What he said.

It's no secret that I am no fan of Bar@ck Ob@ma, and think that an Ob@ma presidency would be the worst thing for our country since either Jimmy C@rter or Warren H@rding. His glaring lack of experience and apparent detachment from reality, particularly in the current state of global affairs, is nothing short of dangerous. George Wi|| of the W@shington Post illustrates this point rather succinctly by asking Ob@ma a series of questions that to which he presumably has no answer. My favorite such question:

You advocate leaving in Iraq "some" U.S. forces for three missions -- fighting al Qaeda, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. forces conducting those two missions. Some experts believe that even 60,000 U.S, troops would be insufficient for those functions -- even if the Iraqis were not, as they will be for the foreseeable future, dependent on U.S. logistics, transport, fire support, air support, armor and medivac capabilities.

What is your estimate of the numbers required by your policy? How, and in consultation with whom, did you arrive at your estimate? As to fighting terrorists but not insurgents -- how would soldiers and Marines tell the difference? If, while searching for terrorists, they make contact with insurgents, would your rules of engagement call for a full force response? You say all "combat brigades" should be out of Iraq "by the end of next year." Even if al-Qaeda is still dangerous? Who, after the end of next year, will protect U.S. noncombat forces that you say "will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities" and to "train and equip" Iraqi forces?

I will try my best to think like Senator Ob@ma and answer these questions on his behalf:

What is your estimate of the numbers required by your policy? Uh...

How, and in consultation with whom, did you arrive at your estimate? Just kinda pulled it out of my ass thin air.

As to fighting terrorists but not insurgents -- how would soldiers and Marines tell the difference? By going up to them and asking them nicely.

If, while searching for terrorists, they make contact with insurgents, would your rules of engagement call for a full force response? You used a lot of military terms there I didn't understand. I'm just going to say no. Or yes. Whichever one sounds better.

You say all "combat brigades" should be out of Iraq "by the end of next year." Even if al-Qaeda is still dangerous? Yeah, pretty much.

Who, after the end of next year, will protect U.S. noncombat forces that you say "will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities" and to "train and equip" Iraqi forces? That's not our problem.

I realize it's been almost a month since I've posted anything, but I've found myself strangely busy over the last several weeks. I've also found myself with too much to say and unable to distill it into a concise post. But lest you forget about me or think that I've just become lazy, I figured I should show a few signs of life. So, here are a few things I've been thinking about lately:

- I recently engaged in a passionate discussion about national/universal healthcare with an old friend. It is beyond me that anyone can think that: 1. We should be responsible for anyone's healthcare but our own, and 2. That government should provide it.

Let's say for example that there's some citizen out there that smokes three packs a day and lives on a diet consisting mostly of doughnuts and soda. Why should we, as tax payers, be burdened with the cost of subsidizing his treatment for lung cancer and diabetes? That's obviously an extreme example, but the principle remains the same. People who don't take care of themselves have no right to have their healthcare paid for by others.

Beyond that, if people did have a 'right' to universal healthcare (which they don't), what makes anyone think the government would efficiently provide it? As a nation, we already spend $550 billion every year on healthcare, meaning Medicaid and Medicare. Each of these programs serves about 43 million people each, giving a total of about 86 million people. I wasn't a math major, but $550 billion distributed to 86 million people averages out to about $6,395 per person per year. Multiply that out to the roughly 300 million people in the country, and it comes out to slightly less than two trillion dollars -- or, in more relative terms, slightly less than the ENTIRE annual revenue of the federal government. So, essentially, by my crude calculations, so-called universal healthcare would nearly double the revenue needs of the government -- and thus double the taxes.

During the argument, my friend lamented "I'll never be able to convince a Republican to do something for the common good." As if being against government-run healthcare was against the good of mankind. If healthcare is such a basic right, isn't food and shelter a MORE basic right? Why aren't people clamoring for the government to provide universal food and shelter? But I digress. The bottom line is: universal healthcare is a terrible idea for many reasons.

- The reaction of many liberals to the recent testimony of Gen. D@vid Petr@eus infuriated me. Many accused him of being misinformed, or even lying. Yes, he's misinformed. The commanding officer in the region, who literally wrote the book on counter-insurgency, is misinformed. Meanwhile, liberal hacks sitting behind computers know what's REALLY going on over there. And yes, a four star general that was unanimously confirmed by the Senate is lying to the American people. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption. I quote the immortal Borat when I say: ...NOT.

- I find myself judging girls that wear those flat, ballerina shoes in public. What, putting on real shoes was asking too much? The same goes for those brightly-colored rubber shoes. I don't care how comfortable they are. You look like a dumbass.

- I have mixed feelings about allowing the Iranian President to speak at Columbia University. First of all, to have an American institution lending legitimacy to a sworn enemy of our nation by providing a forum for his views -- regardless of their laughable invalidity -- is shameful. Sure, he makes an international ass of himself by claiming that there aren't any homosexuals in his country, but it's substantially less funny to learn why there aren't homosexuals in Iran. I suppose it serves as an example of how detached from reality @hmadinejad is, but I worry that it will lead people to take him less seriously when he says things like he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America. I'm convinced he actually aims to do that, and if he acquires nuclear weapons, he will have the means to do so. Oh, and for what it's worth, we don't owe him any niceties, politeness or pleasantries during his visit. He supports and funds those that literally kill our soldiers. Put more bluntly: Screw him.

- The recent overtime victory of Georgia is the most exciting football game I've seen since the 'Hobnail Boot' game in 2001. I actually injured by back by pulling a certain girl out of her chair and throwing her into the air in an ill-conceived expression of my excitement. Note to self: Leave girls in their chairs.

- Buffalo chicken with blue cheese is perhaps the greatest culinary discovery in the last century.

I’m taking my first vacation in about two years starting Friday. It’ll be nice to get away from the District for a while. Maybe I’ll have more time to blog. We’ll see.