Posts
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/23/2078367.aspx
Representative Cantor….can you really be serious? Explain to me, Sir, how you think the health care debate is acting as a “roadblock to Congress” when it is currently only being debated in CERTAIN committees. I would hope that you realize, especially since you are a member of the U.S. Congress, that MOST of the committees in both the House and Senate are debating issues OTHER THAN health care reform. Or are you in fact acknowledging that a middle or high school student knows more about how government functions than a 5 term Republican Congressman? Whether you are simply acting like an idiot, or are indeed one, I have to wonder how in the hell you got voted into office in the first place. If you, SIR, think the health care debate is so asinine and so dominating then why don’t you DO something about it? Go skip back to the committees and subcommittees that you are on and try and make what you are discussing meaningful. Of course in order to do this you would have to ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION AND NOT PLAY AROUND ON YOUR BLACKBERRY! If it is such a distraction then I’m more than willing to shove it up your ass for you, and at the same time try to pull your head out of it. At the VERY least, please go read a book about how the legislative process works, or if that is too difficult might I suggest you watch the Schoolhouse Rock video of how bills become law.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Ah politicians....
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=7895507
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7997309
I just love when politicians contradict themselves. Even more so when they do it within the same month. First Herbert came out earlier this month stating that he doubts the impacts that humans make on climate change, and suddenly today comes out saying that we should all turn off our engines if we are idling for more than ten minutes to reduce carbon emissions. Umm….Governor I thought you doubted human impact on such things. If humans don’t drastically impact the environment then why are you suddenly promoting a “very liberal” position? Someone make a better campaign donation than your energy donors? This debate is asinine. Anyone can look outside and see that humans DO drastically impact the environment and we ARE changing our climate because of it. What I think a lot of people who argue against climate change don’t understand is that climate is the LONG TERM patterns of weather and as such changes aren’t always noticeable in the short term. Unseasonable rain for a few weeks doesn’t mean that a region’s drought has ended. Also, climate change doesn’t mean that everywhere will be affected in the same ways. A drastic rise (2 or 3 degrees) in temperature in one region can be happening at the same time another region is getting colder or wetter. Climate change is real and at this point it’s a matter of trying to not make it worse. We have the ability to clean up our act so lets do it so we don’t further change the environment for future generations. Just imagine the GLOBAL impact of the “bread-basket of America” getting a lot wetter, hotter, colder, or drier. Even subtle changes can drastically alter crop yields which in turn affects the food supply. What would happen to the world if the Mid-West’s food yield dropped by half or even a quarter. Not a pretty scenario when you consider ALL the consequences. We need to clean up our act NOW, and its time deniers such as Herbert realize this.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13388802
Why am I not surprised that the majority party would object to a proposal to make redistricting more fair. I am not picking on just the Republicans they just happen to be the majority in this state. Any party who has a majority is against nonpartisan redistricting. Now gerrymandering is technically illegal in this country already but that hasn’t stopped both parties from creating districts where they know their party will almost always win in every state of the union. Now for those who don’t know, gerrymandering is where you draw district lines so that you include voters that benefit your party and try to exclude those who don’t. A very recent example of this happened in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District. Jim Matheson (D), has repeatedly beaten Republican opponents and during the last census, the Republican controlled state legislature redrew the 2nd district to try and increase the number of Republican voters which they hoped would cause Matheson to lose his seat in the next election. Needless to say it hasn’t worked yet but it often does get results. I believe redistricting should be overseen by a nonpartisan group (at both state AND national levels) because gerrymandering has and always will hurt the voter and the legislative process. It allows for polarization in politics to run rampant and reduces the appeal and influence of moderation.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7997309
I just love when politicians contradict themselves. Even more so when they do it within the same month. First Herbert came out earlier this month stating that he doubts the impacts that humans make on climate change, and suddenly today comes out saying that we should all turn off our engines if we are idling for more than ten minutes to reduce carbon emissions. Umm….Governor I thought you doubted human impact on such things. If humans don’t drastically impact the environment then why are you suddenly promoting a “very liberal” position? Someone make a better campaign donation than your energy donors? This debate is asinine. Anyone can look outside and see that humans DO drastically impact the environment and we ARE changing our climate because of it. What I think a lot of people who argue against climate change don’t understand is that climate is the LONG TERM patterns of weather and as such changes aren’t always noticeable in the short term. Unseasonable rain for a few weeks doesn’t mean that a region’s drought has ended. Also, climate change doesn’t mean that everywhere will be affected in the same ways. A drastic rise (2 or 3 degrees) in temperature in one region can be happening at the same time another region is getting colder or wetter. Climate change is real and at this point it’s a matter of trying to not make it worse. We have the ability to clean up our act so lets do it so we don’t further change the environment for future generations. Just imagine the GLOBAL impact of the “bread-basket of America” getting a lot wetter, hotter, colder, or drier. Even subtle changes can drastically alter crop yields which in turn affects the food supply. What would happen to the world if the Mid-West’s food yield dropped by half or even a quarter. Not a pretty scenario when you consider ALL the consequences. We need to clean up our act NOW, and its time deniers such as Herbert realize this.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13388802
Why am I not surprised that the majority party would object to a proposal to make redistricting more fair. I am not picking on just the Republicans they just happen to be the majority in this state. Any party who has a majority is against nonpartisan redistricting. Now gerrymandering is technically illegal in this country already but that hasn’t stopped both parties from creating districts where they know their party will almost always win in every state of the union. Now for those who don’t know, gerrymandering is where you draw district lines so that you include voters that benefit your party and try to exclude those who don’t. A very recent example of this happened in Utah’s 2nd Congressional District. Jim Matheson (D), has repeatedly beaten Republican opponents and during the last census, the Republican controlled state legislature redrew the 2nd district to try and increase the number of Republican voters which they hoped would cause Matheson to lose his seat in the next election. Needless to say it hasn’t worked yet but it often does get results. I believe redistricting should be overseen by a nonpartisan group (at both state AND national levels) because gerrymandering has and always will hurt the voter and the legislative process. It allows for polarization in politics to run rampant and reduces the appeal and influence of moderation.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
How nice...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_clinton_movie
For all of the corporations that will be able to influence lawmakers EVEN MORE if they over turn campaign finance rules.
This is a serious error on the part of the Supreme Court if they actually decide to overturn rulings that limit what a corporation or union can contribute to a candidates' campaign. I'm sorry but corporations, businesses, unions, etc should never be allowed to contribute to campaign funds. It is no different than lobbying in terms of the returns that these organizations receive for their "donations". Organizations that contribute large sums of money and lobbyists are BOTH guilty of the same thing, BRIBERY! Any politician that says the money they receive for their campaigns, or from lobbyists, are flat out lying when they say it doesn't influence their vote.
In my opinion the laws should be changed. Lobbying should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only, just as it states in the Constitution, and gifts, dinners, etc should be limited to $15 or less. Also, campaign contributions should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only and not to exceed $500. This is about the only way, other than an all out ban, to get big industry, corporate, lobbyist, etc money out of government. If the CEOs, employees, etc of these organizations want to contribute or lobby, then they have to do it within these rules. A corporation should not be treated as an individual and the multi-billion lobbying industry should not be able to buy politicians' votes.
It is time that this country wakes up to the blatant bribery that is going on in all aspects of our politics and band together to stop it! If this country fails, it will be because none of us stood up and demanded a stop to this and allowed corruption to grow exponentially.
For all of the corporations that will be able to influence lawmakers EVEN MORE if they over turn campaign finance rules.
This is a serious error on the part of the Supreme Court if they actually decide to overturn rulings that limit what a corporation or union can contribute to a candidates' campaign. I'm sorry but corporations, businesses, unions, etc should never be allowed to contribute to campaign funds. It is no different than lobbying in terms of the returns that these organizations receive for their "donations". Organizations that contribute large sums of money and lobbyists are BOTH guilty of the same thing, BRIBERY! Any politician that says the money they receive for their campaigns, or from lobbyists, are flat out lying when they say it doesn't influence their vote.
In my opinion the laws should be changed. Lobbying should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only, just as it states in the Constitution, and gifts, dinners, etc should be limited to $15 or less. Also, campaign contributions should be limited to INDIVIDUALS only and not to exceed $500. This is about the only way, other than an all out ban, to get big industry, corporate, lobbyist, etc money out of government. If the CEOs, employees, etc of these organizations want to contribute or lobby, then they have to do it within these rules. A corporation should not be treated as an individual and the multi-billion lobbying industry should not be able to buy politicians' votes.
It is time that this country wakes up to the blatant bribery that is going on in all aspects of our politics and band together to stop it! If this country fails, it will be because none of us stood up and demanded a stop to this and allowed corruption to grow exponentially.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
On war and Mercenaries
I have been trying to figure out how this country went from being about to win wars in 6 years or less to now taking more than 8 to get the job done.
One reason may be our modern idea of “hedging our bets”. In Korea, WWI, WWII, and earlier wars, the prevailing wisdom seemed to be to hit them with EVERYTHING in the military arsenal. Hit them hard, hit them repeatedly until one side said uncle (basically never us). As history shows, this was extremely effective and got the results we wanted. But now we seem (from Vietnam on) to have a strategy that involved hitting them fast, hope they give up in a dazed state after being “shocked and awed”, but if they don’t give up just wing it while twiddling our thumbs. It’s as if our political and military leaders would rather hope that they can beat our opponent by using a flash-bang grenade, rather than just storm in and kick the shit out of them.
What would the conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq be like now if we had gone in fully mobilized? Or even consider what Afghanistan would be like if we used an invasion force comparable to that of the Iraq invasion. I mean is it at all surprising that Afghanistan has fallen so deep into the shitter when we used an invasion force SMALLER than the one used in Iraq?
The other reason I think is our opponents themselves. In all the wars we have won, both us and our opponents were fighting for something tangible. Our opponents/enemies today, however, are far more obsessed and dangerous. They believe in their religion so blindly that they have no problems fighting to the VERY last man. You could say that the Japanese during WWII were the same but I would argue that they are not even close. In the end the Japanese had enough reason to see the writing on the wall and that surrender was the only way to preserve their country and culture. Whereas the people we fight now have NO reason in their minds. To them the only acceptable outcome is to kill the infidel, or die trying even if it takes every last man, woman, and child to do it. How do you defeat an enemy who refuses to be defeated?
In the end I fear that we will have the same result in Afghanistan as the former Soviet Union. Billions of dollars, thousands of lives, all used in an attempt to “free” and bring reason and democracy to a country who may not even want it. If we do manage to win, I hope this country is willing to accept the fact that if fundamentalists rise to power through DEMOCRATIC vote then we have to ACCEPT that vote.
On a different note:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AFGHANISTAN_EMBASSY_INVESTIGATION?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_BLACKWATER?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Both of these stories disappoint me, but each in a slightly different way.
The first story about mercenaries (“security contractors”) at the US Embassy in Afghanistan is just ridiculous. I’m sorry but do these dumb asses not understand that since they protect US government property, that they are REPRESENTING the US in the host country! Not to mention the security RISK such actions create! What if the embassy was attack while this idiots were partying like frat boys? Would ANY of them be able to think clearly, much less aim, under heavy fire while shit-faced? I don’t think so…
This just furthers my opinion that mercenaries have absolutely NO BUSINESS being in a war zone, much less employed by the US government. Which brings me to the second story. This contract renewal of “Presidential Airlines”, a subsidiary of Blackwater, is a mistake. This only ENCOURAGES companies like Blackwater. Why should they change how they act if the government continues to pay them? Its insane! Mercenaries are an insult to every single man and woman in the US military. By continuing to hire them, the US government is basically tell them that “you can’t do your job effectively but rather than train more troops we are going to hire civilians instead.” These mercenaries answer to no one, and have PROVEN they are far more of a liability than they are an asset. Not to mention they are FAR more expensive (they make 6 figure salaries which is far more than the average soldier) than our military personnel. These mercenaries are not much more different than the Somali Pirates!
There are only three groups I would trust with my protection in war zones. 1) The US military, 2) the FBI, and 3) the US Secret Service!
One reason may be our modern idea of “hedging our bets”. In Korea, WWI, WWII, and earlier wars, the prevailing wisdom seemed to be to hit them with EVERYTHING in the military arsenal. Hit them hard, hit them repeatedly until one side said uncle (basically never us). As history shows, this was extremely effective and got the results we wanted. But now we seem (from Vietnam on) to have a strategy that involved hitting them fast, hope they give up in a dazed state after being “shocked and awed”, but if they don’t give up just wing it while twiddling our thumbs. It’s as if our political and military leaders would rather hope that they can beat our opponent by using a flash-bang grenade, rather than just storm in and kick the shit out of them.
What would the conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq be like now if we had gone in fully mobilized? Or even consider what Afghanistan would be like if we used an invasion force comparable to that of the Iraq invasion. I mean is it at all surprising that Afghanistan has fallen so deep into the shitter when we used an invasion force SMALLER than the one used in Iraq?
The other reason I think is our opponents themselves. In all the wars we have won, both us and our opponents were fighting for something tangible. Our opponents/enemies today, however, are far more obsessed and dangerous. They believe in their religion so blindly that they have no problems fighting to the VERY last man. You could say that the Japanese during WWII were the same but I would argue that they are not even close. In the end the Japanese had enough reason to see the writing on the wall and that surrender was the only way to preserve their country and culture. Whereas the people we fight now have NO reason in their minds. To them the only acceptable outcome is to kill the infidel, or die trying even if it takes every last man, woman, and child to do it. How do you defeat an enemy who refuses to be defeated?
In the end I fear that we will have the same result in Afghanistan as the former Soviet Union. Billions of dollars, thousands of lives, all used in an attempt to “free” and bring reason and democracy to a country who may not even want it. If we do manage to win, I hope this country is willing to accept the fact that if fundamentalists rise to power through DEMOCRATIC vote then we have to ACCEPT that vote.
On a different note:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AFGHANISTAN_EMBASSY_INVESTIGATION?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_BLACKWATER?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Both of these stories disappoint me, but each in a slightly different way.
The first story about mercenaries (“security contractors”) at the US Embassy in Afghanistan is just ridiculous. I’m sorry but do these dumb asses not understand that since they protect US government property, that they are REPRESENTING the US in the host country! Not to mention the security RISK such actions create! What if the embassy was attack while this idiots were partying like frat boys? Would ANY of them be able to think clearly, much less aim, under heavy fire while shit-faced? I don’t think so…
This just furthers my opinion that mercenaries have absolutely NO BUSINESS being in a war zone, much less employed by the US government. Which brings me to the second story. This contract renewal of “Presidential Airlines”, a subsidiary of Blackwater, is a mistake. This only ENCOURAGES companies like Blackwater. Why should they change how they act if the government continues to pay them? Its insane! Mercenaries are an insult to every single man and woman in the US military. By continuing to hire them, the US government is basically tell them that “you can’t do your job effectively but rather than train more troops we are going to hire civilians instead.” These mercenaries answer to no one, and have PROVEN they are far more of a liability than they are an asset. Not to mention they are FAR more expensive (they make 6 figure salaries which is far more than the average soldier) than our military personnel. These mercenaries are not much more different than the Somali Pirates!
There are only three groups I would trust with my protection in war zones. 1) The US military, 2) the FBI, and 3) the US Secret Service!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
