War and or Peace?

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

~James Madison

A lot of people lately have been arguing that the United States is not (and should not be) engaged in a 'war on terror' and that the phrase itself is counterproductive. Three arguments for ditching the 'war on terror' mindset:

1. The Semantic Argument: Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, H.W. Bush to Panama, Reagan to Grenada, yet these engagements were never really considered to be wars by the public. Why? Because unlike World War II, the general public wasn't asked to make sacrifices, there was no draft, and the casus belli was not a grave, existential threat. (The threats of communism and terrorism have largely been overblown. Al-Qaeda and other likeminded terrorists "are fighting modernity itself." They will continue to be a small group, and they will never attain their goal of a re-established caliphate.)
2. The Constitutional Argument: Everything changes in a period of active war. Murder becomes legal. The executive is allowed to assume expansive powers. But because the threat of terrorism can never be completely eliminated, a war on terror would never end, and the powers the president assumes would be permanent.
3. The Pragmatic Argument: Restraint is a valuable asset in counterterrorism. Overreaction has largely fueled terrorist movements. Terrorism has been reduced almost everywhere, but two noticeable exceptions are Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, we should fight terrorists. But it is just that, a fight, not a war. The 'war on terror' is counterproductive.

Cents-less

Currently, the cost it takes to produce one penny (1.26 cents) is greater than the value of that penny. Same thing for nickels (7.7 cents). But Congress is acting! The House unanimously passed H.R. 5512, the Coin Modernization and Taxpayer Savings Act, on Thursday. (I had two friends--one liberal, one conservative--who said that if they agreed on something, they must be right. Expand this to 435 friends and you can see how right this bill is.) The bill would require pennies and nickels to be primarily made of steel and is estimated to save $1 billion over the next decade.

But the Bush administration is balking at the bill, mostly because it doesn't like Congress telling any twig on the Executive Branch what to do. Never mind that the Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

So President Bush doesn't like this bill, even though it clearly has wide popularity and makes good business sense, because he doesn't like being told what to do. Now I understand why the oil companies in which he had major stakes in the 80's failed miserably.