Thursday, October 28, 2004

LOOKING FORWARD TO THE PAST

While working to avoid work, I stumbled across something I hadn't seen before. At A Shot in the Dark, I found a link to Ronald Reagan's speech in 1964.

As a long-time Democrat, I'd never heard the speech or read it. I was told what it was about from other Democrats. And, at the time, that was good enough for me.

Since blogging, I have come to appreciate the value of checking out assertions by going to the source documents, if possible. Now, if someone references a speech by an opponent, I at least check out the text, if not the audio, to verify for myself. Over time, some of these people gain my trust for their reliability.

A point the Gipper makes I had never heard before, but it resonates in my mind:
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.


This has never been truer than today. Vote with that in mind.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

October 22nd Prayer

Lord,

We ask your blessing in these days before the election. May the outcome lead to a reduction in bitterness and anger, no matter who wins the election.

May the winner ask for your guidance in leading the nation. May he receive your assistance, and always seek to follow in your path.

May we remember that it is YOUR will that shall be done, not ours. We often want so badly to see our candidate win, that we forget the outcome is ultimately in your hands. We can work and plan for a successful outcome, but we must have confidence that you will not abandon us in our hour of need.

For all Americans, help us understand that it's more important to open our hearts than our mouths. Help us to listen to your voice, rather than to overwhelm you with our own speech.

Help this to be an election that leaves us on the road to healing, not left with greater emnity and distrust.

INCIVILITY OF POLITICS

Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that this may be one of the most heated and contentious elections in recent history, and that is wild, considering the 2000 election.

There are few political discussions anywhere, at least in the tradition of give-and-take. I'm hearing a lot of heated spews about the OTHER side (not, in general, about the merits of one's candidate) and the cataclysmic consequences of letting THAT PERSON steal the election.

What on Earth is going on?

I remember when the 100-year anniversary of the Civil War was celebrated. At that time (I was 10 at the start), I couldn't get a handle on WHY people became so filled with righteous bile that they couldn't calmly discuss the issues, and work together. I just couldn't imagine problems that people of decency couldn't handle in a reasonable way.

I'm beginning to understand. It didn't happen all at once. It built over time, like today's situation. Both sides believed themselves to be right, and the other to be, not just wrong, but potentially dangerous. It ceased to be a political discussion, but a battle against the forces of evil.

Each episode of conflict just led to even greater grievances, with the losing side more determined to prevail. And the losing side only associated with others like themselves. They couldn't contaminate themselves with contact with THOSE EVIL, VILE PEOPLE, IF YOU COULD EVEN CALL THEM HUMAN.

The Civil War didn't happen overnight. It was a long road from the Transcendentalists to war. But the same people grew more agitated each time they suffered a political or legislative loss, and this led to an "end justifies the means" attitude, and eventually to chaos.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

GUT CHECK TIME

When I was very young (12-25), I strove for rationality. I obsessively read newpapers, listened to news, and, in general, tried to "find out the facts" before I made up my mind.

Today, I mostly listen to my gut.

My path to this point was meandering. During the VietNam and Watergate days, I relied on mainstream media sources for my information. Having no access to direct data, I really had no other choice.

But, regardless of the source of information, my modus operandi was consistent - first, read all that I could, then, make up my mind (also discussing what I read with friends and family).

I've changed.

Part of that change is a little thing called experience. I've just lived long enough to have seen a few frauds exposed, liars unveiled, and con artists brought to justice. As Jane Marple (of the Agatha Christie books) said, sometimes you see something that reminds you of something else.

When the 527s (don't know what they are? Here's a primer; don't worry, it's short and uncomplicated) started having such a major impact on the pre-election process, I asked myself, who's behind them? And, thanks to the Internet, I was able to find out.

  • George Soros

  • George is a Hungarian-born resident who supports a number of leftist causes with the money he has earned in currency speculation


    I've been told by kindly bloggers that Soros is now a citizen of the US.

    George Soro's contributions to 527s

    The total amounts to more than $ 10,000,000. That's TEN MILLION DOLLARS!

Why is this man so interested in influencing the American election? Maybe he just wants to elect a politician who owes him. Big time.

What would he want in return? Soros is STRONGLY in favor of drug legalization, particularly marijuana. Is he planning to make a killing on the legalized drug in the future?

Now, before you say, "Oh, how can you smear someone with drug trafficking?", check out this part of his biography

Quantum Fund, his privately-owned investment fund registered in Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, a Caribbean tax haven which has repeatedly been cited by the International Task Force on Money Laundering of the OECD as one of the world's most important centers for laundering the illegal proceeds of the Latin American drug trade. By operating from Curaçao, Soros not only avoids paying taxes but also hides the nature of his investors and what he does with their money.



Well, you might say, what's the big deal that Soros is passionate about the result of this election?

Thanks to the McCain-Feingold Act (also called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), which allowed the 527s to operate, he can contribute an UNLIMITED amount of cash to changing the leadership of America.

And how did that act get passed? I'm glad you asked that.

Soros has been criticized for his large donations, as he also pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties. Soros made it happen.


And my gut says that's wrong. And my gut is telling me that the candidate that's benefiting from that stuff is the wrong candidate to vote for. That's why I'm for Bush.

Other factors that influence my decision:

  • Kerry's inability to recognize that America is not the enemy. Given a choice between supportiing policies that favor American interests and those that are not in our interest (Kyoto, World Court, Palestinian terrorism, etc.), Kerry sides with the anti-American interests.

  • Kerry's economic stupidity. It's not surprising that someone who has spent most of his adult life being supported by rich women doesn't understand basic income and expense guidelines, but here's the rule:

    Except for extraordinary circumstances, such as war, you have to restrain your spending to match your income. That means discretionary expenses (those little luxuries that aren't essential to life) need to be cut.


    The armed forces are essential. National service schemes are not.

  • For a man who claims to value working with other countries, Kerry has no hesitation in insulting our allies. If you aren't Old Europe, Kerry isn't interested in talking to you.

Friday, October 15, 2004

IMMIGRATION'S BENEFITS

In the discussion of immigration, one argument comes up repeatedly. That is, that immigrants, by taking low-level jobs, provide tremendous value to the US, and that, since they don't use services, this is a net plus.

Consider the following (from Front Page Magazine
That immigration is only to be considered from the standpoint of its economic effects has become such an accepted notion over the past 25 years that it has not occurred to many people what a bizarre idea it really is. The implication is that our well‑being as a society is solely a function of economic output. Matters of quality of life, social cohesion and continuity, aesthetic enjoyment, political liberty, national identity, and all the other intangibles that make up the life of a society—since these cannot be stated statistically, they don't count.


The aggregate wealth of the nation is not the only factor to consider.

that individual wealth does not necessarily increase, only the aggregate wealth. Meanwhile, our congested coastal and metropolitan areas have become two or three times more crowded. Pressure on open spaces and parks, stress on resources (increasing the need for burdensome regulations), crippling traffic congestion, displacement of older residents, as well as ethnic conflict, all become worse. Even as economic output goes up, overall quality of life can decline.


Anyone who has lived in a neighborhood with a high percentage of immigrants knows that the quality of life MAY OR MAY NOT stay the same or improve. It all depends on the culture that those immigrants bring in with them, and the degree to which those immigrants are moving up the socio-economic ladder.

I know. I have lived in many neighborhoods with a high immigrant population. Many were delightful neighbors, who shared my strong committment to family, hard work, and upward mobility.

Some were not. It didn't seem to matter where they were from, or what color they were, or even religion; if we shared an essential commonality to values, we were simpatico, as the Spanish speakers would say.

The real issue in a poor neighborhood is whether the person was content to wallow in their misery, or whether they would use the legal methods that are available in this country to upgrade their status.

Certainly, the majority of immigrants take low-paying, low-status jobs.
Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform pointed out:

[N]early 50 percent of all immigrants are working in the low-skilled category, a much higher percentage than is found in the U.S. labor force as a whole


That feature of immigrants may not be an unalloyed blessing. Taking a low-level job because you haven't sufficient education or training leads nowhere, unless you plan to use your time in the US to acquire skills that will help you qualify for better-paying employment.

The real issue should be expressed as:

Where are the immigrants preparing to be in 10 or 20 years? If they are not actively learning English, and improving their education and skills, they are on a road to nowhere.

Why wouldn't Americans want new immigrants? An example of the issues involved follows:
Suppose there were two families, the Smiths and the Joneses, living next door to each other. The two families get along, the children play together, the parents occasionally socialize with each other. Then one day the Joneses announce that they want to move in permanently with the Smiths. When the Smiths seem less than enthusiastic about this proposal, the Joneses say: "What's your problem? You have enough room, your house is bigger than ours, and we get along together. Besides, the nuclear family is only a modern invention. A dual family will enrich all of us." To back up these claims, the Joneses bring in an economist who says that two-family households have larger aggregate wealth than one-family households. They bring in a sociologist who cites studies showing that the children raised in two-family households have superior abilities in adjusting to different types of people in a diverse society. Faced with this aggressive challenge to their existence as a family, what can the Smiths say? Their family, as a unique, autonomous association, is an intrinsic, irreplaceable value to its members. It cannot be defended on the basis of quantifiable facts. In the same way, the nation is a family whose distinct character and values cannot be defended on a purely rationalistic basis. To insist that it do so is to deny its right to exist.


Go read the entire article.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

19 DAYS TO GO

I just read on Hugh Hewitt that we're down to 19 days left before the election. Thank Heaven! Even a confirmed political junkie like is getting overwhelmed by the rhetoric and general nastiness of this season. The vicious hatred of Bush is the most extreme level I have seen since the Nixon years. And that's just among my immediate friends and family!

Saturday, October 09, 2004

PASSION FOR FREEDOM

I watched the early part of the debate (regretably, I was watching from my room, and I fell asleep. It wasn't that I wasn't interested, or that it was boring, but it was a bad idea to be in a horizontal position so late at night). Now that I think of it, I wonder whether this will have an effect on the numbers watching on the West coast. In future years, the networks should plan to have the debates start earlier, so the school-age crowd can watch. I can think of no better introduction to the workings of our form of government than to watch how we support open debate between the candidates.

I caught up on the remainder of the debate through blogs (better living through blogging). I found this post on Right Wing Nuthouse, which, despite the name, is quite sane. A short excerpt:

The other night on Larry King, Bob Woodward said that after Bush made his decision to go to war in Iraq, he told aides that he didn't care if the war was popular or not...he didn't care whether going to war made him a one term President, he was going ahead with it.

Can there be any greater contrast with Senator Flip Flop's inconstancy, inconsistency, and outright pandering to voters worst fears on Iraq? It's almost enough to make a grown man cry.

Then I remember the 140,000 men and women who don't have the luxury of sitting at a computer in a nice, safe, house whining about how unfair it all is. They wake up every day in Iraq not knowing if they're going to be alive to go to sleep that night. Which is why, despite the growing odds against the reelection of President Bush, we've got to continue fighting. We've got to find it within ourselves to keep plugging away until victory is acheived.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

POLLS - WHAT DO THE NUMBERS MEAN?

The Gallup numbers released today indicate that the Presidential race has evened up to a dead heat.

As reported by CNN,

President Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, are about even among likely and registered voters in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, released Sunday.

The poll showed Kerry and Bush tied at 49 percent each among likely voters interviewed. Among registered voters Bush had 49 percent and Kerry 47 percent. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was favored by 1 percent in each group.


The questions I have are, are these numbers an accurate reflection of the mood of the country, and what does this mean?

I found another site that explains why the numbers have changed, and it seems to be for a biased reason.
it takes only a moment to determine that the October poll sampled 34% Democrats and 29% Republicans, while the September poll sampled 33% Republicans and 31% Democrats. So it's hardly a surprise that Kerry did better in the October survey. If the pollsters sampled only Democrats, they could show that Kerry was sweeping toward an unprecedented victory.


Some questions have to be answered about these polls, and the biases of the pollsters.
It's noteworthy that all of the polls that over-sampled Republicans in September are now over-sampling Democrats in October. Is this a coincidence, or a deliberate effort to manufacture a Kerry "comeback" to generate momentum for the Democrats? One possible explanation, as least as to the Times/CBS poll, is that their September poll was taken on a Monday through Wednesday, while the poll released today was entirely done on the weekend, when pollsters know they will tend to find more Democrats at home. So was the choice of polling dates deliberate, or coincidental?


First, the question is: are the polls with LIKELY voters or REGISTERED voters better indicators of what voters will actually do in the voting booth?

I can't honestly answer that; I've heard excellent arguments on both sides. I would love to read a book about it, analyzing the shifting numbers, after the election. For now, this is one question that can only be answered on faith.

Second, is this a shift in momentum, or a temporary blip? Again, I can't say. I'll be depending on others to provide answers I am not qualified to give.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

ROUNDING THE CORNER TOWARDS HOME

I watched the debates, and, in general, wasn't surprised by much. Kerry looked good, Bush didn't; big surprise - Botox, manicures, and ManTan did their job. I don't know who was responsible for timing the reaction shots - Bush always had a pained, WTF look on his face. Kerry looked calm and smiling, no matter what. I figure that Kerry had excellent advice from his coaches, who said "No matter what is said, smile. The people are idiots, they'll conclude that Bush never laid a glove on you if you do that".

But, that said, Bush did look, and act, very tired. I don't know what's going on, but he clearly has something monumental on his mind. Wouldn't be surprised to hear that some family member has a medical challenge at the moment.

My advice to his staff - cut back the traveling, appearances, and get the guy some quality R & R time.

I'm looking forward to the next debate, partly because it's in Cleveland, and that's my town. Also, because I really would like to see Cheney go into attack mode on the Pretty One.

This last week, the Republicans got busy in West Park and Lakewood, and started posting signs. Before that, it was a long stretch of ride to work, with only Kerry/Edwards signs on the way.

Lies of the Left

This COULD be a lengthy post. But, I'll try to winnow it down to a reasonable length. The CA Parent Bribery 'Scandal' - the 1...