Yuletide

My guess is that when "we" overthrew Saddam Hussein, "we" pretty much ensured that Iraq would become a satellite of Iran. I can't see how American troops there will now stop that from happening short of perpetual warfare. Even if the American people are foolish enough to vote for McCain this time, and thus at least four more years of the same failed policy, it seems unlikely that they will support this idiocy, and the associated loss of American lives, indefinitely. posted 05/15/2008 at 11:43:35

This is the same sort of nonsense that got Bush close enough to being elected to steal the 2000 election. Remember the Nader supporters who said there's no difference between Gore and Bush? Well, tell that to the 4000 dead Americans who Bush has sacrificed in his personal war in Iraq. And did they honestly believe that there was no difference between Bush and Gore on environmental issues?
There is a HUGE difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. There is little difference between John McCain and George W. Bush. Just do a simple comparison of the stated positions of Clinton, Obama, McCain, and Bush on the major issues. I'll take either Obama or Clinton in a heartbeat over John McCain ... or George W. Bush. posted 05/08/2008 at 08:28:25

I scoffed at "50 Simple Things ..." when it came out precisely because all these little bits and pieces would not solve large-scale problems. I was annoyed with the way environmentalism played in the press at the time, and the way it was presented in the schools, as if somehow recycling one's beer cans was going to save the world. Focusing on the easy stuff, it seemed to me, took the pressure off for doing the difficult stuff, since it gave folks the "out" of saying "Well, I'm already doing MY part."
I'm older and maybe wiser now, and I see that the little things keep people interested, involved, and to some extent supportive. Without that broad interest, involvement, and support, the big, difficult efforts won't get very far. posted 04/23/2008 at 10:08:11

Most of the responses I've seen here to McCain's "academic" comment criticize McCain for something he didn't even say, as though he said that whether or not we should be in Iraq is an academic question. If effect, what he said is that whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq in the first place is not relevant to how we should move forward from where we are today.

Long ago, when I was a philosophy student in college - about the same time McCain was a POW - I was taught that you should always argue against the STRONGEST interpretation of your adversary's thesis, NEVER the weakest. If you argue against the weakest interpretation, sure, it's easy to make your opponent look foolish, but your opponent has the option of dropping back to the NEXT-to-weakest interpretation, making you build a whole new argument. That can be continued for quite a while, as your opponent drops back to successively easier-to-defend but less dramatic positions. On the other hand, if you attack the strongest, most-easily defended interpretation, and show it to be incorrect, you automatically demolish all of the weaker, less-easily-defended interpretations of the thesis.

So ... the correct way to take McCain to task on his statement is to successfully argue that whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq in the first place IS relevant to whether or not we should be there now. Let's hear, then, how it IS relevant posted 04/16/2008 at 13:19:33

Well, only some Americans think they need to have internal combustion engines to have fun. Some are just content to watch football on TV. Personally, I like to watch football on TV while I use an internal combustion engine. ;-) posted 04/15/2008 at 08:18:55

I had to chuckle at the "he's not who you think he is" ads idea. I've been hearing that same proposal as applied to McCain ever since he clinched the nomination. Although McCain has long been the darling of the media and of independents, about 85% of the time he votes with the far right. How independent is that?
Personally, I'm hoping that one of two things happens:
1. The American people decide (for once) to vote issues instead of personalities. If this happens, McCain's voting record will clearly identify him as just another right-wing nut case, albeit a quirky one.
or
2. The American people (as often happens) vote personalities. If this happens, and Obama is the Dem's candidate, Obama wins easily. McCain has little personality, and what he does have is annoyingly grumpy.
Assuming Obama is the Dem's candidate, the only scenario under which McCain wins is if the American people (as, unfortunately, also often happens) respond to scare tactics. Repubs always need to have a Great Enemy to frighten people with. Used to be the Commies, but when that wore out they created the Islamic Terrorists. Worked for Bush in '04, could work for McCain in '08. posted 04/08/2008 at 08:23:57

I doubt that rats produce enough milk to be commercially viable. And can you imagine trying to get them to hold still while you hook up the milking machine? Nah, I'll stick with cows, goats, and sheep, thank you very much.

I've been eating yogurt for about 35 years, and wouldn't want to be without it. posted 04/07/2008 at 12:48:30

1. Large numbers of Republicans are less than enthusiastic about McCain, and are unlikely to show up at the polls.
2. Many Democrats are currently in a snit about the Hil vs Obama thing and are saying they'll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination, but most of that will fade once the Democrats have a candidate selected.
3. The pointless war in Iraq, which McCain supports, is draining the U.S. economy. For most folks, the economy is the #1 issue. McCain supports continuing the war indefinitely, thereby draining the economy indefinitely.
4. McCain is too far to the left for core Republicans and too far to the right for Democrats.
5. For many years I've been hearing that if African Americans showed up at the polls, Democrats would never lose an election. Guess who can bring African Americans out to vote?
6. Clinton does very well with women voters, who account for more than half the adult population.

This all adds up to a solid victory for whomever the Democrats nominate in the end. So get used to saying "President Obama" or "President Clinton." Either one's fine with me. posted 03/28/2008 at 12:59:30