Here we are in this election season stuck to our TVs with dramatic anticipation of the strategies and campaigns put forth by our two leading candidates Barrack Obama and John McCain.  The rhetoric is loud and abound to a deafening pitch as the candidates, their surrogates, news commentators, 527's, and - yours truly - Internet bloggers shout their all important opinions to the world in some hope to sway a portion of the electorate in any given direction.  We watch the battle unfold with a play-by-play anticipation that leaves Super Bowl junkies jealous.

In the end of it all, this is really nothing we haven't seen before, and the hype is nothing more than superficial muck.  The Super Bowl is so much funner to watch because not only does it take less time, but it also comes with better commercials in between plays.

But the battle rages on.  "Gotcha!" schemes are constantly in play as candidates are quick to take advantage of anything the other says.  New videos or pictures pop up from years past catching one of our beloved candidates in an embarrassing moment giving fodder to our press corp to over analyze on national TV.  The issues themselves are beaten to a pulp as surrogates from the opposite sides repeat their mantras hidden behind political agendas.

Why does it always have to be about the strategy?  Why does it have to be about who is raising however much money?  Why does it have to be about campaigns designed to drum up the zealots that even the more flamboyant religions couldn't match?  Why is it that "my guy" is our nation's savior, and "your guy" will lead us to disaster?  Why is it always about our differences, as if we share nothing in common?  And finally, why oh why can't we at least get better commercials in between plays?

The debate over whether or not to allow domestic exploration and drilling of petroleum fuels has largely focused on what kind of effects it will have at the gas pump.  Detractors claim that at best we will see a paltry ten cent reduction in gas prices, while proponents say it will cut the price in half.  Certainly we will run circles around ourselves as both sides point to studies and empirical research that supports their argument.

Although this is a valid concern, other aspects of this whole issue seem to be ignored.  In terms of simple economics, it makes complete sense to expand domestic exploration and drilling, even if it fails to drop the price of gas so much as a single penny.  How so?  Easy. 

We buy the oil from ourselves instead of other countries - many of whom act as our enemies and deny basic rites and rights of democracy to their own citizens.  By buying more oil from ourselves, we are creating American jobs supported by American companies who are owned by American stock holders (aka the middle class).  Or we can create Iranian jobs supported by Iranian companies which are controlled by a dangerous regime that openly talks about wiping Israel off the map.

Surely this is a no-brainer.  Tell me how I'm wrong.

In the past:

In the mid 1800's, the British and Russian governments were making sweeping advancements in Asia.  It didn't take long for the two European powers to get in each other's way, and subsequent conflicts broke out between the super powers.  This quasi-war became known as "the Great Game", focused on where the British held (of all places) Afghanistan as a buffer zone for India.  Holding onto this area became very unpopular with the British people as serious fighting broke out between the British army and the Afghani locals.  Therefore, the Liberal Party (today called the Labour Party) swept into parliament with the campaign pledge to move out of Afghanistan.  Upon taking power, however, they saw that removing troops would give the Russians an advantage, and therefore decided to go back on their promise for the good of the country.  The British stayed in Afghanistan for several years later in efforts to provide a counterbalance against the Russians, while holding onto their own ambitions.

Today:

The Democrats swept into congress two years ago riding on the assurance to end this war in Iraq.  However, Pelosi with the majority of other Democrats, have just voted for funding of this war for another full year (yet again).  Obama, campaigning to his base, has said that he would remove all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his administration.  Now that we are onto the general election, he has shifted his focus onto “listening to my generals” when he gets elected, and “refining my policy” after he visits the area here shortly.  This is not a flip-flop, but an obvious shift in focus that sparks serious thought.

In the future: (a prediction)

After defeating McCain, President Obama will not remove all combat troops within the 16 month deadline.  With the several successes that have come about with the surge, undermining this would be disastrous to his administration and assure his defeat at being reelected.  He realizes this, and continues to fight this out - to the utter consternation of the Moveon.org crowd.  Ultimately, pundits openly wonder if there was really any difference between McCain or Obama in terms of what either would have done in Iraq.  After all is said and done with all the campaigning and rhetoric, the President takes the responsible course of action, for the good of the country.

Debating the war in Iraq leads us to three fundamental questions that need to be addressed.  They are as follows:

1)  What is victory?

2) Is victory worth the cost?

3) What are the repurcussions for failure?

Let's get into each of these.  I would greatly enjoy anybody's input on the matter.  Tell me why I'm wrong.

1)  Victory is defined (in my estimation) as establishing a stable, liberal democracy in Iraq that is capable of acting autonimously and as an ally to the war on terror.  Why is defining this so difficult? 

2)  With the drastic amount spent in terms of dollars and blood, it is entirely understandable why people are so impatient with our situation.  It is also understandable for people to be frustrated over the decision to invade to begin with.  Nevertheless, a historical perspective must be made here.  In WWII, (according to Robert Samuelson of Newsweek) the US spent a massive 38% of the gross domestic product. Well over 400,000 American troops killed in action, with millions of Germans and Japanese also killed (many of whom were civilians) at the blunt end of the American war machine.  Nobody ever debates whether or not it was worth the cost.  Compared with today, we are spending 1% of the GDP.  Over 4000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead (mostly by other Iraqis/Iranians).  We citizens of today's generation have no idea what sacrifice really is.  If our children go without their video games for a whole day, some special interest group may sue for cruel and unusual punishment.  I say this as I have personally lost buddies of mine in my battalion during my deployment in OIF III.

3)  Senator Clinton once asked General Pretraus to define failure in Iraq (since it seems nobody wants to define victory).  I don't remember his response, but in my opinion I can simply define failure as thus:  when we give up.  In the Revolutionary War, it is a mistake to assume that we kicked some British butt.  We didn't.  We lost an overwhelming majority of the major battles fought.  Washington himself fought in 9, and only won 3.  But we didn't give up, while the British finally did.  Hence our nation was born.  If we simply give up now because of lack of patience, and fail to achieve the aformentioned victory conditions, the consequences will be severe.  We can expect hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people slaughtered in all out chaos.  We can expect Iran to dominate the remants of any existing government in Baghdad, and further ambitions against both Isreal and the United States.  We can expect oil prices to go much much higher, greatly hindering the world economy.  We can expect al'Queda to gain safe haven in Iraq and flourish (last I checked, al'Queda is still in Iraq, but currently on the run).  We can expect a much worse situation that will require another deployment of troops later on down the road, ultimately getting us nowhere.

We are coming to a major crossroads at this point.  New successes are coming about in this struggle, but the situation is far from ideal - only 19 troops were killed in the month of May.  The difference between the major political presidential candidates is clear, while both feel that they are acting in our nation's best interests.  I pray that whoever wins the upcoming election will be the one with the right plan.  I make no bones about my current support for McCain as I feel he has the right idea; but if Obama wins and it turns out he was right on how to deal with this situation, then I'll be happy with that no matter what else will be the outcome of his administration.

As reported in the ISJ, congress has just spent a super-massive 290 billion clams on a new farm/nutrition/bioenergy bill.  This really shows our government operating at its worst in modern times.  The bill is so fiscally irresponsible, so full of pork, so full of bail-outs and entitlements, so full of anti-competition, so full of waste, so full of business-as-usual-spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow antics.  This bill is really really bad, and the president is powerless to stop it, despite a vow to veto. 

This is proof that almost nobody is really serious about fiscal responsibility.  Larry Craig, Mike Crapo, Mike Simpson, and Bill Sali, who all act as Idaho's representation in congress, all voted for this bill.  I can't think of anybody who gets on his soap box more than Craig when it comes to preaching about balancing the budget.

All the major presidential candidates failed to vote at all on this legislation; how convenient.  Ron Paul, to his credit, actually voted against the bill.

Republicans accuse democrats of being spend happy.  Democrats accuse Republicans of being spend happy.  They're both correct about the other, and the hypocrisy runs deep.

I read with terrific delight in the ISJ that Areva has formal plans to build a new $2 billion uranium enrichment facility here in SE Idaho.  This only makes sense because we also so happen to have the world's premier nuclear research facility here at the INL.  This is big step forward in securing a future in nuclear power.

I hope that we can work diligently to educate people about the potential behind this technology.  Going nuclear is the single most proactive step we can take towards combating global warming and making America energy independent.  It's a technology that has proven itself for decades now, and it's time we take advantage of what has been staring us in the face for far too long.

Both Clinton and Obama have clearly vocalized a desire to remove troops from Iraq, and that a withdrawal of troops from Iraq IS NOT defeat - and therefore, I guess, a means to victory.

Could somebody explain this logic to me?

I phrase this in a sincere desire to understand, and not in a manner that mocks the two Democratic rivals.  Nevertheless, I have to say that this strikes me as counter-intuitive.  Since when has ANY war been won by a permenant retreat?

     Economics and taxes are boring subjects.  So much so, that when people talk about it they speak in rhetorical, vague terms to make it interesting.  Politicians do this all the time.  Nobody really cares about the numbers, it’s too boring.  Unfortunately, arguments based on rhetoric appeal to our emotional senses, but fail to solve any problems and often only makes them worse.
So in light of this, here are some extremely boring figures courtesy of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.  If you are tired or sleepy in anyway, STOP READING NOW!  Otherwise, for those with the fortitude, you may find some things here that will directly contradict the baseless arguments we hear so often in the news media.

-     In 2007, the top 1% richest Americans paid 39.4% of the individual income taxes.  In    
      2000, under the previous administration, they paid just over 37%.
-     The bottom 50% of Americans paid a whopping 3.1% in 2007, down from 3.9% in
       2000.
-     32% of Americans have wages low enough that the government doesn't make them
       pay income taxes.

     The current administration is the first to actually lessen the tax burden across the board since Eisenhower – I don’t know if Eisenhower cut taxes, but the data doesn’t go back that far.  By the numbers:

-      The richest 20% saw about a 9% tax break.
-      The second richest 20% got about 24% back.
-      The middle 20% saw about 15%.
-      The second bottom 20% got about the same, 15%.
-      The poorest 20% received about 33% from Uncle Sam.

     So how does this benefit the rich?  It benefits them just as it benefits the rest of us, but only to a lesser extent.  I am currently living well within the poverty level, struggling as I will through school, constantly figuring out how to make ends meet.  But it’s because of the rich that I have a job.  It’s because of the rich, the government can afford to give me grants to go to school – making my pursuit of an education feasible.  And despite my position in the economy, I live well.  My kids are well fed, our house is warm, my bed is soft, and my car mostly works.  Sure it’s tough, but I certainly won't fret that it's somehow the government's responsibility to MAKE me more prosperous.

Could it be that having China hosting the Olympics turns out to be a great force for civil rights?  It seems that when the announcement came out that Beijing would hold the mantle for the games in 2008, it was nothing more than a slap in the face for the human rights movement.  However, now that China is in the spotlight, their flaws have the full attention of the world, and the world - for good reason - doesn't seem happy.  The news is full of stories about protests wherever the torch relays, with threats of boycotts by governments everywhere.  The Chinese government can't be too comfortable, and although they have made progress in the past few years (Wikipedia has just been unblocked), this can only help to expedite the quest for liberty.

I say, good for the world, good for the games, good for the Chinese.

    A bumper sticker occasion found on a vehicle reads, “Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Power.”  Right on!  Despite the ever present fear of nuclear power, it hasn’t gone away because after all is said and done, it just makes sense.
    Some notes: it’s cheap, it’s plentiful, it’s domestic, it’s safe, it’s reliable, it’s practical, it’s proven, and. . .oh yes. . . it’s clean!  Nuclear energy is an carbon/sulfur emission free source of energy that’s cheaper than all other sources of energy with the exception of hydro-electrical.  Newer reactors also offer the only practical means of producing hydrogen in a practical, environmentally friendly, economically competitive manner.  Hydrogen, we can agree, is good.  If as a country, we utilized nuclear power like the French do, we would not only being paying less for our electricity, but we would exceed standards set by the Kyoto treaty by a healthy margin.
    Other energy solutions like wind or solar would dry up tomorrow without government subsidies, while the thought of having to build thousands of windmills across the US is daunting and not very practical.
    Still there are some concerns about nuclear:
1) What about waste?  Current technologies pioneered right here in Idaho allow for waste to be reprocessed.  If the country were to focus on recycling all the current waste in storage, we would have enough to supply our needs for the next century without producing a drop of new waste material over what we already have.
2) You say it’s safe.  What about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island?  In view of the overarching history of the industry, nuclear power has a very good record of safety despite all the accidents that have occurred.  What industry doesn’t have accidents?  That said, the Three Mile Island meltdown resulted in nobody getting hurt, and only paltry amounts of radiation escaping from the reactor.  In Chernobyl, the worst thing that could have happened, did.  And although it was terrible, it wasn’t as bad as we have imagined it to be.  The industry has learned from their mistakes, and is better because of it.  Keep one thing in mind: a nuclear engineer isn’t ever afraid to walk into his own facility.

As it now sits, a brand new generation 4 nuclear reactor prototype is slated to be built here at the INL, promising a stronger economy for this region.  Licenses for new reactors (generation 3) are now being processed across the US for the first time in 30 years.  Unfortunately this is all far too political, and the next administration could easily undercut the progress being made.  Of the three major political candidates currently running for the presidency, only one (that I’m aware of) has voiced support for this technology.  The others avoid the subject because of fear of alienating their uniformed constituency.
Energy is America’s biggest weakness.  Here we have the solution to make ourselves more prosperous and secure.  So let’s go with it ALREADY!