Obama and Gore

President elect Obama is set to meet with former vice-president and environmental advocate Al Gore leading to speculation that Gore may be receiving a position in the new administration. While democratic officials and spokesmen for Gore say Obama is not looking to give Gore a position, and Gore has no interest in a position, the highlighted meeting in Chicago is an interesting situation. Liberals in the wing have been critical of Obama's cabinet selections which include no liberals, a secretary of state who voted for use of force in the Iraq war, and Robert Gates, defenses secretary of the Bush administration being kept on by Obama. In addition, Obama's liberal supporters have raised questions and voiced concerns regarding the President-elects reversal on the immediate repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, opting to letting them expire at the end 2010 and shift of position from immediate withdrawal from Iraq on his first day in office to a more gradual withdrawal. Gore has made millions and became extremely popular since his Vice-President days and would provide a political celebrity within the administration. Perhaps too big of a shadow for Obama to stomach. The a hilarious, yet interesting note being a statement made by a "close friend" of Gore's said that he "would not burn that much carbon to fly to Chicago just to talk."

link to entourage message board

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387199/board

The Swiss and Heroin

Switzerland has voted into law a comprehensive program which legalizes the use of heroin for its addicts. The program which started in 1994 to curb the number of addicts shooting up in public locations such as parks has become a permanent fixture in Swiss society. Proponents of the program argue that the measure has reduced crime while providing a better life for addicts. The goal behind the program is to make the addicts functional members of society. Oddly, these are the same Swiss voters who simultaneously voted against the decriminalization of marijuana. 68% of the Swiss voters approved the legalization of heroin while 62% voted against decriminalization of marijuana (whats the deal with the Swiss). The 1,300 addicts on the program go to centers in which they receive an injection two times a day of government manufactured heroin with clean needles and safe equipment. Sabina Geissbuehler-Strupler a member of the right wind republican party in Switzerland reported that 95% of the addicts on the program where unable to recover. Consequently, it appears that the Swiss are giving up on the problem of drug abuse by facilitating heroin injections in a controlled atmoshere at a cost of $22 million a year. Personally, if I where a Swiss citizen I would be enraged at having to pay for junkies to get their fix. In short Switzerland is facilitating a killer drug that ruins lives, while users of marijuana (a plant which has recorded no deaths in its long history) are sent to jail. This "progressive" measure to me seem counter-productive. If however, the governement legalized heroin to lower the purchasing cost which in turn would reduce criminal activity surrounding the drug, I would not raise such strong objections, however a government directly facilitated drug abuse is unpalatable. Give addicts clean needles (preventing costly AIDS infections) and information regarding the adverse affects of heroin, do not give addicts their fix.

Role of Government

I have become confused recently regrading the role of the United States government. I don't recall our governments role being to bale out failed corporations left and right, throwing money around in all directions with no concrete direction to this madness. It appears to me that the worsening financial crisis has politicians desperately scrambling to solve the problem by handing out money, were a more long term/ sustainable solution is desperately needed. Its like the analogy of band-aid for a bullet wound. Where do you begin to draw the line? Can any company come on there hands and knees expect to be saved. Are we going to borrow more money from China, increase deficits so that the government can rescue every company? Saving a company from going bankrupt does NOTHING to stabilize the long term issues that created the problem in the first place. What is going on here. It's unfathomable to me that our representatives are giving money to companies that are going under when market forces are driving the bankruptcy and the population says nothing. Why does that call for government intervention, why is the government playing a huge role in the PRIVATE markets? Private meaning no government! Where, I wounder is the FREE market principles of Adam Smith? And why do I feel like nobody else comprehends the macro-economics at play? For example the auto industry particularly G.M is facing bankruptcy and asking for $25 Billion in assistance to say afloat. Now that $25 Billion would keep the company running for 6 months or so, then what are you doing to do, give them more money? Can I get some logic! Maybe the reason G.M is loosing so much money is because they offer a inferior product and are technologically lacking. Why do I have to pay for G.M lack of a sustainable business model, while there executives make millions? Sure it looks good to the uneducated citizen, "oh the government is trying to help." No, that type of spending dose not help AT ALL. Why people don't understand basic economic principles I cannot begin to comprehend. Where are the good old days of personal accountability? Socialism here we come.

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodi,_Wisconsin

I'm from Lodi,WI so I thought that I would add to the wiki page on Lodi. I added the History of Lodi, and the Ice Age Trail portions.

Early Voting

So far, more than 24.4 million voters have cast their vote for Obama or McCain in 26 states allowing early voting. The unexpected large number of early voters may prompt congress to extend early voting across the country. The new mandate, if enacted would eliminate the need to provide justification for voting early and why you cannot vote on election day. Allowing early voting would make for a smother election day. Fewer people would have to wait in line and it would lessen the chaos for volunteers at the polls. I believe it will also increase the number of votes casted in elections, definitely needed with the traditionally embarrassingly low voter turnout. Anything increase voter turnout would be a welcome change for my standpoint. Critics contend that early voting would create two campaigns reflecting socio-economic standing. One for loyal voters, those likely to vote early in higher socio-economic classes and another for less partisan voters of a lower socio-economic class. Other possible down falls to early voting would be the emergence of new information after casting your early vote, which might change the course of the election. Although both are reasonable concerns, I feel as a participatory democracy, any mandate to increase participation in elections would constitute a step forward. The increased popularity from 2000 with 16% of votes casted early, to 2004 with 22% casted early, and an anticipated 33% of voters casting there ballets before the November 4th election this years reflect an important trend. Lazy Americans would be able to participate in our democracy right from there comfortable positions on the couch.

Early Voting