Newsleader's Donald Kaul writes "U.S. Voters Like Middle of Road"

So my first thought about this article, at first glance anyway, was that it was another story about how Americans are tired of partisanship and wanted people to just get along. Come together, hold hands, sing songs of friendship, and sleep with smiles at night. I know, about made me sick, too. But then a read a little farther. And it still made me sick.

He starts out saying that "one of the great myths of American politics is that voters like candidates who have the courage of their convictions." I admit, this is definitely a tired phrase coming from talk radio, news media, everywhere. Kaul goes on to point out that we Americans really want someone "who will stand up for what we believe." Truly.

He poses the question, since this country is so large and has so many differing viewpoints, "What's a poor candidate to do?" He says that candidates are forced into looking at polls and shaping their campaign around satisfying as many people as possible. In other words, they will say anything to get elected. He blames us for demanding that candidates stand up for our views rather than standing up for their own.

Kaul drops off the map of his argument at this point. He says that if we really wanted a candidate that stands up for what they believe then John McCain should be the "runaway leader in the polls." Not true at all. I am not a fan of McCain because he strays too far from my beliefs and does things in Congress that I thoroughly disagree with. What I will give McCain is that he is honest about his positions and proudly stands with them (despite the impoding of his campaign). He earns more credit with me than I thought he would deserve by doing this. He gave his positions and people aren't liking them. Great! Thats the way its supposed to work. Its the ones that will say anything that make me very nervous. I have my suspicions about which are doing just that (uh hmmm Giuliani, Romney). And I don't particularly like them any better. The point of elections is to look at what each one says (and does) and make the choice about which one is the one we want. Can we help that some will say anything? I think so. Those that will say anything tend to contradict themselves in words or in actions. That makes it easy. That's why Giuliani and Romney have come under fire for switching their viewpoints at a suspicious time.

But lets go back to McCain and Mr. Kaul. He writes about McCain that he is standing up for what he believes in several issues. I'm going to show how people make their decisions on a candidate when that candidate is honest about his position and backs it with action.

1. McCain "is for staying the course" in Iraq. I tend to agree with that. Not necessarily staying the course in the same mistaken manner, but stayin in Iraq until we absolutely win.
2. McCain "favors a kindler, gentler immigration policy aimed at helping immigrants become U.S. citizens. First, let me translate this verbal vomit into something a little bit more like plain English. McCain favors a forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek immigration policy aimed at helping Illegal immigrants get amnesty and citizenship. McCain's position on this is vastly against what I think about this issue. That translation is the perfect description of his plan. Its a plan to grant amnesty to criminals, yes criminals. Its a turn the other cheek policy because it just forgives the wrongs of those that take but don't give in addition to breaking the law. Then on top of that, its a plan to make it easy for these illegal immigrants to get citizenship, never mind that those that respect our laws, and our culture (remember what color the flags were at the immigration rally in 2006? No? Red, White, and... Green).
   
3. McCain is "the chief advocate of campaign finance reform." Kaul thinks that no voter really cares about this, though I know of at least a few. Kaul blames lobbyists who hate the reform for his campaign drying up. I suspect its the first couple of ones above here, and for those that care (which is allegedly few) the McCain-Feingold reform. I think the bill had good intentions behind it. But if you pile good intentions in one hand and... well you know. It turns our that, in my humble opinion, the reform bill severely limits free speech, by those that want to contribute, those that organize to help, and anyone else who wants to push a certain campaign forward. The problem with water, which is to say money, is that it flows freely, unless dammed up. And I'm pretty much against that option, too. McCain-Feingold only put up a porous wall against a literal flood. And trampled on the First Amendment.

I understand what Kaul is getting at. That because we demand someone who is in line with our values, that the candidates simply have to conform to most ideas in order to get elected. But this pessimistic view of American politics is not exactly truth. Some do conform, and as I said before, we usually get suspicious of them. Others stand up for what they think. McCain, Ron Paul, etc. Its healthy for them to do that in our system. Everyone should do that, regardless of their chances at the power seat. Is it impossible for one man/woman to actually be representative of many of the people? Of course not. I suppose its not even wrong for someone who doesnt believe the same to vow to protect what the most people want. A person acting as a delegate, a representative in the most direct sense.

Mr. Kaul argues that this system requires our candidates to conform to the middle. Hes referring to the marked change in primary politics (those of trying to please the base, or the most parts of a coalition) and general elections (Candidates seek to turn to a more moderate view, to capture the other 30% of people who are not behind them, since after the primary, your candidate is the only one of the party and the other is the only of that party) . In less words, general election strategy tries to capture the vote of the moderates and perhaps the weak of either party.

I don't believe that candidates are forced to do this. I think they, sadly, choose to a lot of times. If a candidate stands up for his/her values and those values are right or agree with what people want or tolerate, they will get elected, provided the other candidate seeking to do the same.

But that is what Kaul is talking about. Candidates dont always, or rarely, do this. Often times they become wishy washy and seemly conflicted on their views. Is it our fault? I don't think so. Can you be faulted for wanting someone who will represent your values? Can you be faulted for wanting your values to prevail? Again, I don't think so. The fault lies with candidates so ambitious for the presidency, that they truly will say anything to get elected. Thats pretty sad. So. Kudos to Ron Paul and John McCain for their actions of honesty. While I don't agree with them on everything, they still show a lack of greed for the White House, which means that there is more room for their true ideas.

Never stop complaining about wishy washy candidates. They want power and more power and they should never be given what they want. There are candidates that are good enough to be elected on their ideas, without the compromise. Demand that too. We deserve the candidates that will stand up and choose to be honest about their beliefs. And we know all too well about which ones are wishy washy. Complain away, tired phrases and all, because you deserve that much.

The Great and Glorious Shining Light of Fidel Castro's Cuba

A friend recently posted an article off of yahoo news. I strongly suggest reading it and comparing that against another, from a Cuban reporter. Great and Glorious? I guess we'll see.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070724/hl_nm/cuba_usa_doctors_dc

This is a news article about the recent graduation of 8 U.S. students from Castro's "free" education system. In exchange for this service, they are to commit themselves to going back home to treat the "underserved." Obviously, this is just a good guy from a great country trying to help the poor around the world. The great humanitarian socialist, Fidel Castro. The article writes that this is part of the Cuban government's plan to export doctors to poorer countries, like Venezuela or Bolivia, as well as to train their own citizens to do the same. Oh yeah, and just one more reason that he trained American doctors to treat the "underserved" in the U.S. And I quote...

Officials in Cuba's communist government relish the idea of training doctors for the United States, its arch-enemy since Castro took power in a leftist revolution in 1959.

Ah ha! The picture becomes just a little bit clearer. The great humanitarian socialist, Fidel Castro, plans to help poorer people out. The "underserved" of the world, including the U.S. And he also "relishes" the idea of sending doctors trained for free back to the United States, "its arch-enemy." Benevolence at its finest.

And, now the one-sided plug. These U.S. students praised movie Sicko, from documentary extraordinaire Michael Moore. Hailed as "inspirational" by one such student. The second part of this one-sided news story is the praise of the universal health care system, now on the debating table of the Presidential election of 2008. This is important, so take careful note:

The U.S. students praised Cuba's universal, free health-care system, which Is community based and focuses on preventing illness before it becomes more serious and costly, in contrast to the U.S. health industry indicted for being profit-based in Michael Moore's recent film "SiCKO."

"Focuses on preventing illness before it becomes more serious and costly."
"Before it becomes more serious and costly."

Sorry about that. I told you it was important, now remember well.

Also, Kenya Bingham, says in Cuba, "When you are sick, they are not going to try to charge you or turn you away if you don't have insurance."

Another enthusiastic student proclaims that the universal health care system in Cuba is a "wonderful idea that makes total sense for every country, especially one with so many resources." She ends stating, "If they can do it in Cuba, we can do it in the United States."

It feels so warm and cuddly, but too good to be true? Perhaps.

http://www.cartadecuba.com/Life%20in%20Red.htm

This is a news article written by Raul Rivero, an independent Cuban journalist, in the French publisher's Le Monde, January 2nd, 1999.

I encourage you to read this somewhat lengthy article. It sheds more light onto the Great and Glorious Cuba. To make a list, since the article is quite long.

Cuba:

- "Somewhat bitter joke" goes something like this: "When the head of a household gets up
at dawn in present-day Cuba, he or she only faces two problems: lunch and dinner." Can you guess why its a "somewhat bitter joke?"

- "Ordinary Cubans, who have no relatives in the United States, do not work in a foreign company or have no friends in a corporation, those Cubans who ride bicycles and get paid in national currency- the vast majority of the population- have to recur to three verbs which raise suspicion: "Inventar, resolver y escapar": To invent, to solve and to escape.

This is the formula. "Invento (I invent) because my cousin brings me hams from the countryside, and I sell them to my neighbors and my friends. The salary I make as a
teacher lasts me the first ten days of the month, just like the products which I can buy under the ration card [libreta de abastecimientos]." So says Fernando, 38, married with two children, 11 and 6. Elia, his wife, works in a factory cafeteria, and can always bring something home, besides her monthly salary of 118 pesos (1).

"Clothing and shoes for the children are a tragedy. I do not know how, but I invent something, I have to invent"

Fernando's moonlighting makes him a criminal, because it is against Cuban law to engage in this type of commerce. The teacher does and is against the law, so he is careful; he feels at fault with society. Such a person cannot confront authority to claim his rights or demand respect. Thousands of Cubans, forced to engage in illegal work, such as Fernando, are effectively neutralized as citizens.

There is still a more complex category, linked to the verb resolver (to solve). "Guards from the factory steal ingredients. I make the paint in the back yard of a friend, and solve my problem. I make about a thousand pesos a month. It is risky. My freedom hangs from a thread [enun hilo], but I solve my family's problem and still have some money left to have a beer once in a while." Joel says that he is not interested in politics. He is 30, and feels well. Uneasy, but well.

To escape is something else.

Rolando Alvarez, almost 70, wrote. for three decades many praises of socialist society. He still loves journalism, although has retired, and receives 169 pesos a month. "I do not regret anything I wrote. When I did, I believed in the project, and I still think it has many beautiful things that have transformed our society. Now, individually, in my old age, I escape, because I help in a "paladar"-private restaurant-. I wash dishes, wait on tables, whatever. And, at the end of the day, I take home something to eat or a few pesos, for my wife and me", speaking in his little apartment of downtown Havana. And to be able to prepare a meal of rice and beans, just that, no vegetables or meat, I invest almost half my salary. A pound of black beans costs 20 pesos. A head of garlic 4. A bunch of peppers another 4. Onions are 10 a bunch and rice 5 a pound. I need oil and have to buy it from the store where they sell in dollars. Then I go there and change 50 pesos, because a bottle is $2.40 dollars. This is ready. From 80 to 85 pesos for a meal for two people. But we are calm. We have ours. I am satisfied."

- "Had I dedicated the time I have lost waiting for a guagua (bus), or something else in which to transport myself, I would be a Doctor of Science or an intellectual. The wait extends for hours and hours, but at the end one reaches the destination." commented veterinarian Alfredo Vargas."

- "In Cuba, with the exception of some owners of small twelve seat restaurants and of minimal coffee, pizza and candy stores, the only employer is the State. Now, it is said, only half-jokingly, that when a Cuban gets offered a job, he does not ask how much is the salary, but how much he can steal. Society has been taken over by the Robin Hood syndrome: the rogues who steal something from their workplace every day, those whoresuelven , are seen
with sympathy. Their crime, their sin, their actions, are not perceived by the community as a fault, but rather as a form of struggling for survival. This is why such people are known in all of Cuba as "luchadores", rogues in the most orthodox Spanish tradition."
Government officials blame this on the American blockade.

- "From day to day, the worst of the poor, Third World capitalism, which has been imported to the Island, advances. And the conquests of real socialism have dissolved in the inefficiency of the system. Meager production, an agriculture incapable of working, and the government's refusal to allow the people to take off the yoke of the state, have not allowed the start of a
process of individual sovereignty."

- Education is free, but with a clear hue of indoctrination.

One Cuban father wants the government to give his children education, pure education, and let them choose their political color later . No more Lenin, Marx or any other
imposed idea. Children must go to school to prepare for a profession,
not to serve anyone or any ideology."


There is more, but these examples are sufficient to make my point. Okay, the rundown is that Cubans are not paid enough by the government (the sole dispenser of jobs), and are forced to steal or "commit crimes" like getting a second job. They cannot pay for enough food and are not provided enough by the government. They cannot get adequate shoes or
clothing for their children. Cubans are required to wait for buses that take hours to arrive or get them anywhere. Cubans are widely regulated by the government and are provided a generous helping of indoctrination (also known as an "education" in Cuba).

Alright. We know about doctors, we know about Cuba. I think it is safe to say that these two
stories do not delve into the entire elephant of doctors or Cuba, but it is a bite, or perhaps a meal.

With all of these problems with Cuba, Fidel Castro is still so generous as to educate the citizens of this country. How benevolent can one man be, to forfeit the health (Mal-nutrition) of his own citizens to fund the education of 88 U.S. students for free? Oh
yeah, these educations are estimated at 250,000 to 500,000 USD.

Okay, no more games. This man educates our citizens at the expense of his own people. Suddenly, it doesn't appear as if humanitarian efforts are the only motive Castro has for training our people for free. Call me cynical, but if I were a betting man, I would say that
the arch-enemy thing has something more to do with this. Or, if I'm in a conspiracy theory mood, perhaps he wishes to "indoc-ducate" our doctors into the spread of Cuba's socialist typed system. It seems to be working.

I would also like to raise some suspicion about the motives of the students. They have just saved themselves up to 500,000 bucks by going to Castro's Cuba and getting a free education. Again, at the expense of Cubans who have to commit the crime of having a second job just to eat. Then they get to come back to the United States and serve our "underserved." I bet they will make some pretty decent money doing it too. These students are selfish to have done this. I feel confident in saying this because it has been on the backs of the Cuban people and they are giving nothing back to Cuba. Perhaps Castro could also find a better use for Cuban money. I know its a stretch, but just imagine with me for a sec'.

In the state of Cuba, it is also impossible to get an education that lacks indoctrination. You are not allowed to think of your own ideas or make your own opinions, solely what Castro thinks is important (socialism/communism).

I for one am grateful to live in a place where I can make my own decisions, get a second job, if desired, have the capability to buy my own food, clothing, and shoes. Also, I am grateful to be able to get to a place I need/want to be, without having to wait for a bus. I'm also grateful that I do not have health care provided for free. I know, how could I possibly be grateful to have that? I would rather have food, clothing, shoes, a car, my own opinions, a decently balanced education, and the choice of how to provide for myself over free health care. What I'm saying is, nothing is free. Cliche? Maybe. True? Irrefutably. I recognize that it may not cost me my food, clothing, car, etc., but it will cost something. It was a crime in Canada to open up or attend a private clinic. That's a cost.

Now for that immensely important part of Cuba's amazing universal health care system. Do you remember what I said was important (and repeated 3 times)?

Havana and other major cities have suffered periodic outbreaks of scabies and lice. Several diseases, such as tuberculosis and dengue, have been reborn, and several epidemics have produced victims among the general population. "I prefer to cure myself using home remedies, without leaving my room. To enter a hospital is torture. You have to bring your own towels and sheets, soap and food, and then call somebody abroad so that they can send medicine. Physicians are good, but paramedical service is a disaster. They get paid very little. There is a general lack of cleanliness and poor attention. The special clinic for foreigners and government officials is a different story. But I don't fit in there." Eliecer, railroad worker, 52.

Great and Glorious Shining Light? Sadly, not quite what it has been built up to be.

-Rage

Immigration Reform Must Be Consistent

Lewis shoots straight and clear, at first, when he writes "The last thing Senator Graham or anyone else who cares about America should want is for people they consider bigots to shut up." Free speech is something that should never be silenced. It is a right set forth in the Constitution and has made the country a place worth living in.

However, Lewis and I immediately part ways when he writes "I cant count the number of times I've heard people proclaim support for legal immigration while stating opposition to illegal immigration. It just doesn't ring true." Maybe I'm missing the inconsistency he sees in this opinion. Maybe a few questions could be asked to discern what he means.

Is it consistent to be for upholding the laws and against breaking them?
Is it consistent to be for people who uphold the laws and against those people that break them?
Is it consistent to demand that our representatives uphold the laws and to demand that they do not allow our laws to be broken?

Again, I could be just entirely missing the inconsistency he sees, but the answers to these questions are painfully obvious. How much more consistent can a person be?

Lewis goes on to write that it is impossible to fix the illegal immigration problem if you don't fix the legal immigration problem. I have to, yet again, disagree. There are terms in politics that describe the desires people have which propel them in a certain direction. We hear it all the time. The terms are push and pull factors. There is a lack of jobs or prosperity in one country and the availability of jobs and prosperity in another. Obviously people are pushed against the lacking in their lives and toward fulfillment. Now, apply that same concept to our borders. People want to come to the U.S. because we have jobs, freedom, and security. No one blames them for wanting to come. Wherever they are from, they want to come here because of some push factor. At this time, what push factors do we have to make them not want to come? None. We have a catch and release program where illegals can get arrested for something and never show up for their court date, allowed to disappear. We allow their children to be born here and become citizens, thereby accomplishing two goals. The first is to make the life of their child better, by making them a citizen for life, and the second is to make it so they will never have to leave because their child is here and needs a parent, or two parents.

There are however some push factors that we can have in place, that make the legal route the one of least resistance. First off, the double border fence would make it ever harder to come in. Sure, people find ways around fences. But how much harder would it be to have to find a way around the fence. Secondly, for those that do want to find a way around, increase border agents to patrol the border. Couple that with a virtual fence, which President Bush believes will do the job in and of itself. This will allow our new force of border agents to get to any point in the fence fast enough to send the illegals back. Third, we could enact strict penalties against businesses that use the illegal labor, thus making it a very large risk to employ illegals. No jobs and harder passage make for a pretty difficult time for someone who wants to break our laws. And that's what they are, intentions or no, law breakers. Hence the term Illegal (Alien, Immigrant, Worker, etc.)

Enforcing the border is of course one single way in which we can combat the deluge of people coming into the country illegally. Lewis writes that four out of ten come in the front door. Fine. Make it very difficult to get a job, which is included in the solution. I would bet that they would be trying to get that visa renewed or aching to go home (a.k.a. obeying the laws)

Lewis quotes Don Emge, of the Catholic Diocese of Cape Girardeau, who mentions that illegal immigrants are now choosing more hostile areas to go because we are strengthening security around the usual routes. In these hostile areas some of those who try and cross are dying. Now, instead of giving them the credit of being rational, reasonable, - responsible - adults, he makes it sound as if they had no choice in the matter and we were just being so inhumane to them by making them cross in the desert. I have never heard something so ridiculous as this. These people have a choice. They can choose to come, and they can choose to cross in the desert. Or not. Its not inhumane, its a matter of fact. It would be inhumane if we found them out there starving and dying of thirst, and just left them. But we don't really do that do we? We pick them up, take them in, and if they would just appear for their court dates we would ship em back out. But no, instead we help them across. I'm not quite understanding how that is inhumane. My question for Mr. Emge is, "Is it inhumane to allow people to go rock climbing, if sometimes they fall?" After all, they have a choice to go. They can take precautions, but sometimes bad things happen. Its a risk of making that choice, as they know very well.
As for those legal immigrants that are "made to feel like lepers," I don't have any idea what they are talking about. Americans are accommodating, just look at all the double language signs everywhere. Sure there are bad apples that treat immigrants badly, but most recognize that immigrants, legal ones, are what this country was built on and is most likely where they are from. I guess you can find somebody to say anything. Those that do alienate those legal immigrants by rude or unwarranted behavior should be ashamed.

My problem with Lewis' entire column is that he insinuates that the majority of Americans (A.K.A. those that did not want amnesty) are bigots. Sure, Lewis gave his little "they may not be," but then he writes that most people who are working against amnesty are not working for a better immigration system. Maybe not, maybe so. It doesn't matter. His blanket generalization, as well as Lindsay Graham's, is insulting and is where the real bigotry shines through. Next time someone disagrees with Brian Lewis or Lindsay Graham, be careful or they may just say you are a racist or a bigot (demagoguery). How unproductive.

Anonymity

The local paper has struck again insisting that it is absolutely necessary to reveal your name for anything you say to be credible. But what does that really mean? What does your name add to the opinions or news articles you link to? Does it affect the accuracy of what you are reporting? In the case of the agri-businessman, yeah he probably wouldn't have tried plugging his own company. But if you are reporting on some news or expressing an opinion, I cannot see how your name adds anything to your view of politics, religion, baking, shoe repair, photography, whatever. In the case of the more heated topics bloggers talk about, there is one thing I can see which is of value to the reader when revealing your name. Your personal life. Where do you live? Where do you work? Who's your spouse? Where do they work? Do they have any kids? Who are your friends? Who are your enemies?

Revealing your name allows people to find the answers to these questions. Furthermore, where can the answers to the questions lead someone who doesn't like your particular brand of politics or religion? How can I shut him/her up? I'm not particularly religious, but there is some truth to the phrase, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The implication is that none of us are without sin and have perfect pasts. None of us. Some bloggers are not rich and do not have extraordinary lawyers to protect them. In addition to that, some bloggers don't have the ability to hire a body guard or get background checks run on those that send hate mail intending violence. A name allows people access to your personal life in order to find a chink in your armor where your ideas can be undermined.

I write to express my ideas on many things. I know not everyone agrees with me and so far I've been lucky that people don't send hate mail (not that its really that hard to figure out who I am, with access to friends, my town, info about where I went to school and such). But I would rather people evaluate my ideas and have the backbone to argue my ideas, and not my past or my bad choices. My ideas stand regardless of my own failures. Have the guts to argue about the ideas instead of personal information.

-Rage