Syria Conflict at Stalemate

As the world's attention shifts to the Olympics, and to other troubled spots around the globe, the problem in Syria continues to degrade. The Americans are clearly in the camp of the opposition, although to what extent the US is willing to help rebels is unclear, especially given the regime is backed by Russia. New players are also entering the game, some reported to be even more ruthless than al-queda. Proponents of war suggest this is a prime example where letting the parties fight it out rather than trying to pull back with ceasefires would prevent the conflict from prolonging, and minimize civilian suffering. A clear winner in either way would in the least add some clarity to the situation. But that's not what's happening and it's over simplistic to watch the two-sides 'fight it out'. As the conflict prolongs factions will become more pronounced furthering the complexity. But at the end of the day the average Syrian, the future, the children, are the true victims, and there's no apparent end in sight.

Is the American economy really improving?

As the sun sets on another year there are signs that the American economy is strengthening. Job data continues to improve, exports are rising, and the housing market in some areas is picking up. OF course, with all of the good data there's equally bad, stagnant housing markets in most areas outside of city centres (if you don't count the likes of Detroit and other cities facing bankruptcy). Bankruptcies have peaked, but that may be because there's nobody left to declare. The debt continues to rise and is perhaps the greatest achilles heel to the entire economic operation. With the mounting debt, and the inevitable need to raise the magic ceiling number again, America is still stuck in a fundamental economic climate that sees money creation (lending) as the primary means to generate consumption (get the economy moving). Flooding the market with dollars and keeping the interest rate low will continue to spur development, but without a worldwide uptick in consumption (Europe buying more, and emerging markets), it may be all for not. It's also crucially important to balance fiscal spending with unnecessary spending. Where can we cut? Services seems to be the place where msot are seeing the pinch, but what about the golden egg called the military? Are there dollars there ot be had and is there enough cuts and income for America to actually run a surplus. Funny how we never hear discussion about that word--surplus....

Affluenza Deffence

Classic. A Texas judge gave a young teen 10 years probation instead of jail time because his defence lawyers were able to effectively argue the brand new 'sickness' called 'affluenza'. The idea goes like this, if a kid has too much money (or rather his parents) then he can't know right from wrong, or it's really hard to learn because everything is handed to you from day one. I do'nt get it either. But in Texas stupid things happen all the time. Such as teens killing whole families while drunk driving and not getting jail time. What's even more peculiar from a legal stand point is how a psychological disorder that's never been tested and has no empirical evidence to even exist, held up in court. As for the teen boy who got away free, he gets to spend his probation in a resort facility because his wealthy parents can afford it. Luckily there will be a civil suit. Funny how affluenza doesn't affect black people in Texas. http://kfor.com/2013/12/16/victims-families-file-multimillion-dollar-lawsuits-against-affluenza-teen/

Syria timetable

Off to Syria we go? Obama hasn't started a war yet, well, I guess Libya counts. But should we head into Syria. Frankly, as war hungry as many people may be in the US of A, this is one we can't afford. The threat to America is low, and frankly, the opportunity to rebuild syria (and make money) is low as well. This one doesn't make sense. Stay the heck out, we're in enough money problems as it is.

Remember the Fiscal Cliff?

We're falling! Although some accuse Republicans of handcuffing the economy (holding it hostage) by preventing changes that would see tax increase for some large corporations, the reality is still holding--we're in a debt crises as a nation. Funny how nobody seems to be talking about the impending doom. i guess it's summer.

Shootings and shooting.

Guns to kill people.... well you know the rest. More and more mass shootings are sadly occurring in our country. The debate is becoming increasingly polarised at a time when we need a NEW conversation about guns in this country. Staying on opposite ends of the spectrum and beating drums until one gets enough support to prevent or enact change doesn't seem to help. Taking guns away isn't the solution, albeit making it harder for military style weapons to stay out of the hands of regular Joes, well I'm for that (although would stand outside of the Conservative camp on this one). Reality is we have a culture of guns and it's the culture that needs to change if we're going to stop killing each other. Forget the fact inner city violence is happening all around us (not getting national media attention), let's just talk about the overall reality Americans kill each other more than any other. There's no civil war here, it's just plain cultural to tote guns and use them as means to carry out violent messages (or crazy ones more often than not). We have to change, perhaps legislation will help, but ultimately no law will fix the root problem.

Employment Rate Creeps Up

This is somewhat unlike other election years. You do'nt typically see bad economic numbers on the way to November. But July saw a slight uptick in unemployment in the country. 2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 OVerall the economy is supposed to look better wit hthe President rolling out all sort of goodies as election day approaches. Mind you that didn't happen in 2008. Things got progressively worse for Bush and the Republicans (and has moderately improved since). Of course we all know why that happened (market CRASH). So will the unemployment rate trickle downwards come November? I think we can expect a down turn, perhaps even below 8. It's not out of the question to see a temporary drop if there's enough positive sentiment in the economy. But then again, .4 drop in unemployment translates into millions of jobs.....Those don't crop up overnight.

Pretty Boy Paul Ryan The Running Mate

I thought the guy was 13, but hey, you work hard you can achieve great things at a young age. barely over 40 Ryan is set to roll to election day in November with Mitt Romney. There's sure to be some controversy surrounding his appointment. But I think the biggest item going for Republicans is the draw to young voters, and some sort of fiscal conservative aura around Ryan. He'll have to do better with this speeches (looks a bit tight), and of course his overall gameplan to prevent snafus like this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul-ryan-fails----the-truth/2012/08/29/bbfe1eac-f254-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_blog.html

Obama on Same Sex?!

THis one is sure to blow up in his face. A lot of people won't be happy. Also wish the video continued, sort of casual editing there....

This is the Office?

On comedian Jimmy Fallon's late night TV show while visitin a Univeristy campus Obama made an appearance 'slow jammin' for lower student loan interest rates. That's not how the office should be portrayed. Is that the only way liberal students learn how to vote?

Goodbye Newt

You never stood a chance. Too greasy for Republicans, not conservative enough for right-wing supporters......(or rather great ideals, but can't live them). Good riddance. Time to get behind one horse to ride into November. Time to push ahead in a unified front.

Republican Front Runner?

Still up in the air, and I'm wondering why the media loves to jump on the foibles of the candidates. It make sthem all look incompetent. But then again, maybe they all are. Hopefully, for our sake, a clear cut candidate emerges, even if it's someone who'll make the rich richer, then it'll be a clear race at least.

How's Unemployment In California? Pretty lame

Take the largest state in the country and check their health. If we do that for California we see issues. Check out this graph.

If you look closely, ok you do'nt have to look closely, but if you look you'll see that there's really no change as of late, unemployment numbers are still very high. Couple that with foreclosures and bankruptcies and you'll get a bleak picture. There aren't many states that are doing any better. Seems to me whatever was broke is still broken. It seems clear, we're in another recession, in fact, we barely came out of the one we were in. Next steps?

Raise Taxes for the Rich?

So I'm obvious in favour of increasing taxes to the rich because I do'nt see a class warfare issue like some Republicans try to monger. I do however, understand economics when it prescribes lower taxes for those who create wealth. We can assume those who make lots of money know how to make it and want to make more of it. Thus they'll take the incentive of less taxes and use that to make more money. More money requires employees thus more jobs are created. really simple way to look at the economy but that's the reason behind lowering taxes. The problem? Rich people horde their money, or they buy frivolous items. That's not to say that's ALL they do, but last I checked we're not adding jobs and rich execs are getting bonuses for short term profits rather than long term sustainability. As well, what I never get, is the Republican push for competition and less gov't. Private sectors all the way! But when that happens the race is for cheap, and cheap means sending jobs to India..... So long story short, go ahead, raise taxes for the rich, I won't notice.

This could be you

http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2011/08/12/confessions-of-a-green-conservative/ lol

Republican Front RUnner

Who would you pick to lead the Republicans? A boob from Texas (no, sorry Texas, we do'n need another solid C+ student as President). How about crazy Bachmann? If you had to pick who would it be, there are some interesting candidates, and then there are some 'interesting' candidates.

Green and Conservative, No problem

You can have a liberal sensibility, with conservative political beliefs, no? One can still recycle, adore nature, volunteer to help the less fortunate and give money to those in need. But I also can opt for plans that reduce deficits, that seek to save rather than spend, that opt for job creation in the private sector rather than government intervention.......Can't you?

Green Conservative

Check out this blog written by a REpublican with a slant towards conservation: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/

Conservative Majority in Canada

Canadians went to the polls earlier this month and elected a majority Conservative government. For years now the Conservative have governed the country in a minority government which mean conservative legislation had a tough time passing Parliament. All that has changed. The graph shows that with the majority of seats the Conservative party of Canada can now push their agenda, and the one that was supported by most Canadians.

(Actually the majority of Canadians in accumulation voted for left wing parties, but because there are 2 left wing parties in Canada, that vote was split.)

The new official opposition is the socialist party the NDP. A definite surprise in this election.

What will this mean for foreign policy and the economy (with the majority government)?

Well because Canada is a parliamentary system the majority of votes will pass any legislation. That means there's little to no opposition even though there are opposing opinions, when it comes to voting it's merely symbolic.

The Conservatives tend to be slightly more right wing when it comes to fiscal policy. They would opt for less government intervention, lower taxes, and eventually deficit payments. One can also expect a hard line stance on immigration, increased spending for the military, lower taxes for corporations, and cuts to unnecessary social programs.

For America we can expect Canada will continue to milk a stronger economy and offer their oil exploits to us, that's a win. That's important to because a strong Canadian economy means a strong export economy. They do after all buy 30% of our exports.

Wake up Oregon!

It never ceases to amaze me when I see Democratic voters falling prey to the MSM who helped us get George W. Bush elected. I've been reading some of the Obamabot blogs in recent days and they spew the same bullshit that the right wingers used to eat up for breakfast. Instead of actually taking the time to research their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, they swoon like little school girls waiting to get an autograph from a rock star. It doesn't matter that said rock star is a phony piece of garbage who lip-syncs his songs.

A few weeks back, Hillary Clinton spoke in Oregon about The Oregon Compact.

This compact clearly sets out the goals Hillary has for Oregon and the way she will partner with the state to help meet its needs. The compact includes:

* Bringing Green Jobs to Oregon
* Supporting Oregon on its Path to Energy Independence
* Protecting Oregon’s Right to Determine the Siting of Liquified Natural Gas
* Partnering with Oregon to Provide Affordable Health Care for Every Oregonian
* Restoring County Payments for Oregon’s Rural Communities
* Standing up for Oregon's Soldiers, Military Families, and Veterans
* Creating Sustainable Jobs by Thinning Choked, Unhealthy, Second-Growth Forests
* Stopping and Reversing the Depletion of Wild Salmon
* Protecting Remaining Old Growth Forests and Roadless Areas
* Achieving Wilderness Parity for Oregon and
* Defending Oregon’s "Death with Dignity" Law from Federal Meddling

Now, this sounds like a plan to me and of course, Obama had to try to trump this plan with one of his own....unfortunately, he had no plan. So what does Obama do when he has no plan? He makes up a snazzy title...CHANGE OREGON CAN BELIEVE IN. There ya go folks, all he has to do is put in his code word, "Change", and the Obamabots start to drool at the thought of a tasty pile of shit for lunch. Unfortunately, Obama didn't do much research when his campaign put out that "change" you can all believe in. Here it is:

Barack Obama will reinvigorate the drinking water standards that have been weakened under the Bush administration and update them to address new threats. He will help communities by restoring better federal financing for water and wastewater treatment infrastructure, and he will continue his leadership in protecting national treasures like the Great Lakes from threats such as industrial pollution, water diversion, and invasive species. Obama will establish policies to help high-growth regions with the challenges of managing their water supplies.

I guess Obama figured that you guys will buy anything, a little geography snafu means nothing, after all, he DID say that there would be change! He didn't mention that he planned on moving the Great Lakes from the northern Midwest portion of our country, to the Pacific Northwest.

Ever ready at the damage control, Nick Shapiro said that his campaign wasn't trying to match Clinton's Oregon compact. "The last thing Oregon needs is another plan." Hugh? That's right, Oregon don't need no fucking plan! At this point the Obamabots eyes had already begun to glaze and the chant "YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!" had already begun. Shapiro continued by arguing that the important thing is that Obama would be more successful in breaking through Washington gridlock to get things done. Ok....we don't want any of those nasty "plans" causing Washington gridlock. I'm just not sure why Obama needed to have a plan that said "Change Oregon Can Believe In", if they didn't need a plan to begin with, but I digress....

Let's look at that plan...ooops, I mean "non-plan" that Obama put out. Ignoring the blaring mistake that the Great Lakes aren't in Oregon, Barack tells Oregon that he will "Require 25 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2025." And that's great. Except that Oregon already passed that standard into law, on their own, back in 2007. I guess Oregon already had a change they could believe in. Maybe if Obama actually did his homework instead of trying to copy off others, he could come off not looking like an out of touch elitist.

On the other hand, Hillary, who does do her homework said, "the Bush Administration has tried to stop states like Oregon from taking action to address this pressing problem. Against this headwind, Oregon has made progress, joining with its neighbors to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gases, and setting a 25% renewable electricity target. Where President Bush has attacked and stymied Oregon's efforts, Senator Clinton will partner with Oregon and protect Oregon's right to lead the way in reducing greenhouse gases. And where President Bush refused to take action at the federal level, Senator Clinton will implement a bold plan to attack the growing climate crisis."

About siting rights, Barack says that he:

supports the right of states like Oregon to veto the siting and construction of onshore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities in their states. He believes that any LNG terminals must include strong environmental and safety reviews, a process that is critical for the proposed LNG facilities in Oregon. He also said that he supports legislation championed by Senator Ron Wyden to preserve Oregon's siting authority and will sign it into law as president.

Wow! All that came out of Obama??? Here's the problem, the phony forgot to mention that the only reason this is even an issue for Oregon is because the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill stripped States of their voice in the siting process. That's the bill that Barack "No Plan" Obama voted for, while Hillary voted AGAINST it. I guess Obama didn't think first before he voted for that plan, but hey, at least he showed up for the vote, eh?

Wipe your mouth, Obama, there's still a tiny bit of bullshit around your lips.

Obama does have a plan for veteran's though. Trouble is, the geography challenged candidate was talking about Pennsylvania to Oregon voters. Ooops! He said, "As president, I will ensure we honor the sacred trust to care for Pennsylvania's 1.1 million Veterans."

Hillary, on the other hand, said this: "Oregon's National Guard has contributed significantly to our nation's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan with 7,000 individual mobilizations. More than 3,500 Oregon Guard members are scheduled to go to Iraq in 2009. In addition, Oregon has 359,000 veterans within its borders, which is higher than the national average. Yet unlike many states with this level of military involvement, Oregon has no active duty bases, which routinely provide health care for military families. This means Oregon's veterans, Guard members, reservists and their families have limited access to the health care they deserve, making reliable health care through TRICARE even more critical in Oregon than in most states."

Kind of makes Obama look like he doesn't know what he's talking about, doesn't it? But he's sooooooooo inspirational! He's change we can believe in! Obama keeps saying we have to have some serious discussions about the issues. It's not too easy to to that with a candidate like Obama who doesn't understand the issues to begin with.

After eight years of listening to a Yale Graduate who couldn't put two coherent sentences together, I was hoping to have the opportunity to have a President...like Bill Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton, who knows and understands these issues, someone who actually takes the time to listen to the voters and their needs, not just an empty suit with empty rhetoric and catchy phrases like "Hope and Change you can believe in." That's nice, but when you haven't got a clue as to what the American people need, you can't change it, can you.

Wake up Oregon, wake up Obamabots.....you backed the wrong horse and he's making an ass out of you.

Oh, and speaking of asses, it seems that Obama, while speaking in Oregon said that he has traveled to 57 States in the last 15 months. Again, the man needs to get his geography and history straight. He explained it all away, though, when he said to a group of reporters at a stop later on where he was discussing the cyclone victims in Burma, "I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh." At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out.