Posts
I am getting sick and tired of hearing this back and forth about what party makes this country safer and which doesn’t. This debate which has been rekindled because of the attempted bombing on Christmas day is absolutely asinine. For all of you out there attacking the President because you feel his “apologetic” world stance is making us “less safe”; pull your heads OUT of your asses and wake the hell up!
The President had basically played NO part in the major security lapses that allowed this terrorist onto the plane. What allowed it to happen was the security people not doing their jobs AND the lack of intelligence sharing. Neither of these things are controlled by the President on a daily basis and nor should they be. Micromanaging is just as bad as completely ignoring. All of this nonsense about Democrats making the nation less safe and Republicans making it more safe is asinine and helps NO ONE. EVERY single politician cares about having a safe country. EVERYONE! If they did not then they would not have gotten into the offices they now occupy. They may have different ideas of when force (military action) is needed but ALL of them want a safe and peaceful nation. Can we please stop this damn pissing contest over who is more “patriotic” and who isn’t. It helps NO ONE. By bitching back and forth, we are giving our enemies EXACTLY what they want. One of the desired effects of the tactic of terrorism is to not only instill fear into a populace, but also to sow the seeds of paranoia and distrust among that same populace. An opponent who is divided and fighting amongst themselves is a WEAKER opponent than one that is unified in opposition. So by saying one party is “less patriotic” and makes us “less safe” not only makes the person saying it look weak but it also weakens the country as a whole. Look, I know and fully admit, that I will bash people and issues like there is no tomorrow. But I have never and will never, NEVER, accuse a person of being unpatriotic or purposefully trying to destroy this country unless I have proof to the contrary! As the great President Lincoln said so eloquently: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
If you are going to blame someone then blame the Department of Homeland Security. That entire department was created in 2003 to allow the sharing of intelligence, protecting the borders, and improve responses to disasters (terrorism, natural, etc) and yet as we are beginning to find out, the intelligence sharing STILL has not become a reality. Thousands died in 2001, as well as others before 2001 (ie USS Cole, embassy bombings, etc), because intelligence was not available to ALL agencies involved in ensuring the safety of this country. The FBI, CIA, NSA, military intelligence agencies, etc kept all of their information in house. What has to happen for these people to stop their pointless turf war and put ALL of their information in one central place so that ALL of the other agencies have access to the exact same information? What one agency may deem nothing of importance, may be the key to solving something in another agency. I hope the President brings the hammer down on all these agencies and FORCES them to share ALL of their information with each other ALL the time.
"We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
-Abraham Lincoln, First inaugural address, March 4, 1861
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Pointless new rules
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airline_attack_regulations
This is seriously one of the most asinine new regulations I have yet to see. You can’t get up, can’t access your carry-on, AND cannot have anything in your lap for the last hour of a flight. How in the hell does this help with “travel security”? Does this mean no bathroom breaks either? So rather than overflowing lavatories we will now have to deal with people in overflowing underwear? Great…
How about we address the REAL security lapse in this case. This guy was on a NO FLY LIST! HELLO!!! Might a better security measure be firing the asses of every person who is supposed to check names with such a list! I guess they are too busy screening all the little old ladies or little kids who have “similar” names to those on no fly lists. Isn’t the whole idea of security screening and no fly lists to PREVENT people like this guy from EVER getting near a plane? Why did NONE of the security personnel find something suspicious about this guy. If you are a customs official wouldn’t you investigate a powdery looking substance in someone’s bag? Just a thought…
This is a perfect example of excessive security. The current procedures in place seem to be doing there job just fine. IF YOU DO YOUR DAMN JOB! I rarely get up in a plane, even on long flights, but these new regulations make me more willing to drive places rather than fly. Not because I feel “less safe” (I feel safer in a plane than any other form of transportation) but because of totally asinine rules such as these, especially when they don’t come close to addressing the actual issue.
This is seriously one of the most asinine new regulations I have yet to see. You can’t get up, can’t access your carry-on, AND cannot have anything in your lap for the last hour of a flight. How in the hell does this help with “travel security”? Does this mean no bathroom breaks either? So rather than overflowing lavatories we will now have to deal with people in overflowing underwear? Great…
How about we address the REAL security lapse in this case. This guy was on a NO FLY LIST! HELLO!!! Might a better security measure be firing the asses of every person who is supposed to check names with such a list! I guess they are too busy screening all the little old ladies or little kids who have “similar” names to those on no fly lists. Isn’t the whole idea of security screening and no fly lists to PREVENT people like this guy from EVER getting near a plane? Why did NONE of the security personnel find something suspicious about this guy. If you are a customs official wouldn’t you investigate a powdery looking substance in someone’s bag? Just a thought…
This is a perfect example of excessive security. The current procedures in place seem to be doing there job just fine. IF YOU DO YOUR DAMN JOB! I rarely get up in a plane, even on long flights, but these new regulations make me more willing to drive places rather than fly. Not because I feel “less safe” (I feel safer in a plane than any other form of transportation) but because of totally asinine rules such as these, especially when they don’t come close to addressing the actual issue.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Eat greens to go Green? Not so fast my friends
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817&page=1
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101211795
With the climate summit in Denmark getting underway this week, I wanted to address somethings that I have heard a few times. One concerns our diet, and the other concerns businesses and economy.
I have heard that argument made (mostly from Bill Maher) that we can help fight global warming by simply becoming a vegetarian. This is true and yet false. Yes by eating only greens we would no longer have herds of cows, pigs, etc which means no grazing land is needed and no methane expulsions. But that is as far as the argument goes as far as I am concerned because eating all greens can be just as damaging to the environment**. Sure you no longer need grazing lands but if EVERYONE became a vegetarian then you would have to drastically increase the amount of farm land. Forests are destroyed not only for grazing but also to expand farmland. Now I admit that farms full of growing plants would help reduce CO2 through photosynthesis, however, that is only while those plants are growing. Dirt during the winter does nothing for the level of CO2. A forest full of trees and shrubs is far more beneficial to the environment even during the winter months. Another problem with this idea is that of water. Farms consume a huge amount of water, and in places such as the Western U.S. water is just as valuable as gold. Some animals are much better at living with less water than crops. I don’t think it is our diet that is the problem as much as it is the sheer numbers of us. We are very rapidly approaching (if not over) the carrying capacity of our environment and I think that is as much of a cause to climate change as anything else. If you doubt this, simply look at the few native people in the world who still live as foragers (hunting and gathering plants). They eat meat and greens and yet have an equilibrium with their environment. They don’t reproduce like rabbits and as a result their environment can easily sustain their way of life.
The other argument I have heard is that going green will hurt business and the economy. This argument is simply asinine because the only businesses that going green hurts are the oil companies. That’s it. If going green was so bad to businesses and the economy then how could Denmark drop their carbon footprint by 13% and yet grow their economy by 45% in the same time period? The simple fact is that with energy costs rising due to dwindling sources. It is greatly beneficial to spend more money to switch to green energy NOW because the longer we stay on conventional power sources, the higher the prices will rise. It is simple economic theory, as demand goes up and/or supply drops the cost goes up. The sooner we realize this and the sooner we bite the initial bullet of cost, the better of we all will be.
** I am not anti vegetarian and am impressed with people who can only eat greens I just don’t think its an end all save all diet.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101211795
With the climate summit in Denmark getting underway this week, I wanted to address somethings that I have heard a few times. One concerns our diet, and the other concerns businesses and economy.
I have heard that argument made (mostly from Bill Maher) that we can help fight global warming by simply becoming a vegetarian. This is true and yet false. Yes by eating only greens we would no longer have herds of cows, pigs, etc which means no grazing land is needed and no methane expulsions. But that is as far as the argument goes as far as I am concerned because eating all greens can be just as damaging to the environment**. Sure you no longer need grazing lands but if EVERYONE became a vegetarian then you would have to drastically increase the amount of farm land. Forests are destroyed not only for grazing but also to expand farmland. Now I admit that farms full of growing plants would help reduce CO2 through photosynthesis, however, that is only while those plants are growing. Dirt during the winter does nothing for the level of CO2. A forest full of trees and shrubs is far more beneficial to the environment even during the winter months. Another problem with this idea is that of water. Farms consume a huge amount of water, and in places such as the Western U.S. water is just as valuable as gold. Some animals are much better at living with less water than crops. I don’t think it is our diet that is the problem as much as it is the sheer numbers of us. We are very rapidly approaching (if not over) the carrying capacity of our environment and I think that is as much of a cause to climate change as anything else. If you doubt this, simply look at the few native people in the world who still live as foragers (hunting and gathering plants). They eat meat and greens and yet have an equilibrium with their environment. They don’t reproduce like rabbits and as a result their environment can easily sustain their way of life.
The other argument I have heard is that going green will hurt business and the economy. This argument is simply asinine because the only businesses that going green hurts are the oil companies. That’s it. If going green was so bad to businesses and the economy then how could Denmark drop their carbon footprint by 13% and yet grow their economy by 45% in the same time period? The simple fact is that with energy costs rising due to dwindling sources. It is greatly beneficial to spend more money to switch to green energy NOW because the longer we stay on conventional power sources, the higher the prices will rise. It is simple economic theory, as demand goes up and/or supply drops the cost goes up. The sooner we realize this and the sooner we bite the initial bullet of cost, the better of we all will be.
** I am not anti vegetarian and am impressed with people who can only eat greens I just don’t think its an end all save all diet.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Taxes and Tiger
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13930159
I love how politicians always think that they can have their cake and eat it too. The idea that you vow to not raise, and block, any tax raises is asinine. To completely reject something before you even know what the budget situation will be like is simply bad policy AND politics. Taxes are the biggest way the government raises money and as much as we all hate it, they sometimes have to be raised. I would love to see people who bitch about current rates, and current proposals to raise them, live during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The tax rates then were far higher than they are now.
Now sure, you can cut budgets and government spending to try and close shortfalls but that can only take you so far. If you cut government programs that greatly benefit society, who is left to pick it up? The private sector won’t because as Sen. Stephenson said they are “hunkering down.” So when education, infrastructure, safety, health, etc get cut the quality we have come to expect drops dramatically. It also is pointless to raise taxes in one area only to reduce them in another. That simply changes taxes by appearance but it won’t help raise revenue because any possible new revenue from the raise gets eaten up by the cut.
I also love how the Senate Republicans plan to meet to decide their positions on the “big issues.” How in the hell can you compromise with people who already have their minds set in stone? I sincerely hope the Senate President won’t be in this meeting because if he is then he might as well take a stance on taxes before he sees any budget numbers too.
I understand that raising taxes doesn’t solve everything but neither do massive cuts in government spending. Especially when the government is the only entity left to spend on certain things because the private sector can’t or won’t fork out the money. If things are so bad that massive cutting is needed then why not tax nonprofit groups? They benefit just as much (if not more) from the government as everyone else does. Even a .5 or 1 percent tax on them would be better than nothing and such a small number won’t completely destroy them.
On a side note, can the world shut up about Tiger Woods? He is human people, just like the rest of us. We are all animals and have basic animal instincts. If we didn’t have a strong urge to have sex and reproduce we wouldn’t be the species we are today (which is debatable on whether that’s good or bad). We are no different than every other species on this planet. We all have basic instincts and basic requirements to live. Evolution doesn’t give a damn about a piece of paper that says “marriage license” on it. Any guy, or girl, who says they have not had sexual urges toward someone other than their spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc is flat out lying. I am not excusing the fact that he cheated, nor am I saying that I have no problem when people do it. All I am saying is that wanting to have sex with as many people as possible is part of not only being human, but of being a living creature. He made his decision and he has to deal with it in his own private life.
I love how politicians always think that they can have their cake and eat it too. The idea that you vow to not raise, and block, any tax raises is asinine. To completely reject something before you even know what the budget situation will be like is simply bad policy AND politics. Taxes are the biggest way the government raises money and as much as we all hate it, they sometimes have to be raised. I would love to see people who bitch about current rates, and current proposals to raise them, live during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The tax rates then were far higher than they are now.
Now sure, you can cut budgets and government spending to try and close shortfalls but that can only take you so far. If you cut government programs that greatly benefit society, who is left to pick it up? The private sector won’t because as Sen. Stephenson said they are “hunkering down.” So when education, infrastructure, safety, health, etc get cut the quality we have come to expect drops dramatically. It also is pointless to raise taxes in one area only to reduce them in another. That simply changes taxes by appearance but it won’t help raise revenue because any possible new revenue from the raise gets eaten up by the cut.
I also love how the Senate Republicans plan to meet to decide their positions on the “big issues.” How in the hell can you compromise with people who already have their minds set in stone? I sincerely hope the Senate President won’t be in this meeting because if he is then he might as well take a stance on taxes before he sees any budget numbers too.
I understand that raising taxes doesn’t solve everything but neither do massive cuts in government spending. Especially when the government is the only entity left to spend on certain things because the private sector can’t or won’t fork out the money. If things are so bad that massive cutting is needed then why not tax nonprofit groups? They benefit just as much (if not more) from the government as everyone else does. Even a .5 or 1 percent tax on them would be better than nothing and such a small number won’t completely destroy them.
On a side note, can the world shut up about Tiger Woods? He is human people, just like the rest of us. We are all animals and have basic animal instincts. If we didn’t have a strong urge to have sex and reproduce we wouldn’t be the species we are today (which is debatable on whether that’s good or bad). We are no different than every other species on this planet. We all have basic instincts and basic requirements to live. Evolution doesn’t give a damn about a piece of paper that says “marriage license” on it. Any guy, or girl, who says they have not had sexual urges toward someone other than their spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc is flat out lying. I am not excusing the fact that he cheated, nor am I saying that I have no problem when people do it. All I am saying is that wanting to have sex with as many people as possible is part of not only being human, but of being a living creature. He made his decision and he has to deal with it in his own private life.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Inexcusable!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/29/bin.laden.2001/index.html
This isn’t “breaking news” but I was on vacation when I heard about it and want to comment about it.
First, this shows that NO ONE has learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. It could have been debated that we had learned earlier, but with this report shows for a fact that we have not. One of the big problems with Vietnam was the fact that high ranking (head of the DoD, heads of intel agencies, etc) officials were too obsessed with the numbers game and were too controlling of the commanders on the ground. Well, that is EXACTLY what this report says the Bush Admin did.
Now I know that hind sight is 20/20 and all that but what seems clear is that at the time, they were seeing with 20/30 vision. Bin Laden has been the SOLE goal of this whole war in Afghanistan and when we could have achieved that goal, Rummy and Cheney decided it was better not to act rather than jeopardize their precious “risk-averse, 'light footprint' model” of war. How much more could they possibly have had their heads up their asses? Did they honestly want him to escape so the war would keep going, or did they simply not have the balls to make the call?
They KNEW he was at Tora Bora, they have evidence that he WAS there before they attacked, so how the hell could they just decide to let him walk out the back fucking door?! Can you imagine what would have happened in WWII if we had left Hitler a wide open escape route into another country or region (Middle East, Asia, etc)? Wars can be, and are, won and lost by a single decision, and I believe that this was our single decision. If Rummy and Franks had given the troops the resources they needed AT THAT MOMENT, this war could have been OVER. Now, because of those dumb asses, not only are we stuck in Afghanistan, but now Pakistan (who just happens to have nuclear weapons) is in a perilous position and we are stuck trying to keep that country from falling.
Now I know I wasn’t in the room when this decision was made, but when you have a chance to nail your ultimate goal and you don’t even TRY, there is something wrong with that. Sure you might have had more casualties than you would like, but IT WOULD BE FAR LESS THAN THE CASUALITIES AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF WAR!
Join the Republican Party: Hard on terror until we get the chance to win then we look the other way until the target escapes.
This isn’t “breaking news” but I was on vacation when I heard about it and want to comment about it.
First, this shows that NO ONE has learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. It could have been debated that we had learned earlier, but with this report shows for a fact that we have not. One of the big problems with Vietnam was the fact that high ranking (head of the DoD, heads of intel agencies, etc) officials were too obsessed with the numbers game and were too controlling of the commanders on the ground. Well, that is EXACTLY what this report says the Bush Admin did.
Now I know that hind sight is 20/20 and all that but what seems clear is that at the time, they were seeing with 20/30 vision. Bin Laden has been the SOLE goal of this whole war in Afghanistan and when we could have achieved that goal, Rummy and Cheney decided it was better not to act rather than jeopardize their precious “risk-averse, 'light footprint' model” of war. How much more could they possibly have had their heads up their asses? Did they honestly want him to escape so the war would keep going, or did they simply not have the balls to make the call?
They KNEW he was at Tora Bora, they have evidence that he WAS there before they attacked, so how the hell could they just decide to let him walk out the back fucking door?! Can you imagine what would have happened in WWII if we had left Hitler a wide open escape route into another country or region (Middle East, Asia, etc)? Wars can be, and are, won and lost by a single decision, and I believe that this was our single decision. If Rummy and Franks had given the troops the resources they needed AT THAT MOMENT, this war could have been OVER. Now, because of those dumb asses, not only are we stuck in Afghanistan, but now Pakistan (who just happens to have nuclear weapons) is in a perilous position and we are stuck trying to keep that country from falling.
Now I know I wasn’t in the room when this decision was made, but when you have a chance to nail your ultimate goal and you don’t even TRY, there is something wrong with that. Sure you might have had more casualties than you would like, but IT WOULD BE FAR LESS THAN THE CASUALITIES AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF WAR!
Join the Republican Party: Hard on terror until we get the chance to win then we look the other way until the target escapes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
