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.
In light of the flurry of important news coming from the Muslim world, I'm putting short shots of the more important ones.
We'll start with Sudan, and this absolutely ridiculousreaction to a British Teacher, living in the country to teach children. Gillian Gibbons is a mother of two children. While in Sudan, her class gave her a teddy bear, and the popular vote for the name was Mohammed. In a civilized society, this wouldn't be an issue, yet in the stone age mentality of Sudan, this was blasphemy of the first order.
Moving on, I'll jump to an older story from Saudi Arabia. It is hard to conceive of a news story that greater exemplifies the abject lack of respect for women, and the effect of an Islamic judicial system. A girl had sent a picture of herself to a teenage boy when they were both 16, three years ago. Earlier this year, she was married, and in order to protect the 'honor' of her family, she sought out the guy and asked for the picture back. When she went to get it, 7 other men took them both away into a different area of the town. The men proceeded to sexual assault them both for several hours, and returned the woman to her house the next morning. Her husband was outraged, but had to complain to the police 4 times before anything was done. The verdict was reached in what does not deserve to be called a trial, with among other things, the husband being barred from the court proceedings. The final verdict was 1-5 years for each of the assailants, and 80-1000 lashes. Hardly appropriate for the crime, but what followed is even more disturbing. ""He [judge] said: 'You get 90 lashes. You should thank God you're not in prison.' "I asked him why and he said: "You know why. Because mingling begets evil.' "" So she complained to Human rights watch and the media, only to be sentenced to 6 months in prison and 200 lashes. The gang's sentenced was bumped up to a minimum of 2 years, which is still a far cry from what justice demands.
After 'our friends the Saudis' actions, there is, on the surface at least, good news regarding Iran. According to a recent NIE report, Iran stopped its nuclear program back in 2003. (When did we invade Iraq, again?) While my gut tells me there is nothing true to this report, the Neo-Hitler said ""a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue.""" Also involving Iran, is an issue that was covered on this blog some time ago, when Iran was discover providing IEDs to Shiite terrorists in Iraq. In recent weeks, Iran has been discovered providing even more aid. Concerning Iraq, however, we do have positive news, coming even from the liberal outlets. So, how 'bout that surge, huh?
Iraqi citizens that fled the country when the war began are returning from neighboring nations, most notably Syria. Not only is this an indication of results, but results that have been around long enough for people to feel confident and move back in. Looks like Iraq will not be the forefront issue this election cycle, at least not in the same light as in the 2006 elections.
Victor David Hansen, a historian who's works I have enjoyed, sums up the middle east well with this thought. "Remember that the fanatic waving his age-old sword in the Khartoum street over a teddy bear shows the same dangerous derangement as the nut in Tehran who may one day want his hand on the Bomb."
Story: " Humbled by his first electoral defeat ever, President Hugo Chavez said Monday he may have been too ambitious in asking voters to let him stand indefinitely for re-election and endorse a huge leap to a socialist state.
"I understand and accept that the proposal I made was quite profound and intense," he said after voters narrowly rejected the sweeping constitutional reforms by 51 percent to 49 percent.
Opposition activists were ecstatic as the results were announced shortly after midnight - with 88 percent of the vote counted, the trend was declared irreversible by elections council chief TibisayLucena.
...The defeated reform package would have created new types of communal property, let Chavez handpick local leaders under a redrawn political map and suspended civil liberties during extended states of emergency.
Other changes would have shortened the workday from eight hours to six, created a social security fund for millions of informal laborers and promoted communal councils where residents decide how to spend government funds."
Several things to note here:
Communism was held at bay in Venezuela, if only for a short time. While the margin of victory was concerning, as this election was only of a 2 point differential, it is a victory for liberty nonetheless.
Chavez has thrown down the gauntlet to the west on numerous occasions, and in essence, has done so again. We shall see just how long he allows pestering little things like elections get in the way of his power grabs.
More then 50% of the country voted. What's wrong with the US?
UPDATE: Lenin is probably rejoicing with the results of the Russian, or should I say, Soviet, elections. Putin pretty much just jigged his election to ensure a victory, with democracies in both the US and Europe crying foul. Gary Karaspov was harassed throughout the campaign, and his party was not allowed to run for parliament. Sore news indeed in what is once again becoming the land of Lenin.
CBS news job posting on JournalismJobs.com: " CBS is expanding its coverage of the environment. We seek a talented reporter/host for Internet video broadcast. We are looking for smart, creative, hard working up and comers, who can bring great energy, creativity and a dash of humor to our coverage. A deep interest in the environment and sustainability issues will serve you well.
You are wicked smart, funny, irreverent and hip, oozing enthusiasm and creative energy. This position requires strong people, reporting, story telling and writing skills. Managing tight deadlines should be second nature. Knowledge of the enviro beat is a big plus, but not a requirement.
Responsibilities include reporting and hosting two to three news packages per week plus daily writing for our blog. You should be comfortable using a video camera and the Internet. Be prepared to see America. Heavy domestic travel."
No knowledge of the enviroment required, and must have story telling abilities. Pretty much sums up what the news agencys already have, but when you throw the part about being funny, hip, and irreverent, thats where the difficulties are encountered.
It's just darned hard to be cheerful when talking about the presumed destruction of the world by the hands of man.
------------------------->>> The extent of editorial intelligence at CBS News right now.
Full disclosure: I got this in an email. It's a fantastically simple explanation of the United States Tax system, and deserves to be read. And if nothing else, it is my first post ever involving alcohol on this blog.
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Story: "...Yesterday, the strike of rail and subway workers that has crippled France for nine days was clearly crumbling, as workers began returning to work in large numbers and union branches conceded that support for the dispute is collapsing.
"We think a dynamic of return to work has begun," Julie Vion, a spokeswoman for France's state-owned railroad network, SNCF, said.
Union leaders began to concede defeat yesterday. "We have to face reality. Since yesterday's negotiations, things have changed. The strike is no longer the solution. The strike strategy is no longer winning,"...
Managers for SNCF announced yesterday that 42 out of 45 rail union committees have voted to abandon the national strike that has frozen the country's economy, and will return to work without delay."
Good to see socialsm take a hit, even in France. This Sarkozy President really seems to have it together, and having the political backbone to both start this reform, and successfully pull the first stage off, is something incredible.
Mark Steyn: "...But on this Thanksgiving the rest of the world ought to give thanks to American national sovereignty, too. When something terrible and destructive happens – a tsunami hits Indonesia, an earthquake devastates Pakistan – the United States can project itself anywhere on the planet within hours and start saving lives, setting up hospitals and restoring the water supply.
Aside from Britain and France, the Europeans cannot project power in any meaningful way anywhere. When they sign on to an enterprise they claim to believe in – shoring up Afghanistan's fledgling post-Taliban democracy – most of them send token forces under constrained rules of engagement that prevent them doing anything more than manning the photocopier back at the base.
If America were to follow the Europeans and maintain only shriveled attenuated residual military capacity, the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable. It's not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U.S. soldier but all the Europeans grown plump and prosperous in a globalized economy guaranteed by the most benign hegemon in history.
That said, Thanksgiving isn't about the big geopolitical picture, but about the blessings closer to home. Last week, the state of Oklahoma celebrated its centennial, accompanied by rousing performances of Rodgers and Hammerstein's eponymous anthem:
"We know we belong to the land
And the land we belong to is grand!"
Which isn't a bad theme song for the first Thanksgiving, either.
Three hundred and 86 years ago, the Pilgrims thanked God because there was a place for them in this land, and it was indeed grand. The land is grander today, and that, too, is remarkable: France has lurched from Second Empires to Fifth Republics struggling to devise a lasting constitutional settlement for the same smallish chunk of real estate, but the principles that united a baker's dozen of East Coast colonies were resilient enough to expand across a continent and halfway around the globe to Hawaii."
Absolute brilliance in this column. To often do we forget what the United States has done for the world. Or perhaps a better way to term it: What would this world be like without the United States? How would this world be different without a peaceful empire of liberty stretching from the foamy shores of the Atlantic to the shining coast of the Pacific, with Texas in the middle?
Posts
