What War with Iran Might Look Like

President Obama and the Republican candidates who want to replace him talk a lot about how bad it would be if Iran got a nuclear weapon, and about how no options are off the table.  That last part is code for "we might bomb and invade your country, occupy it with our military, and install a friendly government, like we did in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan."  The reason they say it in code is that they don't want you to think about what a war with Iran might look like.  Well, I've thought about it, and I'd like you to consider some of the possibilities.


First, some facts.  Iran's armed forces, called the most powerful in the Middle East by General John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, has launched no wars of choice in modern history, and its leadership adheres to a doctrine of "no first strike".   We outspend them almost 100-to-1, but we outspend everybody, and we're currently using that whole budget on other things, like stationing troops in Austrailia.  And since Iran has over 500,000 well-equiped troops, it would take a lot more U.S. troops to invade Iran than it took to invade battle-weary Iraq (peak = 157,800 U.S. troops in 2008).  Imagine the size and terrain of Alaska, and that's about the size and terrain of Iran.  It goes without saying that nobody in Iran would welcome U.S. troops as liberators, and resistance to an invasion would be widespread and vigorous even beyond the country's military.


Second, some assumptions.  I'm assuming a scenario where the U.S. invades Iran in a manner roughly similar to how it went in Iraq.  This seems a middle-of-the-road scenario falling between what we're doing now (sanctions, surveillance, and assassination), and nuking them back to the stone age.  Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has publicly recommended bombing Iran.


What's the worst that could happen if we attack Iran?

• War with Iran could bankrupt the United States.  Some argue we're already bankrupt, and with our national debt now greater than 100% of our GDP (a higher ratio of debt-to-GDP than Ireland or Portugal), they have a point.  The exact cost of the Iraq war is unknown, but estimates range between $1 trillion and $4 trillion dollars.  So if we use $2 trillion as an optimistic estimate for the cost to invade Iran, can the U.S. afford this?  Will we default on our debt, or merely inflate the U.S. dollar so that we can pay it off?  Hyperinflation anyone?
• We could reinstate the draft.  One reason the American public so blithely supports our Endless War State is that soldiering is seen as just another profession, a good opportunity for some young people.  But if kids with plenty of better things to do with their lives than shoot at foreigners and get their legs blown off start getting drafted, we could find ourselves in an ugly situation.  But once we start the invasion, a draft may be inevitable, since our culture forbids retreat.
• We could start World War III.  Would China, Russia, Syria, and the other Arab states sit idly by while the U.S. took over another country in the region?  Would somebody attack Israel in retaliation?  Given the state of tension in international relations generally, none of this seems "off the table".

I don't know if any of these things will actually happen, but neither do the pundits, generals, or politicians who say we must move against Iran.  They seem a little too willing to risk what seem like some pretty dire consequences, and for what?  To prevent another sovereign nation from getting a weapon that the U.S. has thousands of?  And seeing that the U.S. is the only country to have ever used an atomic weapon, who should the world be more worried about?


Our leaders live in a world that makes them think things like war with Iran might be a good idea.  You need to help bring them back down to earth.  The risks are just too great.  Tell Obama to stop antagonizing Iran and back off.  Contact your congressional representatives and tell them to rein in Mr. Peace Prize.  This might not do any good, but it's necessary that you express your views so they can't claim legitimacy.  And for best results, vote for the only Presidential candidate who explicitly advocates reducing our militarism and entering a foreign policy of Mutually Assured Respect.

The Meaning of the End of the Iraq War

President Obama has announced that the Iraq war is over in multiple speeches, but what does that really mean?  First, a few things that this occasion is NOT.

This is not an Obama accomplishment.  Candidate Obama said repeatedly in 2008 "I will immediately begin to remove our troops...we can remove all of them in 16 months."  So if he had kept this campaign promise, the war would have ended in May 2010, not December 2011.  More important than the pace of withdrawal, however, is the seldom noted fact that the reason troops are withdrawing is because the sovereign government of Iraq has demanded that we withdraw.  The agreement between our nations that dictates withdrawal of our combat troops by the end of this year was signed by President Bush.  Obama has worked hard to try to extend U.S. troop presence beyond the Bush agreement.  The only reason this effort failed is that the Iraqi government refused to indemnify U.S. troops against prosecution for war crimes, such as unauthorized murder of non-combatants.
 
This is not an end to hostilities.  The withdrawal of U.S. "combat troops" is a somewhat arbitrary distinction, since a substantial U.S. presence will remain in Iraq into 2012 and beyond.  Our embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world, a $750 million complex the size of Vatican City.  The staff of this embassy has at least 5,000 mercenaries to guard them.  Do you think the people who have been battling our "combat troops" will see any distinction between them and our "security personnel"?  Those who feel upset that we invaded and occupied their country for 9 years will not rest until the U.S. presence in Iraq is completely obliterated.  Do you remember the crisis that ensued when militants in Iran took our embassy personnel hostage?  While that exact scenario can't happen while the State Department has such a large ground and air force, don't you think we're asking for trouble by staying there?  The need to protect our personnel means things like middle-of-the-night house raids will continue.  Do you think the teenager who witnesses his brother or father being taken away in such a raid will care whether the armed thugs conducting the raid report to the State Department rather than the Defense Department when he decides whether or not to become a terrorist?  If we really withdrew from the country, such a scenario could not happen.

The saddest part of this war ending is that mainstream news outlets feel compelled to "balance" their coverage of the war by describing both the good and the bad things that came from it.  This bogus "objectivity bias" prevents journalists from making overt value judgements, even though war is unequivocally bad by any rational moral standard.  The fact is that bias and judgement are unavoidable anytime a person opens his or her mouth or takes pen to paper.  Better to state your biases up front, rather than pretend you don't have any.  The Iraq war in particular was a miserable failure on any axis you'd care to measure: strategic, economic, political, moral and security.  If we had not attacked, would Sadaam have killed more of his own citizens than we did?  Iraq Body Count reports over 100,000 civilians were killed as a result of the U.S. invasion.  If we had pursued non-violent means for overthrowing Hussein, could we have brought about the Arab Spring years earlier?

The notion that doing evil things (like invading and occupying countries that have not attacked anyone) is OK when the United States does them is called "American Exceptionalism".  It is a dangerous attitude which often results in the citizens of this great country tolerating actions from our government that history will judge as symbols of American arrogance, recklessness, and stupidity.  That's not the kind of exceptionalism I'd like our nation to have.  At the Nuremberg Trials, where Nazi leaders were tried for their crimes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, said "Our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war".  I don't see why this principle doesn't still apply.  Iraq did not attack us (or threaten to attack us), they had nothing to do with 9/11, and they didn't harbor terrorists.  This means the invasion was an unnecessary, aggressive war. 

An unnecessary war, with its colossal cost in blood, treasure, and reputation, is not a cause for celebration, even when it ends.  The Iraq war is a terrible stain upon the American conscience, a blunder in all respects, and an act of embarrassing hubris from our leaders.  The only proper observance of the end of this chapter in U.S. imperialism is to apologize, withdraw completely from the sovereign country of Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East), take care of the veterans who lost their limbs and minds over there, and begin the grieving process. 

How to Win at Words with Friends

I play a lot of different opponents on Words with Friends and only two or three of them are equal or better than me.  Like most people, I prefer playing evenly matched competitions.  I can't really bear to re-match people who can't score at least 200 points on me, and I can't imagine it's fun for them to repeatedly lose by 100 or 200 points either.

I thought it might be fun and help people if I gave a few tips to help them score better.  There really are just a few rules of thumb that can make you score much, much higher.  You don't need a huge vocabulary, though of course that helps.

I don't advocate obstructionist playing.  I don't think you'd win much more often, and stuck boards are no fun to play on.  Given two similar-scoring words, I always play the move that's best for opening up the board.  Of course a super scoring word is worth blocking further development, but I try to avoid this.  Only with some of my more competitive matches will I try to avoid setting up my opponent for an easy triple word score.

If you follow only the Basic Tips, you'll start scoring much better and having more fun.  If you follow all of the strategies and actively develop your vocabulary, you'll start averaging 15-20 points or more per turn, and start playing 50, 60, and 70 point words with some regularity.

Andy's Tips for Winning at Words with Friends:

Basic Tips:

1.  Always try to make as many words per turn as possible.  This is the most important and least practiced strategy.  You can only lay tiles in one direction, but you can make words in the perpendicular direction by laying your tiles next to previously played tiles.  Any tiles you lay that appear in two words are counted twice, including any letter bonus.  (Tiles that were already on the board before you played are only counted once, and you don't get the letter bonus they may have carried when they were originally played).  Try to extend high-value existing words while playing your word in the perpendicular direction.  Actively seek out overlaps you can use to make three or four words per turn.
2. An 'S' is a very valuable tile to have, because you can use the above principle to pluralize a high-value word that's already on the board, in addition to whatever word(s) you can make with your other tiles that you lay with the 'S'.  Try to hold on to the 'S' until you can use it in this way.
3.  Unless the game's almost over, hold on to your high-value tiles (8 or above) until you can at least double or triple them.  For higher multipliers, see tip 7.
4.  I try to use everyday words when I play, because it's more enjoyable for me.  However, there are some special words that are so valuable in making those ridiculous 50-100 point words, it's crazy to not memorize them and use them.  And who enjoys being stuck with a 'Q' and no 'U'?  So if you use any special words at all, these are my suggested top seven to remember: Jo, Ka, Xi, Xu, Qi, Qat, and Za.  These can all be pluralized with an 'S'.

Advanced Tips:

5.  If you have a really crappy rack full of 1-point vowels, exchange most or all of them.  If you don't get high-value tiles, you generally can't win.  Getting zero for one turn is better than getting 5 points for four turns in a row.
6.  The Greek alphabet provides some gems that I sometimes use to make a great multi-word play.  For example: mu, nu, pi.  Click here for the whole list.  Just memorizing the ones with two- and three-letter names is sufficient.
7.  For ridiculous scoring words, you need to understand and exploit the compounding multiplier effect of the bonus squares.  Letter multiples (if any) are applied before the word multiplier (if any) is applied.  So a tile played on a triple letter square that's also in a word that's tripled is multiplied by 9.  Obviously, playing a higher-value tile on one of these squares can add up pretty quickly.  Even a four-point tile that's tripled twice adds 36 points to your word score.  There are also ample opportunities to multiply higher value tiles by 4, by playing them on a double letter square in a double word play.  These can result in pretty decent scores.  Also remember that if you can cover two double word bonus squares in a single play, your whole word will get multiplied by 4.  I generally plan most of my plays around some sort of combination of bonus squares.
8.  Note that if you use all seven tiles in a single play, you get a large bonus.  They don't say what it is, but I think it's 35 points.  This is fun, but it's hard.  The worst is when I can form a seven-letter word from my rack, but can't find a way to attach it to the board!
9.  Keep an eye on your vowel-consonant mix.  You'll be able to play longer words if you have roughly equal numbers of each.  So if you have too many of one type, play as many of them as you can on a turn.  It's worth it to accept a lower-scoring word if it helps you even out your vowel-consonant mix for the next turn.
10.  There's no penalty for trying out words that turn to be not acceptable words.  If you are unable to find a good play with words you know, you can try out a series of words that seem to generally follow the rules of English spelling.  You may be surprised what crazy sequences are accepted.


That's it!

It's Time to Decamp

The physical encampments of the Occupy Movement are going away.  City by city, for various just and unjust reasons, encampments are being dismantled.  Occupy Boston seeks to delay its eviction by proactively seeking a court injunction, but this activity is just sucking energy from the community that could be spent accomplishing our long-range goals.  The authorities will win, and most encampments will not survive the winter.  We can fight this losing battle all the way down to the bottom, whining about our first amendment rights until nobody is listening to us anymore.

Alternatively, we can accept the inevitable, and transform the movement into something more effective.  It was never really about the occupations.  Occupation is a tactic, a means to an end.  It turned out to be effective beyond our wildest dreams, changing the national conversation in a matter of months.  Now that we have everyone's attention, is occupation still a useful tactic, or should we pivot to something else?  Obviously I think occupation has outlived its usefulness and has become a distraction and a burden to the movement.  Now is the time to turn the corner, and choose new tactics.  Let's not fade away, let's transform.

The mainstream media will lose interest soon if we don't give them something new.  Pulling a "mic check" on a public figure's speech is an example of a brilliant new tactic that relies not at all on having a 24/7 public encampment nearby.  However, simply reproducing successful mic checks ad nauseum will not win the war either.  I believe the spirit of "Occupy Everywhere" will be composed of dozens of new tactics of this type, and many more we can't imagine.  And if the Occupy Movement continues to evolve, it will confound our enemies, giving them nothing solid to strike at.

For these reasons, I think the long-range strategic thinkers in the movement must come out actively in favor of decamping, rather than letting things devolve.  Acting in concert to change our tactics would be a show of strength, while letting encampments be evicted one-by-one will be seized upon by our enemies as a sign of weakness and failure.  We are living in dangerous times, and our survival is not guaranteed.  To maximize our chances of survival, we should constantly re-evaluate our tactics and encourage the movement to follow those that are most effective.  If we survive, we will win. To survive, we must adapt.  They say humans are good at adapting.  Let's prove it.

The Pros and Cons of Occupation

The protest tactic of occupying a public space 24/7 has clearly captured the attention of the world.  Other grassroots movements like the Tea Party are hostile to the occupy movement partly because they're jealous of the success, angry they didn't think of it themselves.  However, the physical occupations also carry a burden, one which is threatening the political movement which, if successful, would allow everyone to go home, and to have a home to go to.

Simply sustaining the occupation is a major effort, sucking up resources that could otherwise be applied to political change.  And as a physical symbol of a political movement, the failure of an occupation would be seen as symbolic of the failure of the movement.  And in public perception, a physical occupation has unattractive aspects, since people camping creates sanitation issues, requires police monitoring, and inconveniences passers by.

The physical occupations have also contributed to a skewing of media attempts to define the political movement.  The people who actually camp 24/7 are generally young people who didn't have good jobs or families to tie them down.  This self-selected group also contains some of the most aggressive and radical members of the disaffected 99%.  Some of them are having fun playing revolutionary.  Members of the mainstream media have been verbally abused and confronted by people in masks.  This is not the nonviolent movement we wanted, and 90% of the 99% would disapprove.

The physical encampments are just the tip of the iceberg of the political movement.  Most people who consider themselves participants in the movement are not camping and may never even get down to the protest site.  They participate online, or only attend one or two events or marches at the protest site.  I can't speak for the campers, but most of us in the movement do have jobs, families and responsibilities.  We will continue to fulfill these obligations as we fight for change.  Do we need the physical occupations to accomplish our goals?  Without the encampments, will the spirit of Occupy Wall Street fizzle, or become co-opted by established political organizations who are part of the system we're attacking?

If we no longer had 24/7 encampments, something else would have to take their place.  Physical presence would probably still be required to attract the attention which is a prerequisite to getting the change we want. Could occasional presence be as effective as a 24/7 encampment?  Could it be even more effective?  If resources and energy weren't spent maintaining encampments, would more people participate in isolated marches and protest actions?  If people didn't have the encampments to criticize, it would be harder to pigeonhole the movement.

I'm not trying to sabotage the movement, nor am I insisting that we do away with the encampments.  I think we need to have this debate though.  We need to have contingency plans in case occupations start failing.  The oncoming winter creates a greater threat to the viability of the occupations than the police crackdowns.  While occupation started this movement, it need not define it.  We eventually need to grow beyond camping.  What will the Occupy Movement look like when we no longer occupy?

International Communiqué

To the citizens of the world:

I would like to apologize for the death and destruction being perpetrated around the globe by the U.S. military, the financial crimes committed by our banks, and the mockery of justice displayed by U.S.-dominated institutions like the U.N. security council.  Those of us who understand what’s happening are horrified and saddened by what’s being done in our name and with our tax dollars.  Unfortunately, most Americans remain ignorant of the facts, because our once-proud journalistic institutions have been bought up by corporations and turned into propaganda instruments for the military-industrial complex.  We have tried to correct things with our democratic process, but that too has been bought, taken over by corrupt politicians and lobbyists who serve their corporate masters.

The American revolution and democracy has inspired many peoples around the world to reject tyranny and gain control of their own destiny.  Now the time has come when you have inspired us.  From solitary Tank Man in Tiananmen Square, to the courageous crowds in Tahrir Square, we have watched and marveled at how you have stood up to oppose tyranny.  Many of us have wondered if America could have such a people’s revolution, or if we would remain glued to our televisions, which feed us a constant stream of fear and lies.  It seems that finally, the crimes of our financial elite have become so obvious and horrible that we too have taken to the public squares to protest and reclaim our freedom.

The public demonstrations begun in New York with the Occupy Wall Street encampment have sparked a nationwide movement of demonstrations that continues to grow every day.  It will take us some time to wake up our fellow citizens, gather a critical mass, and articulate the demands which will be necessary to restore our country into the hands of the people.  We believe the time has come when the elite 1% of richest Americans has gone too far in their abuse and control of the rest of us, the 99% of Americans who are struggling in one way or another, and that the American people will rise up to reclaim the rights guaranteed by our constitution.

We hope you, the citizens of the world, will reach out to us, the American people, and help us reclaim our governmental, economic, and journalistic institutions so that the United States can once again become a force for freedom and human rights in the world.  You can help us by compelling your governments and corporations to recognize our movement, so that our government and corporations will be forced to acknowledge us, and work with us for the ascendancy of people over profit, peace over fear, and the cooperation of all peoples of the world for our mutual benefit as we move forward into a hopeful future.

Who Benefits from Class Warfare?

There’s something I don’t understand about the rhetoric of the Republican party in the U.S.  (There’s a lot I don’t like about the rhetoric, but I understand most of it).  The confusing part is why Republicans will say “but that’s class warfare” when someone proposes taxing the rich.  Of course it’s class warfare, but why would the Republican (who is siding with the rich) throw this out as an objection to the tax?  What do they hope to gain from saying that?  Is that supposed to make the Democrat/Populist who is proposing the tax feel guilty and back off?  Do they think the middle- and lower-class public will turn against the tax because they call it “warfare”?  The upper class people affected by the tax probably already oppose it without any such rhetoric being required.

First, to be clear, the U.S., like almost all modern societies, is in a constant state of class warfare.  The rich attack the poor through low wages, job off-shoring, union busting, tax havens and loopholes, the war on drugs, the Fed, unfair barriers to entry in business, collusion, and gated communities, among other things.  The poor attack the rich through unionization, progressive politics, property crimes, and, well, the poor don’t have too many weapons in the war.  These aspects of our culture are well know to everyone, even if we don’t commonly think of them as “war”.

So how does our perception of these aspects of our society change when we apply a warfare metaphor to them?  War is the ultimate, most intense, and most overt form of human conflict.  It makes people feel afraid and sad, but also energized, unrestrained, and righteous.  In contrast, chronic, low-level conflict makes people feel anxious, sad, helpless, and encourages escapism through drugs and entertainment.

The usual state of class conflict in the U.S. is the subtle, unconscious form which anesthetizes and disempowers the lower classes.  This is the state of conflict which most favors the rich, since it keeps the poor down, struggling to survive within the system, without them ever considering that the system could be changed.  Keeping the existence of class conflict hidden from the minds of the uninformed ensures that they will not fight.  Raising the conflict into awareness can only help the poor, by pointing out to them that they are in conflict already, and that fighting to improve their situation is an option.  This is why I think it’s nonsensical and counterproductive to the agenda of a rich-loving Republican to cry “class warfare”.

Progressives, advocates for the poor and for labor, and the poor and dispossessed themselves could only better their situation by promoting the warfare metaphor.  “Eat the Rich!” should be the rallying cry and starting point for all negotiations from the progressive side.  If the unemployed middle-American laborers, hopeless urban black youths, and pissed-on immigrants of this country got energized and righteous, they could easily be lead into riots of looting, robbery, and burning down those gated communities.  The rich have the police and military on their side, but the poor have guns too, and they have the numbers.  And they have new technologies for organizing.  And they have new forms of guerrilla warfare being developed every day.  If they weren’t constantly anesthetized by TV into thinking that they can’t improve their plight, that they deserve to get nothing because the American dream favors others who are somehow better than themselves, the resulting boiling over of the ongoing conflict would surely turn the tide in favor of the poor.  The rich would have to disguise themselves in order to walk the city streets without being attacked.  Rich moms would need armed guards to protect their children at home and when they drive their Cadillac Escaldes out of the gated communities.  Corporate productivity and profits would plummet.  Taxation would seem pretty good in comparison.

This particular post is not advocating for either side in the class conflict that exists (and will continue to exist as long as inequality exists).  I am merely discussing rhetoric, and both sides can benefit from this, if they choose to.  If the rich want to take rhetorical advice from this post, it would be “stop talking about class warfare”.  Go back to confusing economic theories, earnest-looking politicians wanting to “do the right thing for Americans”, and TV shows that allow the masses to glimpse the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and fantasize that one day they could join the rich.  If the poor want to change anything, if they want to really have a chance of becoming comfortable (rich is out of the question for 99.99% of you), then they should turn “Class Warfare!” into their rallying cry.  Warfare is going on anyway, in secret and subtle ways.  You’re losing the war, white American worker.  You’re useful only as long as you keep your mouths shut, immigrants.  You’re only good for feeding our prison industry, you black city dwellers.  Don’t like that?  Bring the conflict out in the open.  Rights and privileges are never given, only taken.

Why Are Ron Paul Supporters So ________?

Why are Ron Paul supporters so (insert adjective here)?  Some of the adjectives commonly used to describe Ron Paul's supporters in the media are "fervent", "die hard", "dedicated", "loyal", and "enthusiastic".  For those wishing to deride Dr. Paul and his fans, the most commonly used adjective is "rabid", implying that his supporters are mentally ill and need to be put down.  If you type "Ron Paul supporters are " into Google, you'll be offered the suggestions "crazy", "idiots", and "terrorists".  Why do Ron Paul supporters have so many strong adjectives applied to them?

The answer lies in what happens when you substitute any of the other Republican candidates into the above Google experiment.  Entering "Mitt Romney supporters are " gives no suggestions whatsoever.  I think this is because there are no Mitt Romney supporters.  There are only the great masses of people who are willing to live with him because they find him the least offensive of the bunch.  For Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry, there are no suggestions because there are no human supporters to which we can apply adjectives.  Bachmann and Perry are manufactured candidates, produced by the party, lobbyists, and media, but enjoying no support whose energy originates with people.  People like Ron Paul, and people have personalities.  What kind of supporters should a candidate have?  "Luke warm"?  "Unoffensive"?  "Bored"?  If a candidate doesn't have enthusiastic supporters, what business do they have running for office?

I believe the reason Ron Paul supporters are so different from other candidates' supporters is that Ron Paul is different.  All of the others are just run-of-the-mill slick politicians.  They say what they think will get them elected.  When they are speaking, the are acting the part of candidate.  Ron Paul does not act; he is himself at all times.  Love him or hate him, his genuineness and sincerity are beyond doubt.

Many people believe that politicians are generally self-serving liars, but they are willing to live with this because they feel they have no choice.  The TV show South Park is generally too low-brow offensive for me, but I recently agreed to watch an episode my wife said would explain why she doesn't get involved in politics the way I do.  The episode centered around the election of a new mascot for South Park Elementary School.  The candidates jokingly offered by students were "Big Douche" and "Turd Sandwich".  Despite the obvious offensiveness of the candidates and the resulting meaninglessness of the race, the episode revolves around the community's efforts to show how important voting is to the one student who refuses to participate.  The accuracy with which this fictional scenario mirrors our actual presidential elections is frightening.  Is Romney "Big Douche" and Perry "Turd Sandwich", or is it the the other way around?  Why do we get so worked up about elections when these are the choices offered to us?  Well, I guess only some of us get worked up about it.  The rest stay home and watch the latest home improvement shows on TV.  Which group is more realistic about the effects of our elections?

Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who appears to be different from the constant stream of bad choices our two-party system offers us.  Barack Obama appeared to be such a candidate, and that's why he had so many enthusiastic supporters who helped get him elected.  This is not an Obama-bashing essay, but I'll make the prediction that the enthusiasm and dedication of Obama's supporters in 2012 will be a pale shadow of what it was in 2008.   The main reason?  Obama has shown himself to be just like all the rest.

So why do pundits and party operatives commonly use scary adjectives to disparage Ron Paul supporters and their candidate?  I believe this is because so many people who make their living and form their identities from the status quo of our adversarial two-party system are afraid Ron Paul will upset the apple cart.  Ron Paul differs from the other candidates when he behaves like a grownup who wants to get down to the boring, difficult, and drawn-out process of governing.  The media and the public, understandably, feel more interested in the political theater of horse races, dramatic showdowns, and "us vs. them" proselytizing.  What we need to ask ourselves is, would we rather be entertained by our political system, or would we rather have it work for safety and prosperity in our everyday lives?  We can't have it both ways.  Running a country like the United States has a million technical details, all very important.  It feels good to listen to inspiring speeches, but in the end, these don't make good government.

Ron Paul supporters are...different.  They believe that substance matters much, much more than style.  They are not willing to vote for Big Douche or Turd Sandwich, and they can't understand why everyone else is content to do so.  They are trying to wake us up, saying "look, this one really is different!", and he can help us out of the mess we're in.  Sounds like something worth shouting about to me.  If a candidate's supporters are so loyal and active that this enthusiasm is itself worthy of commentary, shouldn't we all be curious enough to find out what's got them so worked up?