I left the Republican party more than two years ago. Beginning in high school, and through President Bush's first presidential victory, I thought I was a staunch Republican. I thought Conservative and Republican were synonomous. I was a big fan of the 1994 Repuplican Revolution. Newt Gingrich was one of my heros.
I believe in small government, big military protection of our country and national interests, and individual responsibility. I believe in term limits of politicians and no majority rule.
All that Republicans stood for in 1994 has come crashing down. I have become disenfranchised with institutional politics. These politicians have a vested interest in keeping their jobs. Therefore, what do they do? They please their constituents with "free" money. They build federal roads in a 1/2 mile stretch in my small Milwaukie community. They subsidize scientists studying if they can convert pig shit into energy. They give tax breaks to one armed paper hangers. Government is a racket. This is not how it was supposed to be. Our founders established certain protections for us against the government of our own country. They declared that Congress is in power to protect and secure our rights; nothing more.
Today, Congress regularly takes rights away from us. They tell us that we cannot choose our own provider of electricity. They tell us that we must pay largesse so that they can fund their self-interested spending.
And now, Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), has led an effort to eliminate the suggested cuts in the growth of Medicaid, a health care program for the impoverished. This would save approximately $17 billion. These "representatives" have lost their way. It is time to elect more ideologues and less partisans.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Friday, March 18, 2005
Steroids in Baseball
Ok. So using steroids without a prescription is against the law. And transporting illegal drugs across state lines is a federal crime. So why didn't the FBI arrest someone they thought was illegally using drugs?
Probably because doing so wouldn't allow them to grandstand on television.
Probably because doing so wouldn't allow them to grandstand on television.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Mayor Buddy Dyer, Orlando, Florida
Who? You may recall a big flap about Republican operatives trying to prevent blacks from voting in Florida in the 2004 presidential election. Does that ring a bell? If not, Democratic operatives around the country, including Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert of the New York Times, claimed that the Bush administration was employing the FBI to intimidate blacks in Florida (and by proxy, around the country) from voting. This was evicenced by the investigation into some voting practices.
Well on Friday, Mayor Dyer was indicted and arrested, along with several members of his campaign over payments made by the campaing to collect votes. In fact, one of those indicted, Ezzie Thomas (a prominent African American campaign consultant) was paid just over $10,000 to collect approximately 250 ballots and ostensibly take them to a polling places. Not bad for a couple of days work, eh? In fact, he was used in many Democratic campaigns for the same purpose, including a Judge Alan Apte.
Why was he paid so much for so little? Well, Mr. Thomas has been accused by some of telling certain African American voters to vote for the Democrat on the ballot (a violation of federal law), and in some cases, filling out the ballots himself (also, not surprisingly, a violation of federal law). At the time, this was clear evicence of the Bush administration intimidating black voters from going to the polls. Now it seems a clear indication of people like Herbert and Krugman too far on the lunatic fringe. Demand a retractment!
Well on Friday, Mayor Dyer was indicted and arrested, along with several members of his campaign over payments made by the campaing to collect votes. In fact, one of those indicted, Ezzie Thomas (a prominent African American campaign consultant) was paid just over $10,000 to collect approximately 250 ballots and ostensibly take them to a polling places. Not bad for a couple of days work, eh? In fact, he was used in many Democratic campaigns for the same purpose, including a Judge Alan Apte.
Why was he paid so much for so little? Well, Mr. Thomas has been accused by some of telling certain African American voters to vote for the Democrat on the ballot (a violation of federal law), and in some cases, filling out the ballots himself (also, not surprisingly, a violation of federal law). At the time, this was clear evicence of the Bush administration intimidating black voters from going to the polls. Now it seems a clear indication of people like Herbert and Krugman too far on the lunatic fringe. Demand a retractment!
Recent Reading
I haven't written recently about the books I have recently read until now, as they are somewhat contrary in their assessment of terrorism today.
The first book I read was Bernard Lewis', "What Went Wrong," about what has caused Islamic peoples to lose their superiority of culture, education and military over the past millenium. His thesis is essentially that while Europe was embracing modernity, the middle eastern peoples of Messopotamia, Phoenicia, etc. did not. In large part, Lewis says, it was essentially hubris. These peoples did not believe that the European heathens could provide anything worthwhile. By the time the Islamic peoples realized this, Europe's military overpowered the middle eastern peoples. Lewis believes this is critical to understanding Arabs and other Muslims in their behavior today, as some are attempting to reclaim their former glory.
The second book I read was "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim" This was written by Madmood Mamdani. Mamdani is a professor from Columbia University and this book gives a uniquely African perspective. Mamdani argues that the "proxy war principle" of American foreign policy is to blame for today's terrorism. This was the effort by America from the mid 1960's to the late 1980's to launch wars with non-American armies, funded in US dollars. Specifically, Mamdani cites Cambodia, Mozambique, Nicuragua, and Afghanistan. Obviously, the Afghanistan war was the most profound as we funded, trained and implanted the ideology of the mujihadeen we are currently fighting. I found Mamdani's book very interesting and informative, but thought he particularly blamed the Reagan administration more than Nixon, Ford, or Carter. His other main thesis was that the UN sanctions on Iraq was the first instance of a multilateral proxy war on Muslim peoples, causing the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi peoples, over half of whom were children. I believe this last statement goes toward the "success" of the sanctions against Iraq. Human rights organizations around the globe would adamantly disagree this was a success.
Overall, I found both very interesting, contributing to my understanding of the history of this extremism.
The first book I read was Bernard Lewis', "What Went Wrong," about what has caused Islamic peoples to lose their superiority of culture, education and military over the past millenium. His thesis is essentially that while Europe was embracing modernity, the middle eastern peoples of Messopotamia, Phoenicia, etc. did not. In large part, Lewis says, it was essentially hubris. These peoples did not believe that the European heathens could provide anything worthwhile. By the time the Islamic peoples realized this, Europe's military overpowered the middle eastern peoples. Lewis believes this is critical to understanding Arabs and other Muslims in their behavior today, as some are attempting to reclaim their former glory.
The second book I read was "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim" This was written by Madmood Mamdani. Mamdani is a professor from Columbia University and this book gives a uniquely African perspective. Mamdani argues that the "proxy war principle" of American foreign policy is to blame for today's terrorism. This was the effort by America from the mid 1960's to the late 1980's to launch wars with non-American armies, funded in US dollars. Specifically, Mamdani cites Cambodia, Mozambique, Nicuragua, and Afghanistan. Obviously, the Afghanistan war was the most profound as we funded, trained and implanted the ideology of the mujihadeen we are currently fighting. I found Mamdani's book very interesting and informative, but thought he particularly blamed the Reagan administration more than Nixon, Ford, or Carter. His other main thesis was that the UN sanctions on Iraq was the first instance of a multilateral proxy war on Muslim peoples, causing the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi peoples, over half of whom were children. I believe this last statement goes toward the "success" of the sanctions against Iraq. Human rights organizations around the globe would adamantly disagree this was a success.
Overall, I found both very interesting, contributing to my understanding of the history of this extremism.
AARP & Social Security Part 2
To continue, the AARP is just another "bomb thrower" in public debate in this country. Unfortunately, in politics, everybody has something to gain or lose. Because of this, there is often not very reasoned debate. And this is what transpired in the meeting I attended.
The bottom line in this debate is that the Bush administration (and many other like-minded individuals) are preapring the system to be terminated. This hasn't been stated, but the policies will lead to the end of the social security system. This is great in my opinion. Social Security is a ponzi scheme of taxation. It makes assumptions that each generation will have roughly the same life expectancy, greater affluence, and roughly the same size as the prior generation. These assumptions probably would have held for centuries if Congress had not been spending the surplus of SS revenues over expenditures. Although I am not sure, I believe this probably began with President Johnson's, "Great Society" programs.
The bottom line is this:
The AARP acknowledges there is a funding problem. Their solutions are to raise taxes (up to $6,000 per person, depending upon income), push out the retirement age, and ask the younger generation to save more (even though we will be getting reduced benefits and higher taxes). What an insult. I am looking forward to Gen X'ers like myself totally abandoning the AARP as we age. If they do in fact push for these proposals to "save the social security system," their organization will certainly have a limited lifespan.
The bottom line in this debate is that the Bush administration (and many other like-minded individuals) are preapring the system to be terminated. This hasn't been stated, but the policies will lead to the end of the social security system. This is great in my opinion. Social Security is a ponzi scheme of taxation. It makes assumptions that each generation will have roughly the same life expectancy, greater affluence, and roughly the same size as the prior generation. These assumptions probably would have held for centuries if Congress had not been spending the surplus of SS revenues over expenditures. Although I am not sure, I believe this probably began with President Johnson's, "Great Society" programs.
The bottom line is this:
The AARP acknowledges there is a funding problem. Their solutions are to raise taxes (up to $6,000 per person, depending upon income), push out the retirement age, and ask the younger generation to save more (even though we will be getting reduced benefits and higher taxes). What an insult. I am looking forward to Gen X'ers like myself totally abandoning the AARP as we age. If they do in fact push for these proposals to "save the social security system," their organization will certainly have a limited lifespan.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Social Security and the AARP
Today, I attended a luncheon at Portland's CityClub. I found it to be an excellent place to meet people who are active in the Portland community and a great place to discuss policies, etc.
The speaker today was the AARP's president, Marie Smith. Ms. Smith spoke for approximately 45 minutes and took 20 minutes of questions. Unfortunately, although a good speaker, she really didn't answer any questions, other than the ones she wanted to.
Ms. Smith said that private accounts as a portion of the social security system were risky and a gamble, compared to the "guaranteed" benefits of social security. She seemed to be concerned about deficits, except when someone mentioned the AARP's support of the Medicare prescription drug benefit (or the siginficantly larger unfunded liablity within the Medicare system).
More later...
The speaker today was the AARP's president, Marie Smith. Ms. Smith spoke for approximately 45 minutes and took 20 minutes of questions. Unfortunately, although a good speaker, she really didn't answer any questions, other than the ones she wanted to.
Ms. Smith said that private accounts as a portion of the social security system were risky and a gamble, compared to the "guaranteed" benefits of social security. She seemed to be concerned about deficits, except when someone mentioned the AARP's support of the Medicare prescription drug benefit (or the siginficantly larger unfunded liablity within the Medicare system).
More later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
