An Entry Tom will Like.

I just read the news that the U.S. and Iraq are negotiating the long-term presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. Now, I just read this, and as such, I haven't heard the liberal democrats' reaction. But as a liberal democrat, I just want to give my reaction.
One would seemingly think I would be outraged at the thought of long-term troop presence in Iraq. Why let our kids (like I'm old enough to say 'our kids') continue to die?
Well, I am not. I am/was for withdrawing from Iraq because Iraq citizens overwhelmingly want[ed] us out. They see us as contributing to the violence. Now don't get me wrong, I think the invasion was a bad and unprincipled move to begin with--but the point is, we are there, pulling out won't reverse that mistake. But what I am saying is that now that we are there, and we have a moral interest in ensuring the freedom and sovereignty of Iraq, we ought to do what they want (within limits, of course). Now it seemed to me, at least until now, that they wanted us to leave. And they may still want that, I'm not really sure. But if Iraq is taking steps toward democracy (which is debatable), we should help the process along by respecting their sovereignty. And that is why I have/had always said 'let's get the hell out of there', because the citizens of Iraq want[ed] us out. With this new story of Iraq wanting us to stay and provide security, I am not so sure. The real question at this point is whether the Iraqi government is representing their citizens' desires and interests. And I don't know that answer to that question. But if they are, and I were to be convinced that they were, I would reverse my position on the occupation and advocate us staying there, as long as we were welcome.
Now to respond to my fellow liberal democrats objection: "What about the families of the troops that are dying? Isn't this reason enough to be against the occupation?"
I respond: No. Its not. As controversial as this may be, American lives are not more valuable than Iraqi lives. If staying in Iraq provided decent security to millions of Iraqis, it would be worth it, even if a few thousand more American soldiers died. They wouldn't be dying in vain. They would be dying 'for freedom'. Just because its freedom in a different country doesn't make it any less valuable. That would be ethnocentric to assert otherwise.
I assume Republicans would disagree with my claim about Iraqi lives being equally as valuable as American lives, but it doesn't matter. The point is that we would conceivably hold the same position on the war, but for different reasons.

So there you have it. And I'll be watching my boy John Edwards on this one--his reaction could make or break my support for him.

Health Care vs. Homeland Security

Alright--first, a note for those of you who don't want to read another political entry. I am thinking about learning Esperanto. I have decided to learn it on the condition that at least five other people will learn it with me, so it will actually have a tiny bit of practical worth. Let me know if you are interested.
on to the post!

Alright, if you will permit me to be a cold and calculated utilitarian for a minute, I would like to illustrate why, even if you give them all the benefit of the doubt, given $x amount of money, it would be smarter to put it towards Universal health care than homeland security. But, in keeping with my promise of giving them the benefit of the doubt, let's call it "Socialized Medicine", so they can have the rhetorical advantage as well.

Ok. So. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 Americans died from lack of health insurance in 2002. Now, I take the IOM as being a credible institute (it is non-partisan, and all of their studies are subject to blind peer-review by scientists).
But a conservative may be able to find some reason why this study was biased. So let's lower that number to 12,000. Cutting it by a third seems very generous to me.
Now, selecting the number of estimated Americans who actually died from not having health insurance is giving another benefit of the doubt to conservatives. Because the figures of who doesn't have insurance and why is controversial--illegal immigrants are sometimes included in the count, as well as people eligible for government programs who just don't sign up. But we will ignore the fact that besides flat out death, not having health insurance decreases quality of life as well.
(An interesting analysis of this can be found here.)
Ok, so let's take our next step of helping our conservative friends out. The conservatives may say, "Well, yes. We certainly can agree that there are a lot of uninsured people out there, and the solution is to be found in the private sector." Of course, I am not sure what this would mean. Giuliani is the GOP frontrunner, and he wants to do something with tax credits for the poor. That is not a private solution. In fact, that is is similar to democratic proposals, and as such, we are going to have to call it weak "socialized medicine". Though, his proposal is absolutely unclear, since 'Health Care' is not listed on his website anywhere.
But let's not let it end there. Conservatives don't like Giuliani; moderates do. So let's take a look at Mitt 'double Guantanamo' Romney. Romney's site has Health Care as an issue list, but fails to mention anything besides that health coverage should be provided through market-reform rather than government reform.
Its hard to see exactly what this would be, since he says nothing at all about it. However, I could hardly see it being something other than tax credits.
The problem is, even with tax credits younger adults can choose not to have health insurance, and then just claim bankruptcy if something goes wrong.
Ok though, let's not stop this benefit of the doubt stuff. Let's say these conservative reforms cause half of those deaths to go away.
We are down to 6,000 deaths in an average year caused by lack of insurance. And remember, this is assuming all possible ways the number could be lowered from its original number, 18,000.
Remember that number: 6,000 per year.

Terrorism is a worldwide problem. But in the United States, how many people die from terrorism in a given year? In 2001, 3,000 people died. Since then...none...in the United States at least. But maybe my memory is mistaken. Let's say 50 more die every year. And let's count citizens of the U.S. in foreign countries. About 1,000 contractors have died in Iraq since the war started. Let's just pretend they were all American. And let's say another 50 citizens die from random terrorist attacks across the globe each year. You know, those minor attacks...at hotels and what-not. I admit, I really have no idea about that number, but it seems about right. Hell, call me out on it if I'm wrong.
And, though its quite debatable, and I don't think this is a fair move because these deaths could have seemingly been prevented (not to mention, terrorism is a little rough here because 7 in 10 Iraqis approve of attacks on soldiers), let's include American soldiers in Iraq. As of my last count, about 3838 American soldiers have been killed in the War in Iraq. Let's round that up to 3900. Another 450 in Afghanistan makes 4350.
Ok, I think I've been generous enough. Let's add it all up.
4350 American soldiers
600 random traveling citizens
3000 Sept. 11.
1000 contractors in Iraq
equals
8950
divide that by 6 (years this total makes up)
1491 and 2/3. (average number of American deaths, per year, from terrorism, including American soldiers and contractors in Iraq.)

So, let's look at our raw data:
Being completely generous to our conservative friends:
6000 Americans die per year from lack of health insurance.
1491 and 2/3 die per year from terrorism.

Now am I saying defund homeland security? Of course not. Terrorism is a big deal. What I am saying is this: All Republican candidates (except Ron Paul, who has his own issues) are using fear to try and turn people's attention away from real issues. Terrorism is very frightening. Republicans want people to be so afraid of terrorism that they will vote for whoever will keep them safe from it. But if we look at the raw facts here, rationally, we should care more about a quality health care plan than doubling the size of the military. And on health care, I think it is pretty clear the Democrats win. (After all, if they didn't have the better positions, why would the Republicans downplay the issue so much?)

Anyone but Clinton Club

I thought it was popular right now to hate Hilary Clinton, but apparently that must be among Republicans only, because she is starting to dominate the Democratic presidential race. Shucks. Just when I'm starting to come around to Obama.
Why do I hate Hilary Clinton? Because she is a woman? No. At least not consciously. Maybe this could become a series of posts I could write about why I cannot stand her. But for today, I'd like to give three reasons why I think it is frightening that she is ahead of anyone in the 'horse race', and why it is clear it can only be because people either a) want to be part of the history of making a woman president, or b) Are not paying attention.
I can't blame people for b). After all, it is early. But when a poller calls you and asks if you are voting in the primary, and you should either say 'no', or say you are rooting for anyone other than Hilary Clinton (and, let's go ahead and say Joe Biden too, because he is in many ways just like Clinton, but as he is lower than Kucinich in the polls, isn't much of a threat).
So why do I dislike her so much? If I don't cite enough examples of the three things I cannot stand about her below, just watch the debates, and you'll see it.

1."Anyone but Bush" --The Democratic party rode off of this in 2004, and yet Hilary Clinton is still applauded over and over again for answering any tough question by saying something about how much the 'current administration' sucks. Yeah, Hil, we know that. Along with this reason goes her basic argument for why people should choose her over the other candidates. Let's see this argument and analyze it:
a. We (the Democratic candidates) are all the same.
b. I'm winning.
c. I am experienced.
Therefore,
d. 'I'm your gal'.
Premise a., plainly false. All Democrats vaguely agree, the war is bad, but each one has their own proposal as to what to do about it. All Democrats vaguely agree on health care, but each one has their own proposal about what to do about it. Everything else, Democrats disagree on, to varying degrees. And this is true among the three front runners as well, so its even false if the premise is weakened to 'The leading Democratic candidates are all the same.'
b. So what? Should I vote for whoever is winning, regardless of whether I agree with them or not? Well damn, then my whole concept of voting is fucked up. I'd better remember this come voting time, if a Republican candidate is winning, I have to vote for them.
c. True; however, you are not the most experienced. That would go to Richardson, Biden, and Dodd.
B and C aren't that mistaken, however, it is A as a premise that pisses me off so much.
2. The lobbyist thing.
Everyone should really watch this video if they plan on voting in the primaries. Edwards challenges Clinton to stop taking money from lobbyists, and she just flat out says 'no, lobbyists represent real people.' (Hilary Clinton was the pharmeceutical company lobby's biggest recipient in 2006).
Although, to be fair, Edwards' hedge fund campaign doesn't seem much better. But at least he promotes public finance of campaigns.
3. 'I stay away from hypotheticals.'
This is what Hilary Clinton says whenever she is asked a hard question, along with, 'well, at least I won't suck as much as the Bush Administration.' What does this even mean, "I stay away from hypotheticals" ? Does it really make people think she is mature or a better candidate because she refuses 'what if' questions?
It is just a way to avoid making any campaign commitments!
Besides, how can you really even run for president, or debate for president, if you really are oppose to answering hypotheticals?! Isn't pretty much every debate question framed in the hypothetical 'If you were elected President..."?
It is such a sleazy question dodge. I know that all candidates dodge questions, but this is somehow worse, because it makes her look 'mature' or 'experienced'.

Most people hate Hilary Clinton because she has changed her views on basically everything except health care. I agree. But I thought I would touch on some of the other things. Please vote for anyone but Hilary.

One final note: There is a new 527 I'd like to publicly support, called "Rock the Debates" (www.rockthedebates.org) and they are basically trying to get all Democratic and Republican candidates to commit to having a debate with ALL candidates with a mathematical chance to win the election.
I think its a pretty good cause for democracy, letting third parties call out the major parties in a debate. It won't happen, but why not try?

Primaries, Third Parties, my Support goes to....

Well, we are through two Democratic debates and anyone who gives a shit probably knows at least a bit about the major candidates. But before I give my list from my favorites to least favorites, let me explain why I have decided this is important. Let's face it, after 8 years of Bush, and a war with very low approval ratings, it is very likely a Democrat will become President next. Of course, this might just be because I live in Iowa City, because in 2004 I thought there was not much of a way Bush could win again. Nevertheless, national polls are against Republicans right now, and most experts think the Democrats will continue to sweep elections until this unpopular war ends.
And that is why the Democratic primaries are so important to me, and why I feel endorsing a Candidate is important early this time around.

Secondly, before I get to the ratings, I want to reiterate my sentiment from last year that in local races everyone should support third parties on principle. Green, libertarian, whatever--a duopoly is not a good system. It isn't democracy. I read a good article about that here.
(If that link is weird, just go to desmoinesregister.com and search 'green party'.

Anyway, I have done a little research on the third party candidates, and I'm not too impressed with any of them. So here is my ranking of the current democratic candidates, from best to last. (By the way, of the Republicans, I like Guiliani, but in all truth, the republicans look pathetic. They continue to rely on fear mongering.)

1. John Edwards - I love this man. Charismatic, universal mandatory health-care (with an actual plan to back it up). What makes him stand out? I have never seen such a serious candidate come out and tell the truth: Taxes need to be raised. WOW. Balls.
2. Denis Kucinich - I love Denis. He was my guy at first. Nothing like a hippie politician. He really believes what he says, but he is too much of a peacenik even for me. I love peace; but a Department of Peace? C'mon dude.
3. Joe Biden - "We need to rid of regime change as a foreign policy." Thank you Joe. Secondly, on Darfur "We can sit here all day and talk. That is all anyone ever does about Darfur. We need to send in peace keeping U.S. troops now. While we are sitting here talking, 50,000 more people are dying." (These are both paraphrases.)
4. Bill Richardson - Honestly, I can't really stand the guy. But he has a ton of experience and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize 4 times...very pragmatic, but a question dodger.
5. Mike Gravel - Ok, he is a loose canon. I don't want him to be President. But I want him to continue to be at the debates to call people out on their shit. He called out the senators, along with Kucinich, on not ending the war (yes it is in their power, comment on this if you want to dispute it). And he called Hilary out on her 'balanced budget'--it was balanced because of money taken from social security.
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Barack Obama - You know, I like how Obama speaks. But he is a Democrat who wants to add to the Pentagon budget. What is that?
8. Hilary Clinton - I don't like her, I think she is a politician's politician. In the last debate all she did was point out how alike the democrats were in an effort to make her views ok. And also shifted all blame to Bush. She is running on the 'anything but another Bush' ticket. (See John Kerry).

So, not surprisingly, the popular (and more moderate) candidates are at the bottom. But surprisingly, for me at least, my favorite presidential candidate actually does have a chance of winning for once. I don't think anyone I've ever voted for on the national level has ever won. I didn't even vote for Loebsack! So, maybe, if Edwards can push forward, I can actually back a winner. He is in third in the polls now, but a lot of people think he won the debate on Sunday. Thats a good sign.

Barack Obama - An Unimportant Issue

Ok, I don't know much about Barack Obama. To be honest, I think it is too early to do research for an election more than a year away. But a fellow liberal creampuff that I work with, Jim, pointed something out to me a few days ago. Everyone, on all sides, is calling him an African American. That is, a Black African American, since white people can come from Africa (see Dave Matthews). Now, for me, this is really a non-issue. Why should race come into play? But that is beside the point.
Race is a big issue to a lot of people, and sometimes maybe for good reason. I don't really know why, but I am sure there are good reasons, right? I don't know.
Anyway, that isn't the point. The point I want to make is that Barack Obama is only half black. His mother is white, and he grew up with her. Why is this important? Well, its not really--but isn't it strange about how much his race has been played up? It seems to me like if we follow through on our reasoning here the whole notion of races falls apart, which it probably should. Obama is 50% black, whatever 'black' means; but he is in the history books as being the 5th black senator in the United States. Now we don't want to call him white, even though he is 50% white, but we also don't want to just call him nothing, do we? Sure, we, as human beings don't want to. He is black to us, and that is that.
But isn't that a fucked up way of classifying everything too simply into categories? At risk of being offensive and making a crude analogy (God, I am sorry, I don't have this sensitivity thing down yet), isn't this somewhat like calling a bisexual person homosexual? They are just completely different. And as I have noted in my earlier post "Two Definitions of Racism", which no one was willing to touch with a 10 foot pole, I am not sure anyone even has a clear conception of what is means to be black. Is there a certain percentage of 'black' genes you have to have? And what the hell are 'black' genes? Maybe this is where the shift to "African American" comes from. But as I stated earlier, this conception is just as vague. Tons of 'white' people live in South Africa, and what would we call them if they moved to the United States and gained citizenship?
Or are we going for ancestral routes? In that case everyone is African-American. SO unless we are going to make "African American" mean something like "10 generations ago your family was living in Africa", African American collapses into 'black', and 'black' collapses into nothing.

Ok, wait, I got off track there for a second. So here is my point--unless someone can show me how these thoughts are way off, and make me look racist (its not easy for a white male to talk about race, believe me, its uncomfortable)--what I would like to see is the destruction of race talk. We are all human beings.


Side note: Is it stupid of me to talk about things like this on a blog? I mean, I guess they say future employers will Google me and maybe posts like this could get me in trouble? I'm not sure. So I guess at a later date I will delete this...no one quote me...anywhere...ever...about anything.