In this article, I intend to propose a long-term strategy for changing the debate on war (in general) that may be applicable to certain other issues. However, to limit the article's scope, I am only going to deal with the issue of foreign wars.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pd f/national/03022007_poll.pdf

In general, this is good news for single-payer proponents; 60% favor higher taxes so that everyone is covered. When pressed on an amount, a plurality (49%) favor paying 500$ or more to ensure that everyone is covered, and a plurality (47%) support a single-payer system.

Most of my activism has been in support of Civil Rights. This is why, for most elections, I typically vote for the candidate who appears to has a better civil rights record and/or platform. The only exception is the Presidency, where, because of the extreme power they have on foreign policy, I typically consider foreign policy more important.

2008 is not like elections prior to 2006. In 2006, The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed just before the election. The only nice thing about this is that it made my votes for federal offices on the election of 2006 very simple - I voted against everyone who voted for that abomination of a law. For that matter, I voted against everyone belonging to their (Republican) party who was up for election, on this issue alone.

Rule of Law is the fundament of our legal system. As the Constitution of Massachusetts puts it in article XXX, In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. Common sense uses the following phrase: let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

As I'm sure you are aware, slavery is alive and well in the U.S., both in the general population and in the prison system.

Looking at the various Democratic presidential primary candidates, I am finding little evidence of their commitments to end modern-day slavery. Here is what little I found:

Obama chose to launch his bid at the place that Lincoln made his 1858 "House Divided" Speech.

Clinton has opposed the global slavery in speeches. Clinton's husband has apologized over slavery, and backed a clampdown on Child slavery.

Dodd co-sponsored National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Act (commemorating the Underground Railroad).

Biden has made a recent statement that Delaware was a slave state.

Edwards' web site has a minor side-reference indicating that historical slavery was bad.

Kucinich appears to be pro-reparations for slaves and descendants of slaves.

Gravel made a speech calling slavery an "evil institution".

If you have more information on the topic about one of the candidates, or you think that one of the statements above is inaccurate, please chime in.

I hadn't really looked at Dodd before, but this looks promising for my primary issue (rule of law). This may change the candidate I support.

It seems that a large percentage of diaries at the moment are about who to vote for in the Democratic primary in 2008, weighing the pros and cons of various candidates (or hoped-for candidates). I'd like to write about who should be president:

Dick Cheney

Now, why would an author who professes to be Liberal want someone like Cheney in (any) office? For that matter, he's not presently announced for any primary (Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, or other) so how would he have a chance? Perhaps a clarification is in order: