11 posts tagged “america”

Dear America,
I don't claim to be an expert in economics, but I'm certainly impressed by the generic understanding of supply and demand that you have exhibited as you've watched the gas prices rise over the last couple years.  According to the Federal Highway Administration, you are driving less these days - presumably because you're fed up with paying high prices for gas.  Given this reality, it's likely that this has led to more stability when it comes to the price of crude oil on the market.  This, I assume, has contributed to the gradually dropping prices that we are paying at the pump.

The joy of a (relatively) free economy, like the one you are currently a part of, is that the consumer always has the final say in whether the economy fails or succeeds.  If you don't like the price of something, you simply stop purchasing it or, in this case, limit your purchasing.  This will force the producers to limit the prices that they apply to their products and, ultimately, both parties will benefit from a competitive market in which reasonable prices for quality products becomes the standard.

However, this slight deviation from your normal ignorance of the inner workings of our economy appears to have faltered in the realm of politics.

Currently, John McCain is desperately pushing his plan to expand drilling for oil off of the American coastlines.  Inherently, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a potential future where we produce more of our gasoline locally.  That, though, won't do much to alter gas prices - especially in the near future.  According to just about everyone who seems to understand the gasoline-production process, any expansion in our local drilling would take several years to impact us directly, if at all.  McCain's attempt to impress you with his deep understanding of your day-to-day struggle to fill up your gas tank at a reasonable price is certainly an attempt to pander to you for your vote.  Please don't encourage this sort of thing, as you appear to know better than that - remember, supply and demand is the name of the game.

McCain, though, isn't the only politician trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  His opponent, Barack Obama, is now pushing his plan to institute something called a 'windfall profits' tax on the oil companies.  Now, being the good economists that you've demonstrated yourselves to be, you obviously know the difference between regular 'profits' and something called a 'profit margin.'  You are also aware, of course, of the fact that the profit margins for our major oil companies remains at a steady 8% - 10% rate.

This means that our oil companies, who are the only producers available to us for gasoline, would be staring down the barrel of a serious cut into that significantly light profit margin rate in order to pay for Obama's attempt to pander to you.

Now, I'm not trying to tell you who you should vote for because, frankly, I'm not impressed with either plan.  But I did want to address the fact that you are apparently aware (or should be) that the best way to deal with high gas prices is through limiting your use of it.  Congratulations.  Perhaps soon you'll come around to the fact that income taxes are the ultimate in modern techniques of federal enslavement.

Best of luck in November,
W.

As per the only request garnered from all three of my readers out there, I'm going to be analyzing Ron Paul as a potential candidate for my vote during the 2008 election.  If anyone out there that thinks this guy deserves my vote, please feel free to comment on it and fill in any gaps you may find with what you read below.
And, as always, you are more than welcome to comment with your suggestion on who I should consider next.

First, an interesting fact about Ron Paul: he refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans to pay for their college tuition, nor does he currently accept his congressional pension plan, as both of these are taxpayer-funded.
Now that is someone who sticks to their principles.

As pointed out in my post yesterday, the three main issues that will lend true credibility to the next president of the United States of America are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

Anyone who is willing to turn down student loans for their children, let alone a congressional pension plan, based on the burden that the taxpayers of America face is more than likely to fit the bill on the third item on that list.

One of the problems with our ever-expanding federal government is the fact that it is spending us into the poorhouse.  Most politicians cite this as something that needs to be immediately addressed - but rarely do you hear any of them speak as frankly on this matter as Paul appears to.  "When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans."  How, then, are we supposed to make up for the money that we're spending if we can't tax it, print it, or borrow it?  Cut out the spending, of course.  "We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all."
Amen, brother!

If the 2008 election was only about reversing our current trend of growing our government to massive proportions, Ron Paul would have earned this vote in just two quotes.  Unfortunately for him, that's just not the case.

In the past, Ron Paul has stated that he would withdraw our military from Iraq (indeed, from everywhere) as quickly as possible, were he to be elected.  This, of course, only jives with those Americans out there who share his overwhelmingly non-interventionist perspective on foreign policy.  However, leaving Iraq completely isn't going to change the status quo.  In fact, it will lead to further problems.

Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased" withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits, and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly: "An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy will undoubtedly follow America home.

I've pointed it out previously, as well - we can't just pack up and go home.  We need to see this thing through whether it was the best choice in the first place or not.  On this, the second most important issue facing the next President, Ron Paul most certainly fails to face the music.

The single most important issue facing our next elected leader, however, is going to be Illegal Immigration.  Whether the American public, our representatives in the legislative branch, or our bordering nations want to recognize it or not, illegal immigration is threatening the very infrastructure upon which America currently rests.  And what is Ron Paul planning to do about it?  "I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us."  Again, Ron Paul takes the cake on this issue.

(Update 1/14/08: I don't know why I didn't do this originally, but I think that I should probably consider the controversies attached to candidates as well as their stands on important issues.  The following paragraph has been added to fill that gap.)

Two out of three really isn't that bad when it comes to the political atmosphere that America has thrust itself into.  However, if a politician doesn't have any controversies dragging their name through the mud, then they really aren't a politician, are they?  Ron Paul is no different.  As mentioned by Urban Lenny in a comment to this post, Paul has a series of political newsletters that posed something of a problem for him back in the 90s.  Written under his name with no bylines provided, these editorials were curious insofar as they were written in the first person - leaving one to assume that they had been published under Paul's watchful eye.  James Kirchick over at The New Republic, a publication that I don't normally pay much attention to, did an extensive review of the content of these letters:

In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration..."
Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little..."

I would encourage you to take a look at the article.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Kirchick piece, but, unlike Paul and his newsletters, it wasn't originally published under my name.

Now, I haven't really delved too deep into other issues that are less damaging to America as a whole, but from what I gather, I don't have much to disagree with the guy about.  Really, I'd love to hand him my vote, but my apprehension over how he is likely to endanger millions and millions of people following a massive pull-out from Iraq is something truly striking to consider.  Beyond that, the guy doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  If he runs, he'll have to run as either a third party contender or an independent.  Historically speaking, neither of these options will give him any feasible chance at taking the Presidency.  However, if he does choose to run in that capacity, I believe that he certainly could put a Ross Perot shaped dent into the electorate.  I just happen to think that the majority of those votes would be likely Democratic voters, not Republicans.

Ultimately, Ron Paul fails to capture my imagination, despite his principled and logical stands on most of the issues that will define the upcoming presidency.  Too bad.

As New Hampshire ends its primary election counts this evening, I remain completely uncertain about who I'm going to end up supporting in the 2008 election.  Call me indecisive, but the whole lot of the current candidates don't strike me as anything special.  Nor do they inspire me to much more than a general fear about the future of American politics and policy.

To that end, I think I'm going to start analyzing those that I see as the main candidates facing party nominations on a one-by-one basis until I can come up with some kind of decision.  Lucky for me, I don't think that the nominations are going to be that clear until after the February 5th 'Super Tuesday' election coming up.  That seems like plenty of time to start weeding out the politicians that I don't like.

First, a brief introduction to the three most important issues facing America, in this order:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government
   

Illegal immigration gets the top-spot in the list because it poses a threat to America on just about ever level - education, the deficit, taxes, security, the penal system, etc.  I don't have anything against hispanic people or hispanic culture, either.  My problem is mostly with employers who are willing exploit anyone and anything as a means to an ends in their profit margin.  My problem is burdening my children and their children with the responsibility of making right the poverty of our neighboring countries.  If it's not put to a stop, this slow slide that America is seeing is only going to get worse.  And fast.

Then there's the War in Iraq (and the War on Terror, as a whole).  Whether you like it or not, we're in Iraq right now.  Pulling out all of our troops tomorrow doesn't do anyone any good, and just about everyone in their right mind knows it.  So what to do about it?  Start setting deadlines on the Iraqi government when it comes to American financial support and slowly start settling in as a long-term military force.  If the Iraqi government fails to meet their deadlines, the money may dry up, but we need to remain there.  Let the country go to hell on its own if they can't lead themselves, but an American military presence there, acting as a deterrent for potential Husseins in the future, is essential.  End of story.

Originally, I thought about including civil liberties and whatnot into the third portion of the list, but then settled on shrinking the federal government, instead.  The reason for this is because all of the people running around and screaming about their precious civil liberties don't seem to realize that the slow constriction of civil liberties is inevitable when you have trained your government to grow at an exceptional rate.  A government that's been handed control over things like retirement planning and health care likely won't see a reason why it shouldn't begin meddling in how/when you get on a plane to fly.  The American public has been conditioning our government to spend more and more money while taking over more and more control for far too long.  It's time that we started to shrink the beast down to a more manageable size.

So, there you have it - the three most important topics up for grabs when it comes to my selection for president.  It's not that I don't care about things like abortion and gay rights, but these three things are obviously far more important.  If you disagree with me, please, feel free to post some commentary.

In the meantime, I'm going to be trying out my first candidate tomorrow.  Any suggestions as to whom I should be looking into first will be gladly considered.

When Cindy Sheehan announced that she was quitting her position as the 'face' of the anti-war movement in America, I predicted that she wouldn't be able to survive more than six months without trying to make headlines again.
And it appears that my prediction was about four and half months too optimistic.

Sheehan is now back in the news, claiming that she plans to run against Nancy Pelosi unless the Speaker of the House draws up articles of impeachment against Bush within the next two weeks.  Amazingly, she actually thinks that she'd be able to give Pelosi a 'run for her money.'  I guess Sheehan's gradually shrinking group of supporters has finally been narrowed down to the true believers who, in turn, are just propping up her weird fantasy of changing the course of American foreign policy based on ineffective protesting and poorly-written speeches and books.

Oh, Cindy, you one-trick pony, you.

Happy Independence Day, folks.

Before you head out to grill your steak and light your backyard on fire with those cheap chinese rip-off fireworks, take a moment to stop by the Fightin' 6th Marines Vox and read this entry.  Whether you like it or not, the only thing standing between your mid-week holiday celebrations and the threat of tyranny are our men and women in uniform overseas.  Do yourself a favor and try to remember their sacrifices before you set about grilling up the perfect hamburger or hot dog.

Ok, now you can get back to your drunken revelry.

In other news, yesterday I stumbled upon what is quite possibly the stupidest quote that I've read in the last couple years (emphasis added):

"Selling illegal papers to immigrants so we can work, basically. That’s all we buy them for, is to work,” said Little Village resident Luz Nolasco. “But apparently that’s against the law and God forbid we help America!"

It's a quote from someone who was obviously upset over the recent immigration raid in Chicago.
And apparently the the term 'illegal' shouldn't apply to anyone who feels morally superior about their position in life.

Another problem I have with this article is the mention of the local police not being notified of the raid taking place.  Who cares?  Police forces across the country have been ranting for years about how immigration law is not their responsibility, and that it is a federal issue.  So why the sudden surprise that the feds don't want to let the local police in on the fact that they'll be making a raid?
Just like our outspoken village-idiot pal, Luz Nolasco, it looks like the local authorities not only want their cake, but they want to eat it too.

Given, I understand the local community being upset about the excessive show of force in the raids.  This was an obvious attempt on the part of immigration authorities to try and remind the American public of their relevance.  So of course they're going to rush in with their guns drawn.
In all reality, though, these little publicity stunts don't even put a dent into the estimated 12 million illegal aliens in America - so what's the point?

Today's a Tuesday, and that should warrant a 'Tuesdays with Big Brother' post.  Alas, I'm starting to realize that my normal haphazard 'panic and make a post at the last minute' plan hasn't really been working out as well as I'd like it to lately.  That being said, I'm going to put off the TWBB post for the week until tomorrow and start doing some tweaking behind the scenes here in the hopes that I could streamline the process of getting this garbage out of my head and onto the Vox servers in a more efficient fashion.

I'll let you know how it goes later.  In the meantime, check back tomorrow and I'll tell you all about why America is going to hell this week.

I managed to skip out on an official 'Tuesdays With Big Brother' post for the week, but I can't seem to help feeling angry enough about the British hostages in Iran to warrant posting something related to it.  Iran nabbed fifteen British service-members while they were in Iraqi waters, then cited faulty coordinates to justify their abduction, and they are now being treated in pretty much the standard manner for Middle Eastern trophy kidnappings: paraded around, threatened, and coerced on film as a propaganda tool.  Amazingly, I have heard very little complaint about the fact that the Iranian methods are in violation of the Geneva Conventions.  Particularly from those outlets who tend to be so quick to echo any negative sentiment about the American policies regarding our captured terrorist pals.

But I'll stop here, I'm afraid that I'm not in the mood to comment much further.  Fortunately, the people over at Powerline have done a far better job of summing things up than my inarticulate babbling ever could have:

One more thing: these uniformed British servicemen (and woman), unlike captured terrorists, are entitled to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention, which Iran has signed. Pretty much every aspect of their treatment has violated the Convention: a video showing them in captivity has been filmed and played on television, they have been "interrogated," in Iran's own description, and are now being held incommunicado in an undisclosed location. Has anyone noticed any outcry from the "world community" about this? Does the Geneva Convention apply to anyone other than the U.S.?

Iran's been pulling this sort of nonsense for decades.  When are we going to finally get the message?

I guess I could have included this in my post yesterday, but I didn't get around to reading it until today:
Bill Would Mandate Nicer Terms For Illegals

"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."

Well an idiot, to me, is a senator from Florida who wants to waste tax dollars and time passing a bill just because she doesn't comprehend the english definition of the term 'alien.'

And what's with the assumption that she actually has a right to not be offended?  Maybe I'm wrong, but one of the greatest things about America is that you can offend anyone you want - and you can do so with relative impunity.  It's the American dream!

Alright, first of all, I just wanted to say that, while the Mooninites may strike you as threatening, they certainly don't constitute a valid terrorist threat.  Mayor Tom Menino of Boston apparently disagrees with me:

"The individuals who placed these packages should be warned that there is a heavy penalty -- two to five years imprisonment for each one of them. We are not playing around."

And playing around they are not - they shut down half of the city so that they could take down a couple of Lite Brite boards that are wired to display a cartoon character giving you the finger.  Brilliant.  Someone on my radio made the very valid point that only a fool would seriously consider the possibility that Bin Laden might decide to bomb Boston using explosives that give you the finger just before detonating.  It's ludicrous that the officials in Boston, who are responsible for the panicked response, are going to end up blaming (and apparently imprisoning) the originators of this advertising campaign instead of accepting their own role in the matter as instigators of all the theatrics.

Now, onto the real post:
Up until recently, I was using RSS to keep up with general things like personal finance, technology, and inter/national politics.  I thought I'd try my hand, though, at getting in touch with the local community via my hefty collection of feeds.  So, the first thing I did was track down a couple of local blogs, Metroblogging Orange County being one of them.  And, while I disagree with most of the politics that I found in these local posts, I was just happy to start engaging myself in the local goings-ons.  MetrobloggingOC, though, has reminded me again that California is, indeed, a cultural island and is vastly out of touch with the rest of America.

Jon over at MetrobloggingOC, who seems to be a nice enough fellow, posted about his experience at the AMC in Fullerton.  When buying his tickets for whatever film it was that he was there to see, he was handed a flier.  And I wholly understand his distaste for the extreme level of advertising that everyone and their mother seems to do out here, but I don't quite understand his further disapproval over it having been a military-related advertisement:

"When I studied the advertisement I was fairly dismayed to discover it was a flier directing me to purchase merchandise for the armed forces at their official government web site. I am not really sure why, but this severely rubbed me the wrong way. Why was the Fullerton AMC allowing the military to try and recruit me?"

Frankly, I'm not sure why it rubbed him the wrong way, either.  Is it not true that the American military is a massively necessary instrument in foreign policy these days?  Is it not true that, without the American military, it's likely that the Fullerton AMC theatre might not even be open for business?  And what equates advertising merchandise to recruiting, exactly?
Even if it does equate to a recruiting effort, what's wrong with that?

Unfortunately, Jon doesn't go into detail in  his post about any of these subjects.  Instead, you are left with the impression that he foolishly believes that the military industrial complex in America is an unnecessary evil.  Chalk another one up to the crazies on the west coast.