sabbadoo32 - whereIstand.com

Governments should not subsidize property insurance coverage for natural disasters. (Insurance Industry)

author added — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:28:28 GMT

If you live outside an area designated for no coverage, yes. Otherwise no. What I mean is that if a local/state/federal authority rules that a particular area is prone to disasters, and you choose to build there, you shouldn't receive a subsidy. A natural disaster can strike anywhere. Insurance companies have no interest or desire to pay claims, as we have seen. So people need help with protecting their property. But protection shouldn't mean abuse. If you live next to the river in an area where the river consistently floods 3 of 5 years, you shouldn't get compensation to rebuild in the same place for losing your property. You need to move. If you live in a wildfire zone, and don't make improvements to make your home less prone to catch fire, you shouldn't get compensation to rebuild in the same place for losing your property. You need to move. Affected areas are well known on a local level.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should not be nationalized. (Financial Crisis - 2008)

author added — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:20:09 GMT

Depends on what you mean by "nationalized." Since this is you Glenn, I smell word trickery. Fannie and Freddie should receive loans, not bailout money. They should also be required to keep a higher fixed percentage of reserves, a big contributor to their current state.

Organic farmers should receive additional federal subsidies. (Agriculture)

author added — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:15:33 GMT

I agree. However, these should not be new dollars. Benchmarks should be set to begin allocation of subsidy dollars to organic growers. Additionally, the rules that describe "organic" should be reviewed. As they are currently written, most anything could be construed as "organic" as long as some minimal standards are reached. These standards should be changed to squeeze out farms/companies cheating.

The July 2008 issue of Italian Vogue will prompt American publications to feature more black models. (Fashion Models)

author added — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:11:59 GMT

Sure, why not? A good chunk of fashion advertising and purchases are made by black females. Why not show them wearing the clothing? Plus, by not showing black women, one can imply that they're not "supposed" to be beautiful--clearly a load of horse hooey.

The U.S. should negotiate with Iran directly. (Confronting Iran)

author added — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:45:55 GMT

Uh, we just, no the BUSH administration just agreed to open a sub-consolate level facility in Teheran. First time US staff has been on the ground in Iran since 1979. It was a world-class flip flop for Bush, but a great stride forward for peace in the region.

Affirmative action is necessary. (Affirmative Action)

author added — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:26:15 GMT

I understand your point. My take is this, as an African American male. When women and people of color can be as lazy and inept as some of the white male middle managers I've worked with and read about, then we no longer need affirmative action. Only once have I seen a white woman show a similar level of ignorance and lack of business sense. Were it a Black or hispanic person, they'd be fired or asked to leave. Supporters of AA usually seem to think that the best of the best are the ones who lose to AA. I would say that the cream rises to the top, no matter the color. But as we all know, in most organizations, it's the useless that complain the loudest. AA could help organizations get rid of the dreck. But give it 35 years, people of color will be the firm majority, and we'll have this conversation from the other side.

Bottled water is not safer than tap water. (Drinking water)

author added — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:46:20 GMT

At least 25% of bottled water is straight up tap water. 70% of bottled water isn't covered by FDA guidelines, because it's sold intra-state--leading me to think that the figure in the first sentence is abnormally low.

The Bush Administration stimulus package will not prevent a recession. (U.S. Economy)

author added — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:39:01 GMT

Too little, too late. Think about it. If the only thing keeping us from officially being in a recession is for a government office to call it one, then we're already in one. In retrospect, if the Bushies wanted to keep the economy humming along, or something closer to humming; they should have targeted the 2001 & 2002 tax cuts to households that earned $75-250K. Clearly the rich people didn't spend enough to give us even half the economy the GOP promised us. This Bush administration has given supply-siders their best opportunity since the Gilded Age to see the impact of ultra-low taxes on the rich. And we're suffering through the results. We've learned that Rich people don't need to spend at the same level as their middle-, and lower-class brethren. It's clearly irrational to think we could run a the second largest consumer economy on their personal trainer-exercised, Swedish massaged backs. Now there's talk of another stimulus package. For the Bushies, another reason to spend someone else's money is a good one. Unless it's not.

Barry Bonds should not be voted into the Hall of Fame. (National Baseball Hall of Fame)

author added — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:25:20 GMT

Absolutely not. Barry Bonds is, along with R. Kelly, Roger Clemens, Bill Clinton, Michael Vick, and George W Bush, one of the dumbest men on the planet. How can a player squander the goodwill that fans and teammates want to bestow on them? How can a man with clearly superior hand/eye coordination and skills NEED to take steroids to lenghen his career? Go to the AL, for God's sake? The man's head grew 2-3 sizes while he was in his THIRTIES! His feet grew as well. That's not a late growth spurt, that's medical technology at work. If there were a "Frankenstien" wing at Cooperstown, then make Bonds a first ballot entry. Otherwise, he's dirty and doesn't belong.

The U.S. should not allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (ANWR). (Oil Dependence)

author added — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:49:13 GMT

I believe that the problem with ANWR, as well as other offshore drilling is in how long it will take for the finished product to enter the market. Today I briefly looked at an article that said there may not be that much oil offshore anyway. The impact on short term pricing would be little to none. I also think that the market would keep pricing artificially high if it knew there'd be a sizeable amount of oil coming to market at or near a future date. The issue, to me, is whether to decrease price due to capacity increase (ANWR) or demand decrease (tree-hugger). But the solutions have already started. As the US stops using oil (gas), then reserves will climb. We've already seen that Americans drove 30 bil less miles over the past few months. Downward pressure. There was a good article on my blog on oil from genetically modified bugs. These and other technological breakthroughs offer downward pressure long term. There are a number of hybrid vehicles on the market. Once the carmakers decide to make them as sexy and fast (or able to pull huge payloads) as their piston engine brethren, you'll get more downward pressure in the short and near-term. Plus there's something about oil and dependency that my conservative friends often don't see. If we can find a way to reliably power main battle tanks and other armored and military vehicles via hybrid and fuel cell technologies, then we now have unshackled our military from a lot of logistical problems. We can "go where we wanna go" to paraphrase the Mamas and the Papas–without having to worry about where and how to position fuel tank farms and fueling stations. If you can run an Abrams on a fuel cell (you can, we just have to work on the technology), then maybe you'd need a bottle of water for 2000 mile overland journey. That's more than a tactical advantage, its a breakthrough.