Better Response, But Not Perfect
Dean's response to the Hussein news was much wiser than Kerry's or Gephart's. Dean offered congratulations in his statement:
Dec. 14, 2004, WEST PALM BEACH-- Governor Dean issued the following statement this morning:
"This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.
"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them."
Of course, he failed to congratulate the President. No surprise there. Then, I guess because none of the Dems can resist doing so, Dean went to a line that will not play- bring in the UN:
"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort."
The UN wasn't needed, as was shown by the capture. That is as plain as day.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
Presidency Secured
I had previously figured that, with Bush's signing of the legislation authorizing the prescription drug giveaway to senior citizens, he had secured his re-election. Then, Howard Dean was annointed by Al Gore the Pious, which in my mind sealed the deal.
Now, Saddam Hussein has been captured. Can there be any doubt that Bush's approval ratings will soar?
It has been amusing to watch Democratic presidential hopefuls respond. John Kerry was quick to point out that Osama bin Laden is still out there. He's right, but that won't play. Dick Gephart was quick to point out that the US hasn't been including the rest of the world. It was just shown that the rest of the world wasn't needed, so that won't play, either.
It will be interesting to see who will be the first, if anyone does, to point to something that will play. Congratulating the president and the military might be wise.
I had previously figured that, with Bush's signing of the legislation authorizing the prescription drug giveaway to senior citizens, he had secured his re-election. Then, Howard Dean was annointed by Al Gore the Pious, which in my mind sealed the deal.
Now, Saddam Hussein has been captured. Can there be any doubt that Bush's approval ratings will soar?
It has been amusing to watch Democratic presidential hopefuls respond. John Kerry was quick to point out that Osama bin Laden is still out there. He's right, but that won't play. Dick Gephart was quick to point out that the US hasn't been including the rest of the world. It was just shown that the rest of the world wasn't needed, so that won't play, either.
It will be interesting to see who will be the first, if anyone does, to point to something that will play. Congratulating the president and the military might be wise.
Issue Number One
For most Americans, terrorism has been Job One, hence President Bush's relatively high approval ratings. Yes, I know, the ratings have been slipping, but they are going to go through the roof if the news of the capture of Saddam Hussein is true. Story.
I have held my nose on the war effort for some time. I thought it quite appropriate to go after Osama bin Laden after the attacks on September 11, but did believe it to be appropriate to go after Iraq. Was Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction? Undoubtedly, just as the Clinton Administration informed the nation. Has China? Did the USSR? Is there any doubt that those nations developed the weapons with us in mind? Should we have gone after them? Would I be here to write this if we had?
My greatest fear is that the US will perpetually be a nation at war. We can endlessly accuse nations of potentially having the United States as a target, and endlessly be issuing pre-emptive strikes. I don't trust governments that act pre-emptively based on what they think someone will do. One that does it abroad may just as easily do it at home.
Gun owners, I'm talking to you. If you have guns, you have the ability to kill. If you are a politically vocal gun owner, might a government official conclude that you are a threat, and should be locked up or taken out, just to be safe?
I know that the Hussein regime was as evil as they come, and I am glad for the Iraqi people that Hussein is out of power. I lament that we have not captured bin Laden, which IS Job Number One.
Question: Is it the job of the United States to overthrow evil empires? If so, who qualifies? The President has identified North Korea and the axis of evil. Iran is probably on the list. Where do we stop? China? Russia? Cuba? France? If this is our job, we're going to be busy for the rest of our lifetimes.
Now that Hussein is in our hands, let's end this thing. Turn the reins over the the Iraqi people and let their experiment in self-government begin.
For most Americans, terrorism has been Job One, hence President Bush's relatively high approval ratings. Yes, I know, the ratings have been slipping, but they are going to go through the roof if the news of the capture of Saddam Hussein is true. Story.
I have held my nose on the war effort for some time. I thought it quite appropriate to go after Osama bin Laden after the attacks on September 11, but did believe it to be appropriate to go after Iraq. Was Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction? Undoubtedly, just as the Clinton Administration informed the nation. Has China? Did the USSR? Is there any doubt that those nations developed the weapons with us in mind? Should we have gone after them? Would I be here to write this if we had?
My greatest fear is that the US will perpetually be a nation at war. We can endlessly accuse nations of potentially having the United States as a target, and endlessly be issuing pre-emptive strikes. I don't trust governments that act pre-emptively based on what they think someone will do. One that does it abroad may just as easily do it at home.
Gun owners, I'm talking to you. If you have guns, you have the ability to kill. If you are a politically vocal gun owner, might a government official conclude that you are a threat, and should be locked up or taken out, just to be safe?
I know that the Hussein regime was as evil as they come, and I am glad for the Iraqi people that Hussein is out of power. I lament that we have not captured bin Laden, which IS Job Number One.
Question: Is it the job of the United States to overthrow evil empires? If so, who qualifies? The President has identified North Korea and the axis of evil. Iran is probably on the list. Where do we stop? China? Russia? Cuba? France? If this is our job, we're going to be busy for the rest of our lifetimes.
Now that Hussein is in our hands, let's end this thing. Turn the reins over the the Iraqi people and let their experiment in self-government begin.
Saturday, December 06, 2003
The Wide World of Sports
Every person uses tools to perform the work they do. A plumber uses wrenches and sealants. A landscaper uses mowers and rakes. Doctors use instruments. All use their minds to some degree or other, or should.
Athletes have their bodies as their foremost tool. Some people argue that athletes don't use their minds very much. I tend to give most athletes more credit than that, but I will have to concede that there is a group that clearly does not use their minds. In fact, this group is destroying the tools in order to make a point.
What kind of worker destroys his tools in order to demonstrate how oppresed he is? A moron? I guess some union strikers in a wildcat frenzy will do that... but I repeat myself... besides, their intent is to damage the tools provided them by the employer.
Honduran soccer players are destroying the tools, on a hunger strike. Not that I support the employers failing to make good on their end of the deal- far from it. It's just that it's hard to tell who is now harming the worker at the moment. It will be easy to tell in about a month.
Every person uses tools to perform the work they do. A plumber uses wrenches and sealants. A landscaper uses mowers and rakes. Doctors use instruments. All use their minds to some degree or other, or should.
Athletes have their bodies as their foremost tool. Some people argue that athletes don't use their minds very much. I tend to give most athletes more credit than that, but I will have to concede that there is a group that clearly does not use their minds. In fact, this group is destroying the tools in order to make a point.
What kind of worker destroys his tools in order to demonstrate how oppresed he is? A moron? I guess some union strikers in a wildcat frenzy will do that... but I repeat myself... besides, their intent is to damage the tools provided them by the employer.
Honduran soccer players are destroying the tools, on a hunger strike. Not that I support the employers failing to make good on their end of the deal- far from it. It's just that it's hard to tell who is now harming the worker at the moment. It will be easy to tell in about a month.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
So It's Anathema? Big Deal
One of the biggest hurdles in taking the Libertarian Party from third party to major party status lies in the libertarians themselves. Stay with me on this.
Libertarians abhor government. They join a political party only with the greatest reluctance. Libertarians are living laissez faire, which means "leave us alone". So, it's anathema for libertarians to embrace the idea of becoming government officials.
Pity for us. You can't allow liberal Republicans and socialist Democrats to be the government officials and then also be surprised when they draft anti-liberty legislation or erect a labyrinth of red tape. In the language of my son Alex, "Duh".
In some parts of Indiana, there is actually an opportunity for LP members to be appointed to boards, such as zoning or planning, and some of our members are actually cringing at the thought. (Tell this to the LP of Ohio, where they just poured their souls into getting on the ballot. They have wet dreams about our opportunity.)
I understand the gut-reaction of the cringe. In a better world, government would be nice and small, and would leave us alone. Fact is, it isn't and it doesn't. So, who will it be? Us or them? Would you, as a libertarian, rather have a libertarian serving on a taxing body or a committed statist?".
I'll up the ante and point to what I do these days as an example of what being on the inside of the process can produce. I work for a County Surveyor's Office. Yes sir, I am inside the belly of the beast itself. I was hired by an elected official- a Republican- who has won re-election every time since 1977. I have found that he agrees with us on rather a lot. Not everything, of course, but he's a small government Republican. However, he has even asked me what it would take for us to replace the Democrats on the boards in the county!
Think about that possibility in terms of fiscal issues. If Democrats are on the left, and Republicans right of them, they meet in the middle, more or less. Consider what it would be like in some counties if taxing bodies were comprised of Republicans on the left and Libertarians on the right, meeting in the middle, more or less. Would that be of value to you?
Being alongside elected officials in the day-to-day work setting helps break down the barrier of common thought that goes, "if a Libertarian is elected, the city will be in flames within a week". I do my job very well. They see me do my job very well. They decide, "he's ok". They'll vote for me when I run for office. Moreover, being in government gives you the platform to talk about government in a real, germaine way... unlike Thanksgiving dinner.
I know that most libertarians are so because government is anathema to who they are. However, if we really want to change things, we'll have to get our hands dirty and do some things that may on first blush cause us to hold our noses. Who knows, though? You might even have some fun along the way. (For instance, I'm in Hamilton County, which is one of the most Republican counties in Indiana. I love telling Republicans that I could be one of them if they weren't such fiscal liberals! I love watching them cringe to that music.)
Look, the Declaration of Independence wasn't drafted by a bunch of people who sat around and theorized correctly about Adam Smith in cozy saftey. No, they did something they would rather have not done. They gave up their cozy safety and put their lives on the line.
I'm asking for much less when I ask libertarians to get off their debate society duffs, to put their money where their theory-gushing mouths are, and to get involved in government to affect change towards freedom. If you aren't willing to hold your nose and sit on a zoning board, YOU AREN'T WORTHY OF FREEDOM ANYHOW.
One of the biggest hurdles in taking the Libertarian Party from third party to major party status lies in the libertarians themselves. Stay with me on this.
Libertarians abhor government. They join a political party only with the greatest reluctance. Libertarians are living laissez faire, which means "leave us alone". So, it's anathema for libertarians to embrace the idea of becoming government officials.
Pity for us. You can't allow liberal Republicans and socialist Democrats to be the government officials and then also be surprised when they draft anti-liberty legislation or erect a labyrinth of red tape. In the language of my son Alex, "Duh".
In some parts of Indiana, there is actually an opportunity for LP members to be appointed to boards, such as zoning or planning, and some of our members are actually cringing at the thought. (Tell this to the LP of Ohio, where they just poured their souls into getting on the ballot. They have wet dreams about our opportunity.)
I understand the gut-reaction of the cringe. In a better world, government would be nice and small, and would leave us alone. Fact is, it isn't and it doesn't. So, who will it be? Us or them? Would you, as a libertarian, rather have a libertarian serving on a taxing body or a committed statist?".
I'll up the ante and point to what I do these days as an example of what being on the inside of the process can produce. I work for a County Surveyor's Office. Yes sir, I am inside the belly of the beast itself. I was hired by an elected official- a Republican- who has won re-election every time since 1977. I have found that he agrees with us on rather a lot. Not everything, of course, but he's a small government Republican. However, he has even asked me what it would take for us to replace the Democrats on the boards in the county!
Think about that possibility in terms of fiscal issues. If Democrats are on the left, and Republicans right of them, they meet in the middle, more or less. Consider what it would be like in some counties if taxing bodies were comprised of Republicans on the left and Libertarians on the right, meeting in the middle, more or less. Would that be of value to you?
Being alongside elected officials in the day-to-day work setting helps break down the barrier of common thought that goes, "if a Libertarian is elected, the city will be in flames within a week". I do my job very well. They see me do my job very well. They decide, "he's ok". They'll vote for me when I run for office. Moreover, being in government gives you the platform to talk about government in a real, germaine way... unlike Thanksgiving dinner.
I know that most libertarians are so because government is anathema to who they are. However, if we really want to change things, we'll have to get our hands dirty and do some things that may on first blush cause us to hold our noses. Who knows, though? You might even have some fun along the way. (For instance, I'm in Hamilton County, which is one of the most Republican counties in Indiana. I love telling Republicans that I could be one of them if they weren't such fiscal liberals! I love watching them cringe to that music.)
Look, the Declaration of Independence wasn't drafted by a bunch of people who sat around and theorized correctly about Adam Smith in cozy saftey. No, they did something they would rather have not done. They gave up their cozy safety and put their lives on the line.
I'm asking for much less when I ask libertarians to get off their debate society duffs, to put their money where their theory-gushing mouths are, and to get involved in government to affect change towards freedom. If you aren't willing to hold your nose and sit on a zoning board, YOU AREN'T WORTHY OF FREEDOM ANYHOW.
I Do Not Miss Cleveland
When I left Cleveland, I left a numbing mindset of clutching ever backward towards the past. I admit that one of the things I loved about Cleveland was the presence of big industry- steel, railroads, foundries, auto plants, and more. But, I love these things as functional giants, not the rotting hulks in closed-up mills and yards, and the ornamentation they have become in the entertainment district known as the Flats. These things made Cleveland a first-class city in around 1890. No more.
I left the punishing greed of the Democratic Party that rules northeast Ohio to the point that statewide, Ohio's Republicans are left of Indiana's Democrats. I gave myself a full 9.5% raise just by leaving Ohio, saving 4% in state income tax, 3.5% in municipal tax, and 2% in sales tax. The Democratic Party was innovative around 1900, with Mayor Tom. L. Johnson, the capital 'P' Progressive who made Cleveland the first city in the U.S. to own an electric utility. In better than 100 years, the Democrats have more or less owned the city, and look at the result. It was a first-class city that was loaded with towering industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, and was an immigrant magnet around 1900. No more.
When I left Cleveland, I left a numbing mindset of clutching ever backward towards the past. I admit that one of the things I loved about Cleveland was the presence of big industry- steel, railroads, foundries, auto plants, and more. But, I love these things as functional giants, not the rotting hulks in closed-up mills and yards, and the ornamentation they have become in the entertainment district known as the Flats. These things made Cleveland a first-class city in around 1890. No more.
I left the punishing greed of the Democratic Party that rules northeast Ohio to the point that statewide, Ohio's Republicans are left of Indiana's Democrats. I gave myself a full 9.5% raise just by leaving Ohio, saving 4% in state income tax, 3.5% in municipal tax, and 2% in sales tax. The Democratic Party was innovative around 1900, with Mayor Tom. L. Johnson, the capital 'P' Progressive who made Cleveland the first city in the U.S. to own an electric utility. In better than 100 years, the Democrats have more or less owned the city, and look at the result. It was a first-class city that was loaded with towering industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, and was an immigrant magnet around 1900. No more.
I Miss Cleveland
For the first time in my 15 or so months away from the ol' mistake on the Lake, I actually felt like I missed it once there. I was getting to where I was certain I would never feel such a thing, despite having spent most of my first 34 years there.
It wasn't the industrial landscape that I so love that moved me. I got to play an old game as I drove through the city, called, "I did a job here".
As a surveyor in the Cleveland area doing a lot of work for utility companies, I really blanketed the area. East Side, West Side, Downtown, outer suburbs- it doesn't matter. I can drive in any direction in the area for three minutes, and invariably I will be able to claim, "I did a job there". This is a game I used to annoy a co-worker as we drive across town.
It was a lot of fun to play. What I realized is that I had tangible evidence that I was contributing to my region. I could point to a telephone pole, a pedestal, a service cabinet, a vault, a manhole, and a hundred other structures and know that this was a result of my effort. I could see it every day.
I had no idea I could be so concrete! I know that I am having an impact in Indiana, both in the Surveyor's Office and in the Libertarian Party, but having it be evident almost everywhere was really gratifying.
For the first time in my 15 or so months away from the ol' mistake on the Lake, I actually felt like I missed it once there. I was getting to where I was certain I would never feel such a thing, despite having spent most of my first 34 years there.
It wasn't the industrial landscape that I so love that moved me. I got to play an old game as I drove through the city, called, "I did a job here".
As a surveyor in the Cleveland area doing a lot of work for utility companies, I really blanketed the area. East Side, West Side, Downtown, outer suburbs- it doesn't matter. I can drive in any direction in the area for three minutes, and invariably I will be able to claim, "I did a job there". This is a game I used to annoy a co-worker as we drive across town.
It was a lot of fun to play. What I realized is that I had tangible evidence that I was contributing to my region. I could point to a telephone pole, a pedestal, a service cabinet, a vault, a manhole, and a hundred other structures and know that this was a result of my effort. I could see it every day.
I had no idea I could be so concrete! I know that I am having an impact in Indiana, both in the Surveyor's Office and in the Libertarian Party, but having it be evident almost everywhere was really gratifying.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Adios, Alex
It was so great to have Alex with me for four days over an extended Thanksgiving weekend. It was just like old times to be with him in Cleveland, and in our own little world. We went to Tower City in downtown Cleveland, went bowling, ate tons of food, visited with Grandma & Grandpa, played card games, wrestled, and generally had a blast.
It's tough saying goodbye to him- I hadn't seen him since getting married in June- but the upside is that Ame & I will be visiting him in January in Espana, and we get to look forward to that time when he will show us around his world, which is Rota and Andalucia. It will be a hoot!
I was chuckling as he squirmed through Grandma's, "look at how big you've gotten" -isms. I used to squirm to them, too. I spared him that corny spiel, but I did tell him many times that I think he's a great kid. It's no spiel. He really is a great kid.
Four days never passed so quickly.
It was so great to have Alex with me for four days over an extended Thanksgiving weekend. It was just like old times to be with him in Cleveland, and in our own little world. We went to Tower City in downtown Cleveland, went bowling, ate tons of food, visited with Grandma & Grandpa, played card games, wrestled, and generally had a blast.
It's tough saying goodbye to him- I hadn't seen him since getting married in June- but the upside is that Ame & I will be visiting him in January in Espana, and we get to look forward to that time when he will show us around his world, which is Rota and Andalucia. It will be a hoot!
I was chuckling as he squirmed through Grandma's, "look at how big you've gotten" -isms. I used to squirm to them, too. I spared him that corny spiel, but I did tell him many times that I think he's a great kid. It's no spiel. He really is a great kid.
Four days never passed so quickly.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
A Republican Member of Congress Speaks
Ok, so this is cheating a bit in my quest to dispel the notion that I am a frothing lunatic due to my prediction that the GOP is running itself into a schism. Now Ron Paul (R-TX) has chimed in with his own 'hear ye, fiscal conservatives: abandon all hope in the GOP' message. It's cheating because Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in a past life. Still, he's a Republican today- just like Andy Horning.
"The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by Congress last week may prove to be a watershed event for political conservatives in America. This latest expansion of the federal government, potentially the largest in our nation’s history, is firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left. This leaves true conservatives, who believe strongly in limited government and identify with the Goldwater-era Republican party, wondering whether they still have a political home in the modern GOP. In the eyes of many conservatives, today’s GOP simply has abandoned its limited-government heritage to buy votes and gain political power in Washington."
Last week, Neal Boortz brought it home thusly, and I paraphrase, 'Today's Republicans are where Democrats were in 1963, and today's Democrats are where the socialists were in 1963'.
Yep. The statists are winning the war, but this schism will help the individualists clarify the objectives.
Ok, so this is cheating a bit in my quest to dispel the notion that I am a frothing lunatic due to my prediction that the GOP is running itself into a schism. Now Ron Paul (R-TX) has chimed in with his own 'hear ye, fiscal conservatives: abandon all hope in the GOP' message. It's cheating because Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in a past life. Still, he's a Republican today- just like Andy Horning.
"The Medicare prescription drug bill passed by Congress last week may prove to be a watershed event for political conservatives in America. This latest expansion of the federal government, potentially the largest in our nation’s history, is firmly in keeping with the failed New Deal and Great Society programs of the utopian left. This leaves true conservatives, who believe strongly in limited government and identify with the Goldwater-era Republican party, wondering whether they still have a political home in the modern GOP. In the eyes of many conservatives, today’s GOP simply has abandoned its limited-government heritage to buy votes and gain political power in Washington."
Last week, Neal Boortz brought it home thusly, and I paraphrase, 'Today's Republicans are where Democrats were in 1963, and today's Democrats are where the socialists were in 1963'.
Yep. The statists are winning the war, but this schism will help the individualists clarify the objectives.
Monday, December 01, 2003
The Ink Keeps Spilling
There seems to be an endless supply of well-known or well-placed conservative writers willing to criticize the GOP for their free spending ways. It is pleasing to me that there are so many that do retain their integrity, and who do criticize when the GOP parts ways with principle. (On the left, there are some who will criticize the Democrats, but rarely the well-known, and less than that for the well-placed, and usually the pseudo-intellectual types such as Christopher Hitchens.)
Donald Devine, a Reagan administration official, joins the chorus over the $400 billion Medicare 'reform' / prescription drug transfer of wealth in his article entitled "What Should Reaganites Do?".
Why, join the Libertarian Party, of course, but he dare not say that. What he does say, and the numbers he uses again reinforce that I am not a frothing lunatic.
An ABC News poll recently found disapproval of Bush's job performance among self-described conservatives has increased from 14 to 23 percent. By contrast, Ronald Reagan wanted to cut the welfare state and was generally successful, being rewarded with committed conservative support in good times and bad. Conservatives may have no option in 2004 (other than staying home) but, if they want to recover the Reagan philosophy, they will get no assistance from anyone in party or government today, so they had better start devising a course of action by themselves.
Reaganites who care to be honest will have to begin to assert themselves forcefully while they still can wrest control of the GOP back to its' small government ways. Otherwise, the LP will be their only hope, like it or not.
There seems to be an endless supply of well-known or well-placed conservative writers willing to criticize the GOP for their free spending ways. It is pleasing to me that there are so many that do retain their integrity, and who do criticize when the GOP parts ways with principle. (On the left, there are some who will criticize the Democrats, but rarely the well-known, and less than that for the well-placed, and usually the pseudo-intellectual types such as Christopher Hitchens.)
Donald Devine, a Reagan administration official, joins the chorus over the $400 billion Medicare 'reform' / prescription drug transfer of wealth in his article entitled "What Should Reaganites Do?".
Why, join the Libertarian Party, of course, but he dare not say that. What he does say, and the numbers he uses again reinforce that I am not a frothing lunatic.
An ABC News poll recently found disapproval of Bush's job performance among self-described conservatives has increased from 14 to 23 percent. By contrast, Ronald Reagan wanted to cut the welfare state and was generally successful, being rewarded with committed conservative support in good times and bad. Conservatives may have no option in 2004 (other than staying home) but, if they want to recover the Reagan philosophy, they will get no assistance from anyone in party or government today, so they had better start devising a course of action by themselves.
Reaganites who care to be honest will have to begin to assert themselves forcefully while they still can wrest control of the GOP back to its' small government ways. Otherwise, the LP will be their only hope, like it or not.
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Letters To The Editor, IV
What fun to be in Cleveland for an extended holiday weekend and to discover that the Indy Star has printed another one of my letters.
I am amazed that it ran as-is, since the thing essentially reads like ad copy. I am pleased and grateful. Is that redundant? I think so.
What fun to be in Cleveland for an extended holiday weekend and to discover that the Indy Star has printed another one of my letters.
I am amazed that it ran as-is, since the thing essentially reads like ad copy. I am pleased and grateful. Is that redundant? I think so.
Couldn't Have Said It Better, II
I am becoming less and less a frothing lunatic as the chorus of committed conservatives and Republicans chimes in to criticize the $400 billion Medicare "reform" bill.
Cal Thomas' article is especially damning, chucking skewers at the GOP in general:
"Smaller government and less spending? That's a joke. Eleven years ago, Newt Gingrich, who would soon become Speaker of the House, blasted Democrats for seeing "no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel (spending) for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment." Now that Republicans are doing precisely what Democrats did when they were in the majority, what shall we call these overspending Republicans? Hypocrites? Liars?"
Thomas asks, rhetorically, "Is it time for another revolution yet? Who's got the tea?"
I like the fissure that is emerging. Let's make it a chasm. We have the tea!
I am becoming less and less a frothing lunatic as the chorus of committed conservatives and Republicans chimes in to criticize the $400 billion Medicare "reform" bill.
Cal Thomas' article is especially damning, chucking skewers at the GOP in general:
"Smaller government and less spending? That's a joke. Eleven years ago, Newt Gingrich, who would soon become Speaker of the House, blasted Democrats for seeing "no contradiction between adding a billion and a half dollars in pork-barrel (spending) for the politicians in their big-city machines and voting for a balanced budget amendment." Now that Republicans are doing precisely what Democrats did when they were in the majority, what shall we call these overspending Republicans? Hypocrites? Liars?"
Thomas asks, rhetorically, "Is it time for another revolution yet? Who's got the tea?"
I like the fissure that is emerging. Let's make it a chasm. We have the tea!
Friday, November 28, 2003
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself
It must have been weird for fiscal conservatives to have to cheer Ted Kennedy and other liberal Democrats as they threatened fillibuster on the $400 billion entitlement program that just passed the Senate. Of course, they were in opposition because the deal wasn't destructive, er, large enough.
Reuben Navarrette's Friday column is excellent analysis. It's almost as though I wrote it on Tuesday. He gave AARP its' due, and even the Democrats the punch in the nose they deserve, but could have given the GOP a bit more of the what for. Still, good stuff!
It must have been weird for fiscal conservatives to have to cheer Ted Kennedy and other liberal Democrats as they threatened fillibuster on the $400 billion entitlement program that just passed the Senate. Of course, they were in opposition because the deal wasn't destructive, er, large enough.
Reuben Navarrette's Friday column is excellent analysis. It's almost as though I wrote it on Tuesday. He gave AARP its' due, and even the Democrats the punch in the nose they deserve, but could have given the GOP a bit more of the what for. Still, good stuff!
The Meaning of Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving is one of the few holidays celebrated nationally that I enjoy taking part in. Honestly- and I know how curmudgeonly this sounds- I find most holidays negatively disruptive to my average day. I prefer my average day to the average holiday, mainly because I find my self-esteem in my daily work than in my ceasing my work and making merry about things that do not matter to me.
I especially like the Independence Day celebrations, for obvious political reasons. I am always moved on Memorial Day, for the price paid willingly (usually) by our military. I try to work on Labor Day when I can.
I am not a religious man, so I do not get religious value from Christmas, Easter, or Hannukah. But isn't Thanksgiving a day of offering gratitude to God? Not for me.
Thanksgiving is a day for me to be grateful, God or no god, for my life and for those things in my life that bring me joy. I do not need religion to be grateful for Ame and my love for her. I do not need religion to feel joy at holding my niece for the first time. I do not need a the guidance of man's interpretation of an alleged deity to appreciate the warmth of my extended family. I certainly am not thinking of anything but myself and my son as I wait in excited anticipation for seeing Alex for the first time since June.
Gratitude is a privileged sensation to possess. It is rather akin to satisfaction. I am grateful for the progress I have made in my life. This progress was achieved through my effort and my skill, and little else. After all, luck is little more than opportunity meeting preparation.
I find depressing the notion that all gifts come from God, and that man is hopeless and helpless without the blessings of God. That perspective is the notion of the successful having hit life's lottery. Does man not have free will? Does man not make choices, good and bad? Are we merely pawns on a supreme being's chessboard? If so, I should be grateful for that, and give thanks? No thanks. I'll do it my way.
Take whatever value you can from Thanksgiving, and every other day. I try to do the same with Christmas, substituting the reunion with family over the celebration of the birth of Jesus. On the whole, though, living the average day in the present, means a whole lot more to me than commemorating something from the past.
Thanksgiving is one of the few holidays celebrated nationally that I enjoy taking part in. Honestly- and I know how curmudgeonly this sounds- I find most holidays negatively disruptive to my average day. I prefer my average day to the average holiday, mainly because I find my self-esteem in my daily work than in my ceasing my work and making merry about things that do not matter to me.
I especially like the Independence Day celebrations, for obvious political reasons. I am always moved on Memorial Day, for the price paid willingly (usually) by our military. I try to work on Labor Day when I can.
I am not a religious man, so I do not get religious value from Christmas, Easter, or Hannukah. But isn't Thanksgiving a day of offering gratitude to God? Not for me.
Thanksgiving is a day for me to be grateful, God or no god, for my life and for those things in my life that bring me joy. I do not need religion to be grateful for Ame and my love for her. I do not need religion to feel joy at holding my niece for the first time. I do not need a the guidance of man's interpretation of an alleged deity to appreciate the warmth of my extended family. I certainly am not thinking of anything but myself and my son as I wait in excited anticipation for seeing Alex for the first time since June.
Gratitude is a privileged sensation to possess. It is rather akin to satisfaction. I am grateful for the progress I have made in my life. This progress was achieved through my effort and my skill, and little else. After all, luck is little more than opportunity meeting preparation.
I find depressing the notion that all gifts come from God, and that man is hopeless and helpless without the blessings of God. That perspective is the notion of the successful having hit life's lottery. Does man not have free will? Does man not make choices, good and bad? Are we merely pawns on a supreme being's chessboard? If so, I should be grateful for that, and give thanks? No thanks. I'll do it my way.
Take whatever value you can from Thanksgiving, and every other day. I try to do the same with Christmas, substituting the reunion with family over the celebration of the birth of Jesus. On the whole, though, living the average day in the present, means a whole lot more to me than commemorating something from the past.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Next, the Feathers
I give thanks this week for so much, but I will begin with the small political stuff.
President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and the rest of the GOP tar-wearers have just committed treason against the supporters of their party who have clung to the misguided, seriously outdated belief that the GOP is the party of small government. They may be a party of smaller government than the Democrats, but the Dems are the party of government just smaller than socialism.
I give thanks not for the $400 Billion price tag to this prescription drug plan masquerading as a Medicare reform bill. I give thanks not because my generation and those younger than I will have to pull the weight of the Gimme Gimme generation. I give thanks not because the Democrats have not a prayer in November 2004 of reclaiming the White House.
I give thanks because Bush, Frist, et al have just delivered the fiscal conservatives with a small degree of integrity, spine, or naked self-interest to the Libertarian Party.
This shall mark the finest Pyrrhic victory ever seen in American politics. Bush has purchased the votes for 2004 at the cost of the long-term viability of the GOP. Roll in the feathers, boys!
I know, I know... this analysis makes me a frothing lunatic. That's fine. Galileo was a lunatic... until he was shown to be correct. In January, I thought that the GOP would disintegrate by 2020, sending most of its members to the Libertarians, and the rest to the Democrats, leaving again two major parties, each with a starkly contrasted view. The Dems would represent collectivism, and the LP would represent individualism. With the Senate's passage of this hideous crapola, I will revise my estimate and predict that this split and consolidation will be complete by 2012.
Look at the postings on the Wall Street Journal for immediate evidence. Yeah, my response is in there. Why not spray gasoline on the Burning Bush?
I give thanks this week for so much, but I will begin with the small political stuff.
President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Frist, and the rest of the GOP tar-wearers have just committed treason against the supporters of their party who have clung to the misguided, seriously outdated belief that the GOP is the party of small government. They may be a party of smaller government than the Democrats, but the Dems are the party of government just smaller than socialism.
I give thanks not for the $400 Billion price tag to this prescription drug plan masquerading as a Medicare reform bill. I give thanks not because my generation and those younger than I will have to pull the weight of the Gimme Gimme generation. I give thanks not because the Democrats have not a prayer in November 2004 of reclaiming the White House.
I give thanks because Bush, Frist, et al have just delivered the fiscal conservatives with a small degree of integrity, spine, or naked self-interest to the Libertarian Party.
This shall mark the finest Pyrrhic victory ever seen in American politics. Bush has purchased the votes for 2004 at the cost of the long-term viability of the GOP. Roll in the feathers, boys!
I know, I know... this analysis makes me a frothing lunatic. That's fine. Galileo was a lunatic... until he was shown to be correct. In January, I thought that the GOP would disintegrate by 2020, sending most of its members to the Libertarians, and the rest to the Democrats, leaving again two major parties, each with a starkly contrasted view. The Dems would represent collectivism, and the LP would represent individualism. With the Senate's passage of this hideous crapola, I will revise my estimate and predict that this split and consolidation will be complete by 2012.
Look at the postings on the Wall Street Journal for immediate evidence. Yeah, my response is in there. Why not spray gasoline on the Burning Bush?
Monday, November 24, 2003
Plenty O' Tar
I have my brush ready and a tanker truck loaded with tar. Line up the Republicans, please.
This is what passes for leadership from the "MBA President" on the domestic front: a hideous, monstrous redistribution of wealth from the healthy and young to the less-than-healthy and the more-than-young.
Give Bush this- he's consistent. He violates everything he should have learned in an Econ 101 class, beginning early on with steel, then with farms, then lumber, and now with prescription drugs. Mainly, the redistribution of wealth is inefficient to the economy despite the unexcelled efficiency in securing votes. Since spending has not decreased under this Republican president, this Republican House, and this Republican Senate, the money must come to the Federal budget in one of two other ways: via taxes or deficit spending. Shall we pay now or pay later? If the AARP is granted the ability to have their cake and eat it too, we'll go the deficit spending route.
Kudos to MSNBC for correctly noting the ploy by Bush, Frist & Co. as a drive for securing votes.
A dripping goo-wad of tar for the Senate Majority Leader, and bucket of the crud over the head of the President.
Now, line up the Democrats.
Only in the fantasy world that is contained inside Ted Kennedy's alleged mind could phrases such as these emerge:
He claims this $400 BILLION expropriation and transfer of wealth “starts the unraveling of the Medicare system.” Well, spit in my eye. If this begins the unravelling, what would be the booster? A trillion dollars?
And yet, I have to acknowledge that Kennedy is on to something here, even if unwittingly. From his Senate webspage, "Why would anyone want to make these destructive changes in Medicare, which has served senior citizens so well for almost forty years? The answer is a right-wing ideology that says government insurance is bad and private insurance is good."
Herein lies the difference between Republicans and Democrats, as Kennedy correctly nods to. A 'right-winger' believes that government insurance is bad, private insurance is good, and it must be funded by taking money from one set of citizens and giving it to another. A 'left-winger' believes that government insurance is good, private insurance is bad, and it must be funded by taking money from one set of citizens and giving it to another.
Ted, there's still plenty of tar in this tanker. Why not just jump in?
What needs to be challenged is the notion that one person's health care options are the responsibility of someone else. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are willing to do this. Both believe that the right way for anyone to do anything is to take money form someone else to make it happen.
Ready to vote Libertarian yet? If not, what will it take? Where shall the line be drawn? Is it somehow not clear yet that Republicans and Democrats share the same basic premise for approaching domestic policy?
I have my brush ready and a tanker truck loaded with tar. Line up the Republicans, please.
This is what passes for leadership from the "MBA President" on the domestic front: a hideous, monstrous redistribution of wealth from the healthy and young to the less-than-healthy and the more-than-young.
Give Bush this- he's consistent. He violates everything he should have learned in an Econ 101 class, beginning early on with steel, then with farms, then lumber, and now with prescription drugs. Mainly, the redistribution of wealth is inefficient to the economy despite the unexcelled efficiency in securing votes. Since spending has not decreased under this Republican president, this Republican House, and this Republican Senate, the money must come to the Federal budget in one of two other ways: via taxes or deficit spending. Shall we pay now or pay later? If the AARP is granted the ability to have their cake and eat it too, we'll go the deficit spending route.
Kudos to MSNBC for correctly noting the ploy by Bush, Frist & Co. as a drive for securing votes.
A dripping goo-wad of tar for the Senate Majority Leader, and bucket of the crud over the head of the President.
Now, line up the Democrats.
Only in the fantasy world that is contained inside Ted Kennedy's alleged mind could phrases such as these emerge:
He claims this $400 BILLION expropriation and transfer of wealth “starts the unraveling of the Medicare system.” Well, spit in my eye. If this begins the unravelling, what would be the booster? A trillion dollars?
And yet, I have to acknowledge that Kennedy is on to something here, even if unwittingly. From his Senate webspage, "Why would anyone want to make these destructive changes in Medicare, which has served senior citizens so well for almost forty years? The answer is a right-wing ideology that says government insurance is bad and private insurance is good."
Herein lies the difference between Republicans and Democrats, as Kennedy correctly nods to. A 'right-winger' believes that government insurance is bad, private insurance is good, and it must be funded by taking money from one set of citizens and giving it to another. A 'left-winger' believes that government insurance is good, private insurance is bad, and it must be funded by taking money from one set of citizens and giving it to another.
Ted, there's still plenty of tar in this tanker. Why not just jump in?
What needs to be challenged is the notion that one person's health care options are the responsibility of someone else. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are willing to do this. Both believe that the right way for anyone to do anything is to take money form someone else to make it happen.
Ready to vote Libertarian yet? If not, what will it take? Where shall the line be drawn? Is it somehow not clear yet that Republicans and Democrats share the same basic premise for approaching domestic policy?
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Rant 2: The Best Tribute Isn't Even Being Considered
I absolutely DETEST the memorials considered finalists for the World Trade Center site. Has it been forgotten what the Twin Towers were?
They were selected by the terrorists for being symbols of capitalism. The Twin Towers were the defining skyscrapers in the defining skyline of the world's definitive financial center. To stand today at the Statue of Liberty and look across the River is to feel the void like a lost love as much to see the void.
There was a lot of talk in the days following the attacks that the American people must not allow the terrorists win, that we must proceed in the spirit of that hated capitalist mantra, 'business as usual'. How right that common wisdom was.
Well, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON. It isn't that they ended business as usual. Thankfully, that has resumed. But the symbol of capitalism is gone and won't be replaced.
If I was in charge of the process, I would give the greatest tribute to those firefighters who ran up the stairs and to the people who perished while conducting business as usual. I would rebuild the Twin Towers IN EXACTLY THE SAME PLACES UPON WHICH THEY ONCE STOOD, with all dimensions exactly as before save one: the buildings would finish one story higher.
To let the terrorists know that they will not win, they must be given the symbolic 'fuck you' that they gave to the American Spirit. Raising the Twin Towers for all to see is the greatest pair of raised middle fingers the haters of America would ever see.
THAT would be the greatest tribute to those who died in the World Trade Center attacks. No candles or mirrors or list of names will EVER come close to honoring them as new Towers would.
I absolutely DETEST the memorials considered finalists for the World Trade Center site. Has it been forgotten what the Twin Towers were?
They were selected by the terrorists for being symbols of capitalism. The Twin Towers were the defining skyscrapers in the defining skyline of the world's definitive financial center. To stand today at the Statue of Liberty and look across the River is to feel the void like a lost love as much to see the void.
There was a lot of talk in the days following the attacks that the American people must not allow the terrorists win, that we must proceed in the spirit of that hated capitalist mantra, 'business as usual'. How right that common wisdom was.
Well, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON. It isn't that they ended business as usual. Thankfully, that has resumed. But the symbol of capitalism is gone and won't be replaced.
If I was in charge of the process, I would give the greatest tribute to those firefighters who ran up the stairs and to the people who perished while conducting business as usual. I would rebuild the Twin Towers IN EXACTLY THE SAME PLACES UPON WHICH THEY ONCE STOOD, with all dimensions exactly as before save one: the buildings would finish one story higher.
To let the terrorists know that they will not win, they must be given the symbolic 'fuck you' that they gave to the American Spirit. Raising the Twin Towers for all to see is the greatest pair of raised middle fingers the haters of America would ever see.
THAT would be the greatest tribute to those who died in the World Trade Center attacks. No candles or mirrors or list of names will EVER come close to honoring them as new Towers would.
Rant: I Do Not Care a Whit
I do not care about the details of real crimes involving a single victim and a single perpetrator. I do not care to know about murders, rapes, stick-ups, or assaults. When I see such details in the newspaper, my eyes keep moving. When they are on the TV, the channel is changed. Ditto the radio.
Of course, I am very glad to know that police do the job of apprehending the perpetrators of such crimes. I am pleased that prosecutors see to it that criminals go to jail.
I am sometimes interested in crime statistics. I like to have a handle on crime rates and the relative safety of locations. This is useful news. I can take the information and choose to avoid to go alone into some areas with this knowledge. With it, I can avoid other areas when I have my wife or son with me that I might venture into alone. I rarely complain about seeing crime statistics, because it is actual news I can use.
On the other hand, the crimes allegedly committed by celebrities- Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Phil Spector, Robert Blake- DO NOT INTEREST ME IN THE SLIGHTEST.
Why? Details of the violence instigated by Joe Blow against Jane Doe ARE NOT USEFUL NEWS TO ME. Does the alleged violence of some idiot suddenly become relevant to my life because the idiot is Michael Jackson? NO! Mainly, I am not the sort of man who would allow my 11-year-old son sleep in the home of a man who calls the place "Neverland".
Spare the argument that the parents of the children who did stay at Jackson's crib might have found this sort of news about the man useful. Allegations of Jackson's child molestation is a recurring story, and the fact of the news being splashed all over the media before did nothing to deter these parents here.
When I hear ANY details about Michael Jackson on the radio, I will do as I do when I heard details about Kobe Bryant: I will change the station.
Besides, it's all George W. Bush's fault.
I do not care about the details of real crimes involving a single victim and a single perpetrator. I do not care to know about murders, rapes, stick-ups, or assaults. When I see such details in the newspaper, my eyes keep moving. When they are on the TV, the channel is changed. Ditto the radio.
Of course, I am very glad to know that police do the job of apprehending the perpetrators of such crimes. I am pleased that prosecutors see to it that criminals go to jail.
I am sometimes interested in crime statistics. I like to have a handle on crime rates and the relative safety of locations. This is useful news. I can take the information and choose to avoid to go alone into some areas with this knowledge. With it, I can avoid other areas when I have my wife or son with me that I might venture into alone. I rarely complain about seeing crime statistics, because it is actual news I can use.
On the other hand, the crimes allegedly committed by celebrities- Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Phil Spector, Robert Blake- DO NOT INTEREST ME IN THE SLIGHTEST.
Why? Details of the violence instigated by Joe Blow against Jane Doe ARE NOT USEFUL NEWS TO ME. Does the alleged violence of some idiot suddenly become relevant to my life because the idiot is Michael Jackson? NO! Mainly, I am not the sort of man who would allow my 11-year-old son sleep in the home of a man who calls the place "Neverland".
Spare the argument that the parents of the children who did stay at Jackson's crib might have found this sort of news about the man useful. Allegations of Jackson's child molestation is a recurring story, and the fact of the news being splashed all over the media before did nothing to deter these parents here.
When I hear ANY details about Michael Jackson on the radio, I will do as I do when I heard details about Kobe Bryant: I will change the station.
Besides, it's all George W. Bush's fault.
Monday, November 17, 2003
I Could Have Written This One
George Will's latest column reads like one of my spiels on my late radio show, Laissez Faire.
Back when I lived in Cleveland, I traded messages with now-Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. I don't have the first, since it was an email, but I have the response from him. It is clear that he thought I was a Republican (what else could there be besides Republicans and Democrats?) because he replied, "I voted with the President on this issue". Well, that was the form-letter response he sent out to the other side. I didn't get that it was a form letter until after I sent the following reply:
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Attn: Dennis J. Kucinich
1730 Longworth Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Mr. Kucinich: July 18, 2002
I am in receipt of your letter which responded to mine regarding steel tariffs. Thank you for your response. It is gratifying to know that the comments were read and considered
I am not quite sure what I wrote, since it was an email, so I would like to add a few more thoughts.
As I understand it, the problem with other nations “dumping” steel is that it causes there to be too much steel on the market, which causes the price of steel to plunge, making the relatively less subsidized American steel less competitive. If this is true, why were tariffs the solution of choice? Do you know what a tariff does?
A tariff on imported steel is a subsidy for American steel. No problem so far, since the point of the policy was to boost the US steel industry… except that any time you subsidize anything, you get more of it, because there is greater incentive to produce and try to gain market share. If the problem is that the price is too low, the tariff raises the price, and that looks good, right? Unfortunately, whenever prices rise, the incentive is to produce more, which, if acted upon, has the effect of bringing the price right back down because more steel lands on the market, which was the problem in the first place.
Wouldn’t it have been better to devise a policy that would have made it cheaper for Americans to produce steel? If the steel costs less to make, it is easier to meet the competition on price and thus sell the steel.
Besides, cheap steel, while painful for the steel industry, is a positive boon for every other American industry that uses steel. Cheap steel means cheaper cars, tools, appliances, bridges- anything at all that uses steel. In fact, on analysis, it looks like the countries that dump steel actually do us a favor. It may not be politically expedient to say that, but it’s true.
Come to think of it, though, it might be politically expedient to say all of this if phrased properly, after all, the brothers in the UAW must certainly appreciate the availability of cheap steel, as must machinists and other tradesmen and assemblers.
I would be very interested to know what, in your estimation, is fair subsidization. You cited steel that was “unfairly subsidized” by other nations. It interests me because other nations, especially the EU nations but also others, are now looking at our tariffs on steel and calling them unfair subsidies. In light of the host of commodities we have recently subsidized (farm products) or placed tariffs on- (foreign steel and lumber), we face the prospect of a trade war with many of our international friends. Do other nations have a point when they look at our subsidies and call them unfair? And what do American producers of fruit or cotton think of steel tariffs when they are told that tariffs will be placed on American fruit and cotton in response?
So, I have to say that I disagree with your assertion that “tariffs correct this imbalance”. On the whole, I think it is rather like driving on ice on W. 25th Street in January. You start to veer off-course, so you pull the wheel feeling like you’ve got the car under control, but the harder you pull the wheel to straighten out the car, the more you swing it side to side, and less in control. I think if you asked an economist at Cleveland State, you might hear the same thing.
Sincerely Yours-
Michael R. Kole
2436 Grovewood Ave
Parma OH 44134
There was no response from Kucinich on this one. The EU is responding finally, and will target products made in states like California and Florida so as to attack the Bush Administration on the grounds the battle is being fought- tariffs in exchange for the favor, or disfavor, of American voters.
George Will's latest column reads like one of my spiels on my late radio show, Laissez Faire.
Back when I lived in Cleveland, I traded messages with now-Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. I don't have the first, since it was an email, but I have the response from him. It is clear that he thought I was a Republican (what else could there be besides Republicans and Democrats?) because he replied, "I voted with the President on this issue". Well, that was the form-letter response he sent out to the other side. I didn't get that it was a form letter until after I sent the following reply:
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Attn: Dennis J. Kucinich
1730 Longworth Office Building
Washington DC 20515
Dear Mr. Kucinich: July 18, 2002
I am in receipt of your letter which responded to mine regarding steel tariffs. Thank you for your response. It is gratifying to know that the comments were read and considered
I am not quite sure what I wrote, since it was an email, so I would like to add a few more thoughts.
As I understand it, the problem with other nations “dumping” steel is that it causes there to be too much steel on the market, which causes the price of steel to plunge, making the relatively less subsidized American steel less competitive. If this is true, why were tariffs the solution of choice? Do you know what a tariff does?
A tariff on imported steel is a subsidy for American steel. No problem so far, since the point of the policy was to boost the US steel industry… except that any time you subsidize anything, you get more of it, because there is greater incentive to produce and try to gain market share. If the problem is that the price is too low, the tariff raises the price, and that looks good, right? Unfortunately, whenever prices rise, the incentive is to produce more, which, if acted upon, has the effect of bringing the price right back down because more steel lands on the market, which was the problem in the first place.
Wouldn’t it have been better to devise a policy that would have made it cheaper for Americans to produce steel? If the steel costs less to make, it is easier to meet the competition on price and thus sell the steel.
Besides, cheap steel, while painful for the steel industry, is a positive boon for every other American industry that uses steel. Cheap steel means cheaper cars, tools, appliances, bridges- anything at all that uses steel. In fact, on analysis, it looks like the countries that dump steel actually do us a favor. It may not be politically expedient to say that, but it’s true.
Come to think of it, though, it might be politically expedient to say all of this if phrased properly, after all, the brothers in the UAW must certainly appreciate the availability of cheap steel, as must machinists and other tradesmen and assemblers.
I would be very interested to know what, in your estimation, is fair subsidization. You cited steel that was “unfairly subsidized” by other nations. It interests me because other nations, especially the EU nations but also others, are now looking at our tariffs on steel and calling them unfair subsidies. In light of the host of commodities we have recently subsidized (farm products) or placed tariffs on- (foreign steel and lumber), we face the prospect of a trade war with many of our international friends. Do other nations have a point when they look at our subsidies and call them unfair? And what do American producers of fruit or cotton think of steel tariffs when they are told that tariffs will be placed on American fruit and cotton in response?
So, I have to say that I disagree with your assertion that “tariffs correct this imbalance”. On the whole, I think it is rather like driving on ice on W. 25th Street in January. You start to veer off-course, so you pull the wheel feeling like you’ve got the car under control, but the harder you pull the wheel to straighten out the car, the more you swing it side to side, and less in control. I think if you asked an economist at Cleveland State, you might hear the same thing.
Sincerely Yours-
Michael R. Kole
2436 Grovewood Ave
Parma OH 44134
There was no response from Kucinich on this one. The EU is responding finally, and will target products made in states like California and Florida so as to attack the Bush Administration on the grounds the battle is being fought- tariffs in exchange for the favor, or disfavor, of American voters.
Friday, November 14, 2003
Great Radio Day
Fridays have been great for radio since Rush Limbaugh has been on 'vacation' as George Mason University economist Walter Williams has been subbing. Today is his final fill-in.
Inbetween inspections, I'll tune in Williams on WIBC from 1-4pm, right after having listened to Neal Boortz from 10am to 1pm on WXNT 1430-am.
Two libertarians for six hours... in one day! Very great!
Fridays have been great for radio since Rush Limbaugh has been on 'vacation' as George Mason University economist Walter Williams has been subbing. Today is his final fill-in.
Inbetween inspections, I'll tune in Williams on WIBC from 1-4pm, right after having listened to Neal Boortz from 10am to 1pm on WXNT 1430-am.
Two libertarians for six hours... in one day! Very great!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)