Obama's Afghanistan speech

President Obama gave a good speech tonight, and I think his plan is about as good as we can do with a bad situation, yet it remains to be seen if we will pull out in 18 months. Afghanistan will return to business as usual after we leave, but we can't do any more there than what we've done. Afghanistan will have the opportunity to take over its country and change it if that's what it desires, but we must resist being lured into staying for years.

Hopefully we can learn from this war and do as Obama suggested -- learn to prevent conflicts. I understand we were drawn into Afghanistan as a result of 9/11, but if we are attacked again, I prefer the nimble and effective response in the future. This war has not been nimble and effective, but that is no fault of our military -- it's the fault of military leaders who need to accept we are up against a new threat, and our responses must be much smarter. Being lured into long engagements with invisible enemies will only waste resources and lives. We have to find a better way.

Devil in the healthcare reform details

This is from a Heritage article:

The Health Commissioner: Under the House bill, a new health commissioner would have the authority to conduct audits and assess penalties on both commercial insurers and employer-sponsors of plans that fail to comply with the new federal requirements. So any employer offering health insurance can expect to be harassed and even fined by federal bureaucrats seeking to determine if it is in compliance with federal rules micromanaging the operations of its plan.

What many people aren't considering is the power this gives government to squeeze business for money that will be needed as pressure is put on politicians to do something about healthcare costs. Most sane people know that this bill is going to be expensive, and there will be attempts to tax and fine businesses as much as possible to offset the costs.

This will be costly for small businesses at a time when they can't afford more costs and hassles. I have a feeling many small businesses will simply pay the fine for no coverage -- and I'm not sure government doesn't have the abilility to increase this fine if they need more money. If unemployment gets higher and stays high, many politicians will wish they had never voted for a healthcare reform bill like the ones being offered, if it does pass, which it likely will. Even without the public option, all the regulations are what's going to be nightmarish.

I can't believe anyone is seriously considering this intrusion and interference for government at a time when we need to unleash the free market and return to work. It's economic suicide -- it might be political suicide for many office holders..

Time for a new Afghanistan/Iraq plan

I don't know what Obama will say to tonight, but it appears he will be juggling the apparently centrist position of sending more troops to end the war. It will be interesting to see how he sells this. Usually with escalation, it means the timeframe for leaving is pushed back. This move could entrench our involvement to the point of being bogged down even deeper.

The Afghanistan people will know that we're planning on leaving soon, so they will have no motivation to change. I can uderstand (although I'm opposed to it) the 30,000 troops if we're planning on staying for years and years, but if the message is mixed, the 30,000 troops will be ineffective.

I have a feeling our enemies will try to stretch this out as long as possible as a way to further drain our economy. I just don't see the people in this region cooperating and becoming self-reliant. One thing I hope Obama does tonight is clarify our goals. The American people are strained right now, and they're losing trust in administration's ability to deal with this war.

Of course, Obama will likely present the mess as one caused by Bush and Cheney, but that's not going to play. At some point the people in charge are going to have make some big decsions about how we deal with the mess, no matter who caused it. Then there's the situation in Iraq, which seems stable, but what are we going to do there? When will we leave? When we leave, will the country go back under the control of an unfriendly dictator? Iran?

There's not enough transparency for the American people to know what to think. These situations seem endless right now. I don't have the answers, but I'm not sure anyone does. At some point, it appears the only thing we can do is pull out, bring the troops home and gaurd against another attack. I don't think these regions will ever be on our side, and we're not going to destroy all terrorists.

It would be one thing if we had broad international support, but we're out there virtually alone. Why are we still carrying this burden? I still maintain that we need to close all military bases and force these countries to defend themselves. We can't be the world's police anymore, nor should we be. 

Don't be so cruel -- we're all statists now

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/11/conservatism-and-society/

Over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, E.D. Kain argues --

As an advocate of limited government and individual liberties I find it especially interesting when the anti-statists show up with their die-hard anti-statist arguments, attributing all the world’s maladies to the growth of the state.  Now, you won’t find an argument from me when it comes to the problems of centralization.  D.C. has become far too central to our politics.  New York has become far too central to our finance, and Los Angeles far too central to our culture.  I say bring back the local as much as possible – culturally, economically, and politically.  But it’s hardly the answer to all of our problems as so many profess it to be.  (Again, simple explanations to complicated problems….)

Where are these anti-statists who attribute all the world's maladies to the growth of the state? The answer -- there are none -- at least none that I've read, and, believe me, I've read all the great anti-statists. Anti-statists are my heroes, starting with Lao-tzu --

"The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be. The more laws are promulgated, the more thieves and bandits there will be." -- Lao-tzu, The Tao Te Ching

-- but, I've never heard any of them claim that all the world's maladies are caused by the growth of the state. Many times it's the maladies in society which cause the growth of the state, but the growth of state power is bad nonetheless. Sometimes people are envious of those who are successful and demand that the state bring them down to size, and the state gladly obliges. Envy is a human malady and creates much damage. The 16th Amendment was based on a populist envy of Northeastern financiers, and look at the damage done by that amendment!

Sometimes the societal malady is a craving for security when there are perceived external threats, so people turn to the State, swapping freedom for security. Sometimes the societal malady is religious in nature and people ask the State to create laws favoring a certain religion's moral code.

Sometimes people get the idea that technocrats could plan a better society, and could stop the uncertainties of capitalism, so they urge the State to regulate businesses and manage the economy -- this malady is called socialistic insanity, or, practically, corporatism. the State is always helpful when it comes to dealing with people's maladies and answering their needs.

Sometimes the people want control over others so they can destroy them and control all of a country's resources and culture -- it can be based on religious differences, class differences, racial differences, tribal differences, etc, -- so they select a dictator, or, more likely, have one foisted on them, who is ruthless and murderous enough to get the job done -- in these circumstances it's important to be in the right group, the one favorable to the dictator, preferably.

Sometimes there is no state to speak of and the people starve or die of disease. This is the cruelest of maladies.

So, no, it's not always the State which is at fault, because many times the State is simply responding to the will of the people, and sometimes the State doesn't exist, but, it seems that the growth of the State control and power never ends well. But ,then, the world doesn't have maladies, individuals do. Complicated problems, indeed.

Political parties you might not know about

Donna Mitchell emailed me with this and suggested I post it. I didn't know there were this many parties. Here's the link to the site -- http://paralegalschoolsonline.org/21-american-political-parties-that-arent-democrats-or-republicans/

21 American Political Parties that aren’t Democrats or Republicans

It is easy to see why so many Americans believe that the United States only plays host to a two-party system during elections. Because of their financial advantages, the Democratic and Republican parties can afford enough advertising and media prominence to discuss their platforms and ideology. However, the American peoples have many more choices open to them than the two political leviathans. In the 2008 presidential election, twelve other candidates vied for the position in addition to eventual winner, Democrat Barack Obama, and his Republican rival John McCain – one recognized as an independent in all states but two, the others affiliated with smaller parties. For some Americans, the platforms of neither the Democrats nor Republicans line up with their beliefs. However, due to the level of exposure granted to the two wealthier parties many do not realize that options that may possibly serve as a better fit for their political leanings exist.

While not all parties can afford to run presidential candidates every four years, many must voice their opinions in state and local elections with the hopes of eventually influencing voters on a national scale through determination and fundraising. The first twelve parties listed gathered enough resources to run in the 2008 presidential elections, while the rest remain active on a state or local level while still answering to a national headquarters. However, not every candidate was allowed on ballots or the approved write-in candidate list in every state. No matter their place on the spectrum, they offer Americans more choices to find candidates whose platforms parallel their own political perceptions instead of feeling forced to vote for one of two options that may not necessarily offer what they want.

1. American Party : Originally the American Independent Party before a recent schism, the American Party ran attorney and real estate broker Diane Beall Templin as its 2008 presidential candidate. It seeks to promote religion (Christianity) as the foundation of American society and believes the government should disassociate itself with any international organization such as the United Nations. Domestically, it supports the death penalty and the pro-life movement and does not believe in any form of gun control.

2. American Independent Party : The American Independent Party ran former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes on a platform that touted religion (specifically, Christianity) and government as institutions that must merge together rather than operate on separate spheres of influence. Most of the party’s stances reflect this mindset, opposing abortion, gay rights as well as marriage, stem cell research, and affirmative action. Keyes also vehemently supports the Second Amendment, prayer in school, and more funding for both NASA and the military.

3. Boston Tea Party : A direct offshoot of the Libertarian Party, the Boston Tea Party ran boxing manager Charles Jay in the 2008 presidential elections. It espouses the exact same stance as the Libertarians, with emphasis on total personal and economic autonomy with minimal government intervention. The only real difference between the two parties is the level of force each is willing to assert, with the Boston Tea Party standing as the more aggressive.

4. Constitution Party : In the 2008 presidential elections, the Constitution Party ran pastor and radio show host Charles “Chuck” Baldwin as its candidate. As the original organization from which the American Independent Party sprang, it holds a similar stance regarding the intersections between government and religion – again, Christianity specifically. Baldwin frequently likens abortion to the Holocaust, supports the gold standard, and opposes the corporate welfare of multinational corporations. When it comes to education, he believes that home, private, and religious schooling ought to be subjected to the same tax breaks as public.

5. Green Party : Green Party members have held several positions at the state level, including Maine, California, and Arkansas. They ran former Democratic representative from Georgia Cynthia McKinney during the 2008 presidential elections. One of the most visible “third parties” in the United States, along with the Libertarians, the Green Party is most vocal about environmental sustainability, personal responsibility, community economics, and equality measures for women, ethnic minorities, and the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual) community. It also protests war as a diplomatic measure and supports American-subsidized food and medical aid in Africa.

6. Libertarian Party : The Libertarian Party ran former Republican representative from Georgia Robert “Bob” Barr as its 2008 presidential candidate, supporting him on a platform of complete personal and economic freedom with minimal government interference. The Libertarian party opposes the Patriot Act and the Real ID act and believes that the military ought to be available for national defense and national defense alone. It is pro-choice and believes in open borders, the legalization of medical marijuana and prostitution, the absence of economic restrictions, and full Second Amendment Rights. Though Barr himself helped pen the Defense of Marriage Act, the Libertarian Party often criticizes the marginalization of the GLBT community in the United States.

7. New American Independent Party : CFO of Our Castle Homes Frank McEnulty ran as the first presidential candidate for the New American Independent Party in 2008. This relatively new organization blends viewpoints from the two major political parties with the needs and voice of the middle class as its main focal point. In some cases, the seek compromises and middle grounds as a means of making sure every point of view gets something to satiate their needs and beliefs. For example, it supports prayer in school provided all faiths are represented and the activities do not infringe upon the well-being of atheist or agnostic students. The New American Independent party also believes in gay marriage and the abolition of affirmative action, with the mindset that all people must be judged based on character and skill as opposed to involuntary factors such as race or gender.

8. Objectivist Party : Inspired by Ayn Rand’s philosophies, this party ran party founder Tom Stevens as its 2008 presidential candidate as a means of promoting her views. Rand herself objected to the use of her ideology as a political party, preferring libertarianism and laissez-faire economics as the better representation of her beliefs. Objectivism projects the existence of an absolute good and absolute evil with very little middle ground. Adherents to this philosophy believe that the pursuit of happiness stands as the true meaning of life, and only a political system espousing pure freedom allows for it.

9.  Party for Socialism and Liberation : Pulling their inspiration from Karl Marx and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the Party for Socialism and Liberation ran frequent candidate Gloria La Riva in the 2008 presidential elections. With the intent of standing as a worker’s party in the United States, it advocates staunch economic restrictions to ensure equal financial distribution and opportunities. It is also very active in the international community, with support of Cuba, the Chinese Revolution, the Bolivian Revolution, and a wide variety of Arab and Muslim organizations. The PLS adheres to a strict anti-war stance as well, believing that the abolition of capitalism and free trade will result in the cessation of violence, poverty, racism, and marginalization.

10. Prohibition Party : After the Democrats and Republicans, the Prohibition Party is the longest continuously active political party in the United States. Minister and artist Gene Amondson ran as their presidential candidate in 2008, running on a platform that places heavy restrictions – if not the outright abolition of – of alcohol, tobacco, gambling, prostitution, drugs, and pornography. They believe that the government acts as the overarching arbiter of morality, and with strict regulations against perceived vices the only solution to creating a just and pious society. The Prohibition Party was once instrumental in making the production, import, and sale of alcohol illegal in the United States from 1919 through 1933.

11. Reform Party of the United States of America : One of the most curious aspects of the Reform Party of the United States is its complete lack of a social platform. Having run such vastly different high-profile candidates such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader – with Ted Weill as its 2008 presidential nominee – the party devotes itself solely to the reorganization of political campaigns. Contenders are free to forge their own social platform, as the main concerns of the Reform Party revolve around campaign finance reforms, term limits in Congress, and the dismantling of the Electoral College. It seeks to prevent career politicians from becoming increasingly more beholden to donors and lobbyists as well as placing the power of democracy directly into the hands of voters.

12. Socialist Party of the United States of America : The Socialist Party of the United States of America stands as one direct offshoot from the original American socialist representation as founded by Norman Thomas and Eugene V. Debs. It ran Brian Moore as its 2008 presidential candidate, adhering to a platform of social justice and equality achieved by blasting away at subjugating socioeconomic boundaries. In addition, the party is anti-war, against the death penalty, supports school vouchers and full funding for arts and culture, and believes in a universal, single-payer healthcare system – all with the ultimate goal of abolishing sexism, racism, xenophobia, and homophobia in American culture.

13. America First Party : A fairly new “third party,” America First also believes that the United States must abolish its affiliation with international councils, and supports the mindset that the Iraq War is unconstitutional. It opposes all forms of gun control, abortion, affirmative action, and illegal or unlimited immigration. In addition, their economic policy states that income and sales taxes at the same time is unconstitutional and supports the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

14. Independence Party of America : With populist ideals at its core, the Independence Party of America supports a non-partisan approach to politics that takes the needs and opinions of all sides into consideration. It hopes to establish a think tank capable of forging compromises that reinforce good relations between vastly different perceptions. Because of this, it takes no explicit stance on specific issues, choosing instead to run candidates as mediators attempting to find solutions that please the majority of citizens without compromising the voice of the minority.

15. Moderate Party : Thus far, the Moderate Party has not run any candidates beyond Congress, and its main tenets of open democracy, personal responsibility, and peaceful security attempt to find a middle ground between conservatism and liberalism. For example, it advocates reproductive rights with the stipulation that women considering an abortion educate themselves on the process and understand the possible physical, emotional, and mental side effects. It supports the constitutional right to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment, but believes that measures need to be taken in order to ensure the safety of owners and their family and friends as well. Though not to the same degree as the Independence Party of America, the Moderate Party tries to dedicate itself to occupying a middle ground that pleases as many individuals as possible without infringing upon anyone’s rights.

16. Peace and Freedom Party : While Ralph Nader ran his 2008 presidential campaign as an independent, in California and Iowa he appeared on the ballot as the Peace and Freedom Party candidate. Aside from that, the party concerns itself mainly with elections in California. The party adheres itself to predominantly feminist and socialist ideologies, vocally supporting environmental causes and access to free healthcare and education without socioeconomic bias. In addition, the Peace and Freedom Party also interprets socialism from a democratic standpoint, believing that financial institutions and other government constructs such as the media ought to be owned by the people of the United States. Decisions as to how they run will be determined through direct voting by those the organizations effect.

17. Socialist Equality Party : An offshoot of an international party also present in the UK, Canada, Australia, Sri Lanka, and Canada, this socialist party adheres to Trotskyist interpretations of Marxism and Leninism. Its main purpose is to unite the working class and overthrow socioeconomic restrictions keeping individuals in a perpetual state of subjugation. Anti-war and anti-border control and anti-torture, they work for the abolition of social boundaries as a means of better promoting peace and full equality for American citizens – including the nationalization of banks and wealthy corporations to alleviate the plight of the poverty-stricken.

18. United States Marijuana Party : As its title may imply, the United States Marijuana Party dedicates itself to the legalization of cannabis for recreational, medicinal, and practical use in the production of hemp for rope and other applications. It does not vocally concern itself with many other issues outside of this very small platform, though for the most part it embraces a more libertarian ideology. In conjunction with the Libertarian Party, it ran activist Loretta Nall as a gubernatorial candidate in Alabama in 2006.

19. Unity Party of America : Proclaiming it wants America to move “not right, not left, but forward,” the Unity Party of America focuses mostly on economic issues from a moderate perspective. For example, it does support affirmative action, but only on the basis of socioeconomic bracket over race and gender. It also believes in tax reform to benefit the poor without trouncing on the opinions of the middle and upper classes as well.

20. Workers World Party : This international political party, with a chapter in the United States, espouses communist ideals of anti-fascism, anti-war, anti-imperialism, and civil rights for all races, genders, and sexual preferences. It blames capitalist principles for the degradation of the human person, and calls for an entire economic, educational, and social overhaul to achieve its goals of equality.

21.  Working Families Party : As can be easily assessed from the title, the Working Families Party tailors all of its core principles around the security of families, concerning itself with improving public schools and services, ensuring job availability, salaries commiserate with basic needs, and better health care. The party also supports the reduction of jail time for drug offenses in favor of allowing them to enter into rehabilitation and substance abuse treatment facilities.

Each of these political parties represents the interests and opinions of a number of Americans across the country. The Democrats and Republicans, while massive and undeniably influential, do not always speak for everyone. So-called “third parties” offer alternatives for those feeling disenfranchised by the two most visible political institutions. By getting involved in a party that aligns with their perspectives, Americans have an opportunity to help give voice to their ideals and stand up for what they believe in.