Having been a Marine on a Med cruise (LPH-2, U.S.S. Iwo Jima), I pretty much concur with your assessment. Having also been on Shore Patrol, I prevented a few international incidents as well.

That’s a prety humourous story, Bryan! Off-topic, what are your thoughts on uni (sea urchin)? I like just about every other kind of sushi and sashimi, but uni is something I just can’t stomach.

It’s taste and texture was once described to me as “fish peanut butter” and that’s more or less exactly what it is.

As a veteran of the seagoing service myself and having been stationed in Japan as well, I can relate very well to your experiences. I have to concur that you are spot on with your analysis. On matters of foreign policy and dealing with the U.N., I am very proud of my President. But I am growing weary of seeing him and his fellow republicans in congress going on the spending sprees with our hard earned dollars. Perhaps he sees his tax cut as a means of stimulating growth in the economy, and thereby pumping up the size of the federal coffers to help cover the new expenses. Since I’m not very good at analyzing Washington politics, I can only speculate.

Re uni—can’t stomach the stuff. Fish peanut butter is about the best description I’ve heard. Yech!

Re spending—I think I have an answer. In the months after 9-11, I started noticing that the administration had a tendency to move left on domestic spending issues (not core moral issues, but side issues that came down to spending more money) while staying the course on the war and on the core GOP issues such as abortion, etc. I asked someone close to the administration was going on. I asked why the Bush team tended to give away the store on things like the education bill, etc, when it was pretty clear that the GOP base would not be happy about it. The response I got—and this particular person is very close to the President—was that the leftish moves were calculated to make some peace with the Dems on domestic issues and thereby, theoretically, nudge them into more support for the war and for Bush generally. The hope was that the moves would help keep the country’s elected leadership united in the face of what could be a very divisive war, and help ensure that Bush broadened his appeal for a second term.

I think the goal was laudable, but the method was unsound. The Dems seem to have taken the view that they can oppose the war, or waffle around on it, but still get what they want on domestic issues anyway. They seem to think that they can accuse Bush of just about anything and get away with it, because he will never call them out on it. In essence, they see him as perhaps too strong on foreign affairs for the nation’s own good (I obviously disagree with them on that, for what it’s worth), but paradoxically very weak (by his own choice) on domestic affairs, and thus have adopted a strategy of moving further and further left because their base is moving that way, and because they are getting to move domestic issues further left than they expected they could with a Republican in the White House. So basically, the Bush admin wanted to move left to make peace, but just got more division and political warfare as a result. As long as his approval rating remains high and the war continues we can expect the Bush admin to keep up the big spending, unless deficits become a political issue anyway.

I do look at the Medicare issue as slightly different, though. On that, I think Bush and the GOP are acknowledging that there is a majority that supports prescription drug benefits and therefore it’s good politics (though lousy principle) to establish another entitlement. They did seem to try and push Medicare toward some market reforms, though, so they didn’t just sell out. I would have rather seen them oppose prescription drugs on principle, but at least they didn’t just create another big government program without any heed to the market. Over time, the Medicare bill may actually get more market involvement in health care, which would be a good thing.

Hell yeah on drunken sailors! You were lucky you were on the Japan port of call… any other country and they would have been out whore calling. Japan is just too expensive and closed to let anything other than Japanese have their whores. Needless to say, it purged my system.

re. Spending money. While your experience shows that drunken sailors will indeed spend anyones money, it’s important to note that the money spent on them by others was voluntary. The extra spending was not induced by enforcement personnel backed by a prison system. A patron could choose to not support the sailors drinking and would leave unmolested. Try doing that when Congress demands your money or your life.