Posts
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?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
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)
