I've returned after a little hiatus. Posting hasn't been much of an option the last couple weeks between a little car crash then a work trip to DC with my wife in tow.
Work during the day for me while she enjoyed the tourist fun...at least as much as possible in DC's serving of the East Coast Deep Freeze. But, we did get a West Wing Tour one evening; always a real bummer.
Now that I'm back, I'm curious what issues readers would like to hear about. Getting a dose of '08 smack to feed that nasty habit is of course interesting, as have been recent iterations in the global warming debate. Meanwhile, recent twists at the national and state level indicate healthcare is going to get some serious attention both in legislative circles and on the campaign trail. And of course there is the Viaduct morass.
I ask in part because there aren't many stories that truly grab me right now outside the insanely early '08 frenzy and waiting to see which local politician loses the game of musical albatross with replacing the Viaduct, thus bearing said winged weight in the years to come.
So, what interests you? I'd welcome reader suggestions in the comments for topics of interest.
Also, I'd personally welcome anyone looking to sell a used Honda Accord or CR-V, or a Toyota Camry or RAV4 at a good price since I need to replace one family vehicle. Contact me at ericearling at gmail dot com. Of course, be forewarned if you sell me a lemon I will publicly shame you. Mercilessly.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 09, 2007 07:16 PM | Email ThisWhat job has you going to DC if it isn't political.
As for 2008 it is sad and scary. There doesn't seem to be even one Republican candidate that conservatives would support. I fear it will be worst than 2006.
That's the reality of it. Everyone on this board said that 2006 was going to be a great year and that McGavick would win. Well, he didn't.
Please tell your insider friends that if something doesn't change real soon, 2008 will be an even worst disaster.
Posted by: Sue on February 9, 2007 07:16 PMDo Republicans think fear alone will be able to carry the conservatives along in 2008? Didn't 2006 show that isn't the case.
Posted by: sue on February 9, 2007 07:19 PMStefan and I delete his comments whenever he appears but I'll leave these two up as proof he hasn't been involuntarily committed...yet.
Obi-Wan - I was being sarcastic. It's very cool, though rather surreal. "Here's the Cabinet Room, and here we have the Oval Office..."
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 9, 2007 07:42 PM
No, thank goodness. Though my wife did literally bump into Joaquin Phoenix during her Capitol Tour with the tourist masses. Weird stuff.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 9, 2007 08:45 PMI'm a Romney fan, outlined in a long post here. I think the Mormon issue is overblown, and hurts him more with liberals who have issues with religion than with conservatives. Romney will take some heat for past statements more moderate than his current views, but if the endorsements he's lined up from notable conservatives and evangelicals are any indication he should be able to overcome such changes. Moreover, I think people can understand someone thinking they're a moderate, then being exposed to a den of liberalism like what he experienced trying to govern in Boston. That would convince many souls of the virtue of moving to the right.
All that being said, Romney is easily behind Giuliani (who I can live with) and McCain (who I can't). No matter what happens in the race it will be fun to watch.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 9, 2007 08:57 PMA Google search yielded this interesting blog:
http://libraryjuicepress.com/blog/?p=96
It seems that it is now illegal to make any talk that could support the gambling industry. So much for "free speech," where was the media on this one? I wonder who "paid" for this legislation. Are the Indian casinos bound by this law?
A related side note it would be interesting to learn who funded the successful anti-smoking campaign. Additionally, where did the current governor get the money to buy her office. I think I know the answer, I think the money trail would be interesting.
Posted by: Bob on February 9, 2007 09:25 PMAlso, what about the imprisoned border patrol agents for shooting at illegal alien drug smuggler, the granting immunity of drug smuggler to testify against them, and the scandal with the Department of Homeland Security lying about the drug smuggler to get these men covincted, the subsequent beating of one of them by illegal aliens in prison. Did you encounter any of the storm brewing over this while you were in D.C., Eric?
Posted by: Michelle on February 9, 2007 10:35 PMIn fact CA Congressman Duncan Hunter recently introduced a ''Congressional Pardon for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean''. It's never been tried before in Congress, but it might pass muster. Call / write / email your MOC and ask them to sign on (I did, and got a very nice 2-page letter back (that was NOT just an auto-reply) ).
Besides the outrageous injustice of Ramos and Compean being sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison (the administrative rules they violated should AT MOST have resulted in a 1-week suspension from their jobs), this matters for a lot of other reasons. Just one:
Recent press reports say that ''Over a third of the 172,000 inmates in the California's prison system were captured while in the country illegally. In Los Angeles, 80 percent of the prisoners in L.A. County Jail are gangsters, a third of whom were arrested while in the country illegally.''
Think how many BILLIONS of dollars we could save just in crime and incarceration costs if we had effective control of our borders. Note I said ''effective'': Stopping 100 percent of the illegal border-crossers is not practically possible, but we don't need to make any attempt to do that; not even close:
IIRC last year there were about 3,000,000 attempts to illegally cross our southern border. 2,000,000+ of those attempts were successful. IOW unless you are REALLY unlucky, if our're willing to try even a few times you are almost sure to make it.
It is amazing how the ''open border'' advocates who claim we can't and shouldn't stop illegal immigration do not get more effectively challenged:
For a few billion dollars we could build a double or triple fence along our southern border and instrument it and man it. With a fairly serious effort that included some of the other things that need to be done, I'll bet we could stop 90 percent of the illegals. With a REALLY serious effort we could stop 95+ percent, maybe 97-98 percent. That would stop the overwhelming majority from even TRYING to cross illegally.
Then with border control established, we could look at setting up and maintaining an effective guest-worker program under controlled conditions.
For example: An acquaintence of mine in Okanogan County who helps runs one of the larger fruit-processing businesses had a really good, simple idea:
Every guest worker has to have a reasonably secure ID with a barcode on it to get in (and with a SEPARATE COPY of the barcode). Then you barcode their entry, and barcode their arrival at their work location. Guest worker leaves verified copy of ID barcode with employer when they get to the job. The the employer barcodes their departure; from the ID if they are still there to check out; or from the COPY of the barcode if they just don't show up one day.
Then barcode them again when they go back south.
Is the above barcode scheme foolproof ??
Of course not.
But it would be a HUGE improvement over what we have now, which is total chaos and massive costs for crime and incarceration.
But of course y'all can hear the ACLU and their ilk screaming about how things like the above barcode tracking system would violate guest worker Constitutional and privacy rights.
Well, guess what people:
People who ask to enter our country that are not citizens do NOT automatically gain all the rights and benefits of citizenship (at least they shouldn't, even though the lefties want them to). We should and do treat guests with respect, but they do NOT automatically get their names on the ''deed'' just because they paid us a visit.
How much money do they collect in dues? How much do they spend on politics? How much does it really cost to lobby?
For example, if we have about 60,000 teachers and they pay, say $700 a year to the union, that's $42 million per year that is collected. Where does that money go?
What, unions are private and I have no right to know? Well if by law, you MUST belong to a union (or pay fees to a union) in order to hold a governmental job, then I believe the public does have a right to know what that money is doing in the operation of our government.
With the passage of that law last year and the proposed laws this year, we can see some of the effect of the union money in our government.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 10, 2007 09:36 AMEric,
In 8 above you said:
''All that being said, Romney is easily behind Giuliani (who I can live with) and McCain (who I can't).''
As you can probably infer from my prior post, I have serious differences with Sen. McCain on immigration policy (at least as I understand his position), some of the campaign finance stuff he did with Feingold (who I can't stand), and perhaps other things. But McCain is a genuine war hero who served his country with distinction, and has been one of the VERY few who have truly and consistently tried to resist out-of-control pork-barrel spending. Therefore:
ON BALANCE I believe the country would be safe in McCain's hands.
Anyway: Eric, maybe if I searched all the archives I could in your many detailed posts find the answer, but time is short so I'll just ask:
I hope you would and will join me and many others in agreeing that ANY of McCain, Guiliani, Romney, or Gingrich (absent bolt of lightning one of those 4 will I believe be the (R) nominee) would be HUGELY better than ANY of (D) frontrunners.
Also, if you are willing to go a short extra mile:
Can you quickly summarize again why you ''can't live'' with McCain ??
I'll do the same by stating a leading reason why I am NOT a Guiliani fan (even though if he is the nominee I will support him, contribute to him, and urge everyone to join me in voting for him):
He is a strong advocate of ''gun control'' (which has never been a good phrase for taking away our 2nd Amendment rights'').
My SUMMARY: *ANY* of the current crop of credible (R) candidates would be hugely better than ANY of Hillary - Obama - Edwards - et. al.
SIDEBAR: Of all the above and other (D)s, Obama actually says and has said the most reasonable things in public, IMO. The problem is that his overall voting RECORD both as a State and US Senator is about as liberal as they come.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 10, 2007 09:53 AMOn the whole though I'll stipulate to your analysis above, including Obama.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 10, 2007 10:50 AMEric,
I share your concerns; if (R)s again nominate 2 more old WASPs for Pres and VP; especially if the (D) ticket ends up (best odds, me thinks) being Clinton - Obama. Then regardless of who (R)s pick for Pres, I still hope that candidate will try and succeed in convincing Condi Rice to accept VP. I know she has been adament (and I believe her) that she will not run 4 Pres, but have some hope that she hasn't totally done the Sherman-thing on VP. And even though her ''star'' may have faded a bit in the view of some people, the combined experience, perspective, and policies of a ''McCain/Guiliani/Romney/Gingrish - Rice'' ticket would IMO compare favorably with Clinton - Obama in many ways.
In the real-world demographics of a national 2008 race, I AM sure that if (R)s nominate 2 very conservative (R)s like (just for 1 example combination) Sen. Sam Brownback 4 Pres and Rep. Duncan Hunter 4 VP, and they run against Clinton - Obama, the chances (R)s will win are close enough to zero that the difference doesn't matter: I KNOW how that's going to end. The (R) base will feel great, but Independents will go for Clinton - Obama in massive numbers and that's the ball game.
SIDEBAR: I really like some of the things Reps Tancredo and Hunter have said and worked on, but they have little chance of getting the nomination, let alone beat Hillary-Obama....
hmmm....: A new ''daily acronym'' for down the road:
Hillama (sorry; time to go do some real work).
Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us
Not all government employees are reqired to be members of a union (Thank God!). For example, the State Auditor's Office is NOT a union shop. Not even an option (again, Thank God!).
Possible topics: How about more coverage of audit reports coming out of the State Auditors Office? I saw a 100+ page FINDING for DSHS come out two weeks ago. That is unheard of...but it looks like great work..
Posted by: Michael H on February 10, 2007 11:50 PM