Oh, what a difference 15 years make...

The last 30 seconds are an instant classic.

Would I have voted for Clinton/Gore in 92? :-)

It's the means, stupid!

One of my favorite inside jokes with my wife is to say that we are actually liberals. We are vegetarians (which by the way, makes us much more ecofriendly than anyone who drives a Prius and believes in Al Gore – and still we drive high mileage cars); we are in favor of civil unions for gays; we are rabidly against racism; my wife is totally against death penalty; we are very much pro (legal) immigration; we don’t follow any religion.

There are of course some political beliefs that we follow that match with the right: we believe that you need a strong military and that you need to use it from time to time; we are pro-life; we think people should be able to own a gun within some guidelines; we are against high taxes and huge social programs.

But the question remains: Why are we conservatives that are somewhat liberal and not liberals that have some conservative traits?

I believe the answer has to do with our attitude towards other people. Again let’s talk about vegetarianism. We love it. I had a bunch of health issues before and now they are gone. My wife can tell you all the horrible atrocities animals suffer. All and all, it’s really a clear belief for us that at this point in our life we don’t need to eat animals and a lot more people could do the same.

However, you won’t see us protesting with PETA. We don’t want the government to outlaw eating meat. You won’t even see us swearing at people who have barbecues in their houses.

We won’t be at these barbecues either, but there is a huge difference between not doing something and wanting to force other people not to do it.

I think that this “militant” approach is what irritates us most about liberals and people on the left in general. It’s not just the silly idea that you need to save the world in all fronts. It’s more this notion that people are not able to make decisions; that information is never enough, and that you need to find little ways to trick people into doing what you want them to do.

There is also the feelings vs. logic issue. I go nuts every time I hear someone say this kind of stuff, or when I hear people trying to justify government economic actions on the “this will help the helpless” banner. Sometimes I even agree with the outcome, but I can’t stand the demagogy.

So the means do make a difference after all. At least for us.

If money is power...

It looks like Romney actually raised $23 million according to MSNBC.

UPDATE:: Obama raised $25 million

But in any case, I think the numbers are a little surprising. I thought it was common knowledge that the Republicans were the money party. Hmm….

By the way, if Romney wins, you can always say you heard here first.

Democrats Own Defeat (and LOVE some pork too!!!)

Check this beauty out:

$25 million for a spinach farmer
$24 million for funding for sugar beets
$3 million in funding for sugar cane going to one Hawaiian co-op
$20 million for insect infestation damage reimbursements in Nevada,Idaho and Utah
$2.1 billion for crop production losses
$1.5 billion for livestock production losses
$100 million for dairy production losses
$13 million for ewe lamb replacement and retention
$32 million for the livestock indemnity program
$40 million for the Tree Assistance Program
$6 million for North Dakota flooded crop land
$35 million for emergency conservation programs
$50 million for the Emergency Watershed Program
$115 million dollars for the Conservation Security Program
$18 million for drought assistance in the upper Great Plains and in the Southwest
$6 million for the North Dakota flooded crop land
$3.5 million dollars in funding for guided tours
$60.4 million for salmon fisheries in the Klamath Basin region
$12 million for forest service money
$425 million for education grants for rural areas
$640 million for something called LIHEAP
$25 million for asbestos abatement at the Capitol Power Plant
$388.9 million for funding for backlog of old Department of Transportation projects
$22.8 million for geothermal research and development
$500 million for wildfire fire management
$13 million for mine safety technology research
$31 million for a one month extension of the Milk Income Lost Contract Program
$640 million for Low Income Energy Assistance
$50 million for Fisheries Disaster Mitigation Fund
$100 million for security at the presidential candidate nominating conventions
$2 million for the University of Vermont
$6.4 million for the House of Representatives Salaries and Expenses Account (to which President Bush said, "I don't even know what that is.")

Now, this is all hidden inside the bill that the Democrats in the House and Senate passed this week to pull troops out of Iraq in March of 2008 and not fund the surge.

Ah, and to think that some people voted against Republicans because they were spending too much.

The Cowboy and The Breck Girl

Dedicated to Anna :-)

More blacks in jail than in college?

I was cleaning up my old CDs today and found this (I know the lyrics are terrible but the music still rocks).

One of the songs says that “At this moment, there are more blacks in jail than in college”.

I thought that sounded odd, so I decided to Google it. Here is what I found:

There are more than twice as many blacks in college than in jail. Even more interesting, in the 16-44 age range, percent college enrollment for Blacks exceeds White non-Hispanics by 12.8% to 12.6%.

Ah, I also learned that Kerry used this same false argument in his 2004 campaign. Surprise, surprise.

It’s never enough

So it looks like Bush got what everyone believed was impossible: A deal to shut down North Korea's nuclear reactor in return for aid.

Bush’s point was always that a deal could be reached but it would be through the six-party talks and not by a 1:1 US-North Korea negotiation. He also believed that by taking a hard line and cutting aid, Pyongyang would eventually have no option but to back down.

He was right in both counts.

But for the press (i.e. left) good is never enough. The new thing now is that actually Bush has changed his mind! He never really wanted a deal. All the pressure was just to justify another war. And so on.

These are such blatant lies that if you have the patience and read all articles, even liberal publications (like this Time article) say otherwise.

Another funny thing the press is doing is to try to show that, even though Bush has morphed into this diplomacy champion, conservatives have not. You can even find headlines like this: Conservatives alarmed by North Korea nuclear pact.

Of course conservatives are worried. They were worried when Clinton got the same deal 12 years ago. That doesn’t mean they don’t want a deal. It only shows that they understand that North Korea is still an enemy and you should be alert and try no to repeat your mistakes.

But for the pacifists this deal is the real thing. So why isn’t the press hailing Bush like they did Clinton at that time?

It is very hard for me not to get upset with this kind of bias.

Be afraid

Entrevista da hillary para a ISTOÉ. Money shot:

"ISTOÉ – A sra. foi várias vezes ao Brasil. Caso seja eleita presidente, como será sua relação com esse país?

Hillary – De fato, fui ao Brasil e fiz muitos amigos. Trata-se não apenas de um aliado importante dos EUA, mas também de um parceiro que deve ser consultado mais vezes. Quando eu era primeira-dama, já havia conhecido um pouco dos programas brasileiros para energias alternativas. Desde então, venho citando estes exemplos como coisas que poderiam ser incentivadas e abraçadas pelos americanos. Precisamos formular uma política de aliança e troca de experiências bilaterais neste setor. Há muito mais. Vi programas nas áreas de alimentação, habitação, saúde, preservação, enfim, várias iniciativas brasileiras que devem ser apoiadas pelos EUA e até consideradas medidas de interesse nacional americano."

Oh boy.

10 Most Economically Literate Members of Congress

Here is the complete article.

6 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Mostly unknowns. No surprises there.

The one thing I could not believe is that old Barney Frank shows up on the list. And they say he is “scary smart”! I mean, the guy is completely crazy, has an incredibly annoying lisp and is one of the most pompous politicians I’ve ever heard.

The funny part is that he claims to believe in “free-market principles, checked with protections”. “Capitalism plus”, as he calls it. Yeah right.

Now, if you want to have a good laugh watch this:


For those who don’t understand why the Republicans are asking about an exemption for American Samoa, here is a quick summary:

The new Democrat controlled congress allowed an exemption to the new minimum wage bill for the pacific Island of American Samoa. So while every other company in any part of the US will be required to pay at least $7.25 an hour, American Samoan companies will be free to pay whatever they want. The average wage for workers in American Samoa is $3.60 an hour.

Why is that?

Well, maybe the answer is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's work force. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. More interesting than that, there is some controversy around whether Pelosi’s husband owns $17 million in Del Monte stock.

Call me biased, but there's something fishy going on here.

Yes, we have populists too

First, the facts:
Ford Motors hit by record $12.7 billion loss in 2006.
Exxon Mobil Posts U.S. Record Annual Profit - $39.5 Billion

---x---

Anyone who lives in the US can tell you why Ford is losing money: Because cars from other companies are better. It is that simple, and since Honda and Toyota have now several plants in the US that “unfair competition” excuse used in the 80s is kind of fading out.

How about Exxon? Do people really understand why they are making that much money? I don’t think so. Most important, people don’t understand who gets that profit.

I couldn’t find the numbers for 2006, but for 2005 (when profits were 36 billion)Exxon Mobil paid $7.2 billion in dividends to shareholders, and $18.2 billion in stock buybacks. Besides that, Exxon Mobile employs more than 100 thousand people.

It is also true that Exxon’s executives get a lot of money (Lee Raymond got a $400 million pay off) but to think that 39 billion just went into the pockets of a few fat cats is really a fantasy. Exxon is a public company and its stock is part of a lot of retirement funds.

---x---

You would think that Americans are actually be happy that a local company is at least making money in the energy business, since most of the oil revenues end up in the hands of some anti-American dictator anyway.

You would also think that if the government had anything to say about these two companies, Ford would be the focus. After all, isn’t it the government's job to help people in trouble?

Ah, not exactly.

Here is what Hillary said a few days ago:

"I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."

What better way to improve our energy situation than take all incentives from energy companies right?

By the way: Exxon’s exploration and capital expenses for 2006 were $177 billion, an increase of $2.8 billion over the 2004 total. The company also projects it will average about $20 billion in capital expenditures through 2010, and has some 60 projects lined up during that time.

That's a lot more than the 39 billion Hillary wants to steal.

---x---

Here is the last piece of information:

US Budget to Reach $2.9 Trillion.

That is almost 79 times Exxon’s profit, and of course, it is at the end dependent on the big chunk of revenue coming from the taxes on all those oil profits.

Man, I really hate these little games people play.

It's a Dem world

2008 – The press is not wasting time

One of the "weaknesses" of Mitt Romney is the fact that he is Mormon. A lot of people still think that Mormons are in favor of polygamy. Expect a deluge (no pun) of articles about polygamy for the next two years. Not direct attacks on Romney or the Mormon Church, but little “informational tidbits” you would not usually see in the pre-Romney world. If you look at MSNBC today you can already find examples.

Ironically, there is that little unknown fact that Harry Reid, the new democratic senate leader, is also a Mormon.

But Harry is one of the good ones, of course.

Activists Dems

Talking about 2008, this last election was very interesting for me because it was the first democratic victory I’ve seen live since I immigrated to the US is 98. It is funny how tame democrats are right now. All that talk about voting fraud, the power of Republican money, the takeover of the religious right, it all disappeared magically.

This must have been the first honest election in years.

A few more predictions

I’m feeling clairvoyant today (it must be Maria Cantwell’s alien powers changing me). Here are a few more predictions for the near future:
- Democrats will NOT force the issue of getting out of Iraq until the presidential election
- John Edwards has a bigger chance to become the chosen candidate than Hillary
- Dems will start backing John McCain big time
- Even though Nancy Pelosi says it won’t happen, impeachment procedures will be initiated and there is a good chance that the House approves it. Payback is a bitch.

The America Democrats want

I was talking with an American friend about the Democrat’s victory, and explained that for me it is especially hard to hear about all these projects they have in mind because I come from a place where most of that stuff has been actually implemented.

My friend didn’t quite believe me, so I came up with a list:

- High taxes
- Universal Health care
- Minimum wage (updated frequently)
- Expensive gasoline
- Strong labor unions
- "World's most advanced labor legislation"
- Strict anti-gun regulation
- Low spending with defense

So, the America Democrats want already exists. Is it too much to ask them to move south? I’m pretty sure they would love the parties and our famous jeitinho.

If you really stop to think about this it’s a win-win situation.

The day after

So, the Dems did win. How about that? What does it prove?

First of all, even though the Dems gained a lot the overall results were still close. There is no big shift in basic issues. I think that changes were motivated by immediate issues, mostly Iraq.

So something will change regarding Iraq. What will happen? Nobody knows, since Democrats never defined what they want. Why people still voted for change? Frustration is not the most logical sentiment.

Obviously is not the end of the world. A lot of Republicans were pissed because this congress was not conservative enough. Spending is a big concern. But in many ways, the best thing is that now Democrats will have to take responsibility for whatever happens. They want to change, and now they will be forced to define what and how this will be. Another good consequence about yesterday is to prove again how absurd this whole deal about republicans stealing elections or being part of an ignorant immovable mass that can never change their minds. Americans historically revise their opinions and we should be happy about that.

I am a big believer in the wisdom of the crowds. Not mobs, but crowds. It is not a perfect system, but it is the best one. The people spoke and some ideological variety was introduced. Now Democrats need to worry about what they will actually do and Republicans need to try to understand what has changed in 2 years.

The reason I am not pessimistic as I was with the Brazilian elections is that the alternatives are still there. Maybe yesterday will help the quality of the 2008 presidential candidates.

One Democrat who gets it

Amy Sullivan seems to be one of the very few Democrats who get it.

Like here:

"Despite the uproar over Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction a couple of years ago, most parents don't fret that the accidental sighting of a breast or hearing of a swear word will scar their children. They're more concerned about the unrealistic ideas kids get from popular culture about consumption and body image and violence as a way of handling conflict.

Sadly, too many liberals react to complaints about popular culture as if they're teenagers. They either jut out their chins and growl, "If you don't like it, don't watch it," or they stay silent for fear of looking like prudes. Given the ridicule that Tipper Gore faced for promoting warning labels for explicit music lyrics and the derision that followed Hillary Clinton's effort to keep violent video games away from kids, perhaps it's no surprise that most keep their mouths shut. That silence, however, hands conservatives a victory. As David Callahan points out in his book The Moral Center, "When the right complains about the media's descent into tawdriness, it puts them on the side of most Americans."

And here:

"Even an issue on which Democrats seem to have the winning position can turn out to be a loser for the party in the long run. Most Americans now believe that research on stem cells should be allowed. But as Noam Scheiber recently pointed out in The New Republic magazine, the polls also suggest that they have serious concerns about the morality of unrestricted scientific research. They don't want to wake up tomorrow and discover that we're cloning humans without ever having a conversation as a society about the moral issues involved. By framing the debate as a choice between theology or science, Democrats essentially argued that anyone who has qualms about scientific progress is a troglodyte. That puts them on the losing side of the moral question, even as they win the specific policy debate."

Most of all, here:

"The average American doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade or start locking up doctors. But neither does she buy the liberal line that 1.3 million abortions per year are just the price you pay for living in a free and modern society."

All very good points.

I don’t think however that she gets the economic part right. I don’t think most Americans want universal health care once the tax implications are understood. I think there is discontentment with the current system, but there are other solutions. Some liberal policies, like increasing the minimum wage, are so populist that both parties play with it once in a while. But it is far from being a election winner subject. Economically, I think Americans care about 2 things: jobs and jobs. That is why most of the times Republicans win that debate.

But in any case, I think the article is right in the sense that the biggest mistake democrats have been making for the last 8 years is about the culture.

Can they change? I am not so sure.

Party of fear

Why Democrats will lose (again)

Democrats lost the 2004 election (or as I prefer to cal it, “the easiest election ever”) basically for two reasons: Kerry and Iraq.

Even though they don’t have to worry about Kerry now, Iraq will again be their demise. It is easy to understand why.

Like Bill Maher said last week, if someone woke you up in the middle of the night and asked you what was the Republican strategy for Iraq you would answer quickly: stay the course. It might be the wrong choice. But it is a clear and well defined one.

Democrats are again trying to play both sides. They try to convince people that they are tough terrorism fighters but at the same time say Iraq is too bloody and expensive. They want to capture terrorists but they also want to block spying programs. We should have more soldiers on Iraq but we should also leave pretty soon. Bin Laden is important but Saddam is not. And so on and so forth. People just don’t understand exactly what Democrats would do besides not doing whatever Republicans do. Sometimes this lack of ideas is so evident that they are forced to go along with Republicans (like in this recent Detainee Interrogation Bill). That just doesn’t work.

Another problem is that Democrats prefer to focus on the past. For example, they go nuts (literally) when someone says that they didn’t do enough to stop terrorism. But Republicans don’t mind very much when Democrats accuse Bush of no doing enough before 9/11. Republicans prefer to say that “9/11 changed everything”. That’s a huge difference. Since Democrats never say where Clinton went wrong, people naturally assume they want to go back to the pre-9/11 Clinton model.

In the battle between a party of ideas (even if they are bad ones) and the party of no ideas, the result will always be the same.