This just in: good news from Iraq

[Preechr]

Well, I have yet to vote for but one Republican, and his name wasn't Bush. That's not to say I prefer a pull-out guy like Badnarik (who?) over a fighting-God's-fight guy like Dubya... I vote third-party moreso than I vote for whomever the Libertarian Party dregs up to waste a few million on..

In that respect, I'm not even your average LP voter.

Back during the campaign, I was encouraging dissatisfied liberals to vote for the only significant candidate that had adopted an anti-war stance (hint: it wasn't the Democrats.) Not that I'm necessarily anti-war myself, but I am a bit of a self-appointed booster for the LP even if I've never officially joined.

My stance isn't really "isolationism, but..." as much as it is one that ultimately favors isolationism and acknowledges that the main problem with our foreign policy it's severe lack of isolationism. Can we adopt overnight an isolationist policy like the LP believes? Hell, no. That's idiocy. My ideal plan would be one that has isolationism as a goal, but honors all of the checks we've written since this time last century when we began to become entangled in messy relationships with foreign powers.

To be clear, I believe globalization is a permanent, postive force for the future of this world. Globalization is a commercial force, not a political one. When I speak of isolationism, I mean to take political power off the global market. Eliminate all trade barriers and all strategic trade alliances. You're a smart guy, and it's almost beer-thirty, so I'm not gonna fill up several paragraphs describing what commercial globalization is and what political isolationism is and how they differ and whatnot...

How can I reconcile preferring two goals that seem inseparable? Easy: It's possible as long as we live in a homogenously free world.

Let Bush and his (Democrat?) successor break the eggs that will make my omlette. Bringing Democracy to the MidEast is by no man's plan an easy task, and I'm willing to bet that no matter how well thought out such a plan might have been there would have been MAJOR issues with implementation. Let the bunglers bungle as long as we stay on the right path. Maybe it's bad to be so cavalier about mistakes involving the deaths of people, but it's not like my guy's in charge now, is it?

I feel no responsibility for the actions of Bush, just as I would have felt about the likely identical actions of a President Kerry. The swollen egos and shortsightedness of our leaders are to blame for the few thousand lives that could possibly have been spared in this fight so far, but at least they're fighting the fight that needs to be fought, IMHO.

BTW, Democrats grow a spine? The race between the two parties at this point is not about ideology and how closely one party sticks to theirs as compared to the other. JFK's dead, or haven't you heard?

These days, it's all about effectiveness of party management and staying on top of the political game. Both parties are racing to the place held so well by Blair's Tories in the UK system. We will have large and growing government with ever-expanding welfare programs tempered by reason and prudence no matter which party's in charge. Isn't that sounding a lot like Maxist Populism? I guess it's a win-win for Mr. Burbank no matter who's in charge, huh?

Personally, I believe all large human structures are destined to fail. That includes governments and "Great Societies." I like small and efficient, not huge and doomed. The best government is no more than we absolutely need. Again, though, this is not something we can have overnight. Consider the trauma caused by the sudden lack of expected titty in service addicted New Orleans.

See how tired I am of Iraq? I can't even write a whole ramble without going horribly off topic.

Let's talk about something interesting like Tax Reform...