Sunday, November 30, 2008

Whose Jobs? Whose Helping?

One thing I heard during this election cycle often from Democrats is that Republicans were giving tax cuts to companies that were taking jobs overseas.  The rage over "outsourcing" was also present in the 2004 presidential election as well, with John Kerry and John Edwards going so far as to term this companies "Benedict Arnold" companies, which was frequently repeated by supporters.  My question is who these companies are betraying?

Of course it's not true that Republicans are cutting taxes on these companies because they are outsourcing jobs, which is what Democrats make it sound like.  Republicans think that taxes obstruct businesses, and therefore hurt the economy, so of course they are going to support tax cuts for these corporations.  They aren't cutting taxes so they will, or because they do, ship jobs overseas.  There is no intended causality between the two.  Of course, higher taxes and more demands by unions (like cardcheck) would lead  companies to outsource jobs and higher prices, so it would make much more sense to say that Democrats are really leading the companies to outsource and  are really the ones hurting people.  This isn't even mentioning the fact that many economists believe outsourcing is good for the economy.  

Of course, the implication of this "betrayal" argument is that these corporations are betraying America or some American people.  It is a natural and understandable to at first have negative reaction to these companies giving jobs to foreigners, not Americans.  It is natural to like people that are like us.  But, after thinking about it, I can't find any sufficient answer as to why Americans deserve these jobs, except for the fact they are, well, American.  The only argument I see is on the grounds of xenophobia, ethnocentrism, or racism.  Of course most people that are complaining about outsourcing are not overtly racist or classist, it is only a prejudice that most people struggle with (partially natural, partially socially-imbedded) to prefer people we know and like.

These companies have a right to hire whomever they want.  They risk their assets, livelihood, and time running a business.  It is obviously cheaper to employ foreigners who will work for less.  From a business standpoint, it would be downright dumb to keep jobs in America.  So, the people who hate outsourcing companies want them to make decision that will hurt their own company.

The person that the companies hires overseas is no less of a person than an American. If they are African, Asian, Arab, or Hispanic they are no less of a person.  They don't deserve the job any less.  In fact, they are more than likely poorer than the American worker, in some cases they are desperately poor.  They need the job more than the American.

It is a painful experience for someone to lose a job.  In time, however, they will likely find a new job.  In many cases, a better job.  Businesses don't owe them anything.  Entrepreneurs don't start companies for employees, they start companies for themselves.  They have the right to do whatever they want with their money.  They risked their own money, not their future employees' money.  It is nobody's right to demand that they make a bad business move.  It is not a bad thing if American politicians want to try and keep jobs in America.  That's fine.  What is going to attract companies to stay in America?  Lower taxes and more freedom for companies, such as less of an obstructive influence from labor unions.

Who is trying to promote these things?  Republicans.

The Democratic approach defies logic.  A company outsources jobs so you raise taxes and promote unionization.  That won't do anything but encourage companies to outsource more jobs.

So who is really helping American workers?  Republicans.

Of course many of the politicians making these claims are hyprocrites themselves.  John Edwards, one of the loudest voices of opposition, for instance, has put millions of dollars into offshore hedgefunds to evade taxes, and many more hold stock in companies that are outsourcing.   

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Bond Movies

My top five Bond movies:

1. The Spy Who Loved Me
2. Moonraker
3. Diamonds are Forever
4. Casino Royale
5a. Thunderball (tie)
5b. On Her Majesty's Secret Service

What I Would Do If I Were President

(I realize very few of these would ever be passed.)

1. Create a special council to decide America's role in tackling global poverty, the AIDS epidemic, preventable diseases, and unjust trade systems resulting in a widening economic gap between first and third world countries.

2. Create a 9/11 style commission to address American's energy future, providing both short-term and long-term strategies for energy independence and reforming the energy grid, and advising which alternative fuels are most viable to explore and research and have the most production potential.

3. Address the drunken-driving epidemic (to be discussed in the future).

4. Reform the prison system.

5. Reform the welfare system, transitioning to a more streamlined, organized workfare-based system with more mandates and time-based requirements. (Include healthcare coverage.)

6. Outlaw all abortions, except in cases where their is a threat to materal health (which is rare), expanding adoption and foster care systems, making them more accessible and creating more financial incentives, while simultaneously shutting down all abortion providers.  (Without prosecuting  women trying to obtain abortions.)

7. Create a comprehensive immigration reform package, securing the border, creating a guest worker program, prosecuting businesses and companies employing illegal aliens, and making legal immigration easier.  (to be discussed in the future.)

8. Legalize drugs to all 18 and over (with the possible exception of some hallucinogens and methamphetamines), drop the legal alcohol consumption and purchasing age to 18, legalize prostitution and gambling for all 18 and over, or at least give this power to each state.  Create better anti-drug education systems.

9. Through incrementalist methodologies (such as merit pay for teachers, expansion of voucher programs, more school choice through open enrollment, and greater accountability for schools, leading to budget cuts or closure of failing schools) privatize schooling and shrink the Department of Education to an independent oversight  agency (similar to the Securities and Exchange Commission).  

10. Reform the tax system, creating a less graduated, flatter code with lower tax rates.

11. Create a new military branch of peacekeepers, trained to assist countries in transition after a war (such as Iraq or Afghanistan).  

12. Create better congressional accountability, cutting the August Recess in half, mandating term limits for all Congresspersons and  Senators, and require those office-holders running for
a higher office to designate someone to serve in their place for the duration of the campaign.   



Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Interesting Places I've Visited

A comprehensive list of the interesting places I've visited.

-Mount Vernon (home of George Washington) and grave
-Monticello (home of Thomas Jefferson) and grave
-Hyde Park (home of FDR)
-Dwight D. Eisenhower's home
-Lincoln's childhood home
-Gettysburg
-Harper's Ferry
-Antietam
-Bull Run/Manassas
-Chickamauga
-Lookout Mountain/Chattanooga
-Stone Mountain
-Fort Sumter
-Fort Necessity
-Williamsburg, Virginia
-Biltmore Estate (Vanderbilt's)
-Marble House (Vanderbilt's)
-Pearl Harbor
-Diamond Head Crater (Hawaii)
-Grand Canyon
-Bryce Canyon
Yosemite National Park
-Glen Canyon
-Zion Canyon
-The Strip (Las Vegas)
-Crater Lake
-Mono Lake
-Lake Mead
-Lake Tahoe
-Lake Champlain (Burlington, Vermont)
-Ben and Jerry's Headquarters (Waterbury, Vermont)
-Von Trapp family residence (Stowe, Vermont)
-"Painted Desert" (Arizona)
-"Petrified Forest" (Arizona)
-Meteor Crater (Arizona)
-Hoover Dam
-Ford's Theater and Lincoln's death site
-Arlington National Cemetery
-all major Washington D.C. landmarks
-childhood home of Carl Sandberg
-Major League Baseball Hall of Fame
-first Starbucks (Seattle)
-first Wendy's (Columbus)
-first Ghirardelli's (San Francisco)
-Sears Tower
-Golden Gate Bridge
-Niagara Falls
-original Quaker Oats factory and headquarters (Cedar Rapids, Iowa)
-Wright Brothers childhood home
-Wright Brothers Bicycle Shop
-Ivy League universities-Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell

 

Palin for President?

People are already talking about the 2012 election.  Of course one of the biggest stories is Sarah Palin.  Many conservatives are excited about the prospect of her candidacy.  I liked Sarah Palin as a VP candidate.  Someone like John McCain doesn't needs someone with all the experience in the world.  She would have been extremely helpful in guiding America towards energy independence and reforming the energy grid, which should be the top priority of any administration right now.  She is also clearly reform-minded, which would have been a good help to John McCain.  She is also has a track record of cutting spending, which would be very helpful, as the current growth of government and the national debt should be a top priority.  She didn't have enough experience to be president, but that's overrated. She was running for vice president, not president.   Obama had practically no experience.  But he had time to mature over the campaign, she didn't.  Many other successful vice presidents have had similar level of experience as her.  Today, advisors and handlers are so important that one person doesn't have that much power and is certainly not alone.  Besides, if something would have happened to McCain (of course this is a double-hypothetical case) she would have likely had experience as a vice president.  She didn't make me any more unsteady than Joe Biden, who seems a little bit bombastic and brash.  (Some of his statements made me wonder if he was trying to throw the election.)  I don't believe for a second that she was as dumb as the media made her out to be.  She couldn't have become a governor that way.  It would be hard to believe she is a diva as well, or she wouldn't be the most popular governor in the country.  In looking at old clips and seeing lower-pressure interviews with her, she is clearly a smart, well-studied woman.  The presidency is a completely different situation.  She wouldn't just be somebody's helper.  Palin clearly does not have the breadth of knowledge or experience to be in charge of the country right now, especially in terms of economics or foreign affairs.  However, there are many things I admire about Mrs. Palin.

1. She seems like a genuinely warm and caring person.
2. She isn't a "politician", she has tackled corruption and excess, even in her own party.  It is a very impressive thing for her to put the state's jet on Ebay and cut the governor's chef.
3. She doesn't seem like an insane partisan like so many politicians, she repeatedly talked about people of all political persuasions finding common ground and such, and actually displayed this in Alaska.  Interviews with her as a mayor show a very humble, practical person.
4. She is not wealthy or elite like so many politicians, but comes from a working class background.
5. She has personal connections to issues, again unlike many politicians, a son in Iraq, a special needs son, a teenage daughter who is pregnant.


That said, I would prefer if she didn't run in '12.  I probably wouldn't vote for her, unless she shows she has significantly increased her knowledge.  Personally, I would like to see her join the senate.  I think she would be a very strong presence and could do some things.  Perhaps she could then think about running in 2016.  But as it stands now, there are several other people who I would support before her.  I like Palin, but I'm not one of these far-right conservatives that thinks she is fully qualified to be president now or wants her to run in the next election. She is a great governor and perhaps a good presidential candidate someday.  She's too conservative for my taste, but I still think she could be a candidate I could vote for someday, but not anytime soon.
 

Oil Crude...About to go up?

I'm wondering if oil prices will start rising soon.  Demand is still low, but I don't know if it can drop too much more.  What I'm really interested  is to see how the increased piracy along the coast of Africa (and a little along South America) affects the price of oil.  Shipping costs are already up this year and insurance rates are steeply increasing due to all of the piracy.  The situation is quickly getting to be a major problem.  That coupled with the OPEC's attempts to decrease production are distorting the market.  Just what we need.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

My Prayer

This is a prayer/poem I wrote.  Forgive me if it not good, but I wrote it quickly in the middle of the night.  But I kinda liked it.

Lord, 

Guide my steps.
Pick me up when I fall.
Humble me when I think I know it all.
Help me to become more like you everyday, in every way.
Give me the strength, courage, and maturity to do the right thing when it's not easy.
Help me love others as you do, help me do unto others as you would do.  
Help my heart to stay strong but my spirit meek.
Let me feel your love when the future looks bleak.

Intrusion

This week eHarmony was forced to start a gay-dating website to avoid hefty fines.  A man sued eHarmony for discrimination because they only offered services for heterosexuals.  (Though there are thousands of other homsexual dating websites.)  This is a private company.  They have the right to decide who they want to serve.  The founder is a Christian, and he questions homosexuality.  Why is the government forcing him to go against his convictions?

In Canada, courts ruled that extremely obese pay must be given two seats for the price of one. That means there is less capacity on the plane for other passengers.  Which means their profit margin shrinks.  Why should a company be punished for someone's irresponsibility and failure to take care of their body?  (Unless their is a legitimate medical condition.)

Too Big?

I think the current economic situation is tragic.  It is not a good sign when a whole economy is dependent on a few corporations.  It is also not a good sign when governments get so big that corporations are dependent on a government to keep them afloat.  These are dangerous situations.  

Justice

I recently ran into a woman who said that she had moved from an American Baptist church to a Southern Baptist church, because the American Baptists were essentially too liberal.  They didn't talk enough about salvation or the punishment of God.  Many conservative Christians talk about God being a god of justice.  They say that people forget that God does punish people.  Yes, that is true.  God does judge people and He does render consequences.  He isn't a wimp that just puts up with sin or looks the other way.  He doesn't blindly offer salvation to the unrighteous.  But the Bible also says that "God is love".  His heart isn't hard.   What does justice entail?  Justice is people getting what they deserve.  But is justice only punishment for wrong actions (sin?)  No. Justice is also respect, love, and help for the poor and the oppressed.  It is helping the poverty-stricken, mentally or physically, gain the life that they deserve.  God is a god of justice, but their are two sides to justice, not just one.  It is a tragedy lest we forget either side.   

Obama's Choose School

I saw that the Obama's have decided to send their daughters to a Quaker School, Sidwell Friends.  I was hoping they would.  Hopefully more people will think explore the Quaker faith or the values of Friends with this news.  It does seem strange though.  These two girls get a better education than millions of other kids just because they are the children of a politician.  

Holiday Movies

Here are some movies I'm interested in seeing this holiday season. Though I will probably only see a couple.

Quantum of Solace (again)

The Reader

The Spirit

Valkyrie

Star Trek

The Tale of Despereaux

Dark Streets

The Lodger 

UP

The Day the Earth Stood Still

The Beautiful Truth

Fears of the Dark

Gran Torino

2012

Dear Zachary

Time Crimes




Journalistic Integrity

The collapse of journalism continues in America.  Of course, the media is supposed to report the news, unbiased, so the viewer can accurately come up with their own opinions.  But that isn't happening now.  Most media outlets just editorialize.  These are just a few things that have annoyed me.  If I am going to watch or read them, I deserve better.  

The most offensive thing in the campaign was the lack of fact-checking.  Candidates could basically say whatever, without the media holding them accountable.  Most of the time, after debates, networks directed you to their website if you wanted to check the facts.  If you wanted to check the facts.  Of course the vast majority of Americans don't know the facts and don't care to check them.  

Once during the campaign the New York Times published an editorial by Barack Obama criticizing John McCain.  John McCain wanted to write a rebuttal, but they refused.

When Sarah Palin recently appeared on Larry King Live, which used to be a somewhat good program, the screen read "Sarah Palin" Unscripted, Unedited, Unleashed."  Is this show trying to give Palin a fair shot, an unbiased interview?  Or are they pushing this idea that she is out of control and all about herself?  It sounds like yellow journalism to me.  Of course no one should think that Larry King Live is unbiased at all, with Bill Maher or Michael Moore on literally almost every week, and conservatives making few appearances except on panels.

It didn't bother me people asking about Sarah Palin's readiness or qualifications.  That is a fair question.  But the news media didn't do that.  They tried to mold her as an idiot who didn't know anything.  (And does really anyone think that you could go to college and become a governor and not know that Africa is a continent?)  Of course, they labeled the supposed scandal in her state as "troopergate" before there was any ruling about her wrongdoing or possible culpability.  Of course, the media also lied about Sarah Palin's comment about the Iraq War.  She never said that the war was God's will.  She said we should pray that we are doing God's will and that the war "really is a task from God".  But they just played part of the clip, to take it out of context. That is one thing that in the past that couldn't have happened in the past. But in today's media, people can lie and get away with it.  Of course, her wardrobe was also questioned (honestly, I couldn't care less.  Who cares how much they are spending on clothes? Did they ever ask how much the Obama campaign was spending on clothes for Barack or Michelle or the Bidens or how much the speech in Denver cost?)  They also sent people to go to her church to find out about her controversial views?  I saw how segments about her views on evolution.  Like I care?  Was Obama ever asked about his views on evolution?  I guess it is important, since anyone who questions evolution is an idiot.  Her religious views were described as "controversial".  Barack Obama's weren't, even though I saw much more proof of extremism at Trinity United.

Now, NBC and MSNBC are marketing their documentary film "Yes We Can: The Barack Obama story".  NBC is running a commercial that says "Watch as a new leader renews America's hope". Why is a news organization doing this?  They are there to report the news, not give their opinion.  Now I have to watch commercials lecturing me about what I can do to stop global warming when I watch NBC, like I'm three.


Friday, November 21, 2008

What Would Jesus Say?

Tonight, I watched the interview with the escort that ruined former New York governor Elliott Spitzer's career.  (He ruined his own career actually.)  She explained that she thought of her job as merely that, a job.  Instead of a man taking her out on a date and expecting something in return in bed, it was a formal transaction.  She spoke of her trials and tribulations, dropping out of high school, being betrayed by a man she thought loved her, and being berated by the community when she moved back home.  She spoke of what she wanted to become.  A mother with a supportive husband who could be her best friend, a good career, a home, and kids.  

Later, on Nightline, I watched a story about the economic downturn and its effects on the prostitution industry.  (Being legal in Nevada.)  There are more women than ever applying for jobs at the world-famous Bunny Ranch.  They followed a new girl, who was in her early twenties, if not younger, and nervous as a puppy.  She had applied at food food joints and a daycare center without success.  The owner, a former prostitute, and another female executive led the girl around, revealing to her the ins and the outs of the world's oldest industry.  One woman said that she can always count on business, because people will always pay for "alcohol, drugs, and sex."  It was just a matter of how much less people were going to pay.  Another woman said that business is steady because it is a stress reliever for so many people.  Yet another women explained to the new employee (yes that sounds strange to call them that) the art of price haggling.  It just feels so wrong to see people put a price on that and see people bid on it.  I looked weird to see women holding the hands of men as they guided them back to their "room".  It was fake love.  It just felt so wrong.

Later, while watching ESPN, I heard that Michael Vick, the former Atlanta Falcons star QB (and Virginia Tech Hookie) who is now in prison felonies stemming for his operation a large dog fighting outfit, hung three dogs last spring who didn't past muster in the ring.

Now it is easy to judge these people.  It is easy to look down upon a prostitute.  Maybe even easier to look down upon a dog fighter.  It is easy to hate them.  But my question is, "What Would Jesus say to them"?  Would he judge them blindly or look at them in light of their circumstances.  When looking at the escort of the former governor, it is easy to connect her problems with her upbringing.  She clearly lacked self-esteem and after dropping out of high school she couldn't make much money.  So it was easy to become a prostitute.  She could make money and she didn't have much of a self-esteem to begin with, though she would be appreciated for something.  She has the same dreams as most people.  A good, supportive family.  The best thing she said was that she is not the woman who was the prostitute and that she is a new person now.  Sadly, however, she was obviously still struggling to find herself and support.  But she didn't mention faith, which is truly tragic.  It is important, I think, to remember that the prostitute is probably not that different than you.  They probably have many of the same goals and aspirations, they just got mixed up along the way.

I think it is also important to think about the young woman who is now working as a prostitute in Nevada.  She'd applied at fast food places and a daycare center.  She isn't a terrible person. Next time I eat fast food, I'll try to imagine the worker as a prostitute.  Because they could be. Is a prostitute not just a troubled person?   Maybe they just got lucky and landed the job at the fast food place.   What if that girl would serve you the next time you go to McDonald's.  You wouldn't even know that she could be a prostitute.  Yet, if you knew she had dabbled in prostitution I bet you (and I) would treat her differently.   Even if the person is not a prostitute, they could have just as many troubles as the prostitutes.  You just can't tell.  Because it is not only prostitutes do bad things.  Everyone does.  Prostitutes are people too.  They are not a secondary class of citizens. God loves everyone.  Anyone can mess up, and everyone does.  A prostitute or a burger flipper should not be looked at any differently.  It is easy to judge someone and think of them as subhuman or stupid or not worthy of mercy because of their job. But everyone, even the prostitute deserves our respect and our love.  In fact, they don't deserve any less love than the fast food worker.  If anything they deserve more because they are lost.  It is not easy to take a non-biased, loving look at someone, thinking about their past and how it affected them.  It is hard to not look down at such people and not make a quick judgement.  It isn't easy to throw their mistakes out the window with forgiveness to recognize their potential, but it needs to be done.   Jesus doesn't call people to do easy things.  He calls us to a supernatural, world-changing love and forgiveness.  

Again, it would be easy to judge Michael Vick.  It would be easy to lose all respect for him and not care about him.  But his situation is better understood in light of his childhood.  He and his three siblings were born to unwed teenagers, who lived on government welfare throughout Michael's upbringing.  Their street witnessed many murders and drug deals.  It wouldn't be easy for him to learn the proper morals.  It was terrible what he did and he should be punished. But prison should be a place for rebirth.  He deserves a second chance and a shot at forgiveness, but something tells me many won't give him a chance, because they view him as some sort of a barbarian, instead of a troubled person.   

While I believe Jesus would not support the activities of these people for a second, it is a question of how he would react in opposition.  Would he arrogantly look at the prostitute or the abuser of  defenseless animals, expecting perfection?  It is so easy to look down on people without remembering your own flaws.  I believe that Jesus always would remember that people are not perfect and everyone has their own problems and struggles.  In looking at his dealings with sinners, the woman at the well for instance, I think Jesus wants us to look at people in the context of their life.  Instead of making a quick judgement, I believe he would be slow to speak and quick to listen.  It is only when we follow that lead that we can understand what Jesus would say to the unsavory characters in our lives.

Quantum of Solace

As a big fan of the James Bond franchise, I was both happy and disappointed with the new film, Quantum of Solace.  The film was shoot well and has some good action.  Daniel Craig was again exceptional portraying 007.  The film definetely had a very good, upbeat, suspenseful quality to it.  It was good movie, but certainly not great.  First, there was too much action, especially towards the start of the movie.  There  was chase after chase, seemingly for no reason. Characters like Mr. White, Fields, and Mathis were all hastily introduced and quickly killed without much explanation.  The movie also took place in six different locales, which was slightly confusing.  The movie was a whirlwind.  The plot was choppy.  Characters were barely introduced, there was a chase sequence, and then Bond would travel somewhere else.  There just weren't good transitions; it was almost like a  riddle.  There were loose ends that were not tied up.  It was hard to get a feel for what was going on.  Near the end of the film, Vesper's "boyfriend" was introduced to us, but he had barely been mentioned throughout the film.  I also thought the confrontation between Bond and Greene warranted more of a dramatic end. Speaking of Greene, he was a good villain.  He certainly looked psychopathic.  Though he lacked  a strong physical feature or abnormality like so many of the other Bond villains have had.  I thought the film sacrificed action for plot.  The story just could have been crafted a little more effectively.  The action was also a little to extravagant and outrageous for me.  Some of the chase scenes that were on foot, where they scale buildings for instance, are a little too over the top and unbelievable.  Or the scene where Bond is able to fall safely out of the airplane.  I know there is a certain element like that in most Bond films, where things are slightly unrealistic, but know Bond looks like Superman.  The movies also seem to be increasingly violent.  Of course there will be violence in any Bond film, but the best Bond films aren't built on sheer violence, but plot.  The violence is just getting a tad bit too graphic for Bond.  Lastly is the fact that the film had almost no connection with other films from the franchise, save for Casino Royale of course.  One of the good things about Bond films is how they are all tied together in unique ways.  There was no Q, no special, innovative weaponry or technology for Bond, and few of 007's typical mannerisms or habits came through.  Overall, it is a good effort.  It is a fun movie to watch.  It just could have been done better.  It would have been good to slow things down a little and develop the plot a little more.  I don't want Bond to be like any other pop film, with too many chases and too much violence.  I'm sure most casual Bond viewers think it was great, but compared to most Bond films it was only middle-of-the-pack.  I would give the film 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

What Would Reagan Do?

Both Democrats and Republicans have love affairs with certain politicians.  One of the Republicans' favorites is Ronald Reagan.  Whenever I listen to Sean Hannity, when I can stand it, I hear him ask "What Would Reagan Do?"  At a Republican primary debate last year, the last question was "Would Ronald Reagan Endorse You?".  (It should be noted that it was at the Reagan library.)  But my question is why I should care what Reagan would do.  It seems odd to me that the phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" is just changed, so the Jesus is dropped and replaced by Reagan, giving him a certain God-like status.  Why should politicians be venerated like this?  It seems wildly inappropriate.  Sadly, only his spirit is with now.  So why should I care what he would do?  Did Ronald Reagan solve the illegal immigration problem?  No.  Did Ronald Reagan balance the budget and free us from debt?  No.  Did Ronald Reagan solve the energy crisis?  No.  So why should I care what he would do?  He wasn't perfect and he didn't have all the answers.  He was a great president, but I am not going to base my beliefs on what he did or even who he would endorse.  The "Founding Fathers" are also treated with nearly divine status.  People ask what they would do or think.  Why should I care?  They were around 200 years ago.  If I just listened to them I would be a slave-holding deist.  Again, they were great leaders, but not perfect.  I am not going to ask myself what someone would do before I vote.  I don't care.  I only care about what I think works NOW, today, in the context of the constitution, and I couldn't care less if it is the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, or the Constitution Party that supports it.   

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Ted Stevens Defeated

I have bittersweet feelings about the defeat of Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator, from Alaska.  It means one fewer senate seat for Republicans and one more for Democrats as they try to reach that magical filibuster-proof threshold of 60 seats.  Of course, they still could get that without Saxby Chambliss or Norm Coleman losses to Jim Martin and Al Franken, respectively, if Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman side with them.  I think the government is better when there is a little gridlock and some compromise is necessary.  Just look at the last eight years compared to the last decade (the 90s).  (Or the first six years of the Bush administration, as Democrats have controlled congress since the '06 midterm elections.) With so much power and supposed/perceived mandates, one party abuses their power.  This concerns me with the Democrats now controlling the executive branch, house, and senate.  Obama and the Dems will likely have even more power than Bush, because he will likely have a "liberal" Supreme Court as well.  Bush didn't not have a majority in the Supreme Court.  And it appears Obama wants the court to be an arm of his administration, as indicated by his voting records and statements.  (To be expounded on later.)  So, it is hard for me to see a Republican lose a seat.  However, it is Ted Stevens, a convicted felon.  It is one less corrupt individual.  It wouldn't help anyone to have a felon in the senate.  I cuts down on corruption, but at what cost?  It also eliminates one senator that is simply not qualified to be a government official.  Can anyone say, in all seriousness, that the 84-year old Stevens, the 91 year-old Robert Byrd, the 84-year old Daniel Inouye, 84-year-old Frank Lautenberg, or the 84-year old Daniel Akaka should still be senators?  (Akaka, at 84, is the junior senator from his state...which I find comical.)  Stevens is proof that no one in there mid-80s should be government officials.  They deserve the retirement anyway.  I'm not saying that they were bad senators (or that they were good) but c'mon, no one should be in the U.S. Senate at that age.  They had their time to pursue their agenda and it is time to let some younger people take over.  So I am happy and sad that Ted Stevens lost his seat.  Someone younger and less corrupt is good but excesive power to either party is bad.

A Couple Sports Thoughts

Thinking about the most successful men's college basketball teams in history, the best seem to wear blue jerseys.  Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, and UCLA.  I wonder why the most successful programs all wear blue.  It there something to it?  It does seem appropriate, as blue gives off an air of success, aristocracy, and confidence.  I wonder what the most popular color in the world is.  What percentage of people say each color is there favorite.  Anyway, I am excited that the Purdue men's squad will again be very good.  I miss there strong teams of 8-10 years ago, with the likes of Brian Cardinal and Carson Cunningham.  And of course the coaching of Gene Keady.  I do not care about the end of the Steelers-Chargers game last week and I don't know what the controversy is or why anybody cares.  The last play didn't determine the outcome of the game, why is everyone getting their pants in a bunch?

Lieberman Keeps Chairmanship

I see Senator Joe Lieberman will retain his role as chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, thanks to Barack Obama.  Many Democrat leaders, like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, were attempted to oust him out of the position because they were angry he supported John McCain.  They were putting themselves and their party first, ahead of their country.  I am glad Obama took the high ground; he should be looked up to for putting any hard feelings behind him. Other Democratic leaders should take note if this and act more maturely.  There are too many challenges to worry about right now to care about such petty, childish things as revenge.  Perhaps Barack Obama has learned this.  Hopefully, this is a sign of things to come, with Obama taking on the leaders of his party who have led the most unpopular, unaccomplished congress ever the last two years.  

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Unity and Support?

Democrats are now telling me that I should support the next president.  Democrats are telling me that I should put past differences aside.  Democrats are saying I should respect him and embrace him.  Democrats are telling Republicans that the country now needs to united around Barack Obama.  This after the Democrats:

Called the president a warmonger when they disagreed with them.
Called the president a war criminal when they disagreed with him.
Called the president a racist when they disagreed with him.
Called the president mentally challenged when they disagreed with him.
Called the president an idiot and/or stupid when they disagreed with him.
Said the president only cared about the rich when they disagreed with him.
Said the president "wasn't their president" when they disagreed with him.
Called Condi Rice and Colin Powell "Uncle Tom's" for serving with the president.

And now the Democrats want me to suddenly support Obama and be respectful?

I will, and already do, support Obama.  I did the instant he was elected.  He is now my president.  I will honor his authority and disagree with him respectfully.  I hope the country is united and does support Barack Obama.  But not because the Democrats are telling me to. Because I am not a partisan.  Because I am an American.  Because I do not want to stoop to the same low level the Democrats did.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Dems VP Selection

I'm not a big fan of Joe Biden.  There were several candidates who I thought would be terrific candidates for Obama VP, and he didn't select any of them.  Biden clearly hurt the ticket.  Here were my choices.

1. Janet Napolitano:  I'm sorry, this would have been a genius pick and I thought of it in January.  A very, very popular and accomplished governor, from Arizona, Obama supporter, female, Washington "outsider".  What is not to like about any of those things?  Could have taken on McCain in his own state, gotten women and Hillary voters, and looked like someone who isn't from inside the beltway.  Of course she could have also offset Palin if the Republicans would have still picked her. It would have been a PERFECT pick.

2. Bill Richardson: Would have helped out with a swing state, New Mexico, would help out with experience and foreign policy, as a former ambassador, energy, as former energy secretary,  would help out with Latinos, and extremely popular, and a big Obama supporter.  Would have also been an excellent choice.

3. Evan Bayh: Young, moderate, very likable, and from a state that could have been important from Obama, Indiana.  Big Obama supporter.

4. Bob Casey, Jr.: Very popular, young, moderate senator from maybe the most important state in the election, Pennslyvania.  Big Obama supporter.  

I would have picked any of these people before Biden.  They would have all been a tremendous asset to the ticket.   Especially Janet Napolitano.  

Future Leaders of The Republican Party

Some of the people who could be key Republican players in the future:

1. Bobby Jindal
2. Eric Cantor
3. Jon Huntsman, Jr.
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Jeff Flake
6. Sarah Palin
7. Matt Blunt
8. Mitt Romney
9.Rob Portman
10. Mike Turner
11. Adam Putnam
12. Tim Pawlenty
13. Paul Ryan
14. mark Sanford

"Joe the Plumber"-hmmn he's says he might run for Congress in 2010.