We've been lied to on just about every issue by this administration.  We've started a war for no reason, with no end in sight, that has claimed the lives of at least 650,000 Iraqi people.  And this week we've been reminded that in 1994 Dick Cheney didn't want to invade Baghdad for fear of the exact consequences we are now suffering.

We've turned the Clinton surpluses into trillion-dollar deficits and are led to believe that "deficit reduction" is something to celebrate.  Yet China could decide tomorrow to revalue their currency and our economy would be ruined instantly.  We slashed taxes for the very wealthy and take out loans from a communist country to pay for it.

Oil companies are enjoying record profits that have come from the record high prices they've set. 

And those of us who have had the sheer audacity to question the motives of this administration have been marginalized as "Anti-American" or even traitors.

Yet still, a quarter of this country stands behind this clusterfuck and waves the flag for it.  Is "hate" the right word?  I'm not sure.  But "anger" and "disbelief" sure apply nicely.

So naturally, rather than adjust their methodologies to this new and previously unknown accountability standard, the Republicans have decided to just attack the credibility of the blogs.  At every opportunity.

Bill O'Reilly has spent the last few weeks going after Daily Kos, claiming that the anonymous and unmoderated comments posted after the blog entries constitute "hate speech" and shouldn't be allowed on the internet.  Comments that the actual owners and contributors to the site have exactly nothing to do with.  Comments that no one has any idea whether they are someone's genuine feelings or merely trolls posing as "liberals" to give people like O'Reilly the ammunition he is looking for.

And let's not forget the YouTube debate format used a few weeks ago for the Democrats, which aside from a few groanworthy corny questions, was innovative and gave more people from more places a level of interactivity with the candidates that has never been seen.  Most people I know who saw it really liked the fact that everyday people could confront politicians with their most pressing issues.

Well, the Republicans aren't having any of that.  Most of the GOP candidates have dismissed the YouTube format, and have decided they aren't going to show.  Mitt Romney indicated that he "shouldn't have to answer questions from a snowman" in reference to one of the questions about global warming that someone asked the Democrats that featured an animation.

We should take notice, because this has happened before.  Attack the messenger while dodging the message.  Rove has made a living for three decades doing this.  I mean, Howard Dean can't have anything substantive to say...he screamed at a pep rally once!  Al Gore can't be trusted, he claimed he invented the internet (which by the way, he never said...and furthermore the people who did invent the internet presented Gore with a lifetime achievement award for making the public internet possible through his work as a Senator and Vice President).

Make no mistake about it, attacking the credibility of web political commentators will be a key theme in this election cycle.  I wouldn't worry about it, because I know that within the next five years the mainstream news media will be rendered essentially obsolete.  They are just trying to delay the inevitable push to people-powered reporting that isn't corporately sponsored. 

Well, Barack Obama is still my personal choice at the moment, but not by much.  In the last debate, Hillary was just awesome.  There's no two ways about it.  She was assertive, intelligent and...dare I say, presidential.  Obama stumbled over some of his answers, especially those pertaining to health care (which is quickly becoming the "terror" of this election).  But all that said, he again beat Hillary in quarterly fundraising.

On the Republican side, it is really shaping up to be a tallest midget contest, with the lone exception of Ron Paul.  This guy is really a badass.  In fact, there's about a 5% chance (as of right now) that I'll register as a Republican just to vote for him in our primary.  If by some miracle he gets nominated, I could actually see myself voting for him against many of the Democrats in the field right now.

It's becoming obvious that McCain will likely be the nominee from the Republicans.  I just can't see the evangelicookoos rallying behind Giuliani.  Saying "9/11" in rapid succession just doesn't have the same effect it had five years ago.  And Guiliani is really acting like a sactimonious prick lately. 

John Edwards to this day seems to lack substance to me.  I don't know if it's his hick drawl or what...but I just can't get behind him.  And he ought to can the lameass jokes about his $400 haircut.  Here's some advice: stop getting $400 haircuts, you pansy.

In other news, I renewed my concealed weapon permit again.  I can count on one hand the number of times I've felt the need to actually carry a firearm, and that's probably $65 down the toilet.  I guess it's a "rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it" thing.  I'm weird that way. 

• Donald Rumsfeld (Defense)
• Michael Brown (FEMA)
• George Deutsch (NASA)
• Paul Wolfowitz (Defense, World Bank)
• Randall Tobias (Dep't of State)
• Lester Crawford (FDA)
• Eric Keroack (Health and Human Services)
• Colin Powell (Dep't of State)
• Harvey Pitt (SEC)
• Theresa Shaw (Dep't of Education)
• Julie MacDonald (Dep't of Interior)
• Tom Ridge (Homeland Security)
• Alberto Gonzales (Justice) (any day now)
• John Bolton (UN Ambassador)
• John Ashcroft (Justice)
• Andy Card (Chief of Staff)
• Ari Fleischer (Press Secretary)
• Scott McClellan (Press Secretary)
• Harriet Miers (Supreme Court nominee)

This was evidenced by FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina.  That agency now falls under the purview of DHS, and we all saw what happened there. 

Let's think about the name alone for a second.  Grammatically speaking, what exactly is the difference between "Homeland Security" and "Defense"?  Even the freaking name is redundant!

When 9/11 happened, I was traveling by air a lot (in fact, I was on a plane on the morning of 9/10).  I couldn't help but notice what a joke airport "security" was, and I was reguarly able to carry my Leatherman tool (with two four-inch knife blades in it) on to planes.  After the attacks, one of the things that made everyone feel more secure was posted National Guardsmen with M-16s at airport security.

Why did this stop?

I've always believed that the purpose of the military is to defend our country, and to aid our allies when they are attacked.  But the first part should be the first priority.

Think of the problems that are solved by closing foreign military bases and stationing our troops within our borders.  We instantly have the manpower to secure the Mexican border with force.  Our airports and other public places are more secure.  Emergency personnel are at the ready when a natural disaster strikes.

I think we need to fundamentally redefine what it means to be a soldier in the United States.  The cliche is that being in the military is "serving your country"...well, it needs to mean just that.  In a time of peace, soldiers shouldn't be sitting in a barracks playing poker.  They should be serving their country in other ways, and being paid well for it.

And there should be a whole lot less of them.  The Cold War model for our military was to be prepared to fight a global-scale war on two separate fronts.  Unfortunately, today's model requires us to fight a neighborhood-scale war on hundreds of fronts.  Which means we need to shift focus to specialized units and away from brute-force warfare.

As I said before, it's an ideological war.  Sometimes, we have to kill someone...be it an arms dealer or a warlord.  But by launching a cruise missile at the approximate area where these people may be, we cause massive collateral damage that only serves to prove the radicals right about us.  It's counterproductive and creating more terrorists.  We have to use finesse.  And needless to say, violently overthrowing foreign governments and occupying those countries for four years certainly doesn't help matters, either.

But back to my original point.  The DHS was an experiment whose time has come and gone.  The Department of Defense should be filling the role of "securing the homeland."  Either that, or I have no idea what "defense" really means. 

The nuclear buildup that occurred from the 1950's to the 1980's has resulted in a total U.S. stockpile today of 9,960 total nuclear warheads, with 5,735 actively maintained (at a cost of billions per year).  Needless to say, this stockpile is sufficient to completely incinerate the surface of the Earth several times, which any general will tell you would be a decisive victory.

We'd like to think that this is necessary.  In fact, in 2005, the U.S. nuclear strategy was revised to authorize the pre-emptive use of nukes against countries with other forms of WMD or even "overwhelming conventional forces" (read: China).  And under the Bush administration, research has commenced on the use of smaller nukes as deep-penetrating "bunker busters."

But who are our enemies today?  We are not in a massive arms race as the one we engaged the Soviet Union in, accelerating their inevitable economic collapse.  We are in an ideological battle that is going to require clever strategy along with advanced weaponry designed with the covert special forces unit in mind.  Instead, the latest whiz-bang projects in development for the military still include aircraft carriers, submarines and stealth bombers.

I posit that our military could be more effective against terror networks at half the cost and one-third the size, given that those resources are spent wisely.  But then again, that would involve putting the "defense" back into Department of Defense...closing all foreign military bases (especially in countries that don't want us there) and focusing our efforts on securing this country. 

That would mean no more 4-year, 500 billion dollar occupations of countries that aren't a threat to us, by the way.

According to Webster (not the little black kid from the 80's sitcom, but rather the dictionary):

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

 
The religious types who deny the plausibility of evolution tend to use definitions 4 and 6, in the context that evolution is just some wild-ass guess that isn't really grounded in reality.  The scientific definition of theory is #5...the best possible explanation for observed evidence.

You will not find any scientist who says, "evolution is fact and it can not be questioned."  Not any decent scientist, at least.  What they'll likely tell you is, "evolution of the species is the best explanation we have for the evidence we have observed for the last few hundred years."  And then they would likely challenge you to develop a better explanation.

The reason I bring this up (and I was remiss to neglect this in my debate review) was that three of the Republican nominees for President (Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo) raised their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution.

First of all, evolution isn't something you "believe" in any more than you believe in gravity.  There is a force that attracts smaller masses to larger ones.  The force is measurable.  We can demonstrate that force's effects using everything from a golf ball to a spacecraft.  We know it is there.  But gravity has never been explained.  It just is, and we accept it.  It's a scientific theory.

The problem here is that evolution contradicts the literal story of the creation of human beings in the Bible.  I can't quite get why the religious types focus so much on the whole molded-out-of-clay-and-breathed-life-and-took-out-a-rib parable and so little on all the other weird stuff in the Bible that is never taken literally (like pretty much all of Leviticus). 

Well, the reason it's such a sore spot is because the Republican party relies so heavily on Bible-thumping evangelicals.  They had to milk every one for votes just to sqeeze out less-than-1% victories for Bush both times.  And the Republican field is so weak for 2008 that they know they have to go to that well once again. 

Which I shouldn't have to tell you, is sad.  Republicans love to talk about how America is the strongest nation in the world, and about how powerful our military is.  I hate to break it to them, but on both counts that is due to our phenomenal technological innovation over the last 50 years.  And that innovation only happened because we as a society embraced science and the scientific method to make our lives better (most of the time).

We simply can not afford to reject science because it is politically convenient.  But we are rejecting science.  We're rejecting mathematics and history, too.  Because while we spend $500 billion to occupy a country that wasn't a threat to us, our schools are rotting from the inside.  And tech companies like Google are looking to India and China for engineers instead of the U.S.

Turning to God to solve difficult problems (like our dependence on oil from a volatile region or global warming) might make us feel better about ourselves, but only science will solve these problems.

• I really don't like the quick-hit format of the questions.  With ten candidates, you virtually assure yourself of never getting a direct answer on anything.
• Mitt Romney, far and away, is the most "presidential" of those currently in the field.  He appears relaxed and uncoached, and just looks good.
• The other of the "Big Three," Rudy Guiliani and John McCain looked awful.  Guiliani looked nervous and fidgety, with a couple of clear flip-flops that he never expounded on.  McCain was belligerent in his continual support for the Iraq war.
• As expected, the Republican candidate I agreed most with is the anti-war Ron Paul.  He's essentially the Republicans' Dennis Kucinich, in that Paul is a truly libertarian conservative just as Kucinich is a real liberal.  Neither has a chance.
• The backdrop of the Ronald Reagan library made this debate unbelievably annoying.  Almost every question and response was framed in relation to Reagan.  I wish someone would counter this asinine lionization of a B-list actor who wasn't great, good or average...but rather a bad president who is a huge direct cause of the problems with Islamic terrorism we now face.

The highlights:

• I loved pretty much everything Ron Paul had to say.  He was blunt in his opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning.  He's very knowledgeable about the Constitution and obviously believes in it deeply.
• When asked what he would say to Catholic bishops who refuse communion to pro-choice politicians, Romney said, "I wouldn't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops, they can do whatever they want."  That really rang with me, even though I disagree with it.
• I laughed out loud when McCain said, "I'll follow Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell!"  And this was in response to a question about illegal immigration!  Funny stuff.
• Tom Tancredo was the only candidate who clearly said, "I would not have Karl Rove working in my White House."
• The best line of the evening was when McCain quoted a letter from a constituent who wrote, "as a former drunken sailor, I resent being compared to members of Congress."  Scripted, but funny.

The lowlights:

• Constant, non-stop Ronald Reagan Rimjob.  If you knew nothing about Reagan and watched this debate, you would think he was the Savior of Man.  It was pretty pathetic.
• Several candidates used the term "Democrat Party".  It's becoming a common subconscious tactic these days.
• McCain's angry indignation about Senator Harry Reid's comment that the Iraq War is already lost.  It was fake and obvious and made McCain look like a retard.  And never mind the fact that Reid was right.
• Tommy Thompson told us that, "to win the war, you have to support the troops."  That was pretty enlightening.
• There were a lot of memorized obscure factoid statistics being spouted about Iraq, as some kind of proof that these guys are well-informed.  Yet one of the the candidates gave the non-specific response of "thousands" when quizzed how many U.S. troops have been injured in Iraq.
• Romney said, "the Democratic pitch is that this is all about bin Laden."  Actually, Mitt, the pitch is that perhaps we should spend more time on bin Laden than on countries that don't threaten us in any way.
• Sam Brownback used the catchphrase "Islamic Fascists," which makes no sense in that the Bush administration better fits the definition of fascism than the radical Muslims do.
• Jim Gilmore mentioned, "the fall of the Berlin Wall thanks to Ronald Reagan."  I puked a little into my mouth at that revisionist history.
• McCain told us, "we all know Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism."  I'm glad we all have such a great leader to tell us what we all know.
• Guiliani squeezed out the turd of the night, "The Iranians took one look into Reagan's eyes and in two minutes they released the hostages."  Strange, I always thought they released the hostages after Reagan cut a deal with them to wait until after the election in 1980.
• Romney was asked what he disliked most about America and he responded by thanking Reagan.  Okay.
• McCain will restore our country's unity of purpose like Reagan did.  This shit went on all night.
• Tommy Thompson thinks it's okay for a company to fire a worker for being gay.
• On abortion, all of the candidates sucked up to the base by saying the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a great day in U.S. history.
• Sam Brownback told us that the best way to fight Republican corruption (after reminding us that "Democrat members" were also corrupt) was to build stronger families.
• McCain used the obligatory terms "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench."  On the other hand, Guiliani showed consistent respect for the courts.

It was a tough 90 minutes.  Romney was clearly the winner.  There was no close second because the others were all so bad.  Paul had the best answers, but he can't win.  I think Romney definitely gets the nomination (because of his charisma and because he has so much Wall Street money backing him), but the fact that he's a Mormon is going to play a role.  The evangelicals would rather stay home, I think.