Alex on Politics

Well, it has been four years since “Shock and Awe” began the conflict that cost a country its stability, over 3000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Saddam Hussein is relegated to the dustbin of history and a grave in Tikrit.

Unfortunately, the reason for our occupation of Iraq has changed more times than tires at the Indy 500.

First we were there to keep a mushroom cloud from appearing over Manhattan.

After we figured there were no weapons of mass destruction, then it was to ensure the spread of democracy across the Middle East.

After democracy brought Hamas to power in Palestine and an Iranian Fuehrer, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was to keep Al Qaeda from attacking us in our homes.

After we figured out the violence there was mostly Sunni vs. Shiites, it was to ensure the safety of the unstable Iraqi government.

After we figured out the fact that members of the unstable Iraqi government were behind the death squads, it was to stop the violence and keep Iraq from becoming a province of Iran.

So here we are, keeping Iraq from being overrun by the Persians, something Saddam Hussein managed for a good 20+ years.

Now, and rightfully so, many people in America want us to leave Iraq, to stop wasting hundreds of billions of dollars a year as well as hundreds of our brave soldiers. But we need to wait.

At first I was extremely skeptical of President Bush’s troop “surge”. I thought it would only be adding tinder to an inferno and that it wouldn’t accomplish anything.

However, I think I was wrong. Deaths of US soldiers have decreased, and bombings and other killing of Iraqis has gone down dramatically.

It will require a few more months to see if this drop in violence is merely an anomaly or a true result of the “surge”. But if it continues to work, then perhaps it will be worth keeping troops in Iraq until their own forces can actually make things work.

That, however, is only IF the Iraqis get their acts together. If they don’t, then we need to leave. We can’t keep funneling money toward a cause that is bound to fail. We can’t afford it, both economically and in human costs. However, we need to keep giving this plan a chance, and that means not creating a timetable right now. We can give the Iraqi government an ultimatum, but we should not say we will pull out at “X” time, regardless of what they do.

This war was one of the biggest mistakes the United States has ever made, but we might still be able to lessen it. Maybe.

-Alexander Scott-

It was a political fireworks show this weekend, with loud explosions of fire and fury over the House and to a lesser degree, the Senate. But like most firework shows, there were brief “oooos” and “ahhhs”, and ultimately nothing but some smoke hung in the virtually unchanged air over the Capitol.

This is what we voted for? An official, yet non-binding hissy fit over the president’s handling of the war? Much as I like firework shows, when it comes to matters of war you don’t put a sparkler against an M-16 and think you’re going to come out on top.

Yet the Democrats believe that this will somehow create a change in the way the president leads the war. If this is the strongest punishment the Dems can muster against a misguided conflict, I have a feeling we’ll be in Tehran by the end of the month.

For the first time I can remember, I was actually on the side of the nasal-voiced New York talking head, Sean Hannity. On his show Friday he bemoaned the resolution as being a step toward unconditional surrender to the evil Islamofacist, America-hating, freedom-hating, Jew-hating, Islam-hating terrorists.

However, I do not equate leaving the quagmire of Iraq as the first step toward total Islamofacist world rule. But I did agree with this idea:

It lowers troop morale by showing that we don’t support them.

While I agree with him and mourn the part of me that died that day, I take some solace in the fact that I agree for a completely different reason than his.

Mr. Hannity believes that we are morally abandoning them in Iraq, that we want to keep equipment away from them and that through this resolution, we hope they all come back in pine boxes because we hate them. That is simply not so.

However, this resolution does show that we DON’T care about them. If we really cared about them we wouldn’t have passed a non-binding resolution. What the Democrats and a few Republicans did the other day was the legislative equivalent of those yellow ribbons everyone attaches to the back of their cars.

Neither of these are a show of support. Neither required any real sacrifice; the person spent 4 bucks in line at Wal-Mart, the legislators raised their hands. Neither group accepted or asked for a tax hike to provide truly full funding for the troops. Neither group was willing to demand or evoke a real solution from the president. And ultimately, both groups will go to bed every night with a secure conscience, because their incredibly marginal efforts were enough to assuage their guilt, even though the problem remains.

Neither group thinks about the families who go to bed every night worrying that the next day will bring the shell of their loved one home, destroyed in a conflict we treat like a fireworks display.

We’ll admire the sound and the fury. But we’ll remain mere admirers.

-Alexander Scott-

We need to talk about our foster child. His name is Eric, and Eric causes us a lot of heartache.

You see, we took Eric in a few years back. He had an abusive daddy and no mommy, so we told everyone he was hiding slingshots and stink bombs and that he needed a new daddy. Daddy also said that he helped this gang attack us one time, and that Eric might give really powerful weapons to hurt us in our home again. Because we were still getting over it, we thought it was ok and that Daddy wouldn’t ever lie to us.

The rest of the community told us that Eric didn’t help that gang and that we shouldn’t intervene in his life. Eric’s daddy said that he didn’t have weapons anymore, but wouldn’t let anyone in his house to check, so it was a pain. Daddy wanted a solution quickly, though, so he told the community that he would help Eric with or without them.

After a brief scuffle we got rid of Eric’s daddy. Daddy quickly said that we had accomplished our mission and that things would be great.

The problem is, well, Eric is a bit of a problem child. Eric seems to have multiple personalities and likes to hang with a tough crowd.

For the past few years Daddy kept telling us all the time that Eric was getting better, that we were really making progress with him. But Eric kept taking more of our money and not getting any better, even with our advice and support. Yet Daddy kept telling us over and over that Eric was ok and it was important to show other naughty kids that they could exist as normal people. Plus, if we didn’t help Eric, Daddy said our house might get attacked again.

But Eric keeps stabbing and burning himself and keeps screaming at us to leave him alone. We’ve also found that Eric didn’t have anything to do with that gang and that Daddy’s friends purposely made it seem like Eric DID. So now, most of us kids want to leave him alone.

Problem is, Daddy has the power and isn’t a good listener, so we’re going to keep Eric around, no matter how much it hurts.

So we’re kind of stuck. Daddy wants to keep following a failing course and Mommy wants to let him go.

Daddy keeps saying we’re quitters because of it. That’s not true. We should follow Eric’s wishes. There’s no way we can make him something he’s not willing to be, and no amount of money or effort is going to make that change.

But to do that, Mommy has to be stronger than she ever has. She needs to put her foot down, not just throw a hissy fit. Mommy has the pocketbook for all of Eric’s treatments. She can stop this silliness with Eric and focus on her real kids, but it doesn’t look like she’s ready to, and that’s making Daddy think silly things.

Daddy also seems to have taken an interest in Eric’s old neighbor. His name is Aaron. And like Eric, Aaron is a problem child.

Aaron constantly threatens to hurt one of our good friends. Aaron’s has some bottle rockets he keeps aiming at our friend, and he’s even trying to get something more powerful. Aaron also likes to talk big, even though the neighborhood has shunned him for trying to get more powerful stuff. And it looks like that shunning is working, as the cause of Aaron’s problems got beaten pretty badly recently.

But Daddy seems like he’s going to adopt Aaron too. Daddy’s already started saying that Aaron is helping Eric lash out at us, even though some of his friends disagree, and that we need to be protected. Daddy’s been shouting at Aaron’s daddy a lot lately and has even gotten his weapons ready.

Daddy needs to know there’s no way our family can handle it. Aaron’s bad side is going away, even if it keeps trying to do bad things. Aaron’s a good kid inside and really wants to be friends with us, and after he gets rid of his bad side, it’d be good to have him as a friend. He and Eric have a close bond and Aaron could help put Eric back on the right path. But if we hit Aaron now, the whole neighborhood is going to go nuts and Aaron will hurt a lot of people.

Again, Mommy can put a stop to this, but it will come at a cost. Daddy will surely divorce Mommy, and we might think Mommy didn’t try hard enough. But in time we’ll know Mommy was right, that we needed to stop adopting these problem children, and that even though it hurt, the only way to get Daddy to stop was to stop giving him the money to do his charity work.

He’ll scream and cry and shout nasty things at Mommy, but he needs to do this… for the children.

-Alexander Scott-

I really wonder why the State of Michigan has today off. Sure it is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a federal holiday in honor of the slain civil rights leader, but after the passage of Proposal 2 in November, I don’t see us as really deserving a day off to remember Dr. King’s beliefs.

See, Dr. King believed in equality for all, while 58% of Michigan voters chose to eliminate affirmative action, a program designed to assist those of non-white ancestry in overcoming racism inherent in our culture, from job opportunities to economic and educational aid.

The proponents of Proposal 2 claimed that affirmative action was inherently racist; if our government wanted truly “equal” rights, then why does one group warrant such massive assistance? Shouldn’t everyone have the same opportunities, regardless of race, sex or gender?

Yes, everyone should have the same opportunities.

But they don’t.

Despite the fact that it has been over 40 years since Dr. King’s famous “I have a dream” speech, the non-white populations of the United States have not become the equals of the white population.

According to the US Census, between 2004 and 2005 the number of whites and Asians living below the poverty line decreased while the number of Hispanics and blacks increased, as did the number of women. Considering that the poverty thresholds (the amount of combined household income a “family” must be below to be considered “in poverty”) generally are less than a year’s tuition + room/board at MSU, we can see the equality Dr. King strived for has yet to be achieved.

Additionally, many non-whites live in inner cities where educational facilities and faculties are under funded, under staffed and generally less effective. As such, non-whites have greater educational hurdles to overcome, as well as the aforementioned economic difficulties.

Considering these facts, it is idiotic to think that all Americans are on equal footing. Affirmative action in Michigan was an attempt to provide assistance to the groups likeliest to face socio-economic difficulties. Certainly it did have the flaw of not assisting white males who were in similar dire straits, but that did not warrant the elimination of the entire program under the guise that it made everyone truly equal.

The passage of Proposal 2 was tantamount to pulling to the side of the road with a flat tire, removing it and then getting back on the highway without putting on the spare. Yes, the old one was flawed, but it was better than nothing.

We have yet to reach the day Dr. King envisioned, when people are judged only “by the content of their character.” And on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the state of Michigan has moved itself further from it.

-Alexander Scott-

After years of terrorizing the citizens of Iraq and then several years languishing in prison, Saddam Hussein was executed for his role in the massacre in the Iraqi town of Dujail.

The “Butcher of Baghdad”, the “Ace of Spades” in that famous deck of cards, is finally gone from the face of the earth. Justice has been served for the families of those killed in Dujail.

Unfortunately, while history will certainly convict him in the attempted genocide of the Kurds during the Anfal campaign, the Iraqi courts won’t. Considering that the Anfal campaign is believed to have resulted in 180,000 deaths, Saddam’s execution over “only” (in the broad scheme of his crimes) 148 deaths seems unfair to this outside observer.

But I am not an Iraqi citizen, refugee or of Iraqi descent, so perhaps I am not the best person to judge what is and isn’t justice for the people of Iraq.

However, while Saddam’s execution is a victory against tyranny and those who practice it, it seems hollow in terms of the overall situation in Iraq.

As of this writing (1:30 AM December 30, 2006), the death toll for US troops is 2,997. Considering the death rate this month, the grim milestone of the 3,000th US soldier killed in Iraq will likely happen on the same day as Saddam’s death.

Then there is the report that a conservative estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths for December put the death toll at 2,139.

Finally, there is this rather sad line from this story on Saddam’s execution.

“Bush was asleep when the execution occurred.”

I realize that if he had been awake for the event, liberal bloggers would likely take it as evidence that the president had some intense hatred for Saddam and an overwhelming desire to see him killed. But Saddam did warrant such feelings, through the atrocities he committed against his own people and people in other countries, so I will not fault Mr. Bush on that.

What I will fault him on is that this action is stereotypical of the handling of this war. Our leadership seems to have slept through the past 3 years, dreaming of success without doing anything to achieve it and trying to convince America that the utopian images running through their minds are more real than the blood and bodies we see every night on the news. Only recently have they stirred from their slumber, prodded by the Iraq Study Group’s report. Sadly, it seems as if the administration merely hit the snooze button on the alarm; there will be no negotiations with the insurgency’s assistants, nor will there be timetables for troop withdrawls.

Saddam is dead and one good dream finally came true.

But the nightmare remains.

-Alexander Scott-

Oh no! It now looks like Mexican foods as well as immigrants are pissing people off immensely.

First there is this story.

So the bread-making company Panera tried to argue a burrito is a sandwich. And the judge had to say in the ruling, “A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans,”

In other news, the sky is blue, it’s cold in Michigan and frat boys love beer pong.

In spite of the fact that most people don’t go to Panera’s for a burrito and likewise don’t go to Qdoba for a bagel, they sued to protect their sandwich monopoly in a mall. A company wasted time and money on this case even to protect their burrito-based profits…

Even though they don’t serve burritos.

Or perhaps their motivation was to protect the fact that they were the only place where a mall shopper could get a bite to eat. Often I find myself thinking, “Gosh, a burrito sounds good, but I’d have to leave the mall and drive a block to get one. Oh well, a bagel sandwich is just as good.” Actually, that never happens. If I want a burrito, I’ll go get one, not settle for what’s right in front of me. If there ARE people like that, they need to be rounded up and destroyed. It wouldn’t even be difficult; if they won’t go a block to get what they want, I don’t think their lives mean much to them.

Also, the lawyer who argued this case needs to be disbarred, as someone blessed with such reasoning capabilities has to be a ward of either the state or another individual.

Joining them in such mindless bliss are the people behind this piece of litigation.

I sincerely hope this doesn’t result in any sort of reward, because this is about as nuts as calling a burrito a sandwich.

So you are upset that the dip “just didn’t taste avocadoey,”? Please take the 5 seconds to find that phone number on the back of the package and call Frito-Lay for a refund. On the plus side, if the class-action goes through, I can finally sue Fruit Roll-Ups for not having enough fruit in them. I really thought eating three or four of them a day was the same as eating real fruit. Just like I thought eating frankfurters gave me my daily supply of Frankfurt. Same goes for Girl Scout cookies.

Now I understand when lawsuits are filed over products that caused legitimate harm, but not when you buy a dip that you know is filled with preservatives and other products. Or is this on the principle that we consumers who purchased it were all misled into believing that it was real guacamole and that the deception of Frito-Lay has caused us calculable harm?

I doubt that anyone has been dealt even a penny’s worth of pain from the fact that the Frito-Lay dip wasn’t authentic guacamole.

Seriously, what damage did this do to you? Did it ruin your party? Did it kill your chances for a promotion because your boss ate a chip with it, said “Ew, this isn’t ‘avacadoey’ enough! You’re obviously not a good employee, serving me this fake food!”

Or did it simply make you a bit miffed that your dip wasn’t exactly what you wanted? Again, that’s what that little number on the package is for.

Instead of suing, here’s an easy-to-make recipe for a delicious avocado dip, from my best friend Mike Moody.

“Avacado Hippy Dip”

Ingredients:
4 avocados
1 regular sized container of mild salsa
1 can of frijoles negroes
Chili powder
Cinnamon

Process:

Skin and pit avocados. Roughly mash in large mixing bowl with potato masher. Add salsa and mix with wooden spoon. Add frijoles negroes and mix again. Stir in chili powder and cinnamon. Refrigerate when not in use. Serve with favorite chips, crackers or bread. Also makes good sandwich spread or burger topping.

There you go, it took less than 15 minutes to prepare that. For future reference, spend those 15 minutes instead of the combined thousands of hours in pursuing a lawsuit which will likely be decided as “Burritogate” was: from a dictionary.

And to state and national governments: please don’t spend time, energy and money on banning various types of foods and products. Yes, trans-fats are bad, but there are labeling requirements for them. If I won’t take the five seconds to look at a food label to see if it has death-dealing trans-fats, frankly, I deserve to die.

There are two sides to this coin. Consumers, you have a responsibility to know what you’re putting your body and the bodies of your families/friends. Product makers, you have a responsibility to let us know what we’re ingesting. That’s the deal.

Nutritional contents of this blog:
4 grams wit (33% daily value)
5 grams sarcasm (120% daily value)
9 grams information (cannot be valued. One can never have enough information)

-Alexander Scott-

Though the world is currently being told to increase its defense spending so America can finally stop burning money in the flag-fueled fires of the Middle East, I would rather talk about the assassinated spy, Alexander Litvinenko.

Sure, this is old news, overshadowed by tidings of turkey, stuffing and the violent birth of Christmas: “Black Friday”. However, it brings up issues that receive little publicity: the actions of the powerful elite in Russia (including Vladimir Putin) and why they can get away with it.

The death of Litvinenko is the most recent act of violence against people who loudly criticize the Putin presidency. Last month Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist who publicly criticized the war in Chechnya and opposed Putin, was found shot to death in the elevator of her apartment.

There have yet to be any arrests.

Then there was the dioxin poisoning of now-Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko in 2004. Yushchenko’s campaign was critical of Putin and Russian involvement and power over Ukraine.

There have yet to be any arrests.

Of course fingering Putin/Russian elite agents in regards to these events only leads to allegations of being a conspiracy theorist, but what about the current attack?

Mr. Litvinenko’s body contained polonium-210 at the time of his death. Polonium-210 is a naturally occurring element… in 100 micrograms per ton of Uranium. And while you can get it commercially from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, I doubt anyone without an extensive resume in academia could get it from the US.

Considering the fact that it can only be mass-produced using a nuclear reactor, whoever did it had to have had contacts in a nuclear facility. Again, I don’t think many operators of nuclear reactors can go in, get some polonium and then walk right out to hand it to some guy with a briefcase full of money.

Next, the assassin (or assassins) must have had extensive training to smuggle something far more radioactive than radium into the island nation of Britain and administer it to Litvinenko. I don’t think the average murderer opts for a rare radioactive substance, much less knows how to handle and use it.

So really, how feasible is the idea that no high-level assistance contributed to this man’s death? Not very.

And then there are Putin’s words on the topic:

“But the Russian leader said British medical documents did not show ‘that it was a result of violence, this is not a violent death, so there is no ground for speculations of this kind.’”

If dying of radiation poisoning isn’t a violent death, perhaps we should hire Putin as a terror suspect interrogator.

Yesterday, Pat Buchanan asked in his column: “Why would the Russian president, at the peak of his popularity, with his regime awash in oil revenue and himself playing a strong hand in world politics, risk a breach with every Western nation by ordering the public murder of a man who was more of a nuisance than a threat to his regime?”

Simple: Because he could.

What is at issue here is not simply whether or not Putin or other Russian high-ups have been attacking dissidents, both internally and externally, but why they can. And I have a single word answer for it.

Oil.

The second-nastiest three-letter word in the political vernacular (just behind “god”) is the reason the high-ups in Russia can poison and murder people and get away with it.

No, they didn’t do it for oil, but they did it with the power of oil. And other oil-rich nations are beginning to realize that they hold more than an underground supply of money. They have the bargaining chip for a post-Cold War era. The biggest danger is no longer a hydrogen bomb, but a barrel. “Crude” weapons are the biggest threat to the world as we know it.

Look at Iran: they sit on one of the largest supplies of oil on the planet. Their government is pursuing what it calls a “peaceful” nuclear program, yet we hear Fuehrer Ahmadinejad regularly call for the destruction of Israel. However, when the world asks Tehran to be transparent with their activities, the world is given an oil-drenched middle finger.

We can’t attack Iran with our currently stretched forces babysitting a civil war in Iraq, nor will some major European powers, as they are trade partners with Iran.

We can’t even get the UN to impose heavy sanctions on Tehran, as veto power-holding countries have deep ties. China is a major importer of Iranian oil and Russia has weapons deals with them.

And of course, if we were to attack Iran with another “coalition of the willing”, if Russia was mad enough about it, they could choke off supplies of oil and gas to much of Europe. Meanwhile China, facing a huge loss of oil needed for their growing nation and economy, decides to retaliate against the US economy by selling dollar-based assets and buying Euro-based ones. This would create higher inflation for the US, and ruin our economy, forcing an end to the war. Admittedly this is an extreme example, but it shows the power of oil in this day and age.

So leading back to Vlad the Irradiator, oil is the reason he can murder dissidents and get away with it; even if he himself had poisoned the spy, here are the options of world leaders:

1. Say “Bad Vladimir! Stop that! That’s a bad Vladimir!”
2. Stop purchasing Russian oil.
3. Act like everything is normal.
4. Find sources of renewable energy and share them with allies.

So far no country has picked the “A+” answer of 4, nor have they picked the other moral option of 2. Generally 1 and 3 are the norm.
But if we really want to ace this test, stop Iran, avenge the murders of people willing to speak out, we need to bubble in number 4.

Class, you have 1 minute left in the exam.

-Alexander Scott-

First of all, let me start with the following:

Suck it Rush Limbaugh

Suck it Sean Hannity

Suck it Karl Rove

Suck it Reverend Falwell

And now: YEAH! DEMOCRAT SWEEP! CHANGE IN CONGRESS BABY!

Alright, now that that’s out of my system, let’s get down to business.

In a way, I am happy I waited a day to write this. Yes, I did gloat and attack the talking heads, but after 5 years of being told to fear for my life and that dissent is tantamount to treason, I think I deserve that.

But that’s about all. I have a liberal bend, but as I said in my original post, I won’t tolerate stupidity in any party. Just because the Democrats are back in power does not give them to the right to act as arrogantly and derogatorily as the Republicans have in the past few years. In fact, this is a time when we need to work harder than ever before on bipartisanship.

If the Democrats want to hold onto their majority, they will have to reach out to the GOP on many issues. To tell the truth, part of me hoped the Democrats would lose; I felt that with only a marginal majority and the current partisan attitude of the nation nothing would get done, just as in the last session. Strategy-wise, it looked like it could be a hollow victory, where they would hold power for two years, get nothing done, and then get routed in 2008, creating another Republican majority in Congress and possibly the White House.

But now I’m not so sure. Though yesterday’s election was certainly a referendum on the Iraq war, I think it was also a referendum on the state of politics. Not even in 2004 were the political ads and accusations as slimy as they were this year. It felt like a holy war among the candidates.

Admittedly I have used my share of vitriol, but I think the average voter went to the polls tired of angry rhetoric with no results. This election was a mortal wound to unapologetic unilateralism, both politically and strategically.

That having been said, there are a few things that need to happen.

First, no more using the “fear card”. Democrats have already put down their political handgun in assuring the President there won’t be impeachment hearings. Not only does it completely back the president into a corner, but it won’t work and will be an utter waste of time. President Bush, however, and other Republicans need to stop claiming the Democrats are going to let terrorists run around blowing people up.

Also, the president’s remark about the election yesterday, “I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security,” needs to be the last one of its ilk. This sort of political terrorism–the use of fear–blew itself up on Tuesday and every politician who uses it. Hopefully it’s now burning in the 7th layer of political Hell, next to the Dixiecrat party.

Next, there needs to be an overhaul in certain bills passed in the past one-party-dominated government.

1. If young adults are to get the college education they need to compete in this economy, student loan interest rates need to go down.
2. We need to have decent immigration reform, and the Democrats should embrace the president’s plan. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than what either side has come up with.
3. The tax cuts need to be rescinded, at least on the upper levels of taxpayers; we have a massive deficit and two monstrously expensive wars being waged. A tax hike is inevitable considering our deficit; we need to pay harder and sooner to avoid even higher payments due to interest.

On the note of the wars, there is a desperate need for change. First, we need to send more troops to Afghanistan to quell the resurgence of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not nearly as divided as Iraq and needs just a bit more security to maintain stability. Additionally, listen to these stories of progress from the “liberal, no good news ever reported” media source, NPR. There is strife, but there is still a great chance to create a functional country.

However, things are much different in Iraq. With anywhere between 150,000 and 600,000 Iraqis killed in sectarian violence, almost 3000 US soldiers dead, and a government that allows militias to become death squads, a massive policy change is in order. Either the president requests a huge number of troops to stop this civil war, or we need to set a firm timetable to leave. As Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said, “I am not America’s man in Iraq.”

No, he is Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army’s man, and if we’re protecting a government that allows its allies and members to murder our troops, there is something seriously wrong with American policy. If his thanks for our bringing democracy to Iraq is letting our troops get gunned down and blown up, I say we got the shaft on the deal and need to leave the party.

A timetable will tell the government that if they don’t get their asses in gear, heads will roll… more than they do now. We’re holding our hand on the hole of a sinking ship while the passengers party; we can’t hold it forever, and if they’re not going to help, we shouldn’t drown in futility.

A good start in really rethinking policy was the “resignation” of Don Rumsfeld, as was the choice of the former President Bush’s CIA Director. It is also heartening to have heard the president reference James Baker’s Iraq Study Group several times. As my father told me today, the president finally got spanked (or thumped) into realizing that his, and likely his family’s, legacy is at stake. The president only has two more years to salvage his presidency.

Hopefully the president will take that advice and become a born-again moderate. Though it seems unlikely given that the president is a man who has lived his political life with a rubber-stamp congress, he could surprise us.

Likewise, the Democrats need to encourage that to survive more than two years. There is a need for governmental inquiries on pre-war intelligence, but they need to be civil and constructive, not vengeful. Additionally, the Democrats don’t have the political capitol or sheer numbers to push their entire agenda unadulterated on the American people. No political party has that right now, and this election proved it.

We are at a point where bipartisanship will be essential. This is a return to a two-party system. Now let’s keep it that way.

-Alexander Scott-

And I couldn’t be much happier. As the afternoon progresses and I hear more from the cheerlosers of the party, then I’ll write my feelings. Until then, read some of my past entries and enjoy the day.

-Alexander Scott-

I dare someone to say this man is unpatriotic.

-Alexander Scott-