Random Thoughts - September 25, 2007

Here are a few things I have been pondering recently, feel free to chime in if you have any theories or answers:

• All summer long we waited on the Petraeus report expecting some major revelation that would provide an exit strategy, and what did we wind up with? A plan that seemingly will keep us in Iraq indefinitely and no end in sight. Why is it our responsibility to build a demoncracy in a country or a region that is tribal based and has virtually no nationalistic identity

• Speaking of tribal based communities, I find it very hard to believe that any of the Iraqi's tribes will allow the Persian Shia, even their fellow Shi'ites, to gain any significant power or influence within the existing borders. They fought a very long war just a few years ago, and people just don't forget these things very quickly. Look at the quagmire in the Balkans to get a better understanding of how centuries old disagreements can rear their ugly heads at any time

• What exactly is the problem with a foreign leader, who had absolutely nothing to do with attacks of 9/11 coming to the WTC site in NYC and paying his respects for the dead? Does it matter that he is a crackpot who does not believe that the Holocaust actually happened? Unfortunately, I don't think that should matter, he should have been able to go downtown like any other tourist or visiting dignitary.

• Why exactly are we the taxpayers subsidizing companies like Blackwater and Halliburton to do the work that the fine men and woman of the United States Armed Forces should be doing in Iraq? What is the incentive of our fine, brave soldiers to re-enlist and help to defend our country and fight the war on terrorism, when they can leave their commission behind and go make 2, 3 or 4 times as much doing the same thing for private corporations? I know there have been profiteers and others have always followed armies across continents trying to make a quick buck, but I don't think there has been anything like this before.

• It makes me wonder why 2 prominent Republicans (George W. Bush and Newt Gingrinch) are both saying they believe that Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic candidate. I have to guess that they believe they have the best chance of motivating their conservative base to come out and vote against Hillary then they would against any other potential Democrat. This is exactly why the Democrats should think long and hard about who they are going to back. While I think Hillary has done a phenomenal job of moving her positions to the center of the political spectrum, she is still a very polarizing individual who is despied or worse in at least half the country. An election is about appealing to the middle 20%, since 40% will go one way and 40% will go the other, then is it a good idea to nominate a candidate that might shrink that 20% to 10% or worse 5%?

• The Heroes season premiere was quite good last night. It looks like they might be able to build another season of intrigue and not lose either the quirkiness and still provide intelligent compelling writing and story lines. I am glad the summer reruns and crappy reality programming are finally over. Was it just me or was that kid West, stalking Claire, flying a bit like PeterPan?