[OFB Cafe] Who's Still on Here?

[Timothy Butler]

I'll jump in the mix again. I'm like a moth to the flame on these  
discussions. "Thus hath the candle sing'd the moth."


> Here is some logic for you:
>
> * Domestic spying = for years it has been and always should be
> ILLEGAL, and rightfully so - it invades the privacy of innocent people
> without just cause. If someone wants to invade my privacy, they better
> have a damned good reason to do so. What I say to my wife and daughter
> on the phone is nobody's business but my own.

	Agreed. However, neither Democrats nor Republicans have shown  
initiative in fixing this and both parties voted for it. I have been  
on the record opposing the USA PATRIOT Act for years, of course, that  
doesn't accomplish anything.

> * Uncontrolled military spending = NOT CONSERVATIVE, it wastes
> taxpayer money. The military should only be as big as it has to be to
> keep the defensively country safe. In war, the best offense is a good
> defense, as in "You send your nukes; I'll send mine.", or maybe "each
> flight will have an armed air marshall that will blow the face off of
> anyone who tries to hijack it". That might have saved a few lives on
> 9/11/2001, since the hijackers would have been bringing box cutters to
> a gun fight.

	Mostly agreed. I'm not one for cutting the military down too much,  
but I'm not a fan of nation building. I supported Bush in 2000 in part  
on the principle that he would not do nation building projects like  
the previous administration had. I will note, though, the emphasis  
like the previous administration had. Neither party is innocent. We  
need a third party.

> * Random senseless wars = EVIL, because IT KILLS INNOCENT PEOPLE! (But
> maybe that is the point? "Kill em all, let God sort them out" seems to
> be our current strategery in the Middle East.)

	As I've said before, it makes little sense to argue over whether  
going into Iraq was right or not. I do think it is somewhat  
disingenuous to argue from hindsight too strongly, since the vast  
majority of politicos on both sides felt that Iraq was a real threat  
and it was the official policy of the U.S. under the Clinton  
administration to remove Hussein from office.

	Economists talk of "sunk cost." That is, you realize you could have  
chosen to run Linux and saved a bunch of money, but you bought five  
Windows systems and now have a personal IT guy for each to keep them  
running. Now, you could say, "I've spent all this money, and I could  
have saved a ton, but since I didn't, I'm going to gnash my teeth  
about that and fret about how my initial decision could have been  
better." But that doesn't do any good. The money is gone. It is sunk  
cost. But, the future is not set in stone. The real question now --  
the only one that does any good to argue about -- is what will lead to  
the best possible outcome *now* that we have a new administration  
coming into power. McCain's plan is to attempt to honor the "Pottery  
Barn Rule" and invest the resources to fix what we have broken.  
Obama's plan is to run out of the store with the vase on the ground.  
The only problem is that the vases around that fallen vase are still  
shaking from the bump that knocked the broken one down, and leaving  
without first stabilizing the shelf threatens to leave even more  
shards on the ground. Obama knows this too; that's why his language is  
becoming softer and I expect that he will not be nearly as quick  
removing the troops as he promised to his primary season audience.

	I'd rather we stay over there -- responsibly with more work to  
eliminate torture and a focus on improving conditions (ala McCain's  
plan) -- than for us to have need of sending a bigger army over there  
in two or three years when the whole region falls into chaos as Iran  
establishes control over Iraq, Israel's trigger finger itches in  
response and some of the more stable states like Qatar and Jordan fall  
into the fray.

> * Unchecked government growth = NOT CONSERVATIVE, it wastes taxpayer
> money.

	Absolutely agreed. McCain's plan would check that growth. Obama is  
proposing some of the largest entitlement expansions ever dreamed up.  
Your point?

> Yet this is what the "conservative" Republicans have done for the last
> 8 years.

	They haven't been conservative, of course. McCain is more  
conservative than Bush. Huckabee would have been better than both.  
Paul would have been best, had he not been somehow tied in with racist  
and anti-semitic trash published under his editorial watch in his own  
paper.

	Personally, I'm tired of political dishonesty. I'm tired of  
grandstanding on ideas that cannot work or will make things worse than  
they are. I'm tired of wiggling around promises to one's political  
benefit. Despite my own disagreements with McCain on immigration  
reform, campaign finance reform, environmental policy, some parts of  
Iraq policy and various other issues, one thing I can hang my hat on  
is that he gives the straight talk he promises. And, I'd rather  
someone be mostly agreeable and completely honest than totally  
agreeable and not so honest.

	-Tim

---
Timothy R. Butler | "He that has and a little tiny wit—
Editor, OFB.biz   | With hey, ho, the wind and the rain,—
tbutler at ofb.biz   | Must make content with his fortunes fit,
timothybutler.us  | For the rain it raineth every day."
                                   -- Feste the Fool (Shakespeare)