Hello, and notes...

I'm writer II on this blog...This is my first post.

A little about myself: I'm going to stay anonymous, because it is just easier that way. Dakar and FellowMan are very good friends and have known me for years.

I guess my general political philosophy is simple. I would like to live in a society and work in an economy. One cannot exist without the other so it's all about balance for me. I take a holistic approach to the world.

At this point in time, I see society as far too vulnerable to an unstable economy. When I look at Bear Sterns or modern American health care, I see people's lives ruined over money. This is not a good thing.

We are entering this century with a great debate. What, exactly should be the roll of the government in our society and economy? Are we to drown government in a bathtub, so it is unable to respond even to natural disasters? I think most people will agree that Grover Norquist is batshit crazy on that point. Should the government back the debt of a failed financial services business, in effect socializing the risk? Well, the (supposedly conservative) Fed chair just did that. Tell me, American Taxpayer, how do you feel about the government backing $30 billion in bad debt with your money? Should financial institutions that took huge risks in the malformed and under-regulated derivatives market get such a large handout?

Yes, there is bloat in the government, and yes, Bear Sterns needed some type of government support, because it was near the bottom of a house of cards. Though the investors and bankers should suffer for their stupidity, its failure could have put the US into a recession, harming our society. As I said, I see society as far too vulnerable to an unstable economy.

This is the debate of our generation. Thank you, Dakar, for the forum.

Coming soon:
I will get these out over the next month, then probably take a break for a while.

1a-Logistics: Why people who want to be "Out of Iraq in a Year!!!" are utter fools. They could put the world at risk for the next 30 years if they had their way. Try moving the entire MNF-I in a year. 177,000 troops, plus equipment, plus supply chain, plus contractors (150,000 additional uhh...people)...Well, I will give the details soon.

1b-Logistics: Our lack of domestic heavy manufacturing infrastructure directly impacts our ability to support our troops and ourselves. The Jones Act, dams and lock gears, tax inequity in rail infrastructure and the single US-manufactured container gantry crane in existence, coming your way. Trust me. It matters.

2-Why LRF thinks that supporting the troops can be done while not supporting the war. And, a brief summary of what can be done to support the troops and withdraw gracefully.