It seems like Governor Jim Doyle is not at a loss for ways to waste the taxpayers money here in Wisconsin. The latest game is to provide taxpayer money for statewide offices such as the race for Supreme Court. This is intended to do is to keep campaign coffers low, so that the special interest groups will not be providing 28 minutes of negative campaigning for every half hour of television programming. I'm sure we all have fun memories of last year's elections, which gave us Annette Zeigler somehow after convincing most of the electorate that neither candidate would be worth a [vote].
This also illustrates on how the misuse of public funds is going to be done in Madison. By checking the box on the income tax return, this will allocate five dollars for public financing of elections. In theory, this does not raise taxes. However, this will allocate money for elections which would ordinarily be going to social programs which the tax-and-spend liberals love so much and tout them for raising the standard of living here in Wisconsin. With the money earmarked for campaigns, the social programs will again find themselves with not enough money to solve the issues for which they were created. Tax-and-spend liberals will again be able to say taxes must be raised in order to correct this newly created imbalance.
The time has come for us to examine new ways of selecting Supreme Court justices. The campaigns of the special interest groups are becoming more of a problem than they should be. If the justices have to excuse themselves from hearing a case before the court, due to a conflict of interest, going back to their campaigns, who will be left to hear the case? It would be just as effective to flip a coin at the circuit level and the best of two out of three of rock-paper-scissors at the appellate.
A couple of weeks ago CBS ran a feature story about the dangers and proliferation of prescription drugs. They also took a four day reprieve from their almost exclusive prescription drug advertising campaign between show segments. I don't know who they were trying to fool, it just shows a little bit of hypocrisy.
When I watch this newscast, I could not believe the amount of drug commercials on this program. They have cures for diseases that have yet to be discovered. They have drugs to counter act and the side effects of the previous commercial. They advertise drugs that have side effects worse than the diseases themselves. There are drugs that have side effects that are the same as the disorder. How do you know if they're working? There is even a drug that will help you get off drugs. How will we you know when that is through working?
I really tried. I really wanted to help. I really wanted to believe the claims made by those who believe in global warming. But if I try to make sense of it, it just does not add up.
It seems like global warming is the cause of everything. It's too hot. It's too cold. There's too much snow. There's not enough rain. There are enough conflicting ideas to confuse just about everyone. Now that there is snow on the ground and colder temperatures would think that that is a good idea, right? But if it is cold, we have to burn more fossil fuel, which will add to the carbon dioxide levels. Is that good or bad? With rising fuel costs, I think warmer winters would be better. But that would kill off the polar bears. Even in the fall, as the leaves were turning, global warning was to blame for the colors not been very bright. This was because the nights did not get cold enough to stop the photosynthesis in the leaves. But if the leaves lived longer, but in a replace more carbon dioxide with oxygen? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Poor leaf color would also prevent more people from driving around in the country wasting gas and putting more pollution in the air. Isn't this what the global warming movement is all about?
We knew they were coming. They said they were coming.
It's not enough to have the regular stress for Christmas. You know, the usual fighting with people in the stores, dealing with family, finding meaning in the reason for the season and crap like that. Add some snowy weather. Don't forget poorly plowed streets. Don't even get me started on the tax/government service connection (or lack thereof). Snowstorms every other day and cold temperatures despite global warming. It's enough to drive anyone insane. However, it is Christmas, and you try to keep your spirits up. Good luck.
This year for the first time in our lives, we have the added pressure of deciding who we are going to vote for next November. A little more than a week past Christmas is the Iowa caucus, followed shortly by the New Hampshire primary. Just in time for Christmas, we should be getting the first of a long, and weary campaign advertisements. As the race gets tighter, there will be more negative advertising. We have said in the past that we do not like negative campaigning. However, polls have shown that it works, so it's going to be around. And it's going to be around for a long time this year.
In the time it will take us to sit down, get out a piece of paper and write down our new years' resolutions, you have to realize that even larger decision is at hand. Instead follow contemplating what we want to do for the next year, more realistically in the next 2 1/2 weeks, we must decide how we want to be impacted for the next four years.
Yes, instead of deciding what we want for ourselves, e.g. more exercise, better food, less stress, the Packers in the Super Bowl, Americans will be selecting their candidates for the office of the president of the United States. The importance of this should not be overlooked. If we look at recent world events, we know the importance of choosing a leader that will take the United States in the best direction for all of its citizens. The bad news is, we have to choose one out of a field of about nine. Every four years. It is our hope that the best of what America has to offer will rise to the occasion and become a candidate for president of the United States. This year, we have the most open race of the last 50 years. Do we have the best and brightest to vote for this time? Unfortunately, we do not.
Just a scant couple of months ago, it looked like we knew who are candidates would be. As we get closer to the first caucuses and primaries, it seems to be more up in the air. As it should be. The Republicans are looking for the next Ronald Reagan. The Democrats are looking for... Bill Clinton? John Kennedy? Franklin Roosevelt? I didn't see any candidate which fit the bill on either side.