in8snotesThis portion of my site is powered by Blosxom. Blosxom is a perl script whose functionality here is extended through several plugin scripts in order to dynamically assemble a multitude of separate plain text files stored in a directory tree on the server into a cohesive, dated and RSS enabled weblog. Now in daily (r)sync with the directories on Nate's Powerbook.
blosxom |
Return to in8sworld.net If this next election will be all about the economy, I thought it was time I read something about it. Economics was not a required class when I went to school (though I hear it is today), so I had a lot of catching up to do. Unfortunately, the subject is so dull that I couldn't stay awake long enough to learn very much. I did notice that I am not alone, however, it seems the majority of Americans are fairly ignorant of some of the basics too. So much so, in fact that Bush and friends have been able to repeat the mantra of supply-side economics (aka "trickle-down economics", "reaganomics", and Voodoo economics) as the answer to all our fiscal woes, and not be laughed off the political stage. When I was younger, I remember the same promises being made by Reagan and his cronies, only to find that it didn't work! The huge deficits of the Reagan era were then explained as a "tactic" that Reagan used to bankrupt the Ruskies. Oh that wily Gipper! And guess what? All those giveaways to business under Reagan put us into a recession back then too! To argue that tax breaks for business will stimulate the economy is a blatant lie. When George W. Bush claimed on January 3, 2007 that "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues." [28] Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004 responded to the claim: You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.[29] I started getting more interested in economics a few months ago after reading some of Ron Paul's arguments to return to the gold standard. I was totally clueless on this issue as well. I didn't realize that we have been off the gold standard since 1970 and so is everybody else. Bascially if we need more money, we just print more money! This makes it incredibly easy to keep our country in Hummers and HDTVs (and foreign wars) when we really should be paying off our debts. The trouble with adopting a gold standard today is that we can't afford to do so! If Ron Paul's dream of return to the gold standard, of having real gold in Fort Knox again (or at least enough to back all the currency we printed) were actually to come true - we would find ourselves selling off those Hummers and HDTVs to actually pay our debts. According to our own GAO David Walker [AP story on Washington Post], we're living so far beyond our means that it will take something just short of a political miracle to right this ship wreck. We're basically owned by foreign nations, and we have assumed so much debt we'll probably never be able to pay it all back even at the incredibly cheap rates China is kind enough to offer us, as our huge social programs, aging population, and souring economy converge in a perfect storm for the next twenty years. So far in my after-hours investigation of economics all I've learned is that if I were to handle my personal economy like the Fed runs our nation's economy, I'd be living under a bridge.
Last saved: 01/28/2008
I've spent the last few days being very uncomfortable with what the mainstream news is considering a major topic of interest. In the run-up to the South Carolina Democratic primary, I've heard non-stop speculation regarding which way black women will vote. Reporters have gone into hair salons, and shopping centers and interviewed black women on the question; Will they vote for a black man, or a white woman and how are they dealing with this dilemma? I believe the question to be seriously insulting to black women - it presumes that they can not vote based on the candidate's position on issues, but will decide solely on race or gender. For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender? No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice. Am I the only one that find this repugnant?
Last saved: 01/26/2008
I think you are missing a very important concept if you can't recognize the importance of honor. The concept of honor is very ancient, and appears in all cultures, including the roots of our own (Info-European). In the old Irish, the word for honor was 'enech' which can be translated as 'face', and is related conceptually to 'reputation' from another Indo-European word meaning 'to hear'. If you maintain your 'face' in the eyes of the community, and have a good reputation, and people say good things about you, you have personal power and people will respect what you say, and you will have more influence over others. In the ancient cultures, a sense of honor (and dishonor) was thus defined by the community rather than chosen by an individual. The concept of honor is still operating subtly to this day, though in our incredibly self-centered and individualistic modern society, it does seem possible to live life without it. Personally, I would choose honor over dishonor any day. No, I'm saying that a man's concept of what is "right and wrong" is largely a product of what he has been taught is acceptable in whatever society he happens to have been raised in. Unless, or course he is a sociopath (and, by definition, has a psychological disorder that prevents him from learning these norms or otherwise having a disregard for them). Certainly a man's personal experiences will color his thinking, but it just happens that we were brought up in a society that values the right of the individual to choose alternate "correct behaviors" which fosters creative thinking and entrepreneurial success. But this strays a bit from my only point of disagreement with you: that a man might BELIEVE himself to be honorable, but the word (through a very long etymological history of use) IMPLIES a judgment by the society at large on the individual and has no real meaning as a personal choice.
Last saved: 12/28/2007
This might change my mind about the iPhone/iTouch, but Apple likes to announce things a long time before you ever see them to build excitement. And, more exciting things are afoot - rumors are that Google may be developing a gPhone! They have been fighting with the big phone companies and lobbying the FCC over the terms of the upcoming sale of spectrum (which will be opened as TV is shifted out of the 700MHz bands). Google has stated that they want the spectrum to be "open" such that devices that work on that spectrum, as well as the programs used to connect to it should be "open". They have said that they will only participate in a bid for the spectrum if the FCC agrees to mandate that the access to and use of the spectrum by the public by open. This is NOT what exists now where cell phones and broadband access cards only work on one provider's network and must be 'hacked' to use it on another one, sometimes destroying the device in the process. This is yet another form of the DRM which I feel stifles entrepreneurial innovation and protects the behemoth mega-corporations, while actually removing rights from the people. On a related note, lest you think me a raving anti-patent nut, I do favor short term patents and copyright to protect small investors in the market place, but what we have now is a self-perpetuating monstrosity of copyright law that protects huge corporations for lifetime+95 years for no good reason other than the protection of established businesses. Who actually OWNS the radio spectrum? Shouldn't it be the people? Doesn't the FCC manage the spectrum for OUR benefit? The FCC has agreed with Google, and we may see the birth of a new internet provider this coming January. More than just an open phone, this may mean an open wireless network!
Last saved: 10/18/2007
Posted by: in8sworld | September 02, 2007 at 08:04 PM
A look at the tables I referenced shows that since the 1700s the average American worker has been working less and less on average almost every year. We work more hours on average than many other countries it's true, but not by much, and there are a lot of countries (including Korea of all places) that work far more than us. The reports don't mention that Americans work in generally better conditions and for much more money and with better worker protections than their foreign counterparts. The average Chinese factory worker makes about $4,500 per year. The average American household income is about $46,000! So we work alot, and guess what? We're richer than everyone else - no big surprise there frankly. Most Americans need to start sucking it up, stop complaining, get off their asses and start doing their part to support the millions of retirees, unemployed, disabled and welfare-bound that are counting on us. Nobody is forcing you to work harder than those workers in the rest of the world! If you want to, you can sit on your ass in front of the TV and drink beer all day. The choice is yours, it's a free country. You are free to be a lousy, drunken do-nothing bum if you want to. Unfortunately you probably have inherited the work ethic of a bunch of crazy puritans and that just isn't an option... sucks to be you.
Last saved: 09/02/2007
Posted by: | September 02, 2007 at 05:18 AM
@Non-Prophet - the population of the US has been increasing steadily since 1960, so this graph doesn't show the effects of real demand, but instead speculation, IMO. There will need to be a correction soon, and there will be a lot of pain as people realize their investment may not pay off as handsomely in their lifetime as they thought. @Swiss Miss - America enshrined the importance and rights of the individual in it's constitution. It is what made America the seat of invention and the entrepreneurial capital of the world. We competed against countries whose hands were tied by tradition and subservience to conservative authorities, and we kicked their collective ass in these areas. We still do, in most respects. There are only two real competitors in the world for invention and engineering pre-eminence, and both have political and economic systems molded in our image (Japan and Germany). China may be a manufacturing powerhouse, but the designs are still coming out of these three countries. They are essentially cheap labor at this point, but it certainly won't stay that way for long. The number of hours worked by the average American worker has been declining every year since the founding of the country!
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us If by the older generation you mean the baby boomers, perhaps you're right that they don't understand the current generation's plight. We will not do as well as they did on average. However, if you talk to somebody who lived through the great depression, I think you'll find we're doing quite well. The problem for most families today is that they are trying to live the life of royalty, jetting here and there on several vacations a year, keeping up care and feeding on several brand new automobiles, going out to eat several times a week, paying exorbitant rates for information (something previous generations did not do) - ie: internet + cell phone + cable + subscriptions + movies, etc. If Americans learned how to live more simply and within their means, we would have a stronger economy. Basically more people live beyond their means on credit, and mortgage their future. IMO this is not a fault of the American ideal of the individual, but rather the collective result of many individual's failure to take personal responsibility. Why did the baby boomers fail to teach financial responsibility to their kids? In an economy that is always going up, there is little incentive to be cautious. This will certainly swing back the other way soon, but there will be a lot of pain first. I don't think it's really necessary to rewrite our social contracts at this time, but a mandatory personal economics course in high school might help.
Last saved: 09/02/2007
Last saved: 07/24/2007
j
Last saved: 01/20/2007
MySpace = Geocities circa 1995
I've been 'online' since before the internet was open to normal folks. Our school computers were connected to the nearby national lab in the mid 80s. I used to dial into many a BBS in the early 90s. I remember using the first web browser, Mosaic in 1993. Then Al Gore said that everybody else should be allowed to use the internet too and it started to suck. AOL 3.0 came out the following year and people surged online. There were tons of small start-ups (usually old BBS providers) offering cheap, no frills connections to the internet too. Lots of kids started learning HTML and creating their own web pages. Geocities (the old Geopages) started offering free web space to build 'online communities'. While it was possible that a geocities site wouldn't suck, it was really rare that one wouldn't. The typical Geocities page was a mess of big slow-loading background graphics with impossible to read text of some color with no contrast to the background over it. Then came the flashing animated gifs and pop-ups and . Most decent sites were still on University or government servers. What was decent? Sites with content, information, links to other useful pages. What was indecent? High School kids putting their personal diary online to share rude comments about their social studies teacher, or a bit later when snippets of code began to circulate, a lame 'guestbook' where visitors could 'sign in' and leave a terse comment ostensibly for the person visited, but really more as an enticement to others to view their own page (early viral marketing).
Last saved: 12/06/2006
In one narrow sense, I agree with Rummy. The rise of fundamentalist Islam is a danger to the world, but so is the rise of fundamentalist Christianity. Unfortunately, the wing-nut Christians already have nuclear bombs and most of the money. There are secular folks in the Middle East who feel that the US has destabilized their countries by allowing militant Shi'ites to become predominant, and these Shi'ites are increasingly imposing their Shi'a law on regular folks forcing them to conform to their religious restrictions when in public. There are secularists in this country too who feel the ever tightening grip of the Chrisitian fundamentalist 'army' who feel morally superior and have a right to impose their brand of morality on the rest of us. The trouble is, the administration's policies have helped strengthen fundamentalism in the Middle East, not weaken it. Unlike in our own Civil War when Lincoln fired general after general until he found one that could work to good effect against the 'enemy', Bush has retained his repeatedly failing staff against all reason and so, our failing strategy has continued unabated. Rummie needs to be fired now, and we need a new strategy in the Middle East that favors secularism, not divisive religious factionalism.
Last saved: 08/30/2006
Posted on John's Blog about Nigger Toes (Brazil Nuts)
Welcome back Barry! It's clear you have experienced racism in your life which has colored (no pun intended ;) your opinions on white folks and their motivations. Experiencing racism is sort of like being mentally raped. You can't just forget it happened and yet some people expect the victim to act like it never did. Although your assumptions are not correct (at least in my case), I understand why you feel the way you do. After all, when I was a little kid there were still signs that said 'Colored' and 'Whites Only' hanging in store windows in the south. There have been great social strides made since that time, but the 'class' divisions are still very evident. I think it's important to recognize that although we all may have been created equal, many sectors of our society still do not treat everyone that way. An objective discussion about hateful and racist words may not be possible because it will always seem like a denial to the victims of racism. Posted by: Nate | August 09, 2006 at 05:46 PM
Last saved: 08/09/2006
Great Christian thought through time:
1. The Sun goes around the Earth.
Last saved: 04/14/2006
Let's talk about the real crime: the policies of this administration have saddled the US with huge additional debt, and given massive tax breaks for the wealthy that will complicate the looming crisis of our aging population. In 2008, the first wave of baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) will qualify for benefits. The benefits they qualify for will be the most generous offered in our history, and those receiving them will have paid the least into the system. A USA Today story in 2004 projected that the US needs over $53 trillion dollars immediately in the bank and earning interest in order to pay off the debts (about $9 trillion dollars) and the projected benefit payouts for Medicare, Social Security and government pensions after 2008. Trouble is, the US only takes in about $3 trillion dollars in taxes each year, and the governement didn't save the money that was supposed to be 'in the bank' for social security. (To be fair, the problem of not funding social security goes back at least to the Nixon administration).
Last saved: 04/08/2006
To think that the teachings of the bible can somehow be used as a basis for law in society is misguided at best. The teachings of the bible are simply not consistent enough to serve a society very well in that regard. It's difficult to look beyond the obvious contradictions (here's a good 'un: ""The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20, "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5), but worse than that - if you choose to use the bible as a system of laws and live by the ten commandments, then you must also be prepared to accept other legal pronouncements in the bible including stoning sinners to death, cutting off the hands of thieves, raiding neighboring countries to capture and sell their people into slavery, the making of constant offerings of slaughtered animals (and hopefully not your own children) because the smell is pleasing to the lord, etc. Something as basic as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is certainly not a lesson the bible teaches consistently, as death is an appropriate payment for a litany of sins. The laws humans live by are a social compact, devised to allow men to live and work together and keep the inevitable groupings of men (called factions, or political parties), in check through a legal balance of powers. Social compacts like this exist now and have existed throughout history all over the world. The fact that they all share some basic tenants, some of which are very much like those laid out in the ten commandments in no way proves that Christianity or Judaism are required for them to exist. It is evident that human social compacts will, of necessity share some common rules. Societies whose mere existence depend upon cooperation and shared resources cannot very well permit it's citizens to kill each other (without a justifiable reason), or to steal from each other. It seems clear to me that the only connection that Christianity or any religion has to law is that they usually have hi-jacked the basic social compacts early humans probably made. I believe it is the natural state of man to cooperate, since humans that exist must have been cared for by people who have cooperated to keep it alive, this is a learned behavior. So, in order for a small faction to gain and hold power over a generally good body of cooperating people, there are two obvious mechanisms - force and chicanery. We've seen 'great' leaders like Ghengis Khan who used force to gain their ends. It is not as easy to recognize the slow, tireless efforts over millennia of the charlatan class imposing their systematic social engineering in the massive Christian edifices, built with stolen gold, sales of indulgences, and state-required tithes. The trick, or course, is to convince the population that your class alone can speak the laws that come from 'above'. To convince the others who do the actual work, that your class is to be feared and revered. That you hold the keys to salvation and the power of eternal damnation. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."
Last saved: 01/19/2006
Post subject: LIPA Offshore wind farm
from Long Island Press dot com Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:46 pm
I can understand why commercial fishers are troubled by the potential presence of offshore wind turbines where they regularly scrape the bottom for product to sell. Michael Kujawa
Last saved: 12/12/2005
Anecdote, European disunion, US immigration
Just an anecdote of little (if any) value: My barber (and all of his many brothers who are in and out of the shop as needed) are originally from Turkey. They are all (quietly) muslim, but foremost they want to work, and don't strike me as very religious. (Which, I agree, seems to be the key). They moved to Germany for jobs about 10 years ago and lived there for some time. Their experience there was good - according to them 'Germany takes care of you and doesn't let you fall through the cracks'. They almost universally praised Germany and were grateful to that country for their time there. Ultimately they left for the states because of supposedly better job prospects, but have since found that it isn't very different with one exception: there's more intolerance here! Yes, believe it or not, they consider Germany to be more of a melting pot than the US! I guess my only point here is this: I don't think one can claim that the integration problems France is experiencing necessarily indicates future similar problems in any other member state of the European Union. France's post-colonial policies (post Battle of Algiers, etc.) have been to ignore the problem. West Germany's current governmental structure was largely molded by the US and Great Britain after WWII. The countries of Europe are not yet a coherent whole even though they are in a 'union'. These are former enemies who speak different languages and in some cases have somewhat different value systems (or at least morays). Personally, I think that the immigration pressures will bring these countries closer together more quickly! And while we're busy throwing stones at France's immigration policies, perhaps someone should mention the nigh' on a thousand South Americans who stand on street corners down the road from my house every morning to be picked up by landscapers, et. al. who do not pay any taxes on their behalf (as they are required to do by law), and then drop them off at night to sleep with 60 others, crammed into a 2 bedroom house with an overflowing cesspool. The US is happily creating it's own underclass - a new slave class, if you will, and GW and the Mexican president are totally complicit. More on France's post-colonial woes
Last saved: 11/16/2005
(for NonProphet) Intense, man. I think the most underappreciated thing about the Lakota (an Indian tribe from the Dakotas) is that we carved massive effigies of the same white leaders who did the most to futher the genocide of the Indian peoples into the Lakota's most holy ground, the Black Hills. Originally the land where Mount Rushmore is carved was supposed to be 'off limits' to whites, but a trespasser discovered gold there, causing a gold rush to that region. The military was sent in to 'remove' the Lakotas so decent white folks could attempt to get rich more safely on their land. Nobody talks about this ugly fact anymore, but the next time folks are getting high and mighty about human rights abuses someplace, don't forget that genocide built this nation into what it is today and history is written by the winners.
Last saved: 10/10/2005
Copyright Law
This came up today at work, and I decided to delve back into the internet and do a little more research. It's apparent to me after reading Richard Stallman's 'Misinterpreting Copyright that the book publishers, movie industry publishers, and music industry publishers have hi-jacked the Constitution. (I consulted several other sources listed below as well). There was a big debate about copyright and patent as the founding fathers drafted the Constitution. Jefferson and Franklin (my personal heros) were against including any kind of copyright verbage, while Hamilton and Madison felt that some protections for writers and inventors was needed to stimulate these industries in the new America. A compromise was struck, the 'copyright bargain', which in essense, traded away some of the public's freedoms for a potential benefit that could be realized by rewarding invention and creation. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 (the "Intellectual Property Clause" also called the Patent and/or Copyright Clause) of the United States Constitution states, [Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. It is important to recognize that the Constitution permits this power, it doesn't require it. The original copyright law of 1790 only 'an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years'. It didn't cover music or any other forms of media. The Patent Act of 1790 (H.R. 41, introduced February 16, 1790, passed March 10, 1790) was crafted in part by Thomas Jefferson. As a result, it incorporated many of his beliefs including requirements for patents to have models submitted with all applications. Jefferson believed that ideas should not be patentable, rather patents should be issued only for physical inventions that have been reduced to practice. Understanding the original intent and concerns of the authors of the original Patent and Copyright Acts leads me to believe that Stallman is right. The framers realized that this was the kind of bargain that could only be justified as it would benefit the general public by providing new practical inventions and investigations in science that would not otherwise have a chance to flourish. However, over time the Publishers and Firms (to whom the majority of authors and inventors have turned over their rights) have gained extensions and considerations far beyond that which truly benefits the public. They have lobbied and convinced Congress many times that their business will be harmed if these protections are not extended further, and they seem to have been winning (at the expense of the freedoms of the general public) for 200 years. In my opinion, Americans should call for a roll-back on the length of copyrights and patents to a length of time more reasonable for the particular product cycle involved. This would not go over well with the big Publishers who would invariably hold the up the 'little guy' who will be harmed by such a measure, and then go back to paying that person their pittance of a royalty and holding a firm grip on the rights to millions of books (now out of print) that still fall under the 70+ year protection.
What other freedoms are currently in jeopardy?
Last saved: 10/04/2005
Response to post on 'Don't Whine to me about gas prices'
If you are trying to make the point that 'Joe Public' doesn't drive a 'behemoth SUV or otherwise', but rather Mr. Public drives an undersized 4 banger from 1985 then you haven't met the Mr. Public to which my original post was addressed. The original post was made after I personally heard some whining from owners of the vehicles described and was addressed to those folks specifically, and to people like them, who in my opinion are quite a large part of the general American public. The POINT of the story was not who was or wasn't whining, but rather putting the price of GAS in perspective for this specific group of people. They already paid buttloads for the vehicle, the price of gas is insignificant even at $5/gal. Perhaps the term 'luxury vehicle' is at issue here? My definition of luxury vehicle was one that costs as much as a house (well, a mobile home), is too big to fit in my garage (or is as tall as a mobile home), or guzzles gas and pollutes as much as a Mack truck. Yes, its a pretty subjective definition - basically, it's anything I decide it to be. At Edmunds.com, the 2005 Chevrolet Suburban has an MSRP Price Range: $39,615 - $48,795. This is not too much different from the 2005 Ford Excursion, MSRP Price Range: $38,885 - $52,420 and only a bit less than the 2006 Lincoln Navigator MSRP Price Range: $50,145 - $56,105. These are a few of the most popular 'cars?' sold (until recently anyway) in America. They all qualify for my definition of luxury vehicle for one reason or another - mostly because of the irresponsible waste they perpetuate. I won't even discuss the F250 et al. which are exempt from the rule requiring the posting of fuel economy figures on the window, which we know is a farce anyway, but at least gives you some basis for comparison. Funny thing about these behemoths - they are so expensive that most of the owners don't own them. They lease the things, or whatever they're calling leasing these days. According to R. L. Polk & Co., 57 percent of new-car registrations in Texas last year were pickups and SUVs, 10 percentage points higher than in the nation overall. The huge Chevy Suburban SUV had been considered by many residents to be the "National Car of Texas" years before sales took off in other parts of the country. --This is actually from an article about how the sales of big SUVs are (finally) falling dated May, 2005. The point is, the vehicles in question are owned by 'Joe Public', not some small rich segment of society. Identifying these vehicles in registration data isn't easy. In some reports these spcific vehicles are lumped in with 'cars' classed as passenger vehicles, and in some reports they are with 'light trucks', and in some they're in both. I realize that there are other members of the Public family that will be adversely affected by rising gas prices, thanks for pointing it out. But the POINT, in plain english was "Hey shmuck, you already paid $55K for a massive tank which has a horrible repair history and for which everything costs much more money, wake up." Gas, even at $5 a gallon is a relatively small portion of the overall purchase of a vehicle. If a small increase in gas price puts you in a bad financial situation, maybe you really couldn't afford that big POS after all.
Last saved: 09/10/2005
(in response to an email from Mike M, July 2002) I won't take the bait, Mike: being called a fascist doesn't phase me anymore since Ned has called me that and worse = (he used to call me the "lawyer!") A guy at work drew an analogy to the Civil War, where the black folks were leaving in droves to the North and working as cheap labor for Northerners. They eventually went to war with the North over the economics of the situation (most Americans assume the war was about the human rights issues of slavery, when it was really about the economics of a cheap labor force). The South lost because they weren't willing to change the way they played the game. The same guy suggested that the best way to get the Commies out of China is to allow the people to make some cash and raise their standard of living a bit. Let them see the light at the end of the tunnel. These are interesting points, and being a capitalist I have to agree that they have merit. However: Working for a manufacturer I am a bit biased, and I think we have allowed the bog corporations to give away too much for profit, and Americans should realize that we need to start paying attention to what we still DO make here and support those builders that make GOOD products. (I am NOT syaing buy ANYTHING made here, that WOULD make me a fascist I suppose). I drive a Toyota because I couldn't find an American car that wasn't a gas guzzling POS. (Just my opinion) Besides, my Toyota WAS made in Kentucky, and the Japanese have a constitution written by the USA.
I fear that the US will end up in a precarious position should a war break out down the road: The only reason we won WWII was that we were able to convert our vast array I think that the strength of our manufacturing sector is an indicator of the strength of our national security and right now, I'm pretty damn worried. We have let the major corporations decide to divest all of what makes us strong as a nation so that a very few "robber barons" can play millionare on the Riviera.
Last saved: 08/14/2005
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||