When we kicked Hezbollah out

Michael J Totten wants to know when we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.

In Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. “When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” [Emphasis added.]

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Is it the ego-factor that caused both Obama and McCain to pick such idiots to balance their tickets? I mean, wasn't there anyone more qualified than the gaffe-machine and the hockey mom? Country first anybody? Hope, change...anybody? Anybody???

Elitism in Politics

Call me crazy, but I am all in favor of having elitists run the political scene in our country. You know, guys like McCain, who have become quite spectacular at what they do, brimming with knowledge, depth of insight, and so forth. Electing someone for their colloquialisms on the other hand, seems foolish. Electing someone because they are "just like me" seems absurd.

Sam Harris writes, in Newsweek,

The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country....

...Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence.

What I found so appealing about the McCain campaign prior to the Palin pick was the experience of John McCain compared to the inexperience of Barack Obama. Now, however, a new element has entered my decision making, and that is the other qualities of Obama, especially the ones that distinguish him from Palin.

As Charles Krauthammer writes,

In the primary campaign, Obama was cool as in hip. Now Obama is cool as in collected. He has the discipline to let slow and steady carry him to victory. He has not at all distinguished himself in this economic crisis -- nor, one might add, in any other during his national career -- but detachment has served him well. He understands that this election, like the election of 1980, demands only one thing of the challenger: Make yourself acceptable. Once Ronald Reagan convinced America that he was not menacing, he won in a landslide. If Obama convinces the electorate that he is not too exotic or green or unprepared, he wins as well....

...He's been moderate in policy and temper ever since. His one goal: Pass the Reagan '80 threshold. Be acceptable, be cool, be reassuring.

Part of reassurance is intellectual. Like Palin, he's a rookie, but in his 19 months on the national stage he has achieved fluency in areas in which he has no experience. In the foreign policy debate with McCain, as in his July news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama held his own -- fluid, familiar and therefore plausibly presidential.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.

Looks like even Krauthammer sees an Obama victory, and isn't too worried about it. That's probably the most interesting turn of events I've seen in, well, days....

...on Palin...

I know I've lost the faith, since Palin's performance was pretty good last night and I still can't bear the thought of her as President.

Apparently neither can America at large.

Sarah Palin's debating style

You can read the transcript of the debate here.

FactCheck the debate

Biden and Palin debated, and both mangled some facts.

• Palin mistakenly claimed that troop levels in Iraq had returned to “pre-surge” levels. Levels are gradually coming down but current plans would have levels higher than pre-surge numbers through early next year, at least.

• Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.
  
  
• Palin repeated a false claim that Obama once voted in favor of higher taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 a year. He did not. The budget bill in question called for an increase only on singles making that amount, but a family of four would not have been affected unless they made at least $90,000 a year.

• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn't address taxes at that income level.

• Palin claimed McCain’s health care plan would be “budget neutral,” costing the government nothing. Independent budget experts estimate McCain's plan would cost tens of billions each year, though details are too fuzzy to allow for exact estimates.
  
  
• Biden wrongly claimed that McCain had said "he wouldn't even sit down" with the government of Spain. Actually, McCain didn't reject a meeting, but simply refused to commit himself one way or the other during an interview.
  

• Palin wrongly claimed that “millions of small businesses” would see tax increases under Obama’s tax proposals. At most, several hundred thousand business owners would see increases.
  

For full details on these misstatements, and on additional factual disputes and dubious claims, please read on to the Analysis section.

Debate reactions

I thought Palin did well, much better than expected. She was on her game, coherent--still without any real substance, but at least presenting her case well.

Biden seemed tired, fumbled more--probably a bit taken aback by Palin's strength.

Still....I doubt it will be enough to cinch up the campaign for the Republicans. It may re-rally the base, but I doubt it will do anything else...

McCain ad starring Prez. Clinton

Pirates

Somalian pirates are renowned for their hi-jacking of cargo vessels, often holding the crews and cargo hostage for exorbitant fees. But a small group of pirates may have gotten slightly more than they were bargaining for:

The gun-toting, seafaring thieves, who routinely pounce on cargo ships bobbing along on the Indian Ocean, suddenly found themselves in command of a vessel crammed with $30 million worth of grenade launchers, piles of ammunition, even battle tanks.

And now the US and Russia are in hot pursuit.

Despite the pirate's claims to be "environmentalists" the US seems determined to get the tanks, rocket launchers and other small arms away from the pirates.

And rather than run from the US ships, the pirates are demanding $20 million dollars and holding their ground:

"We are negotiating with the company that owns the vessel. The discussions are headed towards a positive end, but nothing has been finalised," the pirates' spokesman Sugule Ali told AFP.

"We are demanding 20 million dollars and that figure still stands."

Yes, pirates these days have spokesmen. They probably have agents and lawyers as well, and no doubt some PR people (after all, pirates always get misunderstood, cast in such a negative light....)

In the end, however, this event has brought up a more important question, and a more important global crisis than all the pirating in the world--and that is the issue of global arms trading. This is a problem, especially in Africa and Asia, where rebel groups and governments are constantly embroiled in bitter warfare. This shipment was Ukrainian, which just adds to the mess of questions.

Ex-Soviet States with access to nuclear weaponry could manage to ship a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group. What if this ship had been such a ship, clandestinely shipping nuclear weapons, and it had been captured by pirates?

Piracy is certainly a problem in the Indian Ocean and off the coasts of Africa, but weapons and especially nuclear proliferation is one of the major problems of this century. There is no easy way to stop this black market, especially since much of it is not black at all, but openly done. Guns can be used to defend liberty, but we must also remember they are used for slaughter...

Cat Stephens new set

Too funny.

Flying Man

He's known as Jet Man, FusionMan, and The-Crazy-Guy-With-That-Wing-Strapped-To-His-Back. And he's done it again.

This past Friday the 49-year old Swiss daredevil Yves Rossy jumped from a plane at 8,200 feet over Calais, France, fired up the homemade jet-powered wing strapped to his back, and flew his way across the English Channel in just 13 minutes, at speeds of 125 mph. In a nod to the crowds hanging out on the Cliffs of Dover to watch his flight, he did a theatrical figure eight before opening his parachutes and landing near the famous South Foreland Lighthouse.

read the rest....

Stop Iran Now!

Homer & Obama

Visions of America

Rich old guy and wizard investor Warren Buffet urged the treasury to team up with private investors to buy troubled assets, saying the bailout alone will not be enough:

"It will cost more to solve this problem today than it did two weeks ago," said Buffett, referring to when Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's first proposed that Congress help rescue Wall Street, which has seen the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns and the sale of Merrill Lynch. "It's that bad. If we don't get it solved next week, I may go back to delivering papers."

Now go read Glenn Beck's report from the future:

Dear America:

Happy 300th Birthday!

It's 2076 and we've just invented the time-fax machine. (Actually, "we" didn't invent the time-fax machine, the State did -- they pretty much control everything now.)

I'm faxing this back to you in 2008 because that seems to be the year we had the best chance to reverse our course and get back to the vision laid out by our founding fathers -- a vision that didn't include the government being in the insurance business.

I don't have a lot of time (the State only gives us one 30-minute break per day) so let me give you some advice: Stop worrying so much about who runs the country and start worrying about who runs your towns, your states, and your Congress.

Race Politics Update

I wrote about racism in this election. Here's a video courtesy of Mr. Sullivan which nicely supplements that post.

Gun Owners for Obama

My friend, Scott Isaacs, a gun-owner, hawk, and Obama supporter.

Sarah's Swan Song?

The Palin interviews have been nearly unbearable to watch--and, ironically not so much because she doesn't have the answers, but because of how she mishandles her ignorance. The thing is, I could answer any of those questions better than her. I mean, I could cite at least ten or twenty publications I read regularly, and even if I didn't read any, I could at least pick a few out of a hat. How hard is it to say "The New York Times" or to name a local Alaskan paper?

But for the Supreme Court question, she should have owned her lack of knowledge. It's a somewhat abstract question to begin with, and she could easily have said something similar to one of Michelle Malkin's readers comments:

Here’s how I wish the Palin-Couric exchange would’ve went:

Couric: Can you name any other Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?

Palin: Off the top of my head, no. Roe v. Wade is clearly the one that stands out above the rest. But the average American out there isn’t worried about whether I can rattle off a bunch of Supreme Court decisions. They are worried about making their mortgage payments, keeping their jobs and sending their kids to college. They trust the Supreme Court to make those decisions. What they want from a President and Vice President is someone who will appoint Federal judges who fairly interpret the Constitution and adjudicate accordingly.

Now, was that so hard?

The question becomes, is Palin's fumbling, bumbling persona her own, or is she on too tight a leash, memorizing too many talking points, taking on too much information at once, and not answering honestly? It's hard to say, we've seen so little of her. We know she can deliver a speech, but can she answer questions at a press conference? Will she surprise us tonight at the debate, or will her performance be a moot point, given the distinct possibility that Biden will come across as the bigger ass?

It's hard to know, but the debate is now only hours away, and I think that this election, it could either be a revival for the McCain camp, or a swan song.

Take arms against a sea of troubles....

Arguably one of the greatest qualities Obama displays is his sense of calm. As Andrew Sullivan writes:

I've been amazed by it for over a year now, because I have no ounce of it in myself. But then I like my political leaders temperamentally conservative, so I can be as radical as I like and no harm gets done. Obama's little secret is that he isn't that cool. He's just a nerd with natural Xanax in his blood.

McCain for a very long time had a way of holding himself above the frey, but lately he's sunk beneath it, as partisan, mean, and vindictive as any politician I've seen--as though by embracing the very monsters who destroyed him in 2000, he's had to abandon himself, leave his soul alongside the straight-talk express in that junkyard/scrap-heap of once-honest American leaders. It's a shame.

Rainbow Conspiracy

What I'd like to start reading but can't because I don't have the books yet...

First off, I'd like to start Naomi Novik's series, Temeraire. This is supposed to be a rather phenomenal fantasy series, the fifth book of which has recently been published. I'm very, very hard to please when it comes to fantasy, especially adult fantasy which is usually less imaginative than young adult fantasy.

My favorite adult fantasy is the tremendous (but unfinished) Song of Fire and Ice series by George R. R. Martin (the slowest writer of all time). This series raised the bar in a pretty major way for me. Fantasy has just not been the same since. I can say quite confidently that the only other fantasy I've enjoyed since has been Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell by Suzanna Clarke, and the books of Neil Gaiman.

Indeed, one of the books I'd like to start but can't because I don't have it yet is The Graveyard Book, by Neil Gaiman. It looks spooky. Black humor, Gaiman's forte.

In any case, Novik's work looks very promising.

Young adult fantasy has always been one of my favorite genres, and it seems to be supplying no end of good novels, from Phillip Pullman's Golden Compass books to the wonderful Harry Potter series.

Two other series of young adult books have grabbed my attention:

The Stoneheart Trilogy looks quite unique, and has in fact been likened to Gaiman's work, though for a younger audience. An alternate London full of living statues...

...and the Bartimaeus Trilogy which is supposed to be quite funny. This is another alternative England, where powerful and apparently rather wicked sorcerers rule.

This is the light summer reading I should have been doing, instead of the political heaviness. I did read the very dark and very fascinating "The Devil in the White City" also. I'll have a review up soon....

Michael Yon's Afghanistan Compounds

Lots more aerial shots of these vast compounds in Afghanistan. Breath-taking.

Prejudice in the Polls: Racism is Alive and Well This Election Season

Conservatives are quick to discount racism in this current race. Claims that Obama is the victim of racism, and that this systemic racism is hurting his poll numbers, are thrown out as conspiracy theories–as though America has somehow moved, en masse, beyond the age of racism.

I beg to differ.

While there may be some truth to these claims–and while the Obama campaign should not use this as an excuse for poor polling, and still look for ways they can improve their numbers despite any inherent racism–there is more often than not an emotional, over-the-top quality to these accusations. Obama may very well be justified in saying that racism, should he lose, played a major part in that. Similarly, Hillary was correct that sexism did indeed play a part in her loss. Sexism and racism are not remnants of a dark and distant past. Things have improved, but not so much as we’d like to believe.

For instance, my wife and I, along with our daughter and my in-laws all went to dinner at a small Mexican cafe last night. My father-in-law brought along one of his friends, a car mechanic. They had been working on rebuilding an old VW bug, and showed up late. My daughter is getting her molars, and as such was in a foul mood.

In any case, we ordered, began eating, and inevitably the conversation turned to the elections. My wife is a definite Obama supporter. My in-laws, life-long Republicans who have never voted Democrat, are both leaning toward Obama. See? There are, in fact, Republicans for Obama. They feel very dissolusioned with the current administration, and, like me, with the McCain campaign and the man himself. My mother-in-law has been a long-time fan of John McCain, but she says she barely recognizes candidate McCain.

We’re all Arizonans. We know McCain. We’ve all voted for him. He spoke at our local college graduation. But yeah, this guy campaigning for President is like a stranger to us. I’ve staunchly supported McCain until the last couple of weeks, when I realized what a foolish, betrayal of a choice Palin was for the GOP ticket. I feel absolutely slapped in the face by the Palin choice.

And I said as much at dinner when we were discussing the Friday debate and the upcoming VP debate. Predictions around the table: Palin will tank, but Biden will come across as an ass. No winners. Only losers. Kind of like Friday night.

In any case, my father-in-law’s friend finally spoke up when I said I was disturbed by Palin, and said, basically that Obama also has very little experience.

True, I said, but picking Palin betrays McCain’s commitment to national security. It puts to lie everything he stands for, because she just isn’t ready to be President.

Well, says he, neither is Obama.

Okay, I say, but he seems to at least understand, to grasp the fundamentals of geopolitics better than Palin, who can barely get her words into coherent sentences.

McCain will keep our country safer, he says. We’ve got nothing without our freedom.

Now this is an old line, commonly brought up when Republicans want to defeat Democrats–with the Dems perceived as weak on defense–so weak, even, that we might lose our very freedom if we should elect them. Of course, this has never happened, but it seems to be the perpetual threat associated with electing Democrats. I personally think Obama will take a Clintonian foreign policy approach–plenty hawkish. But certainly not as experienced as McCain. McCain has tons of foreign policy knowledge–an impressive, encycopedic understanding of our relationship to other nations.

And up until the Palin pick excellent judgment. Now I’m back to undecided.

But not the gentleman at the table, who then launched into a speech about Obama only ever having worked in the Black community for Black people and how that’s all he’d do as President, only ever doing anything to help Them.

Them.

This, to me, is racism. Plain and simple. Maybe I’m sensitive to it because I have black friends, or because my siblings are adopted and Asian and have been subjected to racism often. Note, he’s not complaining about any white candidates who have, more than likely, spent most of their careers around white people, helping white people. That’s not an issue. But Obama having worked in a community that was Black seems to be enough of a disqualifier.

So of course what ends up happening is my wife and the mechanic get in a big debate. To my wife, Obama has been the more honorable of the two. To the mechanic, Obama is a liar and a cheat. To him Fox News is the only honest news station. CNN, he says, lies.

As a professed moderate, a defense conservative, a social liberal, I have to say this: All politicians lie, and all media is biased. Including CNN and Fox. Including McCain and Obama. I mean, I’m an environmentalist but I don’t believe in global warming. I’m a free-market guy, but I believe in smart oversight. I prefer low taxes when and if possible, but I think some brand of universal health care is ethically and morally essential. With this many conflicting beliefs and ideologies, I find very few pols or media outlets that reflect MY worldview. It’s pretty easy for most of us to see that these people and organizations have agendas. It’s harder when they reflect our own agenda so perfectly.

Now, my wife is no fool politically. She’s sick and tired of the Daily Show because she thinks it’s far too liberally biased. Then again, she can’t stand most of what she watches on Fox because it’s too conservative. So the mechanic claiming that she was naive and that he subscribed not to any ideology but to “the truth” was laughable to me. When anyone claims ownership of “the truth” you can bet that the debate has little distance left in it. What’s the point?

So here we are with a guy who claims Obama’s entire agenda is based on helping Black people and only Black people; who thinks Palin is perfectly ready to step in and take over; and who thinks Fox News is speaking the Truth.

If I were talking to an Obama supporter who believed McCain was an evil neocon, that MSNBC was the Truth and Keith Olbermann the harbinger of said truth, and who thought that Global Warming was the number one issue in the race (and that war could be solved through loving more) I would be just as disgusted.

These extremists do nothing for us. I want more passion to come from the center. I believe in using logic to determine what’s best for this country. Not scripture, not unwavering ideology, not racism or homophobia, not emotive hatred of war or the illogic of the green-movement and their scare tactics. When you peel back the agenda, the fear-mongering, the irrationale of the peacenicks, you start to see that there are reasons for everything.

There are legitimate reasons to worry over an Obama presidency and legitimate reasons to worry over a McCain presidency. It has become less and less clear which is more worrisome after the VP’s were chosen. At this point I feel like neither candidate brings much to the table.

One thing that will most certainly play a role in this election is racism. That’s just a fact, and it’s obvious when you begin talking with people. Agism will also factor in. It does for me. I think McCain could die in office. The likelihood is higher due to his age.

For me, that means a Palin presidency, and I’m not sure I can vote for that possibility.

~cross-posted at NeoConstant

The Upcoming Debate

My psychic prediction: Biden will come off as condescending, mean-spirited, and generally knowledgeable. Obama fans will love him.

Palin will come across as out-of-her-league, unqualified, and spirited. McCain fans will love her.

Independents, though, that remains to be seen. I think indies went for Obama in this last one. Judging by Palin's meteoric collapse, Biden will likely be the favorite this time around, too.

Bailout Dies on the Vine

Well, the wildly unpopular bailout has died in the House, with 227 no's to 206 ayes (and one non-vote). Malkin has her "live-blogging" interpretation of events, plus a list of the members voting for and against. She sounds happy and pissed-off all at once. What a shocker.

CNN reports:

Investors who had been counting on the rescue plan sent the Dow Jones industrial average down as much as 700 points while watching the measure come up short of the necessary support, before rebounding slightly. The key stock reading was down more than 500 points.

The measure needs 218 votes for passage, but it came up 13 votes short of that target, as the final vote was 228 to 205 against. About 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, but less than a third of Republicans backed it.

President Bush is "very disappointed" by the House vote, his spokesman Tony Fratto said.

I, like many others, am not sure if this is a bad thing or a good thing. I would like to see some government intervention--enough to keep the wheel's moving, but I think artificially inflating a bum-market will have the reverse effect, just leading to a greater collapse later.

As we've seen recently, the private sector is coming along buying up failed banks. If the government wants to continue to assist in this effort, and perhaps get some new mortgage-refinancing laws in the bankruptcy books, fine. But $700 billion to the New York banks, virtually no strings attached, simply to inflate this beached whale of a market?

Oy vey. Why is this the only option? Why do we need to rush such a monumental bill through Congress? Is over-reacting really wise? I'd say it's not. It rarely is.

Jim Manzi says it should pass, because no other alternative exists. The question is, do we need an alternative? Or could we just scale back this bailout?

I may ask more questions than propose answers. But then again, this has the best economic minds in the country at odds with one another. I have trouble separating the wheat from the chaff on this one...

~cross-posted at NeoConstant

The Iran Question

Andrew Sullivan writes:

I'm increasingly of the view that the United States should think twice before giving Israel a green light to destroy Iran's nascent nuclear capacity.

Such an act in today's context would immediately pour gasoline on the Islamist fire, uniting Shia and Sunni in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic and anti-Western fervor. It would recruit a generation of Islamist terrorists. It would risk a new and empowered alliance between Iran and Russia which has the nuclear know-how to give to Iran if it wants to. It might precipitate an Islamist take-over in Pakistan, which would give us an Islamist nuclear state overnight.

This is not to say that a nuclear Iran is not a horrifying prospect. But I don't believe that Iran's leadership truly wants to annihilate its entire population in a stand-off with the Zionists. Nuking Jerusalem is not something devout Islamists would easily countenance. But using the nuclear leverage to empower Hezbollah and Hamas is certainly a likely gambit.

Naturally, Sullivan thinks Obama is the right person to handle this tide of conflict that awaits the next President. McCain's "unsteadiness" disqualifies him, as does his abysmal choice of Sarah Palin.'

Lately I find myself agreeing more and more with this assessment. McCain's judgment call in picking Palin was so bad, I've begun seriously questioning his ability to lead.

I don't think it will be easy for either man to do the job. Each faces a plethora of security issues and evolving international relationships that seem to all be moving in the wrong direction for the U.S.

Good luck, whoever gets the job. It's not a position I envy in the least.

I doubt we'll hear anything truly substantive about the Iran question in the coming weeks unless Israel does indeed move against Tehran's nuclear program. The scale of this assault would largely be the determining factor in the ensuing Islamist reaction Sullivan notes above. A small scale attack a la the Syrian reactor would generate no noise at all; a full-fledged war a la Lebanon would probably result in global chaos.

~cross-posted at NeoConstant

Introductions

Well, the debate tonight has spawned this crazy idea of starting yet another blog. I blog primarily at NeoConstant, a cooperative blog/journal that focuses mostly on foreign affairs. We present a case for aggressive, even hawkish and interventionist policies to end genocide, promote democracy, and keep America and our allies safe.

For a long time I identified as a conservative. I felt (and feel) very strongly that the War in Iraq needs to be won; that Afghanistan needs to not only emerge as a free and independent state, but that its neighbor Pakistan must end its harboring of our enemies, namely bin Laden et al and the Taliban. The Republicans seemed stronger in this regard than the Democrats. McCain has shown steadfastness in his support of the surge, the counter-insurgency, and so forth.

But recently something has changed in me, or in my perception of both the GOP, conservatism as it is approached by the modern conservative, and in the Republican nominee John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin.

I think it was Palin that sparked this, and the financial meltdown that began to cement it. I am not really a fiscal conservative, though I think there is too much wasteful spending. I'm certainly no tax & spend liberal, however. I think low taxes do create jobs--but I also think smart regulation and oversight is essential in today's complicated economy. I also believe in safety nets, and at least some form of socialized health-care that works alongside the private industry.

I'm not a fan of the Green movement, though I have nothing against alternative energy or fuel efficient vehicles. I don't believe that humans are the primary cause of global warming. This is not because I don't believe in global warming, per say, but because my belief in the scientific method won't allow me to simply accept this nearly faith-based global warming concept. So far, the evidence does not seem conclusive.

I believe in evolution. I don't know if there is a God.

I'm reluctantly pro-choice. I don't like it, but I don't like the alternative even more.

I don't feel at home with either Party, or with mainstream liberals or conservatives. I find that those I tend to agree with most are also independents--some who support McCain and some who support Obama.

I am a globalist. I believe in international democracy and unity through trade and mutually assured prosperity. I think that national sovereignty is vital, but that international institutions are also vital. The UN is broken, but that doesn't mean a new international body made up solely of democracies couldn't work.

I believe in capitalism and in free trade (though I'm no purist). I think a strong military is essential, but so are strong schools.

I think it's foolish to spend time trying to defend the institution of marriage given our rate of divorce (what is it, 50%?) If gay people want to enter into such an agreement, so fraught with failure, let them. I'm not at all about to spend my days and hours trying to deny freedom when there is so much pain and misery and so little freedom in most of the world.

I think we should intervene militarily in Darfur.

Some of my favorite blogs are Michael J Totten, Neo-Neocon, Little Green Footballs, Andrew Sullivan, Ann Althouse, But, I Am a Liberal, American Power, Jihad Watch, The Long War Journal...and there are many others...

Lately I have been drifting away from my conservatism and into a more fiercely independent framework--hence the title of this blog.

I have lost my faith in McCain. He doesn't even seem to believe what he himself is saying anymore. Who is this man? This fraud? Once upon a time I thought there would be no way on Earth I could support Obama because of his stance on Iraq.

Now that's changed, and I don't think Obama will pull us out precipitously. He's also fairly shrewd regarding the Afghan/Pakistan war.

McCain's choice of Palin has become increasingly disturbing. At first I thought it a good political move. Then her social stances started to bother me.

But her utter lack of foreign policy knowledge was the kicker. If McCain really does care to keep this country safe, why the hell did he pick Palin to be the veep? What was that all about?

Now I just feel betrayed. McCain is doing whatever he can to win, and the country be damned. Country first my ass.

The debate tonight was even more revealing. Both candidates dodged, but McCain hardly answered a single question. He was snarky, snide, and grinned impishly and arrogantly when Obama was speaking. He came across as condescending and grotesque. Sure, he was upbeat, as many conservatives will hasten to point out.

It was not a very good performance, though, in my humblest of opinions. McCain, if anything, didn't do terribly badly, but he needed a slam dunk to boost his numbers, and I think his attitude and presentation will only turn off independents.

More on the debate after I watch it again. My initial opinion though: Small win for Obama; big loss for McCain. And yes, that can be the case...