test

Not speaking at the Democratic Convention, that's for sure. The Wall Street Journal has an article showing how the Democrats running the party are out of the mainstream even when compared against fellow Democrats. The article writes, Winning elections is, of course, what this week is all about, and the key question for the Democratic Party is whether its hard-core pro-choice stance is the way to keep on winning. The party is so dogmatic that it even opposes parental notification and a ban on partial-birth abortion, two issues that are favored by a majority of Americans. Seventeen Democrats voted with Republicans in 2003 to ban partial-birth abortion. According to a Zogby poll taken last month, 47% of Democrats oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. Only 20% say abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during a pregnancy. To paraphrase a button being handed out at the pro-lifers' party this week: 47% of Democrats can...

There is a good article in the Detroit Free Press discussing the problems with Detroits public education. Main points follow, The issue isn't money. The district is spending more than $13,000 per pupil this year -- a large sum even for a big district. Despite the schools' dream-crushing performance, the big question before voters in November is whether Detroit should return to an elected school board instead of the current appointed one. That is the wrong question. The Detroit's system isn't floundering because of the way school board members are chosen. It's doing so because it can. It has a monopoly on the provision of Detroit's public education. If you're fed up with your local public school, what choice do you have? Charter schools? They currently serve only an eighth of Detroit's total student population, and no matter how the school board is selected, it isn't likely to invite new competitors onto its own turf. Private schools? Not so easy if ...

The Wall Street Journal has a good article dealing with the complete disconnect between more money for education and the performance of education. Here are some interesting facts, ...whatever the problem with education, it's not caused by any unwillingness to throw more money at it. Between 1997 and 2002, state and local governments increased K-12 spending by 39%. Even after adjusting for inflation and growth in pupil enrollment, real spending was up nearly 17%. And it went up in every state, even those with strict tax and spending limits. When we cross-referenced spending increases with the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading scores, we found virtually no link between spending and performance. According to these same tests, fewer than a third of fourth-graders are proficient in reading, math, science or American history. The results are a direct refutation of the We Need More Spending chorus. Even a quick glance shows that the results are all over the map: Some s...

I have received several responses in regards to my post below dealing with Abortion. The responses common theme is that conservatives are "hypocrites" and have a "backwards view of reality" because of their anti-abortion, and at the same time pro-Capital Punishment views. How could conservatives be for life with regard to abortion, but against life with regard to the death penalty? Since they both involve life conservatives are inconsistent at best, hypocrites and illogical at worse. So their argument goes. Although to some degree both issues involve life, they are fundamentally very different. The central difference between Abortion and Capital Punishment is innocence. In one case, you are executing a convicted criminal who has committed the worse crimes of society; in the other case you are executing an innocent human being. These are two fundamentally different things. We can agree that there are times when it is acceptable to kill: in self-defense, in protectio...

I am getting this information from a fellow Hispanic's blog . Another example of how inefficient communism/socialism is when it comes to Economics. Government dumps mangoes into the river rather than let the farmers sell it . On the positive side, it looks as though more and more people are starting to speak out against Castro, and his repressive regime. Anti-government slogan on cemetery wall . But don't hold your breath for the liberal media to report this.

"Life begins at conception". So says Presidential Candidate John Kerry . Yet Kerry continues to support the most ardent pro-abortion legislation. He voted against a law that would make it a federal crime to abort a child in the second and third trimesters, the partial birth abortion ban. The ban itself is named after how the abortion is performed. He voted against the Laci Conner law, a law that would make it double murder if you kill a pregnant woman and her unborn child. He voted against parental notification in abortion. Etc. Everybody knows John Kerry is the most pro-abortion Senator in the US Senate. My point here is not to prove that. My point is to ask the question of how someone can be both? How can someone be both, one who believes life starts at conception, and be the most pro-abortion senator in the US Senate? Let's put aside that this is probably another Kerry flip flop, where he tries to be on both sides of every issue. Let's give him the benefit of the...

Linda Chavez has an interesting article detailing some of the comments Andrew Stern, the president of the largest union in the AFL-CIO, himself a huge Democrat supporter, made with regard to the Democratic party, here are some quotes I found most interesting, "We[Democrat party] can't talk about education. . . We can't discuss when it is failing our members (children) in public schools in urban areas. You know, we're the experiment. Maybe vouchers aren't the only answer, but then, what is? I'm tired of hearing if we just pay teachers more, you know life will be terrific. It's a huge problem." There are two main reasons why I believe Democrats are against Vouchers. The first reason is because the privatization of public schools would practically destroy one of the Democrats most ardent supporters. The teachers union. The second reason is because Democrats don't understand basic principles of Economics. Andrew Stern touched on the first reason wit...

The Democrat National Convention is currently going on in Boston. We've all seen the list of speakers, from Bill Clinton to Al Sharpton. But there is one person that isn't going to be a speaker at this year's Democrat Convention: Senator Zell Miller from Georgia. That wouldn't be very important if it was just any Senator, but what makes Zell Miller important is that he is himself a Democrat, and a very prominent Democrat. In fact, he was a speaker at the Democrat National Convention in New York twelve years ago in support of Bill Clinton and against George H. W. Bush. What makes a sitting Democrat Senator for the first time in his life vote Republican, and speak at the opposite party's convention(first time in history?), well, instead of me telling you, I'll let Senator Miller explain for himself .

I just finished reading through a three part series named Pilgrim's Egress, which is an unfolding of some of the events in Duke University's Political Science Professor, Michael Munger's , life. Throughout this account, Professor Munger sheds light on the liberal mindset and some of its psychological makeup. This is important coming from Professor Munger, because he is speaking from the lions den itself. It is an undeniable fact that academia, especially in the social sciences, is dominated by liberals. So Professor Munger, being a Duke University Poli Sci professor, comes from a unique perspective of being right in the heart of liberalism. I want to post some quotes that I thought were particularly telling. However, I hope this doesn't give the impression that this is all Pilgrim's Egress is about, it is not. It is a definitely worth reading and should be read in full/completely. Especially the section on his Cuba trip, and the Economic critique of that country....

The Washington Post has an article claiming Latino voters are overwhelmingly in Kerry's camp. This is really troubling and, I must admit, very hard for me to understand. Why do my fellow Hispanics overwhelmingly(2/3) support a liberal candidate over a conservative candidate? Maybe it's time for me to lay down my beliefs, and open up the floor to challenges among Hispanics. I am not going to get specific into an individual candidate, unless it relates to the overall point, but going to concentrate on giving an overall belief why I lean conservative(Republican) over liberal(Democrat). Please feel free to critique where you see necessary in the arrival of my beliefs. Economy: Capitalism is the heart and soul of the American economy. As my previous blogs have shown, capitalism is what separates a prosperous nation from an nonprosperous nation. It is precisely this economic system that makes it possible such that a person like my father who came here at age 20, with no education, ...

There's a good article in the Economist explaining exactly why, Economic freedom, argues the report, does much to foster the investment poor countries urgently need if they are to grow. James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, its authors, have found that the freest 20% of countries invest around $11,000 per worker, more than 12 times the figure for the least free 20%. The effects of economic freedom on coveted foreign direct investment (FDI) are even stronger. The freest fifth of countries attracted over $3,000 of FDI per worker, against $68 for the least free fifth. Moreover, freer countries make better use of what they have: the authors estimate that investment is 70% more productive in the most free countries than in the least free. This translates into faster GDP growth (see chart). After adjustment for differences in initial income, climate, the proportion of people near coastlines and human capital, countries with a freedom score below five saw growth of less than 0.4% a year, on ...

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting take on what the conclusion of the 9/11 commision was, So the doctrine of pre-emption has its uses, after all. In a world of conflicting intelligence, uncertain consequences and potential foreign opposition, it is still sometimes necessary for America to attack an adversary before it attacks us. We refer readers specifically to the recitation of non-action that starts on page 11 of the executive summary. Beginning in 1997, the U.S. tried diplomacy to get the Taliban to drop al Qaeda and Pakistan to drop the Taliban, but the efforts failed. We now know that only an ultimatum turned Pakistan, and only military force toppled Mullah Omar. The details, however, should not obscure the Commission's larger message about the dangers of not acting against a looming threat. After a year of recriminations against a President who chose to act against another threat, in Iraq, the report may even do some good. This is similar to what Charles Krauthammer...

Thomas Sowell continues his discussion from earlier on the grand fallacy. He defines the grand fallacy as, Too many people in the media, in academia, and even in courts of law, act as if numbers plus a preconception equals proof. The preconception is that various groups -- by race, sex, or whatever -- would be evenly represented in occupations or institutions if it were not for discrimination. His basic point is that sometimes there are much deeper reasons than the easy solution of discrimination. Reasons that we as a society may now be blind too.

Charles Krauthammer has an interesting article on the dilema Iran poses and how it differs from Iraq. Like it or not, Iran is a problem that we are going to have to deal with one way or the other.

Exactly as I predicted , Democrats blocked the other three Judicial Nominees today , U.S. Senate Democrats blocked three more of President Bush's judicial nominees Thursday, raising to 10 the number they have stopped in a battle sure to extend until at least November elections. The Constitutionality of this was brought up again, The U.S. Constitution says the Senate is to give its "advice and consent" on judicial nominees, but Republicans said the president is the one with the power to make such nominations. "We shouldn't rewrite the Constitution to allow senators, especially those of the opposite party, to nominate judges," said Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. McConnell warned Democrats about setting a precedent that "senators of the opposite party get to pick a president's circuit court nominees ... this precedent may well be used when there is a Democrat in office."

Thomas Sowell has an article on the possible cause for what some people see as sex discrimination, which is related to the Wal Mart Lawsuit, he writes, The grand fallacy of our times is that various groups would be equally represented in institutions and occupations if it were not for discrimination.

Thomas Sowell has a piece on the editorial of the Wall Street Journal completely bashing Ralph Nader as being completely out of the mainstream with regard to Economics, the article states, Some years ago, the distinguished international-trade economist Jagdish Bhagwati was visiting Cornell University, giving a lecture to graduate students during the day and debating Ralph Nader on free trade that evening. During his lecture, Prof. Bhagwati asked how many of the graduate students would be attending that evening's debate. Not one hand went up. Amazed, he asked why. The answer was that the economics students considered it to be a waste of time. The kind of silly stuff that Ralph Nader was saying had been refuted by economists ages ago. The net result was that the audience for the debate consisted of people largely illiterate in economics and they cheered for Mr. Nader. The article goes on to give basic fundamental economic principles that the public is ignorant about, and how those p...

The Wall Street Journal writes , Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that President Bush's tax cuts helped moderate the recent recession and contributed to a quick recovery, lending credibility to the administration's defense of its tax policy. Looks like them tax cuts were a good idea afterall.

Senate Democrats have, for the seventh time now, blocked another appeals court from even coming up for a full vote on the senate floor. There are three things I'd like to bring up relating to this. First, this is completely unprecedented. When Republicans were in the minority they never resorted to this type of obstruction. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in ALL of USA history have ever resorted to a filibuster for an appeals court appointee. Second, this court appointee was slated to go on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, viewed as the nation's most liberal federal appeals court. This is the only Circuit Court of Appeals in the nation that has more Democrat nominees than Republican nominees. It is the court with the highest rate of rulings being overturned. It is the same Appeals Court that ruled "Under God" in the pledge is unconstitutional, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Republicans wanted this nominee to bring some balance to that cou...

In another article , Robert J. Cihak, M.D., of the Discovery Institute and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, goes into detail about the realities of one of the most socialized healthcare system in the world, Canada's. The article writes, Comparing Canada with other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that provide universal access to health care, a study released by The Fraser Institute in May revealed that Canada spends more on its system than other nations while ranking among the lowest in several key indicators, such as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes. The study identifies one of the major reasons for this discrepancy. Unlike other countries in the study that outperformed Canada - such as Sweden, Japan, Australia, and France - Canada outlaws virtually all private health care. If the government says it provides a medical service, it's ille...

Walter Williams has a good article explaining the natural consequences that follow the "free health care" system in Canada. He writes, Health care can have a zero price to the user, but that doesn't mean it's free or has a zero cost. The problem with a good or service having a zero price is that demand is going to exceed supply. When price isn't allowed to make demand equal supply, other measures must be taken. One way to distribute the demand over a given supply is through queuing -- making people wait. Another way is to have a medical czar who decides who is eligible, under what conditions, for a particular procedure -- for example, no hip replacement or renal dialysis for people over 70 or no heart transplants for smokers. This should have been easy to predict. It has been an Economic axiom for a long time now that price controls will result in surpluses or shortages depending on which direction the price controls are made. If prices are kept from falling to...