AP: Myanmar held a referendum Saturday that likely will solidify the ruling junta's hold on power, even as it appeared overwhelmed by a devastating cyclone that killed tens of thousands of people. ... In a country where the last election was held 18 years ago, many people had no idea how to vote. Some asked each other or officials, "Where do I go?" or "What do I do?" as they walked into curtained booths to cast their ballots.
The referendum seeks public approval of a new constitution, which the generals say will be followed in 2010 by a general election. Both votes are elements of what the junta calls its "roadmap to democracy." ... But the proposed constitution guarantees 25 percent of parliamentary seats to the military and allows the president to hand over all power to the military in a state of emergency. ... Some 27 million of the country's 57 million people were eligible to vote, although balloting was delayed for two weeks in the areas hardest hit by the May 3 cyclone. Final official results of the referendum will not be announced until after late voting on May 24 in areas badly hit by recent Cyclone Nargis."
"This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead." -Ecclesiastes 9:3
Such mindless grasping of petty power is barbaric & savage in the extreme. More then 20,000 lie dead upon the ground, many more lie injured and starving on top of them, and famine is rapidly spreading. So the logical response? Hold and election. In case you've missed the connection, this is the same nation where the Buddhist monks lead a 'revolt' that was subsequently squashed into a bloody pulp on the stones of Rangoon.
AP: "McCain was awarded a Silver Star Medal for resisting "extreme mental and physical cruelties" inflicted upon him by his captors from late October to early December 1967, the early months of his captivity, according to the citation. The North Vietnamese, according to the Navy, ignored international agreements and tortured McCain "in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes."
McCain, now the Republican Party's likely presidential nominee, was taken prisoner in October 1967 after he was shot down while on a mission over Hanoi. He wasn't freed until March 1973, after the United States signed peace agreements with the North Vietnamese. His captors tortured him and held him in solitary confinement. Still, he declined an offer of early release until those who had been at the prison longer than him were let go.
That decision earned McCain a Navy Commendation Medal. Although McCain was "crippled from serious and ill-treated injuries," he steadfastly refused offers of freedom from those holding him prisoner. "His selfless action served as an example to others and his forthright refusal, by giving emphasis to the insidious nature of such releases, may have prevented a possibly chaotic deterioration in prisoner discipline," the citation says.
Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat "V" and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Star Medal with a combat "V" and two gold stars.
Several citations mention his achievements either as a prisoner or as a lieutenant commander flying bombing runs off the deck of the USS Oriskany. "
As much as I disagree with his politics on almost every level, this John McCain has fought, bleed, and watched his brothers die for my country.
Politico: " "We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.
"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC..."
This is how we win friends. This is how we spurn the world. This is how we win influence across the globe. This is how we engage the middle east diplomatically. This is how we win the oil supply battle??
Statistically, OPEC has little direct impact upon the US. Oil is a global commodity, its origin and processing matter little. Quite simply, a barrel is a barrel is a barrel. So OPEC does not dictate prices. The price of an item is dictated by the quantity of supply in relation to demand, and the supply worldwide has risen steadily over the past 2 decades. While more supply is available, the refining bottleneck still exists, and thus the price has risen. It's not greedy oil companies, who make less then 5% profit on a gallon of gas. It's not greedy Mexican oil tycoons, jacking with the little guy. It's not a cartel of minor nations regulating their supply. In the US, it's a government that has not allowed a new refinery in 15 years, compounding a problem of rising demand.
I suppose I shouldn't be too worried. Heck, even the crazy lady herself has not proposed or joined any legislation to the effect of her current campaigning.
I liked it. Watched it at 11pm last night, and surrounded by friends and fellow geeks, so my opinion may be somewhat inaccurate.
Basically, it's a comic book movie. But its a good one, well acted and with a semi-plausible hero powers. Pretty funny with great action, it's a good summer movie. I'll buy the DVD when it comes out.
Reuters " Sam's Club, a chain owned by retail giant Wal-Mart, announced Wednesday it was placing a limit of four 20-pound (nine-kilogram) bags per person for imported jasmine, basmati and long grain white rices as a "precautionary step."
"This temporary cap is intended to ensure there is plenty of rice for all our members," said Sam's Club, which has 600 stores across the United States, adding that the measure did not apply to smaller bags of rice."
From a buisness point of view, this doesn't seem to make sense, limiting your sales. Still, if your waiting for demand to rocket, then you can hold the rice and sell it at a premium. Good for stockholders and those willing to buy it at that price, anyways.
It's a self-enforced rationing, not government. I can take my economic flamethrower and mosey on else where.
Still, it's not helping public opinion any in regards to this economic situation. Note, not downturn. :D
And yes, I did take that picture. No, I don't know whats in it.
Rueters:A shipment of Chinese arms bound for Zimbabwe will be recalled after South African port workers refused to unload the vessel and neighboring countries barred it from their ports, China said on Thursday.
The recall of the An Yue Jiang, carrying 77 tonnes of assault rifle ammunition, mortars and rifle grenades, came after unprecedented regional opposition in addition to Western pressure over Zimbabwe's election crisis.
No results have been announced for the March 29 presidential vote, while the outcome of a parliamentary poll which the opposition won is also in doubt because of partial recounts....
The European Union already has an arms embargo against Zimbabwe, part of sanctions in place since 2002. The embargo bars the 27 EU states from supplying arms or equipment intended for military operations. The U.S. has also imposed sanctions."
Seeing how Robert Mugabe is likely on the loosing side of this election, I can understand the regional countries refusing shipment of weapons inland. Just a bit of interesting world events that probably have more impact then that primary yesterday.
One of the cardinal rules for a politician, particularly those from Washington, is to know the price of milk and eggs in a town that you're speaking in. Well, those numbers have been rising.
AP: "The U.S. is wrestling with the worst food inflation in 17 years, and analysts expect new data due on Wednesday to show it's getting worse. That's putting the squeeze on poor families and forcing bakeries, bagel shops and delis to explain price increases to their customers.
U.S. food prices rose 4 percent in 2007, compared with an average 2.5 percent annual rise for the last 15 years... Eggs cost 25 percent more in February than they did a year ago, according to the USDA. Milk and other dairy products jumped 13 percent, chicken and other poultry nearly 7 percent."
How does this happen? For everything, there is a cause and then effect. So, the effect is obviously rising food prices.The Cause?- Most of our food is home grown, so the dollar weakening on the global scale has a minimal impact on food prices at home.- Speculators playing the market? Not so much. Speculators buy 'futures', meaning they pay a fixed rate some time down the road for a certain amount of wheat/corn/rice/soy/peanuts. So paying to much and then trying to make a profit upon delivery is inefficient and a loosing proposition. Just the same, the farmer doesn't want to undersell himself, and so he looks at the coming markets and attempts to make a profit. It's been this way for years and years, and nothing has changed except the market for the product. So the speculator is not to blame.- More demand? The 3 basic explanation for most price increases: Increased supply costs, Rising Demand, or Decreasing Availability. Growing costs have increased recently due to rising energy and water costs, coupled with Rising Demand and Decreasing Availability.
- Biofuels, Ethanol in particular. When Congress and W mandated a 500% increase in the use of biofuels, it was presented as a solution to a vastly overstated oil problem, a dream of growing all of our own fuel at home. No longer would ArcherDanielsMidland have sole control over the field, but soon Exxon Mobile Refineries would dot the landscape... A couple of problems. Biofuels are inefficient compared to traditional gasoline, are difficult to transport, and only feasible in localized areas. They also require biomass, and the most readily available is that of Corn, Rice and Wheat. So, with they're fat government surplus checks in hand, the bio-manufacturers began buying massive quantities of food for the purpose of fuel. Seeing this and a rising demand for a product, the farmers jumped on board, and now 20% 0f corn acreage is devoted to ethanol. Thus, the price of corn in particular has risen, affecting everything from cows to chickens to pigs to turkeys, and a wide variety of livestock in between.So how did this get started? Liberal, Socialism mandates from the Feds. Thank you W.
Why else is their rising demand? The world is flat in an information sense, but is still opening up in a physical sense. As more and more products are shipped to more people and an ever rising population, the demand rises. China and India are the two most populous nations, and they are steadily rising in level of income and in imported material. This is also contributory to rising oil prices.
Still, this is marginal news for us. We'll grumble and then go have a bar-b-q. Or whatever it is you do in your neck of the woods. "U.S. households still spend a smaller chunk of their expenses for foods than in any other country -- 7.2 percent in 2006, according to the USDA. By contrast, the figure was 22 percent in Poland and more than 40 percent in Egypt and Vietnam.
In Bangladesh, economists estimate 30 million of the country's 150 million people could be going hungry. Haiti's prime minister was ousted over the weekend following food riots there."
The rest of the world? Not so lucky.Once again, we can point to government interference in a market as the cause of many of these ills.
Restrictions on the amount of oil available, in the form or drilling moratorium and refusal to allow new Refineries in the US has all lead to expensive gasoline.
Mandates on Biofuels, a 500% increase, due to fears of global warming and oil dependency.
Those two causes are killing people abroad, while the elite liberals of the ivory towers sit complacent and congratulate themselves on a job well done, ignoring the real world consequences of Marxism.
So I looked at this blog today, and realized it's been a really long time since I posted. With a little bit o' prodding from Joel, I think it's time for an update.
I've been sick for the past three days (better now), but my apathetic posting is from more then that. I'm disgruntled with this administration, and as usual, disgusted with the democrats. But I can live with that, and willingly go to war with them on a daily basis, cheerfully battering down the inanity of the left.
But these kicks in the teeth from republicans is really frustrating. We've got McCain as the 'conservative' nominee. A federal/world bank take over of much of the financial systems. Blithering ignorance cascading down from the highest levels of education through kindergarten students, and the only thing done about it is throwing more bloated taxpayer money. An employment rate of 95%, and we complain. Oh, how soft we've become.
I'm not furious, but beaten down. So I've taken some time off, and I'll probably take some more time off from the blogsphere. Don't worry, I'll let you know when I'm back. :D
Not that I'm withdrawing from my involvement in the electoral process. I served as a page at the local Republican Convention two weeks ago, I'm slated to work the State convention in June, and I'm applying for National Convention paging later this summer. Pray that comes through, because it would be really really cool.
I've also had my creative energies funneled off into a different direction. My younger brother and I host a weekly podcast, Canned Energy. It's about a 20 minute show reviewing energy drinks. Yeah, I know. Typical youngster. :D But it's relaxing to back away from the morass of the current political spectrum.
Palm Beach Post: "Dorr said Miami-Dade police may get a permit to test a drone over an uninhabited area, such as the Everglades. But to use the drone in police work over an urban area - especially a busy air corridor such as Miami-Dade - it would need a permit, which will be hard to come by.
"We have a responsibility to protect the public, both people on the ground and other aircraft," Dorr said.
The drone that interests the Miami-Dade police is called the MAV - Micro-Air Vehicle - and it is made by Honeywell International. The radio-controlled unit weighs 14 pounds without fuel aboard and operates in the air like a helicopter.
"It can hover and go straight down or up, for example," police spokesman Villalba said.
According to Honeywell, the MAV can operate at a maximum of 10,500 feet and at a top speed of 50 knots per hour. It can be carried in a large backpack and be deployed in five minutes.
In September, a Honeywell official estimated that the MAV - including the aircraft and its ground control system - would cost about $250,000."
Terrific. So camera's on Red Lights aren't enough (besides for making money). Camera's on street corners aren't enough. Camera's in apartments are useless. So what else? Camera's in the air, of course! So simple, I could have thought of it myself.
I've been tolerant of these things so far, figuring that as long as it's on public property, then it may be beneficial. But flying cameras? That's ridiculous. We use these things to fight terrorists, and to inefficiently watch the border criminals cross back and forth.
One side of my mine rationalizes this as analogous to a Helicopter used in high speed car chases and manhunts. I think economics is certainly a factor it this, as it always is. The incentive for a police force to use a helicopter in those situations is obvious. Few, if any criminals are going to outrun a skillfully piloted helicopter, and the view from the top can be helpful in directing officers on the ground, and training/reviews later on. But it's expensive to own and operate a rotary wing aircraft. In fact, the Kansas City PD spent $1,004,256 in 2006 on running a helicopter unit. So while it may be fun to police traffic with a helicopter, the incentive is no where near large enough to outweigh the vast cost and dedication of resources that would take. As such, we have never had to deal with active monitoring from the air by Police Departments. (Satellites excluded, but that's a different set of circumstances)
Not so with a drone. Requiring only 1 or 2 people to operate, and with a far lower cost, both on purchasing, training, fuel, and maintenance, it is now financially and technically feasible for active monitoring from the sky to take place on a regular basis. Sure, right now it's only for Swat Operations. 2 years from now? As the incentive to actively monitor from the sky grows in comparison with the cost, more and more departments will begin using aerial cameras to monitor us mortals, who deign to carry out lives while wishing for privacy.
Big Brother, eat your stale, crusty heart out. "'Oranges and lemons,' say the bells of St. Clement's, 'You owe me three farthings,' say the bells of St. Martin's..
Where is this: And Who said this: ""If freedom loving people don't speak out against China's oppression of people in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak out against any oppressed people.""
Politico: "John Edwards is unlikely to endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton before the nomination is decided, according to interviews with several members of the former candidate's inner circle.
At least three individuals who have recently spoken to Edwards expect that he will choose to stay out of the fight, though they warn that no one other than his wife, Elizabeth, can be certain of his thinking.
“My gut instinct, at this point: He’s probably going to remain neutral and sort of try to play on that Al Gore status as party elder,” said a former Edwards operative who is in regular contact with the former North Carolina senator and who asked that his name be withheld.
Fascinating how a candidate who has twice in a row been deemed as not the best contender can claim the mantle of 'elder statesman' in a party.
At least Al Gore has 'Former Vice President' and 'Inventor of the internet' to stand upon. Edwards? He's good at chasing ambulances.
Where did the Democrat's primary season turn so sour? How did the dream race of 2008 become so divisive and vindictive for the left wing party?
It started out great. A party united in it's hatred of Bush and the republican establishment, a virulent dislike of the ongoing war, a unified front on increasing spending, and a strong set of candidates for president.
Hilary Rodam Clinton: First serious woman contender, political heavyweight, and US Senator. A razor-sharp woman with experience on a wide variety of levels. Barack Hussein Obama: First serious black contender, political idealist, and US Senator. A black man with a fresh face, charisma, and a European socialist agenda. John Edwards: ...?
So after both the man and the woman beat down the old has been White Man from the South, the sky should have been the limit. So what happened?
Obama and Clinton have similar policies, particularly on the domestic front. There are subtle differences, but by and large, they both sit well in the left field bleachers.
Where they do differ is on Forign Policy, particularly Iraq. As the surge works successfully in Iraq, it has faded as a news item, and a point of contention amongst the contenders. Thus, we are left with only one real difference, and it's a style of politics the dems are well practiced at. Personal Politics, where the identity of the candidate matters more then the policies.
Obama is a rockstar, and carries himself like a president should, with dignity and honor fitting years of proud service. He's also a fresh face on the national stage. At this point, much of the national media seems to have joined his camp, which only adds to his image. Hilary is beacon of hope flashing from the distant past of the 1990's, a reminder of the most recent glory days of the Democrat party. That, and the war machine of the Clinton's has some pretty deep roots, and has managed to salvage a poor campaign twice now.
So what's going to happen? A convention battle for the ages. The 2 dream candidates of the past century, and the body blows will fall fast and furious in a desperate attempt to garner the super delegates. I think Clinton wins it at the convention.
Lost in this shuffle is Edwards. Where did he mosey off to anyways?
AP: "Every vote counts. But what happens when there are no votes at all? That's the situation city officials in Tamarac are facing. No voters showed up Wednesday night to cast a ballot in an annexation referendum for an unincorporated Broward County community.
There are 68 registered voters in the 200-person Prospect Bend neighborhood. Tamarac officials have proposed annexing the neighborhood.
Details were mailed to registered voters. If just one voter had shown up, that one vote would have decided the neighborhood's fate.
The cost of keeping a polling site open for 12 hours with no voters: $2,500."
Whatever happens to that area, they get what they deserve. Not one person goes to vote... my, how the west has fallen.
Or, from another perspective: This didn't really matter, why were they voting on it?
WNBC.Com ""I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong," Spitzer said. "I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better." "I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals; it is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the state of New York," Spitzer said.
"Spitzer's involvement in the ring was caught on a federal wiretap as part of an investigation opened in recent months, according to a law enforcement official who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry.
The New York Democrat, identified in legal papers as "Client 9," met last month with at least one woman in a Washington hotel, the law enforcement official said. The prostitution ring, identified in court papers as the Emperors Club VIP, arranged connections between wealthy men and more than 50 prostitutes in New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, London and Paris, prosecutors said. Four people allegedly connected to the high-end ring were arrested last week."
When I read the pre-cursor to this story yesterday, I pretty much gave a mental shrug and moved to some economic news I found more interesting. I assumed no one would care. It's New York and he's a democrat, who cares? Well, apparently there is far more sanity in the hearts and minds of my yankee brethren then I originally assumed.
The worst part about this story has got to be what is going on behind the scenes, the family matters we're not privy to. I point to three reasons: 1. His wife, Silda Spitzer and her reaction at the press conference. The pain she must be going through is understandable, and unlike Kobe's wife, it doesn't look like she'll be bought off by some fancy jewelry. Good for her. 2. The timing of this incident is ridiculous. The date mentioned for the hiring of the prostitute? February 13. One bloody night before valentines day. Simply despicable at any time, but the middle of February? Come on! 3. Spitzer made a campaign issue out of reforming the ethics of the government, and pointed to his record as a State Attorney, and several high-profile corporate cases as his record. Well, how clean are we now?
""Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect. Maybe I've just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.""
I've been diagnosed pneumonia in my lower right lung right now. I haven't felt good in almost a month, but everything came to a screeching, painful halt saturday morning. I don't know when I'll be back to this blog, or anything of the online nature, but I'm looking at the end of this week as my target.
Michael Lind: (Hat tip to Matt)"...even in more normal times there are three ubiquitous myths about America that make the country seem weaker and more chaotic than it really is. The first myth, which is mainly a conservative one, is that racial and ethnic rivalries are tearing America apart. The second myth, which is mainly a liberal one, is that America will soon be overwhelmed by religious fundamentalists. The third myth, an economic one beloved of centrists, is that the retirement of the baby boomers will bankrupt the country because of runaway social security entitlement costs.
America does, of course, have many problems, such as spiraling healthcare costs and a decline in social mobility. Yet the truth is that apart from the temporary frictions caused by current immigration from Latin America, the US is more integrated than ever. Racial and cultural diversity is in long-term decline, as a result of the success of the melting pot in merging groups through assimilation and intermarriage—and many of the country's infamous social pathologies, from violent crime to teenage drug use, are also seeing improvements. Americans are far more religious than Europeans, but the "religious right" is concentrated among white southern Protestants. And there is no genuine long-term entitlement problem in the US.
The US suffers from healthcare cost inflation, a problem that will be solved one way or another in the near future, long before it cripples the economy as a whole. And the long-term costs of social security, America's public pension programme, could be met by moderate benefit cuts or a moderate growth in the US government share of GDP. With a linguistically united, increasingly racially mixed supermajority and a solvent system of middle-class entitlements, the US will remain first among equals for generations to come, even in a multipolar world with several great powers..."
An absolutely brilliant analysis of the United States and it's future. The numbers and thoughts on immigration are compelling and a breath of fresh air. The current and future state of the church is worrisome for a Evangelical Christian like me, but not terribly so. Social security, while I disagree with it as a program, will still be ticking when I'm a grandfather.
Excellent read, one that dwells on the real situation, rather then the pessimistic view of the world that we find ourselves with, mostly because we live in the news cycle of the day.
(Under_the_mercy, I will be replying to your last comment soon, but not tonight. Thanks for being a civil and well versed blogger.)
As I am now obligated to support Mike Huckabee for the Republican Presidential nominee due to Romney's departure, I will give some reasons why I believe that out of the three remaining contenders, Mike Huckabee is the preferred man.
I'd like to note, before I begin: I started this primary year liking Ray McKinney, then Duncan Hunter, then Fred Thompson, and finally settled on Romney last week. Now that all of these fine men are out of the race, I am limited to Huckabee, McCain and Paul. Huckabee is the best of the three, limited though the selection may be.
I'll start with my three main issues. 1. War on Terror As with all the republican contenders, with the exception of Ron Paul, Huckabee is strongly supportive of Bush's actions, and will likely continue taking the fight to the terrorists home turf. While Huckabee has little, if any experience running a war, he is a competent individual. While there is no battle ground similar to Iraq in '02 looming, action must still be taken against Islamic nazis. I trust Huckabee with this.
2. Economy Admittedly, I have had my prior concerns about Huckabee's tax record. But when contrasted when McCain's past positions, particularly in regard to Bush's tax plan, I deem Huckabee worthy. His persistent campaigning on the Fair Tax is also a bonus, and I doubt he will deviate from that position in his first term, if elected. Yes, Ron Paul has never raised taxes. But what's the deal with the gold standard? Our standard of living as a nation has only risen since we have switched to our current monetary policy in the early 20th century. While Huckabee's support of subsidies on agriculture and alternative energies are hardly conservative, they could hardly do worse then what we've had now.
3. Immigration This is what worries me most about Mike. His actions in Arkansas simply were not good. Still, what more harm could he do then the status quo is achieving?
All da rest (that I agree with Huckabee on): Abortion Like McCain and Ron Paul, Huckabee has always opposed the killing of babies. How anyone wouldn't, I don't know. But this is the issue I trust Mike most on, defending the unborn.
2nd Amendment Like most republicans, he supports the right to bear arms. He was the first govenor to push, and pass, a concealed handgun permit in the state of Arkansas, and strongly opposed the assault rifle ban.
There you have it. Huckabee is my favorite of the remaining three. (Romney... I hardly knew thee)
Mitt Romney just jumped ship on us... So I am now 0-4 in my candidate selection.
Who's left? John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. McCain has by far the most delegates, and will likely win the nomination.
I now find myself in the akward position of supporting Mike Huckabee. Since my 3 least favorite contenders are all that's left, Huckabee is the best of them, in my opinion.
Ok, so I called yesterday all wrong. Huckabee is far from finished, at least in the south. McCain, as expected was strong with the liberal states, california included. Texas may become a king maker, which would be really quite interesting.
I don't think we'll have a decision on either party. McCain and Romney will continue to battle through the weeks ahead, and I would hope Romney coming out on top.
Seeing as McCain is continuing his tradition of bashing conservative ideals, it is likely he will fizzle out in the coming weeks.
Huckabee will be finished by Friday, and Ron Paul will hang on until he doesn't get the nomination, in which case he will run as a libertarian.
For the democrats, they're going to bash each other all the way home, and then saddle up and run for office with Clinton in the lead.
Thats my predictions. We shall see what comes to pass.
First of all, CNN runs a debate terribly. The guy who hosted this does not know how to moderate.
First question: Are we better off then we were 8 years ago? Not one candidate says yes. What is wrong with these people??? Our economy has done nothing but grow in the past 8 years, and the standard of living has only increased. Lets have a little truth, rather then some populist pandering to the lower class. That goes for all of them.
This makes no sense... McCain takes a shot at Romney for being endorsed by the 'very conservative paper, like the Boston Herald', as a way of targeting his conservatism. But then he turns right around and starts bragging about working with democrats.
How did Rush Limbaugh get stuck into here??? Huckabee deftly handled the question, and then started firing his conservative record. I do remember his 'tax me more fund' a few years back, I thought it was hilarious.
McCain's on global warming eco-nuts side. Wow... and he's argueing that we're good enough as an economy to recover from burdensome regulations and move on, and even if there is no problem, we'll leave a cleaner atmosphere to our kids. THERE is the conservative McCain we know and love. I do like we're talking nuclear power though.
Ron Paul on Environment: Restore property rights. YES!!! WHAT THE HECK!!! They just chopped Ron Paul off after 32 seconds, for some bloody highway questions.
Highways??? So if the bridge in Michigan had never fallen down, would these guys be acting like blithering idiots discussing 'infrastructure'??
Here's an interesting question: Is the republican party better off then it was 8 years ago?
Got it. Romney will not leave Iraq until we win. I never thought otherwise.
Ron Paul on forign policy.... I don't understand how he can get on stage and say with a straight face that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-queda, and we had no declaration of war. This lying is absolutly ridiculous.
Huckabee could come across as a whinner, but he really is not getting much screen time. CNN is doing a terrible job with this.
Ok. Ronald Regan is not a god, can we please stop talking about a president who was elected 30 years ago???
I really didn't like anyone on there. Romney will take my tenitive support, only because he is the least terrible of the 4. Mr. Fantastic, there ya go.
So McCain has apparently taken the Florida Primary, much to my dismay and surprise.
Rudy is essentially out, his strategy of making a last stand in Florida just didn't pan out as his campaign expected. There are reports that he will drop out soon, and endorse, for what it's worth, John McCain.
So, we are now left to the choice of Mitt Romney, John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.
I need some new news... I'm wearying of this election right now, and I don't think Super Tuesday will really decide anything for either party, other then John Edwards and Huckabee leaving the race.
In other news, police tasered a man on a bike for improper lighting.
EDIT: Ok, so I've thought of some analogies for the current men in the republican race. Mitt Romney: Romney is Reed Richards, Mr. Fantastic. The leader of the group, the most successful in the corporate world, and considered cold and uncaring at times. He also has the fantastic ability to stretch/contort to any shape, much as Romney's positions have undergone serious changes. John McCain: McCain is Ben Grimm, the Thing. He is the strongest and most aggressive candidate, and the most willing to solve problems by fighting. At times a bit of a maverick, and usually in some sharp disagreement with the Human Torch, he is fiercely loyal to what he believes. He's also made of rock, which is cool. But the heavier they are, the harder they fall, which we may see happen with McCain. Mike Huckabee: Huckabee is much like Susan Storm, the Invisible Woman. He is considered the most compassionate of the group, and sometimes attempts to keep the arguments from becoming too angry. When necessary, he can disappear from the scene, only to reappear when the timing is right. The ability to deflect attacks and criticisms is also very useful, and force field projection helps immensely in this arena. Ron Paul: Paul is Johnny Storm, The Human Torch. The maverick of the bunch, a fiery presence who knows what he thinks, and is not afraid to speak it. He often soars far above the others, both in his idealism and his ideas. Capable of both sustained fighting with fire, and the ability to fly when things become impossible, he always comes back to fight another day.
Please note, that was meant to be in good fun. If you were offended by your candidates characterization, please leave a better one of your own.
Rudy Guiliani Mitt Romney John McCain Mike Huckabee Ron Paul Tom Tancredo Duncan Hunter Fred Thompson Ray McKinney John Cox Sam Brownback
So, the race has been significantly winnowed down from last summer. Right now, there are 5 players in the race, and while I personally believe Ron Paul has little chance of winning, he is a rather significant player in this, so the count stays at 5.
Who's got the momentum? John McCain, or it is perceived as his momentum. Yet, as much as the media may appreciate the maverick, he isn't winning. As much as Huckabee's populist campaigning is adored by the press, he isn't winning. Rudy? Hah, he's got nothing yet. But it hasn't hurt him, nor will it hurt him in the end. Ron Paul has his very dedicated base, but I believe he fell short on his best shot in New Hampshire. And so that leaves...
Mitt Romney??? With little fanfare, and a well sustained beating from almost all quarters, Romney has stayed his course and conquered in the early political battles. Sure, he lost Iowa to Huckabee. But he won Wyoming in the same week Sure, he lost New Hampshire to McCain. But he won Michigan in the same week Sure, he lost South Carolina to McCain. But he won Nevada in the same week
My point is this: The most successful candidate is the most lampooned and caricatured candidate by the liberal media. I think it indicates something. The left is afraid of him, because Romney is an articulate conservative with a clean background who has the proven capacity to reach across party lines.
I'll be honest with ya'll, now that my beloved Fred has left the race, Romney is now my primary choice, and followed in second by Rudy Giuliani.
Now, to look at the big picture.
Delegates Tallied as of 1/23/07: 156 Final number of Delegates: 1, 191
Yeah, we've got a ways to go before it's time to get really excited. Perhaps after Febuary 5, we'll know more.
Politico: "Nearly everything in the new cafeterias is biodegradable, from plates to utensils to straws, and that situation has produced a few peculiarities. For example, there are no soup spoons, only teaspoons. The company that manufactures the biodegradable flatware doesn’t make soup spoons yet. And some people have complained that the compostable straws can melt in hot liquids.
Politico headed to the cafeteria at the Rayburn House Office Building to test this scenario. A compostable straw placed in hot coffee did indeed become pliable and droop, although it never disintegrated entirely.
Ventura said customers would have to change their behavior to accommodate the environmentally friendly products.
“We have had a few people observe that [straw] phenomenon and we had to tell them, ‘Sip your coffee like a normal human being,’” Ventura said. “We’re trying to save the planet here.”"
What a stark turn from capitalism. Ya know, the business credo 'PLEASE THE CUSTOMER!' and all that jazz. Nope, this is a government mandated and sustained cafeteria, and by golly, all those cretins who don't know what a 'Cumin-scented leg of lamb with almond couscous' is, or even care to know.
For all this wonderful customer service, it should cost less. Nope, not happening. "...A fruit and cheese side dish with two small wedges of brie and cheddar, six grapes, two saltines and one strawberry cost $4.95, for example..." (admittedly, that strikes me as very expensive, but I'm a Texas guy used to paying $6 for a bbq dinner. This may be cheap for them...)
Brilliant. Turns out that 'environmentally friendly' stuff costs more, and doesn't work as well.
Alas, this is not the entirety of the new year's rules. Sale of tobacco has also been banned. (politico) (Oddly enough, this probably makes Mike Huckabee pleased, as he supports a national smoking ban.)
"“This is silly ‘feel good’ crap by a bunch of do-gooders,” barked a high-level Democratic staffer (also a smoker). “We should be worried about the housing crisis, the unemployment rate and the national debt instead of making staffers walk four blocks to buy a pack of smokes.” ... To some, the new ban carries a whiff of hypocrisy. “If we are really worried about people’s health, why are we still selling triple espressos, double bacon cheeseburgers and ice cream?” asked Hayden Rogers, chief of staff for Rep. Heath Shuler, a Democrat who hails from the tobacco state of North Carolina. “We all make serious decisions every day with real consequences, yet adults on the Hill are not allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to buy tobacco.”
And Boehner? “Apparently Dan Beard didn’t get the memo that the speaker is counting on more tobacco sales to ensure [the State Children’s Health Insurance Program] covers more adults and more illegal immigrants,” said Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith, tossing a little policy into the debate. “Beard’s move is decidedly off-message for a Congress that purports to be ‘for the children.’” "
Congratulations, Nancy Pelosi. the house has continued it's fantastic performance from last year into this year.
I didn't watch this debate on Saturday night, I was at a friends house watching NFL playoffs. On that, note, The Green and Gold is returning to glory, BRING ON THE SEAHAWKS! But, I did fulfil my political junkie hankering Sunday night by watching the debate on YouTube. (Wonderful creation, this Internet video thingy!)
If you haven't seen it, here's the first of 9 video segments.
First, I want to give a texas size round of applause to ABC news for their terrific coverage, presentation, and moderation of the Republican debate. Best debate I've seen in a good while. It felt like the candidates sitting in a coffee shop with me and a friend, and trying to convince me while discussing the matters amongst themselves in a gracious manner. While clash existed, it wasn't abrasive, rather, a highly entertaining look into the candidates reaction under pressure.
Now, for the meat, and my reaction to the candidates/issues. I'll start going from right to left, which in this case, the seating arrangement had absolutely no bearing on the candidates
So, John McCain, please step to the plate. When it comes to the War on Terror, John McCain is well 'nigh unparalleled by any candidate in any party. With the lone, stark exception of Guantanamo Bay, McCain has been backing the correct strategy against Islam since the beginning of this millennium, and is the only republican who can lay claim to influencing 'the surge' strategy. But outside of this admittedly large issue, I don't agree with McCain on much. Blaming the pharmaceuticals for expensive medicine is ridiculous, as was his amnesty bill that withered under a public firestorm, the likes of which I have seen very few times in my life. Opposing the Bush tax cuts don't win me any favor either. McCain's debate performance appeared a bit awkward to me, and far to quick to assail Romney for 'negative ads'. Ultimately, if McCain wins the nomination, I will feel secure in the foreign policy, but alas, nothing else. He is most certainly not a conservative horse in this race.
On deck, Fred Thompson. Watching this debate, Fred received the most 'yays' from myself. A rock on the war, free markets on health care (AS IT SHOULD BE!), and the best answer I've ever heard from a presidential candidate on high energy prices. Windfall tax on companies? hah! He also got into a riff with Romney about mandates that I thought was an excellent defense of personal freedoms. Immigration was good as well. After looking at all the candidates side-by-side, Thompson is likely to have my vote. I do realize he voted for campaign finance reform (a bill from McCain, incidentally), but I believe his record is solid otherwise.
Ron Paul, please go find that libertarian baseball bat you used to carry, and start swinging it again! As sure as the snow falls, Paul seemed to completely forgo the principles of liberty that he has so long been the flag bearer of. Unfortunatley, he took this time to shoot off on a radically anti-war screed. I can't support this. Where I can support Ron Paul is domestic policy, but he seemed more interested in pushing theories about monetary policy then pushing free market solutions, which I find vaguely distressing. Nevertheless, as shown in his past actions, if this man wins, he will be one of the greatest boons to our domestic policy in many, many moons. I just hope we'd be around to see it come to fruition. Mitt Romney came not with a baseball bat, but with an iron tipped oak quarterstaff. His foreign policy I am confident in, and his comprehension of the Islamic threat seems to be well versed and highly competent. I loved it when he was commenting on Huckabee's article on foreign policy, and Mike demanded to know if he had read it or not. Mitt said he had, but there was a LOT of tension between the two the entire night. (McCain and Paul had the funniest lines, 'did you read mine?' & 'what about mine?', respectively addressed to Romney) He speaks a very good game when it comes to immigration. Not sure I trust him, in regards to his past actions, but his plan is there nonetheless. Health care, which I don't care about that much, but he seemed far to eager to enact government mandates, which Thompson did call him on. His defense of 'big pharma' was well timed and necessary. On the whole, it seemed like he was the most prepared, and most polished man on stage. While I would not have exuberance regarding a Romney candidacy, I could certainly back it truthfully.
To the Right of Romney (on stage, at least) was Mike Huckabee. I know my previous post was very harsh on Huckabee, and I still feel they are valid points. The contention between he and Romney seems to have reflected all through out his campaign, and even when I discuss Huckabee with his supporters, many of my criticisms are deflected towards, or assumed caused by the Romney campaign. (Curious, then, that ABC sat them together. Random lots? hah!) It may be that I had heard Huckabee the day before on Sean Hannity's radio program, but many of his responses seemed canned to me. I did not much care for his immigration, but otherwise he managed to pass well enough as a republican candidate for president. I don't think he was challenged enough on his taxes, both past actions or future policies, nor on education.
Ironically, the man most known for his easy going charisma seemed just as terse, and at times snappy as Romney, who is cast as the establishment candidate. The governor from Arkansas just seemed to fade into the background at many times, contrary to Romney, who seemed ready to leap on anyone who deviated from the party line, or Thompson, who was the voice of reasoned wisdom at many times. I think Huckabee fits in the same category as McCain, where I agree on one major issue, in Mikes case, taxes, but not in a powerful way on the other two majors, the War on Terror and Immigration.
Finally, the Mayor of Gotham, Rudy Giuliani steps to the plate. (perhaps at the house that Ruth built?) (baseball phrase from new york...) (moving on...) On foreign policy, Rudy was the anchor of the panel, smart, experienced, and ready to roll against Islam and it's terrorist adherents, rivaling even McCain when it came to hawkish policy. Other then that, I don't remember hardly anything except incessant chatter about Regan's dark side, his amnesty for the 8 million illegal immigrants. Hardly something I'd like out of my candidate, and not very encouraging on the immigration front. Again, Rudy fits with McCain and Huckabee, hitting one of three of the big issues, but going down swinging on Economy/Taxes and immigration.
So, over all? I really enjoyed the debate, and as much as I dislike some policies of some candidates, I would really only be uncomfortable voting for McCain, and seeing how Huckabee progresses with his populist agenda, perhaps the former Governor of the Natural State.
If you've read this far, then you have my sincere gratitude. If you just read the summary, then thank you. If you just read at this last line, thanks for dropping by.
I've been watching the rising star of Huckabee in this republican primary, and it worries me. While I think it is highly unlikely that he will win the nomination, or even more then 2 of the early primaries, Mike is becoming a force to be reckoned with. This is unfortunate. While the evangelical right has rallied behind the man, I don't think there is a good outcome to this. A. Huckabee will be soundly beaten in the primaries, and the evangelical right will be shown as both weak and beatable. Weather or not we have actually rallied behind Mike or not, his status as the southren baptist pastor will create an image that is unshakable. B. Huckabee will win the primary, and go absolutely nowhere in the general election. Clinton vs. Huckabee? Clinton by a good margin, and we have our first woman president. Obama vs. Huckabee? Obama in a landslide. While Huckabee is more conservative then either of the two, he is not radically enough different from democrats to win.
So, here are my issues with Huckabee, and why I regretfully am regarding him as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
1.Immigration Huckabee's illegal immigration 'report card', as well as the other candidates. - Americans for Better Immigration Huckabee's individual report, with an overview and explanation of where he has stood. - Individual report card His stance is remarkably similar to W's, and just as harmful. Wishy-washy talk with only a modicum of improvement. Huckabee's past actions are also weak, inadequate, or simply pandering to both the Republic of Mexico and her citizens residing in the US. A governor that will appropriate $3,000,000 of state funds to build a consulate in his non-border state, has some issues. I also am disturbed by In-state funding for illegal immigrants at state schools, which are not applicable to American Citizens from a different part of the country.
2. Taxes Huckabee did cut taxes 94 times, equaling $380 million. I applaud that, and think that standing by itself, its a wonderful statistic. In general, indicative of a conservative leader. But contrast it with the other side of the coin, where he raised taxes 21 times, equaling $505 million. This is not at all indicative of conservative leadership. While the budget surplus did increase, the state constitution requires that the budget be balanced, unless a majority electoral vote is taken. With the expanding economy, and his gubernatorial career starting and ending on economic high notes, it would be difficult to fathom running a deficit from one who claims fiscal conservation. -FactCheck.org
3. Evolution in the class room. While Huckabee believes evolution is a complete fraud, as it is, but he will not alter the school curriculum in use. Rather then pushing for a more balanced system, he will continue to give his tacit consent to the teaching of lies to children. -December 17, 2007. Huckabee is on Larry King Live. KING: You've said that you do not believe in evolution. That being a given, how would you deal with the teaching of it in the classroo HUCKABEE: The same way I did as a parent, the same way I did as a governor. I don't get into that. I'm not a science teacher. I don't write the curriculum for the science books. My kids, Larry, went to the public schools of Arkansas. I was the first governor in 50 years whose kids had all of their first through 12th grade education in the Arkansas public schools. So, you know, when people say oh, what is he going to do to the textbooks -- well, if I was going to do it, I would have done it when I was governor. Presidents have nothing to do with the curriculum of education.
4. Huckabee's music HUCKABEE: But I want to make a point about education. The real education issue that I've been pushing has been to increase music and art instruction. I did it as a governor. That's where my passion was, because I think our education system is failing kids because we're not touching the right side of the brain -- the creative side. So the real reform in education needs to be teaching more music, painting and sculpting. I think we need to teach more good, quality, history, accurate science, and less superfluous culture education. Music is wonderful, but what does the right side of the brain do to prepare the majority of students into productive workers? 5. Pardons Huckabee issued more then twice as many pardons in his tenure as the past three candidates combined. His term lasted a full decade, the others combined for almost two, for 17 years. I find that concerning. Heh. Probably the most interesting pardon involves a man who was on trial for rape, castrated, convicted, pardoned, and then killed a woman after his pardon. I find this a uniquely Arkansas story. - Associated Press
Story: "In a rare gesture, Ahmadinejad admitted last week that inflation existed but blamed it on his predecessors, the conservative-dominated parliament, state-run media and bank managers who misused their power and printed too many bank notes.
"Inflation has its roots in the past," Ahmadinejad said in a televised speech. ... Ahmadinejad's critics point out that more than 80 percent of Iran's government revenues come from crude exports and that inflation has risen under him despite sharp increases in oil prices to near $100 per barrel currently. ... Central Bank of Iran figures for November showed prices of basic commodities and services rising at a 19 percent while overall inflation is running at a 16.8 percent rate annually — double the pace it was when Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. But independent economists and experts put the inflation rate well above 30 percent.
No official figures are available for specific items but over the past month, the price of basic commodities has clearly jumped in many places. In some shops visited by an Associated Press reporter in the capital, Tehran, about 2 pounds of chicken has increased 35 percent to $2.44, and rice is up 43 percent at about $2.12 for 2 pounds.
Prices for fruit and vegetables have almost tripled in the past year in many shops, and housing prices in many neighborhoods have more than doubled since last summer.
Hossein Alavi, a Tehran real estate agent, said he is selling houses at more than twice the price he asked for last year.
A prominent economist, Mohammad Sattarifar, said Ahmadinejad is to blame for flooding the market with too many newly printed bank notes, relying too much on imported goods — including basic commodities — and using oil revenues to pay for the government's day-to-day expenses instead of distributing it to the people as he promised to do in his election campaign.""
Such are the failures of oil fed socialism. I expect to see similar issues with Venezula in the coming years.
If your in the mood to send a Christmas card, send one to the ALCU.
In other news, I don't remember politics encroaching on christmas this much in the past... I can say with a large degree of certainty I don't like this new primary schedule.
And I have a question for ya'll. Anybody else doing 'White Elephant' gift exchanges this year? It's where everybody brings a gift, and then everybody draws a number. Number 1 picks a present, then 2, and 3, and so on. But every time you go, there is a chance to 'steal' somebody else's gift, and they pick a new one.
So far, I've received 2 pumpkins and some kool-aid.
I can think of two missing pardons. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso.
Who? The two border agents who were tossed into prison earlier this year. I covered that on January 18, and then on Febuary 6, the story where Ramos was assulting and brutally beaten in prison by a mexican gang.
Posts
