Posts
The more I read Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s Wars, the more and more it concerns me.
I get the image of a ship that has a car sized hole in its hull and a fist sized
patch is being used to try and stem the flow. A patch that is not only undersized but one that has also been grossly neglected for 8 years. As a result the ship is near, or past, the point of sinking regardless of how much you try and stop it.
This raises the question: What do you do about it? Do you keep trying to plug that massive leak as new, smaller ones, from around it? Do you try and get as many hands on deck as you can and try to bail as much water out as is coming in? Do you cut your losses and abandon ship? Or do you simply, regardless of the costs, go down with the ship?
I also wonder what role Afghanistan is playing, or will play, in the course of the broader war on extremists/terrorist groups. Does anyone truly think that if we manage to win in Afghanistan, or kill/capture Bin Laden, that all of these terrorist and extremist groups will simply give up and go away? If not, then doesn’t that make Afghanistan more of a battle, or one of many fronts, in this larger war? With Yemen, Pakistan, Somali, etc. being the other battles/fronts. If that is the case, then is winning one battle worth jeopardizing the chances you have of winning the war?
I understand how badly it would look to pull out of Afghanistan, but at the same time how does it look now? Our massive and powerful military machine has been effectively stalled by a much smaller force. Isn’t that image just as powerful, just as potentially damaging for us? Especially when you add in the corrupt Afghan, and lukewarm/contradictory, Pakistani governments who are slowing (and in some cases opposing) everything we are attempting to do.
No one likes to lose, but in the course of life and world events it is bound to happen to everyone. Afghanistan was ignored for far too long, and even with Obama’s determination to turn it around, it may already be too late. Wars and battles aren’t always won during the waning days, many are given their fate in the opening days of conflict.
I honestly don’t have the answers, all I know is that something has got to give, one way or the other. This thinking is far from popular but simply ignoring, or attacking, it doesn’t diminish the importance of it. Every great leader in history has proven that they understand this fact. Washington, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc. all had to think about what to do if the battle or war could not be won. Only fools obsess over one outcome or the other. How we handle defeat often tells as much about us as how we handle a victory.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
I am thankful for....
Since it is Thanksgiving and all, I thought I would share one thing that I am thankful for. Especially given the…how shall I say…bull shit of the last week or so.
I am thankful for the fact that we have not had another terrorist attack in this country since September 11, 2001. Sorry Republicans, but it’s true. A Democratic president is just as effective at protecting this country as a Republican president is. Mostly though, I am thankful because it means that lives have been saved thanks to the efforts of our military and our government. But I am also thankful because it has prevented, especially after this last week, all these people who are now against increased airline security from looking like totally and complete asses. If we had been attacked recently then suddenly all of those people would be going from “security is too invasive and unconstitutional” to “this is all Obama’s fault for not being tougher and not being able to make the hard decisions.”
This is the world that everyone wanted. When we whole-heartedly accepted the Patriot Act being shoved down our throats because it was in the name of “national security.” When we were all engaged in a pissing contest of who is the most patriotic we had no qualms about giving up our rights left and right. This is the world that was created, and now it seems that since there is a Democratic president in the White House calling the shots, everyone starts bitching and moaning when we are asked to sacrifice something more. People suddenly start clamoring that these new TSA procedures are unconstitutional. Well guess what my friends, you wanted more security, you wanted to feel safer, that is EXACTLY what you got.
One of the most favored suggestions is to use profiling instead of all this other stuff. That is all well and good but there is a slight problem. In this country, we have gotten it slammed into our heads of what the typical terrorist looks like, worships, acts like, etc. The problem is that once you start to think that way, and your opponent KNOWS how you think, that is when they slip through the cracks. That is when Middle Eastern person is basically strip searched and yet the real threat walks freely by in the form of an average white person who was raised in a totally Christian household. Americans are honestly too in love with stereotypes and biases for profiling to be a totally effective tool.
But even as we speak, soldiers from multiple countries are living in the line of fire, some giving up their lives, all because we told them to go forth and protect us. Are we all seriously going to sit here and bitch about having to MAYBE be given a pat-down at the airport, to have a digital image of our body taken to see if we are hiding anything before we board a plane, while men and women are giving their LIVES for the same reason? To try and make this world a better and safer place? If you can’t give up that small of a thing (pat-down, body scan, etc) then what would you give up? Would you give up food, gas, metals, money, loved ones, etc? Because guess what, that was just PART of the price that had to be paid to ensure victory during World War II.
I am the first to admit I HATE the Patriot Act, but am I fighting to get it repealed? Am I bitching about it being unconstitutional? No. I may hate it, but I accept that I may need to sacrifice my own personal privacy on some things in order to help the greater good of the country. I know I have nothing to hide, that if people want to read my blogs, texts, or emails, etc. then fine enjoy your government empowered voyeurism because I am going to go on living my life how I want and I hope they enjoy the ride along with me. I can honestly say I would give up tv, internet, my car, a fourth to half my income if I had to in order to ensure this country withstands the test of time and all the threats that go along with it. Would you? Could you?
So in this world of ongoing wars and financial woes I ask we all do one thing. Be thankful for what you have and mindful of what you have lost. If you have to endure a few inconveniences, a few rare invasions of your space and privacy, just remember and be glad that it isn’t worse. Be thankful that the little things you are willing to give up may in the end save all of our lives. Live each day as if it is your last and be thankful each morning you are able to wake up and start it all over again because there are many whose last day will be today, or was yesterday. Who would gladly deal with the inconvenience of a body scanner or a pat-down if it ensured them one more day of life!
I am thankful for the fact that we have not had another terrorist attack in this country since September 11, 2001. Sorry Republicans, but it’s true. A Democratic president is just as effective at protecting this country as a Republican president is. Mostly though, I am thankful because it means that lives have been saved thanks to the efforts of our military and our government. But I am also thankful because it has prevented, especially after this last week, all these people who are now against increased airline security from looking like totally and complete asses. If we had been attacked recently then suddenly all of those people would be going from “security is too invasive and unconstitutional” to “this is all Obama’s fault for not being tougher and not being able to make the hard decisions.”
This is the world that everyone wanted. When we whole-heartedly accepted the Patriot Act being shoved down our throats because it was in the name of “national security.” When we were all engaged in a pissing contest of who is the most patriotic we had no qualms about giving up our rights left and right. This is the world that was created, and now it seems that since there is a Democratic president in the White House calling the shots, everyone starts bitching and moaning when we are asked to sacrifice something more. People suddenly start clamoring that these new TSA procedures are unconstitutional. Well guess what my friends, you wanted more security, you wanted to feel safer, that is EXACTLY what you got.
One of the most favored suggestions is to use profiling instead of all this other stuff. That is all well and good but there is a slight problem. In this country, we have gotten it slammed into our heads of what the typical terrorist looks like, worships, acts like, etc. The problem is that once you start to think that way, and your opponent KNOWS how you think, that is when they slip through the cracks. That is when Middle Eastern person is basically strip searched and yet the real threat walks freely by in the form of an average white person who was raised in a totally Christian household. Americans are honestly too in love with stereotypes and biases for profiling to be a totally effective tool.
But even as we speak, soldiers from multiple countries are living in the line of fire, some giving up their lives, all because we told them to go forth and protect us. Are we all seriously going to sit here and bitch about having to MAYBE be given a pat-down at the airport, to have a digital image of our body taken to see if we are hiding anything before we board a plane, while men and women are giving their LIVES for the same reason? To try and make this world a better and safer place? If you can’t give up that small of a thing (pat-down, body scan, etc) then what would you give up? Would you give up food, gas, metals, money, loved ones, etc? Because guess what, that was just PART of the price that had to be paid to ensure victory during World War II.
I am the first to admit I HATE the Patriot Act, but am I fighting to get it repealed? Am I bitching about it being unconstitutional? No. I may hate it, but I accept that I may need to sacrifice my own personal privacy on some things in order to help the greater good of the country. I know I have nothing to hide, that if people want to read my blogs, texts, or emails, etc. then fine enjoy your government empowered voyeurism because I am going to go on living my life how I want and I hope they enjoy the ride along with me. I can honestly say I would give up tv, internet, my car, a fourth to half my income if I had to in order to ensure this country withstands the test of time and all the threats that go along with it. Would you? Could you?
So in this world of ongoing wars and financial woes I ask we all do one thing. Be thankful for what you have and mindful of what you have lost. If you have to endure a few inconveniences, a few rare invasions of your space and privacy, just remember and be glad that it isn’t worse. Be thankful that the little things you are willing to give up may in the end save all of our lives. Live each day as if it is your last and be thankful each morning you are able to wake up and start it all over again because there are many whose last day will be today, or was yesterday. Who would gladly deal with the inconvenience of a body scanner or a pat-down if it ensured them one more day of life!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Land of the Free
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100808/ap_on_re_us/us_mosque_opposition
As a nation grows and progresses through history, it will undoubtedly face numerous challenges. Challenges from outside its borders, as well as from within. Today, we find our United States of America in the jaws of both. In New York City, two blocks from the World Trade Center, a proposed mosque has come under heavy and intolerant attacks. Attacks that should be making all Americans feel utterly disgusted, but sadly this is not the case. The very people who are attacking this mosque’s construction are, in fact, as American as you and I.
These Americans have become consumed by the perverted notion that this mosque is an insult to the memories of those who died on September 11, 2001. In reality, however, it is the opposite that rings true. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. ALL died on that day. They died believing that they were living in a country that was founded on freedoms. One such freedom being the freedom to believe in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that you wanted to. A country where you could have a mosque, church, synagogue, and temple built alongside each other with an Atheist as a neighbor. I feel that those men, women, and children who were lost that day would be insulted NOT by the mosque, but by those who oppose its very existence.
Now some will say that this issue is one that should only concern the city and state of New York. I, however, strongly disagree. This is an issue that should concern ALL Americans because how the issue is resolved will reflect on not only those in NYC, but on ALL of us. Those who have attacked us want to see the U.S. fall. Why do we insist on helping them succeed? Why are we continuing their work by dividing and turning on one another? This country was founded on the idea of freedom. If we abandon even one of those basic freedoms and replace it with intolerance then we will have forever changed ourselves. We will have sold out or ideals, ideals that we have bled for, and replace them with fear and paranoia. This type of intolerance is a deadly poison and one that can rapidly consume its victim if it isn’t delt with quickly. All we have to do is take a short look back 70 years to see the truth in this statement. A look back to how one man’s hatred of Jews spread throughout a country and cost the lives of millions of innocent people. I do not make this comparison lightly but it is a perfect example of what can happen.
Do we as a country truly want to start down such a slippery and blood soaked path? If you deny the freedoms and the rights of ONE person, then you are opening the door to the denial of other freedoms and other people. This poison has already spread. In Tennessee there is another mosque that is being attacked and opposed. Quite simply, we MUST stop this insanity before it destroys us! Before it destroys our country! I personally, as an Agnostic, would not build the mosque in NYC two blocks from Ground Zero. I would build it AT Ground Zero! Along with a synagogue and a church! To spit in the face of those who would try to tear our country down.
I am an American! I am an Agnostic! I stand on the side of Freedom! I stand with the President of the United States! I stand with all of those who support the building of this mosque and of any other religious building in these United States of America! I will not waiver in this belief! I therefore ask all of you: Where will you stand?
As a nation grows and progresses through history, it will undoubtedly face numerous challenges. Challenges from outside its borders, as well as from within. Today, we find our United States of America in the jaws of both. In New York City, two blocks from the World Trade Center, a proposed mosque has come under heavy and intolerant attacks. Attacks that should be making all Americans feel utterly disgusted, but sadly this is not the case. The very people who are attacking this mosque’s construction are, in fact, as American as you and I.
These Americans have become consumed by the perverted notion that this mosque is an insult to the memories of those who died on September 11, 2001. In reality, however, it is the opposite that rings true. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. ALL died on that day. They died believing that they were living in a country that was founded on freedoms. One such freedom being the freedom to believe in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that you wanted to. A country where you could have a mosque, church, synagogue, and temple built alongside each other with an Atheist as a neighbor. I feel that those men, women, and children who were lost that day would be insulted NOT by the mosque, but by those who oppose its very existence.
Now some will say that this issue is one that should only concern the city and state of New York. I, however, strongly disagree. This is an issue that should concern ALL Americans because how the issue is resolved will reflect on not only those in NYC, but on ALL of us. Those who have attacked us want to see the U.S. fall. Why do we insist on helping them succeed? Why are we continuing their work by dividing and turning on one another? This country was founded on the idea of freedom. If we abandon even one of those basic freedoms and replace it with intolerance then we will have forever changed ourselves. We will have sold out or ideals, ideals that we have bled for, and replace them with fear and paranoia. This type of intolerance is a deadly poison and one that can rapidly consume its victim if it isn’t delt with quickly. All we have to do is take a short look back 70 years to see the truth in this statement. A look back to how one man’s hatred of Jews spread throughout a country and cost the lives of millions of innocent people. I do not make this comparison lightly but it is a perfect example of what can happen.
Do we as a country truly want to start down such a slippery and blood soaked path? If you deny the freedoms and the rights of ONE person, then you are opening the door to the denial of other freedoms and other people. This poison has already spread. In Tennessee there is another mosque that is being attacked and opposed. Quite simply, we MUST stop this insanity before it destroys us! Before it destroys our country! I personally, as an Agnostic, would not build the mosque in NYC two blocks from Ground Zero. I would build it AT Ground Zero! Along with a synagogue and a church! To spit in the face of those who would try to tear our country down.
I am an American! I am an Agnostic! I stand on the side of Freedom! I stand with the President of the United States! I stand with all of those who support the building of this mosque and of any other religious building in these United States of America! I will not waiver in this belief! I therefore ask all of you: Where will you stand?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Oil in the Gulf and Idiocy in AZ
This oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico I think has far more repercussions than people realize. If it continues to grow in size it will do damage to things that we haven’t even begun to consider. Sure the obvious environmental impacts have been widely discussed, as well as the economic ones, but there are others. For example, what is going to happen to all the barrier islands in the path of the slick once that oil comes in contact with the vegetation that holds them together? How is this going to affect drinking and irrigation water in the area? What about all the towns and cities on the coast that rely on tourism and fishing? I believe that even if the spill is stopped an hour from now, the impact will be far worse than the Exxon Valdese spill in Alaska. Sure the Gulf spill is smaller, for now, but it is going to affect a far larger amount of people than the E.V. spill. This is also a security issue because all that oil that is being dumped into the ocean is oil that is not going to be refined and processed, which in turn means that more will have to be IMPORTED to make up for it. Still think off-shore drilling is a great thing? I admit this doesn’t happen everyday but when it does, especially when it affects civilization, it can get very bad very fast. Imagine for a minute if there was a similar, or worse, incident off the coast of California, or anywhere on the East Coast. You think this is bad, imagine it affecting millions of people directly. We should all take this as a wake up call that we need to get off oil, and we have to get off of it YESTERDAY! The longer we wait to change to a new source of energy and raw materials for hundreds of products, the worse it will be when we are FORCED off of it.
I would also like to add to my points about the Arizona immigration law. I have heard that AZ passed it because they are tired of waiting on Washington and felt they had to act. Well, if you feel Washington forced your hand then look in a mirror because the reason immigration reform can’t get passed is YOU. People want all this improved board security and blah blah blah but they don’t want to accept the LOGICAL parts of it. Any immigration reform MUST have a form of amnesty for the people in this country already. That is the only way you are going to get an ACURATE count of how is “legal” and who is not. Unless of course you support turning this country into a police state, combing the country for them, and in essence burning half of the Constitution in the process. Also I love how if people are found to be in AZ illegally, they aren’t deported. This law would force them into an already under-funded, and over-crowded prison system. Oh, AND by doing so you are giving them food, shelter, funded by the American taxpayer. You don’t want terrorist suspects given the right to a fair trial (which I might add even Nazi war criminals got) but you are demanding they be thrown into American prisons? Explain that to me. Finally what do you propose to ensure we “seal” the borders? If you build a 15’ fence, people will get a 15’ ladder to go over it. They will dig under it, or cut through it. What do you want? A 10’ wide, hundreds of feet high (that includes the distance of digging the foundation to bedrock) reinforced concrete wall with border agents on top spaced every 20’ along the whole length of the US-Mexico border? You refuse to raise taxes to cover budget deficits, how the hell are you going to pay for that?
I would also like to add to my points about the Arizona immigration law. I have heard that AZ passed it because they are tired of waiting on Washington and felt they had to act. Well, if you feel Washington forced your hand then look in a mirror because the reason immigration reform can’t get passed is YOU. People want all this improved board security and blah blah blah but they don’t want to accept the LOGICAL parts of it. Any immigration reform MUST have a form of amnesty for the people in this country already. That is the only way you are going to get an ACURATE count of how is “legal” and who is not. Unless of course you support turning this country into a police state, combing the country for them, and in essence burning half of the Constitution in the process. Also I love how if people are found to be in AZ illegally, they aren’t deported. This law would force them into an already under-funded, and over-crowded prison system. Oh, AND by doing so you are giving them food, shelter, funded by the American taxpayer. You don’t want terrorist suspects given the right to a fair trial (which I might add even Nazi war criminals got) but you are demanding they be thrown into American prisons? Explain that to me. Finally what do you propose to ensure we “seal” the borders? If you build a 15’ fence, people will get a 15’ ladder to go over it. They will dig under it, or cut through it. What do you want? A 10’ wide, hundreds of feet high (that includes the distance of digging the foundation to bedrock) reinforced concrete wall with border agents on top spaced every 20’ along the whole length of the US-Mexico border? You refuse to raise taxes to cover budget deficits, how the hell are you going to pay for that?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Retards and Racists
***First off let me be clear. I am not a person who cries racism every time something involves people of different nationalities but in this case I believe the charge is warranted.
http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20100420/NEWS01/4200313/Arizona-immigration-law-may-impact-Utah
This first bill is asinine because everyone I think can see that this will turn into a legalization of racial profiling. The example given in the story is about routine traffic stops turning into racial profiling situations but to me there is a better example. In a traffic stop, you HAVE to give them your ID, but what happens when it involves infractions that DON’T involve a car. What if a person is jaywalking? If this law passes then a person who jaywalks may be forced to show his or her ID in a situation where ID isn’t really required because the last I checked you don’t need a license to walk. Now tell me, if there is a person of Hispanic descent and a white person who jaywalk at the same time within view of a police officer, which one will the cop cite? He is going to go after the person who looks different, and fit’s the stereotype. Now this may not seem like an issue but guess what people, “illegal aliens” don’t all look alike.
This also raises the issue about using racial profiling at airport security. Not every terrorist, criminal, etc is going to look Middle Eastern. In fact racial profiling makes it EASIER to trick people because you can simply recruit people who DON’T fit the profile.
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/national/house-oks-birther-bill-4-19-20101271793528356
This second bill is just as asinine as the first and just as racially charged. To begin with anyone who thinks that a candidate’s citizenship status has not been verified by the time they make it to the General Election is a flat out dumb ass. A candidate’s eligibility is verified WHEN THEY FIRST DECLARE THEY ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE! Not after the primary, not after they take the oath, but BEFORE they even begin his or her campaign. Where was all this concern over this anyway BEFORE Barack Obama declared he was running for president? Was there great concern when Bush or Clinton ran? Of course not because a white person couldn’t POSSIBLY be born in another country.
http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20100420/NEWS01/4200313/Arizona-immigration-law-may-impact-Utah
This first bill is asinine because everyone I think can see that this will turn into a legalization of racial profiling. The example given in the story is about routine traffic stops turning into racial profiling situations but to me there is a better example. In a traffic stop, you HAVE to give them your ID, but what happens when it involves infractions that DON’T involve a car. What if a person is jaywalking? If this law passes then a person who jaywalks may be forced to show his or her ID in a situation where ID isn’t really required because the last I checked you don’t need a license to walk. Now tell me, if there is a person of Hispanic descent and a white person who jaywalk at the same time within view of a police officer, which one will the cop cite? He is going to go after the person who looks different, and fit’s the stereotype. Now this may not seem like an issue but guess what people, “illegal aliens” don’t all look alike.
This also raises the issue about using racial profiling at airport security. Not every terrorist, criminal, etc is going to look Middle Eastern. In fact racial profiling makes it EASIER to trick people because you can simply recruit people who DON’T fit the profile.
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/national/house-oks-birther-bill-4-19-20101271793528356
This second bill is just as asinine as the first and just as racially charged. To begin with anyone who thinks that a candidate’s citizenship status has not been verified by the time they make it to the General Election is a flat out dumb ass. A candidate’s eligibility is verified WHEN THEY FIRST DECLARE THEY ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE! Not after the primary, not after they take the oath, but BEFORE they even begin his or her campaign. Where was all this concern over this anyway BEFORE Barack Obama declared he was running for president? Was there great concern when Bush or Clinton ran? Of course not because a white person couldn’t POSSIBLY be born in another country.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Really Sen McCain?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/14/2269430.aspx
Senator McCain has seriously gone off the deep end. The idea that the US and the US alone can force Iran to do what we want is asinine. Where does he plan to get fresh troops and equipment for such a task? What about the money? Is he going to finally agree taxes need to be increased in order to pay for a war? Does he think we should have made a preemptive attack on Russia during the Cold War? The USSR was far more dangerous and powerful than Iran is today. We are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting MILITIAS, imagine what we would have to deal with when fighting well supplied and well trained soldiers. The US can’t be the police of the entire world. We can’t afford it both in terms of equipment and personnel, and monetarily.
Iran poses the biggest threat immediately to Israel because of their geographic locations. If anyone should strike first against Iran, it is the Israelis. Why isn’t McCain demanding that THEY be tougher against Iran?
This idea of striking someone before they strike us has got to stop. Isn’t Congress required by the Constitution to declare war on another country before we attack it? Exploring EVERY diplomatic course is not a weak position to take. Besides nothing says you can’t negotiate on one hand while arming up on the other (see Japan and US during WWII).
Lastly, as a former member of the military, McCain should know better. He should know that one of the best ways to show you care about the men and women in uniform is to NEVER demand them to give their lives for their country unless it is the VERY last option.
Senator McCain has seriously gone off the deep end. The idea that the US and the US alone can force Iran to do what we want is asinine. Where does he plan to get fresh troops and equipment for such a task? What about the money? Is he going to finally agree taxes need to be increased in order to pay for a war? Does he think we should have made a preemptive attack on Russia during the Cold War? The USSR was far more dangerous and powerful than Iran is today. We are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting MILITIAS, imagine what we would have to deal with when fighting well supplied and well trained soldiers. The US can’t be the police of the entire world. We can’t afford it both in terms of equipment and personnel, and monetarily.
Iran poses the biggest threat immediately to Israel because of their geographic locations. If anyone should strike first against Iran, it is the Israelis. Why isn’t McCain demanding that THEY be tougher against Iran?
This idea of striking someone before they strike us has got to stop. Isn’t Congress required by the Constitution to declare war on another country before we attack it? Exploring EVERY diplomatic course is not a weak position to take. Besides nothing says you can’t negotiate on one hand while arming up on the other (see Japan and US during WWII).
Lastly, as a former member of the military, McCain should know better. He should know that one of the best ways to show you care about the men and women in uniform is to NEVER demand them to give their lives for their country unless it is the VERY last option.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Banks, Bombs, and a Bimbo
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=10288583&page=1
The fact that we are again talking about reforming our financial regulation system shows that we have not learned from our past. Before the Great Depression, we had basically unregulated markets. Speculation ran rampant, regardless of whether people had the money to cover themselves if their speculations turned sour. The resulting crash in 1929 lead to the greatest economic depression this country has ever seen. A little known fact, however, is that there were many other crashes BEFORE 1929, that were caused by similar problems but the drought and resulting farming problems made 1929 worse. On to the late 1990s, when a corporate Democrat named Bill Clinton is residing in the White House. During his last year in office, Clinton oversaw (and signed) a bill (Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) that in effect pulled the rest of the teeth (some provisions were pulled during the 1980s, thanks to Reagan) out of the Glass-Steagall Act. The GSA was created in 1933 to PREVENT another Great Depression by clamping down on what financial institutions could and could not do, and yet 66 years later people seemed to think it was no longer needed. Well apparently it was needed because less than 10 years after FSMA was passed, we found ourselves in another deep depression, close to that of the 1930s.
So let us do the math. When we had little to no regulations on financial institutions, we had crash after crash, culminating in 1929. After sweeping regulations were passed the nation prospered without fear of another meltdown. That is until we started to deregulate these very same institutions again. Hmm….seems to me regulations are the only way to ensure financial and economic security to me. Dodd’s bill will help the safety and health of the nation’s economy and if the Republicans can’t realize that regulation is needed then I dare them to oppose it. Try running your reelection campaign by touting the fact you voted against re-regulating Wall Street. If regulations “stifle” innovation, then explain how we had a healthy and strong economy for nearly all of the 66 years between 1933 and 1999.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?hp
I am very pleased to see the President moving in this direction with respect to nuclear weapons. In this day and age, they are more of a threat to ourselves than they are to our enemies. The time to use nuclear weapons ended with WWII. I have no problem that the US used them on Japan to end the war because EVERYONE knows that the alternative would have been far bloodier and extended the war for many more years. Our enemies today are not countries and stationary armies. They are small, mobile bands who hide in plain sight. Anyone who has seen the power of the bombs in WWII should realize that they should never be used again, especially considering the bombs of today make Hiroshima look like a firecracker. It takes guts and some risk to change the world, and this stance contains both.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503228.html
Is Karzai an idiot or is he simply playing a joke? Either way he obviously doesn’t full understand his position. If he is going to continue this bull shit, I think that we should call his bluff. If he doesn’t like us saying “hey clean up your act because we are bleeding and dying for your country” then fine. If he thinks he and his country would be better without us then lets leave him and his country. Recall all our troops and stop all of our foreign aid. See how long he can go without crawling back to us, pleading for our money and our weapons. Why the hell should we keep fighting when their government continues to complain? Is Karzai an idiot or is he simply playing a joke? Either way he obviously doesn’t full understand his position. If he is going to continue this bull shit, I think that we should call his bluff. If he doesn’t like us saying “hey clean up your act because we are bleeding and dying for your country” then fine. If he thinks he and his country would be better without us then lets leave him and his country. Recall all our troops and stop all of our foreign aid. See how long he can go without crawling back to us, pleading for our money and our weapons. Why the hell should we keep fighting when their government continues to complain?
The fact that we are again talking about reforming our financial regulation system shows that we have not learned from our past. Before the Great Depression, we had basically unregulated markets. Speculation ran rampant, regardless of whether people had the money to cover themselves if their speculations turned sour. The resulting crash in 1929 lead to the greatest economic depression this country has ever seen. A little known fact, however, is that there were many other crashes BEFORE 1929, that were caused by similar problems but the drought and resulting farming problems made 1929 worse. On to the late 1990s, when a corporate Democrat named Bill Clinton is residing in the White House. During his last year in office, Clinton oversaw (and signed) a bill (Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) that in effect pulled the rest of the teeth (some provisions were pulled during the 1980s, thanks to Reagan) out of the Glass-Steagall Act. The GSA was created in 1933 to PREVENT another Great Depression by clamping down on what financial institutions could and could not do, and yet 66 years later people seemed to think it was no longer needed. Well apparently it was needed because less than 10 years after FSMA was passed, we found ourselves in another deep depression, close to that of the 1930s.
So let us do the math. When we had little to no regulations on financial institutions, we had crash after crash, culminating in 1929. After sweeping regulations were passed the nation prospered without fear of another meltdown. That is until we started to deregulate these very same institutions again. Hmm….seems to me regulations are the only way to ensure financial and economic security to me. Dodd’s bill will help the safety and health of the nation’s economy and if the Republicans can’t realize that regulation is needed then I dare them to oppose it. Try running your reelection campaign by touting the fact you voted against re-regulating Wall Street. If regulations “stifle” innovation, then explain how we had a healthy and strong economy for nearly all of the 66 years between 1933 and 1999.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?hp
I am very pleased to see the President moving in this direction with respect to nuclear weapons. In this day and age, they are more of a threat to ourselves than they are to our enemies. The time to use nuclear weapons ended with WWII. I have no problem that the US used them on Japan to end the war because EVERYONE knows that the alternative would have been far bloodier and extended the war for many more years. Our enemies today are not countries and stationary armies. They are small, mobile bands who hide in plain sight. Anyone who has seen the power of the bombs in WWII should realize that they should never be used again, especially considering the bombs of today make Hiroshima look like a firecracker. It takes guts and some risk to change the world, and this stance contains both.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/05/AR2010040503228.html
Is Karzai an idiot or is he simply playing a joke? Either way he obviously doesn’t full understand his position. If he is going to continue this bull shit, I think that we should call his bluff. If he doesn’t like us saying “hey clean up your act because we are bleeding and dying for your country” then fine. If he thinks he and his country would be better without us then lets leave him and his country. Recall all our troops and stop all of our foreign aid. See how long he can go without crawling back to us, pleading for our money and our weapons. Why the hell should we keep fighting when their government continues to complain? Is Karzai an idiot or is he simply playing a joke? Either way he obviously doesn’t full understand his position. If he is going to continue this bull shit, I think that we should call his bluff. If he doesn’t like us saying “hey clean up your act because we are bleeding and dying for your country” then fine. If he thinks he and his country would be better without us then lets leave him and his country. Recall all our troops and stop all of our foreign aid. See how long he can go without crawling back to us, pleading for our money and our weapons. Why the hell should we keep fighting when their government continues to complain?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health care vote
The country did not die when the British burned Washington to the ground. It did not fade into the pages of history when the slaves were freed. It did not weaken when women were granted their right to vote. It did not waver when the fate of the world was at stake. It did not crumble in the face of preventing a third world scorching war. It did not end an era when Medicare was passed. This vote on heath care is not what we wanted but it is better than doing nothing! More people will now get the chance to FIGHT for their right to live and their right to make that fight without losing everything in the process.
To those who oppose the idea of health reform I again ask this question. If government health care is good enough for seniors AND our military why not for the rest of us? If it is so bad why have they not fought tooth and nail to get rid of veteran benefits and Medicare? Could it be that they know private insurance companies would only ensure such high risk people over their company’s dead body?
Also keep this in mind when you fight against public health care. Many of our greatest medical triumphs have been funded BY THE GOVERNMENT. How many universities and research institutes have received government grants for medical research? Probably more than 50% I would bet.
This is a small step, and I hope that the idea of total health coverage remains a strong beacon to achieve.
After all, when this country declared itself independent, it shouted to the world that in America everyone has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” We have the right to live our lives, the right to be free, AND the right of ownership.
To those who oppose the idea of health reform I again ask this question. If government health care is good enough for seniors AND our military why not for the rest of us? If it is so bad why have they not fought tooth and nail to get rid of veteran benefits and Medicare? Could it be that they know private insurance companies would only ensure such high risk people over their company’s dead body?
Also keep this in mind when you fight against public health care. Many of our greatest medical triumphs have been funded BY THE GOVERNMENT. How many universities and research institutes have received government grants for medical research? Probably more than 50% I would bet.
This is a small step, and I hope that the idea of total health coverage remains a strong beacon to achieve.
After all, when this country declared itself independent, it shouted to the world that in America everyone has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” We have the right to live our lives, the right to be free, AND the right of ownership.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thoughts
This is kinda different from my other blogs. It's not political or anything like that. It's more of a situation where I have things swirling in my head and needed to get them out. Comment if you want if you can follow my train of thought well enough lol.
Is it possible for a person to be too nice or care too much for another? I often am willing to help people any way I can. Mostly by letting them know they can talk to me about anything without them having to worry about it affecting my opinion of them. I don’t force the issue, I just simply let them know and leave it to them. This has in the past lead to some close friendships and even stronger feelings (at least from my side), but I wonder if I am being too nice. I am willing to give people everything I can give to make sure that they feel happier and better with life, even if it means a little pain for me (stronger feelings (which I rarely if ever bring to her attention) not returned). I know that people have to make their own decisions in the end but I hate seeing them repeatedly choose to ignore their better judgments or repeatedly get involved with people who are simply wanting a notch on their sexual belt.
Is it selfish or stupid of me to worry about things in a relationship that may or may not happen? I don’t mean trust issues, but other things that go on in a relationship. For example, I am in a long distance relationship and have been for about two years (neither of us is close to being in a position to move). She says that I am “it” for her and no one comes close. Lately I have been debating on ending things. We get along great but have never had a fight (in person and by phone). A few annoyed times, but not a major fight. Now I feel that it can be one of two things: we won’t have major fights, maybe a few minor ones; or things are building up slowly and could end in a big fight. Should I end things to preserve our friendship and avoid any deep emotional baggage if we do have a major ending fight? Also this is my first relationship so I am also concerned if I personally can, for lack of a better term, keep my eyes to myself for as long as it lasts. How do I know if she is “it” for me when I don’t have anyone else to compare her to? It could be 5 years, more or less, before either of us can move, and I’m not sure if it would be fair to either of us to ignore other opportunities for that long. The distance makes it hard for me to be a true boyfriend and be there truly when she needs me. Her happiness above all else is my main concern and I am willing to see her happy with someone who can be there for her ALL the time. Again am I selfish, stupid, or too nice to think of ending things for those reasons? When does it become better to have hurt feelings for a short time, if it means happiness for both down the road with different people?
Is it possible for a person to be too nice or care too much for another? I often am willing to help people any way I can. Mostly by letting them know they can talk to me about anything without them having to worry about it affecting my opinion of them. I don’t force the issue, I just simply let them know and leave it to them. This has in the past lead to some close friendships and even stronger feelings (at least from my side), but I wonder if I am being too nice. I am willing to give people everything I can give to make sure that they feel happier and better with life, even if it means a little pain for me (stronger feelings (which I rarely if ever bring to her attention) not returned). I know that people have to make their own decisions in the end but I hate seeing them repeatedly choose to ignore their better judgments or repeatedly get involved with people who are simply wanting a notch on their sexual belt.
Is it selfish or stupid of me to worry about things in a relationship that may or may not happen? I don’t mean trust issues, but other things that go on in a relationship. For example, I am in a long distance relationship and have been for about two years (neither of us is close to being in a position to move). She says that I am “it” for her and no one comes close. Lately I have been debating on ending things. We get along great but have never had a fight (in person and by phone). A few annoyed times, but not a major fight. Now I feel that it can be one of two things: we won’t have major fights, maybe a few minor ones; or things are building up slowly and could end in a big fight. Should I end things to preserve our friendship and avoid any deep emotional baggage if we do have a major ending fight? Also this is my first relationship so I am also concerned if I personally can, for lack of a better term, keep my eyes to myself for as long as it lasts. How do I know if she is “it” for me when I don’t have anyone else to compare her to? It could be 5 years, more or less, before either of us can move, and I’m not sure if it would be fair to either of us to ignore other opportunities for that long. The distance makes it hard for me to be a true boyfriend and be there truly when she needs me. Her happiness above all else is my main concern and I am willing to see her happy with someone who can be there for her ALL the time. Again am I selfish, stupid, or too nice to think of ending things for those reasons? When does it become better to have hurt feelings for a short time, if it means happiness for both down the road with different people?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
You get the government you work for
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/15/bayh.centrist.democrats/index.html?hpt=T2
I find this most recent case of a Senator choosing not to seek reelection one of the more interesting ones. Senator Bayh claims that one of his main reasons for not seeking another term is because of the partisan gridlock that is the day to day operations of the U.S. Senate. To me, his actions do not quite fit with his reasons. If you feel the Senate gridlock is a problem, which we all know it is, then why would you decide to “retire”? Would it not be more prudent to seek reelection and try your damnedest to break the gridlock one person at a time? By stepping down doesn’t he risk ADDING to the gridlock by allowing a more partisan person the chance to gain his seat? I wish Sen. Bayh would realize that he could do more as a senator, than he could being a former senator. This move seems to be more for his own benefit than that of his constituents and the nation.
When did this country decide that it was more beneficial to hand the reigns of power to a bunch of extreme politicians and people on both sides of the aisle than it would be to have moderates run things? Was it when special interests, corporations, and unions started to bloat the campaign coughers of politicians? Was it when Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s decided to latch onto the religious extremists of their party to gain back power? Was it when the Democrats decided around the same time to rent or sell themselves to the highest bidder in order for them to compete with the Republicans? Regardless of when it started, it is only getting worse and worse. Today’s reincarnation is the “Tea Party” movement which is starting to make the Republican “revolution” of the 90s look like a centrist movement. The more political things get the less people decide to pay attention which, ironically, has led to more politicization. As hard as it may be people NEED to stay involved in the political process. We NEED to research the issues on our own (from MULTIPLE and DIFFERENT sources), and follow the votes of the people we elect into office. We get the government we work for, and if people are so tired about the way things are now, then we MUST get more involved to help changes things for the better. The extremes of both parties have shown what a dedicated MINORITY can do, but their voice would be drowned out by the moderate ones if only people would wake up and realize it. If there isn’t someone running for an office you agree with, then support the person who is closest to what you believe. Or simply find someone who is at the very least willing to listen and work with people they may not always agree with.
I find this most recent case of a Senator choosing not to seek reelection one of the more interesting ones. Senator Bayh claims that one of his main reasons for not seeking another term is because of the partisan gridlock that is the day to day operations of the U.S. Senate. To me, his actions do not quite fit with his reasons. If you feel the Senate gridlock is a problem, which we all know it is, then why would you decide to “retire”? Would it not be more prudent to seek reelection and try your damnedest to break the gridlock one person at a time? By stepping down doesn’t he risk ADDING to the gridlock by allowing a more partisan person the chance to gain his seat? I wish Sen. Bayh would realize that he could do more as a senator, than he could being a former senator. This move seems to be more for his own benefit than that of his constituents and the nation.
When did this country decide that it was more beneficial to hand the reigns of power to a bunch of extreme politicians and people on both sides of the aisle than it would be to have moderates run things? Was it when special interests, corporations, and unions started to bloat the campaign coughers of politicians? Was it when Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990s decided to latch onto the religious extremists of their party to gain back power? Was it when the Democrats decided around the same time to rent or sell themselves to the highest bidder in order for them to compete with the Republicans? Regardless of when it started, it is only getting worse and worse. Today’s reincarnation is the “Tea Party” movement which is starting to make the Republican “revolution” of the 90s look like a centrist movement. The more political things get the less people decide to pay attention which, ironically, has led to more politicization. As hard as it may be people NEED to stay involved in the political process. We NEED to research the issues on our own (from MULTIPLE and DIFFERENT sources), and follow the votes of the people we elect into office. We get the government we work for, and if people are so tired about the way things are now, then we MUST get more involved to help changes things for the better. The extremes of both parties have shown what a dedicated MINORITY can do, but their voice would be drowned out by the moderate ones if only people would wake up and realize it. If there isn’t someone running for an office you agree with, then support the person who is closest to what you believe. Or simply find someone who is at the very least willing to listen and work with people they may not always agree with.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Manchurian Candidates
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14239144?IADID=Search-www.sltrib.com-www.sltrib.com
This recent ruling by the Supreme Court that lifts ALL restrictions on the type of spending corporations and unions can and cannot do during elections is one of the most corrupt rulings I have ever seen. In this world of electronic information, unlimited spending by people who can afford it violates every principle that democracy was founded on. We think campaign spending is out of control now, just wait to see what happens as a result of this asinine ruling. Where are Sen. McCain and Sen. Feingold in the wake of this decision? Where is the outrage and condemnation from the most outspoken people when it comes to campaign finance reform? Do these two truly care about reform or do they only care when it is politically expedient and/or beneficial for them? It is one thing to come out and say they are “disappointed” but quite another to go out and fight for what you believe.
I have said before that large campaign donations are in effect bribery. Help us get what we want and we will give you money to keep, or get, you in elected office. With this ruling these corporations and unions will no longer be able to bribe politicians, they will in fact be able to CHOOSE what politicians they do and do not want. In other words, we will have a government FULL of Manchurian Candidates. If Congress and/or the President don’t do what these people want, then they will be able to simply buy and install people who will give them what they want. Also this ruling doesn’t apply to only U.S. companies, it also applies to U.S. subsidiaries of FOREIGN companies. Am I the only one who has a problem with foreign companies being able to sway elections to suit their interests? Say for example, OPEC…
This idea of a corporation being considered an “individual” has gone way too far. The only time a corporation should be seen as a single entity is in a lawsuit (sue just the company and not every single employee) or criminal case (not everyone is responsible) but even then its pushing it. Every citizen of this country gets one vote, corporations are NOT citizens and as a result should not be able to have such an enormous influence on elections. The employees of a company can give their opinions with their VOTE, and not by their company BUYING the election.
Sorry Sen. Bennet, the idea that this is a huge win for free speech is a laughable claim at best. We’ll see if you still stand by such a statement if this ruling leads to a landslide victory to DEFEAT you. This is anything but free speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html
Another thing that would save the government money would be to drastically reduce the amount of contractors that the government currently employs. Contrary to popular belief, contracting out a job is not always the cheapest thing to do. In fact it can often be one of the most expensive things a government could do. Let me explain.
A federal, or civil service, employee costs the government health care, wages, retirement, and training. Also as a direct employee of the federal government, the government can better control its quality controls and fire or change anything that isn’t up to standards. On the other hand, when the government hires a contractor the government not only pays for the same things a federal employee gets but they also have to cover the profit margin of the company they contract with. This is a big reason why contractors often get paid more, because the company they work with can gouge (over charge) the federal government for their services. Also, the government often doesn’t have the same power to fire or hire an employee based on performance if they are contracted.
Yes, contracting may be seen as a way to “shrink” the federal government but you have to ask yourself at what cost. Is it worth paying two, three times, or more, for a contract employee to make government seem “smaller” when a federal employee could do the exact same job for less?
This recent ruling by the Supreme Court that lifts ALL restrictions on the type of spending corporations and unions can and cannot do during elections is one of the most corrupt rulings I have ever seen. In this world of electronic information, unlimited spending by people who can afford it violates every principle that democracy was founded on. We think campaign spending is out of control now, just wait to see what happens as a result of this asinine ruling. Where are Sen. McCain and Sen. Feingold in the wake of this decision? Where is the outrage and condemnation from the most outspoken people when it comes to campaign finance reform? Do these two truly care about reform or do they only care when it is politically expedient and/or beneficial for them? It is one thing to come out and say they are “disappointed” but quite another to go out and fight for what you believe.
I have said before that large campaign donations are in effect bribery. Help us get what we want and we will give you money to keep, or get, you in elected office. With this ruling these corporations and unions will no longer be able to bribe politicians, they will in fact be able to CHOOSE what politicians they do and do not want. In other words, we will have a government FULL of Manchurian Candidates. If Congress and/or the President don’t do what these people want, then they will be able to simply buy and install people who will give them what they want. Also this ruling doesn’t apply to only U.S. companies, it also applies to U.S. subsidiaries of FOREIGN companies. Am I the only one who has a problem with foreign companies being able to sway elections to suit their interests? Say for example, OPEC…
This idea of a corporation being considered an “individual” has gone way too far. The only time a corporation should be seen as a single entity is in a lawsuit (sue just the company and not every single employee) or criminal case (not everyone is responsible) but even then its pushing it. Every citizen of this country gets one vote, corporations are NOT citizens and as a result should not be able to have such an enormous influence on elections. The employees of a company can give their opinions with their VOTE, and not by their company BUYING the election.
Sorry Sen. Bennet, the idea that this is a huge win for free speech is a laughable claim at best. We’ll see if you still stand by such a statement if this ruling leads to a landslide victory to DEFEAT you. This is anything but free speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.spending.freeze/index.html
Another thing that would save the government money would be to drastically reduce the amount of contractors that the government currently employs. Contrary to popular belief, contracting out a job is not always the cheapest thing to do. In fact it can often be one of the most expensive things a government could do. Let me explain.
A federal, or civil service, employee costs the government health care, wages, retirement, and training. Also as a direct employee of the federal government, the government can better control its quality controls and fire or change anything that isn’t up to standards. On the other hand, when the government hires a contractor the government not only pays for the same things a federal employee gets but they also have to cover the profit margin of the company they contract with. This is a big reason why contractors often get paid more, because the company they work with can gouge (over charge) the federal government for their services. Also, the government often doesn’t have the same power to fire or hire an employee based on performance if they are contracted.
Yes, contracting may be seen as a way to “shrink” the federal government but you have to ask yourself at what cost. Is it worth paying two, three times, or more, for a contract employee to make government seem “smaller” when a federal employee could do the exact same job for less?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Movies, God, Rush Limbaugh, and War
Avatar link: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/vatican-says-avatar-no-masterpiece-ap
Robertson: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6101136.shtml
Limbaugh: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml
I find it rather pathetic that the Vatican despises Avatar because they claim it flirts “with the idea that worship of nature can replace religion.” Has the Vatican truly forgotten, or has it conveniently ignored the history of religion? Even in the fantasy world of belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old, the very FIRST religions were NATURE BASED! What modern religions call “paganism” today is in fact the basis for ALL modern religions in one way or another. If “nature worship” never existed then it is likely that most of today’s religions would look entirely different than they do now. It’s a fact that every religion steals, or “borrows”, parts from all the religions that came before it (such as beliefs, dates, tales, rules, afterlife, etc). So for the Vatican to condemn Avatar and its “nature worship” they are in effect condemning themselves. Not to mention the fact that nearly all religions that do worship nature treat nature AND man far better than basically all monotheistic religions treat them.
This all goes back to this idea that is pervasive throughout major religions today. It is this “holier than thou” mentality that makes them think THEIRS is the true religion and anyone who believes otherwise will be condemned to eternal damnation. As a result these same religions CAUSE more pain and suffering than they claim to CURE. How do you truly help people who believe differently than you when your very beliefs preach that those same people are condemn unless they convert?
Which brings me to Haiti, Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh…
Pat Robertson’s “holier than thou” attitude knows no bounds. He couldn’t just stand up there and encourage people to help the victims in Haiti, oh no! He had the audacity, the ignorance, and his head so far up his ass that he had to blame Haiti’s earthquake on Haiti itself! The truly disturbing part of his whole statement was not the fact he said it, it is the fact that people BELIEVE every word he says because he is a “man of God.” Is it really so hard to think for yourselves, or at the very least pick up a geology book? The people who believe Rush Limbaugh and his claims are just as blind and ignorant as those who believe Robertson. Limbaugh’s comments are in some ways even worse than Robertson’s because Robertson was at least encouraging people to help Haiti, Limbaugh on the other hand said not to even think about helping them. To say that the PRESIDENT will siphon funds for relief to fund his campaign as well as use it to his political advantage is simply disgusting. I shouldn’t be surprised that it came from the mouth of a little man who uses fear and sows dissent to get his point across, but to actually tell people NOT to help others is a new low even for him. Again, however, there is a huge number of people who, for whatever reason, believe every little word he spouts from his fat mouth and won‘t lift a finger or a neuron to think for themselves. I would bet even if HE was under a pile of rubble in Haiti that he would STILL make the same pathetic claims.
Finally, I come to our current battle against terrorists once again. The last few weeks have seen an attempted bombing on a plane, and two security breaches in New York City area airports. The bombing was thwarted by passengers, and the breaches were simply people being idiots but still people are again getting paranoid about flying and claiming the President is making us “less safe.” I wrote about how asinine making such a claim is a few weeks ago so I won’t repeat myself here. Instead I would like to raise a different issue. Since 9/11, every attempted terrorist attack in the US has been easily stopped, either by alert travelers, good law enforcement work, and some by to increased security procedures. Some of that credit is deserved, but some I feel is not. I look back at the complex planning used for 9/11 and then look at the attempted attacks since and I see a major flaw in our thinking. Not a single attack since 9/11 has come even close to such planning and detail and all of them are still concentrating on aircraft. I sit here thinking about that as I watch Pearl Harbor and have come to the conclusion that we are probably vastly underestimating the people we are fighting. Now one of the basic rules of war according the Sun Tzu is to “know thy enemy” and that knowing your enemy and yourself means the difference between victory or defeat. I feel that we are greatly underestimating our adversaries. What if we are doing EXACTLY what they want us to do? So far nearly all of the attention to increasing security has been centered on air travel. What if these recent half-asses attacks are designed to KEEP our attention on air travel? Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they flooded their radio transmissions with false targets in order to distract and prevent us from guessing what their true target was. A diversion is one of the most potent tactics to use in warfare. It would not surprise me in the least if that is not exactly what we are seeing today. Our aviation security is almost as good as it is going to get, but we still have at least one major weak point for an attack. Our shipping ports are still just as vulnerable and open to infiltration today as they were 9 years ago. That would be my bet for where the next attack will come from. A weapon, and perhaps even personnel to detonate it, shipped onto US soil by an ocean cargo vessel. From the port they have easy access to the entire country. Sure, you could say they may be randomly pulled over by some Highway Patrol on their way to their target but they would be smart enough to do NOTHING to attract such attention. This is just a theory but it is one I hope I never see proven right.
Robertson: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6101136.shtml
Limbaugh: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/15/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6100434.shtml
I find it rather pathetic that the Vatican despises Avatar because they claim it flirts “with the idea that worship of nature can replace religion.” Has the Vatican truly forgotten, or has it conveniently ignored the history of religion? Even in the fantasy world of belief that the Earth is only 6000 years old, the very FIRST religions were NATURE BASED! What modern religions call “paganism” today is in fact the basis for ALL modern religions in one way or another. If “nature worship” never existed then it is likely that most of today’s religions would look entirely different than they do now. It’s a fact that every religion steals, or “borrows”, parts from all the religions that came before it (such as beliefs, dates, tales, rules, afterlife, etc). So for the Vatican to condemn Avatar and its “nature worship” they are in effect condemning themselves. Not to mention the fact that nearly all religions that do worship nature treat nature AND man far better than basically all monotheistic religions treat them.
This all goes back to this idea that is pervasive throughout major religions today. It is this “holier than thou” mentality that makes them think THEIRS is the true religion and anyone who believes otherwise will be condemned to eternal damnation. As a result these same religions CAUSE more pain and suffering than they claim to CURE. How do you truly help people who believe differently than you when your very beliefs preach that those same people are condemn unless they convert?
Which brings me to Haiti, Pat Robertson, and Rush Limbaugh…
Pat Robertson’s “holier than thou” attitude knows no bounds. He couldn’t just stand up there and encourage people to help the victims in Haiti, oh no! He had the audacity, the ignorance, and his head so far up his ass that he had to blame Haiti’s earthquake on Haiti itself! The truly disturbing part of his whole statement was not the fact he said it, it is the fact that people BELIEVE every word he says because he is a “man of God.” Is it really so hard to think for yourselves, or at the very least pick up a geology book? The people who believe Rush Limbaugh and his claims are just as blind and ignorant as those who believe Robertson. Limbaugh’s comments are in some ways even worse than Robertson’s because Robertson was at least encouraging people to help Haiti, Limbaugh on the other hand said not to even think about helping them. To say that the PRESIDENT will siphon funds for relief to fund his campaign as well as use it to his political advantage is simply disgusting. I shouldn’t be surprised that it came from the mouth of a little man who uses fear and sows dissent to get his point across, but to actually tell people NOT to help others is a new low even for him. Again, however, there is a huge number of people who, for whatever reason, believe every little word he spouts from his fat mouth and won‘t lift a finger or a neuron to think for themselves. I would bet even if HE was under a pile of rubble in Haiti that he would STILL make the same pathetic claims.
Finally, I come to our current battle against terrorists once again. The last few weeks have seen an attempted bombing on a plane, and two security breaches in New York City area airports. The bombing was thwarted by passengers, and the breaches were simply people being idiots but still people are again getting paranoid about flying and claiming the President is making us “less safe.” I wrote about how asinine making such a claim is a few weeks ago so I won’t repeat myself here. Instead I would like to raise a different issue. Since 9/11, every attempted terrorist attack in the US has been easily stopped, either by alert travelers, good law enforcement work, and some by to increased security procedures. Some of that credit is deserved, but some I feel is not. I look back at the complex planning used for 9/11 and then look at the attempted attacks since and I see a major flaw in our thinking. Not a single attack since 9/11 has come even close to such planning and detail and all of them are still concentrating on aircraft. I sit here thinking about that as I watch Pearl Harbor and have come to the conclusion that we are probably vastly underestimating the people we are fighting. Now one of the basic rules of war according the Sun Tzu is to “know thy enemy” and that knowing your enemy and yourself means the difference between victory or defeat. I feel that we are greatly underestimating our adversaries. What if we are doing EXACTLY what they want us to do? So far nearly all of the attention to increasing security has been centered on air travel. What if these recent half-asses attacks are designed to KEEP our attention on air travel? Before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they flooded their radio transmissions with false targets in order to distract and prevent us from guessing what their true target was. A diversion is one of the most potent tactics to use in warfare. It would not surprise me in the least if that is not exactly what we are seeing today. Our aviation security is almost as good as it is going to get, but we still have at least one major weak point for an attack. Our shipping ports are still just as vulnerable and open to infiltration today as they were 9 years ago. That would be my bet for where the next attack will come from. A weapon, and perhaps even personnel to detonate it, shipped onto US soil by an ocean cargo vessel. From the port they have easy access to the entire country. Sure, you could say they may be randomly pulled over by some Highway Patrol on their way to their target but they would be smart enough to do NOTHING to attract such attention. This is just a theory but it is one I hope I never see proven right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
