I will not pretend to be an expert on the history or conflict in the Mideast, where it concerns Israel and the surrounding (and, some would say, displaced) Arab peoples. In fact, I won't do a lick of research for this post; I'll go on instinct. Instinct has, of course, more often than I'd like to admit, gotten me into trouble before. But I'm not stubborn enough to fight when I know I don't hold a club or argue when I don't know all the facts. I'd rather learn and shape my opinions further, so that I might come back another day, more informed.
Here is my instinctive reaction to the most recent round of hot conflict between Israel and one of the many Palestinian-rooted organizations hell-bent on destroying it, Hamas. Supporters of Hamas, indeed political heads of the group, and even non-participatory nations and political parties, have spoken out against the Israeli response to Hamas' firing of rockets into the Jewish state. They say that Israel's response has been disproportionately harsh. They point to the hundreds of "Palestinians" (quotes used because there is no formal state of "Palestine") that have been killed or wounded and compare it to the dozens of Israelis. They compare the tempo and fierceness of Israeli airstrikes against targets within the Gaza Strip to the onesy-twosy single rocket lobs of Hamas fighters into Israeli civilian areas. They try to compare apples to apples and argue that Israel is being a big bully and only making the situation worse.
Excuse me, but how did this all get off the ground anyway? Who fired the first shot? Wasn't it Hamas? Who is intentionally targeting civialians? Who is firing from positions within civilian centers? After this latest breach of cease-fire by Hamas, Israel has declared all-out war against the terrorist group. In all-out war, there is no apples-to-apples; there is no tit-for-tat; there is no concept of disproportionality. Each side does their absolute best (or worst, in the case of war) to destroy the other.
I agree that Hamas is to blame for any civilian casualities that the people of the Gaza Strip endure. Those deaths would not have occurred if Hamas did not instigate with their first rocket attack. Arab anger should be levelled at Hamas. The blood is on their hands.
I also believe that this is the first test for incoming American president, Barack Obama. Hamas wants to see where his sympathies lie. Is it with the Jews, whose vote he pandered for during his historic campaign? Or is it with the Arabs, as many speculate, based solely on his middle name (which shall not be uttered here!)?
We will find out in a few months. The Mideast conflict will not be settled soon (if ever, if you believe the Biblical take on it). Hamas is pretty much sticking to their modus operandi of aggression, taking "disproportionate" casualties, drawing sympathy from the international community, bringing Israel back to the treaty table, and buying some time to rebuild and regroup. Hamas and their like will never accept a Jewish state in their midst, no matter what platitudes they speak. And so Israel should never accept a functional Hamaz organization, and should continue to do whatever it takes to destroy them.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Chicago factory sit-in: Ire at Bank of America is misdirected
A settlement has been reached between the workers at Republic Windows and Doors, a smallish manufacturer in Chicago, and the management.
If you're not up on all the details, the story began a little over a week ago when Bank of America, the main creditor for Republic, pulled its client's line of credit as it became clear that business was way down and the prospects that the company would be able to repay its debt became doubtful.
No credit, no money to pay the workers. Layoffs ensued as the factory was shut down.
The workers did not take this unfortunate development in stride; they staged a week-long sit-in at the factory, refusing to leave until they were paid their due severance and accrued time off.
Now I don't know the legality of their sit-in, or their demands. I don't know what Federal laws the workers claim were violated when their lay off came with only 3 days' notice. That's not what this is about.
What I do know is that the bulk of the workers' anger, and that of their surrogates (Jesse Jackson, Governor "Hot" Rod Blagojevich, and President-Elect Barack Obama among them) has been directed at Bank of America for cutting off the credit.
The instinctive sentiment is this: Bank of America is part of the banking community that just received a collective total of $350 billion in "bailout" money as part of the government's TARP program. How dare they freeze the credit on this business. Bad big business. Evil corporation. Greedy bankers.
While these emotions are certainly understandable (we are all human, after all), they are not justified. If all those railing against BoA stopped being driven by base instinct and gave some logical thought to the problem, they would understand that it is Republic, the employer, who is at fault here, not BoA.
So let's think this through:
(1) Why did BoA pull the credit? Because in its own business analysis of risk versus return, it determined that keeping the line of credit open did not make good business sense. Weren't banks just reamed by Congress for making thousands of bad loans over the past several years?
(2) If business at Republic was so bad that BoA felt compelled to close off the credit, the management at Republic must have had some sense of impending doom. Why did they not plan for paying the workers? Why did they not use the remaining cash on hand to fulfill any obligations for severance pay or other due compensation? It seems that it was a mismanagement of available cash that is the real culprit here.
(3) As of several hours ago, a settlement was reached and a collective loan of $1.75 million will be made by BoA and JP Morgan chase to pay the severance costs of the unemployed workers. Hello! The factory is shut down. No product is being manufactured; no sales are being made. What is the chance that this loan will be repaid?
Once again, government has stepped in and pressured banks to make loans with very little chance of being honored. Sound familiar? Congratulations. You, the taxpayer, have just paid the severance for these unfortunate workers. Another step closer...
If you're not up on all the details, the story began a little over a week ago when Bank of America, the main creditor for Republic, pulled its client's line of credit as it became clear that business was way down and the prospects that the company would be able to repay its debt became doubtful.
No credit, no money to pay the workers. Layoffs ensued as the factory was shut down.
The workers did not take this unfortunate development in stride; they staged a week-long sit-in at the factory, refusing to leave until they were paid their due severance and accrued time off.
Now I don't know the legality of their sit-in, or their demands. I don't know what Federal laws the workers claim were violated when their lay off came with only 3 days' notice. That's not what this is about.
What I do know is that the bulk of the workers' anger, and that of their surrogates (Jesse Jackson, Governor "Hot" Rod Blagojevich, and President-Elect Barack Obama among them) has been directed at Bank of America for cutting off the credit.
The instinctive sentiment is this: Bank of America is part of the banking community that just received a collective total of $350 billion in "bailout" money as part of the government's TARP program. How dare they freeze the credit on this business. Bad big business. Evil corporation. Greedy bankers.
While these emotions are certainly understandable (we are all human, after all), they are not justified. If all those railing against BoA stopped being driven by base instinct and gave some logical thought to the problem, they would understand that it is Republic, the employer, who is at fault here, not BoA.
So let's think this through:
(1) Why did BoA pull the credit? Because in its own business analysis of risk versus return, it determined that keeping the line of credit open did not make good business sense. Weren't banks just reamed by Congress for making thousands of bad loans over the past several years?
(2) If business at Republic was so bad that BoA felt compelled to close off the credit, the management at Republic must have had some sense of impending doom. Why did they not plan for paying the workers? Why did they not use the remaining cash on hand to fulfill any obligations for severance pay or other due compensation? It seems that it was a mismanagement of available cash that is the real culprit here.
(3) As of several hours ago, a settlement was reached and a collective loan of $1.75 million will be made by BoA and JP Morgan chase to pay the severance costs of the unemployed workers. Hello! The factory is shut down. No product is being manufactured; no sales are being made. What is the chance that this loan will be repaid?
Once again, government has stepped in and pressured banks to make loans with very little chance of being honored. Sound familiar? Congratulations. You, the taxpayer, have just paid the severance for these unfortunate workers. Another step closer...
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Road trip! GM CEO drives himself to Washington
A couple weeks ago, America was in a twitter over the gall the Big 3 automaker executives had in taking private jets from Detroit to Washington D.C. to ask for funds to save their faltering companies.
Yesterday, they were back in D.C. to re-state their cases for taxpayer loans. This time, though, they didn't risk more patronizing at the hands of the media or Congress; this time, they drove.
The fracas raised by the media and Congress was aimed at the populist trends in today's America; the same populist trends that helped make Obama the president-elect. These trends pattern themselves in the vogue disdain for big and successful corporations, resentment of successful individuals, or pretty much any entity that has raised itself to a position of financial prominence.
One columnist talks about "plain, hard-working Americans who will never even see the inside of a private jet" as she lambasts the three CEOs for their crime of flying in such a reliable...er, I mean...private manner.
But, really, let's ignore all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth for a moment and look at this from a logical perspective. (Can we? Is that possible?)
I think Time scribe Bill Saporito brings such a healthy view to this matter in his article "Why the Big Three Should Fly Corporate Jets."
Consider just what a pain in the ass it is for you to go to fly home to see your relatives. If you are flying commercial nowadays, most airports will advise you to arrive at the airport 60-90 minutes ahead of your scheduled departure time. That's not beam-me-up-Scotty-then-plop-down-and-do-some-work time. That's driving there, mastering airport traffic, finding parking or getting dropped off, checking in, standing in the security line, standing in the security line, more standing in the security line, taking off your shoes, removing your laptop from your bag, taking off your jacket, putting your loose change and/or metallic items in the little composite bowl, getting the random pat-down, gathering your phone/keys/change, putting the laptop back in the bag, putting your shoes back on, leaving security, checking the departures list only to see your flight is 25 minutes late because there was a storm 1500 miles away in Texas, walking the mile-plus to your gate, boarding, boarding, boarding, (did I mention boarding?), taxiing, waiting in the long line of other poor souls for the blessing of the control tower so that you can finally take off and be on your way to your destination.
Time is money. I heard a successful businessman say that he doesn't mow his own lawn anymore. Why? Because then he'd become a $15/hour laborer for the time that he's mowing his lawn.
Are the Big Three CEOs successful businessmen? Well, some would argue no, but they are at least successful to the point that they have worked their ways up to become the heads of multi-billion-dollar companies that have managed, somehow, to stay afloat over the past decades even while being consumed from within by their own labor force and working against uneven trade policies. They have managed to work themselves into these positions where they are paid millions each year for their wisdom, experience and business acumen.
How much is their time worth? How much does it cost GM while Wagoner is taking off his shoes for the TSA to inspect for explosives?
Worse, how much does it cost GM when their head honcho takes 10 hours to drive a car instead of flying (just being in the car, let alone driving himself)?
And all this flak coming from the same Congressmen and women who have been operating their own business at a net loss for the past several decades.
Talk about disgraceful.
Yesterday, they were back in D.C. to re-state their cases for taxpayer loans. This time, though, they didn't risk more patronizing at the hands of the media or Congress; this time, they drove.
The fracas raised by the media and Congress was aimed at the populist trends in today's America; the same populist trends that helped make Obama the president-elect. These trends pattern themselves in the vogue disdain for big and successful corporations, resentment of successful individuals, or pretty much any entity that has raised itself to a position of financial prominence.
One columnist talks about "plain, hard-working Americans who will never even see the inside of a private jet" as she lambasts the three CEOs for their crime of flying in such a reliable...er, I mean...private manner.
But, really, let's ignore all the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth for a moment and look at this from a logical perspective. (Can we? Is that possible?)
I think Time scribe Bill Saporito brings such a healthy view to this matter in his article "Why the Big Three Should Fly Corporate Jets."
Consider just what a pain in the ass it is for you to go to fly home to see your relatives. If you are flying commercial nowadays, most airports will advise you to arrive at the airport 60-90 minutes ahead of your scheduled departure time. That's not beam-me-up-Scotty-then-plop-down-and-do-some-work time. That's driving there, mastering airport traffic, finding parking or getting dropped off, checking in, standing in the security line, standing in the security line, more standing in the security line, taking off your shoes, removing your laptop from your bag, taking off your jacket, putting your loose change and/or metallic items in the little composite bowl, getting the random pat-down, gathering your phone/keys/change, putting the laptop back in the bag, putting your shoes back on, leaving security, checking the departures list only to see your flight is 25 minutes late because there was a storm 1500 miles away in Texas, walking the mile-plus to your gate, boarding, boarding, boarding, (did I mention boarding?), taxiing, waiting in the long line of other poor souls for the blessing of the control tower so that you can finally take off and be on your way to your destination.
Time is money. I heard a successful businessman say that he doesn't mow his own lawn anymore. Why? Because then he'd become a $15/hour laborer for the time that he's mowing his lawn.
Are the Big Three CEOs successful businessmen? Well, some would argue no, but they are at least successful to the point that they have worked their ways up to become the heads of multi-billion-dollar companies that have managed, somehow, to stay afloat over the past decades even while being consumed from within by their own labor force and working against uneven trade policies. They have managed to work themselves into these positions where they are paid millions each year for their wisdom, experience and business acumen.
How much is their time worth? How much does it cost GM while Wagoner is taking off his shoes for the TSA to inspect for explosives?
Worse, how much does it cost GM when their head honcho takes 10 hours to drive a car instead of flying (just being in the car, let alone driving himself)?
And all this flak coming from the same Congressmen and women who have been operating their own business at a net loss for the past several decades.
Talk about disgraceful.
Monday, December 1, 2008
(Tax) Holiday anyone?
Consider these statistics:
So what does any of this have to do with holidays? Beside making one feel like taking a long and sunny one, free from the cares of the world, it refers to a unique idea put forth by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Mr. Gohmert has proposed a two-month income tax holiday for American families.
Gohmert has noticed, as have many others that, while $350 billion of the original $700 billion economic stimulus package (Troubled Asset Relief Program--TARP) has already been doled out to ailing financial institutions, the original problem is still present.
The TARP legislation was supposed to free up credit and get the stuck wheels of our debt-based economy moving again by taking bad loans off the books of large banks. With no more bad debt weighing down their balance sheets, these banks could feel better about making loans to needy businesses again.
Unfortunately, that has not happened. Credit is not flowing. Banks that have received support have either held onto it to mend their own fiscal situations, or used it to purchase other banks either to position themselves to benefit in an upturn or to hedge against their ailing portfolios.
So here we are with $350 billion left, having already spent the same with little to show for it in terms of an economic quickening. Should we stay the course and send the remaining billions to the financial institutions? It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result.
Why not try something new? We've pumped $350 billion into these private, for-profit institutions. Why not pump the rest directly back into the economy, via the American taxpayer?
Would you not welcome a two month holiday from paying income taxes? For the average taxpayer, that would equate to about $2000 in their pockets over the January-February timeframe. Could you use $2000, tax free?
What would it cost the government? $350 billion is a drop in the bucket compared with what they've spent already. Plus, it's already been appropriated.
What would the gains be? Legion. Two months without having to pay income taxes would, among other things:
If you like the idea of a tax holiday for yourself, I encourage you to contact your Congressman or Congresswoman and ask them to take a considerate look at Mr. Gohmert's idea.
- If you are an average American, you will work roughly 4 months in 2009 just to meet your federal, state and local taxation obligations for this next year. If you work a 9-to-5 job, it will be noonish before you start putting money in your pocket for today's work.
- The federal government has already guaranteed $8.4 trillion in support to prevent major American companies and institutions (and the economy) from collapsing. That's $8,400,000,000,000. That's over $27,000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
- The $8.4 trillion already guaranteed does not include the stimulus package that Obama is rumored to be concocting, along with (now-)fellow Congressmen and women. Estimates put this stimulus package in the neighborhood of $500-700 billion.
- It is likely that the federal deficit will approach $1 trillion in fiscal 2009, nearly doubling its current levels.
So what does any of this have to do with holidays? Beside making one feel like taking a long and sunny one, free from the cares of the world, it refers to a unique idea put forth by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Mr. Gohmert has proposed a two-month income tax holiday for American families.
Gohmert has noticed, as have many others that, while $350 billion of the original $700 billion economic stimulus package (Troubled Asset Relief Program--TARP) has already been doled out to ailing financial institutions, the original problem is still present.
The TARP legislation was supposed to free up credit and get the stuck wheels of our debt-based economy moving again by taking bad loans off the books of large banks. With no more bad debt weighing down their balance sheets, these banks could feel better about making loans to needy businesses again.
Unfortunately, that has not happened. Credit is not flowing. Banks that have received support have either held onto it to mend their own fiscal situations, or used it to purchase other banks either to position themselves to benefit in an upturn or to hedge against their ailing portfolios.
So here we are with $350 billion left, having already spent the same with little to show for it in terms of an economic quickening. Should we stay the course and send the remaining billions to the financial institutions? It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result.
Why not try something new? We've pumped $350 billion into these private, for-profit institutions. Why not pump the rest directly back into the economy, via the American taxpayer?
Would you not welcome a two month holiday from paying income taxes? For the average taxpayer, that would equate to about $2000 in their pockets over the January-February timeframe. Could you use $2000, tax free?
What would it cost the government? $350 billion is a drop in the bucket compared with what they've spent already. Plus, it's already been appropriated.
What would the gains be? Legion. Two months without having to pay income taxes would, among other things:
- Alleviate much of the paycheck-to-paycheck burden for those families that are feeling a pinch right now.
- Convince people to open up their wallets for this holiday spending season (if the promise of such a move is communicated quickly enough).
- Allow people who are on the borderline to catch up on a few of those delinquent bills and get the collectors off their backs.
- Allow people that are on more solid ground to commit to that big-ticket purchase, or return to dining out, or continue whatever spending habits they have put on hold.
- Allow people to put some money into savings, which will help to steady the teetering banks who desperately need something in the asset column.
- Allow people to put money into the stock market and position themselves for a long-term gain (despite what anti-free marketeers are trying to scare you with, the stock market will return to higher ground, as it always has).
If you like the idea of a tax holiday for yourself, I encourage you to contact your Congressman or Congresswoman and ask them to take a considerate look at Mr. Gohmert's idea.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
My Review of Moose Creek Thermal Sweatshirt - Hooded (For Men)
Originally submitted at Sierra Trading Post
Closeouts . From Moose Creek, this hooded thermal sweatshirt gives extra warmth for whatever you're doing in cold weather. Waffle weave lining holds body heat. Handwarmer pockets Full front zip Drawstring hood Length: 27" 65% cotton, 35% polyester Lining is 65% cotton, 35% polyester...
Great winter sweatshirt for the money
By Scott from Raleigh, NC on 11/30/2008
Chest Size: Feels true to size
Length: Feels true to length
Sleeve Length: Feels true to length
Pros: Warm, Comfortable, High Quality
Best Uses: Everyday, Office
Describe Yourself: Comfort-oriented, Practical
Even before opening the package, you know this sweatshirt is quality; it is HEAVY, and that is a good thing. This is hands-down the best sweatshirt I have owned. The lining keeps me warm whether I'm hanging around my house, at work, or running a few quick errands in the 50-degree outdoors. The weight helps it drape well and not bunch up around my waist. The cuffs on the sleeves are nice and snug, keeping the wind from creeping in. The only less-than-perfect thing about this sweatshirt is the mediocre zipper. A nice YKK would be better, as this one requires a bit of finesse to close it up without a minor jam. Would order another of these in a heartbeat.
(legalese)
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Post-Election 2008: Some thoughts
I have not posted since the election. Up until that point, it seemed like one every 2-3 days (probably just seemed like it though). It's not easy putting this together. One of the reasons I'm doing this is so that I can become more practiced at expressing myself coherently and concisely. (I can already express myself, but it's usually just a long string of grunts and other sounds...neither coherent nor concise.)
I felt like I put a good amount of effort into my last several posts. As D-Day grew nearer, I found that my passions became more clear and the need to get them down was more compulsive. Alas, it didn't go my way. But I will press on...Unless President Obama surprises the hell out of me and ends up being the polar opposite of who I think he is, I will continue to fight the good fight and defend my country and her constitution in the way that I best know how.
But that is for later. First, some thoughts on the election:
(1) America elected a black man as president for the first time in its history. This cannot be minimized; this is a truly monumental occasion, and should be celebrated. I was not even born when the Civil Rights movement was in full swing and MLK Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech or wrote his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," both of which I have read numerous times. But that was still only about 40 odd years ago. Blacks went from simply winning the right to vote to seating an American president in two short generations. Amazing.
(2) As amazing as it is, though, now that Obama is in office, the media should abandon its love affair with him and get on about treating him like any other president. Signs of that happening are scant, though. Chris Matthews of "Hardball" declared that he views it as his job to "do everything I can to make this [presidency] work...to make it succeed." Yes, the same Chris Matthews who "felt this thrill going up [his] leg" when Obama spoke.
Also you can read of MSNBC is producing a commemorative DVD called "Yes We Can! The Barack Obama Story." And, not to be outsold, ABC news is hawking their own "America Speaks: The Historic 2008 Election" book and DVD set, with Barack Obama livin' large on the cover.
(3) The rest of America should abandon their love affair with Obama, or at least suspend it until the guy actually takes office and does something! I mean, for the love of Pete, look at what is going on out there, a full 2 months before Inauguration Day:
(4) For whatever reason, those who voted for Obama feel the need to implore everyone else who didn't vote for Obama to now come together in unified support for our 44th president. Unified support? I guess like the unified support that they gave our 43rd president? Yeah right. Kumbaya.
(5) As I said in the beginning, I will wait and see what my president does. As someone who believes in the genius and strength of our minimalist Constitution, reserving true power for the people in order to keep the elected (and temporary) powers in check, it troubles me when Obama calls the Constitution "lacking" or suggests that it needs to change in order to meet the needs of our modern society. I will give him a chance, and I hope that I am surprised. But if he goes after my basic rights as an American, I will speak out against him, just as his supporters spoke out against Bush when he tried to weaken that document. Hopefully, I can move one or two of you to my side as well.
I felt like I put a good amount of effort into my last several posts. As D-Day grew nearer, I found that my passions became more clear and the need to get them down was more compulsive. Alas, it didn't go my way. But I will press on...Unless President Obama surprises the hell out of me and ends up being the polar opposite of who I think he is, I will continue to fight the good fight and defend my country and her constitution in the way that I best know how.
But that is for later. First, some thoughts on the election:
(1) America elected a black man as president for the first time in its history. This cannot be minimized; this is a truly monumental occasion, and should be celebrated. I was not even born when the Civil Rights movement was in full swing and MLK Jr. gave his famous "I Have a Dream" speech or wrote his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," both of which I have read numerous times. But that was still only about 40 odd years ago. Blacks went from simply winning the right to vote to seating an American president in two short generations. Amazing.
(2) As amazing as it is, though, now that Obama is in office, the media should abandon its love affair with him and get on about treating him like any other president. Signs of that happening are scant, though. Chris Matthews of "Hardball" declared that he views it as his job to "do everything I can to make this [presidency] work...to make it succeed." Yes, the same Chris Matthews who "felt this thrill going up [his] leg" when Obama spoke.
Also you can read of MSNBC is producing a commemorative DVD called "Yes We Can! The Barack Obama Story." And, not to be outsold, ABC news is hawking their own "America Speaks: The Historic 2008 Election" book and DVD set, with Barack Obama livin' large on the cover.
(3) The rest of America should abandon their love affair with Obama, or at least suspend it until the guy actually takes office and does something! I mean, for the love of Pete, look at what is going on out there, a full 2 months before Inauguration Day:
- In Long Island, NY, a student-led movement has succeeded in renaming Ludlum Elementary to Barack Obama Elementary.
- Washington D.C.'s subway system is producing Barack Obama rider passes for the thousands of thousands expected to be on hand for Inauguration Day.
- And Obama himself has just approved the plans for his own Presidential Library, for which they will be breaking ground late next year.
(4) For whatever reason, those who voted for Obama feel the need to implore everyone else who didn't vote for Obama to now come together in unified support for our 44th president. Unified support? I guess like the unified support that they gave our 43rd president? Yeah right. Kumbaya.
(5) As I said in the beginning, I will wait and see what my president does. As someone who believes in the genius and strength of our minimalist Constitution, reserving true power for the people in order to keep the elected (and temporary) powers in check, it troubles me when Obama calls the Constitution "lacking" or suggests that it needs to change in order to meet the needs of our modern society. I will give him a chance, and I hope that I am surprised. But if he goes after my basic rights as an American, I will speak out against him, just as his supporters spoke out against Bush when he tried to weaken that document. Hopefully, I can move one or two of you to my side as well.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Election 2008: My Final Comments
With the election a mere 3 days away, I honestly find myself a bit torn on which way to go. Obviously I have three choices:
Bob Barr (Libertarian): This is how I would vote if it would matter. I agree with the Libertarian platform on just about everything except the legalization of drugs. Of course, if you leave the door open to government control over that, then the door is opened wide again for everything else. But that's a different topic. While Barr is certainly a possibility for me, I won't spend any more space on him here.
John McCain (Republican): I've voted Republican all my life. My parents were both Republicans, so I've pretty much followed suit. I believe I broke rank in 1996 (or was it '92?) and voted for Ross Perot, actually. What's good about McCain?
Bob Barr (Libertarian): This is how I would vote if it would matter. I agree with the Libertarian platform on just about everything except the legalization of drugs. Of course, if you leave the door open to government control over that, then the door is opened wide again for everything else. But that's a different topic. While Barr is certainly a possibility for me, I won't spend any more space on him here.
John McCain (Republican): I've voted Republican all my life. My parents were both Republicans, so I've pretty much followed suit. I believe I broke rank in 1996 (or was it '92?) and voted for Ross Perot, actually. What's good about McCain?
- While the "maverick" moniker has become a bit overused, it is an accurate portrayal of the guy. He has broken suit with his party on a number of things, notably campaign finance reform and immigration reform. I mean, any Republican who can join forces with Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is bound to upset his colleagues on the Right. Yet he did it anyway.
- He most surely has the foreign policy credentials to keep the hostile parts of the world, those who wouldn't mind seeing harm coming to America, on their toes and trigger shy. I think one of the reasons we haven't seen more anti-America attacks in the past 7 years, nor more wars or regional conflicts in which we're involved, is because other leaders think Bush is a wee bit loco. He doesn't listed to the U.N. He doesn't take as gospel the advice coming out of the E.U. nations. He's not afraid to stretch the limits of his Constitutional power to go to war without support from Congress. Other heads of state may see McCain as just as volatile, which may keep them second-guessing any notion they might have to rattle his cage.
- McCain believes, in most cases (see below), in the strength of the Constitution in its current, and intended form. He understands the role of judges. He understands why the Second Amendment is there. He understands that, fundamentally, large government is to be avoided.
- Though he is a "maverick" and breaks from his party on a number of issues, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency to his support, or underlying set of principles that guides his decisions on what to support and what not to support. Take campaign finance reform. To many Conservatives, who believe that the First Amendment allows for the public to exercise their right to speech by proxy through financial support to a given candidate, setting such limits is an abridgement of this free speech. Is he a Constitutionalist or not?
- Sort of an extension of (1), above, McCain seems to fly by the seat of his pants (or following the perceived will of the voters), when it comes to certain ideas. He says he wants smaller government, but he proposed a $300 billion plan for government to "buy out" the underwater mortgages from strained homeowners. There is nothing "small government" about that. If it's difficult to identify a distinct undercurrent that guides someone's beliefs, based on the past, then it'll be difficult to predict what they'll actually do in a given situation.
- Obama is not a career politician. He is not someone who has been in the seat of power for decades. He spent all of three terms in the Illinois State Senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He is still very much a Washington outsider and someone who can potentially bring a lot of fresh ideas to the game. I suppose this is the basis of his "Change" slogan.
- The guy is obviously intelligent and quite articulate. This is a pretty good contrast to Bush, who does come across as a bit of a moron at times. Then again, that contributes greatly to Bush's strength. For being a complete idiot, as many on the Left would conclude, Bush has done a pretty impressive job of thwarting the majority Democratic Congress over the past 2 years. Appearing dumb is disarming, and sets the expectations low. Barack does not appear dumb in any way. Sure, he has his gaffes, just like anyone who speaks publicly every day of the year, but his language and manner is a refreshing change.
- Back to change. Obama recognizes a need for it. He's not the only one, but he sure seems to be sincere about his intentions to bring it about. The current system sucks. It's a good ol' boys club with the people in power looking to do anything they can to stay in power, with money doing all the talking, and where the voice of the true owners of government (you and I) is being ignored more and more every day. Change is needed, and desperately, Obama gets that I think.
- Obama does not believe in limited government. When talking about the $700 billion "bailout" package, and his support of it, he said something to the tune of "of course I don't like giving $700 billion away to these financial institutions. Think of all the things that could be done with $700 billion: better funding for public schools, fixing our national infrastructure, etc." Notice he didn't mention not spending it at all; leaving it in the hands of you and me, the real owners of that money. Asked numerous times in the second two debates which of his proposals he would cut in order to help keep the national debt (and the size of government) in check, he balked; he did not give an answer. That's because he wouldn't cut any of his proposals. He believes that the "rich" in this country (currently that level is defined by him as those making more than $250K/year) can spare enough to support his proposals. He's wrong, especially when the shock of the decreasing tax revenues we can expect in the coming years are coupled with increasing debt service. "Rich" will be a floating term, and will quickly expand to include the middle class.
- Obama has very little real experience in governing. While he is not a career politician, he certainly appears to be a career campaigner. He began his Illinois Senate first term in 1996. He was re-elected to that seat until he moved up to the U.S. Senate in 2005. During this 8 years he spent in the state legislature, Obama ran for the U.S. House of Representatives (2000, he lost) and for the U.S. Senate (2004, he won). Assuming each campaign/election cycle lasts 2 years, Obama spent half his time in the state legislature running for a higher office. He began his bid for President in 1996, less than 2 years after serving in the U.S. Senate. So out of 12 years in office, he will have spent 6-7 years campaigning for a higher office. Ambition or hunger for power? Either way, he has equal experience campaigning as he does actually serving.
- While Obama did not declare that any of his proposed programs would get the axe (or the scalpal, as he likes to say), he did declare his intent to cut spending on the military. Providing for a national defense is the first and foremost responsibility of government. His intention, combined with his lack of foreigh policy experience, would almost certainly invite a challenge to America's power and influence, and threaten our security. Biden was right when he predicted a major challenge to the new Democratic president within the first 6 months of his administration. It happened to Kennedy and it will likely happen to Obama. He does not have the experience to deter such a challenge in the first place, nor does he have the experience to deal with it should it occur.
- A hint of the "fundamental change" that Obama would bring to the country can be gleaned from his ideas on the function of judges on the Supreme Court. During the third debate, when asked who he would appoint to the Supreme Court bench, he said that it would, in essence, be someone who "has compassion for the daily struggles of the common man." That is not the function of the courts, especially at that level. Their function is to interpret the laws passed by the Legislative Branch and weigh them against the allowances of the Constitution. "Compassion" in the courts for a particular class of people is essentially removing the blindfold off of Justice and making decisions based on elements that should not be considered. Further, Obama has stated that he would have liked to see the Warren Court, which presided during the Civil Rights movement in the mid-20th century, be able to do more to affect distributional change. Again, not a function of the courts. If Obama had his vision, he would effectively deconstruct the Constitution in this regard.
- The company he keeps. Obama and his campaign have been as dismissive as possible about his questionable associations throughout his career. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, etc...These are all people that Obama has associated with to a greater or lesser degree as he rose through the ranks of politics and during his formative years. These associations are important. The press certainly thought so, when Obama was campaigning against Hillary. Now that he's the nominated candidate, they are pretty much giving him a free pass on these matters. I happen to believe there's enough evidence to prove that his associations with these people are more than passing and that he needs to answer some very tough questions about them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)