Again, as I’m cleaning out some old e-mails I’m coming across some pretty interesting ones. The first military quote below has been confirmed by Snopes.com while the other two are not on their site. It would be nice if the valor, honor, and truth of these statements carried through all discussions regarding the American military (no matter where one falls on the political spectrum). Enjoy!

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building’ by George Bush.He answered by saying, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”

It became very quiet in the room.

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying “Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?”

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: “Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?”

Once again, dead silence.

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, ‘whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.’ He then asked, ‘Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?’ Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied ‘Maybe it’s because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.’

You could have heard a pin drop!

Zing!

Did you know that the Democrats have already voted to increase your taxes three years from now? Okay, so they didn’t raise your taxes, per se, but they did endorse a plan that WILL raise your taxes in the coming years. I understand that taxes weren’t raised so much as the existing “Bush tax cuts” are now set to expire, but for the millions of workers who have entered the workforce since 2001 and for the millions of families who can barely afford to get by as it is - this is nothing more than a major tax hike.

Believe it or not, though, I don’t place the blame on the Democrats. I don’t place the blame on the Republicans, either. Who is to blame? We are. This is a country whose contemporary populous demands to be taken care of from cradle to grave. As a perpetual student of American history, this is sickening. America was once a country put together by revolutionaries who not just fought against being taxed without representation, they waged a war against it. Now, Americans are being taxed into oblivion by a government that would prefer to spend money on entitlement programs instead of a comprehensive plan to fix America’s finances once and for all.

But hey, no one cares…so what’s the point in complaining? No one is going to change it. Of the 3 major Presidential contenders, the two Democrats have already claimed that they are raising taxes and I’m not sure if the Republican even has a financial plan.

Oh well. Another day in America.

Now that Senator John McCain is the definite Republican nominee for President, it is time for him to begin thinking in earnest about the perfect Vice-Presidential candidate. The latest name to circulate (aside from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) is Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. While I think that Hutchinson would be a good choice for McCain, I think that there is someone who is more qualified and a better overall choice.

Condoleeza Rice.

No, I don’t think she’s a good choice because she’s a woman or black and thus negates the presumptive Democratic ticket of Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. I think that Rice is the right person for the job because she brings a world of foreign policy experience to the ticket. But McCain is already well-versed in foreign affairs, you say? This is true. However, bringing Condi into the picture would allow McCain to focus the bulk of his personal appearances and speeches on domestic issues - which is what the people want to hear at this point.

As for some other choices, I’d like to see Colin Powell as Vice-President, though I don’t think that his family is interested in having him play a role at such a high office. Newt Gingrich is also a great choice, though I think he’s waiting to run for President until 2012 (if McCain loses) or later. Some people think Rudy Giuliani would be a good choice - I disagree. I’d rather have Rudy as Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General.

Anyway, I’m sure that McCain will announce his running mate sooner rather than later so the Republicans can begin to build some momentum heading into their convention.

Most people hate tax season…even those who work for the Internal Revenue Service. I saw a story the other day about an IRS agent from my hometown of Roxbury who was convicted on tax evasion charges. How about that, huh? Even the IRS hates paying taxes!

Just another example of how we are all human…even those in real or perceived positions of authority.

In the mean time, check out New Jersey Carpet Cleaning for the best carpet cleaning in the Garden State!

Both the Republican and Democratic Presidential primaries are becoming the stuff of political science legend. You have the meteoric rise and fall of the Rudy Giuliani candidacy, the record-setting fundraising of Ron Paul, the almost unbelievable success of Mike Huckabee and his shoestring budget, the historic candidacy of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for the Democratic Party and so much more - all going on at once!

Many people have been calling the Republican campaign for John McCain since Mitt Romney bowed out last week. However, Mike Huckabee has had a strong showing in the South and other states where religious voters have major influence. At the same time, McCain has been battling for acceptance by the far right-wing of the Republican Party - especially among the conservative talk radio scene.

On the other side of the battle, the Clintons have been battered and beaten (as usual) by the press with the latest scandal being MSNBC saying that Chelsea Clinton was being pimped out by her mother’s campaign. Vile. This further proves the irrelevance of MSNBC in the news scene and in the world of current events. What a joke that station has become.

Obama, on the other hand, continues to turn heads - including Republican heads. I have a feeling that if Obama is the nominee for the Democrats that he’s going to win the national election by at least a 60/40 margin. But I guess time will tell.

In the mean time, check out New Jersey Carpet Cleaning for the best carpet cleaning in the Garden State!

Thank God for the American federal government! What other organization can bring so many people so many laughs in one fell swoop? You may remember that a few days ago, the government was thinking about sending each taxpayer an $800 check (married couples would obviously receive $1,600). Well, in a move that only our ridiculous government could make, they’ve decided that instead of each taxpayer getting $800, they’ll probably get $300 instead. The reasoning is that the $800 per person economic stimulus package would have only given checks to the 180 million or so Americans who pay income tax. The $300 per person economic stimulus package allows for all Americans to receive a check, including those who don’t make enough to pay income taxes.

In other words…

For those taxpayers who earn higher incomes in the middle class of America, not only are you going to continue to bear the brunt of this country’s weakening economy, but you’re also not going to get the same proportional handout that those in the lower class will receive. For a person who is making so little that he or she doesn’t pay income taxes, $300 is a big deal and really can help in getting a person out of financial rut.

But for the rest of the people who do pay taxes and who are living in the middle class, a $300 check from the government to “stimulate” the economy is bullshit. All $300 does for anyone in middle class America is remind you how screwed you are in the bigger picture. Those who don’t need the $300 will disagree with that statement, but those who needed the $800 will not only agree - they’ll get pissed since $800 isn’t even enough for most people to make one month’s mortgage payment.

We’re all screwed.

The President and the Congress are discussing ways to give America an economic boost. Anyone who is paying the attention to the news and the markets knows that part of this country’s current problems are rooted in the housing bust and part of the problem is due to the fact that banks are becoming more conservative with their lending policies. There’s nothing much you can do about the banks - they’ll do what they want with their money and that’s that. Sucks. And for those of us who have worked in the housing market and studied the housing market, we saw the big downfall coming years ago, but no one listened.

All of that aside, I am glad that the Republican President and the Democratic Congress are working together in a spirit of bipartisanship to give America the boost that it needs. One of the ideas going around is to give all taxpayers an $800 rebate check as early as in the next few weeks. I have to say, this is scary for a variety of reasons.

First, I don’t know what your finances are like, but while I certainly wouldn’t scoff at $800 it really isn’t enough to make a dent in my financial portfolio. And I should preface the previous sentence by saying that I spend between 45 and 60 minutes each day going over my finances and that I’ve made tremendous strides financially in the last 18 months. Still, getting an $800 check would be nice, but it would only remind me how much of a hole that I’m in (thanks student loans!).

Second, I can only think about those bozos down in New Orleans who got free government and charity money to the tune of some $2,500 per person…and then spent that money on alcohol, new shoes, lingerie, and electronics. Folks, while these creature comforts may give you a feel good feeling right now, they’re not going to do a damn thing to help your financial well-being in the long run. I just imagine some 280 million taxpayers getting an $800 check and the only companies that see their profits go up are Nike, Apple, and Sony.

Finally, the cost of living isn’t stabilizing - it’s going up! The cost of a gallon of gas is getting higher each month, the cost of milk (yes…milk) is going up, and the cost of general groceries is going up. If it is used wisely, getting an $800 check today will help put food on the table tomorrow. But will it provide food for our tables this summer? Next fall? Next year? Unlikely.

Unfortunately this is one of those situations where there are no easy answers. Part of me wants to say that we, as a country, made this bed for ourselves and now we have to lie in it. Mortgage borrowers largely knew that their subprime loans were loaded with risky features and they knew that they were buying houses that were too big for their budgets. Yes, there was some chicanery in some housing markets, but of the millions of subprime loans only a fraction fall into that category. So in this respect, part of me believes that we have reaped what we’ve sewn.

Believing that, however, isn’t going to kick the economy in the ass. What should we do to stimulate the economy? Those $800 checks are a good start, but reducing the cost of living for all Americans will be a great second step.

New Jersey, in its infinite stupidity, passed legislation yesterday endorsing the National Popular Vote movement. In short, this legislation has the potential to undermine the Electoral College and give the state’s Presidential electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. Think of it as the no-thought-needed “fix” to the Electoral College.

Of course by passing this legislation, the NJ lawmakers must assume that all of New Jersey believes that the Electoral College needs to be “fixed” in the first place (all of New Jersey - because every single New Jersey voter is affected). Further, this legislation assumes that not only should the Electoral College be fixed, but that this is the right way to do it (which it obviously is not). But in today’s world of quick fixes and easy answers, I’m not sure anyone would care why this is not the right way to handle the Electoral College. So for those of you who don’t want to think, go ahead and skip over to another website at this point - I’m going to attempt to explain why this legislation sucks.

First, it’s a fringe piece of legislation that could only actually take effect if states with a combined 270 electoral votes pass it. In other words, we’ve now suited up New Jersey in her best game garb and set her on the sidelines, waiting to be let into the game. Until enough states pass this legislation, it essentially means nothing and has no bearing on the current system. Why is this dangerous? Because by passing this bill, New Jersey’s politicians (who have proven their ineptitude almost on an hourly basis) now believe they are “done” with this issue. Nothing could be further from reality.

Second, the Electoral College was set up as a Constitutional compromise between those states who wanted direct election of the President and those who wanted a more Parliament-like system where the Congress chooses the candidate. People today think of the American system of government too much like the rest of the world’s governments. We’re not like the rest of the world! Direct elections in another country do not mean that Americans should have direct elections! Our Founding Fathers specifically moved AWAY from that form of elections. And don’t go crying about changing with the times. Bullshit on that relativist philosophy. Change is the precursor to revolution and in the only country in the world with mandated suffrage for each and every color, creed, and gender of human being, the only revolution that we truly need is an educational one (perhaps starting with history).

Third, the Electoral College gives the states power. Don’t believe me? Go back in time about 20 days ago before Iowa held their caucuses and New Hampshire held their primary and tell me that Iowa and New Hampshire voters didn’t have each and every one of their concerns addressed by the Presidential candidates. Take a trip down to South Carolina or Florida or over to Michigan and tell me that issues that directly effect those states aren’t being thought about, dissected, and presented with solutions by the candidates. The Electoral College ensures that ALL states have a say in who becomes President. To be an American is to accept that we are a nation that is comprised of 50 individual states who are joined together under a federal system of government. Period. This is not a nation that has federally controlled districts with federally installed Governors.

And fourth, in our current system, a candidate needs to win all of those middle states with lower electoral vote counts in order to be competitive in the final count. But - did you know that you only need to win the 12 states with the biggest electoral vote counts to win the Presidency? That means that 38 other states can think one thing, but if the 12 biggest states think something else, they win. That’s an abomination of what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country. And whether the relativists of today like it or not, what the Founding Fathers wanted hundreds of years ago IS relevant to today’s politics because this is America, the great political experiment in liberty.

Under the national popular vote system, all that matters is that a candidate win major population centers, not states. Endorsing the national popular vote system is endorsing the idea that states’ rights don’t matter - the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers fought for so many years ago. How could ANY of the concerns of middle America or rural areas ever be addressed if all a candidate needed to win the election was to win the New York City area, Los Angeles area, Dallas area, Chicago area, and Atlanta area votes? What about Fort Worth, Texas? What about Bismark, North Dakota? What about the entire states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming?

Endorsing the national popular vote says that we don’t care about what our fellow Americans needs are in other, smaller states and other, smaller population centers. It’s an abomination. If the national popular vote succeeds and enough states endorse it, then it really might be time to change the name of this country because we will no longer be the America that was founded on all of those idyllic principles so many years ago. We’ll be a different country with different goals - hell, we might as well erase the lines between our states because they won’t matter any more.

It’s disgusting.

A better option would be to follow what Nebraska and Maine do with their electors. Since each state has a number of electors equal to their number of Senators and Congressmen, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets the 2 “senator” votes and the rest of the electoral votes and divided into Congressional districts. If you win all of the Congressional districts in a state, you win all of the electoral votes. If you win 3 of 7 districts, you get 3 electoral votes.

This is the only fair, reasonable, LOGICAL alternative to the current system.

Yes, you read that right. The “victims” of Hurricane Katrina are suing the US Government for $3,014,170,389,176,410. In the written word, we’d call that three quadrillion, fourteen trillion, one hundred and seventy billion, three hundred and eighty nine million, one hundred and seventy six thousand, four hundred and ten dollars. This is absolutely disgusting.

I was among the first to say that the US Government really bungled the clean-up efforts with Hurricane Katrina. It was obvious and we all watched it happen on every cable news network.

However…

We watched BEFORE the storm as thousands of residents said they were not leaving their homes in New Orleans no matter what. We watched BEFORE the storm as local politicians allowed dozens and dozens of school buses to sit empty on school property as opposed to transporting out those residents who did want to leave. We watched AFTER the storm as roving street gangs fired gunshots in the air to ward off other street gangs. We watched AFTER the storm as residents who were given relief debit cards to buy food and clean drinking water spent that money on alcohol, Victoria’s Secret, and $100+ sneakers.

If this case isn’t immediately dropped as soon as it hits a judge’s desk, then I think the rest of America has the right to file a one hundred quadrillion dollar case against New Orleans. That’s right…one hundred quadrillion dollars!

This whole thing is so stupid it actually makes me sick.

Unless you live under a rock or you don’t follow politics to any great degree, then you know that the new buzzword in the Presidential campaigns is “change.” The Iowa caucuses and the national polling data all indicate that the people want change from their government. I agree - I want change from my government, too. So far in the campaign the term “change” has largely benefited Senator Barack Obama, though the Republicans and Senator Hillary Clinton are trying to put the concept of change to work for their campaigns.

But I hope someone who is working for their individual campaigns is telling these candidates that winning the Presidency on the concept of “change” is not the best way to win the hearts and minds of the populace in the long-term. Why, you ask? Simple. What does change mean to you?

Think about it. What does change mean to you? Change, to me, means that I won’t be stuck in a position where roughly 35% of my income goes towards paying student loans when I was a straight A student all throughout my academic career. My change means that my desire to trade in my current gas-guzzling SUV for a hybrid car would become a reality in short order (my finances say otherwise). For me, change means that we stop spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars on other countries and we redirect that money back into America and American technology. I consider change no longer hearing the right/left bickering in America and, instead, seeing a strong third party or even a third and fourth party rise to break the grip that this double-headed monster has on American politics.

I could go on and talk about how change should mean more tax dollars directed towards upgrading America’s physical infrastructure (roads and bridges) and how change means that local police forces will be mandated to truly serve and protect and not act as a fundraiser for local governments. I would say that change means taking care of unfinished business: i.e. making the accepted language for the last 400 years in the American settlements, colonies, and states the official language of this country. Change should mean that if the United Nations is going to be a feasible world-body, then it should be equitably funded by ALL member countries and it should be corruption free. My concept of “change” means that we - as a nation - will respect every last letter in the Constitution and if that means that the majority of America rules over the minority, then that’s what it means (it’s what it’s supposed to mean!).

There’s so much more that “change” means to me, but this is exactly my point. Any Presidential candidate who embodies change (and Obama embodies it the most right now) will need to have a clearly defined agenda during the second half of this Presidential campaign. Saying “change” will win primaries today and it may win an election tomorrow, but when the American people do NOT see things changing around them, then things can start to get very, very ugly.

What does change mean to you? I’d be interested to know.