Chavez Proposal Defeated

Half of Venezuela is cheering today as earlier this morning the election results of Chavez's proposed constitutional amendments were announced, with him losing by a 51%-49% vote. A successful vote would have granted President Hugh Chavez sweeping powers in the government. Currently Chavez and his supporters control nearly all levels of power in the government. There were 69 proposed amendments which would have given Chavez nearly universal power. This is the first major defeat in his nine years of presidency, the New York Times reports. When the results were announced at 1:20 am opposition leaders were ecstatic and fireworks were a common sight. Hundreds of people flocked to Plaza Altamira and were celebrating in the streets of relatively prosperous eastern Caracas.

The success of the opposition is partly because of the joining of previously splintered movements. For this election on the amendments the separated groups worked together with disillusioned Chavez supporters to defeat the referendum. Had it passed the changes would have abolished term limits, increased the state's role in the economy, and allowed Chavez to declare states of emergency for unlimited periods of time. This is a small step in the right direction for a country who's president has forged a single Socialist party among his followers. He has also forced a television network critical of the government off the airwaves and nationalized oil, telephone and electricity companies, all according to the Times.

Value of Goods in the United States

As the holiday season approaches I am sure that many of you have seen the video’s on CNN about tainted toys from China. In some of those video’s CNN interviews random customers at toy stores and many of them say that they are now looking for a “Made in the USA” label. I think this is a valuable lesson for businesses in the United States who make products overseas. Just because that particular country has lax product safety laws the countries to which you are exporting probably don’t. This may be just the thing that brings a competitive advantage back to US companies.

What makes a company want to produce a product overseas anyway? Profits, plain and simple. Labor is cheaper, materials are cheaper, and you don’t have all those labor and product safety laws to abide by. The only downsides are shipping and customs, and as long as the profit margin that is gained by moving production overseas is substantial enough to counter these two downfalls outsourcing of production will continue.

The question now becomes how do we give an edge back to companies that are producing products in the US? We increase the downfalls with importing of certain products. By mandating certain safety standards for various products we can force overseas manufacturers to upgrade their materials to a similar quality level of those used in the US. Next we make those companies pay for product safety checks at US customs. In this manner we can legislate a number of small changes to our import laws that not only increase product safety for the US consumer but serve to close the cost gap between import and domestic products.

Naturally these laws would be more lax for products in serious demand such as oil or in the event of another deficit those products. By doing this we could keep prices low on product that we need to import and increase prices on those we choose to import. This may mean an increase in prices for the US consumer but it would also mean more US jobs so those same consumers could afford to pay more.

By legislating product quality requirement levels of imports closer to ours (but slightly lower) not only do we get the aforementioned benefits but the quality of American goods would still be higher building/maintaining a world wide reputation for quality thus increasing the implied value of American goods.

The Digital Divide

For those of you who don’t know the “Digital Divide” refers to the gap between those who benefit from digital technology and those who do not. It has recently come to my attention that there are people out there such as those at www.digitaldivide.org who make arguments about how giving everyone their own wireless internet accessible device will solve all of the world’s problems. Personally I think that the idea of trying to close this “digital divide” between developed and undeveloped countries just by giving them internet access is absolutely ridiculous. I tend to agree with www.economist.com in saying that there are larger problems at hand than giving the impoverished people of this world computers. To think that just thrusting a poor 3rd world village into the information age and expecting them to compete in the global economy without any sort of backing is absurd.

All computer related businesses offer a service of some sort, whether it is hosting websites, advertising, consulting, or selling a product. Now who in their right mind would think that someone living in the 3rd world with no education, food, fresh water, medicine, or infrastructure could do any of these things? Without any education you cannot even run a competitive business on a world wide scale, without financial backing you cannot even start a business even if you could run it, and without infrastructure even if you can run a business and have the money to start it you cannot actually do business. As far as the food and water go those are obviously top priorities and without those all other concerns are irrelevant because the dead don’t do business.

Before we even consider putting these people into the information age at the top of the pyramid that is human technological evolution lets build them a base to stand on. Start with necessities food, water and basic medical care (I’m not talking about experimental cancer treatments or the real advanced stuff, just simple things like the treating of wounds and antibiotic’s). Once the people have these things we need to stabilize the region by introducing a government dedicated to the betterment of its people and direct our funding and efforts through them.

Once these two tasks have been completed we can start by teaching these people how to farm and build irrigation channels, thus giving them a permanent supply of food and water. By building up the agrarian base of a country they can eventually feed their population if everyone is in the farming business. Once enough crops are being grown a surplus is generated and exporting can begin leading to the development of infrastructure like roads and ports. At this point other businesses start up such as mining, refining, and production of materials and products. These businesses would use the new infrastructure to do business and generate revenue. Eventually these farmers and factory workers would make enough money to pool together and give their children a basic education and every generation would then make more money and gain more skills until the factories were being run by the people of that country and they had enough wealth to invest in information technology and do business on a world wide scale.

Personally I think that building this base and guiding these people through the agrarian, industrial, and technological revolutions to a point at which they can stand on their own is a lot better than a bunch of rich 1st world people donating to a fund that sends iphones and translated manuals into a starving, disease infested, uneducated 3rd world village. The manuals would be used as toilet paper and the devices would be sold on the black market for food money faster than you could say “This may have been a bad idea”. In short from a common sense stand point it is much better to stand on a top of a tall building it took you 50 years to build than be thrown from a plane at the same height.

It's a Bomb!

Actually, it was just a road flare covered in duct tape. Just this Friday, a man held a group of people hostage using a "bomb" he had on his chest. No one ended up getting hurt, but it sure caused a stir in the media. The event took place in New Hampshire, and lasted about 5 hours before the hostages were let off unharmed. The man said he was angry about not being able to get the mental health treatment he needed and demanded, among other things, to talk to Hillary Clinton! If that seems a little odd, it may have to do with the fact that the whole thing took place in one of Hillary's campaign offices.

The man, named Leeland Eisenberg and 46 at the time, has apparently had a very troubled past. He was homeless around the age of 21 due to the death of his mother and the abuse of his alcoholic father. He eventually tried to find shelter at Roman Catholic Parish. They took him in, gave him work, and generally took care of him. Unfortunately, one of the priests at the parish was one of those "hands on" type of guys. Leeland was molested and supposedly raped during his time there. He tried to commit suicide a week later by jumping off a bridge, but was put in a psychiatric ward instead.


Obviously this guy had a few screws loose thanks to his traumatic past, which might help explain why he would do something like this. It is like the child who misbehaves in an attempt to gain attention and aid, but ends up hurting himself in the end. I personally feel sorry for the guy, and feel that this is a story of society failing to support the less fortunate. Since the guy was homeless, he couldn't really hire a lawyer to take this priest to court, nor could he afford mental counciling. I'm not saying I think his actions were justified, but he seems to finally be getting the attention he needed, as I'm sure they're giving him medicine and medical attention now.

If you want to read more on the story, you can check this out.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Last week marked the 14th Anniversary of Don't Ask Don't Tell being signed into law, as well as a large protest in Washington calling for the law to be abolished. For all of you who don't know, Don't Ask Don't Tell, which will now be abbreviated as DADT so I don't go crazy, was a law signed by Clinton that calls for the discharge of all homosexuals in the military. The idea was supported by military officials who figured that homosexuals would cause difficulties within the ranks; taking some of the oil out of the machine so to speak, and everyone wants a well oiled machine when it comes to the military. However, there are now people, such as Eric Alva, speaking out calling the law a form of discrimination and asking for its abolishment.

Sergeant Alva is right, this law is nothing but blatant discrimination against homosexuals. First they can't get married, now they can't even volunteer to fight for their own country? How does allowing homosexuals into the military cause tension among troops? Are troops afraid they might get hit on, that homosexuals can't fire a weapon, aren't as capable of killing an enemy, or are they simply so uncomfortable around people who are different that they themselves will be unable to do any of the above? None of these are valid excuses, as homosexuals are just as capable of firing a weapon, nor would they have any more emotional problems than anyone else when it comes to dispatching an enemy. Not to mention, if we are willing to allow females into the military, they would cause just as many problems, if not more, when it comes to troops making moves on each other.


John Shalikashvili was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton when DADT was passed. Coming from a cnn.com article, "...Shalikashvili supported the policy, believing that openly gay servicemen and women would hurt military cohesion. But in a New York Times editorial in January of this year, Shalikashvili said he was convinced the United States could abandon the policy." Obviously, even top brass agree that this law doesn't hold water in today's society. We really need to stop treating homosexuals as second rate citizens just because they act a little different than the majority of us. And honestly, if they are willing to put their life on the line to defend our country, who are we to slap them in the face and say no?

Mike Huckabee Gets a Phone Call From God

With all the negative news going on out there right now, I thought I would take the lighter route today and share a video I found on YouTube of a 2004 fundraiser for the Republican Governor's Association. Check it out:



This is why I love this guy. His humor, values, and straightforwardness are exactly what this country needs. Some people are afraid that his religious beliefs are going to take over the country, but that hasn't happened before with any other Christian president, and it won't happen with this one either. Mike has the experience necessary to take our country in the direction it needs to go, the most executive experience of any candidate, Democrat or Republican.

Today marks a big day in the Huckabee campaign. They have set a goal to raise more money online in the month of November than they have in the entire year. This morning we were over $350,000 short, and the most ever raised in one day just over $220,000. Donations tend to surge as it gets later in the day, but so far we are only $150,000 from our goal.

Mike has the experience necessary to take our country in the direction it needs to go, the most executive experience of any candidate, Democrat or Republican. If you are interested in donating, or just interested in more information on Mike and what he stands for, visit www.mikehuckabee.com. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.

Belgium Update

I'm sure everyone has been on the edge of their seats waiting to hear the news on Belgium. In an earlier post I discussed how Belgium has been without a government for months and how over 60% of the country would not be surprised if Belgium ceased to exist all-together. It has been well over 5 months (170+ days) since the elections and the government has still failed to exist. There have been multiple negotiation rounds, even consultations with the King. Now, all hopes are pinned on the prime minister-designate Yves Leterme of the Flemish Christian-Democrats to create a well-working government; although at this point most would probably settle for any government at all.

Under his direction parties on both sides of the language border have succeeded in concluding several partial agreements on justice and immigration. However according to the European Observer, much of the southern region of Belgium does not think Leterme is up to the task at hand. This is due to the fact that three vital issues still need to be resolved. The first is the issue of the electoral district of Brussels and its surrounding Flemish municipalities. Flemish parties are pushing for a split of the district without compensation to the French-speaking minority living in the surrounding area. This would result in the inability of the minority to vote for politicians from the largely francophone Brussels (aka the move is strongly opposed by French speakers). The second issue is the devolution of powers. While the Flemish are pushing for more power for the regions, the francophone speaking parties fear that this is a move to gradually break up the country. The third a final major issue is that it is unlikely that there is enough money to implement the political party agreements, which would make the renegotiation of these deals necessary.

The issue of the government desperately needs to be resolved in order to save this small country. Currently the outgoing government is prohibited from making important decisions and may only address current affairs. Also, Belgium may not be able to sign the latest EU treaty in December if no government has been set up by then. For more clarification on the political parties, see my earlier post.