BeeJiggity

CONSERVATIVES VS. MODERATES-response to a post

2008-11-21T21:24:00.006-06:00

Response to :My Advice 2 Tha GOP.

Great views on many subjects, but I must object in a few areas.

Abortion has been compared to slavery as a noble cause on which to found a movement. For the GOP to abandon the unborn would be as pragmatic as having told Lincoln that if he would just step aside so that the nomination could be carried by a free market individualist who believed in "slave choice" for states the "the party may well be over."

You are correct that when times get tough, the conservatives get the boot. The reason for this is that tough times beg for a quick fix solution, and big government is the easy answer. That is why Mr. Compassion (W.) threw up what he thought was a $700B quick fix. Now a month later we see that half of the cash is being held by banks forced to take it, and the other half hasn't even been designated for a destination.

The solution to the loss of the conservative is not to give up the wing nuts. It is to more effectively spread the message. If more people understood that the bailout plan was not enough to help and could only be used to grow government then the plan would never have been passed. If that plan was passed during a presidential election and the message was already effectively spread, then the conservative candidate (which we did not have this time around) would have been able to explain the difference between big government Bush, and bigger government Obama. The public would have seen the truth, and we would have averted the train wreck we are barreling toward today.

We are in a fight right now between strict conservatives, and moderates, and I think the answer has to simply be that as strict conservatives, we must lead by selling the vision. Today that vision includes a rejection of the concept of an entity being "too big to fail." There is no such thing as that. The actual dinosaurs are all dead, and that made way for us mammals. Sometimes the structures in place are not the structures that should be in place. Chrysler was bailed out nearly 30 years ago, and thought they have paid back their loans, they are in the same position again. We did not help today's employees by providing a temporary job when they could have been in position to learn new skills 25 years ago.

As to the local issues in GA, I can tell you that there ain't no GOP'sters in Cook County with an ounce of clout, and we get whupt here too. Surely you know about the 20+ death row inmates exonerated for the crimes of which they were accused? That was all done by Democrats. The arresting cops, to the judges, to the D.A. to the appellate judges, to the Mayor and their own defense attorneys, and that truth doesn't turn us away from the damn Dems, does it? No.

The point in that area is that there will always be rouges associated with any political party, but we have to be sure to refer to the actual ideas of the party to attract others of us.

Whitewash discussion

2008-11-21T20:43:00.001-06:00

"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . .
...
The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there."

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45

At a time when we are being sold a line about the second coming of FDR we need to commit to more scrutiny of the original FDR. Was he the savior of a nation or was he the man who ushered in the weakening of individual responsibility by creating the illusion of what is often known as a government "safety net?"

Did he lead us from the great depression, or did he extend that depression by stifling the growth of private industry? It seems that there is no question he lead us through WWII with wisdom, courage, and valiance and should never be tarnished for those efforts, but his domestic policy must now be revisited; not for reasons of partisanship, but to insure that the options ahead of us today will foster growth of the private sector and prevention of more bloating on part of the federal blob.

Oh, and he was a racist too, huh?

I like it around here already...

Same-O, Lame-O-bama, lama, Ding Dong.

2008-11-21T16:20:00.003-06:00

Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff (Clinton Retread)
Eric Holder, Attorney General (Clinton Retread)
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State (literal Clinton)
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense (CURRENT BUSH OFFICIAL!!!)

At first I thought Obama was making safe, unassailable choices. Good centerist idea. Now I'm thinking that he can't really be about change with these people around. They are the same as yesteryear.

This is an example of why I didn't trust his brand of "change" in the first place. We don't really know about policy yet, but the people he is putting in place seem to be protectors of the status quo.

The selection of Gates is not yet confirmed, but would mean that GWB the idiot apparently did something right. I already knew that.

Bush didn't lie. Dem's ignored their eyes.

2008-06-11T11:15:00.009-05:00

For years the opposition has cried for hearings and investigations into the lies leading up to the overthrow of Iraq in 2003. Finally they get their way and it seems that there is nothing to show. In this article by by Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post, we see that the real lies are the ones told by members of Congress with access to classified files. They were lies of omission. They seem to have forgotten that they saw everytihing the Bush Administration saw. And agreed with the analysis.

The pithy catchphrase of 2004, "Bush Lied, People Died" is easy to remember. It also serves as a good substitute for thinking. Who said Fox News was the best in propaganda?

From the Washington Post:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.
By Fred HiattMonday, June 9, 2008; A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find
sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People
Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said. There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally
substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery
vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."
Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in
"Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the
"Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.
But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.
And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the
inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support
for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that
will always, and rightly, be reluctant.
For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without theneed to fictionalize more.

If Tax revenue =19% of GDP Increase GDP for More Revenue

2008-05-23T16:51:00.007-05:00

A Wall Street Journal article by Economic researcher David Ranson explains that since 1950 no matter what the tax rate, the revenue collected will be about 19.5% of the GDP. This has held true for 60 years. The issue is that since rich people are experts at making money work, and since rich people don't like to pay taxes, when the taxes go up, they figure out ways to keep from paying taxes. This often includes making less money so they can keep what they earn.

This lends support to the concept that lower taxes for the rich (not everyone, just the experts) creates a better economy for everyone. Interesting.

Let my Resources go!

2008-03-20T09:57:00.006-05:00

In a column published by the Miami Herald today, activist Gal Luft outlines the effects of our continued oil dependence. His prescription is to have Congress mandate flex fuel at a manufacturer cost of $100 per car. I am not sure whether I trust his math, or his insistence on new government mandates, because if the solution is that cheap, why not convert current autos to support flex fuel? Of course I'll await an answer. I'd put $1000 into my car to support US independence, and lower my gas cost.

Until that answer comes, I would say:

While our dependency on oil is cramping our economic style, we must also concede that we have brought this upon ourselves by bowing to those who claim to be protectors of "the environment."

These self appointed protectors along with their elected official followers have prevented us from lowering the cost of gas by restricting our supply of gas. This has happened in 3 crippling ways.

First there is an uncalculated supply of oil off of the costs of Florida, Texas and California. There is also the well publicized supply available in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve. We have been blocked from getting it. The reasons offered are not acceptable when gas is over $3.00 a gallon.

Second, once the oil is harvested it must be refined, and unreasonable regulations have stood as a roadblock to building new refineries for a quarter of a century.

Third, alternative energy has been blocked by similar unreasonable legislation. When other industrialized nations can depend on nuclear power for more than 75% of their needs, we have surely hobbled ourselves by waiting to build new reactors.

These factors have added to the opportunity seen by by competing nations to weaken us in ways which go far beyond the price we pay at the pump. Move these obstacles, and we will still have years to suffer, but we will at least allow ourselves a certain and proven outlet.

What else is there to say.?

I want to blog more often

2008-03-11T22:33:00.006-05:00

It has 3/4 of a year since I last wrote anything on this blog. I haven't carved out the time to publish my thoughts, and the rest of the world doesn't really seem to care. No, I'm not really surprised, but I do have fun looking back at the things I wrote so many months ago. That was part of the reason I started this thing. The other reason was to offer a wide array of my ideas so that I could direct others to the site when the question came up about what I think. (Yeah, Bee, how often does that happen..? )

I can't say that I disagree with much from last year. I mean now that the guy at the lead of the failed immigration policy is leading the Gopsters to the November election, it is comforting to be able to remind myself exactly what it was that I didn't like about that proposal last year. This means I really have to review my assessment of Sen. McCain. Lately I have been thinking that he would be the best of two evils when paired against Obama or Hillary. In my deepest understanding, that is probably still the case, but if he can make mistakes as dramatic as that immigration bill, do I really want to push him toward the presidency? Again the answer must be to defend against the most pain, and I think he will probably offer us the least pain.

What Michael Moore left on the cutting room floor

2007-06-27T16:26:00.000-05:00

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0626sickojun26,0,7362264,print.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

By Helen Evans, director of Nurses for Reform, a pan-European network of nurses dedicated to consumer-oriented reform of European health-care systems

June 26, 2007

Michael Moore's denunciation of America's health-care system is about to hit the silver screen. In the film's trailer, a desk attendant at a British hospital smiles while explaining that in Britain's National Health Service, "everything is free." But for free hospital care, Britons pay an awfully high price.

Just ask the nearly 1 million British patients on waiting lists for treatment. Or the 200,000 Britons currently waiting merely to get on NHS waiting lists. Mr. Moore must have missed those folks.

Curiously, though, many American policymakers seem to think that a government-managed, NHS-style system is the answer to all of America's health-care woes. Before heading down that road, however, America's leaders ought to actually investigate Britain's experience with state-sponsored medical care.

Upon launching its state health service in 1948, the British government promised that it would provide its citizens with all the "medical, dental and nursing care" needed, so that "everyone -- rich or poor -- [could] use it." To make good on its plans, the government nationalized more than 3,000 independent hospitals, clinics and care homes.

But today, after nearly six decades of attempting to make socialized medicine work, the NHS is in a perilous state.

Consider waiting lists. Across Britain, patients wait years for routine -- or even emergency -- treatments. And many die while waiting.

Indeed, the NHS cancels around 100,000 operations because of shortages each year. In a growing number of communities, it is increasingly difficult for people to simply get an appointment with an NHS general practitioner for a regular checkup.

Further, when it comes to keeping patients healthy, NHS hospitals are notoriously unfit. After admittance to state hospitals, more than 10 percent of patients contract infections and illnesses that they did not have prior to arrival. And according to the Malnutrition Advisory Group, up to 60 percent of NHS patients are undernourished during inpatient stays.

Consequently, many Britons have turned to outside practitioners for treatment, and the private health-care market has boomed. Today, more than 6.5 million people have private medical insurance, 6 million have cash plans, 8 million pay out-of-pocket for a range of complimentary therapies, and 250,000 self-fund each year for private surgery. Millions more opt for private dentistry, ophthalmics and long-term care.

Meanwhile, despite the state's continued claims that it can deliver quality health care to all, government ministers are increasingly willing to quietly outsource health care to the private sector. In other words, instead of directly providing health care through the NHS, the British government is shifting to simply paying the bills.

In 2000, Tony Blair's government authorized the treatment of state-funded patients in private hospitals for the first time. More recently, the government has made it clear that it would like all NHS hospitals to be recast as Independent Foundation Trusts able to attract private investment.

But even with these efforts, the British government has found it hard to cover its expensive obligations. So in addition to waiting lists, substandard care and increased outsourcing, the government has adopted outright rationing to control costs.

Through a concept called "Health Technology Assessments," the United Kingdom now empowers government-appointed experts to dictate which drugs, procedures and treatments are available for public consumption. Charged with controlling costs and watching the bottom line, these bureaucrats are expected to save money -- not lives.

Already, this system has barred the purchase of Herceptin, a lifesaving breast-cancer drug. Alzheimer's patients have had trouble obtaining Aricept, a drug that improves cognition in those afflicted with the degenerative disease.

The criteria for these denials of care are kept from the public. And patients who could be saved needlessly die.

Rationing, as history proves time and again, is always a recipe for horror.

The U.S. health-care system certainly has its shortfalls. But the solution to America's woes can't be found in the U.K. -- no matter how many movie tickets Mr. Moore sells.

----------

Helen Evans is director of Nurses for Reform, a pan-European network of nurses dedicated to consumer-oriented reform of European health-care systems.

George E. Curry Wants Amnesty---Too Bad

2007-06-21T09:35:00.000-05:00

TO: George Curry
FROM: BeeJiggity
RE: Running a numbers game on Black America

No sir, given my unique history as the descendant of Africans who were kidnapped, enslaved, tortured and denied citizenship in the greatest nation on this earth I expect that anyone choosing to come here, at least follow the rules in place in order to become citizens. I don't expect trespassers to be given free reign to do jobs that my brothers and sisters did very well 15 years ago; do those jobs being paid under the table at an illegal rate of pay; expect the rights and privileges of actual citizens who either followed the rules at a financial and emotional cost, or fought for citizenship rights which are still in question.

Citizenship for them without returning to their country of origin paying fees, waiting for processing, and risking denial is unacceptable.

Work visas maybe.
Civil rights, maybe.
Come out from the shadows, maybe.

Staying here and being citizens, voting, serving on juries, holding elected office, coming and going without scrutiny? No.

The Meeting to Plan 9/11 via Loose Brains

2007-05-02T16:01:00.000-05:00

Thank you Atlas!

Matt Taibbi wrote an amusing satirical blurb in Rolling Stone about what he imagined the 9/11 planning session looked like...

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Don, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of farking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of farking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? shiat, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

Cornell West Really Sucks.

2007-03-14T12:32:00.000-05:00

At a leftist conference he is asked what it means to be a leftist in the 21st century. (Full answer.) He comes up with a disconnected ranting stream of consciousness that takes us back to the white slaves of 1690.

Take this selection of drivel and laugh. Then tell me what he just said, and how it is that we consider him one of our foremost leaders of thought?

I’m saying, in part, that at least for me to be a leftist these days, in the way in which -- and I take very seriously Antonio Gramsci’s concern about the historical specificity of the emergeous sustenance and development and subsequent define of the American Empire.

And when you actually look closely at that empire, it seems to me what we have to come to terms with is the fundamental role of corporate greed, religious ideologies, white supremacy, the fundamental rule of the popular culture, youth, and acknowledge that anytime you're talking about white supremacy, you’re always already in some ways talking about the treatment of black women.

And if you're concerned about the treatment of black women, you ought to be concerned about the treatment of women across the board.

So the vicious ideologies, the patriarchy, come in. And the same thing would be true for the James Baldwins and the Audre Lordes, the gay brothers and the lesbian sisters. Now, where does that leave us? Well, for me -- and you all know about the Covenant movement of Tavis Smiley, the book that was launched last year, went number one in the New York Times. We sold 400,000 copies within nine months, not reviewed by the New York Times, not touched by the Today Show. Even Oprah wouldn’t breathe on it. And she can breathe on books and sell half a million these days, you know that?

We just ask Sidney Poitier and Brother Elie Wiesel for that. But this book went underground.
Why? Because Tavis Smiley knows that in an American culture that is so thoroughly commodified, driven by corporate greed, thoroughly commercialized, driven by corporate greed, thoroughly marketized, driven by corporate greed, you have to be able to communicate in such a way that you might be able then to shake people from their sleepwalking, which he's done every year now on C-SPAN, and uses his position in order to raise issues of right to healthcare, community-based policing so you can deal with some of this police brutality, especially in black and brown communities of proletarian and lumpenproletarian character, and so forth.

*HUH?*
Are you telling me, now that based on public speaking abilities that President Bush is dumb? Cornell is certainly dumber.

To be Popular or Smart...?

2007-03-05T20:24:00.000-06:00

To me the question is simple. It is one all teenagers have to ask, and anyone with any wisdom has already made the right decision.

According to worldwide popular opinion (which means NOTHING) the US has decide on the latter.

A BBC Survey of 28,000 people has found that the US is a little bit more popular than Iran, a bit less popular than North Korea, and a good bit less liked than Israel.

The article correctly analyzes that nations with significant military power are found to be unpopular by this sample of people. What neither the analysis, nor the people seem to understand is that there is a grand difference between the power held by Israel and the US, as compared to the power held by North Korea or Iran. Anyone who needs an explanation either doesn't keep up with world affairs, or is playing equivelancy games by pretending the military power of the US is held at the expense of the starvation of our citizens.

Not true.

Here's the article:

LONDON (AP) - Israel, Iran and the United States are the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major countries. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released Tuesday.
The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.'s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries - Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela - as having a positive or negative influence on the world.
Israel was viewed negatively by 56 per cent of respondents and positively by 17 per cent; for Iran, the figures were 54 per cent and 18 per cent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 per cent citing it as a bad influence and 30 per cent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 per cent and positively by 19 per cent.
Canada had the most positive rating in the survey of 28,389 people in 27 countries, with 54 per cent viewing it positively and 14 per cent negatively. It was followed by Japan and France.
Respondents were also asked their views of the 25-member European Union; 53 per cent saw it as positive and 19 per cent as negative.
Britain, China and India were viewed more positively than negatively, while Russia had more negative than positive responses. Opinion on Venezuela was evenly split.
"It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the pursuit of military power," said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, which conducted the research along with pollster GlobeScan.
"Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like France and Japan and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively," he added.
Pollsters questioned about 1,000 people each in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States between Nov. 3 and Jan. 16. The margin of error in each country ranged between plus or minus 3.1 percentage points and plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Obama Perception vs. Reality

2007-02-24T11:57:00.000-06:00

This article tells why Obama's support will only come from leftists, and those who want to make a statement by voting for a black president.

Those could be the only justification for voting for a hardcore liberal.

Oh he will also be supported by people who aren't really paying attention to politics.

'Cause he's really nice, and he talks pretty. Really. He does.

Perception vs. reality - Examiner.com

The Earth, the earth The earth is on fire...?

2007-02-23T09:31:00.000-06:00

Again, the issue is not whether or not there is Global warming. The issue is whether WE are causing it.

Here is another article that says no. Here are some quotes by an article from Pierre DuPont:

Plus Ça (Climate) Change

...a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied withtime: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today ourclimate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
-----------------
...Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants...
-----------------
Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now.
-----------------
While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

Those quotes are all illuminating, but the greatest threat of an inaccurate diagnosis of human-caused global warming is similar to the inaccurate assertions made against the use of DDT to curb the spread of malaria. DuPont says:

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

That is why we better be pretty sure we are the problem before we decide to "fix the problem."

DE don't need any thinkin' Climatologists!

2007-02-23T08:31:00.000-06:00

I thought there was no dispute among scientists about whether human activity causes global warming.

Apparently Delaware's State Climatologist David R. Legates didn't finish off his Kool-Aid. He has had the crazy notion that as State Climatologist he could express his opinion on an (apparently) undecided climate-related topic, while at the same time mentioning that he was the official Climatologist for the State of Delaware. What a leap.

The Governor says, "no." The University of Delaware Assoc. Professor has been banned from mentioning his title anywhere he calls into question the existance of man-made global warming.

How does it make any sense that a state would have a person in such a nondescript position who must be put in check about one of the bigger lies of our day. The lie is not that humans are causing global warming, it is that the scientific community has come to an agreement that humans are causing global warming.

Doesn't science ask us to continue to question, hypothesize, exeriment, conclude, and repeat?

If there is a dispute about the methods of the outcomes, shouldn't we try to address those before claiming that the discussion is over?

The most illustrative part of the Delaware Daily Times article explaining this was this sentence:

"Similar dustups have occurred in Virginia and Oregon recently, as state climatologists there came under criticism for active "contrarian" stands on climate change..."

If you have been named State Climatologist, no matter how useless the title, you probably know the difference between a cumulus cloud and a barometer. Chances are good that you could even be called an "expert." I guess what we have here is another expert who doesn't really count,aka, an independent voice; isn't that what we are supposed to be supporting with positions like that anyway?

Obama's Record Really is Weak

2007-02-17T22:52:00.000-06:00

Second only to his tendency to favor socialist policy, the habit of talking pretty and saying nothing is one that must change for Saint Obama if anyone is to take him seriously. It is the one thing that has glared brightly about since I first heard of him. He seemed like a guy who could get his point across very well, if he ever got around to telling you what that point was.

You don't REALLY know where the guy stands without really paying attention. Today the situation seems to be the same. Over on the OpinionJournal (via RealClearPolitics) Nathan Gonzales goes back to the Senator's record as a legislator in Illinois and details exactly that point.

There are other examples, but the essence is here:

In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill...

...Because it takes affirmative votes to pass legislation in the Illinois Senate, a "present" vote is tantamount to a "no" vote. A "present" vote is generally used to provide political cover for legislators who don't want to be on the record against a bill that they oppose. Of course, Obama isn't the first or only Illinois state senator to vote "present," but he is the only one running for President of the United States.

And the details are Here

You're no Abe Lincoln

2007-02-12T10:10:00.000-06:00

Dr Wallace has been kind enough to remind us that Saint Obama is not alligned with the same party of his historic role model. The anointed Senator would not fit in today's Republican party. Well maybe with Chaffe, amd Snow, but not with the Conservative-AntiStatist mainstream which defines the party today. Over at Illinois Review he has a list of some Pioneering Black Republicans who held office to expand freedom.

Check it out Here.

The first commenter Hi-jacks the discussion by asking whether Lincoln would be a GOP'er today, but that should not be the question. Lincoln was the man he was in the party he was in at that time. The question should be whether Obama lives up to the Legacy. And the answer is no.

I commented with this:
Thanks Eric!
First off, I'm tired of all the Obama-love. Next - you are right for noting that "our black people are better than their black people" because we are. Not better as people, but better equipped to guide the nation because of our beliefs.

The Republicans you mentioned were people fighting for the expansion of freedom with policies that would bring freedom to more people.

Obama's policies do not expand freedom. The one he has been kind enough to tell us about is BarracK-Kare. Government-run health care will tap the nation's rescources and weaken future generations. Just as GWB was wrong on the Medicaid Part D, Obama wants to continue the wrong move by expanding to Medicaid Part Z, division S, subset R which will determine whether we use Bactine or Mercuricone when your 8-year-old skins her knee.

We have to beat the drum against his leftist momentum at every opportunity because so many will see a polished speaker who seldom says anything specific. This will pull people to his side. The mantra against him must be that Communism with a smile is still Communism.

What a Dumbo

2006-11-27T10:15:00.000-06:00

To die for your beliefs is worthy.

To kill yourself on purpose is stupid.

Malachi Ritscher burned himself in protest over the US involvement in Iraq.

Stupid.

The best news is that nobody noticed. I'd like to make this blog entry count as negative publicity, but since there really is no such thing, I will settle for calling him stupid.

Darwin in action.

Today's problem with Immigration

2006-11-23T19:53:00.000-06:00

The simple answer is that we need people who will benefit us. We have no obligation to provide benefit to those who simply want to come here. We should match immigrants with our NEEDS. Not our wants.

That means reducing the scope of family tied prioritiy when deciding who gets to come in.

We can only sustain ourselves if we are able to continue to progress.That won't happen if we continue to let isolated Mexican anclaves grow. The people we admit must be able to sustain themselves.

To say this and much more even better, read this article from CityJournal.

Amnesty Bad idea for GOP

2006-11-21T13:14:00.000-06:00

Over at RightWingNews, Mr. Hawkins has some insights for why it would be suicide to suppport amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens in the United States today.

Aside from the fact that they have shown no respect for out borders, the J-Hawk says:

It's short an sweet. Check it out!

I think you can screw Mike Tyson

2006-11-17T14:56:00.000-06:00

Tyson's gonna be a hooka' at Heidi Fleiss' brothel for women in Nevada. That, at least, is the latest story hittin' da net. Maybe it's real, maybe not. Who cares?

The important part is the spin. So here, you go:

A commenter at the Moderate Voice said that this harkens back to the day when Joe Louis became a greeter at a Vegas casino. Really too bad.

See the difference is that before Joe Louis became a greeter, he was respected as a groundbreaking hero.

Tyson has always been one step above an alley rat. This is quite fitting for the animal to be put out to stud.

My only question is: What type of woman wants to take the chance of picking up a phat beatdown from ol' Iron Mike?

hat tip: http://africanamericanopinion.com/ via. http://www.themoderatevoice.com/

No Habeas Corpus for YOU!

2006-11-16T13:01:00.000-06:00

Airport Arrest Turns Up Nuclear Info

(Cyanide? Who carries Cyanide?)

A man was arrested at Detroit Metropolitan Airport after officials say they found him carrying more than $78,000 in cash and a laptop computer containing information about nuclear materials and cyanide.

Sisayehiticha Dinssa, an unemployed U.S. citizen, was arrested Tuesday after a dog caught the scent of narcotics on cash he was carrying, according to an affidavit filed in court. When agents asked him if he had any cash to declare, he said he had $18,000, authorities said. But when agents checked his luggage, they found an additional $59,000. When they scrolled through his laptop, they said they found the mysterious files.

At a court hearing Wednesday, Dinssa was ordered held in custody until at least until Monday at the request of prosecutors. Assistant U.S. Attorney Leonid Feller argued Dinssa was a potential risk to the community and federal agents want to get a warrant to search his computer more thoroughly, The Detroit News reported Thursday. U.S. Magistrate Donald Scheer approved Feller's request to detain him.

Dinssa, who is from Dallas, arrived in Detroit from Nigeria by way of Amsterdam and was headed for Phoenix, Feller said. He is charged with concealing more than $10,000 in his luggage, which carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, the Detroit Free Press reported.

A message seeking comment was left Thursday with his lawyer, Leroy Soles.

Michigan Anti-Affirmative spin from WSJ

2006-11-14T14:19:00.000-06:00

Opinion Journal adds some meat to the bones of this Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Victory discussion.

I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions. The simple issue is that it is wrong to discriminate based on race. We all know that it happens, but codification of the immoral practice is not an acceptable way to remedy the situation.

Here are some excerpts:

The political and business establishments, pressure groups like the AARP, labor-union leaders, religious spokesmen, the professoriat, the major Detroit newspapers--all were opposed to MCRI...

opponents loudly claimed that the measure was misleading... "I read it," replied Ms. Alpach. "I understood it. I signed it. Now let me vote on it."
The initiative's opponents enjoyed a fivefold funding advantage, which they used to broadcast a series of scary messages

This thing passed because even traditional opponents from the left couldn't contort logic enough to support it:

as an editorial writer for the very liberal Daily Michigan newspaper has suggested. The campus "is starkly segregated. . . . We live in different student neighborhoods. We go to different bars on different nights. We join in different student groups. There are even separate Greek systems."

The Supreme Court has never said that universities are constitutionally obligated to institute "diversity" policies. Public universities are funded by taxpayers. And those taxpayers have spoken.

Numbers say Immigration Is Key.

2006-11-14T14:11:00.000-06:00

Illegal Immigration is the Key issue to winning back the house.

If only GWB and the losing GOP Hse Members had danced with those of us who brung 'em.

DESIREE COOPER: Prop 2 reactions fairly upbeat

2006-11-09T12:00:00.000-06:00

DESIREE COOPER: Prop 2 reactions fairly upbeat

With the passing of Proposition 2 in Michigan, there will be no more race-based affirmative action in Michigan.

My thoughts on this are quite simple, and the article above has the views of some others who agree with me. First off I think that race-based decision making by public officials will always be suspect. Now in Michigan, that problem no longer exists.

I have always felt that there should be criterion beyond race which should be used to uplift people who are out of the access loop. So many times it is said that AA in education is used to help poor blacks get their first generation into college. Well if education is such a necessity (and it is) why limit that access to blacks? Shouldn't everyone who is poor get the same consideration so we can bring the people from "worse to first?"

The other confusing part of this for me is that the city of Detroit is in Michigan. I don't know the specific figures, but I do know that blacks make up a majority of the city. If that's the case, how does it measure up when calculating the presence of minority business?

I think that is a bit of homework I just gave myself. (Don't expect it to be completed any time soon.)