War-enabler endorses Obama, will take part in his administration

As someone who vehemently opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start, it irks me that Obama claims the anti-war mantle so easily. Hillary's much-derided criticism that all he has going for him in that department is a speech from 2002 is looking more accurate by the day. That speech was virtually a foregone conclusion given his Hyde Park constituency, and since then what has he done to burnish his anti-war credentials?

Obama never challenges the assumption that the surge worked, although there is ample evidence to the contrary. He never challenges McCain's and Palin's assertion that stopping funding for the war is the same as betraying the troops. What do they think will happen if there is no more money for the war? Will President Bush order soldiers to fight without bullets and food, or will he bring them home? Which represents a greater betrayal, asking troops to deploy again and again in an open-ended conflict with no realistic objectives, or bringing them home?

Add to this list Obama's rapturous response to the Powell endorsement:

"This morning, a great soldier, a great statesman, and a great American has endorsed our campaign to change America. I have been honored to have the benefit of his wisdom and counsel from time to time over the last few years, but today, I am beyond honored and deeply humbled to have the support of General Colin Powell."

Exactly how short is our collective memory? Six years ago Powell was the spokesman for the war, and his spurious U.N. speech was instrumental in convincing Americans that military action was necessary.

Whatever resignations Powell had about invading Iraq, he did nothing until he was pushed out by the same cadre that ruined his credibility. Least-evil member of the Bush administration is still a pretty poor distinction, and now the Obama administration is set to benefit from his "wisdom and council." Pardon me if I don't fall all over myself about the power of change-you-can-believe-in to inspire transformative inclusive yadda yadda yadda.

Of course this is good politics for Obama, who I do in fact support over McCain. Based on the aggregate of remarks made by Obama and his advisers, versus the general thrust of the McCain campaign, plus guessing, plus my in-grown Democratic bias, I think that Obama is less likely to lead us to ruination. Besides, Obama is only cavorting with war-enablers. McCain is endorsed by war-criminals.

Nuclear Pintos, the McCain/Obama energy plan

Isn't it great how bipartisan everyone's being this election season? I'm so relieved that we don't have to put up with a lot of bickering over trivial issues like gay marriage, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the surge, Afghanistan, single-payer healthcare, and the $700B bailout.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

• Gays should not be allowed to marry.
• If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you care if the government spies on you/pours water into your lungs?
• The surge worked.
• We can and must win in Afghanistan.
• Single-payer is not realistic.
• The only cure for our financial woes is to give several hundred billion to those at the center of the crisis.
  

Gore Vidal

Mussolini

So now I get to practice my right as an American to choose between purple and violet on the above scale. Yippee.

To the above list of crucial, politically irrelevant issues facing the country, add energy independence. Here's McCain in the 1st Presidential debate:

"Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide, solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power."

Damn right. We have got to stop paying Iran and Venezuela for their precious wind and sunshine and tides. It's time to start producing some American wind and sunshine where it will do the workers in Ohio and other swing states some good!

What's that, Obama? We're not paying them for sunshine?

"We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States."

It's the oil, stupid, and the problem with both statements is that McCain and Obama apparently think that all forms of energy are drop-in replacements for oil.

Which they are, if your car runs on plutonium and has a sail, like my modified 72' Pinto:

(sail not pictured)

Those of you who do not have a nuclear car and house like me are probably still going to want some gasoline and home heating oil, but you cannot create gasoline from nuclear fuel. You cannot create home heating oil from wind. (You can, theoretically, create both from bio-fuels, but this is only a win if your farm equipment runs on wind, solar, or nuclear. Or if you're the corn lobby. Then it's a big win either way.)

Even better, you could create the infrastructure to convert electricity into hydrogen, which you can then use to generate more electricity, or drive a car, or heat a house, or fly a blimp.

But no one's talking about that, because unlike bio-fuels, solar, and wind, overhauling our energy infrastructure might actually threaten the windfall profits of oil & gas companies that donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to both candidates.

If you read the above quotes and you're thinking that Obama didn't say anything about nuclear and therefore isn't in favor of Nuclear Pintos, here's an Obama quote from last night's debate:

"Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix."

No explanation of why nuclear power is a good idea. I assume it's for more Nuclear Pintos.

Obama seems to be pulling away in the stretch. Good, I'll be happier if I don't have to vote for purple over violet. Nader's on the ballot in more states than ever. If you're not in a swing state, think about it. He's incredible. Wherever you are, you could just thumb your nose at the plurality system and vote your conscience--what a concept!