Miscellanies

Several positions and other things.

1: Why John Edwards should be the next Democratic Presidential candidate (assuming he's not dropping out)

John Edwards is by far the best choice for Democratic Candidate. He's non-polarizing. He's charismatic. He doesn't bear - let's admit it - the political disadvantages of being African-American or female. He's not as insanely disliked by many as Hilary, nor as inexperienced as Obama. Furthermore, looking at home states, John Edwards carries 15-vote North Carolina, a Republican stronghold. That goes a long way towards our victory - in fact, we only need one other state in addition to it. On the other hand, Obama and Clinton carry Illinois and New York, respectively. Both of these are traditionally Democratic strongholds. It's unlikely we'll be seriously challenged in either place. Finally, Edwards is the only candidate with any chance of winning the South. Both of the other candidates are life-long Northerners. It's also incredibly important to win the South, particularly the Mississippi river states. These states, for the past 10 presidential elections, have always voted for the winner. Edwards would win in a landslide. Obama would win. Clinton might win.

For all these reasons, John Edwards should be next Dem. Presidential Candidate (ideally with Obama as VP)

2: Why We Can't Leave

One of the fundamental tenets of the modern 'Progressive' movements is speedy and total troop withdrawal from Iraq. This policy, if followed, would be stupid, disastrous, dishonorable, and immoral. It's obvious that we made a mistake entering Iraq, but we cannot now leave.

This policy would be stupid and disastrous in that it would not serve American interests. To be sure, American soldiers would die. However, Iraq would pretty much collapse into factional civil war - or, depending on who you ask, go even deeper thereinto. In this state, it would destabilize the rest of the Middle East, spreading chaos even wider. Further, it would provide a haven for Muslim extremists. This is very, very suboptimal.

This policy would be dishonorable in that our country has made a commitment to the people of Iraq. We destroyed their government and we have a responsibility to them to bring it back and to safeguard their people until security is restored. We must not leave the course of honor simply because it is too difficult to travel.

This policy would be immoral in that it would directly lead to civil war along ethnic lines, probably degenerating into an ethnic genocide-like situation. It would be akin to the UN pulling out of Rwanda.

There seems to be an idea on the left that the Army is for something other than fighting, that soldiers should not be put in danger, should not die. I honestly don't understand this. What would you expect to happen, honestly? Why should we have an army unless to go into harm's way?

3: Current Reading

I'm currently reading two different books. First, the classic Dune by Frank Herbert, and second, The History of England by Charles Macaulay Babbington. Both are quite good. The first is a really epic space opera-like thing that is justifiably a classic. It's well-written, epic, atmospheric, and excellent. The second is a history of a short part of English history, the Glorious Revolution. The book was written around 1850, and it's pretty biased. However, it's really interesting historically, and it's probably the best-written history book I have ever read. The man writes with an epic scale and a skill with words that just staggers the mind. I love it.

4: miscellanies

Oh man nothing here I don't think. This is already fucking long enough, not like anyone will read this.