12 posts tagged “politics”

I find myself contemplating a discussion I had with someone I met a couple nights ago at Roxanne's on the Main. The conversation turned to the nature of conflict and whether violence could ever solve anything. I argued in some cases violence was the only effective force of change and was met with a glance from this person that contained equal degrees of contempt, anger and condescension. The look made me feel barbaric, and as the conversation progressed I came to realize I was arguing with a rare breed: a true idealistic pacificist.

I looked at him and thought of myself at a younger age when I was all too idealistic about the world.  But now I wonder what other people think about it. I'd like to open up a discussion about violence.

And by violence, I don't mean violence in the sense of crimes of passion, or for monetray gain. I want to think of it in terns of 1776 and 1789. Can a society always undergo a peaceful transition of power like the Glorious Revolution in 1689? Or are social movements whose aims are the expansion of human rights doomed to a constant recourse to violence against the forces that oppose change to maintain their own gains and power?

I'll lay my view open. I think violence is necessary in the reconstitution of a society for the benefit of the greater whole, if only because in any such social transition the ruling class will forcibly oppose the loss of power and wealth they would face.

But what are your views? Is such violence every justifiable. I really want to explore this question. It seems all too relevant to the world we live in.

A friend recently brought an ad to my attention from the New York State Republican Committee. They pointed out how the image below implies if the democrats take power rapists will spawn in every corner and have their way with good, american women.

Values

So the Republitards are at it again, deciding to turn all their rhetorical artillery against their favorite flip-flopping foe. I won't cite Kerry's comment, it's all over the news, but the jist of what was said was that overly smart people don't form the bulk of the armed forces, so get an education and stay out of the quagmire in Iraq.

What's wrong with this assessment? American citizens always gasp with terror at any comment against the armed forces as though their own mother has been slighted in the worst way (god forbid a politician points out something with a shread of truth, right?). Will they open up to reason? No. The Army is not made up of the brightest and the best. To think it is is a ridiculously fallacy, one made all the more poignant by the military's current lower standards of recruitment.

News flash: The military is not seeking to forge divisions of Albert Einsteins with M-16s and K-bars ready to gun down the enemy jihadist and revolutionize physics in their spare time. The military does not espouse the virtues that allow intelligence, and especially intellectual development, to flourish. Thinking is not good for the average foot solider. "There is not to ask why, but to do and die." It's that simple. The military does not want average enlisted men questioning the purpose of their mission, why they are in the conflict they are, and whether their orders (and/or commanding officers) are sound in their judgement. The military seeks obedience.

This is where the practicality of training enters the scope. You can train almost anyone set methods of reaction to any number of circumstances. Drills exist to burn responses into a soldier's mind despite fear and panic. Soldiers are trained to think in terms of the boundaries of warfare and obedience to the chain of command. Those who excel, who are intelligent (and can fall in with the obedience demanded of them) will move up the chain of command (some will perhaps choose special forces are a route). But there are far more privates than NCOs or officers. They are the core of the military, and intelligence is not demanded from them--indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't frowned upon to a degree.

What John Kerry said implies a degree of truth: good education, a good understanding mind will keep you out of the Iraq clusterfuck. The simple truth is that smart people are less likely to join the military over a war like this (opposed to something like World War II, where the cause and danger were so very clear and present). The dregs of society will jump on the bandwagon, however. Where else will they go? And I don't think the army feels quite so bad about accepting them. They are, after all, a means to an end for Iraq, and anyone who says Iraq isn't a purely Machiavellian play (although a botched one) is either a neo-con, or signing their enlistment papers.

Now, as for Mr. Bush's demand for an apology, I say this: Isn't it time you apologized to the troops, Mr. Bush? Apologize to them and their families for the brothers, sisters, best friends, sons, daughters they have all lost; for the limbs they have left behind in a country all your stated reasons for invading were false. And apologize to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and their broken, displaced families, Mr. Bush. Maybe then you can demand an apology from John Kerry for a truthful, albeit blunt, statement.

Since today is my one day off this week, I thought I'd go ahead and make a nice, substantive post (before I indulge in a bottle from the cellar, at least, for the sake of coherent typing)

The Plight of a Visa-bearer

I love my job at the hotel, mostly for the people I work with, yet the other night I learned something disturbing that had happened to one of my co-workers. Let's call her T. Well T, who serves for our restaurant, and who also comes in during the mornings to help with breakfast and anything else, was told by the hotel owner, who I'll call Mr. L, that she will not be paid for any time after 11PM, and that this is retroactive for the past two weeks. Now, the hotel is probably one of the best in South Florida and our aim is to make the restaurant one of the best and most exclusive restaurants in Fort Lauderdale. T is our only server. In fact, she has never served for a restaurant before (nor has anyone at the hotel), but T and I (I help her often) have quickly learned the finer points of working in fine dining. Almost everyone is very happy with her service, and to deliver that service she is often at the hotel until 12:30, sometimes even 1:00AM, finishing everything up.

T works three jobs. She is here legitimately on a crew visa (though the State Department has threatened to take that away because she is from a former Soviet Bloc country--I won't even begin to comment on the stupidity of this), pays her taxes, and is a good, law-abiding person, yet because of her status in this country, she will not pursue the pay that is being retroactively denied to her. I told her Mr. L could not arbitrarily deny her pay for hours worked retroactively, that labor laws exist to prevent that very thing, yet she doesn't want to stir up any issues with the State Department, fearing deportation.

I know the hotel isn't hurting for money, and I know Mr. L isn't either (not when he spent Saturday shopping for a new mega-yacht at the boatshow). Often times he is a gentlemen, and he treats most of us quite well. But this thing with T really disturbs me, and frankly makes no sense. If Mr. L wants the restaurant and hotel to function well, especially in high season, then T needs to finish cleaning the restaurant, which she can't do if she's only there until 11PM. The night auditor certainly doesn't have the time, between the laundry, finances, prepping breakfast, etc etc... What really bothers me, though, is the fear that is preventing her from protesting this kind of treatment. I wonder how many people here on visas let themselves fall victim to flagrant violations of labor laws just to avoid a tenuous situation with the State Department?

I'm fairly disgusted with this issue, and the wider implications it has opened my eyes to.

Yerba Mate

On a seperate note, I've recently rediscovered Yerba Mate. I loved it when I was in South America on a now distant adventure, but it somehow slipped away into memory. And not that yuppie stuff they sell at Teavana--real Yerba Mate, that blissfully tannic liquid that has so much more flavor than coffee, and such a pleasant aesthetic in a gourde. I almost like it as much as I like tea. Indeed, on some nights, I find yerba a bit more satisfying than tea, especially on cold nights that remind me a touch of the Andes.

If you haven't tried it, go for it, you've nothing to lose and everything to gain.

The Red Cliche

On Friday I wore my USSR sickle and hammer t-shirt to school and just happened to have an old TLR with me when I was accosted by a Starbucks employee as being a walking cliche (sadly, I think the proper concept, irony, was perhaps lost on her--cliche would be more akin to a Starbucks employee complaining about other people being cliche). Why is wearing a Soviet Union t-shirt cliche? And why is there not any real source for more socialist clothing? I, personally, enjoy the sickle and hammer, and what they originally symbolized: the blood of the farmer and factory worker.

Why is it that Americans are so afraid of any idea that can be even remotely viewed as a challenge to the present capitalist democracy? Socialism does not eschew private property (nor did communism under Lenin's New Economic Plan), it aims for the benefit of the people. A real egalitarian system of merit and care. But god forbid Americans have to pay more taxes, not that most of them will complain when they hit 60 and face hundreds of thousands in medical bills.

So perhaps red irony is a better subtitle...but then I don't work at Starbucks, so how can I comment on what is, and isn't a cliche?

Well, what can I blame Bill Clinton for today? I got paid and found out I'm being ripped off even more being in a higher tax bracket. Yeah, I'll blame that on Bill. I stubbed my toe today. I'll blame that on tricky dicky, too.

Why not?

But in all serious...

Bill Clinton was NOT president for the PAST SIX YEARS. George H. W. Bush WAS President for the past SIX YEARS. When has North Korea been enriching uranium? OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS! You know, during the time El Bush was IGNORING THEM (ya know, because diplomacy works best that way). SO STOP FUCKING BLAMING CLINTON!

/rant

Dear Mrs. Harris,

While I expect you, with your usual highly intuitive decision making skills, obviously forsaw the controversy you would create by running your mouth off about religion and politics (who will ever forget those charming quips of yours, like "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin", and "God is the one who chooses our rulers"?), I expect you're currently overwhelmed with disappointment by the presses' heathen-like reaction to your truly awe-inspiring intellectual understanding of our forefathers, God, and the Constitution of the United States.

But, Mrs. Harris, you see, I do not have your divinely inspired intellect, and would therefore like to ask you, as a fellow Floridian, some questions about your quite apparently superior knowledge of this God being, and its relationship to politics and sin to aid in my choices at the ballot box in November.

If this God-being you speak of wishes to choose our rulers, then surely if God were to choose a Jew, or Atheist, Wiccan, Hindu, or Muslim, would it not then be this God-being's will that our rulers lead us into sin? I am trying to understand why I must elect a Christian, Mrs. Harris, and I can only assume that God is in some terrible trouble, perhaps undergoing a bit of schizophrenia, or perhaps apathy due to the other four billion people that ignore God's proper teachings, and it is our duty as voters to help this omnipotent, omniescent God-being. Is this right? Do we need to save God from God's own all-powerfulness gone mad?

And how do I know if the person I'm voting for to help save God is really a Christian? Surly there must be a test? Are they Christian if they float in water? Or sink? I have it, Mrs. Harris! To insure we know which politicians on the ballot are proper Christians, we'll throw them to the lions, and if they lions don't eat them, we'll be assured in our knowledge that voting for them will help save God.

Also, regarding our founding fathers, I only have several years of university education behind me, including Consitutional Theory and a paltry little class on the American Revolution, so you'll understand if I have little or no grasp of why our founding fathers would want to have a separation of Church and State. But your vague declaration that this was not their intention makes everything clear for me. I understand now that Christianity was obviously meant to preside over this nation, and that our constitution is just some crazy invention by some old heathens who wished to prevent the masses from having the theocracy they so dearly crave.

Oh yes, Mrs. Harris, you'll definitely have my vote this coming November--well, only if the lions don't eat you.

Sincerely,

The Newly Enlightened.

The new semester looks to be quite promising. My American Latino Writers course and Islamic History have piqued by interest the most so far, however I do believe I'll have to drop Southern Literary Renaissance. It isn't that I dislike Faulkner (which I do), but that my professor eerily reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. Perhaps it was the plain white button down, tucked into tight leather pants with a stainless steel belt, along with the blonde hair, blue eyes and gestures reminiscent of Triumph of the Will that did it for me. Maybe it was just the accent? I blame the year I spent studying Nazi Germany and World War II on this weird turn of fate. Yup, that class must go. I'll be far too distracted by this to pay attention.

Presidential Thoughts

As happens when I get together with my old university cohorts, conversation turns to politics and the hypothetical. Today's question was brought about by our shared disgust of the ten gallon hat we have for a president and fears of him going John Wayne on Iran (when you still have two years before you're ineligible for the draft, a military that's stretched thin, and a president who is far more Dr. Strangelove than Merklin Muffley, you worry about being called up to die for unsubstaniated causes even if the likelihood of such a thing to happen, politically, is miniscule). It was simple: If you were President of the United States, what would you do to fix eight years of ineptitude?

I thought long and hard on this--well, as long and hard as one thinks on such hypothetical questions--and when it was my turn to answer, I had formulated a pretty solid policy. Allow me to share it with you.

1. Being that our national debt is spiraling out of control and is increasingly being held by nation states that are unfriendly to American interests, I would reign the budget in by A) no longer allowing the 'cash accounting' model to be used to calculate the annual budget. The accrual model would be used instead. (For the difference between the two, look here) B) All pork would end. I know, some of you will probably argue eliminating all government pork is impossible, but I have a plan in several parts for this. Any bill by Congress that contained pork would get vetoed, regardless of what else the bill contained. I see the Presidential Veto one of the most powerful tools against pork spending in existence, the only problem is no president has had the cojones to use it for such.
 
Given the horrendous status of the nation's finances, the public would need to learn that it is time they make sacrifices. If the public cannot understand why projects they view as beneficial, but are ultimately pork, are being cut, the alternative will gleefully make them see the necessity of  sacrificing the bacon. That alternative? Tax hikes. And there is nothing the average American despises more than a tax hike.

C) It is apparent that the United States military was and still is a Cold War relic, designed to wage strategic warfare against a powerful adversary. This Cold War mindset needs to go. Technoology and modern guerrila tactics necessitate the need for a complete revision of military (particularly the Strategic Air Command, whose primary function of M.A.D.-type nuclear deterrence is better performed by the United States Navy, and it's ballastic missile submarines). Needless to say, the days of spending billions upon billions of dollars on heavy bombers, several different multi-purpose fighter craft, and maintaining a fleet of 12 super carriers (*Note, the UK only has two, and they are smaller, VSTOL-only capable carriers. Only France and Russian maintain a full blown super-carrier, and they each only have one. 12 is overkill).

While these actions will not assure a budget surplus, they would trim the budget significantly.

2. Total Campaign Finance Reform. In 2004 I wrote a very detailed letter to Senator Bob Graham, as well as my local representatives, arguing for total government finance of political campaigns. While this may cost upwards of $4 billion dollars per presidential election year* ( but much, much less for elections like the coming 2006 Election), it would serve two purposes: lobbyist and special interest groups would no longer have the political capital (oh, pun!) to significantly influence the Congress and President in making decisions that are counter-productive to the benefits of the majority of the population (selective tax cuts, lucrative no-bid contracts, etc...) and it would also cut down on pork spending. I won't expand on this idea in this post, but I am working on a full analysis and plan for this kind of reform. This idea is my baby, and I continuously flog every rep I have with it.

3. Iraq. It needs to end. The only viable option I see for a peaceful Iraq is to eliminate Iraq, as it exists today, as a nation state. Iraq would be partitioned into three nations governed by the popular distribution of Kurd, Shi'ite, and Sunni belief and culture (as it was heading before the LoN mandate after WWI and the British mistake of making it one nation. Read more on this, and Iraq here). Yes, there will probably be squabbles over the status of Baghdad and boundaries, but it is pretty damned obvious to anyone willing to look that the Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd populations DO NOT WANT TO LIVE TOGETHER.

I'm going to stop before I become livid and rant.

4. A total arms embargo will be placed on the nations of Iran, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, and the West Bank Palestinian terroritories, as well as am embargo on all resources necessary to produce arms. The United States needs to take a dramatic stand to end the violence on all sides of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not add a second front to their terrorist recruiting campaign in Iraq by blindly supporting Israel because its leaders cannot comprehend the complex social and cultural dynamics that exist behind groups it unquestionningly declares terrorist organizations. Israel is as much at fault as the Arab nations, if not moreso (since they continue to expand West Bank and Golan Heights settlements even though they KNOW the territory is not theirs, and the expansion of such settlements is in defiance of multiple U.N. resolutions (though they so readily urge compliance with the resolutions that favor them)). Both sides must be treated objectively.

The creation of a Palestinian State based on the set boundaries of U.N. Resolution 181 would be called for and enforced by force, if necessary.

The creation of a seperate Palestinian State along the guidelines of U.N. Resolution 181 would have a number of effects. Primary among those would be the removal of the single greatest reason for the existence of most militant Islamic Jihadist movements. However, and I stress this, the creation of a Palestinian State must recieve the full financial and military support of the world. It cannot simply be created and left to rot. If it is created, and given all it needs to prosper, peace in the Middle East will be one massive step closer.  Nation-building can only work where it is wanted, and where it is given total support. Palestine fits the first criteria, the second is not only up to the United States, but the world.

5. On non-Middle Eastern foreign policy: Walk softly and carry a big stick.
_______________

Off the top of my head, those were the four things I argued for today. I know the power of the President does not extend itself to implementing those policies itself, but I firmly believe that if a person ascends to that office with a singular power of will to act in the best interests of the nation, and can sustain that will against the outcries of their fellow politicians (which would be massive), they will succeed. There would be no playing sides for hopes at re-election, but a sheer will to reform a broken system. I look at presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy and I know that with the right leader, will alone can move mountains (especially when it carries a distinct perceived moral advantage). I doubt I'd ever be half the leader either of them were, but I know if I ever had the opportunity, I'd do the above.

Of course, one of my friends did point out to me that I'd probably be shot before finishing my term. Not that, if I had the chance, I wouldn't try.

Now let me ask: If you had the chance to be President, off the top of your head, what would you do?

*This is based on the sum total of all money spent on campaigning for the federal office during the 2004 Election.

There is something about reading Rousseau that ignites in me a vicious streak of classical republicanism, the kind that fueled victory at Marathon and inadvertently made an Empire of Rome. How can I express the feeling? The idea? This is my vain effort.

To the American Body Politic:

You knew me once. We were both young, of that age when ideas swam lively in our minds and undiscernable shades of gray had yet to infiltrate the ideas we praised and cherished. We were stone and iron then; a foundation of dreams wrought from the blood of righteous men and scoundrels alike.

I remember it well, how we toasted tawny madeira wine over something that was more than ink on parchment and felt we had accomplished something whose greatness would eclipse all the tyrannical vaguries and misdeeds the continental institutions had wrought on mankind--something equal to the blood spilt for it.

And we did.

Oh, we had our trials. I doubt you or I can forget the horrors that spread through the continent when our ideas lost control and gave birth to civil terror and a new form of insidious tyranny. But we--we survived that. We were rightly cautious of zealotry guised in the cherished shrouds of our freedom, and that caution served us well as the flames spread from Lisbon to Moscow.

And we survived our greatest trial. Oh, to look back on it now, neither you nor I can say that first achievement was perfect, but that was why we left the idea open to change and you rightly cured the inequities that caused brothers to fight and die.

We were quite close, even then, if we were not always right. Minor abuses will always happen, though, and can easily be forgiven after they are redressed.

But what happened to us? I know somewhere in the midst of tens of millions dead across the globe and a new enemy in the east, you became afraid. I don't blame you. Who would not fear a flash of white and nothing left behind? You and I differed on many things during those years and it pained me, but we still had our own discourse, a working relationship that was sometimes too ambiguous for my tastes, but a discourse nontheless.

What happened to us? Were we a marriage of convenience that suddenly lost its expedience? I, the philosopher and you the coy alchemist?

But I am not some hunk of lead you can turn into gold at your whims. I am not some stretch of desert you can trample on. I am not a vague set of loosely interpreted excuses for kidnapping, extortion, state-building, and religious zealotry. Simply put, I am not your whore to lay still in some back ally when you please and disappear down into the darkness when you're satisfied.

I may not beable to defend myself against you, but I have those who will. I am Edmond Dantes, and the further you sweep me aside and cast me down into the despaired bowels of the Chateau d'If, those who have not forgotten me will rise. They will rise and avenge me however they can. And there will always be those who will avenge me. Those who will revel in the spirit of our old tawny toast, and if need be, soak the ground in the same righteous blood of the past  you have busily soiled--for I cannot die.

Regards,

The Constitution of the United States of America

Buffalo Springfield - For What Its Worth

Being sick is never pleasant, so when I began to feel a slight pain in the back of my throat last night I knew after four years of good health the bugs had caught up with me. Oddly, when I'm sick I can't stand reading for extend periods of time but have no trouble when it comes to writing. I don't know if that will spell pleasure or pain [insert evil laughter here] for those of you who read this but there it is.

American Psychosis

Yesterday I was busy taking photos of and distracting my best friend from the headache that is her thesis when I stumbled upon a brilliantly written geopolitical essay on Israel by some fellow's name who now escapes me (this happens to me often). It's been a long time since I spent any time with geopolitics, but the essay sparked some thoughts about the United States. I've argued for some time that the United States is undergoing a period of psychosis. I use the term psychosis because I believe polarization is not appropriate. The United States was polarized in the period preceding the Civil War. Both sides had legitimate, realistic reasons for their views. I don't see that as the case now, and I believe it is especially clear upon examination of how the opposing parties imagine the United States in a global context.

One one side of the scale there are the neoconservatives, phyiscally embodied by the Republican party, who follow a line of Straussian thinking (that is a wiki, if you want real meat on Strauss read The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, along with his own writings listed in the Wiki). The basic line of Straussian thought is this: a class of philosopher elites must rule, and do so covertly because the 'vulgar' (yes, he used that word often) masses cannot understand that wars between societies are a political inevitably. To assuage the vulgar masses and bring them into line with what the elites think necessary the heroic mythologies and religion of that society should be manipulated through lies (which he argued were necessary 'myths'). This strategy is evident among the neoconservatives in America by using religion and the myths of 'American values', along with lesser lies, to achieve their political goals (which are intended to benefit the philosopher elite, I should add. Oh, and I should mention that Paul Wolfowitz was a direct student of Strauss, and in turn I. Lewis Libby was his student).

The Democratic Party, on the other end, is somewhat akin to a Moroccan bizarre. Some prominent party members supported the war in Iraq and now oppose it (Hilary Clinton) while others have lost their place in the party for supporting it (Joe Lieberman) and some gain prominence by constantly damning it (Ned Lamont). The real question is what does the democratic party actually stand for anymore? Their actions are largely reactionary in nature. They have not shown real initiative since the departure of the Clinton Administration. We know the Democratic Party mostly opposes the war in Iraq, unwarranted wiretaps (Today's ruling made me happy even if the NSA was granted a stay), and our (lack of) energy policy. But that isn't really standing for something. Opposition is not a statement of belief. I know they say they want real security, honest leadership, retirement security, economic prosperity and what not, but so do the neoconservatives (even if they aren't going to deliver). Their agenda is a completely superficial reactionary construct that leaves voters with the same kind of "with us or against us" choice that the neocons so often imply. Worse is that many of their own party members have voted for measures that have caused the problems their agenda is reacting to (To go into such a list would take a monumental effort which I don't have the time to undertake. I direct you to Vote-Smart and their database of elections for further information). A lack of direction is no better or worse than going in the wrong direction, and that is where the Democratic Party's reactionary politics have led it.

The above positions leave two primary geopolitical visions of America, as I see it: American the Righteous Crusader, Defender of the Free World, and Champion of Free Enterprise AND; America the Pious, Defender of Civil Liberties asquiescent and subject to United Nations approval for any real foreign interventions, but still willing to defend itself against terrorism.

The first vision, the neocon vision, is based in many American mythologies and the pseudo-moral construct of the religious far-right. America, in their view, is right in state-building to defend itself because America is the global prosecutor of evil (read this as terrorism). This vision is inspired by the constant reminder that the American ethos is under attack by the unrighteous. It helps that those unrighteous are not Christians. It further helps because the fear instilled in people by the constant threat of attack not only on themselves, but their way of life justifies the neoconservative doctrine of necessary pre-emptive strikes on unfriendly states. Such preemptions are also made valid through the great capitalist myth. The nations American attacks to protect itself will be transformed into havens of liberty and freedom where all can prosper through free trade. Unfortunately the neoconservative line of thought is flawed. Iraq is a case study in their failures. Few if any Iraqis have profitted from their newfound ability to explore free enterprise while a select few companies in the United States have (in accordance with their Straussian ideology). And it is apparent for anyone willing to look that civil war is imminent and Iraq has only become a breeding ground and flashpoint for terrorist groups around the world (which further supports the Straussian model). Ultimately this vision of America only benefits those atop the neoconservative hierarchy--everyone else must bear the brunt of it in one form or another (oil prices, travel restrictions, and hightened global animosity for example).

The Democratic vision is somewhat in line with who will always be my favorite politican, Teddy Roosevelt. It isn't quite the walk softly and carry a big stick America I'd like to see, but it's close. It is an America that will defend itself when defense is justified, and after going through the proper international channels. This is the cautious vision of America, a reaction to its recent scars in Iraq. But again, as with the Democratic agenda the Democratic vision for America on the global political stage is reactionary and will be governed by their reactions to public responses within the nation. It is an ineffective model. On one hand, they attempt to follow international sentiment (through the United Nations) which is often in opposition to American sentiment (How many Democrats in office balked at the recent conflict in Lebanon? Most didn't, for fear of alienating the centrists, and Jewish vote, or so I would argue). Like their domestic agenda, the Democratic Party's geopolitical vision of America lacks a concerted direction.

This is why I believe America is in a state of psychosis. Neither of its main political personalities can create an effective vision of America that will allow it to function without causing its own global degradation. The neoconservative vision will only service to benefit an elite core at the expensive of the nation's 'vulgar' masses and America's global political capital, while the reactionary approach undertaken by the Democratic Party can only effect indecisiveness when faced with the will of the people it serves and the international community. Both approaches erode the global credibility of the United States and until the psychosis ends the erosion will continue to eats its way into this country's ability to effect its policy, whatever they may be, around the world.

[I will elaborate on this idea over time, but right now I just want to throw it out there, see what everyone thinks]

And now for something completely different!

I love tea. So much so, that I'll treat you with a[horrible] little tidbit I wrote about it:

Tea, I do love thee so,
Hot steaming, and orange spiced,
You're better than blow.
A sip of your tannic twist,
Your cinammon sweet bliss
Matches any needle's kiss.
With cigarettes or just plain
What pleasure
When the caffeine hits my veins.
I'd say you're like sex,
Without emotions to vex
But that's going a little far,
Though you are hot and wet,
As I like my women set,
And while in bed you'd be a mess
You're lacking a woman's caress.
Yet don't feign worry, my favored drink
There's nothing like you
After a night of kink.

Edit: Is this really the only post on all of Vox with 'geopolitics' as a tag? I feel accomplished now.