Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Primary Endorsements

I've conceded long ago that the next president will not be someone I supported or voted for. I'm willing to let the rest of you elect the next moron to take up a chair in the oval office. Because 90%+ of the folks that read this blog are supporters of either the Democrat Party or the GOP, I thought I'd give some early endorsements. I realize fully that my nod in their direction will doom their campaign forever...but here it goes.

Democrat: Governor Bill Richardson

Honestly if either of the last two governors of New Mexico had run for president I would've voted for either of them. I know of no other state in our great land that has a better gubernatorial pedigree. Richardson balanced the budget in the state while lowering taxes. He is a problem solver that understands that every problem cannot be solved by government. He is an old-time Democrat and one that deserves your support if you lean that way.

Republican: Congressman Ron Paul

Ron Paul is not your average Republican. He is at odds with the GOP on many major issues and is a principled leader in congress...respected and hated by members of both parties. Ron Paul finished 3rd in the 1988 presidential race and has served nine terms in Congress. He is for limited government and votes his beliefs in congress. If you're a true limited government Republican there is really nowhere else to look.

There you have it. In the most pragmatic way possible I've put two choices out there. Now don't give me any of your 'they have no chance of winning' crap because this IS THE PRIMARIES. This is how you shape the ideals of your party. You don't have to support a winner in the primaries. Paul Tsongas lost but shaped Bill Clinton. Patrick Buchanan made George H W Bush remember his conservative base. If you all give up your principles in the primaries then there is truly no hope.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Hillary opens her mouth

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

Hillary's opinion is that the War in Iraq is something that the president should have all over with by the time the next president rolls into office.

Probably just like these examples:

Like how Truman ended the Korean War before Ike took office.

Like how LBJ ended the Vietnam War before Nixon took office.

Like how Clinton (and his lacky Carter) made sure that North Korea would only be using their nuclear power for peaceful purposes and no other president would see them as a threat...not to mention an energy crisis that most people have forgotten that it started during the Clinton administration (even Governor Richardson the former energy secretary said Clinton's lack of vision for an energy policy has cost this nation dearly)

Of course what I'm pointing out is that every president has to deal with the good and bad left by their predecessors. It's reality... so quit being dumb.

Hillary, if somehow hell freezes over and you're elected president I hope that Bush leaves a fresh one in the oval office toilet for you.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

State of the Union

I opened no less than four emails from people asking me to blog on the State of the Union. Not to mention Grump reminded me via instant messenger. I'm having a hard time knowing where to begin. I'll give you some background on me and the State of the Union speeches.

I've watched every State of the Union speech since Ronald Reagan was president. Hell, I even watched a couple of Jimmy Carter's. One thing I do like about the speech is that it is usually a fairly positive view of our nation complete with an overstatement of our accomplishments, understatement of any problems and an exaggeration of problems that don't really exist.

First the overstated accomplishments:

The economy statement that 'inflation is low' - It is fairly low right now but it is on skakey ground. This is the fault of both parties using a monetary policy that is doomed for failure.

On pace to retire the defecit in five years. - The deficit now is 172 billion dollars. This is actually fairly low compared to deficits of former administrations and is directly attributed to the economy. When it gets this low raising taxes can actually make a difference. If the deficit becomes a campaign plank in 2008 then expect a tax increase in 2009 no matter who is president. Personally, I could eliminate the deficit in six months...congress won't do it however.

Woman Speaker of the House - This gets a collective 'big deal' from me but she is a rather attractive woman for her age. She's far better looking than Dennis Hastert. You can tell how seriously I take this speech.

Understatement of problems:

Iraq - Only when Iraqis begin fighting and defeating the foreign fighters in their land will this ever turn more optimistic. My bet is we'll have a troop presence in Iraq ten years from now.

Earmarks - I loved their standing ovation for a call to end the practice of earmarks. Today I'm standing boldly to call for an end of diarrhea. (insert applause here)

Targeted tax breaks will help people who can't afford medical coverage - Dumb plan. Dumb plan. Dumb plan. I don't even know where to begin. This is a middle-class tax increase in disguise.

Exaggerations of problems that don't exist:

The need for bipartisanship - If you ask me I just want them to fight and fight and fight. Fight so much you don't even have time to solve my problems. Get fighting!

Eliminating the deficit - Why bother? When as bold as you can get is to balance the budget in five years I'm just not going to take this seriously at all. The defecit should be eliminated now. We should stop the practice of selling off debt to other nations who are temporarily devaluing their currency for a preferred trade status.

Greatest moment:

The guy who rescued that person on the NYC subway. It's good of someone in that room to have some balls and take a risk for the benefit of other people. He was the only person in that room that I trust...except Ron Paul.

There you have uninspired recap of an uninspiring moment in the history of our nation.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Why the Faith-Based & Community Initiatives is wrong

I'll begin by taking Dubya's quote from their website:

"The paramount goal is compassionate results, and private and charitable groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, like curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families, and overcoming poverty."
- President George W. Bush

Many are going to take a Secular versus Religious outlook on this but I won't. In fact I'll begin by eliminating that factor from my point of view with my own statement:

I do not believe that giving Federal Money to a Mormon organization to help someone get off a meth addiction is the same thing as an establishment of religion.

That said I don't think anyone should be 'competing' for Federal dollars. I've seen first hand what this does to schools and I can tell you that it doesn't improve anything, but rather makes it worse. I know you think this is the Libertarian in me speaking but it's not. It is the common sense part of me talking. (not to say that being a libertarian isn't common many ways it is but I digress)

Too many times when Federal money is sought after there are rules that must go along with it. Not just the rules but also the infrastructure necessary to qualify for the Federal funds to begin with. Trust me on this one. I won't disclose what I do for a living but I can tell you that I see state agency budgets everyday. Even though I am not a public employee, I know what it is to work in the real world and then see a snapshot of what substitutes for logic once an agency is spending public funds.

Government money is taken by force. Behind this force is a bureau of administrators. By contrast behind almost every Faith-Based organization are people who give their time, resources and talents to help people knowing that the task is greater than themselves.

Another distinction is worthy of note: A faith-based organization is free to exercise their faith and their own polity. That's a fancy way of saying that if they want to give a ten minute sermon before they serve soup and sandwiches then they may. I'm here to tell you that is in jeopardy once Federal funds enter the mix. You will be told that it will not, but logically it must.

Good charities don't need more money, generally they need more volunteers. I have several charities and Organizations that I routinely give money and time to. It is my freedom to do so. I'm not motivated by a fear of the afterlife but instead a grace that enables me to do it purely in love. There is no force involved and because of that I believe it makes a difference.

I think all Faith-Based organizations should just take the Hillsdale College approach and say "Thanks, but no thanks" to Federal Money.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Ron Paul in 2008?

I've not been able to fully verify this, incorporation papers were filed in Texas for a Ron Paul 2008 presidential exploratory committee that would enable him to begin raising money.

Rumors are swelling at the news of this but one of those that is most intriguing is that Ron Paul's intention is to form a GOP/Libertarian/Constitution fusion endorsement run. Since members of those three parties can't get along in the same room it would be interesting to see if this were possible.

If Ron Paul is on the November ballot it will give me the chance to correct a vote I placed back in 1988 for George H.W. Bush. Had I understood that year that the GOP did not represent my views then Ron Paul would've received my vote on top of the 400,000+ others he earned.

If Ron is in fact running then voting for him would break three of my own rules for candidates for president:

1. Texans should not be allowed to run.

2. I'd have to technically vote for a Republican.

3. I never trust anyone with two first names.

So I'm a hypocrite. I'd support him in a heartbeat.

Friday, January 05, 2007

There's hope with the new Congress

I was just reading on the newswire that there is finally good news for women. Now that there is a multimillionaire woman as Speaker of the House of Representatives women all over the country are taking a bit step forward. I congratulated my boss (who is a member of the persecuted women class) on the amazing step forward she and her persecuted sisterhood have made.

Anyway, Speaker Pelosi promised bipartisanship and cooperation so I can only hope that she's lying. With all due respect Madam Speaker I'd like less bipartisanship and cooperation with how you all intend to spend the money you take by force from my paycheck. I'd appreciate some bitter partisanship and perhaps some good old fashioned gridlock. That's really all I ask from you because I know that as a millionaire woman you understand what I really want from my government. You alone understand the constitution and complicated things like the minimum wage while all I know how to do is look to you for help because I'm unable to function intelligently in a free society without your direction.

I have hope for this Congress still. Bring on the gridlock.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

How I rang in the new year

I didn't go out on New Year's this year. Personally I don't really enjoy parties that much so if I say no enough times eventually people quit inviting me. In addition to that I've dealt with the deaths of three people in the last three years as a result of drugs and/or alcohol and a motor vehicle. Staying home was just fine with me.

Instead I watched the Da Vinci code. I popped it in around 9:30 and tried to stay with it. I won't review the movie but instead just make a few observations:

1. The movie needed no big names in it. Tom Hanks was wasted in this 'treasure hunt' style of movie. All he did was figure out some clue and move on to the next clue. Basically it was like watching Blues Clues without the cute blue dog. Serious actors need not apply.

2. The movie was too long. Damn, maybe about two hours too long. It ended around 12:30am and I was not lost on the irony that I started the movie in 2006 and finished watching it in 2007. It felt like an entire year had past.

I got out some Sparkling Cider but didn't open it...pretty much just forgot about it. I'm not posting any resolutions this year. I've done well on mine from previous years but I've yet to come up with what they are...or at least I'm not willing to admit them.

Anyway, let's rip it up in 2007 and I promise to get to blogging your faces off this year. Whatever that means.