With having worked in bars and restaurants for almost five years, I have seen that there are some misconceptions with tipping in particular. Here are the basics:
1) The lowest possible tip is 15% (exception being extremely poor service when restaurant is slow). Remember, servers have little control over the food that comes out of the kitchen and should not be punished by withholding a tip.
2) Parties of 6 or more (yes, even including kids) should tip at least 20%. If you can not afford this, try a take out option (not being mean). The more people in a party, the more demands are made: refills, condiments, kitchen errors, etc. along with the servers other tables.
3) If your party occupies more than one table make sure your tip includes gratuity on both tables. Servers have set sections and if you take two tables, that servers is losing out on another table, another tip.
4) If the restaurant is on a wait, do not "camp out". Enjoy your meal, dessert and a coffee but when everything is finish, it is time to leave. The more you sit, the less tables a server can receive and you are holding up others from being sat.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Senator Bill Clinton?
What if the Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton took the position of Secretary of State and Governor David Paterson appointed her husband, Bill Clinton? Senator Bill Clinton? Senator Clinton. It has a familiar ring, doesn't it? There are a lot of picks that would be worse, such as any of the no name, do nothing, downstate Congress members or New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo is not a bad choice, but I think Bill Clinton would be a better replacement. Bill Clinton brings knowledge, skills, and experience to a position and branch of government that needs some (actually it needs a lot). I truly believe that he would do a good job at the job. In the very least it would be both interesting and entertaining at the same time. He, I'm sure, would also enjoy again being in the limelight. Plus, he'd get more chicks as a Senator.
As Dan Lynch (AM 1300) pointed out on Friday, Bill Clinton would not be able to charge his large fees for speaking engagements around the world, potentially with nations that receive US foreign aid, as a Senator. If not chosen, his speaking fees creates a conflict of interest with Senator Hillary Clinton, if she became the United States' Secretary of State. The people of New York would also receive a better Senator than Hillary Clinton (he would do as good of a job if not better than the other names that have been suggested) and America can have a Secretary of State without a conflict of interest with her husbands' speaking fees in foreign nations. Nations that could and do receive foreign aid from the United States. This makes sense. It also sounds like a win-win.
David Paterson, I think you should at least consider appointing Bill Clinton to fill the anticipated vacancy by Senator Hillary Clinton resigning (it it happens). I can say this with a clear conscience as Governor Paterson will not appoint a Republican to fill the vacancy, so let's give Bill a shot. As I said before, we can do a lot worse. In Dr. Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution, he suggests that past Presidents be appointed to the Senate as "National Senators". This would allow them to shed their expertise, leadership, and contacts as the only nationally elected officials that would bring a different prospective (Sabato, 2007).
This would not be the first time a President left office and returned to elected office. John Quincy Adams was elected to the House of Representatives after leaving the White House and Andrew Jackson was appointed by the Tenneessee state legislature.
As Dan Lynch (AM 1300) pointed out on Friday, Bill Clinton would not be able to charge his large fees for speaking engagements around the world, potentially with nations that receive US foreign aid, as a Senator. If not chosen, his speaking fees creates a conflict of interest with Senator Hillary Clinton, if she became the United States' Secretary of State. The people of New York would also receive a better Senator than Hillary Clinton (he would do as good of a job if not better than the other names that have been suggested) and America can have a Secretary of State without a conflict of interest with her husbands' speaking fees in foreign nations. Nations that could and do receive foreign aid from the United States. This makes sense. It also sounds like a win-win.
David Paterson, I think you should at least consider appointing Bill Clinton to fill the anticipated vacancy by Senator Hillary Clinton resigning (it it happens). I can say this with a clear conscience as Governor Paterson will not appoint a Republican to fill the vacancy, so let's give Bill a shot. As I said before, we can do a lot worse. In Dr. Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution, he suggests that past Presidents be appointed to the Senate as "National Senators". This would allow them to shed their expertise, leadership, and contacts as the only nationally elected officials that would bring a different prospective (Sabato, 2007).
This would not be the first time a President left office and returned to elected office. John Quincy Adams was elected to the House of Representatives after leaving the White House and Andrew Jackson was appointed by the Tenneessee state legislature.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Goodbye Hillary
When she was running for the Senate in 2000, Senator Hillary Clinton promised change for New York. Where is it? Now that she appears to be leaving, I will not shed a tear. I hope that Governor Patterson appoints an individual who has the State of New York in mind and not just future endeavors and higher offices. The Secretary of State position will be a good fit for her. There is no doubt that she is intelligent and strong, two good qualities for the highest diplomat in the Nation. I wish her good luck. Good luck and good riddance from all common sense New Yorkers.
A Big Three Bailout?
Should we bailout the Big Three American automakers? Should we give them a proverbial band aid on a gushing wound? Why would the American people (our tax dollars) pay for a group of businesses that have fought against higher gas standards, built inferior cars, and have fallen victim to the bully unions. Would this relief be temporary or would it be a permanent solution? Is there any way that Detroit can be profitable? I don't think so. There is no way with the current union contracts that the automakers can remain competitive with foreign auto makers. Toyota and other foreign makers pay their workers a good wage but it is about half of what Detroit pays. They can try to restructure under bankruptcy but if the principles and practices remain the same, they will fail.
This bailout will not solve the auto makers' problems. It is the survival of the fittest. Toyota, Honda, and others build better cars. Most people will attest to this. The Big Three had a time in history when they were the standard, now they are punchlines to jokes. It is sad that they will go under, but it is the fault of themselves, not the American tax payers.
We should not bail them out.
Call your Senators and tell them NO to the Detriot Bailout!
This bailout will not solve the auto makers' problems. It is the survival of the fittest. Toyota, Honda, and others build better cars. Most people will attest to this. The Big Three had a time in history when they were the standard, now they are punchlines to jokes. It is sad that they will go under, but it is the fault of themselves, not the American tax payers.
We should not bail them out.
Call your Senators and tell them NO to the Detriot Bailout!
Monday, November 10, 2008
Change: Always Good?
If a majority of people think the country is going in the wrong direction, what is the right direction? Not in terms of foreign policy but domestic policy. Change is defined as "Radically Different". Wasn't there going to be "change" either way. Either we were going to elect the nation's first African-American President or the first woman Vice-President. Since the country has gone in the direction of less freedom and more Government and more spending, I nominate more freedom and less government and less spending. Am I wrong?
OK, everyone, here's a secret: sometimes change is not good. The following is a short list where change happens for the worst. Post yours if you wish. How many times have you gone to work and your boss said that "there are going to be some changes around here?". It is NEVER good. Some new random policy that you'd swear your boss stayed up all night before thinking about how to best drive the employees crazy. Or, if your significant other says "I need a change". Again, not good. Another example is with restaurants. How many times has food changed for the better? Either prices go up and/or portions get smaller. Normally it is "Honey, wasn't this dish bigger before and two dollars cheaper?". And lastly the expression: "Prices are Subject to Change" How many times has a price "changed" for the better (minus a sale)? Never. Be wary of self-naming labels. "The Peoples' Republic of China" comes to mind (which is an oxymoron). An Agent of Change might turn into an Agent for bad change. Be careful what you wish for.
About the Economy. There are many questions about the current economic situation that the country is in. Who's fault is it? How bad is it going to get? Here's my answer. 1) If there was a Republican to blame, that person would have been thrown in front of Congress and humiliated. Brought in front of every camera that could possibly be squeezed in, and 2) It is not going to be as bad as the Great Depression. Everything in between is a guess for anyone. I just hope President Obama surrounds himself with the brightest not just the most partisan. Buckle up, it is going to be a bumpy ride.
OK, everyone, here's a secret: sometimes change is not good. The following is a short list where change happens for the worst. Post yours if you wish. How many times have you gone to work and your boss said that "there are going to be some changes around here?". It is NEVER good. Some new random policy that you'd swear your boss stayed up all night before thinking about how to best drive the employees crazy. Or, if your significant other says "I need a change". Again, not good. Another example is with restaurants. How many times has food changed for the better? Either prices go up and/or portions get smaller. Normally it is "Honey, wasn't this dish bigger before and two dollars cheaper?". And lastly the expression: "Prices are Subject to Change" How many times has a price "changed" for the better (minus a sale)? Never. Be wary of self-naming labels. "The Peoples' Republic of China" comes to mind (which is an oxymoron). An Agent of Change might turn into an Agent for bad change. Be careful what you wish for.
About the Economy. There are many questions about the current economic situation that the country is in. Who's fault is it? How bad is it going to get? Here's my answer. 1) If there was a Republican to blame, that person would have been thrown in front of Congress and humiliated. Brought in front of every camera that could possibly be squeezed in, and 2) It is not going to be as bad as the Great Depression. Everything in between is a guess for anyone. I just hope President Obama surrounds himself with the brightest not just the most partisan. Buckle up, it is going to be a bumpy ride.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A New Direction for the GOP.
What is going to happen to the Republican party? We are the party of ideas and answers. What good is going to come after this slaughter of an election in 2008? How bad was it? Not only did the Democrats win the White House, picked up more seats in both the House and the Senate, won Gubernatorial elections but also state and local races across the country. To illustrate this point, back as an undergraduate in 2000, I took a class in State and Local Government. My professor made a comment that the New York State "Assembly will always be Democratic and the (New York State) Senate will always be Republican". Not even ten years later and almost a 1/2 century of New York State Republican Senate rule, the New York State Senate went from Republican to Democratic. For any one not familiar with New York State politics, imagine San Fransisco or New York City turning Republican. It would have been the same odds 10 years ago. We need to move the party into a new direction. But how?
One idea is that we move the party more towards the libertarian school of thought. For example, is it fiscally conservative to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate one scum bag for one year? Billions of dollars are wasted every year on prisons that do not work. I am not advocating releasing prisons empty, but there are a large number of non-violent criminals, especially drug offenders, that would be better off serving their communities or working off their punishment. This would be more fiscally conservative to pay for than incarceration. Programs could include treatment, counseling, or innovative work programs. We could tax the drugs (and regulate them) and turn a loss into a revenue. Plus eliminating the petty crimes that go hand-in-hand with illegal drugs, it seems like a win-win.
We could put these people to work, doing constructive jobs around the country instead of costing the American-taxpayer billions of dollars. If that happens, then we never have to worry about not having room for the real violent individuals who should be locked up indefinitely to protect society. My right not to have a psycho hurt myself, my family or my friends outweighs a violent-repeat offender's right for freedom.
I know that Republicans are supposed to be tough on crime but maybe we should redefine what a crime is? To think that it would be impossible to turn the current Republican party Libertarian, just think, nobody thought 25 years ago that the Republican party would turn into such a spending machine and non-fiscally responsible tool of special-interests. This is not a fault of just President Bush or the Congress, but for all of us that did nothing about it. Shame on all of us. We need a party of better ideas not just pork spending. What do you think? In what new direction should the party move?
One idea is that we move the party more towards the libertarian school of thought. For example, is it fiscally conservative to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate one scum bag for one year? Billions of dollars are wasted every year on prisons that do not work. I am not advocating releasing prisons empty, but there are a large number of non-violent criminals, especially drug offenders, that would be better off serving their communities or working off their punishment. This would be more fiscally conservative to pay for than incarceration. Programs could include treatment, counseling, or innovative work programs. We could tax the drugs (and regulate them) and turn a loss into a revenue. Plus eliminating the petty crimes that go hand-in-hand with illegal drugs, it seems like a win-win.
We could put these people to work, doing constructive jobs around the country instead of costing the American-taxpayer billions of dollars. If that happens, then we never have to worry about not having room for the real violent individuals who should be locked up indefinitely to protect society. My right not to have a psycho hurt myself, my family or my friends outweighs a violent-repeat offender's right for freedom.
I know that Republicans are supposed to be tough on crime but maybe we should redefine what a crime is? To think that it would be impossible to turn the current Republican party Libertarian, just think, nobody thought 25 years ago that the Republican party would turn into such a spending machine and non-fiscally responsible tool of special-interests. This is not a fault of just President Bush or the Congress, but for all of us that did nothing about it. Shame on all of us. We need a party of better ideas not just pork spending. What do you think? In what new direction should the party move?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obama Wins!: An end to the declining Social Capital in America?
Congratulations President-Elect Obama.
I know that it has been awhile since my last post and I apologize to all. It seems fitting that I am re-starting my blog the day after the historic election. To begin, I voted for Senator John McCain but after the country overwhelmingly chose the new direction that is Barrack Obama, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he really is going to lead from the middle (or at least right of the extreme left) that he ran from to became President-Elect of the United States. His associations frighten me but maybe they were blown out of proportion for the election. The world roared with excitement (which scares me). But I hope he can bring the country together and think about it: it would be beneficial if he was able to connect to world leaders that maybe were reluctant to connect to President George W. Bush (minus Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, North Korea). If anything, as McCain and others have stated, It is amazing how far the Civil Rights movement has come. The greatness of America lies in the fact that only in America could an African-American be elected the highest office in the world only after 40 years of voting. It wasn't that long ago that blacks and whites were separated at water fountains, buses, restaurants and schools. It would be interesting if any polls exist from the 1960's that asked respondents how long they thought it would take to elect an African-American.
How could it be a negative when we are looking at possibly the highest election totals in a century! What does this say to Robert Putnam's Social Capital Theory? A theory which includes political participation as one of the factors that determine the social fabric of a community. He concludes that social capital is on the decline in the United States when one looks at voting, social memberships, and interacting with family, friends, and neighbors. Contradicting declining voting trends throughout the 20th century, we recently have witnessed an expansion and explosion of political participation, a corner-stone to Putnam's theory.
Has Social Capital been on a decline? I have vigorously stated no throughout graduate school and as well as today. The way in which Barrack Obama used a grass-roots campaign that excited, energized, and got out the vote to millions of young and old, and white and black Americans, many of whom have never voted before, demonstrates that Social Capital is NOT on the decline. Besides the thousands or hundreds of thousands of volunteers that President Obama had recruited during his election, many more donated money as a symbol of their political participation in the historic vote, increasing social capital. Not to mention the thousands that volunteered and donated to Senator McCain. In conclusion to this point, Social Capital is not on a decline. (For more information on Social Capital read Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone)
Next, I vowed not to be like the bitter Democrats after the 2000 and the 2004 elections. They made me so mad saying "President Bush is not my President" actually, they would say "Bush is not my President" as most didn't even give him the respect of the Office by calling him "President". President Obama is my President and we all should support him (at least until he messes up). We need someone to unite the country passed our political differences and on to the real issues and legislation that need help so badly. I hope and pray that the person to do this is President Barrack Obama because we are either stuck with him, Vice President-Elect Biden, or Speaker of the House Pelosi for the next four years.
To you, President Obama, Good Luck!
I know that it has been awhile since my last post and I apologize to all. It seems fitting that I am re-starting my blog the day after the historic election. To begin, I voted for Senator John McCain but after the country overwhelmingly chose the new direction that is Barrack Obama, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he really is going to lead from the middle (or at least right of the extreme left) that he ran from to became President-Elect of the United States. His associations frighten me but maybe they were blown out of proportion for the election. The world roared with excitement (which scares me). But I hope he can bring the country together and think about it: it would be beneficial if he was able to connect to world leaders that maybe were reluctant to connect to President George W. Bush (minus Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, North Korea). If anything, as McCain and others have stated, It is amazing how far the Civil Rights movement has come. The greatness of America lies in the fact that only in America could an African-American be elected the highest office in the world only after 40 years of voting. It wasn't that long ago that blacks and whites were separated at water fountains, buses, restaurants and schools. It would be interesting if any polls exist from the 1960's that asked respondents how long they thought it would take to elect an African-American.
How could it be a negative when we are looking at possibly the highest election totals in a century! What does this say to Robert Putnam's Social Capital Theory? A theory which includes political participation as one of the factors that determine the social fabric of a community. He concludes that social capital is on the decline in the United States when one looks at voting, social memberships, and interacting with family, friends, and neighbors. Contradicting declining voting trends throughout the 20th century, we recently have witnessed an expansion and explosion of political participation, a corner-stone to Putnam's theory.
Has Social Capital been on a decline? I have vigorously stated no throughout graduate school and as well as today. The way in which Barrack Obama used a grass-roots campaign that excited, energized, and got out the vote to millions of young and old, and white and black Americans, many of whom have never voted before, demonstrates that Social Capital is NOT on the decline. Besides the thousands or hundreds of thousands of volunteers that President Obama had recruited during his election, many more donated money as a symbol of their political participation in the historic vote, increasing social capital. Not to mention the thousands that volunteered and donated to Senator McCain. In conclusion to this point, Social Capital is not on a decline. (For more information on Social Capital read Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone)
Next, I vowed not to be like the bitter Democrats after the 2000 and the 2004 elections. They made me so mad saying "President Bush is not my President" actually, they would say "Bush is not my President" as most didn't even give him the respect of the Office by calling him "President". President Obama is my President and we all should support him (at least until he messes up). We need someone to unite the country passed our political differences and on to the real issues and legislation that need help so badly. I hope and pray that the person to do this is President Barrack Obama because we are either stuck with him, Vice President-Elect Biden, or Speaker of the House Pelosi for the next four years.
To you, President Obama, Good Luck!
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Budget Is Passed But Should It Have Been?
The New York State budget has been finally passed and of course it is filled with the normal "pork" that wastes millions of tax payers' money. See:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04112008/news/regionalnews/_for_gays___dolls_106022.htm
Oh, the waste, the waste. If a Senator or Assembly member wanted to give $1000 for a gay parade, they have that choice to give that. I'm sure none of the members of the New York State legislature are starving so they can personally donate to whatever causes they want. They should not use their position for their personal agendas. The New York State budget is a special interests' wet-dream.
I come from the school of thinking that the budget should be voted down if we can spent $1 less on it. But if we can spend $1 less then we can spend $2 less...and if we can spend $2 less then we can definetly spend $3 less...$100 less...$1000 less....and $10,000 less....$100,000 less.....and $1,000,000....and so on. I have never voted yes on a budget. There is always a way (maybe with a little more work) to spend less.
The lesson that the New York State legislators should learn is that it is OUR money not their money to spend.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04112008/news/regionalnews/_for_gays___dolls_106022.htm
Oh, the waste, the waste. If a Senator or Assembly member wanted to give $1000 for a gay parade, they have that choice to give that. I'm sure none of the members of the New York State legislature are starving so they can personally donate to whatever causes they want. They should not use their position for their personal agendas. The New York State budget is a special interests' wet-dream.
I come from the school of thinking that the budget should be voted down if we can spent $1 less on it. But if we can spend $1 less then we can spend $2 less...and if we can spend $2 less then we can definetly spend $3 less...$100 less...$1000 less....and $10,000 less....$100,000 less.....and $1,000,000....and so on. I have never voted yes on a budget. There is always a way (maybe with a little more work) to spend less.
The lesson that the New York State legislators should learn is that it is OUR money not their money to spend.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
No Budget: Day Three
It is day number three with no budget in New York. See:
http://capitalnews9.com/content/top_stories/113537/budget-talks-drag-on/Default.aspx
Apparently the meetings have been more "closed door" than in past years, upsetting watchdog groups and myself. Can't we move past the "three men in a room" process of budget negotiation and move into open government. Don't the people of New York have a right to know what goes into spending OUR money? Remember, we are a country for the people, not for the special interests and politicians.
http://capitalnews9.com/content/top_stories/113537/budget-talks-drag-on/Default.aspx
Apparently the meetings have been more "closed door" than in past years, upsetting watchdog groups and myself. Can't we move past the "three men in a room" process of budget negotiation and move into open government. Don't the people of New York have a right to know what goes into spending OUR money? Remember, we are a country for the people, not for the special interests and politicians.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Still NO Budget in New York
The New York State budget is due on April 1. It is now April 2nd and still no budget. Over the weekend there were hopes that Albany would pass an on-time budget. That is apparently not going to happen. According to numerous media reports, see:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=677328
The budget is being delayed due to many outstanding issues such as New York City Mayor Micheal Bloomberg's congestion bill, education financing, and a $1.25 per pack cigarette tax.
With discussing education, the New York Post reports that New York State spends more per student than any other state (and Washington, DC). See:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04022008/news/regionalnews/ny_no__1_in_school_spending_104612.htm
Is this something we should be proud of? Do we have the best education system in the state? Do we have the highest high school graduation rates? No. This is another example of how throwing more money at an issue does not fix the problems. I hope the lawmakers working out the budget just do not throw more money down the drain (I mean in the education budget) but try to fix the problems that we are facing.
What? A $1.25 per pack tax! Are $7 cigarettes going to save the state? The state may very well lose tax revenue because people are going to buy cigarettes elsewhere. It might not have been cost-efficient to drive to Vermont or New Hampshire to buy cigarettes cheaper but it may be if this passes. Also, I know people that buy their cartons from Indian reservations to save money. How many more are going to take this step and by-pass the state tax system altogether?
Maybe we should be looking at ways to cut spending not just increase fees and taxes.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=677328
The budget is being delayed due to many outstanding issues such as New York City Mayor Micheal Bloomberg's congestion bill, education financing, and a $1.25 per pack cigarette tax.
With discussing education, the New York Post reports that New York State spends more per student than any other state (and Washington, DC). See:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04022008/news/regionalnews/ny_no__1_in_school_spending_104612.htm
Is this something we should be proud of? Do we have the best education system in the state? Do we have the highest high school graduation rates? No. This is another example of how throwing more money at an issue does not fix the problems. I hope the lawmakers working out the budget just do not throw more money down the drain (I mean in the education budget) but try to fix the problems that we are facing.
What? A $1.25 per pack tax! Are $7 cigarettes going to save the state? The state may very well lose tax revenue because people are going to buy cigarettes elsewhere. It might not have been cost-efficient to drive to Vermont or New Hampshire to buy cigarettes cheaper but it may be if this passes. Also, I know people that buy their cartons from Indian reservations to save money. How many more are going to take this step and by-pass the state tax system altogether?
Maybe we should be looking at ways to cut spending not just increase fees and taxes.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Ex-Rep. Sweeney a Political Victim of Spitzer?
In another twist in the Elliot Spitzer saga, not only did Elliot Spitzer try to sway political power in the New York State Senate but apparently did help in shifting the power in the House. Governor Paterson last night gave Attorney General Andrew Cuomo power to launch a full investigation on the New York State Police (NYSP) over new allegations including a unit in the NYSP that gathered information on high ranking state officials. See:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012008/news/regionalnews/heat_on_hatchet_squad_104467.htm
The Cuomo investigation will try to determine if the NYSP had knowledge of Spitzer's prostitution habits. The investigation will also focus on a former Governor George Pataki security chief and Spitzer friend, Daniel Wiese, if he leaked police reports on ex-congressmen John Sweeney during of election of 2006. John Sweeney lost a very close race in a very heated campaign as leaked police reports surfaced at the end. Did Spitzer have something to do with this also? We now know that he liked the method of leaking information to the media as he did so with Joe Bruno (using the State Police). Is this a pattern? Why is the NYSP becoming a political hit squad?
Governor Paterson did the right thing by ordering an immediate full scale investigation into NYSP actions and methods. But the Cuomo investigation must have teeth. It can not be all talk and no action. It will be interesting to see how hard he comes down on the state police. Paterson and Cuomo better be careful, I'm sure the NYSP have files on them also.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012008/news/regionalnews/heat_on_hatchet_squad_104467.htm
The Cuomo investigation will try to determine if the NYSP had knowledge of Spitzer's prostitution habits. The investigation will also focus on a former Governor George Pataki security chief and Spitzer friend, Daniel Wiese, if he leaked police reports on ex-congressmen John Sweeney during of election of 2006. John Sweeney lost a very close race in a very heated campaign as leaked police reports surfaced at the end. Did Spitzer have something to do with this also? We now know that he liked the method of leaking information to the media as he did so with Joe Bruno (using the State Police). Is this a pattern? Why is the NYSP becoming a political hit squad?
Governor Paterson did the right thing by ordering an immediate full scale investigation into NYSP actions and methods. But the Cuomo investigation must have teeth. It can not be all talk and no action. It will be interesting to see how hard he comes down on the state police. Paterson and Cuomo better be careful, I'm sure the NYSP have files on them also.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Third Party Candidates
I hear all the time that people want change, more choices, and better candidates. The talk of third parties comes up often as a solution. But is a new major third party or more third party candidates good for Democracy or a path towards the Destruction of basic American fundamentals? As Americans we believe in Democracy, the notion of "Majority Rule, Minority Rights", right? See:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm
I started thinking about third parties as I was reading about the Libertarian Party (LP) see their official website at:
http://www.lp.org/
I believe in most of their platform: individual rights, less government, personal freedom but is the inclusion of third parties beneficial to our society? Can it help with our troubled system of government?
According to a Pew Research Center poll released in 2006, 53% of respondents wanted a third political party in addition to Republicans and Democrats. See:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=275
But what if a major third party was created and it was no longer majority rule. Because of the third party, a candidate could be elected with only 33.4% of the votes. If another major party was created then the percentage would fall even more. Is this what we want, only a fraction of the population electing the leader of the free world?
There is another drawback: with the inclusion of more major political parties it would increase the likelihood of radical and fringe groups gaining power. The American Communist Party, an Islamic-fundalmentist group, or a domestic terrorist group such as ELF could hold power in America. Remember with 10 major political parties, only 11% could send a President to The White House. With all the problems that face the two-party system of government, at least a majority of the country (either Electoral College or population) elects our leader.
Be careful what you wish for!
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm
I started thinking about third parties as I was reading about the Libertarian Party (LP) see their official website at:
http://www.lp.org/
I believe in most of their platform: individual rights, less government, personal freedom but is the inclusion of third parties beneficial to our society? Can it help with our troubled system of government?
According to a Pew Research Center poll released in 2006, 53% of respondents wanted a third political party in addition to Republicans and Democrats. See:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=275
But what if a major third party was created and it was no longer majority rule. Because of the third party, a candidate could be elected with only 33.4% of the votes. If another major party was created then the percentage would fall even more. Is this what we want, only a fraction of the population electing the leader of the free world?
There is another drawback: with the inclusion of more major political parties it would increase the likelihood of radical and fringe groups gaining power. The American Communist Party, an Islamic-fundalmentist group, or a domestic terrorist group such as ELF could hold power in America. Remember with 10 major political parties, only 11% could send a President to The White House. With all the problems that face the two-party system of government, at least a majority of the country (either Electoral College or population) elects our leader.
Be careful what you wish for!
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Spitzer Lied about Troopergate
Albany, New York's District Attorney David Soares released his second investigative report dealing with then-Governor Elliot Spitzer's releasing of the travel records of New York State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. See:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=676411
Soares reports that Spitzer had ordered the Majority Leader's travel records released in an attempt to disgrace Senator Joe Bruno. In fact, a grand jury was summoned before Elliot Spitzer resigned on March 17, 2008. Also, according to the Times Union, Spitzer used a divide-and-conquer approach to try to shift the majority in the New York State Senate. See:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=676714
He tried to recruit Republican Senators for his cabinet in by doing so, shrinking the Republican majority. His plan would have worked but most of the Senators said no (except Senator Balboni, who became a homeland security chief, and his seat went the other way in a special election).
This is the level of political dirty tricks that Spitzer had been up to. I hope Governor David Paterson isn't engage in these tactics
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=676411
Soares reports that Spitzer had ordered the Majority Leader's travel records released in an attempt to disgrace Senator Joe Bruno. In fact, a grand jury was summoned before Elliot Spitzer resigned on March 17, 2008. Also, according to the Times Union, Spitzer used a divide-and-conquer approach to try to shift the majority in the New York State Senate. See:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=676714
He tried to recruit Republican Senators for his cabinet in by doing so, shrinking the Republican majority. His plan would have worked but most of the Senators said no (except Senator Balboni, who became a homeland security chief, and his seat went the other way in a special election).
This is the level of political dirty tricks that Spitzer had been up to. I hope Governor David Paterson isn't engage in these tactics
Friday, March 28, 2008
McCain/Romney?
Former Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been campaigning for John McCain, despite a bitter relationship during the primaries. See:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080327/D8VM2AI00.html
The Public Sphere Debate wrote earlier in the month that it would be a McCain/Romney ticket. See:
http://thepublicspheredebate.blogspot.com/2008/03/greatest-presidential-campaign-ever.html
I believe that this would be the strongest ticket when taken into consideration popularity, economic background, ticket balance, and LOTS OF MONEY!!! The primary race is a large gamble but it is another thing to be guaranteed on the ballot going in. I'm sure that Romney would contribute millions to the campaign. VP for Romney would also set him up for a 2012 or 2016 Presidential campaign.
We need to unite the party and Mitt Romney gives us the best chance.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080327/D8VM2AI00.html
The Public Sphere Debate wrote earlier in the month that it would be a McCain/Romney ticket. See:
http://thepublicspheredebate.blogspot.com/2008/03/greatest-presidential-campaign-ever.html
I believe that this would be the strongest ticket when taken into consideration popularity, economic background, ticket balance, and LOTS OF MONEY!!! The primary race is a large gamble but it is another thing to be guaranteed on the ballot going in. I'm sure that Romney would contribute millions to the campaign. VP for Romney would also set him up for a 2012 or 2016 Presidential campaign.
We need to unite the party and Mitt Romney gives us the best chance.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Should David Paterson Resign?
According to WNYT, an NBC affiliate in Albany, New York, see:
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S391472.shtml?cat=300
reports that Governor David Paterson has stopped answering personal questions dealing with his past. This whole David Paterson situation has got me thinking: is this a political blunder on his part or a great public relations move? I mean, was this good advice from his aides? Should Paterson have been so open with the public, especially after only minutes from Elliot Spitzer resigning? Was getting this all out in the beginning and trying to move passed it, the best for New York? We shall see how much this interferes with the budget process and future business of the state.
Paterson stated that he wanted to come clean about his past so that he could not have been blackmailed during his Governorship. For this reason I believe it was a good move. The main issue that I had with Spitzer was that he left open the possibility of black mail. Having a double life enables thugs a chance of using blackmail against you (especially high-powered individuals). To air out all of Paterson's dirty laundry was a smart move. Good advice from his aides. BUT, him doing so also gave journalists, reporters, and the like a reason to dig deeper on Paterson. It was found out that he spent tax payer money on hotel rooms while in Albany (as he owns a home in Guilderland, about 20 minutes from Albany and has a full-time driver). Patterson should be careful of what else the media finds. It won't take long before the scale tips and the people are fed up.
Paterson has a good chance of coming away from this but that can change at any time. I don't believe that Governor David Paterson should resign yet. If a scandal is discovered, he must step down as fast as he admitted to affiars and drugs. New York has important work to do. The state is a mess and needs to clean up.
What do you think?
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S391472.shtml?cat=300
reports that Governor David Paterson has stopped answering personal questions dealing with his past. This whole David Paterson situation has got me thinking: is this a political blunder on his part or a great public relations move? I mean, was this good advice from his aides? Should Paterson have been so open with the public, especially after only minutes from Elliot Spitzer resigning? Was getting this all out in the beginning and trying to move passed it, the best for New York? We shall see how much this interferes with the budget process and future business of the state.
Paterson stated that he wanted to come clean about his past so that he could not have been blackmailed during his Governorship. For this reason I believe it was a good move. The main issue that I had with Spitzer was that he left open the possibility of black mail. Having a double life enables thugs a chance of using blackmail against you (especially high-powered individuals). To air out all of Paterson's dirty laundry was a smart move. Good advice from his aides. BUT, him doing so also gave journalists, reporters, and the like a reason to dig deeper on Paterson. It was found out that he spent tax payer money on hotel rooms while in Albany (as he owns a home in Guilderland, about 20 minutes from Albany and has a full-time driver). Patterson should be careful of what else the media finds. It won't take long before the scale tips and the people are fed up.
Paterson has a good chance of coming away from this but that can change at any time. I don't believe that Governor David Paterson should resign yet. If a scandal is discovered, he must step down as fast as he admitted to affiars and drugs. New York has important work to do. The state is a mess and needs to clean up.
What do you think?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Bruno's Revenge
More information has come to light regarding the battle between Elliot Spitzer and Joe Bruno, a battle in which Bruno won. See The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/nyregion/24report.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Bruno&st=nyt&oref=slogin
also see the New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242008/news/regionalnews/eliot_deep_in_dirty_tricks__report_says_103249.htm
Apparently, Spitzer had ordered and had full knowledge of the smear campaign against Joseph Bruno. Spitzer was "spitting mad" and wanted the travel details of Bruno released. Team Spitzer used the Albany newspaper The Times Union to release the story. This attack got Bruno mad. Bruno, arguably the most powerful man in New York, got his revenge eight days ago as Spitzer resigned as Governor. I have been linking Bruno to Spitzer since the day that the news broke about Spitzer and a prostitution ring. Roger Stone, a long time Bruno consultant, allegedly was the one who tipped off the FBI to Spitzer's prostitution habits.
If new Governor David Paterson resigns due to his affairs/drugs/more-to-come, then acting-Lt. Governor and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno would assume the role of "acting governor" and still be able to keep his Senate Majority Leader title. As Fred Dicker reports, Bruno would be "functioning in both roles and literally able to cast votes in the Senate chamber on the third floor of the Capitol and then go down to the Executive Chamber on the second to administer the state. That would allow him to nominate individuals for high public office, including judgeships, and then vote on their confirmation by the Senate", see:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242008/news/columnists/surprise_findings_on_a_successor_103277.htm
This would make Bruno a "Super (acting) Governor" with "Super Powers". But there would be an upside to this as the budget deadline looms. Instead of having the "three men in a room" scenario (Governor David Paterson, Speaker Sheldon Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno), there would be only two (acting Governor and Senate Majority Leader Bruno and Speaker Silver). Maybe the process would be more efficient.
What is going to happen? No one knows yet. It seems as with every new day, more comes out about Governor Paterson. How much more can come out before it starts to interfere with his duties as Governor and the budget negotiation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/nyregion/24report.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Bruno&st=nyt&oref=slogin
also see the New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242008/news/regionalnews/eliot_deep_in_dirty_tricks__report_says_103249.htm
Apparently, Spitzer had ordered and had full knowledge of the smear campaign against Joseph Bruno. Spitzer was "spitting mad" and wanted the travel details of Bruno released. Team Spitzer used the Albany newspaper The Times Union to release the story. This attack got Bruno mad. Bruno, arguably the most powerful man in New York, got his revenge eight days ago as Spitzer resigned as Governor. I have been linking Bruno to Spitzer since the day that the news broke about Spitzer and a prostitution ring. Roger Stone, a long time Bruno consultant, allegedly was the one who tipped off the FBI to Spitzer's prostitution habits.
If new Governor David Paterson resigns due to his affairs/drugs/more-to-come, then acting-Lt. Governor and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno would assume the role of "acting governor" and still be able to keep his Senate Majority Leader title. As Fred Dicker reports, Bruno would be "functioning in both roles and literally able to cast votes in the Senate chamber on the third floor of the Capitol and then go down to the Executive Chamber on the second to administer the state. That would allow him to nominate individuals for high public office, including judgeships, and then vote on their confirmation by the Senate", see:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242008/news/columnists/surprise_findings_on_a_successor_103277.htm
This would make Bruno a "Super (acting) Governor" with "Super Powers". But there would be an upside to this as the budget deadline looms. Instead of having the "three men in a room" scenario (Governor David Paterson, Speaker Sheldon Silver, and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno), there would be only two (acting Governor and Senate Majority Leader Bruno and Speaker Silver). Maybe the process would be more efficient.
What is going to happen? No one knows yet. It seems as with every new day, more comes out about Governor Paterson. How much more can come out before it starts to interfere with his duties as Governor and the budget negotiation?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Did Elliot Spitzer get outed by Joe Bruno?
In my post of march 11, 2008 I stated that New York State Majority Leader Joseph Bruno probably helped in the taking down of Elliot Spitzer. New information has come to light on some of the early details in the chain-of-events that ultimately lead to the downfall of Spitzer. In an article by the Miami Herald, see:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/465701.html
It states that Roger Stone, a former top political consultant and friend of Joe Bruno, tipped FBI off to an Elliot Spitzer sex romp that allegedly occurred in Florida. As it turns out also, Stone played a pivotal role in the 2000 Election recount/no count in Florida. If in fact Roger Stone was the one that informed the FBI about Spitzer, there is no doubt in my mind that Bruno had his hand in this.
The New York Times had an article regarding Stone also, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23stone.html
In this article, Stone resigned from his position as a consultant for the New York State Republicans after an allegation that Stone left a threatening message with Spitzer's father about bad loans in Elliot Spitzer's 1994 Attorney General election. According to the article, Stone had been known for dirty tactics.
Can we conect-the-dots from Bruno to Stone? If Stone had damaging information about Spitzer, do you think that he would share this with Bruno, especially after Spitzer came after Bruno first? I do. It is only natural. But is this proof that Bruno had a role in the Spitzer resignation? Not yet, but I'm sure there will be more to come. Again, I'm not condemning Bruno for what he did. I'm a Bruno supporter. Spitzer drew first blood with the most powerful man in New York State and Bruno did what he had to do.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/465701.html
It states that Roger Stone, a former top political consultant and friend of Joe Bruno, tipped FBI off to an Elliot Spitzer sex romp that allegedly occurred in Florida. As it turns out also, Stone played a pivotal role in the 2000 Election recount/no count in Florida. If in fact Roger Stone was the one that informed the FBI about Spitzer, there is no doubt in my mind that Bruno had his hand in this.
The New York Times had an article regarding Stone also, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23stone.html
In this article, Stone resigned from his position as a consultant for the New York State Republicans after an allegation that Stone left a threatening message with Spitzer's father about bad loans in Elliot Spitzer's 1994 Attorney General election. According to the article, Stone had been known for dirty tactics.
Can we conect-the-dots from Bruno to Stone? If Stone had damaging information about Spitzer, do you think that he would share this with Bruno, especially after Spitzer came after Bruno first? I do. It is only natural. But is this proof that Bruno had a role in the Spitzer resignation? Not yet, but I'm sure there will be more to come. Again, I'm not condemning Bruno for what he did. I'm a Bruno supporter. Spitzer drew first blood with the most powerful man in New York State and Bruno did what he had to do.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Boycott the Olympics
Earlier this week, a possible boycott of the 2008 summer games opening ceremonies had been discussed due to the current situation in Tibet. See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080320/ap_on_re_as/china_tibet
The citizens of Tibet are using this time to draw attention to their cause in the lead up to the summer games. Public relations is all about timing. The Olympics will bring thousands of reporters to China and Tibet is hoping for a little attention. But is boycotting the opening ceremonies the right move? I believe it is. First off, why in the world would the Olympics be awarded to China? Of all the beautiful countries in the world, all the historic cities, the committee picked Beijing, China.
There are so many other cities and countries that could benefit from the Olympics being held there. All the hotels, restaurants, everything. The Olympics bring in revenue, a large sum of revenue. All this revenue will be soon going to China. The irony is that, in turn, China will be using this on their increasing military budget.
Think how much a developing nation could benefit from the games. Giving the distinction of hosting the Olympics to China equates to Iran receiving the honor or North Korea or Cuba. China has been known to jail for political opposition, engage in Human Rights violations, and censor the media. This is not an open society and should not have been allowed to host the games.
The Olympics are the biggest stage in the World. China will use this opportunity to use the Olympics as a giant public relations event. They will try to show how great they are while rounding up reformers and hiding the bad. I urge more countries to come together and boycott the opening ceremonies. This non-violent protest will show China that their harsh rule will not be tolerated by nations around the world.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080320/ap_on_re_as/china_tibet
The citizens of Tibet are using this time to draw attention to their cause in the lead up to the summer games. Public relations is all about timing. The Olympics will bring thousands of reporters to China and Tibet is hoping for a little attention. But is boycotting the opening ceremonies the right move? I believe it is. First off, why in the world would the Olympics be awarded to China? Of all the beautiful countries in the world, all the historic cities, the committee picked Beijing, China.
There are so many other cities and countries that could benefit from the Olympics being held there. All the hotels, restaurants, everything. The Olympics bring in revenue, a large sum of revenue. All this revenue will be soon going to China. The irony is that, in turn, China will be using this on their increasing military budget.
Think how much a developing nation could benefit from the games. Giving the distinction of hosting the Olympics to China equates to Iran receiving the honor or North Korea or Cuba. China has been known to jail for political opposition, engage in Human Rights violations, and censor the media. This is not an open society and should not have been allowed to host the games.
The Olympics are the biggest stage in the World. China will use this opportunity to use the Olympics as a giant public relations event. They will try to show how great they are while rounding up reformers and hiding the bad. I urge more countries to come together and boycott the opening ceremonies. This non-violent protest will show China that their harsh rule will not be tolerated by nations around the world.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Most Expensive Sex in New York
Yesterday Elliot Spitzer resigned as Governor of New York State effective on Monday, March 17. I feel for his family, friends, and supporters but not for him. The State voted overwhelmingly for then Attorney General to become Governor. This could show us (again) that the candidate for an office is not the better candidate because he collects the most money, has the better qualifications, or have the memorable political ads. In hindsight, I hope that the people of New York would now agree that John Faso was the better candidate. Also, I don't believe that Spitzer thought that he would be caught. He was so arrogant as Attorney General and he called himself a "f***ing steamroller".
But there are bigger issues at-hand such as mob ties, possibility of blackmail, and integrity of prosecutions. It has been long learned that many prostitution rings are run by the Mafia. If they found out what Spitzer was doing, they could have blackmailed him for money, influence, or anything else. Spitzer put the whole State at risk for his actions. Lastly, If he "went after", as Attorney General, a prostitution ring that was a rival of the business he used frequently, that would breech many moral, legal, and ethical standards of the Office he held.
Does this taint all prosecutions of his office? There are thousands of former defendants and their attorneys waiting to see what happens and what comes out. I am sure that there will be many appeals brought into an already clogged system. How many millions of dollars will all this cost including time of all court challenges and changing all letterhead, envelopes, stationary, etc. When it is all said and done, this will be the most expensive sex in the history of New York State.
But there are bigger issues at-hand such as mob ties, possibility of blackmail, and integrity of prosecutions. It has been long learned that many prostitution rings are run by the Mafia. If they found out what Spitzer was doing, they could have blackmailed him for money, influence, or anything else. Spitzer put the whole State at risk for his actions. Lastly, If he "went after", as Attorney General, a prostitution ring that was a rival of the business he used frequently, that would breech many moral, legal, and ethical standards of the Office he held.
Does this taint all prosecutions of his office? There are thousands of former defendants and their attorneys waiting to see what happens and what comes out. I am sure that there will be many appeals brought into an already clogged system. How many millions of dollars will all this cost including time of all court challenges and changing all letterhead, envelopes, stationary, etc. When it is all said and done, this will be the most expensive sex in the history of New York State.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Is Today the Day that Spitzer Resigns?
Media outlets are reporting that Elliot Spitzer will resign effective on Monday, March 17th. We need to move on and have Lt. Governor David Paterson sworn in to ensure a smooth transition. The time delay is reportedly given to Patterson to prepare for the move. David Paterson will be the first African-American Governor in New York. He has a tough job ahead in Albany because it is a mess. I wish Governor Paterson the best and hope all Republicans work with the new Governor and work together as the Budget is due in roughly three weeks.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
"Client 9": The Case for Impeachment of Governor Elliot Spitzer
Is this "business as Usual" in Albany or what? Elliot Spitzer came into office in Albany promising change but is leaving in scandal. Spitzer, having prosecuted these kind of cases, must be the dumbest man in Albany. To read the court documents, visit:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0310082spitzer1.html
When I first heard the news on March 10th, the very first thought that came into my mind was that Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno had something to do with this. If you recall, Spitzer and Bruno battled it out when Spitzer used New York State Troopers to investigate Bruno's travels. Bruno is arguably the most powerful man in New York State so who knows. Check out this link to a news story by WCBSTV.com from July 2007 (it is short):
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/joseph.bruno.andrew.2.245997.html
It will shed a little more light on the political climate in Albany. But Spitzer was cleared from "Trooper-gate" see:
http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51047
Bruno had to want Blood. I am a Bruno supporter as he has accomplished a lot for Upstate New York. It seems to me that someone did find the skeleton in the closet.
Lastly, New York State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco today called for Elliot Spitzer to resign within 24-48 hours or face impeachment proceedings.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080312/D8VBJ3R00.html
I am calling for all Assembly members to support these proceedings. We, the people of New York, can not tolerate this misconduct from this man. Spitzer had been so unforgiving of people that he prosecuted, he needs to pay the price.
Do not blame me for this mess, I voted for John Faso.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0310082spitzer1.html
When I first heard the news on March 10th, the very first thought that came into my mind was that Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno had something to do with this. If you recall, Spitzer and Bruno battled it out when Spitzer used New York State Troopers to investigate Bruno's travels. Bruno is arguably the most powerful man in New York State so who knows. Check out this link to a news story by WCBSTV.com from July 2007 (it is short):
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/joseph.bruno.andrew.2.245997.html
It will shed a little more light on the political climate in Albany. But Spitzer was cleared from "Trooper-gate" see:
http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51047
Bruno had to want Blood. I am a Bruno supporter as he has accomplished a lot for Upstate New York. It seems to me that someone did find the skeleton in the closet.
Lastly, New York State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco today called for Elliot Spitzer to resign within 24-48 hours or face impeachment proceedings.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080312/D8VBJ3R00.html
I am calling for all Assembly members to support these proceedings. We, the people of New York, can not tolerate this misconduct from this man. Spitzer had been so unforgiving of people that he prosecuted, he needs to pay the price.
Do not blame me for this mess, I voted for John Faso.
Friday, March 7, 2008
The Greatest Presidential Campaign Ever: Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton and The Case for John McCain
It has been a while since I have written, I apologize. Yesterday I decided that I would once again continue writing everyday based on what is happening in the world and our country. As of today, we are down to two Democratic Presidential candidates: Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. The Republicans have their Presidential nominee: Senator John McCain. I believe that the democratic race is going to get even more heated before the two would decide who would be on the top and the bottom of the ticket. The Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would be the logical conclusion to the campaign. This move would also sure up major factions in the Democratic party. The two candidates would be a money-raising machine. This will attract most of the media attention in the upcoming months. McCain can counter this by planning his important speeches, trips, and the announcemnet of his pick for Vice President strategically.
McCain has a huge advantage, he is the "Maverick". This is a great underdog story. He was down and out early in the campaign. He was not raising money and received little media attention. John McCain needs this time to organize, raise funds, and to rest. There is no doubt that the campaign took a toll on McCain but time is on his side. I am a McCain supporter. I understand that there are many Republicans that do not favor him. I admit he was not my first choice but he is what we are stuck with (so we better make the best of it). Compared to whatever the alternative would be, there are not any other choices.
If John McCain wins, it will be close as the country is so divided, we need someone who knows how to compromise. That is what he needs to stress, not run from. If Conservatives do not vote for him and waste their votes elsewhere, then McCain needs the moderates from both sides. I would argue that compromise is one of the most important aspects as a Senator. We have not elected a Senator since John F. Kennedy (1960). If McCain wins he would be facing a Democratic House and possibly a super-majority in the Senate. If he intends to get anything accomplished, he needs to compromise. This is a strength, not a weakness.
We are still living in a post-9/11 world despite not having been attacked in almost 7 years. We need a President that would make the terrorists afraid, not rejoice, when elected. John McCain has strong National Security experience and wouldn't hesitate to track, monitor, detain, or kill terrorists.
McCain lacks economic experience, so picking a VP is very important. My guess/choice would be Mitt Romney. He carries supoort, has resources, and has a strong economic background. This would also make the Conservatives happy (or atleast happier). It is a win-win. This would also set up Mitt Romney for 2012 nicely. There is no doubt that age must factor in with the McCain campiagn pertaining to the VP. He must for the better of the party for future campaigns. Romney ran a good campaign and would make a great future President, just not this time-around.
I urge anyone who has supported someone else or is on the fence about 2008 to take another look at John McCain. Our country and future generations depend on it.
McCain has a huge advantage, he is the "Maverick". This is a great underdog story. He was down and out early in the campaign. He was not raising money and received little media attention. John McCain needs this time to organize, raise funds, and to rest. There is no doubt that the campaign took a toll on McCain but time is on his side. I am a McCain supporter. I understand that there are many Republicans that do not favor him. I admit he was not my first choice but he is what we are stuck with (so we better make the best of it). Compared to whatever the alternative would be, there are not any other choices.
If John McCain wins, it will be close as the country is so divided, we need someone who knows how to compromise. That is what he needs to stress, not run from. If Conservatives do not vote for him and waste their votes elsewhere, then McCain needs the moderates from both sides. I would argue that compromise is one of the most important aspects as a Senator. We have not elected a Senator since John F. Kennedy (1960). If McCain wins he would be facing a Democratic House and possibly a super-majority in the Senate. If he intends to get anything accomplished, he needs to compromise. This is a strength, not a weakness.
We are still living in a post-9/11 world despite not having been attacked in almost 7 years. We need a President that would make the terrorists afraid, not rejoice, when elected. John McCain has strong National Security experience and wouldn't hesitate to track, monitor, detain, or kill terrorists.
McCain lacks economic experience, so picking a VP is very important. My guess/choice would be Mitt Romney. He carries supoort, has resources, and has a strong economic background. This would also make the Conservatives happy (or atleast happier). It is a win-win. This would also set up Mitt Romney for 2012 nicely. There is no doubt that age must factor in with the McCain campiagn pertaining to the VP. He must for the better of the party for future campaigns. Romney ran a good campaign and would make a great future President, just not this time-around.
I urge anyone who has supported someone else or is on the fence about 2008 to take another look at John McCain. Our country and future generations depend on it.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
A Victory in New York
Governor Spitzer now intends to drop his crusade to give illegals, drivers licenses. This is a major win for all tax-paying "legals" in New York. The people have spoken and Spitzer now has time to come up with more crazy policies instead of tackling major issues such as reform. It seems to me as it is business as usual in Albany.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Case for Iraq
I do not believe President Bush has made an effective case for the Iraq war to the American public. If he had, I don't think that the war would be as unpopular as it is today. Some people do not see the implications of an American loss or they want America to be defeated. I will try to make my own case for the war in Iraq. President Bush had made some early errors with the war. Instead of the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) argument, he should have stuck with the 17 U.N. violations, connections to terrorism, and a brutal dictator. We knew he had WMDs because he had used them in the past but the risk of not finding any would be greater then the strength of the argument. This is what gave the anti-war activists fuel for their accusations of "lies and exaggerations" by the Bush administration. We knew he was in violation of the U.N. agreements and we could prove both the supporting of terror and a brutal dictator. Bush's use of the WMD argument to go to war not only proved incorrect but also damaged the entire war effort and public sentiment.
Saddam Hussein has also gave out millions of dollars to Palestinian families of suicide bombers. In a region in the world where there is high unemployment and poverty is normal, a $10,000 check can make all the difference and can certainly be motivation for more bombings. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein sponsored terror, see CBS News @ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml
Audio tapes from meetings with Hussein and other government and military leaders in the mid-1990s show that Hussein was intentionally hiding their efforts of WMDs from the U.N. see ABC News @ http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996
This brings up the next major topic: What if we lose?
This is the worst case scenario, second only to nuclear devices being detonated inside the United States. A loss will embolden the enemy and will only strengthen themselves in bodies and money. The group was formed after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. For a more detailed history see the Council on Foreign Relations @ http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/ The terrorist group was strengthened after they drove the Soviets out. If a group of rag-tag thugs can defeat the Soviets, they believe they can defeat anyone. If they are successful in making the United States withdraw with its tail between our legs, they will do something that no one had done in the history of the World has done: defeat two major superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States.
We can not let this happen. I think that the War in Iraq is justified. Even if you do not feel that the war is justified, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who supported terror, killed his own people, and was in violation of 17 U.N. resolutions. A timetable or withdraw would be a mistake. If history teaches us anything, we most stomp them. Please do not support a timetable or withdraw from Iraq, we can not let them defeat us. Our country and way of life is on the line.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Global Warming: Fact or Figment of Alarmists' Imagination?
Turn on the news, open a newspaper, or stand at the water cooler and you will eventually hear that the world is falling apart and it is due to global warming. First off, very few people will disagree that there is global warming. That is not for debate (at least not here). The issue of debate is whether man is the sole contributor of this increase or is it occurring naturally. There are plenty of websites on both side of this argument to look for answers but which is correct? I believe in the "there are two kinds of people in this world" saying. In this case, there are two kinds of people in this world: people who believe the alarmists and people who don't! The alarmists are not a new group of people, they have been around probably since the dawn of time. Every generation has heard that oil is running out. Most often the alarmists will also give a time line such as "oil will run out in 20 years". The world has heard it since the 1800's and the fact remains no one knows when we will run out of oil. Is it possible that the oil companies themselves are doing this to drive up the price? I don't know.
Several years ago the Bird Flu was the story of the day. The following are headlines I collected from the web about the bird flu: "NPR: Bird Flu Deaths in Thailand Raise Pandemic Fears" (December 8, 2005), "Britain prepares for bird flu death toll of thousands" (August 7, 2005), and "U.N. backs off 150m flu deaths" (September 30, 2005). These head lines were meant to invoke fear in you. The alarmists were on to something. But then something happened. Actually, nothing happened. The pandemic never happened. There have been 204 deaths from the bird flu since the 1990's. If you believe the hype, 36,000 people die each year from the "normal" flu in America, see CBS news:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/health/main535605.shtml
Another example was SARS. I thought that the world was going to end in 2003 because of SARS. What happened? Again, nothing happened. There wasn't a SARS pandemic. Going back a few more years, Y2K was going to cause planes to drop from the sky, nuclear missiles to be launched, and turn your expensive laptop into a paperweight. When the clocks struck midnight, nothing happened. After three failed attempts by the alarmists (bird flu, SARS and Y2K), the new "sky is falling" is "man-made" global warming.
In the 1970's, the alarmists stated there was "global cooling", see what Newsweek and Time Magazine said:
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
How can we have a "global cooling" scare in the 1970's and now thirty years later we have "global warming" scare? If a weatherperson can not accurately predict the weather in 3 days, how can a scientist predict global climate 20, 50, or 100 years out? Many against the global warming argument point to the flawed nature of the computer models being used to conduct the global warming studies. Some would argue (myself included) that the earth is too complex for a computer model. To say that a computer models is 100% accurate is to say that we know everything about the earth and how it works. That can not be true hence the models are flawed. Members of the left, have also tried to down play the number of scientists who have signed a petition (over 19,000) that rejects the mainstream view on global warming. To view the petition, click on the link below:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
What is the truth? An Inconvenient Truth? To be honest, I have not seen it. I have seen clips and read excerpts but I refuse to watch it. I do not have to watch it to know that it is filled with lies and exaggerations. You can read about 35 Inconvenient Truths about Al Gore's movie from the Science and Public Policy Institute here at the link below. The nine lies identified by the British judge are included as well.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
One possible cause of global warming is an increase in solar flare activity. According to the American Institute of Physics, if there is a link between solar activity and the temperature of the earth, the effects may over ride the human impact on the planet. See below:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html
According to NASA, the planet Mars is also heating up. They state that the planet's temperature, in the last 30 years, rose approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit. Using photos from two Mars missions, scientists also state that the polar ice caps are melting. Click the link below to view the NASA article:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html
Every year NOAA releases their Hurricane season prediction. It was predicted that there was a good chance of a above-average hurricane season. To read this years prediction, click below.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
As the Hurricane season comes to a close, 2007 will rank as the most inactive in 30 years! To read more, click on the link below:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Here's the rundown on global warming:
1. The computer models are flawed. The earth is too complex.
2. If the weatherperson can not predict the weather in 3 days in one geographic location, how can scientists predict how the earth will be in 100 years.
3. If hurricanes are a indicator of global warming, how come we had two off years when in both 2006 and 2007 "above average" hurricane seasons were predicted.
4. Increased solar flare activity could be helping to increase the temperatures on earth.
5. Mars is also experiencing global warming. Last time I checked Mars did not have industry and automobiles to cause an increase in temperatures.
Several years ago the Bird Flu was the story of the day. The following are headlines I collected from the web about the bird flu: "NPR: Bird Flu Deaths in Thailand Raise Pandemic Fears" (December 8, 2005), "Britain prepares for bird flu death toll of thousands" (August 7, 2005), and "U.N. backs off 150m flu deaths" (September 30, 2005). These head lines were meant to invoke fear in you. The alarmists were on to something. But then something happened. Actually, nothing happened. The pandemic never happened. There have been 204 deaths from the bird flu since the 1990's. If you believe the hype, 36,000 people die each year from the "normal" flu in America, see CBS news:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/07/health/main535605.shtml
Another example was SARS. I thought that the world was going to end in 2003 because of SARS. What happened? Again, nothing happened. There wasn't a SARS pandemic. Going back a few more years, Y2K was going to cause planes to drop from the sky, nuclear missiles to be launched, and turn your expensive laptop into a paperweight. When the clocks struck midnight, nothing happened. After three failed attempts by the alarmists (bird flu, SARS and Y2K), the new "sky is falling" is "man-made" global warming.
In the 1970's, the alarmists stated there was "global cooling", see what Newsweek and Time Magazine said:
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
How can we have a "global cooling" scare in the 1970's and now thirty years later we have "global warming" scare? If a weatherperson can not accurately predict the weather in 3 days, how can a scientist predict global climate 20, 50, or 100 years out? Many against the global warming argument point to the flawed nature of the computer models being used to conduct the global warming studies. Some would argue (myself included) that the earth is too complex for a computer model. To say that a computer models is 100% accurate is to say that we know everything about the earth and how it works. That can not be true hence the models are flawed. Members of the left, have also tried to down play the number of scientists who have signed a petition (over 19,000) that rejects the mainstream view on global warming. To view the petition, click on the link below:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
What is the truth? An Inconvenient Truth? To be honest, I have not seen it. I have seen clips and read excerpts but I refuse to watch it. I do not have to watch it to know that it is filled with lies and exaggerations. You can read about 35 Inconvenient Truths about Al Gore's movie from the Science and Public Policy Institute here at the link below. The nine lies identified by the British judge are included as well.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
One possible cause of global warming is an increase in solar flare activity. According to the American Institute of Physics, if there is a link between solar activity and the temperature of the earth, the effects may over ride the human impact on the planet. See below:
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/642-2.html
According to NASA, the planet Mars is also heating up. They state that the planet's temperature, in the last 30 years, rose approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit. Using photos from two Mars missions, scientists also state that the polar ice caps are melting. Click the link below to view the NASA article:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html
Every year NOAA releases their Hurricane season prediction. It was predicted that there was a good chance of a above-average hurricane season. To read this years prediction, click below.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2864.htm
As the Hurricane season comes to a close, 2007 will rank as the most inactive in 30 years! To read more, click on the link below:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Here's the rundown on global warming:
1. The computer models are flawed. The earth is too complex.
2. If the weatherperson can not predict the weather in 3 days in one geographic location, how can scientists predict how the earth will be in 100 years.
3. If hurricanes are a indicator of global warming, how come we had two off years when in both 2006 and 2007 "above average" hurricane seasons were predicted.
4. Increased solar flare activity could be helping to increase the temperatures on earth.
5. Mars is also experiencing global warming. Last time I checked Mars did not have industry and automobiles to cause an increase in temperatures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
We Will Never Forget
Posts
