Please explain...

How anyone could believe that the "rights" granted to foreigners by the constitution of the United States of America should come before the lives of Americans. !!!




Someone over at the Daily Kos would rather Americans die so that foreigners could reap the benefits of the US Constitution.

"Here's the reality. Even if it was sure to be lost in a terrorist attack today, my life is not worth the Constitution. The life of my child, is not worth the Constitution. The life of hundreds -- thousands -- is not worth setting aside the rights ensured to us by the Constitution. Because setting aside the Constitution is a defeat greater than any that can be delivered to us by any instrument of terror or war."
This is in reference to Chris Dodd's statement that National Security comes before human rights. This blogger doesn't agree. The blogger is referring to Bush's "illegal" war.

Except, the US Constitution serves to protect the American people...


The blogger furthers this outlandish post by stating:


" We no longer read [National Security] as the end of the nation itself, but as encompassing any threat -- any possible threat -- to any one of that nations' three hundred million residents. That's not "national security," that's national fear. We're not facing the possible end of the nation in rebellion and riot, we're not even facing about the certain knowledge of impending attack. We're talking about setting aside the rights enshrined in the Constitution against only the possibility of attack. If you search your dictionary, I believe you will find that to be the very definition of cowardice, and no one willing to make that trade deserves to utter the oath listed above."


In the time of war (which was arguably declared on the US by the 9/11 attacks), national security is NOT something to be taken lightly. Instead of praising the President for his dedication to protecting this nation and its people from another 9/11 (which he most likely has in the past few years), this person has the nerve to call President Bush a coward.

All of you who agree with this or believe that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008 because of this take on national security, I ask you why you think the majority of Americans would rather die than have the President protect the nation? With the issue of illegal immigration such a hot topic and people being sick and tired of sanctuary cities and illegals receiving benefits that should be saved for AMERICANS, why on earth would something like this ever, EVER go over with the American people?


And I noticed that no one answered my previous question: What has President Bush done to those of you who dislike him so much?

Apparently I'm Immoral.

Good Morning America's Bill Weir thinks that it is a "moral imperative" to believe that humans are the cause of global warming and that people need to "err on the side of planetary survival."

Besides all of the rhetoric, this questions the morality of those who don't buy into Al Gore's global warming crisis idea.

Have we forgotten that in the 1970's it was global cooling (please visit the link to read all about it) that was the problem and that these cooling fearmongers were proposing melting ice caps to solve the problem. And by the way, the 1975 article I have provided a link to is in the same magazine that hired the mind behind the Daily Kos (a person who has no real American political experience and merely sits behind a computer and complains about conservatives all day).

Partisan Politics and the Desire for '08

1. Push polling? on religion nonetheless? Despicable. However, I think this shows that Romney is the Republican candidate to beat in the primaries despite the nonsense floating about the media that the R primary is "wide open." If it was anyone else leading by the margins Romney is in the key states of Iowa and New Hampshire as well as topping the polls in Michigan and Nevada, they would be deemed the frontrunner. But, because Giuliani is leading in national polls (which, by the way, mean NOTHING), and Mike Huckabee is "gaining momentum," which he really isn't, it's been decided there is no frontrunner. Any what's the real reason behind this? Conservatives are so concerned with beating Hillary (the perceived Dem frontrunner), they'll sell out their values and throw support behind the winnable candidate. Well, this can only hurt the Republican party in the long run. Maybe we should focus on spreading the message of conservatism and its benefits instead of attacking the Democrats. I'm disappointed.

2. On a lighter note, Dave reported on "Swiftkids for Truth" videos. They're actually pretty entertaining, even though they are also part of what makes people aversive of politics. Here's the video on Hillary:



3. Speaking of Hillary, Liz reported on the female McCain supporter who referred to Hillary in a very derogatory way. While I agree that elected officials should be respected, a least a little, I think Joy Behar on The View was a little ridiculous about this occurrence. Okay, she likes Hillary. Well the McCain supporter didn't. Joy doesn't like President Bush- the PRESIDENT! But it's okay for Joy to talk in an insanely defamatory way about the PRESIDENT on national television would be but it's not okay for a citizen to express her point of view? Where's all the freedom of speech talk? Amazing. And again, what should McCain do? He didn't say anything. Do the producers of The View have to apologize for Joy's comments? No. Not even when so attacks religion by saying that prayer is a distraction. Seriously...

4. Media Matters for America got all upset because the Politico and CNN's Costello reported that the Democratic leadership in Congress is 0 for 40 when it comes to doing something policy-wise on the Iraq war. Okay, so they were able to pass legislation, just for it to be vetoed. They probably knew it would be vetoed- and this is just another part of their political game in which they strive to show that President Bush, and therefore Republicans in general, are awful and shouldn't be elected in 2008. Seriously- part of being a good leader, and especially a good legislature, is to be able to get things accomplished. Not just passing legislation for it to not come to fruition. You may say the this is just rhetoric for me to say that it's the Democrats playing politics. Well- they are. Not only are they recessing early, they've been wasting time trying to reignite the Fairness Doctrine and impeach Dick Cheney and hold votes of no confidence regarding Bush administration officials. Well, there are more important things, such as MAKING SURE AMERICANS DON'T DIE IN ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK. But no, they'd rather waste time and blame everything on Pres. Bush and Republicans. Secretary Gates has said he will have to layoff people in the Army and Marines and cease operations at Army bases. DURING A WAR? This is a huge weakness - thanks to Democrats who won't just suck it up and provide the troops the money they need without the pork programs. They claim the surge isn't working - a lot of reports have come out about this being the deadliest year. Well, in case you forgot/didn't know, after the surge we had a HUGE decrease in deaths. Oh, but let's leave that part out and then claim that conservatives refuse to put things in context. Okay. And then, let's use this to not pass funding for the war so that Osama Bin Laden, who isn't a real threat anyway, will see this as a big weakness and plan more attacks on us. Oh but wait, we shouldn't err on the side of caution- this isn't a serious threat. We don't know terrorists and Islamofascists are out to get us. Seriously?!!! The democrats want so badly to win the presidency in '08 that they are willing to put us in danger and then blame it on President Bush. They've already said that they are going to make the '08 election about Pres. Bush's presidency.

What did he ever do to any of you who despise him so much?

Basically, I'm so tired of all the partisan politics and political games on both sides. However, the Dems, with their majority in Congress, are putting us in danger. And this is NOT okay.

The Interplay of Influence

So, another book I had to read for class is called The Interplay of Influence. Unlike the others, this is an actual textbook. So, obviously, it is inherently a little less engaging and interesting. However, the subject isn't geometry or chemistry, so it receives a few bonus points.

Anyway, the three main topics are advertising, news media and politics. Basically, the book talks about how the mass media work and the power it has. It also touches upon the significance of the internet. Nothing really new, but interesting nonetheless.

One particularly interesting claim is that "the primary function of the mass media is to attract and hold large audiences for advertisers." If you think about it, this isn't such an outlandish statement. One 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl is going to cost nearly $4 million for the 2008 spectacle. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Super Bowl is so heavily promoted as a "must see" event? Football in general is a telegenic sport in which commercial breaks fit in well with timeouts and whatnot.

So, here's a classic Super Bowl ad... only aired once in its original format.

Daily Kos Continues to Leave Out Important Numbers

Everytime a new Presidential Approval Rating comes out the Daily Kos reports it and, of course, adds its own commentary about how awful and stupid and [fill in the blank] President Bush is. Today the Daily Kos was quick to report that President Bush is the "most unpopular President -- EVER!" This, mind you, cites ONE polling company (Gallup) and, while I'm not disputing that Americans aren't pleased with the President, leaves out another important statistic: the Congressional approval rating.


Real Clear Politics, which averages the various results, reports that the current approval rating is 24%, with a disapproval rating of 64.5%.

President Bush's RCP approval rating average is 34%, with a disapproval rating of 60.2%.

64% is Bush's highest disapproval rating, but 70% is Congress's highest disapproval rating.
36% is Bush's highest approval rating, but 28% is Congress's highest approval rating.

Let's take some other things into consideration:

1. President Bush is not running for re-election. He can't. And he's already said that his legacy will be determined not now but many years from now, as most legacies are. The Dems, however, are running for re-election (in terms of keeping the majority in Congress).

2. President Bush has been in office for 7 years. The Dems have been in charge for less than one year.

I'm not going to make any claims about what this all means, you can think about that for yourself. However, (and this is especially meant for all of you who cry out for 'context') think about the situations surrounding these numbers, not just the numbers themselves. Same thing goes for national poll numbers for Presidential elections. They don't really mean anything because, as all of you should remember from 2000, it's not the plurality of people's votes that matters, its the electoral votes that get a President elected.

Here's an endorsement you don't hear much of: Borat likes "Barack Obamas"



Q: Who do you favor for President in the United States?

A: "I cannot believe that it possible a woman can become Premier of US and A - in Kazakhstan, we say that to give a woman power, is like to give a monkey a gun - very dangerous. We do not give monkeys guns any more in Kazakhstan ever since the Astana Zoo massacre of 2003 when Torkin the orang-utan shoot 17 schoolchildrens. I personal would like the basketball player, Barak Obamas to be Premier."

Book Review: Unleashing the Ideavirus

Unleashing the Ideavirus is another book that wants to change the face of marketing, it's relatively entertaining yet isn't groundbreaking.

Author Seth Godin wants products and services to be treated as though they are humans... or computer viruses. Basically, he wants us to market products to each other by using the "word of mouse."

Godin says that "the future belongs to marketers who establish a foundation and process where interested people can market to each other... Ignite consumer networks and then get out of the way and let them talk."

He presents 3 significant groups related to unleashing the virus:

1. Sneezers: those who can best spread the "virus"
2. Hives: populations in which the "virus" is willingly received
3. Smoothness: the ease with which sneezers are able to spread the "virus" through a "hive"

And, to explicate his idea, Godin uses real-world examples including Napster and Hotmail.



As I was reading this, I kept thinking about elections. What do the political candidates/parties want its supporters to do? Go door to door, make phone calls, "spread the word." This is exactly what Godin is proposing. Does it work? Sometimes. Should it replace marketing as we know it? I don't think so.

Which do you think has worked better (before 2006): Karl Rove's pinpointing marketing strategy or "spreading the word"?

I think Godin's marketing plan is a great supplement to traditional marketing, and it may even reduce the amount of traditional marketing. However, I personally don't see this strategy working for everything.

Taxes...

The New York Times' David Leonhardt wrote an article called "Plain Truth about Taxes and Cuts." In this, he poses the question, "How important is it to let people keep the money that they earn?"

What?!!!

He's talking about relieving the middle class's "economic anxiety" and wonders how important it is for people to keep the money they earn???

Last time I checked, it's very important.

Not only is taxing legalized theft, it can hurt the people Mr. Leonhardt seems to be concerned for: the people who need the money.

He talks about how the tax rates on the rich have been falling in recent history... but he even points out that they pay (all together) at a tax rate of 30%. Yes, you can say "well they don't need it," but I stand by my statement that taxing (read: taking money from one person to give it to another) is legalized theft.

Don't get me wrong- I know we need taxes for the country to survive... especially for things, such as defense, that benefit everyone. However, I think it's a ridiculous argument to say that we are spending too much on the war and not enough on social programs. This is based entirely on the fact that the defense of this country (ex: the war- whether you agree with it or not) benefits everyone. (I know many of you will want to bring up stories of soldiers and Iraqi citizens dying because of an "illegal" war- which it is not, but that's for another day, however- you may be forgetting that Pres. Bush has probably stopped many attacks on this country... attacks we don't know about for our own sake). So, like or not, President Bush is our commander-in-chief and therefore he gets to decide what is best for our country in terms of defense (which, I emphasize, benefits everyone). You may not think he knows what he's doing and you may even think that he is crazy, but he's still the re-elected President. However, federal funding for social programs only benefits a certain segment of the population.




Mr. Leonhardt claims that the Medicare budget is a "much bigger" problem than social security. Granted, Medicare is facing financial a huge financial crisis, but doesn't he know that the SS "money" is actually a bunch of IOU's in a warehouse? The Social Security system faces a $13.4 trillion shortfall- a number that can only grow larger because of the "pay as you go" system. Basically- my generation will most likely never see what the government has taken out of our paychecks for social security. So we're paying for other people to retire yet we have no help from the government. Great. (I could go on and on... but I'll stop here) He also says that the Medicare budget problem "could be held in check if the government figured out how to say no to some expensive medical procedures." Umm... isn't it the "expensive medical procedures" that most people need help paying for?

Just to clarify- I'm not against helping people. I myself give blood very often, I've volunteered with the United Cerebral Palsy organization, I've volunteered for Meals-on-Wheels over summers and on Thanksgiving, and the list can continue. I just don't think the government has the right to dictate what cause my money helps to further. Not to mention that most of the federal social programs have serious problems.

In an ideal world- social government programs would help the people that really, desperately need help. In the real world, the people who need the help don't get it or they abuse the system. (Trust me, I have many stories of this- like people with children spending the money they are given by social programs to fix their un-livable houses to go on trips to Disney World. So basically- the money that is taken from our pockets is given to people who blow it on stuff they DON'T need and then expect more money from us ... does this sound right to you?)

Oh, and this would be a good time to say that I don't like the FairTax idea.

I like this one.