Iraqis are better off? is that relevant?

Do I want Iraqis to be safe and happy: yes. Do I believe their happiness is relevant to the debate on the Iraq invasion and occupation? no. and that is exactly the point, because at this moment people are arguing about the truth and importance of a March 18,2007 article that indicates Iraqis are better off. Hawks are saying that this is evidence that the war was right, and that the mission is working. Opponents of the war are trying to discredit the study, which is a ridiculous waste of time, because if you are arguing about that war, whether or not Iraqis are better off is irrelevant. Here is my comment to that article:
I could blow up pakistan and more than half of Indians would say they were better off...doesn't make dropping the big one on Pakistan the right thing to do. This is all really interesting..and I don't doubt the truth of it, but whether or not Iraqis, the Middle East or anyone is better off without Sadaam isn't and never was the question. Remember how this conflict was marketed: WMD's, Al Qaida, 9/11, Terrorism. Arguing about the conclusions of this article is a waste of time. Remember, this war was packaged as anti-terrorism, 9-11 response, al-qaeda, WMD's related. It was not sold to us as a humanitarian effort to help out the Iraqis, if it was, then this article would be highly relevant and important, but as it stands now, it is just a distraction and a trap for the iraq war opposition to fall into.

Evolution of Environmentalism

What happens when previously radical or minority held views on the environment become main stream? Well you are seeing it happen right now. Let me start by admitting that his post is short on answers and full of observations. Environmental groups do everything in their power to bring their issues of choice into the spotlight. They hope for widespread attention to the issue and political action. But doesn't it seem like whenever this goal is achieved, the result seems to fall far short of what the initial goal was? By the time an issue makes it to the mainstream, it is simplified and packaged into a neat little press release. The complexity of the issue is lost, and any political action that follows is likely a band-aid. Is this strategic? Is that the only way to get anything done in our current system? dumb it down and make it look pretty and hope for the best? A "little steps" approach ? Perhaps if it were not for the simplification process, no progress would be made on the environmental front? I don't know. Environmentalists are accused of strategies like saving the old growth by finding an endangered species (spotted owl) as a tool. While the whole issue was divided into pro-logger or pro-spotted owl, many conservationists were more interested in all the old growth that was in play and many local loggers and communities were interested in the issue of long term economic stability of the timber industry if old growth forest management continued at this unsustainable rate of harvest. But not many people looked at the issue in those terms..it was easier to just be pro-job or pro-owl. So, the spotted owl basically won, but now half the country thinks the debate was actually about an owl vs. a job (simplification), when really it was a complex tug of war between short and long term economic issues, wilderness and ecology, with a dash of owl thrown in for drama. Every environmental issue has the opportunity to teach the uninformed and uninterested that there are no black and white issues and no easy answers, that when you hear owl vs. job...chances are that that is the tip of the iceberg, that sometimes saving an owl can create more or better jobs etc.. Instead, we end up with the polarized, black and white debate, with 10% of the folks engaged in the debate understanding the details, the ripple effect, the true economic effect etc. Look at global warming, in the last few years it's gone from periphery to front and center. In true American tradition, we will hit it hard in the press, put some compact fluorescent light bulbs in our house, maybe increase our nationwide mpg by 10%, and then we'll all forget about it, until we all clearly see 4 or 5 convincingly warmer seasons in a row...then..panic. Or maybe it will be the farmers who speak up? We always have a weak spot for the distressed farmer. Like I said, just observations here, I am void of answers on this issue...got any?

Ditch your political party

I enjoy when people try to label my political views and fail. Given the hypocritical positions held by the two major parties, I wonder how anyone feels comfortable calling themselves a Democrat or Republican. I agree that one can be a party member without agreeing with the whole spectrum of positions held by that party. Many rational and intelligent Dems and Reps are mavericks, hoping to help pull their party in a certain direction. This is laudable, but I think we are beyond that, certainly at the national level things are just so mixed up I really don't think the labels mean much anymore. It's almost as if it is designed to make Americans think we have a real choice. We need more independents, to force voters to look at the issues and look at where a particular candidate stands on issues that matter. I don't think anyone would doubt that Americans are not paying enough attention to what their Government is doing to them. They pick a party based on some platitudes offered by that party that strikes a nerve with them, and then they are sold. Democrats are soft on crime and love to tax and spend, so I'll be a Republican. Republicans just favor big business and exploit the environment, so i will be a Democrat. The result of this simplistic thinking is exactly what we have today, a detached population and a bunch of rulers all to willing to think short term and look for easy, marketable solutions. So ditch your party, and vote for someone (party affiliated or not) who is flexible, able to criticize and differ with their own party, and willing to rock the boat!