Dews Super Tuesday thoughts...

Wow, what a strange and interesting turn of events last night was huh?

On the one hand, you have an increasingly obvious candidate in McCain on the GOP side that can't seem to win the GOP states, but on the other you have Clinton and Obama dicing up the electorate (with Clinton still holding a lead despite what the Media seems to be telling us in some not-to-subtle ways).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Clinton (Hillary anyway), but does anyone else find it just a bit suspicious that despite her victories last night all you could hear was how much more traction Obama "seemed" to be getting and how much better his chances are going forward then Clinton's because of this "momentum" he apparently got?

On the Democratic side, it certainly seems like the Media has already anointed Obama the Democratic candidate regardless of the reality of the situation, but by all means feel free to chime in and point me where I should be looking to think otherwise.

On the GOP side, I gotta say I don't think McCain is nearly as strong a candidate as people are making him out to be. He is supposed to be the "staunch independant" mind running for the nomination, but he has a long list of enemies he's accrued over the years that have done their damnedest to rally conservative America away from his campaign.

That being said, doesn't McCain have to pick Huckabee now as his running mate? Is there any other way for him to win the states that the GOP has no business losing (ie, the south and midwest)? There is no way Romney would get the nod, being the only person hated more by the GOP establishment (and being richer then God of course), so I'd have to believe that Huckabee is the only way McCain can solidify the base at this point. Question is, would Huckabee take such a job? He certainly has the opportunity to be the voice of Conservative America after this election, whether as a Radio host, or maybe even a third party candidate (viable one at that I might add), so why hitch a wagon to a guy that doesn't share your views?

Really shaping up to be a fascinating finish though for us political geeks... Looking forward to the continued media spin on Hillary and whether it does finally give Obama that edge he needs to finish strong.

That is all...

Iraq and Stuff, a Dews Rebuttal :)

(I did a google search for "Iraq" for images, and this came up, so what the hell, I figured I'd use it :) )

The best part about having this site (besides having an outlet to vent my crazy ideas that is), is this wealth of information and opinion that we are trying to foster that sometimes we don't all agree with.

Sometimes I think the best part about having opinions is being able to compare and contrast your way of thinking to others to form new ones, or perhaps (at the very least) force a long hard look at your own when someone feels so differently then you.

That being said, Shane, SayHey and I all share fairly similar views on Bush's mistakes, but on Iraq I think I divert a little bit from their thinking. This is a good thing though as a whole bunch of people agreeing on issues makes for a very boring blog :).

That being said, here I go...

The reasoning for invading Iraq has never truly been explained to my liking. Any generic "we need to control the area for regional security" argument to me, is fatally flawed for many reasons.

Saddam ran a damn tight ship. He had his issues with the Kurds and to some extent with Iran (I'm talking recently, we are all familiar with the Iran-Iraq "war" that basically mimicked the brutal trench warfare of WWI). He was the most stabilizing force in the region by far. The Saudis couldn't/can't control their own Wahhabi class of fundamentalists in their own welfare state, Syria is constantly marred by internal crackdowns by military leaders paranoid to all hell that they'll be the next one overthrown by their own troops, Jordan is a cute little "nothing" in the global spectrum (with a very gifted royal family though), and Iran that can probably very accurately be described as Bi-Polar when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm not defending anything Saddam did, because previous administrations in our country have done that for me already, but the argument that he destabilized the region doesn't hold weight to me.

The best argument I have heard actually comes from a few people, but most recently from a Mr. Alan Greenspan (you may have heard of him). He argued (and then very quickly backtracked for political reasons) that the reasoning for controlling the area is strictly economical when you factor in the "possible" oil reserves or futures in the area.

This is not a "blood for oil" argument for me. Before you start thinking that I'm some pinko World Bank protester (I do hate them too though, but also different reasons), I would have been totally on board with this war had it been explained to me the way Greenspan and some others have described it.

Lets face it. We rely on a fuel that has a finite amount of it available in the world. We ARE eventually going to run out of it, but the lead up to that point is going to be very VERY painful for us, and the world. If we as a nation do not do everything in our power to capture, obtain, steal, whatever, every source we think we know of, then someone else will. In this case in particular we have a very large, very powerful regional power named China very willing and able to move in at some point and claim those reserves for themselves.

If the administration came forward today and told me that they invaded Iraq purely to control the oil interests and thus America's economic interests in the future, I would stand behind them 100%. Its not ever easy sending people to die for what we feel are reasons unknown, but if these brave men and women died protecting the long term interests of our nation, doesn't that make their sacrifices far more valuable?

At the very least, their deaths are attributed to something more tangible then fighting a perceived ideal in the case of Vietnam and Korea (not to take ANYTHING away from those brave souls that fought and died in both of those horrible conflicts).

I don't honestly know if the Administration views this Iraq war the way I would like to. Part of me doesn't believe they can, but that is the cynical part that refuses to believe these cronies are capable of logical planning or thought.

I have a few thoughts on Iraq itself, but that will have to wait for another post, I've ranted enough as it is :).

PS: I think a drinking game could be invented based on how many times I write "That being said", "Honestly", "At the very least", or the use of the ( ) for side thoughts.

New Orleans is Toast....

It really pains me to say this, since I had planned (at one point anyway) t0 get married in this wonderful city, but despite Angel Readings and Numerology readings to me and my former fiancee(sp?), there isn't much left to save this city...

I think its great that a buncha white folk wanna take over the city with cheap condos and all, but they'll drown just as quickly as the rats and funny smelling shit that seem to line the streets these days, so what does that prove?

Its just sad to see the crescent city be so close to destruction every year like this....

I would encourage all to go see New Orleans before it is finally destroyed... Mostly Frenchman ST, as thats where the Marsalis family still plays....

Truly, God's country....