No straight talker today

Senator John McCain was on This Week today. He was asked about Iraq and a major subject of the interview was if we should get out now or wait and if we wait, what are we waiting for. As McCain has consistently said, he believes that we need more American troops on the ground in Iraq. The question then becomes, if the administration doesn't think we need more troops then why is he not for getting out now and not wait if the situation doesn't change or improve.

It is as was pointed out by George S., that if no more troops and no change in the conditions on the ground happen, doesn't it become a moral question of why are we going to continue sacrificing more American men and women with no difference in outcome if we stay another day or another year. McCain continued to stick to his position that we cannot afford to leave, that would be a failure. But what would staying accomplish if we stayed and nothing changed. When do we decide enough is enough and take our licks and leave.

This is where the straight talk stopped. What McCain refused to acknowledge is he doesn't want us to leave whether things change or not. Why? If McCain were to be honest he would state the obvious truth. He thinks he will be elected president and he doesn't want us out of Iraq before he gets his chance at it. That's straight talk but it is not politically prudent to say it. So I guess straight talk is relative. My problem is McCain's ambition clouds his judgment and his opinion about leaving Iraq.

If McCain makes this grand bargain and fails to see his ambitions come true then what will he say to the last mother to loose her son in this war. I see the Senate chamber and see the witness table and hear a young returning vet ask the same question a vet did 35+ years ago.

Who won?

We won! And we are everyone. We are the ones who are sick and tired of "special interests." We are the immigrants and all those around the world who wish they were. We are the workers and we are the honest owners. An ideal that we all cherish won. We got so tired of the inequities that were becoming ingrained. Special treatment and inside deals lost. Fairness won.

Isn't fairness the magic of America? Isn't fairness the real bedrock that makes the American Dream possible? Class systems and cast systems have no place here. The great middle rules here. The only thing that can sustain the vast middle is the belief that fairness will out. It is what the rule of law is all about. It is a person stripped of privilege standing no better or worse than anyone else. Take away your awards, your accolades, your standing in your profession or lack there of. Rest assured when no one can see or even pays attention that this ideal will be foremost and always preeminent.

We have found our grounding again. No more K street project. No more legacy entitlement. Fairness before all is why we have succeeded and it is what makes us the place everyone wants to be like. How do we do it? What is this wonderful collective sensibility that's ingrained in us that allows us to see when things just don't feel right. It's like a group sense. It is an unease. There are those that say we want more than anything to be liked. I think this is wrong. I think what we want more than anything is that we like ourselves. And I think we were not too happy with us and we needed a righting. Its a sense of unease that permeates our being, one that sees beyond or through superficially good news and strong indicators. When all the numbers are pointing positive and all the feelings are going in the other direction, it seems that we know things just aren't right and those things always seems to be that things are beginning to lose site of their mooring. It's fairness stupid. That is the magnet and the promise of America.

Pride over Party

Could it be that the president didn't dump Rummy before the election because he couldn't bring himself to, without a special event, get rid of him. If that is the case does it also mean that several elected Republicans lost their seats because their constituents didn't see any change coming that they could credit to Republican elected officials? Did W's pride make it impossible for him to admit a change was needed and Rummy had to go. Did the major losses by his party give him the only out to get rid of Rummy? Was the president trapped by his own resoluteness? His stubbornness and his refusal to admit mistakes made it impossible for him to admit his policies needed a change in direction. Only a devastating defeat could compel him to adjust his course without admitting voluntarily to failure. Wow can you trust a man like this? A guy who would abandon his party for the sake of his own pride.

Computer Voting not a good thing

This is not a rant about the evils of computer voting and the controversy about no tracking or verification of paperless ballots. This is a realistic opinion about the reality of why computer based voting is not practical in a real time, real life reality. Why should there not be computer voting should not be a discussion about the evils of non-traceable voting.

Computer based voting could more easily be argued against using an obsolescence and rarity of use argument. IT is unusual and unique in its nature for advancement and speed of obsolescence. It is said that computer technology turns over every 18 months. Many companies and governments turn over their IT equipment every 3 to 4 years. Municipalities buy voting equipment rarely due to low usage and high costs.

It makes no sense to replace voting equipment every time a vote is to take place. Could you imagine for every election the county or other entity had to acquire new voting apparatus? The cost of equipment and training and awareness would be unbelievably prohibitive. But by using computers for elections is exactly what this mandates. Voting normally happens every two years. IT advances at a rate faster than a single election cycle. However it makes no sense to replace voting technology at the same rate that IT as a whole advances.

Ask, what IT department or CIO would use their computer equipment once then store it for two years then boot it up and use it again without knowing that there would be all kinds of problems. No CIO worth their stock options would think this is a model of best practices. Why would a state secretary of state or county registrar be asked to think any differently. But that is exactly what we expect of these people when we insist on computer based voting.

I can only imagine after having experienced the problems we are about to experience that we would be eager to experience even more problems during the next election cycle. Add to this the fact that most of the poll watchers and helpers and volunteers are 70+ years old and what we are creating is a recipe for disaster. I can hear the lyrics to "welcome to my nightmare," running through my mind already.