Posts
Ok, after listening to the President's speech and Boehner's speeches I have a few thoughts.
The President is correct that both sides share in the blame of this problem AND he is also correct in piling a little more blame on the Republicans. The President throughout this whole thing has bent over backwards to try and get a deal done, and has even said he was willing to touch entitlement programs (mainly Social Security and Medicare). What more do the Republicans want him to do? Yes I admit that you do have to cut some spending (for example the F-22 which is grounded indefinitely, the F-35 which we really don't need, tax cuts that haven't resulted in job growth, etc), BUT that can't be your ONLY solution. At some point there has to be a revenue increase (and I'm sorry simply growing the economy isn't enough).
Look at it from a business perspective. Say Mr Deeds has 2 stores but he is running in the red. The Republican solution to his problem would be to simply cut his staff in half, keep giving himself a bonus, not take on ANY debt even if that debt is required to expand his business (aka balanced budget amendment), and leave prices unchanged. This banks on the idea that you can do more with less and that your customer service won't suffer. But if your customer service DOES decline (which is extremely likely) you are in an even worse situation than before, because you are still losing money but now you are also losing your loyal customers. How can you make money in that scenario? Whereas what the President would tell Mr Deeds is to cut about 1/4 of his staff, stop giving himself a bonus, AND raise his prices, say 5 cents. Customers, from what I have seen (and airlines are a good example) are far more willing to accept an increase in price, although grudgingly, than they are willing to accept a steep decline in the quality of customer service. With this scenario you may take a slight hit in customer service but people would still frequent his business, especially if what he offers is in demand. It also allows him to take on some debt (once his business starts to turn a profit) to expand his business.
Now you tell me which of those is the better solution long term
Monday, July 25, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Farse of Federal Pay
Ok it is time that Republicans STOP with this “federal employees get so much more than private sector employees” bull shit. The rank and file federal employee makes as much or LESS than people in the private sector.
In the story below, the report cited in it claims that 77,000 people make more money as federal employees than the governors of the states in which they live. 77,000 out of about 2 million, which equals an earth shattering 3.85% federal employees. They are seriously trying to make a case that 77,000 people are budget busters?!
If the Republicans want to cut federal pay SO badly, then they need to start with themselves. They need to now wait 6 months before receiving any benefits when they first get their jobs as Reps or Senators (as us lowly employees do). They must pay into their own TSP with a maximum 10% agency match (like we do) and only have their TSP and Social Security as their government provided retirement (any new employee in the last 20 years or so doesn’t get any type of pension). They also have to have their starting pay reduced to $40,000 and have ALL their “expense accounts” terminated. No more jets, drivers, etc. Also, and I know I’m gonna get hell for this but it’s true, if they are truly serious about reducing federal employees’ pay and benefits then they need to start downsizing the military. Now let me be clear, I think the military is actually UNDER paid but I’m not the one demanding cuts. When you consider the costs of training, moving, normal salary, health care, equipment (buying and maintaining), etc. the military is by far the most expensive group of government employees.
Here is a thought, how about they, and the Democrats, stop acting like 2 year olds and actually THINK!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/report-some/2011/06/01/AGZYAkGH_story.html
In the story below, the report cited in it claims that 77,000 people make more money as federal employees than the governors of the states in which they live. 77,000 out of about 2 million, which equals an earth shattering 3.85% federal employees. They are seriously trying to make a case that 77,000 people are budget busters?!
If the Republicans want to cut federal pay SO badly, then they need to start with themselves. They need to now wait 6 months before receiving any benefits when they first get their jobs as Reps or Senators (as us lowly employees do). They must pay into their own TSP with a maximum 10% agency match (like we do) and only have their TSP and Social Security as their government provided retirement (any new employee in the last 20 years or so doesn’t get any type of pension). They also have to have their starting pay reduced to $40,000 and have ALL their “expense accounts” terminated. No more jets, drivers, etc. Also, and I know I’m gonna get hell for this but it’s true, if they are truly serious about reducing federal employees’ pay and benefits then they need to start downsizing the military. Now let me be clear, I think the military is actually UNDER paid but I’m not the one demanding cuts. When you consider the costs of training, moving, normal salary, health care, equipment (buying and maintaining), etc. the military is by far the most expensive group of government employees.
Here is a thought, how about they, and the Democrats, stop acting like 2 year olds and actually THINK!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/politics/report-some/2011/06/01/AGZYAkGH_story.html
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Tax cuts vs Tax Increases and why the latter is the better (when used wisely)
Tax cuts against tax raises is one of the oldest fights in politics. I am going to lay out for you why I believe wise tax increases will prove more fruitful.
I begin with tax cuts. Who doesn't want more money instantly? Everyone of course. Who benefits the most from them? The middle class, the rich and the poor. So why you may ask do I dislike them as sound government policy? Let me explain it to you. The biggest problem with tax cuts, especially in a recession, is that there is absolutely nothing that forces those who receive such cuts, to spend the extra money to grow the economy. The whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible with your product(s) while at the same time trying to minimize your risk as much as possible.
Now if a person is already wealthy (for reference let's say $350,000 of income a year) and owns a productive business, is he/she going to automatically jump up and spend more on the business if given a tax cut? In booming economic times, when his/her product(s) is in great demand, sure it will get spent on the business. The benefits in this case out-weigh the risks. The business is already profitable and by using the extra money from the cuts to expand into new markets the business can earn even more profit. This in turn allows the employees to potentially (key word) to earn more money, which allows more spending, and in turn fuels the economy. Now what happens if there is an economic recession?
Again, a business's goal is to make money as fast and as possible with minimal risk. Even if the business is still doing fairly well, in a down economy is the risk of spending the extra cash from tax cuts on expansion worth the gain? Maybe. Notice we have gone from the benefits far out-weighing the risks, to maybe. If you are successful can a person, in a down economy, take a chance and risk losing money on a "maybe"? From a sound business point of view the answer is no. As it stands your business is making money as is, but if you expand and the market can't support you then you risk losing everything. In a down economy the smart business move is to put the extra money into investments. You can spend it on cheap stocks, bonds, lock it away in CDs, put it in savings accounts, etc. By spending the extra cash in that sense the risk is lowered by diversifying, and most, if not all, of that invested money can be quickly accessed and moved around.
That is the safest bet to play in a down economy, which in fact is what we are seeing today. Businesses are scoring profits, and the wealthy have gained wealth but that hasn't led to a massive increase in the economy and jobs. This of course means that the economy becomes more and more stagnant, and in turn reduces the chances of businesses expanding causing the cycle to continue. Also, from the government side, tax cuts do in fact cost the government money. You are reducing the net income of the government which is in essence a cost. If you cut taxes and the economy doesn't grow then you are now out potentially trillions of dollars.
The other option is tax raises. A tax increase is a very toxic issue, especially in an economic recession, but it is a sure fire way to raise revenue. Unlike tax cuts, tax increases promise an influx of income because people ALWAYS earn money and people ALWAYS have to spend it in order to live in today's world. Now yes, a tax increase does reduce the amount of spendable income for both individuals and businesses, however, you can have an effective tax increase with only a small percentage (going from 36 to 39% on the wealthiest income taxes for example) which in turn limits the impact on that spending.
Going back to the goal of businesses, if their taxes go up they have two choices: cut (which will hurt you eventually), or take out a loan and try to expand your market to make up for the difference. The chance of losing income through the tax reduces the risks of expansion. If a business can see a reduction in profits either way it makes more sense to expand that business while you can and tap into new markets. By expansion you are forced to hire, which gives people more money, which they will likely spend in your business, which grows the economy as well as the business' bottom line. Eventually you find your profits at equal, or greater levels than it would have been had the business done nothing.
Now don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that taxes be raised a little every year. In fact tax raises have two faces. You can raise taxes on existing tax bases OR you go find a new tax base. By finding a new tax base you can raise your taxes by 3% without effecting profits or income. In addition if you find multiple new bases, you spread that 3% out and reduce it on each base (2 new tax bases set at 1.5% for example).
Now by no means is one a cure all answer because you have to analyze each month, each year, each day. But by keep to one of the other is a recipe for disaster. We have had the current tax rates since 2001, and they simply have not paid themselves off with economic growth. As much as people try to deny it and make excuses, that is the true fact. 10 years and only a certain part of the country has grown wealthier (and it isn't the biggest part of the country). If businesses and people aren't spending enough, then maybe its time to change policies and force the job creators to choose whether to stand pat and lose money in taxes, or to try and expand to make up the difference. Reagan and Bush senior raised taxes during troubled economic times (Savings and Loan crisis) and in the late 90s we had a booming economy with a multibillion dollar government surplus. If it was good enough for Reagan and Bush why isn't it good enough to try now?
I begin with tax cuts. Who doesn't want more money instantly? Everyone of course. Who benefits the most from them? The middle class, the rich and the poor. So why you may ask do I dislike them as sound government policy? Let me explain it to you. The biggest problem with tax cuts, especially in a recession, is that there is absolutely nothing that forces those who receive such cuts, to spend the extra money to grow the economy. The whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible with your product(s) while at the same time trying to minimize your risk as much as possible.
Now if a person is already wealthy (for reference let's say $350,000 of income a year) and owns a productive business, is he/she going to automatically jump up and spend more on the business if given a tax cut? In booming economic times, when his/her product(s) is in great demand, sure it will get spent on the business. The benefits in this case out-weigh the risks. The business is already profitable and by using the extra money from the cuts to expand into new markets the business can earn even more profit. This in turn allows the employees to potentially (key word) to earn more money, which allows more spending, and in turn fuels the economy. Now what happens if there is an economic recession?
Again, a business's goal is to make money as fast and as possible with minimal risk. Even if the business is still doing fairly well, in a down economy is the risk of spending the extra cash from tax cuts on expansion worth the gain? Maybe. Notice we have gone from the benefits far out-weighing the risks, to maybe. If you are successful can a person, in a down economy, take a chance and risk losing money on a "maybe"? From a sound business point of view the answer is no. As it stands your business is making money as is, but if you expand and the market can't support you then you risk losing everything. In a down economy the smart business move is to put the extra money into investments. You can spend it on cheap stocks, bonds, lock it away in CDs, put it in savings accounts, etc. By spending the extra cash in that sense the risk is lowered by diversifying, and most, if not all, of that invested money can be quickly accessed and moved around.
That is the safest bet to play in a down economy, which in fact is what we are seeing today. Businesses are scoring profits, and the wealthy have gained wealth but that hasn't led to a massive increase in the economy and jobs. This of course means that the economy becomes more and more stagnant, and in turn reduces the chances of businesses expanding causing the cycle to continue. Also, from the government side, tax cuts do in fact cost the government money. You are reducing the net income of the government which is in essence a cost. If you cut taxes and the economy doesn't grow then you are now out potentially trillions of dollars.
The other option is tax raises. A tax increase is a very toxic issue, especially in an economic recession, but it is a sure fire way to raise revenue. Unlike tax cuts, tax increases promise an influx of income because people ALWAYS earn money and people ALWAYS have to spend it in order to live in today's world. Now yes, a tax increase does reduce the amount of spendable income for both individuals and businesses, however, you can have an effective tax increase with only a small percentage (going from 36 to 39% on the wealthiest income taxes for example) which in turn limits the impact on that spending.
Going back to the goal of businesses, if their taxes go up they have two choices: cut (which will hurt you eventually), or take out a loan and try to expand your market to make up for the difference. The chance of losing income through the tax reduces the risks of expansion. If a business can see a reduction in profits either way it makes more sense to expand that business while you can and tap into new markets. By expansion you are forced to hire, which gives people more money, which they will likely spend in your business, which grows the economy as well as the business' bottom line. Eventually you find your profits at equal, or greater levels than it would have been had the business done nothing.
Now don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that taxes be raised a little every year. In fact tax raises have two faces. You can raise taxes on existing tax bases OR you go find a new tax base. By finding a new tax base you can raise your taxes by 3% without effecting profits or income. In addition if you find multiple new bases, you spread that 3% out and reduce it on each base (2 new tax bases set at 1.5% for example).
Now by no means is one a cure all answer because you have to analyze each month, each year, each day. But by keep to one of the other is a recipe for disaster. We have had the current tax rates since 2001, and they simply have not paid themselves off with economic growth. As much as people try to deny it and make excuses, that is the true fact. 10 years and only a certain part of the country has grown wealthier (and it isn't the biggest part of the country). If businesses and people aren't spending enough, then maybe its time to change policies and force the job creators to choose whether to stand pat and lose money in taxes, or to try and expand to make up the difference. Reagan and Bush senior raised taxes during troubled economic times (Savings and Loan crisis) and in the late 90s we had a booming economy with a multibillion dollar government surplus. If it was good enough for Reagan and Bush why isn't it good enough to try now?
My ideas to tackle the budget
Ok so I have been slamming the Republicans repeatedly for what they are trying to cut out of the budget to try and balance it. Now one thing I think the Republicans don't get is that there is no way in hell you are going to balance the budget in one year. It is going to take 2 or 3 years. That being said, here is what I would do, and keep in mind with what I am going to propose that I am of the liberal political persuasion:
1) The Social Security age has to be raised to 70 or 75 years old. Not in 5 years, that has to happen now. People are living far longer now than they did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. When you are pulling it out at 65 and living until you are 95, that is a lot of money. Social Security should be used to compliment certain people's retirement, but it shouldn't comprise the WHOLE thing. Also, people who have retirement incomes over say $50,000 a year (I'm willing to change this) should NOT be able to draw Social Security. For 2 people (each earning $50,000), with their house paid for, that should be more than enough to live comfortably. Now people will say "well I paid into it so I should get some" well guess what, every single person (at least in Utah) is paying for YOUR kids to go to school even though they have none of their own. Or a family with 2 kids is helping to pay for your 10 kids to go through school. Don't get me wrong, I am all for public schools but the fact is that some people will pay into it and never see a direct benefit.
2) DO NOT PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY! This is the absolute thing that could happen. As we saw with the recent recession, we can't afford to put that much risk on Social Security.
3) Stop the Medicare/Medicaid double dipping. If you can afford to pay for your own insurance premiums then you should not be able to use Medicare. With the recent health care reform bill, ANYONE can get insurance (granted I would have liked to see a Medicare for all but whatever) so the fear of being rejected due to age or medical conditions is gone. Also, if you retired from the military and as a result are covered by Tricare for life, then you should not be able to get Medicare/Medicaid. This may sound harsh but if you already get benefits we simply can't afford right now for those benefits to be doubled.
4) Cut the DoD budget. Secretary Gates has already said he is willing to cut $80 billion out of his budget, so let him. No one else is daring to do it, but the fact is that it has to be done. The DoD budget is one of the biggest after Medicare and Social Security and it cannot be ignored.
5) You HAVE to raise taxes. Even Reagan, who Republicans treat as a god, realized that he had to raise revenue. He did it by raising the gas tax and a few other things. There was an article on Yahoo Finance that said the population of millionaires in the U.S. has grown 8%. 8% in a recession! The tax rates on the wealthiest Americans needs to go up, at least back to the level it was at during Clinton (which I believe was 38%) or even just a tad higher.
6) Close the tax loopholes so that people who can afford to get accountants to wiggle out of paying ANY taxes will have to pay them.
7) Greatly eliminate farm subsidies. I know farming can be an expensive endeavor BUT some of these subsidies haven't done shit (such as ethanol).
8) Eliminate the tax breaks/loopholes for oil, coal, and natural gas companies. These guys are making PLENTY of money without the government helping them out.
9) End the War on Drugs and at least legalize pot. It stops some wasteful spending, and gives you a new tax base. It also betters the health of Americans because when you legalize it, you can put in safety and quality controls so that users don't end up getting something that contains something that could kill them.
These are the bulk of what I would do, and most would need time to see how they work out. They aren't easy to take in some cases but most need to be done.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-millionaires-population-cnnm-649773567.html?x=0
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/17/house.of.reps.npr.funding/index.html?hpt=T2
1) The Social Security age has to be raised to 70 or 75 years old. Not in 5 years, that has to happen now. People are living far longer now than they did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. When you are pulling it out at 65 and living until you are 95, that is a lot of money. Social Security should be used to compliment certain people's retirement, but it shouldn't comprise the WHOLE thing. Also, people who have retirement incomes over say $50,000 a year (I'm willing to change this) should NOT be able to draw Social Security. For 2 people (each earning $50,000), with their house paid for, that should be more than enough to live comfortably. Now people will say "well I paid into it so I should get some" well guess what, every single person (at least in Utah) is paying for YOUR kids to go to school even though they have none of their own. Or a family with 2 kids is helping to pay for your 10 kids to go through school. Don't get me wrong, I am all for public schools but the fact is that some people will pay into it and never see a direct benefit.
2) DO NOT PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY! This is the absolute thing that could happen. As we saw with the recent recession, we can't afford to put that much risk on Social Security.
3) Stop the Medicare/Medicaid double dipping. If you can afford to pay for your own insurance premiums then you should not be able to use Medicare. With the recent health care reform bill, ANYONE can get insurance (granted I would have liked to see a Medicare for all but whatever) so the fear of being rejected due to age or medical conditions is gone. Also, if you retired from the military and as a result are covered by Tricare for life, then you should not be able to get Medicare/Medicaid. This may sound harsh but if you already get benefits we simply can't afford right now for those benefits to be doubled.
4) Cut the DoD budget. Secretary Gates has already said he is willing to cut $80 billion out of his budget, so let him. No one else is daring to do it, but the fact is that it has to be done. The DoD budget is one of the biggest after Medicare and Social Security and it cannot be ignored.
5) You HAVE to raise taxes. Even Reagan, who Republicans treat as a god, realized that he had to raise revenue. He did it by raising the gas tax and a few other things. There was an article on Yahoo Finance that said the population of millionaires in the U.S. has grown 8%. 8% in a recession! The tax rates on the wealthiest Americans needs to go up, at least back to the level it was at during Clinton (which I believe was 38%) or even just a tad higher.
6) Close the tax loopholes so that people who can afford to get accountants to wiggle out of paying ANY taxes will have to pay them.
7) Greatly eliminate farm subsidies. I know farming can be an expensive endeavor BUT some of these subsidies haven't done shit (such as ethanol).
8) Eliminate the tax breaks/loopholes for oil, coal, and natural gas companies. These guys are making PLENTY of money without the government helping them out.
9) End the War on Drugs and at least legalize pot. It stops some wasteful spending, and gives you a new tax base. It also betters the health of Americans because when you legalize it, you can put in safety and quality controls so that users don't end up getting something that contains something that could kill them.
These are the bulk of what I would do, and most would need time to see how they work out. They aren't easy to take in some cases but most need to be done.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-millionaires-population-cnnm-649773567.html?x=0
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/17/house.of.reps.npr.funding/index.html?hpt=T2
On the obsession of education cuts and a blip on gun control
In a time of tight budgets, I wanted to express my distaste for this obsession with cutting the budgets for education. How can people stand and preach about getting this country back on top on one hand and then demand the elimination of its education system on the other? I understand that our system isn’t the greatest but it is a hell of a lot better than cutting it out completely! If you cut public education you are severely hurting the future of this country because without public education people would be forced to enroll their kids in private schools. Now for some this would be an improvement but what about those who have single parents or parents who can barely afford health insurance let alone paying for a private education. Yes for the most part private schools are often superior to public schools BUT that is because of their price, size, etc. If you cut public education and funnel huge amounts of kids into private schools you suddenly eliminate many of their advantages. You crowd their classrooms, forcing prices to increase, which would force more people to choose debt or an educated child. Sure cutting education and other social programs are great talking points, but the reality is that doing so would in the long run hurt this country far more than it would help.
This is just a small portion of Rand Paul's, and Tea Party supported, proposed budget. The link below will give you more of a taste of how absurd this guy really is in terms of what he wants to do to the budget. This country tried to have a tiny central government, which is what the Tea Party wants, once before, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it failed bad enough that people decided a new constitution was needed.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/news/la-pn-0125-rand-paul-budget-20110125
On the subject of guns, again, I believe that gun control IS constitutional and in fact demanded. Thanks to an interview Mike Bloomberg gave to Lawrence O’Donnell tonight I went back and reread the 2nd Amendment and immediately saw what he stated and which I have overlooked a lot. The 2nd Amendment does grant the right for us to carry guns in this country BUT the first four words of the amendment are “A well regulated Militia”. If people are going to pound their chests about their 2nd Amendment rights, then they have to accept the ENTIRE amendment. Not only does the amend say you can have a gun, but it REQUIRES those guns to be well regulated. Therefore an assault weapons ban, extended clip bans, requiring permits, etc are TOTALLY constitutional.
This is just a small portion of Rand Paul's, and Tea Party supported, proposed budget. The link below will give you more of a taste of how absurd this guy really is in terms of what he wants to do to the budget. This country tried to have a tiny central government, which is what the Tea Party wants, once before, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it failed bad enough that people decided a new constitution was needed.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/25/news/la-pn-0125-rand-paul-budget-20110125
On the subject of guns, again, I believe that gun control IS constitutional and in fact demanded. Thanks to an interview Mike Bloomberg gave to Lawrence O’Donnell tonight I went back and reread the 2nd Amendment and immediately saw what he stated and which I have overlooked a lot. The 2nd Amendment does grant the right for us to carry guns in this country BUT the first four words of the amendment are “A well regulated Militia”. If people are going to pound their chests about their 2nd Amendment rights, then they have to accept the ENTIRE amendment. Not only does the amend say you can have a gun, but it REQUIRES those guns to be well regulated. Therefore an assault weapons ban, extended clip bans, requiring permits, etc are TOTALLY constitutional.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thoughts on Afghanistan
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
ENOUGH!!!
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
