Well, he’s dead. I’ll write more later. In the meantime, let’s see how much better everything gets in Iraq.

Hey folks, remember me? I’m trying to keep up with things here but, well, it’s not working so good. Anyway, over the holidays I found myself, as many often do, discussing politics with family and friends. Along the way I discovered that I frequently dislike talking to people on my side.

Now I can hear you all right now, “Why? Do you like arguing?” Well no, it’s not that. I enjoy having a discussion that’s civil, and I really don’t like it when things get heated because more often than not my emotions run faster than my though process and I either say something I would never actually agree with or I start losing my ability to argue my point effectively.

No, the real reason is actually two reasons. The first is petty, but significant: there is nothing as downright annoying as talking with someone who agrees with you for all the wrong reasons. I am an anti-war, atheist, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay-marriage, “damn I want Clinton back” liberal, but every time I got in a discussion about politics and had to deal with “yeah Bush is an idiot, I mean who chokes on a pretzel??” I start reconsidering my blue brethren.

I’ve always been a big proponent of “keep your outspokenness proportional to your knowledge”. I’m not an economist. Any economical comments I make come from looking at actions and comparing them to the effects of such actions in other situations. As such, I don’t offer deep discussions on the value of the dollar the current (and worrying) rise of the euro.

One of my goals with this blog was to prove that liberals aren’t all idiots who hate Bush for stupid reasons and who say things like “make love, not war”, but then I get into a discussion and suddenly there’s one now. I do what I can to steer the conversation to more substantial matters, but more often than not I find myself shaking myself and hoping that when I talk to a conservative this isn’t how he sees me.

The second reason follows suit: conversations with people I agree with accomplish very little. Now I do have a number of friends who know more than me, and talking with them is always a treat because I find out new reasons to affirm my knowledge, but that just isn’t enough for me.

I’ve also always been of the belief that if you can only sustain your beliefs by avoiding everyone who disagrees (I’m looking at you, religion), then you don’t really believe them, you just don’t want to accept what you inherently know is true. This also applies to situations where you have to lie, distort the truth, or baselessly attack your opponent in order to make your case.

So really the only way to know you’re right is to stack your beliefs up against someone on the other side. If I get into a discussion with someone who’s pro-life, I’m going to find out whether or not everything I base my opinion on is right. Alternately, I find out what I never thought of. I can’t possibly list all the articles on this site that occurred because I got into an argument with someone and was looking for either support myself or dispute the other guy.

Progress comes from conflict, and my biggest jolts of creativity came from talking with someone for the war, who believes in the War on Christmas, or thinks gays shouldn’t marry. How many times have I written an article purely debunking something someone else has said? On O’Reilly alone… yeesh.

Talking with people on your side makes you lazy. It’s the reason I don’t just sit around reading liberal blogs for all my news (not that you should stop reading this one, a-heh heh heh). It’s why O’Reilly and Hannity are popular. Not because they are any good as journalists, but because by berating the opposition the viewers get the message that the host is right, and more importantly the other side is wrong.

Honestly I’m occasionally tempted to simply peruse right-ward blogs and news sites for the sole purpose of material to shoot down. It makes for much more educational and downright entertaining reading than “hey, John from AmericaBlog says this, and I agree!”

What do you think?

Hm. Interesting. Bush has at least conceded we aren’t winning in Iraq, though his subsequent sentiments are… less than encouraging.

In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point.

“We need to reset our military,” said Bush.

Now, I want you all to sit and think that over for a little while, because this is something I was actually unaware of until now. Bush hasn’t just been refusing withdrawal, he’s also been refusing increases of troops (hence the “turnaround”). Could he make it any more obvious this is a war of pride? Our president won’t even concede he didn’t use enough troops until he’s forced to. More…

In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the world rather than to Iraq specifically. “It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we’re in is going to last for a while and that we’re going to need a military that’s capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace,” he said.

Ah. So we’re not winning now, but the war is still going to be incredibly long so everyone better buckle up and get ready for us to lose a lot more. Not to mention he’s still stuck telling us about the “ideological war”. Gah.

No little image, just words this time. I’m sorry I’m not on top of the news lately, I’m trying to get into the swing of things again. Anyway…

Tonight’s episode of The Daily Show had good old Bill Kristol, of The Weekly Standard. The debate was as typical as you could have expected, with Jon trying to make Kristol defend his opinions and Kristol himself alternately whining about Jon being mean and saying ridiculous things that were talking points in 2003 but don’t hold water any more.

And that’s what I’d like to get mad about. The conservative pundits in this country have staked out the most counterintuitive position possible, which is that everything that has happened was the right idea but the problem is SOMEONE screwed it up. Invading Iraq was a great idea, but some idiot muffed it.

It’s not a new position, it happens a lot. Every conservative (or neocon) IDEA is right, but the problem is that the people who try and get it done do it wrong. When things go terribly terribly wrong, even if all conservatives were in power, it doesn’t matter.

Now, on some level you have to admire the tenacity. The fact that when politicians betray your stance then you turn your backs on them (Kristol railed against Rumsfeld, for example), but that only counts when they actually betray the party/ideology. If you vote for someone so they do X, and after they do X it turns out X was a terrible idea, you can’t get mad at said politician for not doing X right.

People often say that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are wishy washy pansies who think everyone can hold hands and everything will be awesome, while conservatives are tough-minded realists who want responsibility and realize reality. Now this isn’t just what the conservatives themselves say, it’s a fairly common opinion. Liberal is nearly a dirty word for that reason.

The problem is that it’s just plain backwards. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, it’s the right (this brand of the right) that has the optimism problem. Let’s ignore Iraq entirely. Consider most any stock standard conservative issue and I am going to do this in the fairest way I possibly can.
Social security: far-right neocons want to eliminate it in favor of private accounts. The optimism is the assumption that everyone will have adequate funds with which to retire. Apparently the people just barely scraping by will somehow squirrel away enough money to live off of post-retirement.

Affirmative action: again, get rid of it. Conservatives will point to the fact that it’s racism in a way, and this is correct. However, the optimism in this case is the idea that there is no racism and minorities will get fair treatment without government intervention.

Supply-side economics: Take this one however you like, from standard SSE to the whole Trickle-down theory. On the former, it’s the idea that people’s fates are their own responsibility (go back to social security) and on the latter that if you start the benefits at the top they’ll make their way down. Apparently business owners and the like are purely benevolent and won’t take their tax cuts and just pocket all the extra money.

School vouchers: Thank you Al Franken for tipping me off to this concept. Give people vouchers for tuition and they’ll choose the best schools, thus forcing schools to compete. The optimism? The notion that people won’t all flock to the best schools, thereby taking all of the money away from the already poor schools, and that this won’t lead to overcrowded schools forcing kids elsewhere that no longer has anything resembling a good budget and swiftly putting us back at square one.

Minimum wage: The right doesn’t want this to be raised, the far-right (libertarians) wants it abolished. This isn’t optimism per se, but it is a distortion of reality that forcing businesses to pay more means you’ll hire fewer people. The kind of businesses that pay minimum wage aren’t exactly free to start slicing the staff. I’ve had a few minimum wage jobs, and they generally aren’t charities. Internships, on the other hand…

Illegal immigration: I’m not even going to get into this. Yeah, we’re going to stop illegal immigration entirely. I’m sure.

Yeah, I’m on the rambly side right now, I apologize. The fact remains, what we have here is a track record of bizarre optimism, and that’s ignoring the nonstop blind optimism around the War on Terror and the Iraq War. Sure, no one will abuse wiretaping. Sure, the Iraqis will love us when we get there. Sure, the other countries will start their own democracies once they see how well Iraq worked out. Sure, by waging wars we’ll scare the terrorists and they’ll stop.

And then when someone attempts to act based on the optimism and reality comes up and so cruelly kicks them in the ass, do they acknowledge it was a bad idea? Nope, they blame the person who enacted it, and say they didn’t do it right. Imagine politics as, say, a stunt for a movie. I want someone on fire falling out of a building into a kiddie pool. The guy tries it, and despite landing in the pool itself he breaks his neck and is paralyzed. Do I acknowledge it was a stupid idea? No, I blame the stuntman and the coordinators for muffing up my awesome idea.

Fuck Bill Kristol.

Another file for my “well duh” folder, or perhaps more specifically the “I was afraid this was the case but was hoping it wasn’t” folder. Iraq, where we’re winning apparently, is getting more and more violent.

Violence in Iraq is at an all-time high, confidence in the government is fading, and the economy is faltering, the Pentagon told Congress in a report released Monday.

The Pentagon says injuries and deaths among U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq rose 32% during the period from mid-August to mid-October over the previous three months. Both the average number of attacks each week and the average number of people killed or wounded in those attacks were at their highest levels since the United States handed over power to the Iraqi government in June 2004.

Unbelievable. And it gets worse:

Iraq’s economy continues to struggle, the report says. Inflation from October 2005 to October 2006 was 54%, unemployment remained high, and the country averaged only 11 hours of electricity per day. Organized crime and drug smuggling also are rising, the report says.

I don’t mean for this to just be a “look how bad Iraq sucks right now” kind of post, but more of a post begging for change. No matter what phrase Bush uses, his leadership had gotten us to where we are now. His decision making has fostered this situation, either directly or indirectly by going with his trusted “circle”.

It’s like in the movies when there’s a boneheaded leader character who thinks he knows what’s best, but eventually realizes his decision making is what’s caused all these problems and lets someone else call the shots or at least try out an idea he’s been loathe to accept. We as a country have been stuck just before that moment for about two years now.

Proving that the Democrats are the party of obstruction and have no interest in bipartisan cooperation to solve the world’s problems, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would support an increase in US troops as long as it were part of a larger plan to decrease troop levels.

“If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that,” said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

“The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically,” Reid said. “We have to change course in Iraq.”

And you know what? I agree. See, my view on Iraq has been fairly unchanging for the past two years or so: do what needs to get done to finish. If that means a burst of troops for a little while, then go for it. Bush has tried to play this as a purely political issue instead of an actual war. While he talks of the struggle for civilization itself, he won’t buckle down the economy and send as many troops as necessary. Rather, he’s used it as a trump card to keep support around him and his party.

Enough of my generic ranting about Bush and the war, my point was that we shouldn’t reject any plans so long as the end goal is the swiftest possible end. A brief increase of troops may accomplish just that, and if that’s the conclusion that is drawn, rather than “let’s send in a buttload of troops and cross our fingers”, then I’ll support it fully.

I’m still busy as hell, but here’s some hilarious illogic for you in the meanwhile. Bill O’Reilly, somehow, said that if homosexuals were capable of caring for children then you would be able to get pregnant by eating cupcakes. Yeah, I don’t get it either.

O’REILLY: No, I’m talking about raising kids. I’m talking about — I know there are bad parents –

VINCENT: Well, there’s nothing inherent in biology –

O’REILLY: — and I know there are good gay parents. Absolutely, all right?

VINCENT: OK.

O’REILLY: But I’m talking optimum, best for the kid, having a mom and a dad. Are you going to call me a bigot for that?

VINCENT: Not at all, no. It’s a legitimate preference.

O’REILLY: Are you going to, Miss Chrisler, call me a bigot for that?

CHRISLER: Nope, I’m just going to call you wrong –

O’REILLY: Wrong.

CHRISLER: — which you are. So –

O’REILLY: You know, why wouldn’t — why wouldn’t nature then make it that anybody could get pregnant by eating a cupcake? You know? You know, you just throw –

If you can tell me what the HELL he’s talking about, I’ll give you a hundred dollars.

So I’m sure most of you by now have heard about Senator Tim Johnson’s little brush with medical disaster.

Johnson was taken by ambulance to George Washington University Hospital in Washington this afternoon after becoming disoriented during a conference call with reporters.

A spokeswoman originally said he suffered a possible stroke. Hours later, after he was examined, spokeswoman Julianne Fisher said he didn’t suffer a stroke or heart attack.

Johnson’s condition could determine whether Democrats gain control of the Senate when the next session of Congress begins in January. Democrats won a 51-49 majority in the midterm elections last month.

But the big thing is that just having a stroke isn’t enough to knock him out of the Senate. He has to either be dead or resign, neither of which are likely to happen. Should he die, then the governor of South Dakota, a republican named Mike Rounds, chooses his replacement. Obviously choosing a republican, that makes it 50-50 and the vote goes to Cheney.

Now, Johnson is likely to be fine and this is all going to go away, but let’s take a little trip down fantasy lane and just imagine…

Let’s say Sen. Johnson falls into a coma. He’s hooked up to a respirator and is entirely unable to perform his duties as a senator. This brings back thoughts of another South Dakota Senator, Karl Mundt, who had a stroke in 1969, but stayed in the Senate until the end of his term in 1973 despite not being able to attend.

It should also remind some of you of Strom Thurmond, who near the end of his final term had to be propped up with pillows to keep him from tipping over.

Okay, so Johnson’s stroke puts him in a flat-out coma. Now there’s a debate over a supposed “living will” he had. His wife says Tim didn’t want to be kept alive on a machine, but his children don’t want him to die. The family is fighting amongst itself whether or not Johnson will be kept on the machine, and thus keep his job.

I’m not sure I need to explicitly point out what parallel I’m drawing here.

So now we have one hell of a conundrum, for both parties to some extent but to a greater extent the republicans. If they stick to their message from the last go-round, that human life is inherently worth living and that this is “state-sponsored murder,” that it’s similar to the Nazis if we kill a living, breathing human being, then they have a problem. Keeping him alive means they don’t get control of the Senate.

The Democrats will likely take the opposing stance, that it’s up to the family and if they decide he should die then it’s their choice. However, if they do that, then there is the chance that they will again be fighting for the death of the man who is keeping them in control of the Senate.

Now obviously if the family decides to keep him alive then the Democrats will go with that (I can’t imagine them now, nor could I with Terri Schiavo, calling for him to die against the wishes of the family), but the stance of the republicans at the time was not that it should be the children’s decision over the husband’s, but that it was an act of barbarism to “kill” her.

So that leaves us with an interesting staring contest of sorts. Whichever side “gives in” will relinquish control of the Senate to the other party. Keep this in mind:

Johnson is one of 23 Democratic senators whose death or incapacity would jeopardize Democratic control of the chamber because their successor would be appointed by a Republican governor. That number will fall to 18 in January when the governorships of Maryland, Massachusetts and New York switch from Republican to Democratic control.

Now that’s a lot of people who could drop into a coma and throw the balance of power to the other side. Will the republicans fight to keep them all alive? Will the democrats fight to allow them to die if that’s what the family wants?

There’s another interesting wrinkle. Living wills aren’t binding contracts. The republicans would have us believe that it’s just plain sick to want to kill living, breathing human beings. Even if the family agrees that they should pull the plug, will they allow that? Imagine the backlash of the republican party flipflopping on this issue, letting a man die simply so they can take control of the Senate.

UPDATE: Sen. Johnson is having brain surgery right now. I hope all goes well, independent of the political outlook.

More life taking its toll on me. Likely no updates until Thursday or Wednesday evening. Sorry folks.

Watching a bunch of talking heads on FOX debate the Iraq Study group is nothing short of hilarious. I see one guy from NPR and then Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, and Bill Kristol spouting talking points ad nauseum. But there’s one thing I just heard that I’d like to highlight because I hear it a lot.

Bill Kristol popped this beauty out: “The president is going to have to decide between victory and withdrawal.” That is the neoconservative viewpoint at this time. Any plan for withdrawal means failure. We cannot leave period because leaving means surrender. But they keep saying that we can leave after we win. So we can leave after we win, but leaving means we lose. Brilliant.

I don’t understand how the Iraq debate can be had when withdrawal is completely off the table to one side. Brit even had the audacity to insult those who want to force a timely exit to this war. There’s this Bizarre-o Land discussion happening on the right that says “sure we’d love them out next week, but we have to win!” as though we can’t help this process along. That we just have to wait until victory falls in our laps and THEN we can worry about getting out of there.

The left, or at least I, want to force the best possible conclusion to this war and then leave. The right is holding out for the sweets and flowers ending where everyone bands together and has tea parties while celebrating Ramadannukah.