The company Marvel Comics has been publishing Cap Amer books since 1941. The comic has had several runs over the years and has been seen as an icon for what we stand for. I remember reading these books for years. As an avid fan, I have followed the stories for over 2 decades. As an adult, I admit I stopped buying the comic long ago. I loved the way the comic always had the character as THE moral ideal. Every character in the Marvel Universe would have respect for the character because of this fact. For young readers, this was a great way of teaching traditional values in a fun manner.
The writers have always tried to continue this picture until recently when "Cap" believed the Tea Party was a racist venue. Well, I can say that this direction has failed miserably to uphold the value of the character. While everyone in government today is crooked and morally appalling, "Cap" fails to find disgust in these people. The characters which uphold the spirit of America, like the Tea Party people, are shunned.
The character I knew never would have believed this country today. The comic was always rooted in the time with which it was written. In the '40s, Cap fought Nazis. Later, communists, super villains, criminals, and even got involved in Civil Rights. Today, the character should be a Tea Party leader.
In the future, I sincerely hope Marvel Comics takes politics out of its books. If political junk is touted by the current writers, the books will fail to uphold their iconic status. The bastardized renditions already printed have tainted my image. I will never buy another comic unless it's at least 20 years old. As for Captain America, I salute the old version and will miss him sorely. All hail Captain Socialism!!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Tea Party July 4th Pics: Part of it and Proud!!
Here are two members proudly displaying their participation. (Click the picture!)
Tea Party Fourth of July: Pre Celebration Demonstration
The group gathered for reviewing of the game plan. Well organized and motivated, 3 bullhorns strong and the hardwork of a young lady on the poster detail, we proceeded to line up for attention getting walk!
Monday, April 20, 2009
T-Shirt (Or T-Shit)
Uploaded by www.cellspin.net
This is a long time friend who after many years of brainwashing has not only lost his hair, according to this t-shirt, has also lost his mind.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
TIME TO FEED ACORN TO THE SQUIRREL
The Sheik Obama administration ran a successful campaign to win the Presidency of the US. While many people in this country have longed for a minority president for some time, actually having it happen was no accident. Now that Sheik Obama is in, reevaluating how he won is with reviewing. Am I going to rehash the entire process? Not now. It will take quite an undertaking and I intend to do a superb job when the time is right.
Sheik Obama won the election with the mass effort of the organization of ACORN. The internet is riddled with video of this horrible organization. I posted many videos and articles about the organization. I copied the video because I believe as time passes, the organization will systematically and intentionally remove them. Even if hacking sites is necessary (checkout my friend at velvethammer). Therefore, the organization had conducted itself in a manner not only unprofessional, but bordering on terroristic tactics of intimidation and hazing the general public into outburst reminescent of cheerleaders on acid. But the purpose of my article isn't to recall this inane event. No, my beef is the US government is funding this crap. Funding for this organization needs to be addressed by the Republicans immediately. Justification for denying any futher funding could be rationally argued at the juncture because Pork Pork Pork spending seems to be in the media limelight. Argument could be further made by the disproportionate amount of support to the Left Democrats.
If the Democrats decide to pursue the un-Fairness Doctrine which will pass due to their overwhelming majority, then the Republicans need to remember the unfairness of the Acorn terrorist, the overwhelming support of the news media (traditional), and the unfair treatment of total time on any media. How do you think the Fairness Doctrine would be on "The View?"
The Republicans either need to get off their butts and make arguments about what has happened in this past election and tell the public how DISPROPORTIONATE the support for the poor policies being discussed now and prior to Sheik Obama or the third party people have an unprecedented opportunity to gain power into the coveted second place position in politics. KILL ACORN NOW!
Sheik Obama won the election with the mass effort of the organization of ACORN. The internet is riddled with video of this horrible organization. I posted many videos and articles about the organization. I copied the video because I believe as time passes, the organization will systematically and intentionally remove them. Even if hacking sites is necessary (checkout my friend at velvethammer). Therefore, the organization had conducted itself in a manner not only unprofessional, but bordering on terroristic tactics of intimidation and hazing the general public into outburst reminescent of cheerleaders on acid. But the purpose of my article isn't to recall this inane event. No, my beef is the US government is funding this crap. Funding for this organization needs to be addressed by the Republicans immediately. Justification for denying any futher funding could be rationally argued at the juncture because Pork Pork Pork spending seems to be in the media limelight. Argument could be further made by the disproportionate amount of support to the Left Democrats.
If the Democrats decide to pursue the un-Fairness Doctrine which will pass due to their overwhelming majority, then the Republicans need to remember the unfairness of the Acorn terrorist, the overwhelming support of the news media (traditional), and the unfair treatment of total time on any media. How do you think the Fairness Doctrine would be on "The View?"
The Republicans either need to get off their butts and make arguments about what has happened in this past election and tell the public how DISPROPORTIONATE the support for the poor policies being discussed now and prior to Sheik Obama or the third party people have an unprecedented opportunity to gain power into the coveted second place position in politics. KILL ACORN NOW!
Monday, February 9, 2009
REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM AND ACT FOR AMERICA! HOORAY!!
THIS IS AN ARTICLE THAT IS BEING SENT TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION ACT FOR AMERICA. It was started by the great Bridget Gabriel who is a truly remarkable person. She is an example of the kind of American that makes this country great. We need more people like her, who get involved and get motivated to actually DO SOMETHING and not just SAY SOMETHING. I have posted multiple articles and videos of hers. I own 2 of her books and find her inspirational and motivating.
Real clear politics is a great web site that has been around for years. Incredible writing and thought provoking research has made them a staple reading for the well-informed. This article from their site was recommended in an email I received. I hope everyone who sees it here visits both sites. If you are as touched as I am, get off your ass and join Act For America! Let's all make a difference.
February 07, 2009
Israel's Fateful Elections
By Caroline Glick
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/israels_fateful_elections.html
Tuesday's general elections will officially end the briefest and most nonchalant electoral season Israel has ever experienced. Regrettably, the importance of these elections is inversely proportional to their lack of intensity. These are the most fateful elections Israel has ever had. The events of the past week make this point clearly.
On Monday Iran successfully launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile called the Safir-2 space rocket. Since the launch, experts have noted that the Safir-2 can also be used to launch conventional and nonconventional warheads. The Safir-2 has an estimated range of 2,000-3,000 kilometers. And so the successful satellite launch showed that today Iran is capable of launching missiles not only against Israel, but against southern Europe as well.
Many Israeli leaders viewed Monday's launch as a "gotcha" moment. For years they have been saying that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to global security - not merely to Israel's. And Monday's launch demonstrated that they were right all along. Israel isn't the only country on Iran's target list.
Unfortunately for Israel, the international community couldn't care less. Its response to Teheran's latest provocation was to collectively shrug its shoulders.
On Wednesday emissaries of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany convened in Wiesbaden, Germany, to discuss their joint policies toward Iran in the aftermath of the satellite launch. Some Israelis argued that Iran's provocation forced these leaders' hands. Their reputations for toughness were on the line. They would have to do something.
Unfortunately for Israel, the emissaries of Russia, Britain, China, France, Germany and the US are more interested in convincing the mullahs that they are nice than in convincing them that they are tough.
Far from deciding to take concerted action against Iran, the great powers did nothing more than wish the Obama administration good luck as it moves to directly engage the mullahs. As their post-conference press release put it, the six governments' answer to Teheran's show of force was to "agree to consult on the next steps as the US administration undertakes its [Iranian] policy review."
As President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have explained, the US is reviewing its policy toward Iran in the hopes of finding a way to directly engage the Iranian government. While they claim that the aim of these sought after direct negotiations will be to convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear weapons program, since taking office the new administration has sent out strong signals that preventing Iran from going nuclear has taken a backseat to simply holding negotiations with Teheran.
According to a report in Aviation News, last week the US Navy prevented Israel from seizing an Iranian weapons ship in the Red Sea suspected of carrying illicit munitions bound for either Gaza or Lebanon. A week and a half ago, the US Navy boarded the ship in the Gulf of Aden and carried out a cursory inspection. It demurred from seizing the ship, however, because, as Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained on January 27, the US believed it had no international legal right to seize the vessel.
In inspecting the ship the US was operating under UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which bars Iran from exporting arms. The US argued that it lacked authority to seize the ship because 1747 has no enforcement mechanism. Yet the fact of the matter is that if the US were truly interested in intercepting the ship and preventing the arms from arriving at their destination, the language of 1747 is vague enough to support such a seizure.
And that's the point. The US was uninterested in seizing the ship because it was uninterested in provoking a confrontation with Teheran, which it seeks to engage. It was not due to lack of legal authority that the US reportedly prevented the Israel Navy from seizing the ship in the Red Sea, but due to the administration's fervent wish to appease the mullahs.
Today the ship, which was sailing under a Cypriot flag, is docked in the Port of Limassol. Cypriot authorities have reportedly inspected the ship twice, have communicated their findings to the Security Council, and are still waiting for guidance on how to deal with the ship.
ALL OF this brings us back to next Tuesday's elections. With the US effectively giving up on confronting Iran, the entire burden for blocking Iran's quest for nuclear weapons falls on Israel's shoulders.
This means that the most important question that Israeli voters must ask ourselves between now and Tuesday is which leader and which party are most capable of achieving this vital goal?
All we need to do to answer this question is to check what our leaders have done in recent years to bring attention to the Iranian threat and to build coalitions to contend with it.
In late 2006, citing the Iranian nuclear menace, Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman joined the Olmert government where he received the tailor-made title of strategic affairs minister. At the time Lieberman joined the cabinet, the public outcry against the government for its failure to lead Israel to victory in the war with Iran's Lebanese proxy Hizbullah had reached a fever pitch. The smell of new elections was in the air as members of Knesset from all parties came under enormous public pressure to vote no confidence in the government.
By joining the government when he did, Lieberman single-handedly kept the Olmert government in power. Explaining his move, Lieberman claimed that the danger emanating from Iran's nuclear program was so great that Israel could not afford new elections.
But what did he accomplish by saving the government by taking that job? The short answer is nothing. Not only did his presence in the government make no impact on Israel's effectiveness in dealing with Iran, it prolonged the lifespan of a government that had no interest in forming a strategy for contending with Iran by two years.
In light of this fact, perhaps more than any other Israeli politician, Lieberman is to blame for the fact that Israel finds itself today with no allies in its hour of greatest peril. Had he allowed the people to elect more competent leaders in the fall of 2006, we might have been able to take advantage of the waning years of the Bush administration to convince the US to work with us against Iran.
Then there is Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. If Lieberman was the chief enabler of Israel's incompetent bungling of the Iranian threat, as Israel's chief diplomat, it is Livni - together with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - who deserves the greatest condemnation for that bungling.
Throughout her tenure as foreign minister and still today as Kadima's candidate for prime minister, Livni claims that she supports using diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But in her three years as Israel's top diplomat, Livni never launched any diplomatic initiative aimed at achieving this goal. In fact, she has never even publicly criticized the European and American attempts to appease the mullahs.
Livni has remained silent for three years even though it has been clear for five years that the West's attempts to cut a deal with Teheran serve no purpose other than to provide the Iranians time to develop their nuclear arsenal. She has played along with the Americans and the Europeans and cheered them on as they passed toothless resolutions against Iran in the Security Council which - as the Iranian weapons ship docked in Cyprus shows - they never had the slightest intention of enforcing.
As for Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as a member of the Olmert government, his main personal failure has been his inability to convince the Pentagon to approve Israel's requests to purchase refueling jets and bunker buster bomb kits, and to permit Israeli jets to fly over Iraqi airspace. To achieve these aims, Barak could have turned to Israel's friends in the US military and in Congress. But he did no such thing. And now, moving into the Obama administration, Israel finds itself with fewer and fewer allies in Washington's security community.
For the past several years, only one political leader in Israel has had the foresight and wisdom to both understand the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and to understand the basis for an Israeli diplomatic approach to contending with the threat that can serve the country's purposes regardless of whether or not at the end of the day, Israel is compelled to act alone.
In 2006, Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu took it upon himself to engage the American people in a discussion of the danger Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world as a whole. In late 2006, he began meeting with key US governors and state politicians to convince them to divest their state employees' pension funds from companies that do business with Iran. This initiative and complementary efforts by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy convinced dozens of state legislatures to pass laws divesting their pension funds from companies that do business with Iran.
Netanyahu also strongly backed the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' initiative to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an international war criminal for inciting genocide. Both the divestment campaign and the campaign against Ahmadinejad have been Israel's most successful public diplomacy efforts in contending with Iran. More than anything done by the government, these initiatives made Americans aware of the Iranian nuclear threat and so forced the issue onto the agendas of all the presidential candidates.
Instead of supporting Netanyahu's efforts, Livni, Barak and Lieberman have disparaged them or ignored them.
Because he is the only leader who has done anything significant to fight Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu is the only national leader who has the international credibility to be believed when he says - as he did this week - that Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Likud under Netanyahu is the only party that has consistently drawn the connection between Iran, its Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Afghan terror proxies, its Syrian client state and its nuclear weapons program, and made fighting this axis the guiding principle of its national security strategy.
GIVEN THE US-led international community's decision not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is clear that in the coming months Israel will need to do two things. It will need to put the nations of the world on notice that they cannot expect us to stand by idly as they welcome Iran into the nuclear club. And Israel will need to prepare plans to strike Iran's nuclear installations without America's support.
More than ever before, Israel requires leaders who understand the gravity of the hour and are capable of acting swiftly and wisely to safeguard our country from destruction. Only Netanyahu and Likud have a credible track record on this subject.
For the sake of our country, our nation and our posterity, it is our responsibility to consider this fact when we enter the voting booths on Tuesday.
Real clear politics is a great web site that has been around for years. Incredible writing and thought provoking research has made them a staple reading for the well-informed. This article from their site was recommended in an email I received. I hope everyone who sees it here visits both sites. If you are as touched as I am, get off your ass and join Act For America! Let's all make a difference.
February 07, 2009
Israel's Fateful Elections
By Caroline Glick
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/israels_fateful_elections.html
Tuesday's general elections will officially end the briefest and most nonchalant electoral season Israel has ever experienced. Regrettably, the importance of these elections is inversely proportional to their lack of intensity. These are the most fateful elections Israel has ever had. The events of the past week make this point clearly.
On Monday Iran successfully launched a domestically manufactured satellite on a ballistic missile called the Safir-2 space rocket. Since the launch, experts have noted that the Safir-2 can also be used to launch conventional and nonconventional warheads. The Safir-2 has an estimated range of 2,000-3,000 kilometers. And so the successful satellite launch showed that today Iran is capable of launching missiles not only against Israel, but against southern Europe as well.
Many Israeli leaders viewed Monday's launch as a "gotcha" moment. For years they have been saying that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to global security - not merely to Israel's. And Monday's launch demonstrated that they were right all along. Israel isn't the only country on Iran's target list.
Unfortunately for Israel, the international community couldn't care less. Its response to Teheran's latest provocation was to collectively shrug its shoulders.
On Wednesday emissaries of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany convened in Wiesbaden, Germany, to discuss their joint policies toward Iran in the aftermath of the satellite launch. Some Israelis argued that Iran's provocation forced these leaders' hands. Their reputations for toughness were on the line. They would have to do something.
Unfortunately for Israel, the emissaries of Russia, Britain, China, France, Germany and the US are more interested in convincing the mullahs that they are nice than in convincing them that they are tough.
Far from deciding to take concerted action against Iran, the great powers did nothing more than wish the Obama administration good luck as it moves to directly engage the mullahs. As their post-conference press release put it, the six governments' answer to Teheran's show of force was to "agree to consult on the next steps as the US administration undertakes its [Iranian] policy review."
As President Barak Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have explained, the US is reviewing its policy toward Iran in the hopes of finding a way to directly engage the Iranian government. While they claim that the aim of these sought after direct negotiations will be to convince the mullahs to give up their nuclear weapons program, since taking office the new administration has sent out strong signals that preventing Iran from going nuclear has taken a backseat to simply holding negotiations with Teheran.
According to a report in Aviation News, last week the US Navy prevented Israel from seizing an Iranian weapons ship in the Red Sea suspected of carrying illicit munitions bound for either Gaza or Lebanon. A week and a half ago, the US Navy boarded the ship in the Gulf of Aden and carried out a cursory inspection. It demurred from seizing the ship, however, because, as Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained on January 27, the US believed it had no international legal right to seize the vessel.
In inspecting the ship the US was operating under UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which bars Iran from exporting arms. The US argued that it lacked authority to seize the ship because 1747 has no enforcement mechanism. Yet the fact of the matter is that if the US were truly interested in intercepting the ship and preventing the arms from arriving at their destination, the language of 1747 is vague enough to support such a seizure.
And that's the point. The US was uninterested in seizing the ship because it was uninterested in provoking a confrontation with Teheran, which it seeks to engage. It was not due to lack of legal authority that the US reportedly prevented the Israel Navy from seizing the ship in the Red Sea, but due to the administration's fervent wish to appease the mullahs.
Today the ship, which was sailing under a Cypriot flag, is docked in the Port of Limassol. Cypriot authorities have reportedly inspected the ship twice, have communicated their findings to the Security Council, and are still waiting for guidance on how to deal with the ship.
ALL OF this brings us back to next Tuesday's elections. With the US effectively giving up on confronting Iran, the entire burden for blocking Iran's quest for nuclear weapons falls on Israel's shoulders.
This means that the most important question that Israeli voters must ask ourselves between now and Tuesday is which leader and which party are most capable of achieving this vital goal?
All we need to do to answer this question is to check what our leaders have done in recent years to bring attention to the Iranian threat and to build coalitions to contend with it.
In late 2006, citing the Iranian nuclear menace, Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman joined the Olmert government where he received the tailor-made title of strategic affairs minister. At the time Lieberman joined the cabinet, the public outcry against the government for its failure to lead Israel to victory in the war with Iran's Lebanese proxy Hizbullah had reached a fever pitch. The smell of new elections was in the air as members of Knesset from all parties came under enormous public pressure to vote no confidence in the government.
By joining the government when he did, Lieberman single-handedly kept the Olmert government in power. Explaining his move, Lieberman claimed that the danger emanating from Iran's nuclear program was so great that Israel could not afford new elections.
But what did he accomplish by saving the government by taking that job? The short answer is nothing. Not only did his presence in the government make no impact on Israel's effectiveness in dealing with Iran, it prolonged the lifespan of a government that had no interest in forming a strategy for contending with Iran by two years.
In light of this fact, perhaps more than any other Israeli politician, Lieberman is to blame for the fact that Israel finds itself today with no allies in its hour of greatest peril. Had he allowed the people to elect more competent leaders in the fall of 2006, we might have been able to take advantage of the waning years of the Bush administration to convince the US to work with us against Iran.
Then there is Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. If Lieberman was the chief enabler of Israel's incompetent bungling of the Iranian threat, as Israel's chief diplomat, it is Livni - together with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - who deserves the greatest condemnation for that bungling.
Throughout her tenure as foreign minister and still today as Kadima's candidate for prime minister, Livni claims that she supports using diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. But in her three years as Israel's top diplomat, Livni never launched any diplomatic initiative aimed at achieving this goal. In fact, she has never even publicly criticized the European and American attempts to appease the mullahs.
Livni has remained silent for three years even though it has been clear for five years that the West's attempts to cut a deal with Teheran serve no purpose other than to provide the Iranians time to develop their nuclear arsenal. She has played along with the Americans and the Europeans and cheered them on as they passed toothless resolutions against Iran in the Security Council which - as the Iranian weapons ship docked in Cyprus shows - they never had the slightest intention of enforcing.
As for Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as a member of the Olmert government, his main personal failure has been his inability to convince the Pentagon to approve Israel's requests to purchase refueling jets and bunker buster bomb kits, and to permit Israeli jets to fly over Iraqi airspace. To achieve these aims, Barak could have turned to Israel's friends in the US military and in Congress. But he did no such thing. And now, moving into the Obama administration, Israel finds itself with fewer and fewer allies in Washington's security community.
For the past several years, only one political leader in Israel has had the foresight and wisdom to both understand the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and to understand the basis for an Israeli diplomatic approach to contending with the threat that can serve the country's purposes regardless of whether or not at the end of the day, Israel is compelled to act alone.
In 2006, Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu took it upon himself to engage the American people in a discussion of the danger Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world as a whole. In late 2006, he began meeting with key US governors and state politicians to convince them to divest their state employees' pension funds from companies that do business with Iran. This initiative and complementary efforts by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy convinced dozens of state legislatures to pass laws divesting their pension funds from companies that do business with Iran.
Netanyahu also strongly backed the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs' initiative to indict Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an international war criminal for inciting genocide. Both the divestment campaign and the campaign against Ahmadinejad have been Israel's most successful public diplomacy efforts in contending with Iran. More than anything done by the government, these initiatives made Americans aware of the Iranian nuclear threat and so forced the issue onto the agendas of all the presidential candidates.
Instead of supporting Netanyahu's efforts, Livni, Barak and Lieberman have disparaged them or ignored them.
Because he is the only leader who has done anything significant to fight Iran's nuclear program, Netanyahu is the only national leader who has the international credibility to be believed when he says - as he did this week - that Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Likud under Netanyahu is the only party that has consistently drawn the connection between Iran, its Palestinian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Afghan terror proxies, its Syrian client state and its nuclear weapons program, and made fighting this axis the guiding principle of its national security strategy.
GIVEN THE US-led international community's decision not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is clear that in the coming months Israel will need to do two things. It will need to put the nations of the world on notice that they cannot expect us to stand by idly as they welcome Iran into the nuclear club. And Israel will need to prepare plans to strike Iran's nuclear installations without America's support.
More than ever before, Israel requires leaders who understand the gravity of the hour and are capable of acting swiftly and wisely to safeguard our country from destruction. Only Netanyahu and Likud have a credible track record on this subject.
For the sake of our country, our nation and our posterity, it is our responsibility to consider this fact when we enter the voting booths on Tuesday.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
CAR CZAR! SOUNDS LIKE A BAD DR.SEUSS STORY! WHAT IS WITH THE BAILOUT!?!
The bailout of the "Big 3" (with Ford ever in the shadow of dipping their hands in at any moment) has been approved! Some people have been advocates while others bitter proponents. Time will determine whether or not this decision was worth pursuing. What has this decision's consequences mean to the future to Rucking Fidiculous?
I am old enough to remember waiting on lines during the oil embargo of the early '70s. Nightmares of getting up 4AM in order to line up for whatever gasoline might be available. Illegally parking in the streets until the station would open. As a pre-teen, I was shocked to see fist fights over drivers accusing one another of cutting the line. The chaos caused by the embargo had sparked society's awareness that this path of fossil fuels compromises our way of life in many, many ways. The American car companies were staples of industry and were a clear barometer into the economic situation.
During the later 70s, pollution control became a higher priority. Caught off guard, the auto makers were incapable to transitioning their assembly lines quickly enough to address the new standard. Also, the desire to increase gas mileage became paramount. The auto companies coped while Chrysler croaked. In Chapter 11, Chrysler eventually pulled through to become successful enough until now.
The Middle East conflict was never far from anyone's mind since the Arabs felt the embargo would coerce the West to support their cause. Many college students were perplexed about what direction their support should move. Many of their parents views were shaped by the generation involved in WWII. Everyone knew someone from the wartime. Support for Israel was unquestioned because of the Jews plight from Nazi Germany. The 1960s brought out the hippie view which brought Civil Rights into everyone's living room via TV. Any oppressed people become the focus of the movement. When the Palestinians took radical steps to generate attention, they were influenced by the reaction society was having from the Civil Rights. Riding the coattails of radical 60s icons, the terrorists put their cause to the forefront of the evening news during the 70s. People took notice and started to question support for Israel. The oppressed people must be the Arabs since they are so moved for their cause. Oil became the fuel for the Arabs for political gains. Today, Arab oil has lost its luster and is solely used for supporting terrorism and bolstering the population boom in the Arab world.
Throughout the 80s, the US auto makers constantly played catch up. Troubling years and low gas prices led to little memory of the hardship the embargo caused. Technology was moving forward, but not at the pace the Generation Y members are accustom to. Advances in anything today are done at sprinting speeds. One can rest assure that next year computers will be faster. That internet programs will have upgrades. That the iphone will only get better!! I love the iphone!
The car companies today are giving people flashbacks of a more troubling time. Tired of the reported turmoil between Unions and the CEOs, the current frontpage news is leading a backlash towards the fighting. Most people have been listening to Al Gore soapbox the green future. He was a global warming cohort. As the environment becomes an ever important resource, he yelled the US is the big criminal in spilling environmental distress. Deliberately igniting anger towards the US, Gore fueled feelings of disgust around the world to an audience which already had tremendous contempt for this country. When gas prices skyrocketed, he shouted at US automakers for not keeping up with Toyota and their move towards hybrids. All evidence showed the vehicles Toyota made were not financially viable for most. When the Big 3 were asked about what will they do to compete, they answered the technology is not good enough to create an all electric vehicle with financial responsibility, reliability, and responsive to the American driving patterns. The Big 3 have made some hybrids in the meantime. The biggest argument for answering the financial viability was the increased gas price. The high cost of oil sparked a revolution in green tech. It became a potentially profitable alternative. This sparked Wall Street interest! But now that gas is plummeting...
The interest in investing in green tech is disappearing because it is no longer financially attractive. The world has fallen from good times to a new recessionary period, possibly leading to a depression. Money for research is drying up fast! No one will ever settle for the status quo. Therefore, green tech is the future. But maybe not appropriate for the present. Maybe the Big 3 were right all along about the tech for the green car not being ready today. The Chevy Volt shows they are taking the direction seriously and will make it available when its timely. Until then, I think Gore should shut his pie hole. I think Obama should stop telling the coal industry and power plants that run this country that unless they convert to green tech he will fine them. Maybe when the US starts referring to a car czar for fiscal responsibilty, we can start seeing that when the business world is ready to present the green tech we want, they will. Leave the Czar in Russia! The bailout is done, like it or not. Leave the government out of their business.
I am old enough to remember waiting on lines during the oil embargo of the early '70s. Nightmares of getting up 4AM in order to line up for whatever gasoline might be available. Illegally parking in the streets until the station would open. As a pre-teen, I was shocked to see fist fights over drivers accusing one another of cutting the line. The chaos caused by the embargo had sparked society's awareness that this path of fossil fuels compromises our way of life in many, many ways. The American car companies were staples of industry and were a clear barometer into the economic situation.
During the later 70s, pollution control became a higher priority. Caught off guard, the auto makers were incapable to transitioning their assembly lines quickly enough to address the new standard. Also, the desire to increase gas mileage became paramount. The auto companies coped while Chrysler croaked. In Chapter 11, Chrysler eventually pulled through to become successful enough until now.
The Middle East conflict was never far from anyone's mind since the Arabs felt the embargo would coerce the West to support their cause. Many college students were perplexed about what direction their support should move. Many of their parents views were shaped by the generation involved in WWII. Everyone knew someone from the wartime. Support for Israel was unquestioned because of the Jews plight from Nazi Germany. The 1960s brought out the hippie view which brought Civil Rights into everyone's living room via TV. Any oppressed people become the focus of the movement. When the Palestinians took radical steps to generate attention, they were influenced by the reaction society was having from the Civil Rights. Riding the coattails of radical 60s icons, the terrorists put their cause to the forefront of the evening news during the 70s. People took notice and started to question support for Israel. The oppressed people must be the Arabs since they are so moved for their cause. Oil became the fuel for the Arabs for political gains. Today, Arab oil has lost its luster and is solely used for supporting terrorism and bolstering the population boom in the Arab world.
Throughout the 80s, the US auto makers constantly played catch up. Troubling years and low gas prices led to little memory of the hardship the embargo caused. Technology was moving forward, but not at the pace the Generation Y members are accustom to. Advances in anything today are done at sprinting speeds. One can rest assure that next year computers will be faster. That internet programs will have upgrades. That the iphone will only get better!! I love the iphone!
The car companies today are giving people flashbacks of a more troubling time. Tired of the reported turmoil between Unions and the CEOs, the current frontpage news is leading a backlash towards the fighting. Most people have been listening to Al Gore soapbox the green future. He was a global warming cohort. As the environment becomes an ever important resource, he yelled the US is the big criminal in spilling environmental distress. Deliberately igniting anger towards the US, Gore fueled feelings of disgust around the world to an audience which already had tremendous contempt for this country. When gas prices skyrocketed, he shouted at US automakers for not keeping up with Toyota and their move towards hybrids. All evidence showed the vehicles Toyota made were not financially viable for most. When the Big 3 were asked about what will they do to compete, they answered the technology is not good enough to create an all electric vehicle with financial responsibility, reliability, and responsive to the American driving patterns. The Big 3 have made some hybrids in the meantime. The biggest argument for answering the financial viability was the increased gas price. The high cost of oil sparked a revolution in green tech. It became a potentially profitable alternative. This sparked Wall Street interest! But now that gas is plummeting...
The interest in investing in green tech is disappearing because it is no longer financially attractive. The world has fallen from good times to a new recessionary period, possibly leading to a depression. Money for research is drying up fast! No one will ever settle for the status quo. Therefore, green tech is the future. But maybe not appropriate for the present. Maybe the Big 3 were right all along about the tech for the green car not being ready today. The Chevy Volt shows they are taking the direction seriously and will make it available when its timely. Until then, I think Gore should shut his pie hole. I think Obama should stop telling the coal industry and power plants that run this country that unless they convert to green tech he will fine them. Maybe when the US starts referring to a car czar for fiscal responsibilty, we can start seeing that when the business world is ready to present the green tech we want, they will. Leave the Czar in Russia! The bailout is done, like it or not. Leave the government out of their business.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
1968 Republican Memory
Uploaded by www.cellspin.net
I am an avid collector of political memorabilia. I collect US and Israeli election materials. This is an item I recently added from a dear friend. She was at the convention and met Ronald Reagan at the same time. This is the box given out to the supporters at the campaign. True to my Independent status, I try to collect Democrat and Republican material. I have Ross Perot materials from 1992.
Monday, November 3, 2008
I WANT TO JOIN BARACK OBAMA'S CHURCH!! HIS REVEREND IS A STAPLE OF LEADERSHIP THAT COMMANDS RESPECT AND ADMIRATION!!
For the people who feel Obama is the Messiah....I give you a little dose of reality!!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
THE FEELING OF THE COUNTRY .........RIGHT NOW!
Four Jews sit down at a synagogue. The first one says, "OY!" The second one says, "OY VEY!" The third one shaking his head goes, "OY GAVOLT..!" The fourth stands up and shouts, "Will you three stop talking politics!!"
Thank you Rabbi .......
Grappledoc
Thank you Rabbi .......
Grappledoc
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
ECONOMIC BILL FAILURE FOR ALL PART I
The latest passing of the bill that was supposed to save America and the economy (of the planet) has fallen flat on its face. Noone can determine the reason its passing hasn't addressed a falling market. All the experts on Wall Street and the Politicians in Washington couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again .....and can pay anyone to pick up the pieces.
The answer is multifactorial because the intertwound nature of the ecomony. First, when Congress proceeds to "pork up" a Bill in a crisis situation, the public sees the seriousness has not been prioritized for no earmarking. Poor taste and poor judgement was demonstrated and public disgust soon followed. Secondly, the pork itself was shameful in what I see as a "nickel and diming" of the tax payer. People were benefiting from the bill by embezzling funds to ancillary groups completely unrelated to the situation at hand. Third, the Bill addresses the bank failures, job losses, and economic slow down strictly by "throwing money at the problem" by bailing banks out. And ONLY banks. The average person has no relief immediately, if ever. The problem is seen initially as a liquidity issue. The last thing anyone or any business needs is more available credit. Credit is the reason we are in the predicament currently. Of course, specific situations require available funds, such as college tuition. But is anyone looking at automobiles or boats, much less buying them.
While I am not necessarily an advocate for FDR-era policy, I believe the answer for today's fiasco can be found in our history. The modern "NEW DEAL" should consist of helping the ENTIRE economy while putting the country's best interest for the future in the crosshairs.
The Bill should have been geared towards the infrustructure of the country. Building new roads and repairing old ones, construting new bridges and initiating the new green energy installations to alleviate fossil fuel dependence would be . Each item scrutinized by by-partisan committees which oversee any abuse (although an independent third party would be ideal). Each project done in cooperation with private business. MOST IMPORTANT: Only citizens of the US get on the payroll!! We lost jobs to outsourcing and now we must ensure jobs created are for only legal citizens. Stipulations in the bill for people to cash checks from these jobs would include opening or maintaining banks accounts. Therefore, liquidity would be created without the bailout.
IN PART 2: DISCUSS SPECIFIC PORK PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL PASSED
MORE IDEAS FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY
The answer is multifactorial because the intertwound nature of the ecomony. First, when Congress proceeds to "pork up" a Bill in a crisis situation, the public sees the seriousness has not been prioritized for no earmarking. Poor taste and poor judgement was demonstrated and public disgust soon followed. Secondly, the pork itself was shameful in what I see as a "nickel and diming" of the tax payer. People were benefiting from the bill by embezzling funds to ancillary groups completely unrelated to the situation at hand. Third, the Bill addresses the bank failures, job losses, and economic slow down strictly by "throwing money at the problem" by bailing banks out. And ONLY banks. The average person has no relief immediately, if ever. The problem is seen initially as a liquidity issue. The last thing anyone or any business needs is more available credit. Credit is the reason we are in the predicament currently. Of course, specific situations require available funds, such as college tuition. But is anyone looking at automobiles or boats, much less buying them.
While I am not necessarily an advocate for FDR-era policy, I believe the answer for today's fiasco can be found in our history. The modern "NEW DEAL" should consist of helping the ENTIRE economy while putting the country's best interest for the future in the crosshairs.
The Bill should have been geared towards the infrustructure of the country. Building new roads and repairing old ones, construting new bridges and initiating the new green energy installations to alleviate fossil fuel dependence would be . Each item scrutinized by by-partisan committees which oversee any abuse (although an independent third party would be ideal). Each project done in cooperation with private business. MOST IMPORTANT: Only citizens of the US get on the payroll!! We lost jobs to outsourcing and now we must ensure jobs created are for only legal citizens. Stipulations in the bill for people to cash checks from these jobs would include opening or maintaining banks accounts. Therefore, liquidity would be created without the bailout.
IN PART 2: DISCUSS SPECIFIC PORK PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL PASSED
MORE IDEAS FOR ECONOMIC RECOVERY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
