Goblin Politics

Mad Dash to the Center

2008-07-28T15:55:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama has shifted a lot on his views. He is far more center now. I hope what he's saying now is how he will be when he is president, but then again, he's already changed his stance on multiple issues.

One that strikes me is his stance on NAFTA. He wanted to reform NAFTA before, but now it seems that he is supporting it. He's stood up and touted Israel as a prime ally that needs to be protected. He has shifted his stance on troop withdrawal, something that cannot be rushed, to removing battle brigades in the time it takes, instead of his 16 month policy.

Obama is not stupid, he knows where his bread's buttered. He's ticking off some ultra liberals, but they'll vote for him anyway. Who are they going to vote for, Ralph Nader? Obama is a politician, plain and simple, and no matter how much he says he's going to change things, which he may, he is still a politician. He runs for different offices every few years, and is definitely looking to get to the top. I like this Obama more than I liked primary election Obama, because he doesn't seem so radical.

I applaud you, Barack Obama, for doing what needs to be done and shifting your stances to things can actually be done.

Ignorance Makes Us Sick

2008-07-10T13:34:00.000-07:00

It's been a while, but I'm back with a vengence!

I saw on TV the Harry Reid Oil makes us sick statement that I've posted above. I was reading an article in the Las Vegas sun and it talked about how all these people said that Reid's out of line for saying this. Are you serious!?! How can these people possibly argue against what he's saying. Like coal and oil are bad for us an our environment is some shocking truth (inconvenient as the truth is). We've known this for years, but certain conservatives are arguing against this. We do need to reduce coal and oil power. It's certainly not helping us. Yes, coal keep things cheaper monetarily, but there's the opportunity cost. What about wen you adjust the price of fuel with the external social cost. When you consider the money it takes to clean up the atmosphere and the increased costs of health care as a result of it, it may not be as cheap as we may think. Ignorance. One of them said "fuel and coal built this country and made our fortune." What kind of reasoning is that? This guys a politician? Our country was also built of tobacco and slavery, so should we reinstate slavery and promote tobacco use? Geez, no wonder we're in such bad environmental shape.

Immigration

2008-05-23T12:51:00.001-07:00

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/23/report-illegal-immigrants-co...
This is one reply to the above article that I responded to in particular.

Posted by GOD
"... AND THE GAINS...
1) LOWER WAITING TIMES AT HOSPITALS, CLINICS, ETC.
2) LESS FOR CAR INSURANCE FOR INSURED MOTORISTS.
3) LESS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.
4) LESS FOR CITY INFRASTRUCTURE.
5) LESS MONEY NEEDED FOR WELFARE AND CITY, STATE, AND GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.
6) MORE JOBS FOR AMERICANS."

I'd like to see some data to back that up. And as far as the under the table pay thing goes: American's don't get paid under the table? When I was first in college, my friend's Dad had a construction company and paid me to help him out on jobs. I got $10/hr UNDER THE TABLE. I paid no taxes on that.
As far as the article goes, they said it helps Nevada, not the country as a whole. Being that we don't pay state income taxes, the only thing that we're missing is Medicare payments, tax-wise. Illegal immigrants won't be getting social security. The Medicare thing is an issue, which is why I'm for a consumption based tax system.

Illegal labor does help NV's economy. I work retail in Reno/Sparks and I get lots of undocumented workers coming to buy computers and TV's and the like. They usually buy stuff here, and send it back to Mexico. The more contractors save on labor, the more they have. They don't have to cover these people for workers comp if something happens. It's more money in contractor's pockets.
The problem lies within our tax system. We could have lots of new revenue if we had the Fair Tax. But either way, Illegal immigrants are good for America as a whole. If you were a businessperson, wouldn't you hire illegal labor? I would. I outsource my website and software creation to India, because financially it makes more sense. So instead of complaining about it, do something other than snipe about how they're taking your jobs.

Bad Gas

2008-05-14T00:28:00.001-07:00

Oil prices!

They are through the roof right now. Trading at 126.98 at the close of the day. Everyone has an opinion on it, and it's mostly that pumping gas has become a wallet-raping menace and must be stopped. Everyone's got ideas. Like

The Gas Tax Holiday: This is a horrible idea. It's a good immediate solution, i guess, but over all very bad. The gas tax isn't that high and the government needs that $30/month revenue. It won't help the average person in the United States who has a car at all. Some taxes are necessary, not income. The whole tax system needs to be changed. A consumption based tax would be a great thing, such as the Fair Tax,, but that's another post. This tax elimination is just stupid pandering to demographics.

Windfall Profits tax: This is essentially taxing the prophets over what the oil company made about 4 years ago before the huge oil spikes. Horrible idea. This tax will just get passed down to the consumer. Every time there is a tax on goods that a company sells, they tack it onto the price of gas and force the consumer to take it in the wallet. This would be no difference

The high price of oil is caused by the oil exporting countries that withhold supply to A) get more money and B) Preserve a finite resource. This works as oil prices have shown. As long these countries can get away with it, they will take every advantage they can of oil-gorging nations to get more money because a decent amount of these countries' economies are based largely or only on oil exports.

So how do we get gas prices lower? Remove dependence. If we don't need gas, then we won't have to pay for it. The problem is that too many rich people make too much money off of oil for it ever to be eliminate in America. In the end, it will be up to the consumers. Eventually, gas will be at such high prices that people are going to use alternative forms of energy. More hybrid cars, for example. I've talked to two people at the pump who said they recently bought cars instead of trucks due to high gas prices. More car pooling could be a result. either way, the market as it is, will move us off of dependence on oil.

This will also take us out of our many foreign entanglements. Dictators like Hugo Chavez, the Iran Shiite leadership, Russia, quickly turning that way, and the harsh Saudi government, will have no power over the United States by being able to hold oil over out heads.

It'll get worse before it gets better, but if there's one thing I know: it's that the American people will eventually decide for themselves to eliminate dependency on oil.

Nukes!

2008-05-06T00:10:00.000-07:00

U.S.A., China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Great Britain, Germany, North Korea. What do these countries have in common? They all have the ability to begin the end of the world. With Pakistan and India constantly bickering, the Shiite regime in Iran enriching uranium and a war mongering president who can push the lethal red button anytime he feels like it, things don't look too great for the future.

There is a solution however. So far, we haven't had too many real nuclear scares. Of course everyone knows about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but after this, the threat of nuclear warfare, while looming, seems completely impossible. No nation can be so dumb as to launch nuclear weapons at another nation, especially one that has them and can retaliate. for example, is Russia were to nuke the United States, the United states would answer back with one. Both sides suffer massive losses and neither one really has gained anything.

The same with India and Pakistan. these are the most likely ones to use nuclear weapons first, on each other. If one launches its nukes, the other will launch them, and they both have half of their countries blown up. It's not worth it. The solution, of course, is a centralized world power whom can eliminate the need for nuclear weapons. Nuclear non-proliferation is an obvious failure, as it hasn't lowered the threat of nuclear annihilation. That point is arguable, I'm sure, but that's how I feel.

The solution will end up working itself out because no one who's in charge of a country established enough to possess nuclear weapons will launch them. The threat of mutual nuclear annihilation is enough to pacify any nuclear launches. The gaining of nukes by any country is merely a power play. It's like a guy who has a gun because it makes him feel tougher (as opposed to self-defense and sport).

Inevitability of the Globalism

2008-03-27T16:07:00.000-07:00

I've spent a lot of time criticizing globalism and the planned North American Union (the combination of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico similar to the European Union), but I've come to the conclusion that it is inevitable. As long as there's more profit to be made by outsourcing labor, than it will continue to happen. A lot of people, myself included, tend only to look at the cons of globalism: How it will eliminate national sovereignty and take American jobs.

I was listening to NPR, and heard a story that a British company beat out Boeing for a tanker contract with the U.S. government. People were in an uproar because Boeing is an American company and it would take labor from Americans, however, this British company would actually use more American made parts than Boeing, and would create more American jobs than if Boeing received the contract. That's one example of the benefit of globalism. Another example is that Honda and Toyota cars are manufactured in the United States. This creates jobs in the U.S. when American car companies continue to be downsized. BMW recently announced a plan to build cars in the United States as well. People are always going to look at the negative more than the positive, because humans tend to be pessimistic creatures.

As to the loss of national sovereignty, so what? The world changes and we need to change with it. The United States is a great thing, but the borders of the United States were defined when France still had control of Canada and Spain had control of Mexico. As the world gets smaller, so do national divisions. I'm as proud to be an American as the next person, but we can gain a lot from a partnership with Canada and Mexico. For one: Mexico has huge supplies of oil. By integrating Mexico economically with the United States and Canada, we have direct, tariff free access to Mexican oil. I'm not sure how this relationship works as of now but it's an interesting fact. Two: Canada is a very stable country. By being apart of this country, we can potentially be more stable by adopting some of their policies.

Look how the countries in the European Union have benefited from their supranational organization.

Aside from increased security due to having a singular force around the continent, and the economic advantages of creating more markets for goods, there are the risks. The major risk, is of course, too powerful of a government. There would need to be checks and balances, similar to the United State's Madisonian democratic system. There would need to be some sort of legislature, along with an executive and judicial branch. Also, there should be a purely governmental branch, unlike the private federal reserve, that regulates commerce and coinage across the NAU. We definitely need checks on Tyranny.

Assuming, and this is a big assumption, that something like that would occur, the people, it seems, would have more power, because there would be more people to have the power. Should revolution be necessary against the NAU, there would be many more people to execute the revolution.

In time, I will turn this rant into a coherent source-backed, essay to better espouse how a supranational NAU would have to work in order to check tyranny. as of now though, I'm all for an NAU. After all, Jefferson said we needed a revolution every 20 years, meaning that the constitution would be changed as well, but backed with the same natural inalienable rights that we have now.

Genious Tibetan Strategy

2008-03-18T13:11:00.000-07:00

The Tibetans are rebelling against the Chinese occupation and oppression. Since the 1950's, China has ruled the Tibetans with an iron fist and eliminated religious freedom. There have been many protests against China throughout the years, notably in 1989 with the Tiennamen Square massacre.

With China moving into a position of international power, the Olympics being hosted there is suppose to be China's coming out party. The Tibetans have thrown quite a monkey wrench into China's plans for a peaceful and prosperous Olympics. The Tibetans have long been too small to fight back with force against China, and their leader the 14th Dalai Lama, who has spoken out against violence by the Tibetans, has been in exile in India running the Tibetan community.

This is an ingenious strategy on the part of the Tibetans, because if China does what it normally does, violently suppress any opposition to its policies, then the international community will be outraged, and there will be a definite boycott of the Olympic games in China. The Tibetans have chosen the perfect time, because of the pressure on China. Will they gain independence? Probably not, in my opinion, because China has the world, especially the United States, by the ball economically and nations tread very lightly when it comes to criticizing China.

Only In America

2008-03-13T16:10:00.000-07:00

(do economy)

The Democratic party tears itself apart as things look more and more better for McCain. Democrats can't decide who to vote for and negative campaigning, awkward resignations, racial commentary and a sex-scandal have rocked the party. This is what the Republicans want, I'm sure. They're taking down Elliot Spitzer to decrease confidence in the party, as well as discredit a super delegate supporting Hillary. Regardless, if they vote what the states chose, then it'll be fine.

Our economy hurdles downward in an unstoppable descent. Home equity plummets, foreclosures rise like the tides and the Four Horsemen of Recession glide through our country on their flaming chariots. Nothing indicates that things are getting better.

A governor gets caught in an international prostitution ring. This is reality. Personally, his infidelity is no matter to me, because he's not my governor, but I feel that I should acknowledge this huge story.

Only in America.

A White Woman, A Black Man and 3:00 A.M. Phone Calls

2008-03-05T23:38:00.000-08:00

Sounds like an outline for a Porn movie, or the start to a bad joke, but this is our Primary Presidential Election, folks. Hillary Clinton is playing dirty pool; and it's working. She ran a commercial about answering a national security phone call at 3:00 AM. Some say that pushed her enough to stay ahead of Obama in Texas and Ohio. That's sad. Oh, and the NAFTA thing is is not cool. Regardless of what I think of NAFTA, you should just admit to what you did. She has supported NAFTA since it's inception, and she has the nerve to talk to people about how she's against it. She's lying to their faces. To avoid the subject, though still bad, is understandable, but it is another thing to outright say the opposite of what is true. She looked those people in the eyes and lied to them. Obama will avoid topics yes, but he hasn't outright lied.

The thing is I really don't like Obama, but I really don't like John McCain or Hilary Clinton. Nader, the Independent candidate, is off his rocker now, though I've supported him in the past. Clinton is going so negative, and it's really getting on my nerves, I just hope Obama doesn't lower himself to that. If he already hasn't, that is.

99¢ Fast Food and Consumer Confidence

2008-03-02T21:19:00.000-08:00

I saw another dollar menu at McDonalds commercial; one part in the war for dollar menu supremacy. (Remember the Big Mac/Whopper/Jumbo Jack wars of the early 90's) Although there were always these commercials, I've noticed a lot more advertising for for their 99 cent menus. There's definitely a parallel here, between the new emphasis on cheap food, our lagging economy and consumer confidence being low. People are cutting back their spending, and fast food is an easy, albeit disgustingly unhealthy, way to do that.

An ingenious marketing strategy.

Russian To The Presidency

2008-03-02T12:04:00.000-08:00

Russia: So The Russians will cast ballots for their new leader, and the likely winner is Dmitri Medvedev, the chosen successor of Vladmir Putin, current President of Russia and former KGB operative. Putin has increased the aspects of the Russian Government more towards the scope of the soviet system, while keeping it overtly democratic. Medvedev may put Putin in as Prime Minister, those accusations made by many people who claim that Medvedev is just a Putin pawn. After this presidency, Putin can run again. In the Russian system of government.

This is taking it to a one party control of Russia. The Russians seem to be following China's example of a powerful state and a somewhat free market economy with state controlled enterprises, such as the natural gas monopoly by the state. I know that Putin's doing what he feels is best for Russia, but I don't agree with the level of state control. The people, essentially, have no choice in who to vote for, and it's not right. Russia is a democracy, and leaders should be chosen as such. This happens in America as well though, but it's not always as easy for the successor to a great president (witness Al Gore in 2000) to coast into the Presidency. The way that this Russian election is working is not right.

I just hope that Medvedev has a mind of his own and that the new U.S. president and new Russian president can smooth over the rough relations between the two countries.

Religion in Government

2008-03-01T10:48:00.000-08:00

I've been reading some of these right-wing blogs and radio programs, like O'Reilly, Savage and Limbaugh and I'm really appalled at the way they flaunt their religion. I'm not religious, but I'm still angry at some of the things people use God as an excuse to condemn.

I went to Catholic school for twelve years and I know for a fact that Jesus Christ would not have condemned gays. For Pete's sake, he lived in the Roman Empire, one of the most sexually promiscuous empires around. Fornication was all around. Homosexuality was common, especially among older men and young men. This was a regular thing. All that he wanted was for people to be good to each other, but instead people have twisted this great man's words beyond comprehension.

Another thing, people who claim to be " strict constitutionalists" want to use the bible as a way to make abortion and gay marriage legal or illegal are hypocrites. The constitution says to separate church and state, yet these people use religion to justify policies. Pick a damn side and if you claim to be something, be it. Ron Paul, a strict constitutionalist, very religious, doesn't use the bible as a basis for any of his policy. He is pro-life, but he doesn't cite biblical reasons as his.

These agents of intolerance, as John McCain called them, have butchered a beautiful thing. Religion as a means of dictating law is dead. So one: pick a side, two: stop butchering a great man's, Jesus' words. I think if he came back and saw some of the stuff that was carried out in his name, he'd flip out like he did in the temple of Jerusalem.

United States Popular Sovereignty

2008-02-29T14:17:00.000-08:00

Popular sovereignty is that the power of the nation rests within the people, and the government is only valid as long as the people say that it is. The United States was founded on this enlightenment concept. Recently it seems as if we have been leaning away from this concept. Most politicians now don't give a hoot about the people, and only wish to line their own pockets with special interest money. I question whether politicians ever did pay attention to this fact.

From the beginning, the popular sovereignty was only to people who owned land. Only landed white people were aloud to vote. This disenfranchised the poor, minorities, and women. Now we have erased the voting restrictions placed on these groups, but the the power has been taken away from the citizens. The power lies in corporate interests who decide policies. It's amazing how some things never change. Even under the guise of having full voting rights, once the statesmen are in office, they pander to the big money. Corporations and special interests seem to amount to what was, once, landowning white men.

The power of the United States doesn't exist within the people anymore and that's what those in power want. Most of us are too busy leading mediocre lives, struggling to live day to day, paycheck to paycheck, in debt up to our eyeballs to realize this. Most people don't even know what popular sovereignty is and the fact that our country was based on this. I wish I could make everybody realize what's going on and how they're getting screwed. I will, but I can't do it alone. Anybody reading this needs to help reintroduce these ideas to the people, so that we can take popular sovereignty back. If you ask most politicians what they really think, it would be that the power does not rest in the hands of the people, that no matter who you vote for, once thye're in office, what the people want is out the window.

The economy and government eaves-dropping

2008-02-28T12:32:00.000-08:00

-So, we're in a recession, (at least I think so, according to the definition of recession), and we have no idea how to get out. Bush pushed through this stimulus package which will not reverse the effects of printing money at will and over flooding the market with worthless, fiat money. And it also won't fix the effect of an overvalued dollar that was bound to tank at some point.

-Bush says he is concerned about people not having jobs. I doubt this seriously, because if he was, he wouldn't be pushing through free trade agreements with Chile, which will take more jobs away from hard working Americans. I mean, do what you will, but at least be honest about screwing over your constituents.

-And what about this Spy Legislation Bush is trying to pass a law that exempts telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating with government wire-taps and expand the ability for the government to spy on "terrorists." Two things here, one: What constitutes a terrorist? Well, H.R. 1955 expands it to include violence by a group or individual within the United States to coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population, or a segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives. This may sound innocent, but it is furthering the slippery slope that we started with the Patriot Act that allows the government to spy and punish dissenters.

This new law exempts telecoms from lawsuits, as a result. This is a travesty to the American people. These companies, I'm sure, made a good chunk of money form the government to allow them to do this. Another instance of Big Corporations in bed with the government. I'm appalled that politicians would consider this as viable. The House didn't let the bill pass as was, which would retro act this law, but they still passed it. I think they should pass a law that fines Telecoms for cooperating with the government to spy on its citizens. Naturally, this won't happen, because the people don't mean anything to most of the government. (sigh)

It reminds me of a quote: "Any people who gives up a little freedom for a little security loses both." I forgot who said it.

Democratic Primaries, Ralph Nader ..... and Britney Spears?

2008-02-25T14:52:00.000-08:00

I was out of town for a while, so I haven't been able to blog from where I was. I know you all missed me a lot...so here's what you've missed.

1. I said in one of my previous posts how Obama is more conservative than Republicans due to the fact that he would do less defense spending, which is still true, but something occurred to me while I was listening to Talk of the Nation on NPR , and that is that if Obama does bring troops home, then we still don't technically have the money for social spending, because all of the money that we spend on Iraq is borrowed. While it will work to bring down our national debt, if we keep borrowing money at the same rate as we are now, but on different things, than we're going to be in the same position that we are in now.

One thing to debate about this, against myself, as I always try to see both sides, is that if the money's spent at home, it may stimulate the economy, so we'll see. What needs to happen is to put more tax burden on corporations.

Side note: Obama has the great idea of removing the cap on social security, because after $90,000 of income, you stop getting taxed on that. I'm against the Federal Income tax, but I don't mind paying more social security tax, and there has been years (well, one) that I've made over that much. I would have been fine having that withheld for social security.

2. Ralph Nader is running as an Independent this year. This is great, because if I suddenly don't like Obama, or if Hilary wins, I can still vote for president. I've always been against the fact that, for all intents and purposes, we are stuck with 2 parties in the United States. This is a travesty. Any other party, pretty much, gets shut out of everything, including debates. There was a time when the Republicans were a third party against the established Whigs and Democrats, in the 1840's. Now they're one of the monopolizing parties. If it's Clinton/McCain, Nader's got my vote, just like the last election, it was either Nader or abstain. I'm above Dem/Rep politics and encourage other people to look into third parties, and realize that you do have a choice other than these two parties. By the way, Nader is WAAAY more liberal and against corporate interests than Clinton or Obama could ever be. (which is a reason that he can never fund his campaign too well).

3. Oky, although this isn't directly about politics, it is, but Britney Spears? Come on, who cares. Why are we so enamored with celebrities in the news. People are talking more about Spears' mental breakdown than a Turkish invasion of Iraq. These news channels pump this crap into our brains and it makes us more stupid. Why do we care what drugs she's on, or what country Angelina Jolie's adopting children from now? This is embarrassing to our country that people know more about, and talk more about, methed out pop stars who molest children, than know that Turkey's invaded Iraq and destabilizing the only stable region there...with U.S. support.

GEEZ I HATE CNN AND FOX NEWS!

Obama more conservative than Republicans?

2008-02-21T11:58:00.000-08:00

Someone brought up a good point to me yesterday. She is a conservative as well, but she pointed out that by not fighting so many wars, Obama will spend less money because our national defense spending won't be as high, so his social programs will not outweigh the money that he has saved from "national defense," and I use quotes because there's not much defense about it, it's mostly offense. This point has pretty much turned me to Barack Obama, because Hillary Clinton would be another Neo-Con, like her husband before her.

Supreme Court Injustice

2008-02-20T20:49:00.000-08:00

So, the supreme court ruled that certain Federal, congressional rulings outweigh state rulings. Another ruling invalidates parts of Maine's law that prevents on-line tobacco sales from being shipped directly to minors, which has caused a lot of issues in Maine as a cause for underage smoking. Transportation companies don't want to pay the cost of checking packages before hand, to see who they go to.

So....I know I'm not the only one who thinks that the tobacco lobby and transportation lobby had at least a little something to do with this. It's sad, I think, when big business takes importance over public health issues. Bush came out and said that it is not state rights to overrule federal transportation laws. My understanding is that it can only not impose economic regulations, but this is not an economic regulation.

And who the hell is letting kids buy tobacco on-line!? Parents, I think, have a hand in the responsibility here. I understand that parents can't be everywhere at once, but cigarette deliveries? And what about these websites, they don't know whose using whose credit card to buy these things. They don't care, I'm sure, because they make their money, so what's it matter if they are promoting underage smoking. I know if my niece and nephew had cigarette's delivered here, they'd have hell to pay, and I'd go after these websites.

By the way, I'm aware of the irony that I said if my niece and nephew did it, and that I said it's the parents responsibility.

Obama Wins Wisconsin

2008-02-19T21:11:00.001-08:00

Obama won Wisconsin's primary. So he's still ahead. So torn between supporting Obama, the probable democratic candidate and abstaining altogether.

Fidel Castro Out-- Capitalism in?

2008-02-19T13:52:00.000-08:00

So Fidel Castro resigned today as president of cuba , and I'm sure many people in America couldn't be happier about it. Most of all is U.S. based companies, the federal government and Cigar Afficionados. Finally, an easy way to get Cuban cigars.

Tobacco aside, this could be huge. President Bush has already stated that this will lead a way to democracy in the form of capitalism to the Cubans. Raul Castro, his younger brother, is set to take over. He has promised economic reforms that people in Cuba have hoped for. Castro had managed to stave off U.S. influence for nearly 50 years, but when he passes away, and his brother's out of power, what will happen? We saw China's international status increase after Mao Zedong stepped down and Deng took over and slowly implemented free market aspects, while maintaining it's socialist positions. Now China's a superpower.

Cuba, in all likeliness, will not become a world power, but possibly a bigger play in the world scene. While Castro's alive, this reform won't happen, but he's 81 and in bad health. Will Castro's eventual passing bring free market to Cuba? Maybe, but only time will tell. I think it's inevitable, and that to succeed in this world as a power, you have to accept some degree of a free market economy.

Audacity of Rhetoric

2008-02-19T00:05:00.000-08:00

NPR: Democratic Candidates Have a War of Words

All these people attack Obama because "all he does is make speeches," blah blah. That's BS. The NPR story brings up Kennedy and the Roosevelt's all who made great speeches full of hope and what have you, and they turned out to be great presidents.

My biggest criticism of Obama is that he wants to do all this stuff, but it'll take money that we don't have to spend. It causes a conflict of interest for me. If he does get us out of Iraq that'll free up a lot of money, but I have a feeling that the spending that he will do will shoot up our debt to soaring rates. So I either vote for Obama or abstain.

If only Ron Paul had done won.