My two cents about politcal stuff

This picture illustrates my feelings on peace. Yeah, it's a nice thought, but no matter how nice you are, someone will smash yer face and take yer stuff.

That is not my two cents, it was just worthy of comment

I was just reading a few articles in The Economist, including the one below, and it just got me thinking about writing my two cents.

An excerpt from an article in The Economist:

Both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton talk of getting out of Iraq, and Mr Obama makes much of his opposition to those (such as his Democratic rival) who authorised the invasion in the first place. Many voters like his anti-war stance; his broad promise to end the war is popular too. He says that he would get troops out by the end of 2009. But Democratic peaceniks might cheer less heartily at some of the details of his plan. He would withdraw one or two combat brigades from Iraq each month, thus keeping American troops present in large numbers for a long time yet. Even after that, he says he would leave soldiers to protect America’s embassy, to fight al-Qaeda where necessary, and that he would “reserve the right” to re-enter Iraq to stop a genocide.

This spoke to me about the 'change hippie's' inexperience and dreamy ideas that just won't get the job done and could, therefore cost many more lives when he pulls out improperly or his failed attempt just returns troops to a Vietnam-like situation where their only expectation is to die for the country they love, in vain, unfortunately.

I would prefer to have McCain as our Commander in Chief, but my next choice would actually be, a close second, Hillary Clinton. I feel that this Iraq war is very much like the Vietnam war. It lost positive management and subsequently support. I think if it would have been managed properly, it could have been finished successfully and would be in the history books as a positive thing instead of the despised occurrence it has become. The same goes for this Iraq war. I think management has failed.

I, however, don't think the solution is to just drop everything and quit. To me, that would be like someone investing $140,000 in a hot rod and then he passes it on to his son, but his son sends it to the crusher because his dad didn't manage the fuel system properly and it doesn't run right. All the goods are there, they just need to be used properly.


This is why I think McCain would be the best choice. I think he, being a Vietnam veteran and 5-year POW after being in an accident that would allow him to be sent home but he stayed in the fight, will be the best to manage and, subsequently, ensure the troops are taken care of. I also feel he can manage the other areas of the job properly, such as taxes, the budget, employment, etc.

My second choice, Hillary, I feel is best equipped to take care of the troops
because she has a bit of experience and if we were to pull-out, I feel she could do it well and manage it properly so that our troops that are the last to leave are not sitting ducks for retaliation. I also feel pretty good about her managing the economy, with the help of her husband. I saw a good bumper sticker the other day, ' When Clinton lied no one died'. So true. Great men throughout history have done amazing things and, at the same time, were weak and fell to this vice of sexual desire. Yes, it's bad and I don't condone it, but men like Einstein, Jefferson, and Kennedy should not have their positive accomplishments ignored because their little brain may have led them down other roads in their spare time. Bill Clinton, regardless of his sexual improprieties, was a good president, in my opinion.

You can read more here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

In the first paragraph, his achievements are summed up nicely.

I love this quote:

In his inaugural address he declared that:

“	Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.

I was in the Navy for most of his terms. I remember a lot of pissing and moaning about how he was horrible for our country, but mostly the Navy, and why did they say this? Because these were the people who had been doing things the same, inneficient, wasteful way for 20 or so years. The idea of downsizing meant more work, waagh! Now, downsizing in some dreamy, hippie way would be a bad thing, but if it was managed properly and engineered for efficiency, it would be a good thing.

These people , are the same type who moaned and groaned when I became a supervisor of a high-tempo, RADAR electronics work center and wanted to re-design things for efficiency. They moaned and groaned when the Navy adopted the same Kaizen ideas that worked so well for companies like Toyota and Boeing, saving them countless dollars and man-hours.

The old ways were mostly gone when I became an Officer and had the power to allow these young, innovative minds to offer and implement new ideas to better the flow and subsequent success of the organization. Anyway, slimming down, admittedly, is hard, the growing pains of learning to do a job once done by 4 people that is now done by one and with more output required. However, it ended up being a good thing, for the Navy and the tax-payers supporting it.

Ok, I'm compootered out now. I believe I will got git my scrub on, yo.

Listening to: Good Directions, by Billy Currington