Sunday, May 27, 2007
The Eighty Mile Struggle
For those of you not from Iowa or most specifically from the Northwestern part of Iowa this post may fall on deaf ears. This is more of a regional story and one that cause my rant level to hit warp factor ten. It involves the completion, or lack thereof, of the four-lane expansion of Highway 20. It is infuriating to know that while the politicians down at the state house argue over meaningless pork projects that the last eighty miles of road remains unfinished. This is not a new story. This battle to complete the expansion of the highway to four-lanes has been languishing for many years and the end is not in sight. That last point is particularly disheartening to someone who makes the journey from Sioux City to Fort Dodge regularly. Not only would the expansion dramatically reduce the travel time from city to city but business expansion is being held back by the hold up. Many a time have I been stuck behind a convoy of big rigs sucking diesel exhaust with little recourse as passing points are as infrequent as a Republican in San Francisco. And the delay in completion is bringing with it more problems as with every passing year the price of the project projects to go up. Right now the figure to complete the undertaking is about five million dollars a mile. I was more than a little amazed at those figures until I saw that the costs will increase if the project is not finished soon. And soon is rapidly becoming a fixture in the rear view mirror as only a fraction of the money needed for the project has been appropriated. I know that in the grand scheme of things this is not a hugely important issue. But if you find yourselves living in the Northwest part of Iowa you will find yourselves drawn to this issue. When you find yourselves behind an endless stream of semis and blue-hairs maybe you will appreciate our plight here in the heartland.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself, and Radical Islam
I think that is probably how the statement would go had it been uttered in today's environment. I say this as a proud American who realizes the greatness of our country and its resolve to deal with any adversity and conquer it. But we must realize the threat that radical Islam poses to our country and democracy around the world. I fear our country's resolve to deal with this danger fell drastically as a result of the results of last November's election. The danger is a nation becoming complacent and fall into a false sense of security. This is especially possible when certain political forces play down the threat from radical Islam. I think that attitude comes from the fact that they do not see the risk of terrorists following us to our shores as credible. The fact is when you have people that want to destroy us and an unprotected border you have an equation with disaster on the other side of the equal sign. But we may not have to wait for those to follow us home from Iraq. As the situation at Fort Dix showed us terrorism can be homemade as terror cells populate within our borders. And if a certain political party keeps attacking and wanting to take away all our tactics to fight these terrorists, the peace we have had these past few years since 9/11 may go up in smoke, literally. If we take this attitude as has been adopted by so many then we really will have something to fear. The best strategy we have is to go on offense and take the fight to the enemy. But we must be willing to go all the way in this fight. Right now we have a leader who understands this, but it may change in the next election cycle. War fatigue is frankly not an option. We will not solve this problem in a year or two. With a seemingly growing crop of new radicals being brainwashed and cultivated our commitment is needed now more than ever. We were once a nation that put democracy on a pedestal as a model for other nations to follow. Unfortunately that pedestal has been losing its support as a result of comments and actions of some, and is not as firmly in place as it once was. We are attacked for wanting to give other nations the security, prosperity, and freedom we enjoy. It may be unrealistic to expect every nation to be our duplicate. But if they can escape the violence and persecution of the evil entities that control them is not our campaign a noble and necessary one? Because planting democracy over there might just save ours over here.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Why Do Democrats Hate Minorities?
Why do Democrats hate minorities? I know many of you are saying to yourself that Democrats do not hate minorities, but embrace them into their party. I believe this is the general opinion of most Democrats because they are the big-tent party of minorities.I would agree with that statement. Minorities, especially African-Americans, have voted more for Democrats than Republicans. Another question I could pose is why do they? I would tie both questions together because they relate to each other in a cause and effect or action and consequence way. I pose this question because I think there is some evidence Democrats do hate minorities. The main reason is the policies they set and try to implement. Not only do they not work but they end up doing more harm then good. I fault the Democrats ideology as well-intentioned but misguided. They set up programs like welfare, social programs that create a dependence on the government. These types of social programs rarely are successful and cost the taxpayers millions if not billions over their lifetime. Why would you work any harder if you knew the government was going to take care of you? This nanny-state mentality is absurd and a wrong course of action.Take for example New Orleans which has been Democrat-run for decades. We all saw the conditions of the town when Hurricane Katrina hit. What should have been a panacea turned out to be anything but. What we got was a city crying out for the government to save them as if the government can really be counted on for much of anything. It seems like Democrats want to keep their core constituents under their thumb never wanting them to fully reach their potention for fear of losing their vote. When you are a party that constantly tells your voters that the government is keeping them from succeeding why would they ever try in the first place.Democrats even fail on one of the most important areas, education. Education is the cornerstone of personal success. But when it comes to school vouchers the liberal teachers union vote a resounding no. As a result many minority students fade away in poor schools. Maybe if we were truly focused on education and responsible choices we would not have the degree of minority teenage mothers that we do. We have children who are having children themselves at an alarming rate. As a result we have mothers with no education and very often no husband to help support them. Basically these women are starting life out with two strikes against them.Another smaller point deals with language. Democrats oppose making English the official language. They call it simply rascist and part of a far-right agenda. How successful a nation can we be when entire towns are unable to communicate with us and do not have enough workers who speak English, the language of success? Unfortunately this is a reality is at least one California town.Do I really think Democrats hate minorities? The answer to that is no, but based on their policies I wonder if they are truly concerned about their welfare as opposed to someone who will blindly vote for them. It might be a corny line but a hand up is better then a hand out.
Labels:
conservative,
op-ed,
opinion,
politics,
race,
republicans
Friday, May 04, 2007
Giuliani Gives Ground
Some may be glad that the election is so far away, and one of those might be Rudy Giuliani. Tonight was the first Republican presidential debate and the former mayor of New York was a little off his game. All the pundits have said that the front runners in these debates want to hold their ground and not do anything to hurt their position, and the under dogs want to use the opportunity to make themselves known. Well, from many perspectives, including mine, Mr. Giuliani might want to prepare a little more for the next debate.It is now known that Giuliani has slipped in the polls; while still maintaining his first place lead, he has drifted closer to the pack. And tonight's performance might cause the gap to close even more. Giuliani probably had the hardest time during the debate because he had the most to answer for. As a politician of varying degrees of conservatism he looked a little out of sync when trying to account for his past stances on topics like abortion. It was pointed out that Giuliani was not able to navigate effectively through the questions, and at times appeared disinterested. It was also clear that considering his views on abortion and certainly knowing that he would be asked about those views, Mr. Giuliani seem to stumble through his answers.In the presence of the Reagan legacy it is Giuliani who probably has the furthest to come to convince the right of his conservative credentials. I will say that for the time being he is not my candidate of choice. I think his leading of New York after 9/11 was courageous and should be applauded, but I hardly think that grants him the keys to the White House. The polls seem to show that Mayor Giuliani would be able to beat both Senators Clinton and Obama in the election. If Giuliani would end up with the Republican nomination I would support him if he could defeat the Democrat opponent. Because, whatever misgivings I may have about Rudy Giuliani, he is supremely better than the alternative. I would feel much more comfortable with a Giuliani in the White House than two Clintons or someone with no real experience. The presidency is not an internship; on the job training is not an option is the times we live in.
Labels:
campaign,
candidate debates,
decision_08 election,
giuliani,
politics,
republicans,
usa
The Real Crisis in America
When liberals talk about global warming they tend to present it as fact. More importantly, they portray global warming as an absolute fact not open for discussion or debate. I find this more than infuriating on many levels. First, liberals state there is a consensus on the issue and secondly, they close their minds to any reality that does not fit into their ideology. The truth is there is a significant segment of scientists and weather experts not yet willing to concede to this. Liberals, however, are tuned out to this message because it challenges one of their principle tenets, the environment. The "Blame America First" crowd has declared the Earth is on an ever increasing warming curve and humans are solely to blame. I hate that these are the same people that up until the early nineties thought we would encounter the next ice age. Well I must tell you that there are no polar bears or penguins in my backyard. But now we are to believe these individuals and their weather models. Sorry, but I ain't buying what they are selling.Listen, the earth may be warming but attributing it to humans is ridiculous. I am more than ready to blame the sun than humans for the warming. But I do thank Al Gore for telling our children that polar bears are going to die and the Earth will burn up. I thought the Republicans were the ones who played the fear card. I wish liberals would focus on the real and imminent threats to the planet like cancer. This disease, which takes the life of millions, is a real and present threat to humanity-- much more so than global warming. I do not know of a single person whose cause of death has been global warming, but I know many that have lost their lives as a result of cancer. How about throwing money at a real problem and not on carbon credits which are nothing more than modern day indulgences. Let's wise up, America, to the realities of our world. I fear this will not happen until the radical left stops seeing an SUV driving on a highway as a hate crime against nature.
Labels:
climate,
conservative,
debate environment,
global_warming,
liberals,
op-ed,
opinion column,
politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)