about their power and money instead of our votes and voices. Its about the appearance of progress, and the illusion of caring about the citizenry, when nothing seems to change anymore.

In short, in my view, Congress and the President have decided the voters and what they really want is irrelevant. Again, in my view, the voters have decided the same about their Congress. Granted, in the anger and the frustration of total incompetence, we will just barely make enough change to bring another party into power that will make all new mistakes and keep all old problems. This is of course assuming that total incompetence is still enough to cause us to change even a political party in power.

And what is the cause of this? Why is it that the belief that democracy is important has waned? That people view the vote of a congressman or the signature of a President as something for sale to the largest corporation? That we hear political speeches on TV and those that don't sit in their living room and go "blah blah blah bullshit" just change the channel instead? Aside from the fact that it may be TRUE, perhaps it's that all we have is column A and column B, and like a third grade standardized test, no matter how well or how bad you do, it changes nothing about how things are done in the future, and the scantron form industry makes money off of us all the same. And all the while, pundits and politicians wonder why we don't take interest in their political, social and economic masturbation.

Fuck off, Congress. You want us to take heed and pay attention to you, pay attention to us first.

In the words of Keith Olbermann "Good Night, and Good Luck."

I was just watching one of any random number of cable news shows and he pointed out certain numbers out...

655,000 - The extrapolated number of "Iraqi Civilians Killed"
69 - The percentage of 655,000 who did not die by American Soldiers
11,867 - Dow Jones closing number on Tuesday (record high)
248 billion - This years budget deficit
22.3 - The percentage reduction compared to LAST years deficit
0 - The budget deficit for fiscal year 1999 (before GW took office)
(Numbers as taken from Glenn Beck)

So whats important? Whats not? The numbers, as they always do, tell a mixed message. Thats not even ALL the numbers that are avaliable. Add this to political rhetoric, and how does anyone decide anything? Does the great Dow Jones numbers mean that the middle class is getting stronger and not in as much debt? Does a budget deficit mean the end of the world, and should we be proud of getting into less debt in one year than we did last year? Whos to say?

Screw politics. Law makes more sense to me.

What are the values of America? What is it that the vast uber-majority of Americans believe? (I don't wish to say ALL Americans believe, because I think that may be a bit broad) What is the common thread here? What is it, when you get past the war on terror, past the social security, past the arguments of law and trial and congress and courts, what is it that everybody could point to and say, "I believe in this"?

For those of you who have time to read it. I think it somewhat balances both sides, but I'm not entirely sure.

Many thanks to the Miller Center of Public Affairs website.

Forget liberty and security . . . how about justice and security . . .

Somebody is arrested for crimes that can't be proven except by revealing information in public trial that is kept secret. How do you deal with that? If the person is responsible for the crime, how can justice be served if they can not attempt to refute it? If the person is not responsible, and they just say we have "secret evidence", how can it be just at all? What is the balance needed here?

Don't be surprised if I make comments on this myself, it is somewhat of an ongoing entry. Feel free to comment if you wish...

I see that Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force are making their contributions to 'win the hearts and minds of the people' in Iraq. Not to say that they aren't doing a great job, and I'm really not. They are doing what they have been trained and know how to do, and I must say they do it very well.

However, while I say that they are doing a good job, I'm not entirely sure its the right one. We are asking people who are trained to use force to preserve, protect, and defend the United States to act as the agents of peace, cooperation, and relation building in countries around the world. Although I understand that military action is not all they are capable of doing, it is what they are designed and trained to do.

So, if the armed forces are not the right answer, if we need something different than a pure fighting force, then what force do we need? In my view we need a nimble force, one that is capable of self-defense, but also capable of building a nation, of extending diplomatic ties, of making things work, of creating an economy, of reparing a war torn region. More than just people with guns, but people with ideas. People that will get involved on more than just a security level. As that I don't have a really good name of it, I think I'm going to call it the Department of the Peace.

Similar to the way the Department of Defense is there to provide the force needed to defend the physical United States, the Department of The Peace would be there to promote the values of the United States, particularly those of peace and freedom. A unique blend of humanitarian efforts, diplomatic corps, engineering corps, and civilian-like police, they would be capable of going into areas damaged by post-war problems, disease, or disaster and find solid, long term solutions to the problems that face people both domestically and internationally.

I was watching the President's speech this afternoon. Though he has never been considered a great orator, I feel that he did an excellent job getting his points across. Yet I felt uneasy. It wasn't that he didn't make good points, per se. I just couldn't watch him and feel good about what he was saying . . . it took me a minute to figure out why.

It's a matter of trust.

I don't refer only to this president, or any other president specifically, but our government operates a great deal on trust. We elect leaders for two, four, or six years without the ability to recall them from office, we have to make sure they advance our interests as our representatives (more on that in a later entry), and constantly they sell us on ideas in the political marketplace. The winner of these contests are not always the ones who are the great speakers or debaters, or the ones with the "better idea". They are the ones who manage to convince the populous that they or their plan can be trusted, the ones that "make sense" to us, if you will.

The more I think about it, every election, every government that we have had is based on the trust that they will not betray us to large corportations, foreign nations, or their own self-interest. Sometimes we find that trust is solid; more often, we find that trust misplaced.

Perhaps it is for this reason that the founding fathers set the population to representative ratio at that number. Perhaps really no more than a small town can truly know their representative enough to trust them. In a town like where I come from, everybody can know somebody that we send to office. Now, a representative hardly seems more than a name on a posterboard and some campaign promises. How does one establish trust with a person who is more of an anonymous party member than your next door neighbor?

Welcome, welcome . . .

For those of you that already know me, you know that I have a constant stream of thoughts that run out of my mind. . . I have decided to take a step in not boring people to death, and instead write down some of my random philosophizing, politicizing, and opinionating in this place . . . you are welcome to read it, however dry and strange it may be . . .

I think before the three readers I may get try to make this into something its not, I should note, that I do not think that I know the answers to society's problems . . . I'm a thinker, and I'm a dreamer, and I'm a strange, occassionally pretentious, pseudo-intellectual.

Welcome again, to Everett's Library