Actual Personal Discussion

A friend of mine and I are emailing about the whole "crime of aggression" thing. She says this:

I think our current government has flouted international law, and should be
treated as if it has flouted international law.
This - and the discussion of reinstating torture - have proven to me
that we turned a corner, and are not the White Knights in this story.

That business of putting prisoners offshore, torturing them, holding
them without charges for years on end, possibly transferring them to the
custody of nations that permit torture openly has demonstrated that we
are no longer trustworthy custodians of the Free World. We have
abandoned the high road. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
have nothing nice to say about us. It's time to see us for what we
really are, while we can still do something about it. - Tata, my gun moll of the revolution

I have to agree with her that we, the U.S., have gone too far. What I'm undecided about is how to stop it. I really really really hope for a regime change of our own. And I want less violence. And more consideration. And less behavior that masquerades as religious morality without demonstrating a whit of human compassion. I believe that these things will be easier to achieve if we do *not* have a re-elected president, but even if we do, I'm going to start working towards change, somehow.

Obligatory Debate Comments

Because I'm not a real blogger if I don't comment on the debates.

I've learned one thing from watching the debates, that's for sure - I don't like watching other people's confrontations. I remember watching the first few minutes of the first debate. Every time Kerry said something that attacked Bush, I cringed. I said, out loud, "Geez, he's right there. He can hear you!". I guess I'm more the back-stabber type.

Getting back to last night's debate. The media seems to be saying that Kerry won, or maybe it's just the media that I like to read, and people elsewhere are giving it to Bush. Probably. Personally, I couldn't call a winner. There were moments when I scoffed, and in a very dissatisfied voice, said, "Liar". Thing is, there were moments like that for both candidates.

I thought that bringing up Cheney's daughter was mean, but a solid hit. How can you deny people that you know, that you like, the right to make their own kind of family?

I thought that the talk about making it so that there were fewer abortions in this country was alarming. Warning bells go off in my head when people start talking about that. If I had never intended to vote for Kerry before, when he started spouting that he would never let Roe v. Wade be overturned, well, he would have hooked me, there.

I've been reading comments that when Bush mentions Dred Scott that it's actually code for Roe v. Wade. It sounds awfully paranoid to me, but I find myself wondering if it's true.

Wait - I've veered off course. What I mean to say is that I really can't call a winner from last night's debate. I don't think that either party disgraced himself unduly. I don't think either one of them changed anyone's mind, though, either. It was the same stuff, over and over again. "You voted to raise taxes", "You underfund programs so that they fail". Eloquent finger pointing is all it amounted to.

I have a friend in Ohio

There's an interesting thing going on over at The Guardian. They've run an article instructing Britons what they might be able to do to influence the elections here in the U.S. They've encouraged their readers to write letters to the people of Clark County, Ohio, and they're printing some of them. I've read these three, and the sentiments ring true for me. I like this quote, from Richard Dawkins:

"Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out."

Distraction

I read the major headlines at BBC News most days. I find that they have a perspective on world events that's not American. Mostly, I think, because they're not American. Today, I read this article. It contains the following quote:

US-led investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s.

The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said.

They are seeking evidence to try Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity.

I'm unhappy about this. We're seeking evidence? We don't have enough now? What about all those stories we were told about people being imprisoned for years with no reason, of people disappearing and never coming back? We don't have enough testimony about those? What about accounting records? Isn't there some kind of paperwork showing that Saddam took money that should have gone for the good of the people and bought himself stupid testosterone-fueled art and cheap hookers instead?

Bah. I'm not really upset that we're investigating this; the man is, in my opinion, a monstrous tyrant, and deserves to be punished. What I'm upset about is how certain people seem to be saying that it was because of Saddam and his crimes against humanity that we had to invade Iraq. Aside from the fact that this is *not* the reasons we were given when the case for invading Iraq was made, there's another issue. That is, as another article found in BBC news today so rightly points out, regime change. And guess what? Regime change isn't legal under international law. If you're trying to behave like a member of the global community and not an all-powerful empire-building 800-pound-gorilla, you're not supposed to do that. And no amount of after-the-fact discoveries are going to make me feel better about the fact that we did.

And yet on this,

I wonder if we're being silly.

BBC News article on the debate about whether or not it's legal to display the Ten Commandments on U.S. government property.

At least one of the places that the ten commandments were displayed was a court house, right? And aren't these a really early example of a set of laws?

Funny, but in my mind, I see this as a reference to law. I don't actually see it as a government agency trying to influence my religious preferences or practices. Maybe I'd feel different if I weren't Jewish.

Seeing how I stand on other issues, that you can't give an inch, that you should always err on the side of liberalism, well...

I kind of think that the religious icons of *any* religion should be allowed to be displayed proudly, but yeah, maybe not by the actual government. Darn. I guess my problem is that I'm really more humanist by nature, and I think that using religious symbols from *any* religion would be OK, if they were appropriate to the setting. Like, if there's some big statue about a god presiding over a trial or something, but not a statue of Jesus healing the sick. That one would fit in at a hospital, though. I think of religion in terms of decorative items. I bet the fundamentalists would hate that.

Now the issue of requiring a school to have the Ten Commandments posted, as used to be the case in Kentucky, well, that was wrong. Requiring a public school to teach this obviously violates the whole church/state thing. But court houses being allowed to display them? Wiggly.

Still talkin' 'bout freedom

Saw this quote over at Joe Kelley's The Sake Of Argument and loved it:

”They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Nowhere to hide

OK, I'm an anti-war, Jewish, democrat who has, in her life, had a warrant out for her arrest for non-payment of a traffic ticket. That was years ago and I'm no longer a wanted woman, just so you know. These are the facts about me, printed freely here, but I don't want to carry them around on a card that has data about my retinal scan on it, too.

I've been reading Running Scared, again, this morning. He talks about this New York Times article discussing the possibility of a "national ID card". It all springs out of a discussion regarding forms of ID, and having standard

"documentation required to obtain a driver's license, and the data the license would have to contain".

What I want to know is, if we ostensibly all have Social Security cards, why would we need *another* national ID? Is it so there's more of my information available to the government in more places? Jazz makes a point, and he's right, that they can already find us if they want to, but things like this make me immediately not want to be found. I keep having flashes in my head of Nazi soldiers saying, "Papers!". At the very least, I'm thinking that it's a telemarketer's treasure trove.

I know that there are good reasons to support this, but I also know that there are way too many people in the world who would find a way to abuse the information. What would someone know about me by scanning my ID card? How much of it is their business? Can they discriminate against me because of it? I see the possibilities for misuse and it makes me nervous. In theory I don't totally disagree with making the ID documents required to obtain a driver's license standardized; indeed, that might make it easier to know what the heck you have to bring with you if you go renew, but the data that the license contains, well, that's the part that makes me nervous.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated..
— Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

"People asking to see your ID before you travel isn't unreasonable", you say? I say, "What does that open the door for?". The founding fathers came here to set up a free society, the likes of which the world had never seen before. Does the threat of terrorism strike more fear into your heart than the fear of despotism? You can't let your foot off the brake on issues like these, because if you do, before you know it, you're rolling uncontrollably backwards down the hill.

I give up on pretending to be objective

You know what? I've been trying to be fair in the things that I've been writing. Maybe not succeeding, like the post where I make some accusations about why the current administration supports Israel, but overall, I think I'm pretty fair for a 'blog that could, in effect, be riddled with only my side of the story.

All right, I could have been lying to myself about this.

But it doesn't matter. Today, I am all about the honesty and my own opinion. Not merely analyzing other people's articles but just talking about how last Friday night's debate made me feel. So, you've been warned.

Friday night's presidential debate made me angry. Angry because:

• I don't think that religion has a single place in government policy. Don't give me any crap about the idea that morals aren't religion. Why the hell does the president get away with saying that destroying a life to save a life is wrong, when he sends our soldiers TO WAR? What, it's better to end a life at the 18-22 mark rather than the "not actually a viable organism" stage? An embryo that has never taken a step, or said a word, or learned ANYTHING is to be saved, but soldiers can be disposed of like paper plates? You know what? Anyone supporting this inconsistent position can bite me. Right on my big white behind.



• Both candidates lied to us. The one I support, the one other people who aren't me support, both spouting untruths at us, right to our faces. The idea that our nation can continue without a tax increase during the next 4 years - regardless of who wins the election - seems ludicrous to me. Has no one noticed the size of our deficit? Has no one thought of the idea that cutting taxes for anyone will screw us even further? I'm actually all for Kerry's plan to roll back the over $200k-a-year levels to what they were before the Bush change, but I'm *not* in favor of cutting income taxes for any other individuals. Why can't we just stay where we are? We're used to it! There were other lies, subtle ones, like when Bush declared that issues don't get complicated, and if you're for something, you just vote for it. Yeah, George, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. But the stuff that really burned me was when anybody talked about taxes. "You'll have more money under me!" "No, you'll have more money under *me*!" Ugh, ugh, and triple ugh.

• My favored candidate didn't outright win. In fact, he may have lost. I had a real hard time picking the winner of this... thing.

I was also sad about the lying thing. I wish that someone *could* tell us that taxes aren't going to get lowered and still get elected, but I don't think that it's physically possible. Somewhere in the nebulous region I call "America" there exists a theoretical person that I think is an idiot. They can't actually reason out what's best for the greater good to *any* level, so they just look for a candidate that says what they want to hear - less taxes. And, in my mind, this theoretical idiot is also the majority of all voters.

I was going to talk about the woman who asked "Question 17: Sen. Kerry, how can you assure a voter who believes abortion is murder that their tax dollars would not support abortion?", but I can't. I'm too angry at the thought of a woman who would even think of endangering choice. What the hell is wrong with you? How can you think that you have the right to control any good that your tax dollars might do for someone who wanted, or needed an abortion? That money goes to the government, and the government doles it out according to the budget, and once you hand it over, you say good-bye to it. There are some things we will never control, and trying to do so is ludicrous. How can you make sure your money doesn't accidentally get used for an abortion? Move to a Vatican City, lady. We live in the U.S., and here, we have Roe v. Wade. And freedom of choice. And separation of Church and State.

That is a woman who never had a bone-deep fear because she knew that she'd be a crap mother, but the idea of giving birth and then giving away the human you had created from your body was equally frightening. Someone who, if by some chance she did get pregnant out of wedlock, decided that she was strong enough to face the music, because she believes that abortion is murder. Well let me tell you, not everyone's that strong. Some of us *need* this option to be available to us no matter what. Kerry mentioned the idea that a woman who had been raped and made pregnant by her own father should never be forced to bear that child, and Bush blew him off saying that the partial-birth abortion issue wasn't complicated at all. There's always *some* reason that abortion should be legal, and the idea that you don't want it for anyone, lady who asked question 17, that you want to make sure that your money doesn't go towards helping other people any way that the government sees fit, well, it burns my britches.

OK, I guess I did talk about that. A lot. Sorry if it's way too wordy, or incoherent.

Heartland Tami

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6201155/

I read this today feeling slightly bemused. I spent about $400 at Cabela's in July, no telling how much I've spent over the years. Between them and Campmor I can find anything I need in the camping world, at the best prices I can find. And I'm *so* not heartland. Few fit the following quote in a worse manner than I:

"I would say they are probably more middle-of-the-road, God-fearing people. They are conservative by nature," says customer Jim Szep.

I am conservative only in the sense that I'm afraid to jump off of tall things.
There's a quote in there about enjoying the beauty of nature. I can kind of get behind that one, if you take out the Christian overtones and assure me that I can go back to my overpopulated suburbia in a fairly short amount of time.

Addendum

Update: Reading the NY Post version, it doesn't seem as clear cut. Maybe the lesson that I've learned here is that you can't trust reporters, either. *sigh* Also, the Home News Tribune version is more detailed, with more personal quotes. At this point, it sounds to me like there's a problem with this woman, and that this incident has given her a chance to strike back at her administration. I wonder what's true.

But I still think it's OK to have a picture of the president up. And, in my own, democratic, bleeding-heart-liberal way, I support the president. I don't think it's wrong to say so. He's in office, and we have to work with him until he's not.

A Republican Teacher? Really?

Listening to the radio this morning, I heard a story about a teacher in South Brunswick, NJ, who was harshly reprimanded for having a picture of George Bush up in her classroom. I went out looking for the story on the Internet, and I found this Discussion Board. I disagree A LOT with most of the people on this board's point of view, but the news part at the beginning is correct.

The breakdown goes like this: The woman had pictures of some founding fathers, and the constitution on the wall, ending with GWB and his first lady. Parents came to back to school night, saw the photo, and freaked out that this woman had the picture up and accused her of politicizing her classroom. There was noise made that a picture of Kerry should be up, too. The principal actually kicked her out. Really.

Now, you may have surmised if you've read anything I've ever written that I'm not a GWB fan. Still, I have no problem with this. I'm not really an LBJ fan, either, but I'd expect his picture to be on the wall right there after JFK's. (Wow, this is getting initialicious!) There's nothing wrong with having GWB's picture up in this context, other than the fact that he ever got to be pres in the first place. Again, that's my opinion.

I expressed my opinion to someone whom I care for deeply, and he surprised me be being really off-the-wall about it. A booming speech came forth about how if the picture was up last year, it's fine, and if it's up next year, that's fine, but this year, it's campaigning. That's ridiculous!

The picture is a picture of our current leader. It's not campaigning, it's Social Studies. Civics, even. Here's a civics question for you - who's the 43rd president of the United States? George W. Bush! Is that answer going to change, whether he wins or loses the November election? No. Is it a crime for a teacher to be a republican? No. Surprising maybe, but not actually *wrong*.

What's making people behave *so* badly about this election? I don't get it. And to Shiba Pillai-Diaz I say, put up any pictures of civic leaders that you like, as long as you're telling the truth about them.

None of their business, anyway

House Defeats Ban on Gay Marriage

Yay.

Puttin' the Bag on Krako

Been reading this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6015597/
I find myself wondering, how can I be a hard-hearted liberal?

I've been reading so much about hostages in Iraq, and I don't get it. How can anyone possibly think that you can get ransom money out of a government? And, based on this article, can you?!

Italy may have paid a million dollars to free two people. I have no idea what part of the budget that comes from. The Philippines withdrew they're 51 troops from Iraq in order to free one man, but hey, they've only got a population of 76 million or so, they can't afford to lose any or the balance on the islands goes awry and they're all winding up in the drink.

So here's my take on it: I'm the U.S. government. I'm involved in a war. Some non-military terrorist group abducts a few of my civilian citizens that are working over in the dangerous war zone. They want anything, doesn't matter what. I can't do it. Not at all, not for anyone. Not for a "regular" guy, not for the President himself. If I give in, then kidnapping proves to be an "effective weapon". Not giving in can disarm this weapon.

I understand that kidnapping goes on all the freakin' time in Mexico City, and that it's just expected that people will pay the ransom and get their loved one back. It's more or less an acknowledged profession, "Kidnapper". But that's not where these people are. We have no established practice of "give in, get what was yours in the first place". We have no guarantee that paying the ransom, or acquiescing to the demands will result in the hostages actually being freed. It stands to reason that I - if I'm now a kidnapper instead of the U.S. Government for a moment, here - would not want to free my captives, what with there being the possibility of them ever identifying me. Plus, I hate the foreigners, and want to make them suffer. I shoot the hostages and take off with whatever it was that I demanded.

This is why, I (being myself again, and not a hypothetical abstract or criminal), the peace-loving, murder-hating, every-life-is-sacred-spouter, actually support the way our government is handling the situation. Criminals cannot be rewarded. Kidnappers cannot be shown that their methods will work. We can't give in. I know it's hard for the families. I know it seems cruel, but it's hard for everyone, and it's the only thing that makes sense.

Now, can we make it so that people don't want to kill each other in the first place?

The Apple A Day Plan

Whoa.

From http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0921.pdf:

Small businesses will have a new option to buy the same health plan available to members of Congress. John Kerry will allow small businesses to buy into the same group health plan as Members of Congress. This will allow small businesses to get better prices available to big groups. It will also reduce their administrative costs, as they won’t have to shop for or administrate their plan.

Wacky! I mean, really unexpected! Use *government* to *help* people?

OK, my sarcastic-Democrat side is showing. Still, I think this is a really clear, really good idea. And I expect that it's the kind of thing that kills a campaign. People don't like radical new plans. They expect to hear complicated things that they don't understand, and that they know won't work in the end. This whole "let small businesses join the Congress' helth care plan", it sounds too simplistic, too good to be true. I wish I could read more details on it, really. More meat! About my health care plans!

I'm going on about this idea being a good one, but thinking about it, it wouldn't make one bit of difference to me. I work for a BIG company. We have a BIG health care plan. And yet, this year, my prescription drugs, which were previously $5.00 for 3 months worth, are now $50.00 for three months worth. There's an increase for you. And I'm getting bills for services that, according to my documents, are covered. And, most of all, I'm on my second appeal of a decision where my health care provider has denied coverage on the last three days of a six-day hospital stay in April.

So forget that part about me wanting more information about small businesses and their future options - give me the candidate who's going to make it illegal for HMOs to nay-say your doctors. It's pissing me off.

Wow! This has spun wildly out of control. And I posted it, anyway.

Sharpening My Teeth

A nation of philosophers?

This article by Steven Levy has a line that says:

We were promised a society of philosophers. But the Blogosphere is looking more and more like a nation of ankle-biters.

Really? I was supposed to be a philosopher? I thought I was just a woman with an exhibitionist tendency towards my opinions! Well, if it's true, and I'm a philosopher-cum-ankle-biter, I guess I'd better sharpen up my teeth, so I can be the best darned ankle-biter ever. In honor of this (which I read in my friend Jazz's blog, because I steal ruthlessly from him, having no original tendencies, either), I'm wearing my pajamas under my work clothes today.

I mean, if I'm going to aspire to political blog-dom, I'm going to do it right!

The Difference Between Assassination and Terrorism

I've been reading:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6340069
http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2120

Found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3693488.stm:

The assassination in Damascus is the best embodiment of the term terrorism... There must be a reaction at all levels so that Israel understands that it cannot get away easily with violating the sovereignty of Arab states.

Jordan's Al-Dustur

From The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Main Entry: as·sas·si·nate
Pronunciation: &-'sa-s&n-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons

Hunh. I guess that they're pretty compatable, really, definition-wise. Thing is, I have a major bone to pick with that quote, up there, from the Al-Dustur. In my opinion, the "best" embodiment of the term terrorism is an oxymoron. I can't use positive terms to describe something so despicable. But if I must describe the "best" embodiment of terrorism, wouldn't it be something that was designed to strike terror into the hearts of many, many more people? I mean, come on, they just killed one guy! Knowing that the Israeli government was targeting leaders of militant groups that are trying to destroy Israel just wouldn't terrify me as much as the idea that an 18-year-old girl next to me in line at the airport might be willing to blow herself up in order to do as much damage as possible to a group of travelers who aren't involved. I'm more terrified by people who target random civilian groups. I am.

Here's another quote posted on the BBC's site:

Damascus will, as usual, probably avoid retaliating directly in the Golan Heights to this blow to its heart. The most efficient response would be to continue its "peace attack", which embarrasses Israel, and continue Syria's role in sponsoring the Palestinian dialogue.

Commentary by Hasan al-Batal in Palestinian Al-Ayyam

Peace Attack. This man is implying that Syria and it's citizens are not committing any violent acts, but rather are just representing themselves in negotiations and these things are being done by other people. And someone believes him. He doesn't sound terrorized. He sounds pompous.

Assassination is a terrible thing to resort to, but in my peace-loving mind, you know, the one that says that taking another life, *any* life, is a terrible sad thing, I'd rather see someone targeted who at least is asking for it. Being the a LEADER in the Hammas operation is knowing you're in danger. Buying fruit at the market is going about your normal life.

You want to know what my idea is of the best embodiment of the word terrorism? It's using young people, who have been so brainwashed that they think that taking a group of unrelated lives actually helps their cause, to commit acts of killing and destruction that should by rights be repulsive to even think about. That people line up to kill themselves like this sends a good dose of terror right down to the bottom of my stomach.


I feel strongly about the peace in the Middle East issue. I spent 7 months of my life in Israel in college, and being there changes you. I had my bag searched at every door. I waited, sometimes for hours, for public transportation to start up again because a package had been found in the street and the bomb squad had to come get it. I saw soldiers running, guns poised, in order to go defend other soldiers at a grenade attack at the Western Wall. Well, I saw it for a few seconds. I quickly got in a cab going the other direction.

These experiences made me angry, and possessive of a country that I don't even live in. I started to see how nothing could be solved without violence. Then, I started to see how nothing could be solved with violence, either. I don't support the violent move that the Israelis may have made - they don't outright admit it last time I checked, but you'd have to be an idiot to think they didn't do it - but I can't condemn it, either. They targeted someone who was both feet in the fight, and took him out. Some random insurance salesman trying to get to a meeting in another part of the country was never involved. To me, that's a lot less terrifying.

My Friends Probably Aren't Reading This

I got another letter about the original appointment of Dr. Hager today. No one listens! No one!

I guess I'm wrong...

OK, so last night I was watching The Daily Show (not last night's episode, though, one from last week that I'd recorded and hadn't gotten to yet), and Jon Stewart KILLED! He was so excellent. And concise, and interesting. This morning, I'm listening to the radio, and Minnie Driver's doing an interview, and who does she quote when the subject of politics comes up? Jon Stewart.

I take it back, Jon, you are the political pundit voice of our generation. I can tell you don't want to take credit for it, but there it is.

Being female inspires me to post a second time in one day

You know, as I was reading the Bush speech to the UN, I found myself continually wondering, "Who *wrote* this stuff this way? Who's the one who thinks that it's a great idea to pull on as many heart strings as you can, as hard as possible? Why are Women and Children mentioned so many times that I'm starting to believe that no one ever oppresses or brutalizes men?"

This article suggests a pretty good answer to those questions. Hmm.

Stealing from my friends, random fluff

Jazz has a quote of the day up from the Jon Stewart interview in Time Magazine.

This has inspired me to do a little reading and discover that Jon's original last name was Leibowitz. How come I didn't already know that?

You know, I think that Jon's a really cool comedian and all, but why are people taking him seriously as a political commentator? Do they think he writes all that stuff alone? I watch his show (but never yet while intoxicated!), I love his show, and I get a little confused every time my friend Zoe says that Jon just wasn't all that funny in high school. I believe her, though, high school is not often the time when someone's confidence solidifies enough to become a real wit. You're still cooking, then.

Know what I'd really like? I'd like to have an extra room where I could decorate with a car sofa. That would be cool. Jon had a car seat for the guests on his original show, a zillion years ago. It was one of the things that hooked me in.

So, I was watching CNN last night, and there was a story about how both candidates are creatively choosing numbers in their speeches. For example, Bush says (in a statement correcting an earlier, bigger, lie) that there are 95,000 Iraqi troops ready to fight. Kerry has stated that this number is way off, that there are only 5,000. CNN had experts on that stated that there *are* currently only 6,300 trained Iraqi soldiers, but if you add in all the police officers and national guardsmen and stuff, that theres something like 93,000 of them total. (I looked briefly for the actual numbers, didn't quickly find them, am working from memory). So we see where each side is picking the facts that they like from. A second expert was involved, and he said, yes, there are close to 95,000 Iraqi "security personnel", but that a ridiculously small percentage of them were actually trained to fight, many of them do not report for duty or wear their uniforms, and the number of active troops is impossible to gauge accurately. So, really, both candidates are making stuff up.

Let me be the first (although I'm not actually a member of the media) to follow Jon Stewart's suggestion, and say to them both, "No! Bad Monkey".