Only two days left. Thank the gods.

[elfs]

I was listening to the BBC this evening, and there was a man with a charming Scottish accent interviewing the people of Wyoming. And in interview after interview, the general message the good people of Wyoming gave was, "If Obama becomes president, I will do everything I can to minimize my economic contribution to the country." Not "I will do everything I can to minimize my taxes," but that each and every one of them would, basically, John Galt the country (hey, even Alan Greenspan admits John Galt is dead) without knowing even exactly why. We have only vague ideas what either candidate would do. Obama wants some kind of "Civilian security force" (WTF is he talking about?); McCain regrets that a draft would be politically unpopular, but admits that without it he won't be able to keep his pledge to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. Palin dreams of a Christian America where she can re-impose the fairness doctrine to limit her critics. Joe Biden wants a decent reuben sandwich.

I'm still gonna vote for Obama; the alternative is not acceptable. But expect me to be part of the loyal opposition to each and every contraction of my liberties or expansion of my goverment.

You know what pisses me off the most? That the people who most loudly spout off about the appropriateness of a night-watchmen government are so opposed to our current governmental paradigm that they destroyed the night-watchman function so badly (I'm looking at you, Grover Norquist) that we're left with a choice between Democratic egalitarianism of anticipated competence, and a Republican Great Nation Conservatism so chaotic it makes even baby Stormbringer cry.

Is this really what we've come to? Is night-watchman conservatism impossible, because the people attracted to it are functional anarchists until confronted with social or economic dissolution so terrifying they flip and become socialist autocrats? Are we all really running on corrupt hardware? I'm afraid we are. The very idea contains great novels; unfortunately, it holds no good answers to our nation's ills.

Comments

[sianmink.livejournal.com]

somewhat fortunately for me I'm in California, where Obama is such a lock it might break records.

Trouble is all the other candidates on the ballot in CA are crap as well.

[tagryn]

That's one conclusion I've come to when comparing the similarities between the Clinton and Bush years: the whole cry of "If we can ONLY get candidate (or party) XYZ in, everything'll be better!" misses that there's systemic problems which have grown larger regardless of which party has been in power. Unfortunately, there's no easy solution to addressing those problems: when both parties agree in general terms about what the size of government should be, about expanding rather than contracting government's invasion of privacy, and so on...

I think there's room for a serious populist 3rd party in this country, and Obama has tapped into some, but not nearly all, of that sentiment. However, when 3rd party candidates can't even get invited to one debate with the two "real" candidates, I don't know how a new party would come out of the blue to have a realistic shot at victory. Perot in '92 was the last serious challenger with 19% of the popular vote (for all the publicity, Nader in '00 got less than 3% of the vote) and even with his money behind it, Perot's campaign was fatally disorganized and his Reform Party fell apart quickly when Pat Buchanan's followers took it over. Both parties have over a century and a half of organization and roots in this country, that's very hard to challenge.

[purly.livejournal.com]

There already is a sort of civilian security corps:
http://www.citizencorps.gov

They're in charge of the "Are you ready?" campaign that you see billboards of plastered all over NYC. It's sort of interesting. Personally I would like to see America's fall out shelters updated. I know my town has no emergency plan at all!

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Obama wants some kind of "Civilian security force" (WTF is he talking about?);

This

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

But is Obama really dumb enough to think that this would work in America? The armed forces and security/intelligence agencies swear loyalty to the Constitution, not the President. All Obama would accomplish would be to becmoe the first US President overthrown in a coup -- and, in the process, he would destablize our democracy. Though I don't think he'd be enjoying this much from his prison cell, or dead.

McCain regrets that a draft would be politically unpopular, but admits that without it he won't be able to keep his pledge to hunt down Osama Bin Laden.

A draft would suck (I disapprove of them in general) but we've had them before in wartime, and our democracy has survived the experience.

Palin dreams of a Christian America where she can re-impose the fairness doctrine to limit her critics.

That is scary. If she really said it. Having observed the over-the-top media hostility to Palin, I don't trust anything they say about her -- the MSM has lost all credibility with me on that topic.

Joe Biden wants a decent reuben sandwich.

He should ask Gantu if he can borrow Experiment 625, then.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

This

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

But is Obama really dumb enough to think that this would work in America? The armed forces and security/intelligence agencies swear loyalty to the Constitution, not the President. All Obama would accomplish would be to becmoe the first US President overthrown in a coup -- and, in the process, he would destablize our democracy. Though I don't think he'd be enjoying this much from his prison cell, or dead.

Funny, I don't see Obama's name mentioned here anywhere. I also didn't see or here Obama mention this in his speech at all. I see you jumping to a conclusion based on fear.

This is especially amusing in light of:

That is scary. If she really said it. Having observed the over-the-top media hostility to Palin, I don't trust anything they say about her -- the MSM has lost all credibility with me on that topic.

So, you're not wiling to believe what the media report about Palin because of "over-the-top hostility" towards her, but you hear something that Obama says and jump to a conclusion based on no evidence because....over-the-top hostility, maybe?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Funny, I don't see Obama's name mentioned here anywhere. I also didn't see or here Obama mention this in his speech at all. I see you jumping to a conclusion based on fear.

Obama is the candidate who proposed setting up a home militia parallel to the US Armed Forces. You obviously haven't been paying attention.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

No, he did not. He proposed setting up a civilian service that was funded as well as the current military was. You have jumped to the conclusion of what that means.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

He proposed setting up a civilian service that was funded as well as the current military was.

I believe he did say that it was supposed to be used to "defend" the American people, which implies that it would be armed. Whether or not it would be formally "civilian" or not is irrelevant -- both the German SA and the Italian Blackshirts were technically "civilian" organizations too, which did not prevent them from being used in violent attacks on political opponents of the Nazis and Fascists, respectively.

You have jumped to the conclusion of what that means.

Well, for one thing it implies a rough doubling of our defense budget, unless Obama's also planning to fatally comproimse our ability to fight abroad.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

I believe he did say that it was supposed to be used to "defend" the American people, which implies that it would be armed.

The moment you say "implies" you mean "I assume". You are not basing this on facts, but on your own assumption. And from that you have jumped to a conclusion where you hit up against Godwin's Law.

Well, for one thing it implies a rough doubling of our defense budget, unless Obama's also planning to fatally comproimse our ability to fight abroad.

Because of course he's going to be dumb enough to continue this stupid war in Iraq that shouldn't have been started in the first place. Do I think he's going to get the money that he's looking for? Nope, not on his life. But there's no doubt that there will be cuts all over the place, and one of them is this precious baby of the warhawks...the war is over.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The moment you say "implies" you mean "I assume". You are not basing this on facts, but on your own assumption.

Fair enough, but how can a home militia "defend" the American people in any meaningful sense if it is unarmed.

And from that you have jumped to a conclusion where you hit up against Godwin's Law.

Since "Godwin's Law" is illogical nonsense formulated to drop the hard-won experience of World War II down the memory hole, what you said is logically equivalent to "You're wrong because the brownies dance in the woods." I counter with "but the unicorns scatter flowers at my feet," and hence win this part of the debate :)

Because of course he's going to be dumb enough to continue this stupid war in Iraq that shouldn't have been started in the first place. Do I think he's going to get the money that he's looking for? Nope, not on his life. But there's no doubt that there will be cuts all over the place, and one of them is this precious baby of the warhawks...the war is over.

The Iraq campaign is mostly over, and will be winding down over the next year. This is because we have won that war. The larger War on Terror isn't over, and if the next President thinks he can simply declare it over and go home, with no ill consequences to America, we have a nasty surprise coming.

In particular, cutting back on BMD if one wishes to enjoy security at home without needing to fight abroad is really foolish, because what happens if North Korea or Iran deploy nuclear missiles? If we have a deployed, strong BMD in place we need not worry too much about such a development, as only a lot of grubby foreigners will do the dying; if we don't have BMD in place then we are practically forced into a pre-emptive strike in such a situation, and the very wars you hope to avoid.

[angharads-house.livejournal.com]

come north. we have excellent schools. ^_^

[fallenpegasus]

Been reading up more about the "Civilian Security Force" and outlines of his "Blueprint For Change".

It looks like at the heart of it, is he wants to harness all the non profits not just under tax exemption, but actually under direct federal government direction.

I guess too many people have been deciding on their own what good works to fund and how to do it, and he wants his government to get to decide what social goods get done.

Have you read it? You're voting for him.

I need to read it, even tho I am not.

[rand0m1.livejournal.com]

Section III Invest in the Capacity of Nonprofits to Innovate and Expand Successful Programs Across the Country in Obama's National Service Plan Fact Sheet (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlanFactSheet.pdf) it says:

"In recent years, social entrepreneurs have been the catalyst for much social innovation in education, economic development, health and the environment. By developing innovative solutions to important social issues, social entrepreneurs provide many of the important services that address human needs, improve our quality of life, and make democracy work better. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the federal government should invest in this approach by strategically leveraging public and private sector investment; cultivating higher levels of competition, innovation, and accountability in the nonprofit sector; inspiring a new generation of Americans to engage in service; and unleashing the potential of existing high-impact organizations."

"In the private sector, companies get this type of support through an institutionalized and significant dedication of resources to research and development. This activity is supported by the federal government with up to $7 billion a year in R&D tax credits. In contrast, R&D in the nonprofit sector is limited, with a disconnect between charitable foundations that can fund innovation and the organizations on the ground that can test new concepts and bring them to scale. As a result, there is little to no marketplace where innovative solutions in the nonprofit sector can start, grow and have a significant impact on the tough issues we face. Obama and Biden will create a new partnership between the federal government, private sector investors and the nonprofit sector. By leveraging federal dollars, Obama and Biden will foster the use of best practices of the private sector to nurture innovation in the nonprofit sector. This will help identify programs that work and expand them to be scalable in other markets, which will increase the efficiency and impact of the nonprofit sector as a whole. Obama and Biden believe that our problems are not too big, our solutions are currently too small, and they will support an agenda that identifies and scales the best solutions to some of our most pressing problems."

As far as I can tell this has absolutely nothing to do with who private citizens and groups choose to fund or what good works they choose to do or not do. It appears to me to be focusing primarily on the nonprofit sector R&D.

There is more that I haven't quoted here. I highly recommend reading the relevant documents instead of just reading about them.

[rand0m1.livejournal.com]

According to Obama's National Service Plan Fact Sheet (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/NationalServicePlanFactSheet.pdf).

"Homeland Security Corps to help communities plan, prepare for and respond to emergencies. Participants will include full-time members who work with communities to help them plan and prepare for emergency response as well as a cadre of volunteers who can be mobilized to help in a national disaster. The Corps would draw on the experience of the National Civilian Community Corps, and work in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As a U.S. senator, Obama introduced legislation to create a national emergency health professional volunteer corps to ensure there is a ready pool of volunteer doctors and nurses who are willing, trained, and certified to serve in times of disaster. Obama’s planned Homeland Security Corps would build on that effort."

Where did this draft thing come from?

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

McCain opposes the draft, as does the Republican Party and pretty much all of the party's leadership. McCain keeps getting asked about this and keeps giving the same answer, so I don't see how you formed this belief.

The draft is being promoted more by Democrats as a means of achieving social justice in military service, though considering that it's an all-volunteer service, there's no issue of justice here. A draft would just be a way to force rich people's kids to serve, except of course it would never do that anyway.

. png

Re: Where did this draft thing come from?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

McCain latest statement (as of October 20th) regarding the draft was that he "does not disagree" with the position that, without a draft, we will not have the military needed in the coming decades. The question was asked of him at a town meeting.

I don't know. Maybe he's at the point now where he just has to agree with everything his carefully vetted audiences ask of him or he'll look... unelectable?

Re: Where did this draft thing come from?

[ideaphile.livejournal.com]

Oh, now, c'mon. Look it up. He said that in response to a long, rambling comment that was mostly about the treatment of veterans. He said what he said to make the woman stop talking. It's ridiculous to interpret his brush-off as a detailed agreement with everything she said.

. png