McCain Intellectually bereft?

While I'm not certain that either of these articles captures McCain, I am certain that I don't want another "ignoramous", non-intellectual running our country:

• Cafferty on McCain
• Butler on McCain

While I could, perhaps, write off Cafferty's article as over-the-top, Butler's lack of faith in someone he spent time with (both at Annapolis and as a POW) I can't dismiss.

I'll certainly be studying McCain's studiousness over the coming months, as I can't condone someone dumber than myself running this country.

Iran: Ramping up for War?

Recently BushandCo have upped funding for covert operations in and around Iran to $400m. For the sake of my children's children, I hope outright war with Iran doesn't happen.

Also, though Ron Paul takes a very clear stance on these sorts of foreign relations issues, neither McCain nor Obama have been as forthcoming, though I suspect McCain to be closer to the Bush philosophy. Personally, I prefer the Teddy Roosevelt approach to foreign relations... from the West African proverb, "speak softly, but carry a big stick". To me, this means that wars (conflicts, police actions, whatever you want to call them) should only be used when all other options have been exhausted. Starting another "preemptive war" flies in the face of this philosophy....and common sense!

Terrorism, the Executive Power Grab, and the Politics of Fear

While I think that terrorism, and terrorists are certainly a concern, I viewed the events of 9/11 as inevitable, both because of our policies of supporting oppressive regimes around the world, and because we'd (quite frankly) been quite lucky up to the tragic events of 9/11. While 9/11 demonstrates, perhaps, the pinnacle of what terrorists can do, I don't feel that it merited the life-changing reaction that the Bush administration advocated and has (largely) brought about. Declaring war on terror has only served to strengthen, not weaken the terrorists.

My belief is that the Bush Administration's real goal has been to increase (or "restore", in their words) power to the executive branch of government. 9/11 merely provided an ideal opportunity to use fear as a catalyst for their ambitions. Fear is a powerful ally, but it is generally short-lived, especially in democracies. Though the Bush Administration has inflicted as much damage as they could, their window of opportunity is closing. The politics of fear, I hope, is coming to an end.

Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I view the Bush Administration as the worst in the history of the United States. They have grown and centralized (federalized) big government, while attacking fundamental rights. I feel that my children will be paying for their mistakes throughout their lives.

I will vote for the candidate that I feel can start the process of undoing the damage that BushandCo have done.

2 candidates

We've already reached the point where the media is reporting on only two candidates. If reliable, independent news sources such as NPR automatically default to covering only the two party nominees, what hope does a third party candidate have to get any traction or coverage for their ideas?

What's more, it appears that the coverage is more and more about the campaigns themselves and how they are polling, how much money they are raising etc. What about covering the candidates actual positions, views, and beliefs?

It seems as though our media outlets (even NPR!!!) are turning election coverage into a reality TV show. We might as well go all the way and start texting in our votes. Probably more reliable than the damn Diebold machines anyway.

Newt weighs in on gas prices.

Though I don't agree with all he has to say, I'd certainly welcome releasing more of the petro reserves and the push (more and larger government subsidies) for alternate fuels.