Say Goodnight, Blogger.

As much as I heart what Google is trying to do with their obscene amounts of money and power, I am going to abandon Blogger due to it's simplistic design. While it's fine for the masses, I think I need a little bit more control over my customization and am moving my blog to WordPress for a more professional appearance and more flexible hosting.

New updates on the Political Front will be posted on my new Blog: the Moderate Majority.

Stimulate This!

Eric at Lefty Loosy, Righty Tighty posted:

You’ve just received $600 dollars! What will you do next? You could buy and Xbox 360. You could go on a cruise. You could buy a new gun or adopt a puppy. But what will most people actually do with this new found cash? Where will this money actually go? Will it really stimulate our economy? And finally, why are we doing this?

First of all, this “stimulus package” will affect our economy as much as your individual vote will count in the Presidential election (not including Floridians). Most people are probably in debt from higher prices in everything from gasoline to milk. So, $600 would make a dent in their debt. Will anyone use the money for personal desires? Of course! There are enough irresponsible people in this country that will ignore the average credit card debt of $9,900 per household in America and go get laser hair removal done. We’re not really going to see an increase in jobs or national revenue though. Those that spend their money right away will send their money straight into the belly of businesses that are just going to pay off their debts from high gas prices and discounts they can’t afford to give. So overall, only debt collectors are really going to benefit from this government induced stimulus.

If this package was really something to benefit US citizens then they should have just taken the money and put it towards lowering gas prices. The total stimulus package will cost the US around $152 billion. Five gas companies have made over $123 billion this past year and they’re getting tax breaks! Hello! Let’s use our money to regulate the oil companies and lower gas prices. If gas didn’t cost on average over $3.30 a gallon then people might be able to afford to travel more or buy more luxury items. Don’t get me wrong, I’m looking forward to receiving that $1200 check my wife and I will receive in May (at the earliest). But we’ll probably just pay off some credit card debt because we can’t afford to drive to the bank to cash it. You want to stimulate the economy? Let’s start another war and stop buying our supplies from China.

I think you're right on the money, if you'll pardon that unintended pun. This stimulus package has no chance of being anything above ineffectual. With the American economy where it is, with everyone in debt and most of our products being manufactured overseas, and nearly all of the products being sold by giant corporations, our own economy will not receive any benefit from this alleged stimulus package.

If anything, the economies of Taiwan, China and Mexico will be stimulated as most of the things we purchase with our free scratch will have been manufactured in one of these places by exploited laborers.

And there's there rub, a lot of it, like you pointed out, will be spent on existing debt, so there's no stimulation at all.

If anything, I think this package is intended to soften the image of the Republican party leading into the Presidential Election. I guess we'll see if we, as a people, can be bought off for so little.

Excellent observation.

Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Concede

Hillary Clinton is without a doubt a brilliant and competent person, and would probably be a good leader for this country.  She has carried out an impressive, albeit at times desperate, campaign and has shown herself to have a strong sense of leadership and could very well possess the wherewithal to turn this nation's global economic and diplomatic situations around and return us to a seat of power and dignity.

Except.

Except that we don't vote for people like that.  When the American People vote, we don't vote for smart or strong or competent (as evidenced by the previous two Presidential Elections).  The bottom line is that Senator Clinton is well-loved by many voting Americans and well-loathed by just as many.

In the upcoming race, regardless of the outcome of the Democratic Party Primaries, the selected candidate will be facing a strong and somewhat moderate leaning Republican in John McCain.  Just because the GOP has been spent the last 8 years being repeatedly caught with their shorts down doesn't mean that we should discount his positioning.  In fact, we should make every effort not to underestimate him.  He is a smart and capable man with buckets of charisma and in the truest definition of the words is a Real American Hero.

Senator Clinton can't compete with that.  Senator Barack Obama can.

Ultimately, this Nation, as progressive and forward-thinking as we like to think we are, are not past millennia-old gender biases.  Hillary Clinton is a woman, and she is hated because of it.  While this is no judgement on her character or or competence, it is a judgement on her electability against a former POW.  Barack Obama is fresh, and this country, I believe, has been pushed far enough past its racial inequality that he is electable.  More than that, he is inspiring.  I'm not sure if he's an FDR or JFK, but history will have to determine that later, he certainly has the potential to move the people in such ways.

It should also be considered that we are facing beginning a dynasty system in that if she is elected, there will have been a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 8 consecutive terms (32 years) and possible 9 if she were then reelected.  There is also an argument that Obama's lack of tenure in National Government means that he hasn't had enough time to be completely corrupted by the system.

In the end, Barack Obama stands a better chance in a race against John McCain than does Hillary Clinton.  It is for this reason alone, the betterment of the Democratic Party and hopefully the salvation of the United States of America that Hillary should step down.  There comes a time when one must decide between the needs of the many and the needs of the few - just like the end of Star Trek II.

There is no high ground from the flood of the people.

This issue was touched upon slightly by our essay questions of today.  I chose not to take this question, but feel it is important enough to address.  In recent weeks Hillary and Chelsea Clinton have repeatedly dodged questions they deemed as too personal and more specifically as "irrelevant to the campaign." 

I hereby declare: Bullshit!

How can one who aspires to represent and lead 300 Million people assume that anything about themselves is off limits?  Whether or not is important or relevant shouldn't be for the candidate to decide but rather for the people to decide.

I think the matter of a candidates church attendance is of great importance to her campaign.  Not for any religious reason, as I am a devout atheist, but rather as an indicator of how full of shit a person really is.  They all spout off about God being on their side, and being a source of inspiration or some such thing but how can a person really claim religiosity without actively participating in any religion?  For that matter, how can any candidate take any stance on gun issues without being willing to talk about the last time they fired a gun - if ever?

And then their's Monica Lewinsky.  The most famous BJ in history had a direct impact on her family dynamics yet they managed to work through it somehow.  How one handles their problems within their family reflect how they handle problems outside the family.  Therefore how can this type of question be off limits?  Especially when her biggest hurdle is her inability to come across as a human being.  I'm sure it's a painful reminder of things past, but they're sure as hell relevant now.  They're not relevant for any reason better than that the American People think they're relevant, and as far as I'm concerned, that's enough of a reason for anything.  

In Response to Texas Girl

Texas Girl Originally Posted

Despite the evidence of the planet wide effects of global warming, many still believe global warming to be just another way to give funding back to scientific researchers. The issue at hand is of great importance, and will continue to alarm Americans so long as it is not resolved. Global warming leaves many asking the question, Is the top of the world melting?
Time is running out, stabilizing global warming does not happen over night, and it is to late to stop it completely. The change in climate has been attributed directly to natural, and human activity such as cars burning fossil fuel, power plants, and chemicals such as methane, nitrous oxide and many other gases that trap solar heat. All of these contribute to the global greenhouse effect and this is what causes Global Warming. Because of the rising temperature, due to global warming, the arctic is melting. If we do nothing, by the end of the century, we can expect to see a dramatic raise in sea levels. Today, this is already occurring, forcing many to move to higher levels of land. Imagine how it will be years from now. If the temperature continues to rise, many animals will be extinct and the ecosystem will be severely affected.
All humans should acknowledge that the threat of global warming is increasing with every minute nothing is done. It is up to each inhabitant of Planet Earth to take initiative and attempt to understand global warming, in order to stabilize it. The severity of this issue is real. Our nation is contributing, in all possible ways to saving our beautiful planet, however this is not enough. Some may never recognize the real cause of global warming, be it man made, or natural hazards, but in time, when our ecosystem has turned against us, maybe then will mankind wished they had done more.

By and large, I agree with your stance on Global Warming, Texas Girl, however, I think we need to take a close look at those who think it's a load of malarchy and why they feel that way.

In short, it's lack of foresight. You'll find that most people you run into on the street can barely see past the ends of their noses, metaphorically speaking. When they walk outside on a chilly April morning in Texas, they say to themselves "Global Warming my rosy ass!" and write it off as Liberal-Hippie-Horse-Hockey (or the L-Triple H).

The real problem with global warming has to do with overall average temperatures of the planet and more specifically the rate of change.

It's easy to find right-wing mouthpieces who readily state that the Earth has encountered these temperatures before - and it has, many times. When it changes gradually, evolution can keep up and adaptive species' can emerge to keep on keepin' on.

It's never changed this rapidly in the entire history of the planet, and the rate of species extinction has only reached this levels 5 times in the past, two were associated with giant meteor impacts, and all 5 were considered Global-Killer events.

We're currently riding the wave of #6, good times.

Sadly, a lot people won't wake up until it's too late, and it's their selfishness and foolishness that could endanger all of us. The best you can do is educate yourself and then educate the masses. If they're too stupid to be educated, then apply social pressure. Notice how it's becoming cooler to drive a Prius than it is to drive a Pick-up? One carries more social status with a WholeFoods bag than with an HEB bag?

Buy an Aptera, convince people their sexy and the world can be changed for the better.

(For verification of these numbers and statistics, talk to Professor George Staff at ACC Northridge. Better yet, take his class - you'll probably need the natural science credit anyway.)

Poor li'l Gummit

So we're to criticize the US Government - and in only 500 words or less? That's tougher than one might think. If this were a scholarly journal my opening string of expletives alone would reach 479 words (I got angry and counted). Therefore, to sharpen my aim I shall choose a small but worthy target and considering that this past week I have had to shuffle my dear relatives through the air travel system, I'm picking the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA).

That's right bub, it's on.

First, let me say that the TSA is, if anything, a cruel practical joke played by the US Government on the American people that was never really very funny. By this, I mean to say that card-holding, tax-paying, law-abiding American Citizen that wants to go somewhere must do all of the following:

• Take off your shoes. Seriously. Barefeet, foot fungus and ugly-ass toes for the world to see.
• Take off your belt. "It gots metal" so take it off.
• Empty all of your pockets into a plastic tray
• Throw away your lethal 99¢ soda (there are safe ones on the other side of the security barrier for $3.50, you understand).
• Display all of your personal fluids in cute little containers in a clear plastic baggy.

Why? Why must we do this? What's the point? If someone really wanted to stir up a ruckus, they could certainly do so as evidenced by all the stuff that accidentally makes it through security. Our TSApes are so preoccupied with checking for hidden bottles of Diet Coke and Apple Laptops that they miss knives, handguns and the like - ignoring completely that every guitar carried on has 6 handy ligatures on it. Beyond that, terrorism is called so because it's about inciting fear, not damage. Our country has had such an exaggerated startle response since 9/11 that in order to cause serious damage one need not buy explosives or hijack airplanes but simply call a federal office and convince someone you're going to. It's because of this very reason that we will likely never see another major attack on US Soil (unless things really go south with Iran, North Korea or China).

So what is the point, really? It's to keep us in line. Just like any abusive parent or lover, the US Gummit periodically delivers an arbitrary command and a bitch-slap to remind us who's in charge. Frankly, I think that's just rude of the TSA. We're already sore from having to pay $400 to sit in a 2-feet-wide seat next to a sweaty guy with a 4-feet-backside.

Who's to blame for all of this? Well, in a government that is "of the people, by the people and for the people" I can fairly well assume that the "people" are the problem. We let it happen. We've handed over many of our civil rights on a silver platter in the hopes that we can be protected from the bad guys and from each other.

It wouldn't be fair to throw around so much blame without offering some sort of solution. To that end, I suggest we vote in the most effective way we know how: by buying things! Well, specifically not buying airline tickets. Drive if you gotta', get a free Skype account if you wanna see Aunt Millie in Vermont, walk to work and don't sacrifice your dignity or your rights for convenience or false security - show some respect for yourself and vote with your dollars.

Is Kapitalism Immoral, Komrad?

This is a fascinating and complex question posed by the NY Times blog Deal Journal and answered by conservative blogger and UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge in his blog posting of the same name.  Bainbridge's answer is, of course, "Heck no!"

The article on Deal Journal cites this article by Stefan Theil which asserts that in many European educational systems, capitalism is taught to be considered a failure and uses this viewpoint as the basis for explaining current polls of European Union citizens who largely do not favor traditional Western Capitalism and therefore are American Hating Pinko Commie Scum (AHPCS).

After reviewing both Bainbridge's and Theil's articles, I must say: You guys sure do answer like rich people.  Capitalism has been working in our hemisphere for well over 200 years - for rich people.  The poor, on the other hand, have for a bulk of that time been enslaved, unable to vote, indentured and sorely undereducated and underserved in a wide variety of "public" services.

While capitalism itself isn't immoral, it inevitably leads to the immorality of capitalists.  Seeing that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, it's also true that ignorance of the abuses of human beings is no excuse for supporting the abuse of human beings.

The truth is, that for capitalism to work there must be desire or need.  This is the lifeblood of any capitalistic system; if people didn't want or need dollars, they wouldn't go to work - simple as that.  In order for there to be desire or need, there must be a LACK of that which is to be desired and/or needed - in our case: Dollars.  Now that we have that settled, the next thing to keep in mind is that in order for that thing (dollars, again) to have any value whatsoever there has to be a limited supply of them - if dollars grew on trees, they wouldn't be worth anything (how much are acorns going for these days?), same thing goes for equal distribution: if everyone had the same amount of dollars, no one would care about transferring them.  Remembering that we need people to need dollars, and there can only be so many of them, that means that some people must have plenty and some people must have not enough.  Capitalism relies on this imbalance to keep going, and in our system, not having enough money also means not having enough healthcare, not having enough housing and not having enough food.

As if it weren't enough that we live in a system that requires some to live in poverty.  This system also relies on heated competition.  While I'm sure a load of people assert that healthy competition is a great thing, we have allowed it to nearly erase cooperation.  Admittedly, this serves us in some ways, and it screws us in others:  We may have many different companies and organization working to find a cure for cancer, but the climate of competition prevents them from openly sharing their data during trials. I think it's also fair to say that the 10 year old boy who made your GAP jeans in a sweatshop so that GAP and it's suppliers can maintain a healthy profit margin has an entirely different perspective on competition.  Or should we ask all of the American citizens who lost their jobs when factories moved across borders thanks to NAFTA?  Or should we have to ask all of the people who pay too much for insurance and medical services because we've allowed and encouraged private firms to profit from other peoples suffering and illness?

These things don't happen alongside capitalism, they happen because of capitalism and it's a system that necessitates immorality. So no, capitalism itself isn't immoral.  Much in the same way that a handgun isn't immoral, one still has to something of questionable morality to get any practical use out of it.