--- by Micheal
Seems everywhere you turn, someone is trying to make you feel bad about being happy at Christmas.
All the decorations, music and the lights, make you feel cheerful. You offer a cheerful "Merry Christmas" to total strangers. Some politically-correct Grinch nags that you shouldn't specify a Christian holiday. It might offend someone. (Cheerfulness offends?)
You found the perfect gift for your spouse or child and feel excited. You just know they'll love it. Some Grinch harangues you about how Christmas has gotten over-commercialized and merchandized.
You feel warm inside at the prospect of spending some quality time with your family -- who, you have to admit, you really do love after all. Some other Grinch feels the need to point out that thousands spend Christmas alone. How dare you feel disproportionate joy.
For every happy Christmas moment or thought, there's a Grinch trying to take it away. Sure, some people are happy at this time of year, a bit like second-hand smoke, they feel a sort of second-hand joy. They're happy, mostly because others around them are, but have no real idea why.
The source of the first-hand joy can be found in the third verse of the traditional Christmas carol, Joy to the World. "No more let sins and sorrows grow..." The birth of The Savior marks the beginning of mankind's escape from "the curse" of sin and sorrow. Furthermore, no Grinch can take that away. That is something to feel very joyful about.
Go ahead. Feel the joy.
12.23.2005
12.14.2005
HB 515 & Health Insurance
---By Representative Lee Quandt
HB 515 reference health insurance purchasing alliances was introduced as a two-paragraph bill to allow groups to band together to purchase insurance. The bill had a public hearing before the Commerce Committee and assigned a sub committee to look into it more in depth. This is customary on bills like this. Somewhere in the process, a 12-page amendment was used to wipe out the two paragraph original bill. Although the new “hijacked” bill had a couple of sub committee hearings the bill was not allowed a full public hearing to obtain as much information as possible before the committee voted on it. In fact, a committee member took HB515 to several business organizations for presentations before some members of the sub committee saw the pirated version and well before the full committee saw the bill.
Matt and I worked hard to get SB110 replaced with a more workable insurance bill. The selling points for the new plan are that “it will dovetail with SB125, allow groups to band together to purchase lower priced health insurance”. As did the selling points of SB110 sound good so does HB 515; like buying a new car, once you drive it off the lot the car does not quite live up to the sales pitch.
There is no other state in the Union that has gone in the direction that HB515 wants to take us. We cannot pick up the phone and call Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota or any state to ask, “What problems did you run into with this”? Secondly, at the full Commerce Committee briefing, not hearing we had a one-hour briefing from the insurance dept on this bill, I asked a simple question, “How many groups or associations are there in NH and how many might want to join this”? The next question was, to the insurance dept, “how do the insurance carriers feel about this”? The answer to both questions was they did not know nor could anyone else in the hearing answer. Why would we, as a legislature, push through another insurance re-organization before the first has taken affect? How can we accept the “dovetail” argument when we do not know what the problems might be with SB125? We do not know what problems we are going to run into with SB125; but are committed to move quickly to fix any that may arise. We are not going to let it go for 18 months to damage the small group market and small businesses as SB 110 did.
Some of the same group of brokers that supported SB110, as well as, legislators that supported SB110 is supporting HB 515. This includes the house leadership, who did not support SB125, and the governor who supports 515 and in my opinion, does not understand this bill. To us the warning signs are there and caution would be the prudent course of action. We feel that we owe it to the business groups/associations that are interested in this concept to give them the best bill we can, that is our job.
We feel that it is better to retain and study HB515 this year and bring back a “clean” bill next session for full hearings with maximum input from brokers, insurance carriers and business. When a bill circumvents the system there is usually something shady going on behind the scenes.
The way this bill was handled to date just does not pass the smell test; no matter how good the sales job sounds.
HB 515 reference health insurance purchasing alliances was introduced as a two-paragraph bill to allow groups to band together to purchase insurance. The bill had a public hearing before the Commerce Committee and assigned a sub committee to look into it more in depth. This is customary on bills like this. Somewhere in the process, a 12-page amendment was used to wipe out the two paragraph original bill. Although the new “hijacked” bill had a couple of sub committee hearings the bill was not allowed a full public hearing to obtain as much information as possible before the committee voted on it. In fact, a committee member took HB515 to several business organizations for presentations before some members of the sub committee saw the pirated version and well before the full committee saw the bill.
Matt and I worked hard to get SB110 replaced with a more workable insurance bill. The selling points for the new plan are that “it will dovetail with SB125, allow groups to band together to purchase lower priced health insurance”. As did the selling points of SB110 sound good so does HB 515; like buying a new car, once you drive it off the lot the car does not quite live up to the sales pitch.
There is no other state in the Union that has gone in the direction that HB515 wants to take us. We cannot pick up the phone and call Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota or any state to ask, “What problems did you run into with this”? Secondly, at the full Commerce Committee briefing, not hearing we had a one-hour briefing from the insurance dept on this bill, I asked a simple question, “How many groups or associations are there in NH and how many might want to join this”? The next question was, to the insurance dept, “how do the insurance carriers feel about this”? The answer to both questions was they did not know nor could anyone else in the hearing answer. Why would we, as a legislature, push through another insurance re-organization before the first has taken affect? How can we accept the “dovetail” argument when we do not know what the problems might be with SB125? We do not know what problems we are going to run into with SB125; but are committed to move quickly to fix any that may arise. We are not going to let it go for 18 months to damage the small group market and small businesses as SB 110 did.
Some of the same group of brokers that supported SB110, as well as, legislators that supported SB110 is supporting HB 515. This includes the house leadership, who did not support SB125, and the governor who supports 515 and in my opinion, does not understand this bill. To us the warning signs are there and caution would be the prudent course of action. We feel that we owe it to the business groups/associations that are interested in this concept to give them the best bill we can, that is our job.
We feel that it is better to retain and study HB515 this year and bring back a “clean” bill next session for full hearings with maximum input from brokers, insurance carriers and business. When a bill circumvents the system there is usually something shady going on behind the scenes.
The way this bill was handled to date just does not pass the smell test; no matter how good the sales job sounds.
Scott Speaks
---By David Scott
For your information regarding the attempt of the Dover City Manager to harass me. He is resentful because I forced him with a 91A right to know request reveal the extraordinary salaries he is responsible for paying Dover Municipal employees. Dover's new city manager Mike Joyal has already spent over $10,000 of Dover taxpayer money in his wild goose chase, losing a battle in Strafford County Superior Court, trying to try keep me out of office. This may be the case in other New Hampshire Communities where a strong City Manager believes he is the king of the community and is not subject to the same laws as the homeowners in his town. A few letters to the editor in newspapers around the state to highlight this extraodinary situation may help to prevent it happening in other towns. The result of 5 years of arrogant and spendthrift municipal management in Dover produced a rise in Real Estate taxes of about 50% which compares with an increase in inflation of less than 15% over the same period of time. A growing number of senior citizens fear they will be forced to sell their homes if this rate of tax increase continues. The problem is that the Dover City Manager had inverted the relationship and many of the elected Dover City councilors had the impression that they reported to the City Manager and not vica versa.
Dave Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Scott
General Certified Commercial Appraiser
Licensed in New Hampshire & Massachusetts
220 Back Road, Dover New Hampshire
December 12, 2005
Mr. William Gardner - Secretary of State of New Hampshire
107 North Main Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Dear Bill:
Following our discussion on the topic of the Dover Election Ordinance, enclosed are copies of the Current Dover Ordinance regarding political contributions and expenditures.
Enclosed are also copies of the complaint against me by former State Rep Bill McCann
and current State Rep Peter Schmidt. Neither of these gentlemen live in Ward 3.
For your information Ben King of the Charles Douglas law firm is my attorney. I have already sent a retainer to the Charles Douglas law firm to represent me to assure that I am seated and sworn in as a member of the Dover City Council on January 3 and that the voters of Ward 3 are not disenfranchised. It is unfortunate that I have to spend money to assure that the will of 58% of the voters in ward 3 is followed. My opponent Matt Mayberry was quoted in the local paper as saying he lost because I spent $143.50 more than the Dover ordinance allowed and it was not a level playing field. Had he known one could spend more than the limit established in the ordinance he may have spent more. His financial disclosure indicated that he spent about $500 less than the ordinance allows.
It is unfortunate that Dover City Manager Mike Joyal has instructed his newly hired City attorney to pursue my violation of the Dover election ordinance as his first order of business upon being hired. It is obvious that the City Manager is using the power of his office to prevent a duly elected candidate from taking his seat at the Dover City Council.
This action of the Dover City Manager is improper because his boss, the Dover City Council, has stated that no action should be taken on this issue, due to the fact that the existing Dover City Ordinance does not conform to the United States Supreme Court ruling of Buckley V Valeo of 1976.
Sincerely Yours,
David Scott
For your information regarding the attempt of the Dover City Manager to harass me. He is resentful because I forced him with a 91A right to know request reveal the extraordinary salaries he is responsible for paying Dover Municipal employees. Dover's new city manager Mike Joyal has already spent over $10,000 of Dover taxpayer money in his wild goose chase, losing a battle in Strafford County Superior Court, trying to try keep me out of office. This may be the case in other New Hampshire Communities where a strong City Manager believes he is the king of the community and is not subject to the same laws as the homeowners in his town. A few letters to the editor in newspapers around the state to highlight this extraodinary situation may help to prevent it happening in other towns. The result of 5 years of arrogant and spendthrift municipal management in Dover produced a rise in Real Estate taxes of about 50% which compares with an increase in inflation of less than 15% over the same period of time. A growing number of senior citizens fear they will be forced to sell their homes if this rate of tax increase continues. The problem is that the Dover City Manager had inverted the relationship and many of the elected Dover City councilors had the impression that they reported to the City Manager and not vica versa.
Dave Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Scott
General Certified Commercial Appraiser
Licensed in New Hampshire & Massachusetts
220 Back Road, Dover New Hampshire
December 12, 2005
Mr. William Gardner - Secretary of State of New Hampshire
107 North Main Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Dear Bill:
Following our discussion on the topic of the Dover Election Ordinance, enclosed are copies of the Current Dover Ordinance regarding political contributions and expenditures.
Enclosed are also copies of the complaint against me by former State Rep Bill McCann
and current State Rep Peter Schmidt. Neither of these gentlemen live in Ward 3.
For your information Ben King of the Charles Douglas law firm is my attorney. I have already sent a retainer to the Charles Douglas law firm to represent me to assure that I am seated and sworn in as a member of the Dover City Council on January 3 and that the voters of Ward 3 are not disenfranchised. It is unfortunate that I have to spend money to assure that the will of 58% of the voters in ward 3 is followed. My opponent Matt Mayberry was quoted in the local paper as saying he lost because I spent $143.50 more than the Dover ordinance allowed and it was not a level playing field. Had he known one could spend more than the limit established in the ordinance he may have spent more. His financial disclosure indicated that he spent about $500 less than the ordinance allows.
It is unfortunate that Dover City Manager Mike Joyal has instructed his newly hired City attorney to pursue my violation of the Dover election ordinance as his first order of business upon being hired. It is obvious that the City Manager is using the power of his office to prevent a duly elected candidate from taking his seat at the Dover City Council.
This action of the Dover City Manager is improper because his boss, the Dover City Council, has stated that no action should be taken on this issue, due to the fact that the existing Dover City Ordinance does not conform to the United States Supreme Court ruling of Buckley V Valeo of 1976.
Sincerely Yours,
David Scott
Smart Growth Questions
---By Representative Cliff Newton-Rochester
Much is said about high property taxes. As painful as it is, paying a property tax is a constant reminder of the cost of government. Some say a new income tax would ease property tax burdens. Yet no new tax has ever decreased the total tax burden. Always remember, an income tax in good times, gives government more money to spend without asking for it. Most Americans now donate 50 cents of every dollar they earn to taxes and costs incurred by government regulations. Do we really want to add to that burden?
There is the alarm being sounded on the perceived shortage of workforce housing. Smart growth policies, which grew nationwide in the 1990's, encouraged regulations designed to reduce suburban sprawl and control growth. Not surprisingly, housing costs grew as well. Its time to ask if there is a direct correlation between huge increases in housing costs and increased land use restrictions, zoning ordinances and restrictive building codes. And what role should planners play in all this? Wendell Cox said it well: "We need planners who don't aspire to socially engineering our futures. We need planners who help us reach destinations we choose and live in homes of our choosing.
Is the land for private home ownership disappearing in the name of conservation? Conservation easement brokers readily admit that they are no longer interested in swamps or land unsuitable for building homes. Their goal is to get permanent restrictions on as much prime land as possible. The only land that will have value in the future, land that could be developed and where homes of future generations would surely have been built. Think about it. Will this practice of removing property rights forever, or dead-handing, increase or decrease the cost of home ownership?
Will those trusted with finding a solution to affordable home ownership have the political courage to remove obstructions and challenge current politically correct practices?
Much is said about high property taxes. As painful as it is, paying a property tax is a constant reminder of the cost of government. Some say a new income tax would ease property tax burdens. Yet no new tax has ever decreased the total tax burden. Always remember, an income tax in good times, gives government more money to spend without asking for it. Most Americans now donate 50 cents of every dollar they earn to taxes and costs incurred by government regulations. Do we really want to add to that burden?
There is the alarm being sounded on the perceived shortage of workforce housing. Smart growth policies, which grew nationwide in the 1990's, encouraged regulations designed to reduce suburban sprawl and control growth. Not surprisingly, housing costs grew as well. Its time to ask if there is a direct correlation between huge increases in housing costs and increased land use restrictions, zoning ordinances and restrictive building codes. And what role should planners play in all this? Wendell Cox said it well: "We need planners who don't aspire to socially engineering our futures. We need planners who help us reach destinations we choose and live in homes of our choosing.
Is the land for private home ownership disappearing in the name of conservation? Conservation easement brokers readily admit that they are no longer interested in swamps or land unsuitable for building homes. Their goal is to get permanent restrictions on as much prime land as possible. The only land that will have value in the future, land that could be developed and where homes of future generations would surely have been built. Think about it. Will this practice of removing property rights forever, or dead-handing, increase or decrease the cost of home ownership?
Will those trusted with finding a solution to affordable home ownership have the political courage to remove obstructions and challenge current politically correct practices?
12.08.2005
Too much "nice" stifles Christmas
---by Micheal
Too much of a "good thing" has turned Christmas into a time of great stress instead of great joy. Our nation's founding fathers' forefathers -- the Puritans -- frowned on Christmas festivity and merrymaking. They didn't object to marking the birth of Christ so much as they objected to the pagan "saturnalia" traditions of much food, cavorting and revelry. Puritans thought the focus should be on the birth of mankind's savior, not parties.
Ultimately, the Puritans lost that battle. By the mid 1800s even respectable Christmas celebrations were very merry. There was feasting, decorations and carols, but celebrating the birth of Christ was still the focus. "Joy to the world, the Lord is come..." In our era, however, it seems like the joy of Christmas is getting shoved aside.
The culprit, I think, is that we are trying to pack too much "nice" into Christmas. Our excess didn't happen all at once. We added "nice" things one at a time. Decorating our houses was a "nice" thing, so we did that. Hosting festive parties was a "nice" thing, so held parties. Buying a gift for a loved one was "nice", so we added gifts. Family gatherings were a "nice", so we added travel to reunite our dispersed families for the holiday. Sending cards was a "nice" thing, so we started sending cards.
The trouble (perhaps more so for Americans) was that we couldn't scale anything back. We added more "nice" but never dropped anything. On top of that, we tend to push each "nice" to the max. Every nook and cranny of our houses simply had to be decked. Yards fill up with inflatable or electric effigies. We rush around to buy multiple gifts for just about everyone we know and some we don't. One woman was stressing over having to buy a gift for her boss's dog! We write out cards to everyone who is already on our gift list. We plan lavish parties. We traffic-manage and juggle schedules to get family members together. Busy busy busy.
There's so much "nice" stuff being done, that few have any time to really celebrate that "the Lord is come." It's hard to feel real joy when your cards aren't done yet, the extra bedroom isn't ready for guests, the cookies aren't baked, you can't find a gift for your boss's dog and people are expecting you to drop everything and attend their party. Aaarrrgg!
Have we forever ruined Christmas by over stuffing it with "nice"? Are we doomed to endure joyless Christmases? No, not if we're willing to scale back. I know it goes against the American grain, but it can be done. Do it to reclaim the joy.
The remedy comes in three parts. Do less. Expect less. Celebrate.
Phase One: Don't decorate every square inch. Try buying just one gift for immediate family members only. (i.e. Don't shop for your boss's dog.) Mail cards to only distant loved ones you won't see for six months or so. Don't plan a lavish party.
Phase Two: Don't expect "nice" stuff. Don't get all hurt if you don't get a card from your boss's dog. Don't feel disappointed if you get only one gift. Don't book travel. Don't feel unloved because a family member is spending Christmas elsewhere. You're not a bad person if you don't hold a party.
Phase Three: Instead, leave time to sing carols with your locally available family and/or friends. Visit a neighbor. Read the Christmas story in Luke 2. Have time to attend someone else's party. Reflect on the joy inherent in "...the Lord is come".
Maybe the Puritans weren't so far off base. Preoccupation with party can kill the real joy.
Too much of a "good thing" has turned Christmas into a time of great stress instead of great joy. Our nation's founding fathers' forefathers -- the Puritans -- frowned on Christmas festivity and merrymaking. They didn't object to marking the birth of Christ so much as they objected to the pagan "saturnalia" traditions of much food, cavorting and revelry. Puritans thought the focus should be on the birth of mankind's savior, not parties.
Ultimately, the Puritans lost that battle. By the mid 1800s even respectable Christmas celebrations were very merry. There was feasting, decorations and carols, but celebrating the birth of Christ was still the focus. "Joy to the world, the Lord is come..." In our era, however, it seems like the joy of Christmas is getting shoved aside.
The culprit, I think, is that we are trying to pack too much "nice" into Christmas. Our excess didn't happen all at once. We added "nice" things one at a time. Decorating our houses was a "nice" thing, so we did that. Hosting festive parties was a "nice" thing, so held parties. Buying a gift for a loved one was "nice", so we added gifts. Family gatherings were a "nice", so we added travel to reunite our dispersed families for the holiday. Sending cards was a "nice" thing, so we started sending cards.
The trouble (perhaps more so for Americans) was that we couldn't scale anything back. We added more "nice" but never dropped anything. On top of that, we tend to push each "nice" to the max. Every nook and cranny of our houses simply had to be decked. Yards fill up with inflatable or electric effigies. We rush around to buy multiple gifts for just about everyone we know and some we don't. One woman was stressing over having to buy a gift for her boss's dog! We write out cards to everyone who is already on our gift list. We plan lavish parties. We traffic-manage and juggle schedules to get family members together. Busy busy busy.
There's so much "nice" stuff being done, that few have any time to really celebrate that "the Lord is come." It's hard to feel real joy when your cards aren't done yet, the extra bedroom isn't ready for guests, the cookies aren't baked, you can't find a gift for your boss's dog and people are expecting you to drop everything and attend their party. Aaarrrgg!
Have we forever ruined Christmas by over stuffing it with "nice"? Are we doomed to endure joyless Christmases? No, not if we're willing to scale back. I know it goes against the American grain, but it can be done. Do it to reclaim the joy.
The remedy comes in three parts. Do less. Expect less. Celebrate.
Phase One: Don't decorate every square inch. Try buying just one gift for immediate family members only. (i.e. Don't shop for your boss's dog.) Mail cards to only distant loved ones you won't see for six months or so. Don't plan a lavish party.
Phase Two: Don't expect "nice" stuff. Don't get all hurt if you don't get a card from your boss's dog. Don't feel disappointed if you get only one gift. Don't book travel. Don't feel unloved because a family member is spending Christmas elsewhere. You're not a bad person if you don't hold a party.
Phase Three: Instead, leave time to sing carols with your locally available family and/or friends. Visit a neighbor. Read the Christmas story in Luke 2. Have time to attend someone else's party. Reflect on the joy inherent in "...the Lord is come".
Maybe the Puritans weren't so far off base. Preoccupation with party can kill the real joy.
12.02.2005
Signs of excess disposable income
---by Micheal
A surefire early sign that Christmas is coming is that every day, your mailbox is filled with stacks of mail-order catalogs. This year, the influx of catalogs seems thicker than before. Only a few of them have familiar names. Most of them look pretty much alike -- all colorful and slick, with an affected air of sophistication. What they all have in common, is that they are all trying to entice me into buying this gizmo or that bauble.
After leafing through dozens and dozens of this year's full color enticements, a couple of conclusions emerged.
Conclusion Number One: Our industrial base is far too busy building totally pointless and painfully useless products. One catalog proudly offered a life-size animatronic chimpanzee head. It would make different facial expressions and utter four different chimp calls. Only 150 bucks! Another catalog advertised a whole product line of robot dogs that would move about and do tricks. They ranged from $50 to $2,000. Obviously, the more you paid, the more tricks you'd get. Are real dogs not subservient enough?
13-in-1 multi tools. A butter dish that will heat or cool your butter to its optimal spreading temperature for a mere $60. T-shirts with some smart-alecky phrase on it, which if you'd uttered in front of your father, you'd have gotten smacked. Who in blazes "needs" this stuff? Why are factories producing this stuff? Who goes home from a hard day at the factory and proudly says, "Well, honey, I made sixty two boxes of pointless expensive junk today. Let's celebrate!"
Conclusion Number Two: Americans have far too much disposable income. At least, the catalog marketers think we do. Who do you know, that would say to you, "You know, I think I need me one of them two thousand dollar robot dogs."? Or, would say, "My life is just a living hell because my butter is too hard to spread on my toast."
I'm not turning into some closet Marxist or anything, but doesn't it strike you as just a little bit indecent that there are people out there (such as those formerly from New Orleans) who have next to nothing, but there's an army of marketers out there trying to coax us into buying a two thousand dollar robot dog, an animated chimp head, or a heated butter dish? Do we have that much, too much, money?
A surefire early sign that Christmas is coming is that every day, your mailbox is filled with stacks of mail-order catalogs. This year, the influx of catalogs seems thicker than before. Only a few of them have familiar names. Most of them look pretty much alike -- all colorful and slick, with an affected air of sophistication. What they all have in common, is that they are all trying to entice me into buying this gizmo or that bauble.
After leafing through dozens and dozens of this year's full color enticements, a couple of conclusions emerged.
Conclusion Number One: Our industrial base is far too busy building totally pointless and painfully useless products. One catalog proudly offered a life-size animatronic chimpanzee head. It would make different facial expressions and utter four different chimp calls. Only 150 bucks! Another catalog advertised a whole product line of robot dogs that would move about and do tricks. They ranged from $50 to $2,000. Obviously, the more you paid, the more tricks you'd get. Are real dogs not subservient enough?
13-in-1 multi tools. A butter dish that will heat or cool your butter to its optimal spreading temperature for a mere $60. T-shirts with some smart-alecky phrase on it, which if you'd uttered in front of your father, you'd have gotten smacked. Who in blazes "needs" this stuff? Why are factories producing this stuff? Who goes home from a hard day at the factory and proudly says, "Well, honey, I made sixty two boxes of pointless expensive junk today. Let's celebrate!"
Conclusion Number Two: Americans have far too much disposable income. At least, the catalog marketers think we do. Who do you know, that would say to you, "You know, I think I need me one of them two thousand dollar robot dogs."? Or, would say, "My life is just a living hell because my butter is too hard to spread on my toast."
I'm not turning into some closet Marxist or anything, but doesn't it strike you as just a little bit indecent that there are people out there (such as those formerly from New Orleans) who have next to nothing, but there's an army of marketers out there trying to coax us into buying a two thousand dollar robot dog, an animated chimp head, or a heated butter dish? Do we have that much, too much, money?
12.01.2005
The Balkanization of America
---by Micheal
Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, agreed to sell cheap(er) heating oil to Massachusetts. US Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass) took a high profile pose for having brokered the deal, but Venezuelan officials say the deal was already in the works before American politicians got into the limelight.
Bush folks brand the move as a ploy to try and embarrass the Bush administration. Those of a more Democrat leaning (who leap at opportunities to complain about the Bush administration) insist that Chavez is making a purely humanitarian gesture.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Outspoken statesmen have a pretty poor track record of doing things for purely altruistic motives. There's always a self-serving angle.
At first blush, the Venezuela-Massachusetts oil deal looks a positive example of "states rights" in action. Looking a bit further down the road, it looks like the beginning of the Balkanization of America.
In the world arena of nation-states, Massachusetts, New Hampshire or any of the 50 states, are pretty puny stuff. Does anyone think Chavez would care two-hoots about the oil needs of 40,000 poor folks in some backwater third world nation? It's only because of the clout of Washington (i.e. the UNITED states) that he bothered.
If foreign powers can reduce America to a collection of dependent consumer zones, they'll have succeeded in doing the opposite of what the EU has been trying to do in Europe. They'll reduce America to a patchwork of powerless provinces.
United we stand. Divided we'll fall.
Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, agreed to sell cheap(er) heating oil to Massachusetts. US Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass) took a high profile pose for having brokered the deal, but Venezuelan officials say the deal was already in the works before American politicians got into the limelight.
Bush folks brand the move as a ploy to try and embarrass the Bush administration. Those of a more Democrat leaning (who leap at opportunities to complain about the Bush administration) insist that Chavez is making a purely humanitarian gesture.
Maybe, but I doubt it. Outspoken statesmen have a pretty poor track record of doing things for purely altruistic motives. There's always a self-serving angle.
At first blush, the Venezuela-Massachusetts oil deal looks a positive example of "states rights" in action. Looking a bit further down the road, it looks like the beginning of the Balkanization of America.
In the world arena of nation-states, Massachusetts, New Hampshire or any of the 50 states, are pretty puny stuff. Does anyone think Chavez would care two-hoots about the oil needs of 40,000 poor folks in some backwater third world nation? It's only because of the clout of Washington (i.e. the UNITED states) that he bothered.
If foreign powers can reduce America to a collection of dependent consumer zones, they'll have succeeded in doing the opposite of what the EU has been trying to do in Europe. They'll reduce America to a patchwork of powerless provinces.
United we stand. Divided we'll fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)