Marijuana
by Dave
11/30/2004 09:32:00 AM
In the news this week is the Supreme Court's debate of some aspects of
medical marijuana. The issue before the court is fairly narrow in that it deals with the feds vs. the states, and not the issue of whether marijuana can be said to be medically beneficial. Whatever the outcome, some spirited debate in the public domain is likely to ensue.
I am suspicious of any claim of the medicinal value of pot. Any ratification of doctors perscribing it for medical purposes is sure to be corrupted. One needn't reach very far to imagine headache or backache clinics where, in a single visit, one can be diagnosed with migraines or a "bad back," receive a perscription and then purchase a few ounces of reefer. The possibilities for abuse are endless.
What I question is the purpose of keeping marijuana on the illegal drug list to begin with. Those who disagree with me will claim that pot leads to harder and harder drugs. There is no denying that those who "experiment" with marijuana have a higher likelihood of trying hard drugs. But we do not know if that would be the case, if marijuana were controlled in a manner similar to alcohol. I smoked pot when I was a kid precisely because of its mystical quality. It was forbidden so it must be good. I also experimented with alcohol but pot was more appealing since adults generally didn't use it while they unquestionably drank liquor. The move from pot to other drugs was a move from one forbidden behavior to another. But if pot were no more forbidden than alcohol or tobacco, would there be the same allure? Further, if pot were available only with valid ID at age 21, the legs of the illegal market would be cut off and it would actually be harder to get than it is today.
The costs of the fight to keep marijuana out of the hands of everyone are very high. Sales of marijuana help maintain the overall drug black market not to mention help establish the very structures that allow illegal drug distribution to take place. If marijuana were legal, it could be taxed and a good part of the illegal drug trafficking structures would be wiped out. The revenues from taxing pot sales, which would no doubt be substantial, could be used to fight harder drugs. Much of the current expense of fighting pot importation and sales could also go against the fight against other, harder drugs. So while the Supremes debate whether the feds or states should be in charge of medical marijuana, maybe the rest of us should be debating larger issues.
2 comments | | Perma Link
The Criminalization of WalMart
by Steve
11/29/2004 11:20:00 PM
PBS's show "Frontline", recently aired a documentary entitled, "
Is WalMart Good for America?", in an attempt to portray WalMart as something that has ruined America. I want to respond to some of its key points:
1. WalMart has changed the retail business, to where retailers are dictating what products manufacturers should produce, and what at what cost.
Frontline seemed to suggest that this is a bad thing, because manufacturers are forced to play by WalMart's rules. But in the "old days" it was reversed. Manufacturers produced whatever they wanted, and dictated their terms to the retailers. But what WalMart is doing is reflecting the demands of consumers. WalMart doesn't tell consumers what to buy, rather, consumers are telling WalMart what they want, and how much they are willing to pay. WalMart is simply dictating that to the manufacturers. That's exactly how a marketplace should be driven.
2. WalMart put Rubbermaid out of business.
This point is totally one-sided. What I see instead, is that Rubbermaid could not satisfy consumer demand, and that's why it went out of business. When WalMart refused to accept Rubbmaid's price increases, it again, reflected the demands of consumers. While other retailers may have accepted Rubbermaid's price increases, the fact that WalMart represented such an enormous volume of consumers proved that Rubbermaid's price increases could not overcome consumer demand.
But is it totally Rubbermaid's fault? Well, Rubbermaid was forced to increase prices because it's cost of business increased. Nonetheless, when WalMart stopped stocking Rubbermaid products, it still found other manufacturers willing to produce the same products, at the prices that WalMart wanted. That means only one thing, that Rubbermaid could not compete with its competitors, and its demise was justified.
The bottom line is that WalMart doesn't owe Rubbermaid any business. Frontline seemed to suggest that it does, and that it's WalMart's fault that Rubbermaid employees got laid off. No, the fault lies with Rubbermaid for failing to stay competitive.
3. WalMart pushed American Manufacturers to set up factories in Asia.
This is what Frontline is trying to emphasize. But Frontline reported that WalMart's stock was declining rapidly during the early 1990's. WalMart discovered that it could buy Asian-made products and sell them at a much higher profit margin. What this means is that buying American-made products was putting WalMart out of business.
So, is it WalMart's fault for buying so much Asian-made products? To answer that question, is to first ask why American-made products are so much more expensive. Unfortunately, Frontline would not address this question.
4. China has unfair advantage against America.
Not true. Americans tend to believe this because they are trying to compare themselves with Chinese. The fact is that both countries have completely different societies. We tend to think that working for 30 cents an hour is unfair. But if you're a Chinese worker, you are making more money than you ever dreamed of.
Americans think it's unfair that Chinese companies force their employees to work long hours. But if you're a Chinese worker, you know that your ancestors slaved from morning to night plowing fields. To the Chinese, manufacturing products for Americans is the best thing that ever happened to them.
To argue that it is unfair for the Chinese to dump large volumes of cheap goods on the United States is a weak argument. First of all, by what standard is it unfair? When Americans complain about the Chinese, they are comparing the Chinese against American standards. And it simply doesn't fly.
5. WalMart is putting Americans out of work.
Frontline's whole premise behind this documentary is just that, that WalMart is putting Americans out of work, and lowering our living standards.
But Frontline has completely missed the message that WalMart is trying to tell us. The message is that there is a different role for America. That is, it has proven it can dominate the world marketplace, by exploiting cheap labor, and using its bargaining power. Hands down, WalMart is the biggest company in the world, and it is an American company.
Hasn't anyone seen this?
American manufacturers cannot compete against Chinese manufacturers. But we don't have to be manufacturers. We can be the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the scientists and the engineers. The Chinese can be our manufacturers. That's the message that WalMart is telling us.
5 comments | | Perma Link
Can Man Really Destroy the Planet?
by Steve
11/28/2004 10:17:00 PM
The Guardian reports that a London based think-tank will
soon release a report claiming that Global Warming will actually benefit mankind, citing a number of reasons, one of which is that it will produce more fish.
I find such excuses to be amusing, but then, nor do I support the idea that Man is destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels.
Let's break down that statement. "Man is destroying the Earth". Is it really possible for human beings to destroy the Earth? That is, actually render it lifeless, into a ball of useless rock, much like the Moon?
Absolutely not. Even if we launched a global thermonuclear war, throwing the planet into a long winter, killing people and animals everywhere, the fact is that the Earth will continue, even without us. It will produce new forms of life, and will continue doing so until the Sun expires.
Even if the polar ice caps melt, causing the ocean levels to rise, flooding the coastlines all around the world, the Earth will not be destroyed. Life, along with human beings, will continue to thrive as always.
What environmentalists are concerned about is that the current state of the Earth will change. But then, the Earth has always been in a state of change. Temperatures have fallen and risen over and over throughout the Eons. The continents have been moving, volcanoes have been changing the face of the landscape, and life forms have been evolving.
So, why are environmentalists against change? Actually, they are not. They are just against change coming at the hands of human beings. They actually believe that human beings are unnatural. That is, we are not a "valid" component of the Earth, as if we didn't belong here. Anything we do is unnatural, except when it comes to indigenous people.
That's why animal rights activists are against humans eating animals, but don't mind animals eating animals. That's why it's ok for beavers to cut down trees but not ok for humans to do so. Somehow, human actions are destructive, while animal actions are natural. Can anyone explain that to me?
So let's face it, there is no such thing as "destroying the Earth", and there is no such thing as "saving the Earth". The Earth is beyond our control. In the end, we may end up killing all of mankind, but the Earth will continue without us. I suppose to an evironmentalist, that's a good thing.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Ron Artest and the Mob Mentality
by Steve
11/26/2004 04:39:00 PM
Perhaps this issue is more about society losing respect for the law than it is about people losing control. Another
weblog touched on this issue today, and I've seen op/ed pieces galore. So, here we go with another.
The other weblogger seemed to take his ire out on the fan that threw the beverage at Ron Artest. Both the fan and Artest are to blame. Respect for the law and respect for each fellow man is the issue here.
First, Artest argues that he has been taunted, booed, and had things thrown at him many times before, and it finally took its toll on him. Well boo hoo hoo! He isn't the first professional athlete to experience this. The NBA should have kicked him out of the league. However, let me emphasize, Artest has every right to play basketball, but he doesn't have the right to play in the NBA. That is a privilege granted by the NBA. The fact that the NBA didn't kick him out of the league shows that they think he's worth taking another risk.
Second, fans seem to think that because they paid a ticket to the game grants them the right to lose their cool. There are no rights involved with attending an NBA game, and there are no rights involved with visiting an arena. You don't even have a right to buy a ticket to a basketball game. But I don't think people understand this. They think they have the right to show disrespect, just because they paid money. The sports arena should ban this fan from ever attending its venues.
But the bigger problem in all this is there is a lack of respect for Law and Humanity. We're becoming a country of "rights" instead of "responsibilities". People think that they are entitled to get their way even at the cost of other people's rights. This phenomenon manifested itself even in the 2004 Presidential Campaign, when opponents of George W. Bush used disrespectful language to describe him, and even concocted blatant lies about his past.
Should Artest take responsibility as a role model? No. He doesn't
have to be a role model. But he has to be a responsible citizen. And same goes for the fans. A nation founded on freedom and liberty requires that each of us uphold our responsibilities. Without responsbilities, we have anarchy, and I believe that's what we saw in this basketball game.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Giving Thanks to the Appropriate Parties
by Dave
11/25/2004 06:28:00 AM
Thanks to
Rush Limbaugh for reminding us of the reasons the Thanksgiving holiday was established. In his broadcast on November 25, 2004, Rush spoke of the "true story of Thanksgiving" and read George Washington's original proclamation establishing the holiday which begins:
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."
Thanks to Rush for reminding us. In these times when atheists, agnostics and ACLU attorneys push real hard to remove the word "God" from every corner of public life, it is important to remember that those great individuals who established this great country were extremely religious people, even zealots by todays' standards. The concept of "freedom of religion" was not some sort of absolute created in a vacuum. Rather it was a freedom to worship "the one true god" in any manner one chose. Nowhere in political or other discourse of the day was the word "God" ever left out.
In the first Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims were thanking God. When he and congress established the hooliday, George Washington recognized the duty of thanking God. Our grade school, high school and college teachers have taught us otherwise. But we are intelligent and quite capable of learning the truth for ourselves. Let's all teach our kids the truth as well and consider the true purpose of the holiday as we sit down to celebrate and give thanks.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Something to be Thankful For
by Steve
11/24/2004 01:29:00 PM
Perhaps there is nothing more precious in this world than childhood. A child may not understand what innocence means to them, and perhaps it is because the definition of "being innocent" would preclude understanding malice.
But while American kids aspire to become astronauts, firemen, and football players, Palestinian kids aspire to become suicide bombers. While American kids are taught to respect all cultures and ethnicities, Iranian kids are taught to hate America. And while kids in America sell lemonade and girl scout cookies, kids in Thailand are being sold as sex slaves.
Perhaps our childhood is something we may not always include when giving thanks at this time of the year. Some of you may have had very terrible childhoods, and for that I sympathize with you. Childhood for me wasn't as good as "Leave it to Beaver", or "Brady Bunch" or even "Courtship of Eddy's Father". But I still have plenty of fond memories and I enjoy recollecting upon them. I think the innocence of our childhood shapes our attitudes and perspectives as adults. And maybe the reason why America is the greatest country on Earth is because we have the greatest kids.
1 comments | | Perma Link
British Lawmakers Still Don't Understand Terror
by Steve
11/24/2004 11:50:00 AM
Reported today by the AP, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was
accused by his rivals of playing politics with fear and using the threat of terrorism to boost his chances of re-election.
Blair's Cabinet Minister insisted that Britain would be safer from terrorism under the Labour Party, the party that Blair is a member of. But members of both the Labour and Conservative Parties expressed digust that Blair and his Cabinet would use the fear of terrorism as a campaign issue:
"This American-style campaigning is regrettable," said Baroness Kennedy, a Labour peer in the House of Lords. "I think this is opportunistic, and I think we have been creating a climate of fear ever since 9/11," she added, referring to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
WE have been creating a climate of fear?? What about the terrorists? Is the Baroness saying that the 9-11 terrorists had nothing to do with creating the "climate of fear"?
The fear of terrorism was created by Islamic Fascists. It is justified for Tony Blair to use this as a campaign issue, because protecting the lives of Britons is paramount to any other task at hand. Just the other day, British security services
thwarted a planned Sept. 11-style terror attacks on Heathrow Airport and skyscrapers in London. What would people like Baroness Kennedy think about the climate of fear had those attacks carried out?
1 comments | | Perma Link
CDC Admits Errors in Obesity Risk Study
by Dave
11/23/2004 04:40:00 PM
1 comments | | Perma Link
Dan Rather Ain't Going Anywhere
by Dave
11/23/2004 10:18:00 AM
News reports this hour say that Dan Rather will be off the air next March. He will however remain behind the scenes in the very same executive roll with CBS News and 60 Minutes. CBS News is just facing the fact that their ratings are in the toilet. In the New York City market, the nightly news program's audience numbers in the 100 thousands, falling at times perilously close to 100 thousand. The apparent conclusion is that Rather's on-air persona doesn't connect.
I dispute the conclusion and decision to keep Dan involved with the news function. The problem, in my humble opinion, is Dan's obvious bias. He clearly demonstrated this bias in the most recent Presidential election. Removing him from the air while leaving him behind the curtain to pull the strings does nothing to improve the integrity of CBS News.
My conclusion? Do not watch CBS News except as a diversion from reality.
YOU CANNOT WATCH OR LISTEN TO "CBS NEWS" AND TRUST THAT YOU HAVE SEEN REAL NEWS.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Fish Have Feelings Too
by Steve
11/22/2004 11:51:00 PM
PETA is now telling everyone to stop eating fish, because all of a sudden fish started having feelings. They launched a
website to shock people into feeling sorry for themselves.
Here are some classic quotes:
Eating Fish is Dangerous - Like the flesh of other animals, fish flesh contains excessive amounts of protein, fat, and cholesterol.
Oh my God! Don't tell me I'm being poisoned with protein, fat, and cholesterol!!!
Fish suffer greatly when caught and killed for their flesh. Whether caught by hook or net, fish experience fear—as evidenced by increased heart and breathing rates—just as humans do.
Poor little fishy, he's so scared!
There is strong evidence suggesting that Jesus was a vegetarian. The only stories depicting Jesus eating fish took place after the resurrection, and most Biblical scholars agree that they are very late additions to the Gospels. The scribes who added the stories were not, apparently, averse to eating fish. But since this is the only depiction anywhere in the Gospels of Jesus eating any animals at all, it seems that he was a vegetarian.
Now PETA is trying to get Jesus on their side!
Ok, I'm not going to argue that fish do or do not have feelings, because I really don't know, and PETA really doesn't know either. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt anyways, and assume that fish really do feel pain, and feel stress, and get scared.
But fish are not people. PETA is trying to make the argument that we should refrain from killing fish, because fish are just like people. But they're not. Fish have a totally different existence, a totally different purpose to fulfill. How does PETA know that fish really want to die of old age? I tend to believe that fish actually want to be eaten by higher forms of life, because that's really all they're good for. I think getting snagged by a hook, and having its belly sliced open is what a fish looks forward to.
The fact that people have fished the seas for thousands of years, well before Christ, is part of what keeps the balance of nature. Humans are a part of the food chain that maintains the balance. If the world stopped killing fish, we would disrupt that balance, not only causing an over population of fish, but requiring us to grow abnormally high volumes of plants for consumption. And creating this high volume of plants, would create an over population of rodents, insects, and birds that feed on these plants.
Let's face it, Nature created us this way, for a very good reason. PETA is trying to disrupt that delicate balance to satisfy their own ideology.
1 comments | | Perma Link
San Francisco Considers Plastic Bag Fee
by Steve
11/21/2004 01:24:00 AM
The AP reports that the City of San Francisco will consider
charging grocery stores 17 cents for every grocery bag:
City officials are considering charging grocery stores 17 cents each for grocery bags to discourage use of plastic sacks.
More than 90 percent of consumers choose plastic bags, which are blamed for everything from clogging recycling machines to killing marine life and suffocating infants. But the fee would also apply to paper bags to help reduce overall waste.
So this fee will apply to both plastic and paper bags. I assume they mean that shoppers will be given the option to carry their groceries out to their cars without any bags at all.
But this fee really only punishes those who need grocery bags most of all, which are those people who don't drive cars. I'm talking about the little old ladies. So now, they're supposed to cough up an extra 17 cents for each plastic bag they carry with them while they are walking back home. I suspect what will actually happen is that they will instead steal shopping carts to save themselves the expense of paying the bag fee.
And this is supposed to reduce waste? How? Most of the waste accumulating in our landfills and ecosystem don't come from grocery bags. They come from plastic bottles, drinking cups, styrofoam, plastic wrap, and all the other disposable consumer goods. The article linked above says that grocery bags account for only 2% of the overall waste, but doesn't mention where the other 98% comes from.
This fee will do more for raising revenues, than it will for reducing waste. I suspect that's really the goal of this fee. Kinda like a sin tax, taking advantage of people's needs in the name of "Saving the World".
But I am, however, very greatful that we have a city like San Francisco that will test out stupid ideas to see if they will really work. We need a city like San Francisco, volunteering to become the guinea pigs of America, sacrificing their own backyards to prove that stupid liberal ideas are indeed stupid.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Dutch Lawmaker Urges Halting Immigration
by Dave
11/20/2004 10:16:00 AM
Since the Islamic Assassination (Yes, Islamic Assassination) of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, Europeans are beginning to see the world as it is.
A Dutch Lawmaker Urged Halting Immigration especially people who practice Islamic fundamentalism.
We can not tolerate intolerant people with retarded social and political views. They will bring us down to their level in the long run. Remember, Hitler rose to power in a democratic society.
It is now time to find radical Islamic Fundamentalism wherever it breaths and snuff it out. It is now time to bring this discussion out in the open and make it part of the political discourse.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Adolph Hitler Comes Back to Power
by Steve
11/19/2004 11:14:00 PM
Linda Ronstadt
recently compared George W. Bush with Adolph Hitler, referring to Hitler's rise to power:
"I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don't know anything about the Iraqis, but they're angry and frustrated in their own lives. It's like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers."
Exactly who was Ronstadt referring to when she said
"Now we've got a new bunch of Hitlers."? The people who voted for Bush, or the entire Bush Administration?
Radio Talk Show host Leslie Marshall appeared on Hannity and Colmes this evening (Nov 19, 2004) and tried to explain what Ronstadt meant, saying that George W. Bush can be compared to Hitler based on the way Hitler rose to power. Hitler created the Gestapo, while Bush is using the CIA and the FBI to in a similar manner.
Well actually, there WAS this thing called 9-11.
But what I want to know is what is Ronstadt's point? That Bush is going kill all the Jews? Is Bush going to kill all the socialists and communists? Is Bush going to invade other ethnic Anglo countries in an attempt to build an Aryan Nation? I don't know. But one thing is clear, Ronstadt is sure enjoying a lot of publicity these days.
4 comments | | Perma Link
Kerry Wants Health Insurance for Children
by Steve
11/19/2004 01:28:00 PM
Senator John Kerry issued a statement via e-mail today, that he plans to keep fighting on, fighting the President that is. Good for you John, keep throwing those punches! I'm sure Dubya is feeling every one of them.
But in his statement, he talked about submitting a bill to provide healthcare coverage for children. Here is a snippet:
And we must fight not only against George Bush's extreme policies -- we must also uphold our own values. This is why on the first day Congress is in session next year, I will introduce a bill to provide every child in America with health insurance. And, with your help, that legislation will be accompanied by the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
There are more than eight million uninsured children in our nation. That's eight million reasons for us to stay together and fight for a new direction. It is a disgrace that in the wealthiest nation on earth, eight million children go without health insurance.
This is nothing more than an attempt to rile up the emotions of liberals.
First of all, no reasonable adult wants to see a child suffering with illness or injury, and that's exactly the emotion that Kerry's rhetoric is trying to play on: suffering little children.
He claims there are 8 million children that go without health insurance.
But notice that he does not say that 8 million children are without heathcare. Instead he uses the word, health insurance. This is because there are no children in this country without healthcare. Anyone in need of medical attention, especially children, can go to a doctor or clinic and receive care. In cases of emergency, it is actually illegal for a health care provider to deny treatment. No, the issue is how will that care be paid for.
But take note that when Kerry says in the last sentence, "
It is a disgrace that...." Why is it a disgrace that there are children without healthcare insurance? It would indeed be a disgrace if sick or injured children were being denied treatment, but that just isn't the case. Yet, Senator Kerry would spin this around and have us believe that the Bush Administration is allowing sick and injured children to fester in their maladies.
So, if 8 million children have no means to pay for their medical treatment, then who should pay for it? The short answer, is no one. If we are indeed the wealthiest nation on Earth, then why should every doctor and hospital demand compensation for treating an impoverished child? The truth is that most doctors and hospitals are more than happy to provide free treatment to poor children, even if they can't afford to do so. That's just the goodness of Humanity.
But the long answer is that we must turn healthcare into a highly profitable industry, so that doctors and hospitals can afford free services to those who cannot pay, similar to how lawyers are able to absorb pro bono cases.
But the benefits don't stop there. If we have a system where healthcare costs are dictated by consumer demand, and where doctors and hospitals are allowed to make more profits, more easily, then it will lower costs for all of us. This will in turn make healthcare insurance more affordable.
Right now, our healthcare system is so heavily regulated, and so heavily litigious, that our doctors and hospitals are struggling to keep their businesses afloat. I'm sure all of you are aware of a hospital or trauma center in your area that recently shut down. Lawyers are suing the heck out of our health care providers, for the most frivolous of cases, that they are having to go out of business. Medicare and Medicaid continues to lower its reimbursements year after year, that it forces doctors and hospitals to cut corners, which results in lower quality care to all of us.
Imagine if you will, that you were given a card that allows you to go to McDonalds and get free food anytime you want, anywhere you want. Human behavior says that you will be eating a lot more McDonalds food. That's what Medicare and Medicaid does to our healthcare system. It allows people to get healthcare treatment while paying very little, or none at all, thus encouraging them to seek treatment more often. It overburdens our healthcare industry, forcing costs to go up. And with Medicare and Medicaid reducing its payments year after year, you can the see dilemma it creates.
So to answer Senator Kerry, I challenge him to instead create legislation that will turn our healthcare system into a highly profitable system, where prices and costs are dictated by consumer demand, and where doctors and hospitals can afford to provide free services to impoverished children.
0 comments | | Perma Link
The Counter Clinton Library
by Dave
11/19/2004 05:11:00 AM
I don't really know what to say about this except that there is a movement to tell the "real Clinton story" by means of another library in Little Rock which claims to rebut the "Clinton Legacy" contained in the Clintin Library. It is called the
Counter Clinton Library and it is now accepting donations!
0 comments | | Perma Link
Democrats Criticizing Kerry Over Presidential Loss
by Steve
11/17/2004 11:59:00 PM
It seems Senator John Kerry is feeling more heat over his failed Presidential bid. Lately, Democrats have criticized him for not
spending all the money in his campaign fund, and they are also criticizing him for not effectively
reaching out to Hispanics.
Perhaps the criticisms are valid points in explaining his loss to George W. Bush. But, the fault is not totally on Senator Kerry. He wasn't particularly helped by liberal wackos like Michael Moore and Al Franken. And it turned out that the movie stars and recording artists who used their performances as a stage for denouncing the President, actually hurt the Senator's bid for President.
But what's really interesting about this latest criticism of Kerry's campaign, is that we now have liberals and Democrats actually pointing the finger at Kerry himself. It wasn't long ago that they were pointing the finger at Bush voters for being "stupid". They were trying explain Kerry's loss by declaring the 52% of the voters as idiots and fools.
But it appears that liberals and Democrats have realized that alienating 52% of the voting public is counterproductive to their reorganization efforts. And since Senator Kerry won't likely defeat Senator Clinton in 2008, Kerry is being made the new scapegoat.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Set the Record Straight
by Dave
11/17/2004 09:30:00 AM
In order to keep the record straight in light of conservative media's charges that the left is bigoted as evidenced by the racist parroting of Conde Rice, let's just pour through a list of minorities holding key positions of power in the Carter and Clinton administrations as well as the Kerry campaign. Here goes:
1 comments | | Perma Link
Iran Hostage Crisis # 2
by Dave
11/16/2004 10:27:00 AM
US News and World Report published an article which discusses one aspect of the Iraqi insurgency. It seems as if many of the "foreign insurgents" just happen to be from neighboring Iran. Iran at the very least is encouraging and sponsoring much of the insurgency.
Iran makes no bones about the fact that they do sponsor international terrorism. There is some debate about whether it is in Iran's best interest to have a stable, though weak, government in Iraq or to promote instability. In either event, despite what the rest of the media is telling us, the Iraq "quagmire" is a bit more than just a people fighting against the occupying Americans. You might even say that Iran is holding Americans hostages yet again!
The article explains it better than I can.
1 comments | | Perma Link
It’s the Evangelicals, Stupid
by Dave
11/15/2004 01:16:00 PM
Or should that be, it’s the stupid evangelicals? Democrats would have us believe not only that the reason Bush won the presidency was the “evangelical vote,” but also that these evangelicals are under-educated, red-necks incapable of higher level intellection. This is obviously self-serving because it allows the liberals to think they hold the smart point of view and the reason they lost the election had something to do with a stupid populace. The smart, talented portion of the population voted for us so all we have to do, going forward, is educate the rest of the people.
I distrust polls precisely because I don’t know who the pollsters poll. I have never been asked a single question by a pollster. Actually, I have never even known another person who has been contacted for such opinions. That was true until last night when I heard from a woman I know that she received a pollster’s phone call a few days after the 2004 Presidential election. Her answers to the pollster’s questions shed some anecdotal light on the question of just who these evangelicals who voted for Bush are. But before I get into the questions and answers, a little about her background is instructive.
During her life, my friend has lived exclusively in northeastern “blue” states and been at different times a stay-at-home mom, a widowed, employed single mom, a married and employed mother, a divorced empty-nester, and a semi-retired though currently employed married person. She is approaching the age when one begins to ponder social security income. But she is a highly educated woman who has earned a masters degree and nearly completed an engineering doctorate. Her political views favor the more conservative point of view but she is hardly a staunch right winger as she is somewhat socially “progressive.” In short, her politics do not fit neatly into either party’s agenda. Some years ago my friend found tremendous comfort during a difficult personal time in regular church attendance. Her church has historically been fairly apolitical and while its religious doctrine can hardly be characterized as fundamentalist, the church is commonly known as “Evangelical Lutheran.”
The pollster who contacted my friend had a series of questions which asked who she had voted for in the election, as well as a little about her personal background in order to calibrate her responses and shed light on the reasons behind her vote. Obviously, they wanted to know who she voted for, which was Bush. They asked her a little about her financial situation – she is employed but does not earn a huge salary, having changed careers recently. They asked a question about her religious practices. Did she attend church regularly? Yes she did. And how would she characterize her church, Catholic, Jewish, “Evangelical” or “Other?” After a moment’s hesitation she said, “I guess the right answer would be evangelical since I belong to an Evangelical Lutheran church.” End of poll! No questions about educational level or the nuances of her decision to vote for Bush. Just a few short, mostly objective questions.
I imagine workers compiling the data from the pollster’s work. (Yes, I do understand that this is done by computer program.) My friend’s page of responses is pulled from the general pile and the placed neatly into the growing “evangelicals” pile! Assuming that these polls like many, many others are compiled from the answers of around 1,000 people, my friend’s responses are representative of something like 3,500 others from her home state or 100,000 people around the country as a whole.
The possible extrapolations of her answers are staggering. I now know, for example, that when the Democrats speak of evangelicals, they are speaking about me even though I haven’t regularly attended church in longer than I care to admit. Maybe the conclusion to be drawn from all this is that 51% of us are evangelicals. Or perhaps a better one is that the Democrats are still completely clueless!
1 comments | | Perma Link
China Could Control World's Oil Market
by Steve
11/15/2004 08:16:00 AM
The Los Angeles Times has an
interesting read on how China is making deals with oil rich countries all around the world for oil. Beijing doesn't seem to care about politics or ideology at this point. If you have oil, they want it.
If your country needs more road improvements, let China build the roads for you, just let them have your oil. If you're Iran, and you're feeling too much heat from the USA over your nuclear program, let China cast a veto for you, but let them have your oil.
Friends, this is why cheap gas is a thing of the past. China is the world's most populous nation with over
1.2 billion people. Compare that to the United States with only
270 million people. Combine that with the fact that China's economy is growing at a fast pace, thanks to their cheap labor and America's insatiable appetite for consumer goods. Soon, China will become the largest consumer of oil, and they will control how much we pay at the pump.
Do we see the tables shifting here? In the short term, the United States must secure the world's oil markets fast. In the long term, we must develop technology that allows us to power our automobiles, trucks, trains, and planes with something other than oil.
2 comments | | Perma Link
Look at Me. As I .. Feed tha Woooooorld
by Dave
11/14/2004 09:05:00 AM
The air in the northeast has a bite to it this weekend. Pumpkins are rotting on front porches across the country. Football fans are wondering if their local high school will be able to upset its rival at the local turkey-day game. Rainstorms are ending with the season’s first few downy flakes. Ski resorts in the mountains are opening their doors (and cash registers) with the year’s first accumulations. The holidays are rapidly approaching.
Hear those jingle bells off in the distance? No, that isn’t Santa. It’s the intro to that icon of yuletide musical charity, “Feed the World.” Break out your “Band-Aids.” I heard on the radio this morning that a group of
filthy rich musicians and singers will be getting together to record a new version of the decades old classic.
And there won’t be snow in Africa this Christmas
In fact it never snows there any time of year
………
Do they know it’s Christmas time at all
Well no, they pretty much don’t know it’s Christmas time since most aren’t actually Christians, they don’t care to celebrate the birth of Jesus. The truth is that millions of people in America and Europe won’t be celebrating Christmas either since they are Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, Hindu, etc. But don’t let the truth get in the way of the collective artistic tradition of the laying of the Christmas guilt under the tree of Christianity.
The artists need an outlet for their own charitable desires. Or do they? If each of these recording superstars were to open their bankbooks, calculate the year’s interest earnings and tithe 10%, they would probably raise more money than the guilt-CD will. Some artists actually do engage in real charity to be sure. But real charity doesn’t do as much for one’s artistic reputations as do those photogenic moments on the musical video which will undoubtedly gain mass exposure.
In this Christmas season I want to remind Christians that, in some broad interpretations of scripture, real charity is supposed to be somewhat anonymous. That is, if you get something back from your acts of charity, you have already received your reward on earth. There is no reward waiting for you in heaven.
I’m claiming no moral high ground here nor trying to lay guilt on anyone in particular. I just want to say that before you go out and buy this CD as your one act of charity this year, why not contribute some canned vegetables or a few greenbacks to your local soup kitchen, send some Swiss-Miss to some soldiers in Iraq, buy some token presents for their children, or give to someone local who is otherwise in need. Real charity starts at home in your town and has as its main reward the feeling that you have helped another human being who is not as fortunate as you. It has very little to do with a popular song sung by some of the wealthiest people in the history of the planet.
Here are some sites to take a look at before you give. I don’t specifically recommend any of them but consider donating the cost of that Band Aid CD before you click over to Amazon to buy it.
Volunteers of America
Any Soldier, Inc. - "Want to send a care package to Any Soldier in Harm's Way"
Charity Navigator
Maybe visit Google.com and search something like “{your locality} charities” and see what pops up. Or how about opening up your phone book and looking for a local charity? Even if they don’t take Visa, you can spare the time to write out a check, address an envelope, and stick it in the mailbox. Now there’s a novel idea!
1 comments | | Perma Link
Schwarzenegger for President Gets Serious
by Steve
11/13/2004 08:03:00 PM
The AP is reporting that a group supporting a Presidential bid for Arnold Schwarzenegger has
purchased commercial air time on Cable Television. We could see television ads as early as this Monday. The group is urging Americans to support a change to the
Constitution that will allow foreign born citizens to hold the highest office in the land. The group has a
website with Arnold's smiling grill emblazoned in full color.
I don't question Arnold's patriotism, I'm confident that his loyalties lie with the United States. He might even win. But this could open a potentially dangerous door. Our Founding Father's chose to limit Presidents to only native born citizens for a good reason. Allowing foreign born citizens could pave the way to a President that allows his emotional ties to his country of origin to interfere with his decisions on foreign affairs.
Realistically, we could have a US President that holds dual citizenship with Mexico.
1 comments | | Perma Link
CBS Fires Producer Who Broke into Hit Show to Report News
by Dave
11/13/2004 03:13:00 PM
Well, I guess now we see what happens when a CBS News guy makes a critical error, they fire the person. It must be a new day at CBS News.
Seems the producer in question broke into the immensely popular primetime show CSI-Someplace-or-Other to broadcast the news of Arafat's official death. The company felt because his death was imminent, it wasn't big news when he finally went. It is OK to refer to Arafat as a "freedom fighter" or "leader of his people" but if you report his death when it actually happens, you're in trouble.
I suppose now somebody might say something like, broadcast real news and you get fired. Slant news or even invent it in order to alter a Presidential election and you keep your job! At least they know which side their butter is breaded on!
1 comments | | Perma Link
Time Magazine's Person of the Year 2004
by Steve
11/12/2004 01:56:00 PM
So who will it be this year? Time says that it looks for the person who had the greatest impact on the world, whether for good or bad. I've come up with some choices, some positive, some negative, but all of which had a significant impact this year:
George W. Bush - The President won the same distinction in
2000, in the wake of the most controversial Presidential Election in recent memory. But I think for 2004, he could very well get the honor again. He had a significant impact on the Democratic Party, after the elections. And his reelection has no doubt impacted the agendas of world leaders all over.
Conservative Talk Radio - No other form of media has had a greater impact on American politics and society in 2004 than talk radio, particularly in the conservative realm. Without it, I doubt George W. Bush would have been reelected.
The Webloggers - No one even expected the myriad of regular folks, fact-checkers as they may be, scrutinizing every sentence uttered by a Democrat or Republican, and providing the research used by larger media outlets such as talk radio and newspapers. It was one such
weblogger that took down the mighty Dan Rather in what became known as "Memogate", forcing mainstream media to be more honest with the people.
John Kerry - While many people might think Kerry should be in the running for Time Magazine's distinction, I tend to think not. Kerry was certainly in the news for much of 2004, but I didn't think he had much of an impact on the world. He didn't really lead his liberal electorate into Election Day, rather, it was his electorate that produced him and led him. But it's often hard to predict who the folks at Time Magazine will pick, so I included him in this list.
Yasser Arafat - Arafat had been somewhat quieted in 2004 due to his failing health. It was perhaps his death earlier this week that could have a huge impact on the world, as an opportunity now exists to build peace between Israel and Palestine.
Jacques Chirac - This is my dark horse candidate. The French Prime Minister has seemingly opposed President Bush's attempts to prosecute a war on Terror, and to bring Democracy to Iraq. It was in 2004 we learned that Chirac had been taking bribes from Saddam Hussein, via the "Oil for Food Scandal", to prevent the United States from toppling Saddam. Chirac has emerged as the primary figure to stop the United States from its objective in fighting Islamic Fascism.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead
by Dave
11/12/2004 08:01:00 AM
Boo Hoo. General Arafat is dead.
Much of the American media would have us cry for this "freedom fighter." But let's call a spade a spade. The man is the father of modern terrorism. Just as Edison invented the light-bulb, Arafat invented hijacking of planes and other useful means of waging war when one is too cowardly to fight with conventional means. Put another way, he pioneered waging war on innocent civilians in the modern era. The man is a terrorist who was the only person ever to address the U.N. wearing a side-arm.
We hear that his life's objective was to build a "Palestinian" state but that is an incomplete thought. His life's goal was to build a "Palestinian" state upon the ruins of a Jewish state. And what of his reference to "The Iraqi Missile?" Are we to suppose he meant missile carrying traditional explosives? Or chemical weapons? No, he expected the Iraqis to develop a nuclear missile which would wipe out more Jews than Hitler did. He could hardly wait for this to happen.
And what about all the money he collected, hoarded and dispensed as if it were his own. Did he build schools? Did he build infrastructure? Did he do anything constructive for any single person on the face of the Earth? No unless you count his wife and family, or any of his immediate loyal associates.
So let's please put him in his rightful place in history. General Arafat was a thieving terroristic genocidal murderer. He is perhaps one of the top ten criminals who have ever lived. He almost makes Hitler seem tame.
I am crying tears of joy that he has left this world. Let's see if the "Palestinian" people can pry their money from his cold dead hands.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Liberalism Costs Too Much Money
by Steve
11/11/2004 09:14:00 PM
Reuters reports on a
case in Toronto, Canada where a driver successfully beat a traffic ticket because a street sign was in French, a language he didn't understand. City officials are now worried they will have to pay several million dollars making every street sign bilingual.
Imagine if that happened in the USA. In California, liberals are trying to create a law that will force the Department of Motor Vehicles to
issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens. If illegal aliens are authorized to drive vehicles on public roadways, then what happens when they suffer accidents related to their inability to read street signs?
In 1986, in the back country of Orange County, California, a mountain lion attacked a 5 year old girl,
Laura Small, who was hiking with her mother. The girl lived. But her parents successfully sued the county because they failed to post signs explaining that mountain lions live in the area.
If government can be responsible for failing to post warning signs, then wouldn't it make sense that illegal aliens from Mexico, who can't read English, can sue the State for failing to provide Spanish street signs?
1 comments | | Perma Link
PBS Cancels National Geographic Over Indecency Fears
by Steve
11/11/2004 02:16:00 PM
Well, not really. But now that several ABC television affiliates announced that
they will not air "Saving Private Ryan" on Veterans Day, over fears that it might draw penalties from the FCC, it wouldn't be surprising.
Certainly, when National Geographic televises
naked pygmies taking part in daily chores, it is not considered sexual, at least not with normal Americans. Same thing with "Saving Private Ryan", none of its scenes of violence are sexual in nature. If anything, it's factual.
But what IS sexual is when Janet Jackson bares her boob at the hands of Justin Timberlake, at the end of a song that includes the lyrics, "I'll get you naked by the end of this song."
So what we have here is ABC trying to throw "poo poo" at FCC Chairman Michael Powell, on a day when Americans want to pay tribute to the men and women who died for Freedom. If ABC's logic holds, then I'm not sure why PBS doesn't just cancel National Geographic.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Remember Those Who Fought for Freedom
by Steve
11/11/2004 11:11:00 AM
Flowers placed at Riverside National Cemetery,
Riverside, California
0 comments | | Perma Link
Homeless Man Points Out that Homeless Doesn't Mean Helpless
by Steve
11/11/2004 08:04:00 AM
Bruce Goldwell is a homeless man in Utah, who claims that just because one is homeless doesn't mean that one is helpless.
He was able to launch his own website using public computers at a local library, and even wrote some books, and not just ebooks, but real hardcopy books. Now, he sells the books through his website. In his
press release, he quotes:
"I am homeless, but not helpless. While I have physical disabilities that keep me from working for anyone I still have my mind and can think and can work to do other things as well as work to motivate others to do whatever they can to improve their lifes."
Goldwell has recently launched an affiliate program so that:
"For other homeless people that need a way to earn income and are just a little bit savy in using the internet they can help market his books and earn some money for doing so."
Here's a man who can live on the streets, and still pull his own weight. Now that's America!
0 comments | | Perma Link
Confessions of a Cultural (and Intellectual) Dullard
by Dave
11/10/2004 11:30:00 AM
If Kerry Voters Are Smarter Than Bush Voters, We're in Trouble
This morning I read an editorial by
Ted Rall entitled "CONFESSIONS OF A CULTURAL ELITIST" which attempts to prove, once and for all, that Bush supporters are just plain stupid. The work cites a poll which concludes that 72 percent of Bush voters believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or active WMD programs, 75 percent think that a Saddam-Al Qaeda link has been proven, and 20 percent say Saddam ordered 9/11. Further, the editorial, without citation, claims "You are 25 percent more likely to hold a college degree if you live in the Democratic northeast than in the red state south."
As one who lives in the Democratic northeast and holds a college degree, I took umbrage with Mr. Rall's comments. I voted for Bush yet never for one minute believed there was a direct connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Read More
1 comments | | Perma Link
A Liberal is Someone Who Can't Put Their Foot Down
by Steve
11/10/2004 07:49:00 AM
Markos Moulitsas, who operates the much heralded DailyKos, perhaps
pointed out one of the fundamental differences between liberalism and conservatism.
He cited an example where a Texas woman had been going to a pharmacist to get birth control pills. Then one day, the pharmacist decided to stop prescribing them, on the grounds that birth control is morally wrong. Markos pointed out that while everyone is entitled to their beliefs, it should not be forced upon others. Why doesn't Markos point out that the woman could have respected the pharmacist's beliefs, and gone to a different pharmacy?
But what he fails to understand is that
standing up for what you believe in is a fundamental value of America. It's why our ancestors came to this country in the first place. Because in this country
you can take a stand, and fight for what you believe in.
Our laws are an expression of our beliefs. Eleven states believed that marriage is a union of a man and a woman, hence laws were written. And what is Morality but a popular opinion of what is right and wrong? We elect our leaders based on what those leaders stand for.
John Kerry explained that he does have his beliefs on abortion, and that he believes abortion is wrong. But during the third debate in Tempe, AZ, he explained that:
I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.
This is why the people didn't vote for Kerry, he couldn't stand up for his beliefs. The people perceived this as lacking leadership. The people, as a whole, have a set of beliefs, and they look for a leader who shares those beliefs, and will take a stand for those beliefs. It's actually a good thing that people respect the beliefs of others. But leaders are expected to carry out those beliefs. Kerry couldn't promise that, and hence he portrayed himself as lacking leadership. That's why he lost.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Democrats Refusing to Acknowledge Leadership
by Steve
11/09/2004 09:45:00 PM
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi appeared on CNN's Lou Dobbs, in which
she was asked if Democrats would begin mixing moral issues into their ideology. She responded:
"I believe that you will see more of that, but we have to get to the issues that are the role of government. I think on the values side, the so-called religious-issues side, we have to enlarge that issue, because what we're in danger of now in our country is the blurring of the issue of church and state. Our own Constitution is at stake."
Once again proving that Democrats still don't understand Leadership. Bush won a second term because Americans see him a better leader than Kerry. They saw Bush as a man with conviction, a man who leads by example, and sticks to his guns.
I think perhaps it is out of political reasons that Democrats continue to cite religion and morality as the reason why they lost the election. They will not accept the fact that Bush is the better leader, for fear that it will show weakness on their part. No, they insist that Kerry was the better choice, but that most Americans were jaded by the Republicans.
Did Bill Clinton win two Presidential Elections because of his high moral standards and his dedication to faith? Who are we trying to kid? Remember, his history of womanizing was well publicized during his first Presidential bid. He won because he convinced Americans that he was the better leader, when compared to contenders Bush Sr. and Dole.
John F. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic President, and was a well known womanizer. He proved that Americans will dismiss religion AND morality when they find a leader.
0 comments | | Perma Link
How Hillary Clinton Wins the 2008 & 2012 Elections
by Steve
11/09/2004 07:14:00 PM
A thoughtful and humorous look back on how
Hillary Clinton won the Presidential Elections of 2008 & 2012.
But Dave Kopel, the author of the above, does make an interesting point, that Roe v. Wade could be the issue that decides the 2008 Election.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Colorado Amendment 36 Applied Nationwide
by Steve
11/09/2004 03:17:00 PM
Colorado Voters defeated
Amendment 36, an initiative to modify its Electoral College by splitting electoral votes in proportion to a candidate's share of the Statewide popular vote.
But what if this initiative passed? Bush would have received 5 electoral votes instead of 9, and Kerry would have gotten the other 4. That would mean Bush's overall EC Vote count would have been 282 and Kerry's would have been 256. Still a Bush win.
So I decided to apply the Amendment 36 formula to all states, using actual election results, to see who would come out the winner. To see the state-by-state results,
view our spreadsheet.
The results would have been:
Bush: 275 EC Votes
Kerry: 258 EC Votes
Nader: 5 EC Votes
Compare that to the actual 2004 Election outcome:
Bush: 286 EC Votes
Kerry: 252 EC Votes
Even though Bush still wins, it clearly shows that this kind of system of dividing up votes favors Democrats. This allows Democrats to focus their campaign efforts in high population states such as California, Illinois, and New York. That is, as long as Democrats can expect keep elections close in the Bush states, all they need to do is score landslide victories in the high population states.
This would give California, Illinois, and New York enormous power to control political agenda nationwide.
2 comments | | Perma Link
American Liberals are Fleeing to Canada
by Steve
11/09/2004 09:54:00 AM
Slate has an
interesting read concerning Americans fleeing to Canada out of disappointment over Kerry's loss.
The article states:
The Canadian immigration Web site had 179,000 visitors Wednesday—six times its usual traffic—the vast majority of which came from the United States.
One particular Colorado resident, who felt that 51% of voters who voted for Bush are psychos, has already opened a bank account in Canada.
All I have to say to these people is "Adios Mutha Fuckas"!
For one thing, the fewer liberals in this country the better.
The other thing is that these people are not Americans. That is, any American who flees this country over dissatisfaction with an election outcome is a wuss, and has no business staying here.
4 comments | | Perma Link
Bush Rejects Kyoto Protocol
by Dave
11/08/2004 11:06:00 AM
The Associated Press is running a story entitled "
Bush Stands by Rejection of Kyoto Treaty." The obvious question is, since when does the president of the United States ratify or reject treaties? The answer is clearly that the US Senate ratifies and rejects treaties. According to the
Environmental Literacy Council, "In July 1999, the United States Senate voted 95-0 to pass a resolution co-sponsored by Sen. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Hagel (R-Neb.), which stated the Senate would not ratify the Protocol unless rapidly developing countries such as China were included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. The Clinton Administration announced it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification." and "The Kyoto Protocol is not yet in force because it has not been
ratified by nations representing 55 percent of 1990
carbon dioxide emissions."
Truth be told, much of the U.S. has not made up its mind regarding the Protocol. So why is the media blaming Bush?
0 comments | | Perma Link
Michael Moore Will Not Go Away Unless You Make It Happen
by Dave
11/07/2004 04:25:00 PM
According to Michael Moore,
"After speaking to the 10,000 gathered in Syracuse, we went on to hold rallies in 63 cities, mostly on campuses. Every night the events were packed, with anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 people showing up. We registered thousands to vote and got tens of thousands more to sign up to volunteer with Move On, ACT, the College Dems and other groups like Vote Mob and the League of Pissed Off Voters. We reached perhaps a half-million people in person and millions more on local TV and radio in those 63 cities (all but three of them in swing states)."
But what Moore fails to tell the world is that he charged more than most rock bands to spew his lies to these college students. So who foots the bill? Who pays Moore tens of thousands of dollars to spew his biased lies? You do! If you had kids in college this year and Michael Moore visited your child's school, you paid for him to convince your kids to register, if they weren't already, and to vote for Kerry. Check into it. Let the institutions who are already laying claim to most of your dollars know that you do not ever want to have them waste your money this way again.
1 comments | | Perma Link
Ivory Coast Proves That World Peace is Impossible
by Steve
11/07/2004 01:19:00 PM
The latest news coming out of The Ivory Coast reports that rebels in the southern half of the country
have attacked foreign born and French forces in the north.
At one time, however,
there was Peace. The Ivory Coast had been the most affluent country on the West Coast of Africa. They were the world's largest exporter of cocoa, the main ingredient in chocolate. In fact, the economy was doing well enough that folks in neighboring countries were traveling to the Ivory Coast to find work, and taking that money back to their home countries. Many of the countries in that region share the same currency, backed by France.
Eventually foreign born residents of The Ivory Coast accounted for 1/3 of the country's population. Native born people were losing their jobs to foreign born. Foreign born people began occupying positions in elected offices. It had become more apparent than ever that the foreign born in The Ivory Coast had built up a power base.
Naturally, native born Ivorians were also building a resentment for the foreign born. The President of The Ivory Coast enacted a law that only native born Ivorians, whose parents are Ivorians, may become President. Groups of native born Ivorians formed lynch mobs, known as "guere", similar to the KKK in the United States. They ran foreign born workers out of the cocoa plantations. As a result, cocoa farmers saw their fortunes plummet.
A social divide took place in The Ivory Coast, with native born Ivorians in the South, and foreign born in the North. A rebellion broke out.
The French, who still account for the majority of business in The Ivory Coast, saw their fortunes decline during the rebellion. They sought to bring Peace as soon as possible by negotiating a peace deal in 2003. The Ivorians, however, mainly saw the French as partisan to the foreigners, because the French have been protecting them from Ivorian rebels.
Perhaps what is happening in The Ivory Coast is not that much different with what has been happening in the United States. There is an indeed a resentment against Mexicans emigrating to the United States to find work. And over time, these Mexicans become naturalized citizens, and occupy positions in elected offices. Clearly the
election map of 2004 shows divisions with liberals in the major cities and coast lines, and conservatives in the rural counties and states.
0 comments | | Perma Link
The Real Reason Why Mexicans Come to the USA
by Steve
11/06/2004 03:42:00 PM
0 comments | | Perma Link
Liberals Displaying Selfishness in their Loss
by Steve
11/06/2004 08:49:00 AM
All over the Internet and all over the media, liberals from coast-to-coast are seeking reasons why John Kerry lost the Presidential Election. And in their reasoning they are showing selfishness.
The rallying cry this time is mostly,
"What will George Bush do to unite the 56 million voters who didn't vote for him?"
One person on a
weblog stated,
"Mandate? He didn't win my vote, my state, my region, my heart..."
John Kerry was perhaps the only liberal who took the loss the with grace. It was noble of him to accept defeat, and to ask his constituents to come together and unite with the rest of the country. In 2000, Al Gore refused to accept defeat and instead continued on through today through his speeches and appearances to defy President Bush. This defiance is what has caused the liberal anger.
The United States has no obligation to reach out to the 56 million people who did not vote for President Bush. George Bush does not have an obligation to reach to those people. It is not the job of President to reach out to anyone.
What happened to John F. Kennedy's famous statement of
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."? The American thing to do is to support your country, even if you don't agree with it, for the sake of unity. You don't have to like President Bush, but you shouldn't divide a country just because your guy didn't win.
Liberals and Conservatives are Americans first. Their political and social beliefs fall somewhere below that.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Why Should Native American Tribes Continue to be Sovereign?
by Steve
11/05/2004 01:51:00 PM
The General Election of November 2, 2004 was no more critical to Native Americans than anyone else. As Indian Tribes are riding the successes of their casinos and resorts, they have become more dependent on the American political machine.
The point I'm trying to make in this message is that Indian Tribes often claim sovereignty when convenient on issues of taxation. But when faced with competition against their casinos, they try to influence what goes on outside reservation boundaries. They can't remain sovereign, and still try to be a part of our country.
Historically, it was
US Government policy to treat tribes as sovereign entities, and in doing so it signed treaties with several tribes from 1789 to 1830. Then in 1830, the United States chose to disregard its previous treaties, and enacted the Indian Removal Act, which sought to relocate tribes to reservations. The Cherokee Nation sought to challenge this law in the Georgia State Supreme Court. The Court sided with the Cherokees, stating that they are indeed a sovereign entity, and are not subject to federal laws. However, President Jackson chose to ignore the Court ruling, and the famous "
Trail of Tears" took place.
But all that took place long before indians discovered casinos. Today there are different dynamics at play.
Take for example the case of the Pala Mission Indians in Northern San Diego County. In the last election, they managed to get a ballot initiative going, Measure B, to decide the fate of a proposed landfill near their casino. The landfill would be located just outside of the Pala Reservation, but adjacent to their casino. It's certainly understandable that no one would want a landfill near their home or business.
So, the Palas got Measure B on the ballot, to prevent the landfill from happening, and the voters of San Diego County defeated it soundly. Now, the landfill project can continue.
In addition, Indian Tribes in California, along with the Palas, have become the target of anger because they contribute no State taxes despite the billions of dollars they are making from their casinos. The Tribes simply explain that they are sovereign, and thus are not subject State laws, including taxes.
If Native American Tribes are indeed "sovereign nations" then how is it that they can put an initiative on our ballots? Can you imagine Canada placing initiatives on our ballots?
During California's Gubernatorial Recall Election in 2003, Democrat Cruz Bustamante received more than $2 million in donations from Indian Tribes. Could you imagine John Kerry or George Bush receiving campaign funding from France or Japan?
Certainly the days of Indians living off the land, digging up roots and hunting Buffalo are over. Tribes today still want to live away from Americans, but they also want to decide what happens outside of their reservations. If tribes want to have a voice in our society, they should be required to give up their sovereignty, pay their taxes, and play by our rules.
0 comments | | Perma Link
Michael Moore Will Flourish Under a Second Bush Administration
by Steve
11/05/2004 09:42:00 AM
Most Americans know Michael Moore as a film maker. He got first taste of fame with his documentary film "
Bowling for Columbine". And he further solidified his place in the movie-documentary world with "
Fahrenheit 911"
Moore is a businessman who profits from the anger of liberals. If it wasn't for anger, then who would care to watch any of his films?
Do you know anyone who just loves to watch political documentaries for no other reason than to enjoy political documentaries? If you're like me, you'd rather spend your movie experience watching something like "The Incredibles", or "The Grudge".
I bet no one was more happier to see Bush win a second term than Moore himself. Just think, four more years of DVD sales!
0 comments | | Perma Link
President's Plan to Simplify the Tax Code
by Steve
11/05/2004 08:38:00 AM
One of the points that the President made during his
press conference yesterday was simplifying the tax code.
I cannot stress enough how badly this needs to be done. I'm sure both liberals and conservatives can agree.
In his statements on this topic there were a few points he made that seemed to come from ideas he already has in mind:
The changes must reward risk - I take this to mean that those people who invest money, or start businesses will be rewarded with deductions and/or have their tax rates lowered.
The changes must be revenue neutral - meaning the feds are to receive the same amount of money after the changes as they are receiving now.
The changes must incorporate incentives to invest and donate - he particularly
