A new pharmacy for The Red Pill

I am very proud to announce that I have been asked to be a co-blogger at Joe Tobacco’s Cadillac Tight, and I have graciously accepted the offer.

Joe has proposed the very interesting concept of forming a right-, left-, and center-oriented blogging team to offer readers a variety of opinions and viewpoints as we approach what could potentially be the most interesting presidential race in our nation’s history. It should prove to be fun for writers and readers, alike. I am certainly looking forward to it.

I will still maintain this blog with content not appropriate for Cadillac Tight, which would include pieces on History and BS I learn at university. But the large majority of my political writing will be done there.

Hope to see you all there!

Techno-Bounties

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has issued a challenge to auto makers. Create a car battery that will “leapfrog” with the current plug-in hybrids. The prize? $300,000,000. His Democratic rival, Barack Obama, is critical of the challenge, stating:

After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn’t get it,” he said. “I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think that a $300 million prize is the way to go. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people, not just in the private sector but also in the public sector.

Ironically enough, NASA did that very thing in 2004—”put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win.” You remember NASA. It’s that government agency that John F. Kennedy charged to put a man on the moon. MSNBC reports:

The June 15-16 workshop in Washington will focus on drawing up NASA’s first batch of “Centennial Challenges” — government-funded competitions that would encourage non-governmental teams to develop technologies vital to NASA’s exploration initiative. For example, a better astronaut glove might earn its developers $1 million, while the first team to put a privately funded lander on the moon could win $20 million.
…
The scheme is modeled after this spring’s DARPA Grand Challenge for autonomous ground vehicles, and the X Prize for private passenger rockets. Some say the Centennial Challenges are NASA’s best hope for recapturing the spirit of the early space effort.
…
Offering a prize opens up a technological field to nontraditional players, and get more brainpower devoted to a tough-to-crack problem. “Competitors tend to spend more than the actual value of the prize, which is huge leverage,” Sponberg said.

Like NASA and John McCain, the 18th century British Parliament knew the value of offering prizes to solve technological problems when it offered £20,000 (approximately $11,800,000 today) to anyone who could solve the mystery of longitude. After years of effort by many, the problem was eventually solved by a clockmaker named John Harrison, who lived comfortably off of his fortune for the remainder of his life.

By contrast, Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats such as Nancy “Lets nationalize oil” Pelosi would have us believe that a tax-and-spend obese government is the only entity that has the capability to solve the nation’s challenges. This mindset ignores the power of a free market as much as it sells short the power of American innovation.

After all those months in Washington, it looks like it’s Barack Obama who “still doesn’t get it.”

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The bipartisan answer to oil prices

Republicans and Democrats have very different views on how to solve the problem of ever-increasing oil prices. Many Democrats favor an approach that addresses America’s huge demand for oil, while most Republicans favor an approach that increases the supply of oil available for America’s consumption. Partisan politics being what they are, both sides feel their approach is the only answer and that the other side is just plain wrong. But being lost in the political manuevering are the basic economics that show the simple truth—both answers are correct.

Economics has two main factors known that are known as supply and demand. Each can be measured on a graph using price and quantity as variables. When supply and demand are measured together on the graph, an equilibrium point is found that sets the fair market value for the item.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama advocates a plan to reduce America’s demand on oil. Senator Obama’s plan includes the support of “next generation biofuels,” by investing federal resources and expanding biofuel refineries, as well as setting the nation on the “path to oil independence” by reducing America’s oil consumption by at least 35% by forcing new standards on auto makers.

The plan to reduce America’s demand on oil shifts the demand curve to the left, resulting in a potential reduction in price, as shown in the graph below.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has begun advocating a plan to increase America’s supply of oil by lifting the ban on offshore drilling and maintaining oil company tax cuts that could be used for technology and other supply-side factors (AP article, so no quotes or links).

The plan to increase America’s supply of oil shifts the supply curve to the right, which also results in a potential reduction in price.

The graphs above show that both the Democratic and Republican plans to address the problem of rising oil prices can result in potential price reductions. What they do not show, however, are the potential results of using both plans together.

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman recognizes the need for oil conservation, as well as increased production, inventory, and capacity.

All nations must be better at conservation, and the U.S. is at the top of that list,” said Bodman, who is attending a international meeting of oil producing and consuming nations focusing on high oil prices in Saudi Arabia on Sunday.
…
Although some have blamed speculators for driving up oil prices, Bodman said he did not believe that they are the cause.
…
Since 2003, he said, global demand for oil has increased because of industry in China, India and the Middle East. But from 2005 to 2007, there was very little increase in supply.

Shifting the demand curve left while at the same time shifting the supply curve right results in a greater potential for a reduction in oil prices, as opposed to using just one of the above policies alone.

The answer to the question of oil prices does not include “either, or” but “and.” By using a policy that addresses both the ever-increasing demand for and an ever-increasing supply of oil, America can begin to wean itself from its oil dependency while it maximizes the potential of its natural resources. It’s a winning combination that serves everyone’s agenda—lowering the price of oil.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Flip Flop Goes the Weasel

Barack Obama has found a new activity since locking up the Democratic presidential nomination—running around the mullberry bush.

Senator Obama has a slim lead on John McCain in the polls. The 5% margin is the same lead enjoyed by John Kerry at this time in 2004. And, like Kerry in 2004, Obama is flip-flopping his way around the political landscape that leads to the White House.

The flip-flopping began late last year while debating the subject of Iraq. The Obama campaign website states: 

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

However, in a September 2007 New Hampshire democratic debate Obama flipped and refused to commit to his own benchmark.

Russert’s question first went to Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who would not make the pledge to have all troops removed by 2013. “I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013,” said Obama, “but I don’t want to make promises not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.”

Flop.

He doesn’t want to make any promises—except on his web site, where he promises to have all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his presidency. My calendar puts that at about June 2010, not 2013.

The Democratic presidential nominee has also performed amazing feats of flexibility with his long-time personal associations. In March of 2008, Fox News broke the story of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s fiery rhetoric. Exactly 4 days later, Obama performed damage control by giving his now “famous” speech on the subject of race in America.

…Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity…. But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor…. And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me…. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

But Barack Obama could and did disown Wright. However, the flip came only after the good reverend switched from insulting America to insulting Obama.

As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

And how did the Amazing Obama respond?

I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don’t think that he showed much concern for me. I don’t — more importantly — I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign….

Flop.

Someone sounds just a little bit bitter.

The weasel’s most recent acrobatics have centered on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Last February, Obama blasted Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for her stance on the controversial trade agreement.

“One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have,” he said.

Yet, while Obama was attacking Clinton on NAFTA in public, his senior economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, was whispering a different tune into Canadian ears.

[I]t’s more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans….

And now the presidential candidate is even admitting the flip.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.

Flop.

Barack Obama’s flip-flopping follies prove that Wright was right. Obama will say whatever he needs to in order to get elected. I guess he is still the Barack Obama that Jeremiah Wright has known for the last 20 years.

And if nothing else, it proves that he truely is all about change—at least when it comes to what he believes in. 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

An Indefinite Break from Blogging

I live in a small California desert community, and we are finding that our local school board has forgotten who they work for and what their purpose is. After running our schools into the ground and depleating our finances with the intention of recieving state aid, they are now trying to save their own positions as they let good teachers go. This lack of foresight and money management at the expense of our children’s and community’s future is unforgivable. So our community is taking action.

I have been selected to organize our community against the school board. Being out of my element in local-level politics, I have a lot of learning to do on the fly. And that has to be combined with managing my own education, work, and family. So blog articles here will be very few and far between as I venture into possibly the most important thing I have ever done.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to come here and read and comment on what I have to say. It has been fun. Now wish me luck, as I dive in head first to fight city hall.

Update, 17 May: In a partial victory, the teachers have been saved. It is only partial because they are forced to be directly overseen by the superintendent, who is the man who wanted them removed. Our next step? Remove the superintendent or the school board who hires him. The choice will be theirs.

Update, 6 June: The superintendent seems to be gone. That’s about all I should say for scandalous legal reasons.

Update, 18 June: The superintendent is officially “on leave.” The board cannot say why, and neither can I do to legal reasons concerning an ongoing investigation. However, the Board has called a special meeting for today to discuss “Approval of an Agreement regarding Compromise, Release, and Resignation with a certificated employee – Superintendent” and “Discussion regarding appointment of interim superintendent.”

So it looks like we have won another battle. Whether or not the war is over will be up to the Board.

Thanks for the support.

Obama Gets Bitter Over Wright

Barack Obama finally severed ties with his “spiritual mentor” today, after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s display yesterday in front of the National Press Club. Obama claims he found Wright’s racial rhetoric “appauling” and “that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate….” For some reason it took the man who would be Messiah 20 years to figure out what it took the rest of us 20 seconds to figure out. Jeremiah Wright is a self-promoting, White-America-hating racist. He goes on to say:

Now, I’ve already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church, he’s built a wonderful congregation, the people of Trinity are wonderful people, and what attracted me has always been their ministry’s reach beyond the church walls. But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the United States’ wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me, they rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

 It is quite clear that Barack Obama has been taste-testing the Kool-Aid that he has been pouring down the throats of the American people for weeks now. By the middle of last March, Wright’s sermons were all over the news. On March 14, Fox News reported on the pastor’s controversial comments:

In a fiery sermon taped and available on DVD, Barack Obama’s longtime pastor and spiritual adviser can be seen and heard saying three times: “God damn America.”
.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Obama obviously heard these comments, because he made an attempt at damage control with this initial statement:

“Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy,” he said in the statement. “I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.”

But then Obama decided this wasn’t enough, and felt the need to qualify his pastor’s comments in his speech entitled “A More Perfect Union” that he delivered on March 18.

…Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
…
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a United States Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over 30 years has led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
…
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother…. These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love.
…
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through — a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American.

So basically, according to Barack Obama, Wright was wrong to say what he did, but he had his reasons that people in White America just can’t understand. Obama then went on to educate us throughout the rest of his speech.

What changed between March 18 and April 29? Why did Barack Obama go from explaining Wright’s rhetoric to cutting him loose? This changed:

MODERATOR: What is your motivation for characterizing Senator Obama’s response to you as, quote, “what a politician had to say”? What do you mean by that?

WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They’ve said, “You’re a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.”
.
Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.
.
As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

Jeremiah Wright gave his true opinion of Barack Obama. He essentially called him a liar who will say whatever he has to in order to get elected. 

Other than this blindsided attack on Obama, Wright sang the same old songs. All the oldies-but-goodies were played, including hits like “God Damn America,” ” US Government AIDS,” and the “USMC Roman Legion.”

Obama returned the favor and fed Wright to the wolves. But burried in his outrage, the presidential candidate gave the real reason for his split with the man he could no sooner disown than his own racist grandmother.

Q: What’s going to happen with the distraction?
.
BO: I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don’t think that he showed much concern for me. I don’t — more importantly — I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign and what we’re trying to do for the American people and with the American people And obviously, he’s free to speak out on issues that are of concern to him and he can do it in any ways that he wants. But I feel very strongly that — well, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he expressed….

So White America is just not understanding what motivates Jeremiah Wright to spew hate speech about us, but when he directs some of it towards Barack Obama, suddenly there is a problem and their relationship will never be the same.

Grandma better watch what she says.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The New Somalia

Two weeks ago Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared that Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr must disband his Mehdi Army militia. I wrote back then that this could get interesting and questioned what directions al Sadr and his militia might take. After two weeks, those directions appear to be clear.

al Sadr is intent on playing this out until the end, despite losing the support of top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Bill Roggio reports that although Sistani has not ordered the Medhi Army to disband, he does not recognize its authority.

“Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country,” Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. “Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government.“
.
Sadr did not consult with Sistani on the issue of disbanding the Mahdi Army, disputing a claim from Sadrist spokesmen who intimated Iraqi’s top cleric told Sadr to maintain his militia. “The top Shiite cleric had not been consulted in establishing the Mahdi Army, so [he] could not interfere in dissolving it,” Saghier said. “Whosoever established the al-Mahdi army has to dissolve it; Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr established this army and it is only him who has to dissolve it.”

al Sadr is making it clear that he has no intention of breaking up his militia, as he issues his “final warning” to the Iraqi government.

BAGHDAD — Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gave a “final warning” to the government Saturday to halt a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against his followers or he would declare “open war until liberation.”
…
Al-Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran, said he had tried to defuse tensions last August by declaring a unilateral truce, only to see the government respond by closing his offices and “resorting to assassinations.”
.
“So I am giving my final warning … to the Iraqi government … to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people,” al-Sadr said. “If the government does not refrain … we will declare an open war until liberation.”
.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that al-Sadr’s truce was instrumental in reducing violence last year. But the truce is in tatters after Iraqi forces launched an offensive last month against “criminal gangs and militias” in the southern city of Basra.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called out al Sadr for making threats of war while he sits safely in Iran.

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.
…
“I know he’s sitting in Iran,” Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr’s latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. “I guess it’s all-out war for anybody but him,” Rice said. “I guess that’s the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he’s in Iran.”
…
Rice praised al-Maliki for confronting al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city. The assault was al-Maliki’s most decisive act by far against al-Sadr, a fellow Shiite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder.
…
“Some of the violence is a byproduct of a good decision,” to take on militias and consolidate military power, Rice told reporters following a few hours of meetings and lunch with Iraqi leaders. “That, I think, is what has given the sense to the Iraqis that they have a new opportunity, a window of opportunity,” Rice said. “I don’t think you would have seen this kind of unity,” before.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is right to be concerned, as he looks to chaos of Somalia as an example of what he does not want his country to become. al-Maliki exclaims that “Iraq cannot be the new Somalia.”

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is calling on political parties to unite against armed groups in Iraq, a spokesman said Sunday, warning that “Iraq cannot be the new Somalia.”
.
“It is a clear message,” al-Maliki spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said of the situation in Iraq. “We cannot accept the presence of armed groups.”
.
Somalia has been mired in chaos since 1991, when warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other.

And how is Somalia doing fifteen years after we left the country to fend for itself against bands of militias? It is fighting off Muslim militias in its capital city of Mogadishu.

(CNN) — Two days of fighting between government and Ethiopian troops and Islamic militants in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, left 81 civilians dead and more than 100 wounded, a local human rights group reported Sunday.
.
Sudan Ali Ahmed, the head of the Mogadishu-based Elman Human Rights Group, accused the rebels of using civilians has human shields, while the transitional government’s Ethiopian allies shelled residential neighborhoods with tanks and artillery.
.
Large numbers of civilians have been fleeing two neighborhoods in the northeastern part of the capital where the fighting has been taking place, witnesses reported, joining a population of displaced Somalis that aid groups estimate already tops 1 million.

If al-Sadr makes good on his threat to wage war on the government of Iraq, it will certainly play well into election-year politics for the Democrats. And just as Democratic President Bill Clinton left a job undone in Somalia by removing US troops weeks after the Battle of Mogadishu, Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to quickly start removing troops from Iraq if elected in November.

Will we allow the flower of democracy in Iraq to whither and die just as it is beginning to blossom, or will we continue to nurture it until it can survive on its own in the harsh political climate of the Middle East? Will we stick by Iraq, or will we allow our ally to become the “New Somalia?”

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Patriot’s Day

On this day 233 years ago, militiamen from the yet-to-be-formed United States took up arms against King George of England.

Jules Crittenden has collected a wonderful assortment of source material, in the form of letters, that tells the story of that day’s historic, yet forgotten, events. Here is one of my favorites:

Capt. John Parker, Lexington Militia, alleged remarks at Lexington:

Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.

There are many, many more that are well worth the time to read them.

Obama’s 3:00 AM Phone Call

Barack Obama has shown the way would react to the “3:00 AM Phone Call.” He would get scared and hang up the telephone!

Obama was forced to address some tough questions last night and pretty much lost his shirt, by most accounts. He did nothing to address his Bittergate problem except to reiterate that people turn to religion because they are upset with Washington. He was annihilated while discussing Jeremiah Wright, to the point that he was fumbling words. And he displayed some of his foreign policy arrogance by openly suggesting that nations like Iran would be pacified by his “carrots and sticks.”

 Jab after jab, Obama was like a desperate fighter with his back to the ropes. By the end of the night—he was beaten up. And he knows it.

How did the man who would be President respond to his thrashing? 

He ran away like a coward.

Obama: Let’s campaign, not have more debates
.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama suggested Thursday that he doesn’t see any point in having another debate with Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.
.
Clinton has agreed to a debate next week, but Obama has not accepted the invitation.
.
At an appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said he has a lot of campaigning to do in a limited amount of time.
.
Obama said he had agreed to an earlier debate, but Clinton declined that one.
.
“I’ll be honest with you, we’ve now had 21,” he said. “It’s not as if we don’t know how to do these things. I could deliver Sen. Clinton’s lines; she could, I’m sure, deliver mine.”
.
Obama said he has to look at his schedule, considering the upcoming primaries.

This shows the true character of Barack Obama better than all of his other controversies combined. It shows how he reacts when he gets an unexpected beating. It shows his fear and weakness. And it shows why he has no business leading the most powerful nation on earth. 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

In My Absolut World

In my Absolut World, people take the time to gather the facts and debate intelligently, rather than spouting off with what they believe to be the truth.

There has been a lot of feedback concerning the call to boycott Absolut Vodka for its offensive Reconquista ad that ran in Mexico. As with any hot topic, the temperature of the debates it sparked have been equally heated. I’ve been called a xenophobe, a racist, and an idiot more than once. Some of the things posted were so offensive I felt compelled to delete them. However, what bothers me the most is the claim that I am ignoring history. And it bothers me because it is Absolut rubbish (Pun fully intended).

People cite the misconceptions that they believe to be actual history as proof of their claims. The most popular—and baseless—is that we stole Mexico’s land in the Mexican War. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, Mexico gave up its land north of the Rio Grande as part of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, which brought the Mexican War to a close. In return, US troops were removed from Mexico City, Mexico was paid $15 million, and the US assumed $3.25 million in Mexican debt owed to American citizens. Concidering Mexico started the Mexican War by invading American territory, I’d say the treaty wasn’t a bad deal.

Texas had already declared its independence from Mexico, which is what started the whole thing. So we certainly didn’t steal that portion.

But what really strikes me as interesting is something I have learned in my current California history class. In Kevin Starr’s “California,” Starr comments on page 65:

Historians have been wont to see the annexation of California by the United States as an act of conquest, a sideshow in the larger drama of Manifest Destiny, and the Mexican War. Any close reading of Mexican California, however, suggests that even if the United States had never invaded Mexico or siezed California by force of arms, California—as Richard Henry Dana, Jr., first put it—would in one way or another have become American. At the very time that war broke out, the Californios were negotiating with the United States regarding the possibilities of a peaceful annexation. From this perspective, Josiah Royce, writing in 1886, concidered the forcible conquest of California as the original sin of American California history. What was taken by force, Royce argued, had been on the verge of being peaceably surrendered.

Take note of the term “Californios.” That was what the Spanish and Mexican people living in California called themselves. Mainly ranchers, these people did not identify with Mexico and did not want to be called “Mexican.” Let that sink in—they did not concider themselves Mexican.

Mexico was unable to support California. Pacific currents run north to south, which made sea travel in that direction inefficient. And the Yuma Indians had cut off the main overland route from Mexico after the Yuma Massacre. It doesn’t sound like Mexico had much control over Arizona territory, either, does it?

So we didn’t steal Texas; it was already gone. And we didn’t steal California; the people there didn’t want to be Mexican anyway. Mexico had little control of, and offered little support to any of its lands north of the Rio Grande. And we got it all by a signed treaty ending a war Mexico started. Someone tell me what land we “stole” from Mexico.

If you want to flame me, or bash me, or insult me, that’s fine. But please back it up with facts not fables. Research and learn the truth about the subject. Don’t run around in the comfort zone of just thinking that you know what you are talking about. Take the time to educate yourself and know that you know what you are talking about. Or it will be you who is shown to be the idiot.