For the past hundred years, the government of the United States of America has sponsored scientific research and financed massive technological undertakings which the free market would not have touched with a ten-foot pole. For example, the government made possible a transcontinental railroad that opened the Western part of the country to colonization and trade. The government built an interstate highway system that reaches every corner of the country. The government built rockets that launch artificial satellites into orbit and even sent people to walk on Earth’s only natural satellite. The government has set up a force which is referred to as “the military”. For its size (it is apparently the most formidable coherent force ever put together in the history of mankind) there are surprisingly few incidents of dissent and misuse within the organization [its misuse for political expediency can be counteracted by voting for the people most likely *not* to misuse it]. The government also built the first electronic large-scale network, which I am currently using to post this message. The government developed nuclear power plants, from which we derive 20% of our electricity.

Also, the US’s smaller administrative entities (the “States”) finance universities, which stimulate a tremendous amount of innovation in the form of educated graduates. These graduates take the knowledge they acquire from the state institutions and proceed to create small companies that in turn increase productivity within the “free” marketplace.

I am still waiting for the free market to accomplish this. Once the free market sends people to the moon, defends countries, builds highways, railroads, airports and finances risky technological undertakings, I will question the rationale for having a government that can “make it better”. In the mean time, I will go to the polls happily voting for whomever will work towards creating the next Internet, Space Shuttle or Interstate Highway System. In the USA, the “free market” should be grateful that its government is doing so much to promote trade, innovation, safety and cohesiveness. The “free market” has much to benefit, and very little to lose, from a close collaboration with the government’s elected officials and scholars.

Option1) VP that has to explain why her personal beliefs of abstinence were not followed by her own teenage daughter

Option2) President that has to explain why his pastor of 20yrs preaches hate against White people and America.

So of the two religious arguments thrown up by both sides, I am to weigh which one has more likelyhood of entering into their decisions, policies and reactions if elected, correct?

How am I to rationalize that the VP and her views on a social issue (that should be a states right to decide - Jefferson would agree) would be more “threatening” to our well being as a society and a country than that of a PRESIDENT that has sat listening to a rant against his country and a large portion of its people for the last 20yrs.

I understand the point of your comments and that I too will teach my kids about safe sex if they choose not to uphold abstinence but these are trivial issues compared to the major issues and the impacts of what a Socialist Party could do (or continue to do) to this country with control of all three branches of government.

Regardless of the social politics, given the economic times we are in now, what we need is a true Fiscal Conservative - too bad we don’t have that as a choice this year (or the last few)…

I blogged previously about the recent ruling on habeas corpus (http://iplicensing.net/2008/06/13/wwjd/) - you may want to have a read and let me know whether you’re still planning to vote for McCain!

Thanks for your .02!
Martin

Oh, and thanks for commenting on my blog. We need to link.

To your success,

Ptah

The politically correct police say that profiling doesn’t work. Common sense tells us otherwise. I remember when 80-year 20-term Congressman Dingell from Michigan was detained so long he missed a flight because his hipped beeped. (He had a pin in it dating from an injury during WWII.) While they were strip searching this obvious terrorist threat, how many people were no longer on their posts looking for real terrorist threats?

The biggest joke is cell phones. We can’t use them on a plane (thank goodness – who wants to hear, “Nothing much. Just flying to Idaho for some fishing. What’s new with Grandpa Hank?”) because they might interfere with navigation. Really? Then why don’t the terrorists bring on about 50 phones and turn them all on and call each other? But we can’t bring on more than 3 oz. of shampoo or a bottle of wine.

TSA – Thousands Standing Around. Think they are doing a good job? Vote for a democrat in November and let the government take over health care and anything else so that they can “make it better” than the free market …

This will be a hard phenomena to observe, but I suspect the US will do well since we are still the hub of all technology developments in the world. The more interesting derivative indicator will be how developing players with varying commitments to bridging digital divides fare. I actually think there is a good chance South Korea and Japan will be on the leading edge of this new development; the impact of that is going to be far reaching, everything from economics to language could be affected.

Obtaining an F-1 student visa is simply a matter of being accepted into an advanced education programme (which, frankly, constitutes a *very low* barrier of entry) and passing an interview with a government official in one of the numerous US consulates scattered around the world. I was seemingly unfortunate to study in a field in which all subsequent job applicants are required to possess a US citizenship — but otherwise finding a job if you are a Master’s graduate of a large US university isn’t particularly difficult. The reasons, based on my professional experience, are (1) a shortage of domestic talent driven by poor educational standards and atrophic financing; and (2) a shortage of foreign talent caused by excessive governmental red tape.

In the years that I have been hiring people, the vast majority of applicants have been foreign students/workers who finished their education in the United States (recall my comment about this not being a proof of competence). Moreover, my experience is that this pool of talent isn’t particularly productive and *not at all* innovative (granted, this is a generalization, but I’m not trying to be politically correct). Is it because students in foreign countries are less qualified? Every scholastic competition I have read about ranks the United States poorly compared to European and Asian countries — so what is it?

I’ll opine that the best and brightest are not coming out of graduate programmes in the United States, but are still working in the best companies in their home countries. And I’m sure that many of them do long for the opportunity to be let loose in an aggressive marketplace with the resources to make dreams come true — but this opportunity never comes.

Instead, US companies will hire the people that are available locally, use the F-1 visa for a year and then take the path of least resistance which is to apply for all the right visas and finally sponsor the employee to become a permanent citizen.

It is sad that, in their search for talent, US companies are not able to attract the best, and must settle with whoever decided to pursue a higher education in an American university — which may, or may not, be a good thing depending on what you think of “higher” education. At the same time, the home country (or Europe, which is a lot more open to foreign workers) gets to keep those that could have become the stars of the next business generation.

Sadly, I will forever associate the security warning in the PA with the Terminal B restrooms at MCO (the reverse is true, tragically). So you are right: the security warning is about as effective as an enticement to have a “merry, merry Chrismas” while having a miserable time in the mall on December 23rd. The mind ends up treating both as elevator music.

Martin