Posts
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Privatizing the Military
I know this really has not been in the news much recently but since I'm nearly done reading Blackwater I thought I would talk about it. Having read 90% of that book, I have come to the conclusion that contracting out military responsibilities to private companies is one of the most dangerous threats to the military, and maybe even the nation itself. These "private security companies" have WAY too much influence and power. A company that has military grade weapons, training, billions of dollars, and the ability to influence foreign policy is something that should worry all of us. A company like that is capable of doing anything if it doesn't get what it wants, including, in extreme circumstances, using their forces against the government. Mercenary forces, which is exactly what security contractors are, have absolutely no place in the military, war zones, or patrolling US cities after hurricanes.
Also I feel that having them deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is an insult to our active duty military personnel who are there because they were ordered to go, and who are doing the exact same thing as security contractors for FAR LESS money. Is the notion that the lives of private contractors are worth more, which means far higher salaries, than the everyday hero in the Army who is on the ground fighting the same people as contractors, but with a far lower salary, a good one to be sending to those guys who are in the military? It should be the complete opposite! Our soldiers should be getting paid far better than ANY security contractor! Every person who went to work for security companies who are now in Iraq had a choice and knew what they were getting into, and they can quit at anytime. The enlisted soldier though MUST go where he/she is ordered and MUST complete his/her duty no matter how they feel about the orders they are given because if they don't they can be court martialed and/or dishonorably discharged. Recruiting and reenlistment are also casualties because why go into or stay in the military when you can make far more money in the private sector doing the exact same thing. Now tell me who is making the bigger sacrifice and thus deserves to be paid and supported as they should be.
Blackwater is a very interesting read, and I recommend people read it. It does knock the current administration, however, it was under this administration that companies like Blackwater were able to thrive so much and so fast. It also talks about what I mentioned with respect to patrolling in US cities.
Also I feel that having them deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is an insult to our active duty military personnel who are there because they were ordered to go, and who are doing the exact same thing as security contractors for FAR LESS money. Is the notion that the lives of private contractors are worth more, which means far higher salaries, than the everyday hero in the Army who is on the ground fighting the same people as contractors, but with a far lower salary, a good one to be sending to those guys who are in the military? It should be the complete opposite! Our soldiers should be getting paid far better than ANY security contractor! Every person who went to work for security companies who are now in Iraq had a choice and knew what they were getting into, and they can quit at anytime. The enlisted soldier though MUST go where he/she is ordered and MUST complete his/her duty no matter how they feel about the orders they are given because if they don't they can be court martialed and/or dishonorably discharged. Recruiting and reenlistment are also casualties because why go into or stay in the military when you can make far more money in the private sector doing the exact same thing. Now tell me who is making the bigger sacrifice and thus deserves to be paid and supported as they should be.
Blackwater is a very interesting read, and I recommend people read it. It does knock the current administration, however, it was under this administration that companies like Blackwater were able to thrive so much and so fast. It also talks about what I mentioned with respect to patrolling in US cities.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A hidden foe for renewable energy?
I had an interesting thought today about a reason why so many companies are unwilling to devote more money to renewable energies and it has to do with money. Now I'm not talking about start up/building costs, or amount of energy produced; but rather profits. Could one of the real reasons many companies hate putting money into renewable energy sources such as wind and solar be one of the very reasons renewable energy is so appealing? Cheap energy is cheap.
In order for a coal or gas plant to run, the raw materials have to be bought, and the energy companies pass that cost, along with their own "add-on costs" (aka profits), onto the consumer (if you don't think thats the case then you have a pretty naive view of businesses). When it comes to renewable solar and wind energy, however, there is no raw materials to buy and thus it makes it harder for companies to mask their profits as "add-on costs". Aside from the initial costs to build, which every type of energy has, the only additional cost comes from regular maintenance because sun and wind are free to access. The middle men (energy companies) can't very easily jack up prices when everyone knows, you don't have to have a company mine the sun or drill the wind. Suddenly the middle men lose most of their power and as a result lose profits. Thus they aren't as willing to rapidly advance using renewable energy.
Also, with a little investment, anyone can capture renewable energy at their own homes and mostly, or completely, bypass the energy companies. An average everyday person can easily go and buy their own solar cells, and wind turbines to put on their homes and as a result reduce, or reverse (go from paying the company for energy to being paid by putting unused power back on the grid), their energy bill. A person can't do that with coal or natural gas so they are forced to buy coal or natural gas produced energy from the energy companies.
That being said, I do think that eventually when natural gas, coal, and oil run out (and they most definitely will); these companies will be forced to take lower profits by using renewable energy.
In order for a coal or gas plant to run, the raw materials have to be bought, and the energy companies pass that cost, along with their own "add-on costs" (aka profits), onto the consumer (if you don't think thats the case then you have a pretty naive view of businesses). When it comes to renewable solar and wind energy, however, there is no raw materials to buy and thus it makes it harder for companies to mask their profits as "add-on costs". Aside from the initial costs to build, which every type of energy has, the only additional cost comes from regular maintenance because sun and wind are free to access. The middle men (energy companies) can't very easily jack up prices when everyone knows, you don't have to have a company mine the sun or drill the wind. Suddenly the middle men lose most of their power and as a result lose profits. Thus they aren't as willing to rapidly advance using renewable energy.
Also, with a little investment, anyone can capture renewable energy at their own homes and mostly, or completely, bypass the energy companies. An average everyday person can easily go and buy their own solar cells, and wind turbines to put on their homes and as a result reduce, or reverse (go from paying the company for energy to being paid by putting unused power back on the grid), their energy bill. A person can't do that with coal or natural gas so they are forced to buy coal or natural gas produced energy from the energy companies.
That being said, I do think that eventually when natural gas, coal, and oil run out (and they most definitely will); these companies will be forced to take lower profits by using renewable energy.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Grades for voting on Vets Issues
This is from the Iraq and Afgahnistan Veterans of America (which is non-profit) and they went through and graded every congressmember and senator. I know this is just one vets organization's view but it is rather interesting. This is just a highlight list I looked up, but I also added the link to the whole report which talks about how they grade and whatnot. When you click on the links for the members I have listed, there will be a tab labeled "votes" in the same box as the members' picture, so you can see what they voted on.
Full report: http://www.veteranreportcard.org/reportcard.pdf
Senate Democrats
Obama: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/3181&lvl=C&chamber=S
Biden: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/696&lvl=C&chamber=S
Webb: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/51210&lvl=C&chamber=S
Clinton: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/10902&lvl=C&chamber=S
Reid: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/370&lvl=C&chamber=S
Senate Republicans
Hatch: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/586&lvl=C&chamber=S
Bennet: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/587&lvl=C&chamber=S
McCain: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/192&lvl=C&chamber=S
Hagel: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/365&lvl=C&chamber=S
Lugar: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/234&lvl=C&chamber=S
Senate Independents
Lieberman: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/688&lvl=C&chamber=S
House Republicans
Bishop: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/130762&lvl=C&chamber=H
Cannon: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/590&lvl=C&chamber=H
Paul: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/567&lvl=C&chamber=H
Boehner: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/466&lvl=C&chamber=H
Porter: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/6778&lvl=C&chamber=H
House Democrats
Matheson: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/10412&lvl=C&chamber=H
Murtha: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/511&lvl=C&chamber=H
Frank: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/302&lvl=C&chamber=H
Moore: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/260&lvl=C&chamber=H
Pastor: http://iava.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/225&lvl=C&chamber=H
Full report: http://www.veteranreportca
Senate Democrats
Obama: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Biden: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Webb: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Clinton: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Reid: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Senate Republicans
Hatch: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Bennet: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
McCain: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Hagel: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Lugar: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Senate Independents
Lieberman: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
House Republicans
Bishop: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Cannon: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Paul: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Boehner: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Porter: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
House Democrats
Matheson: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Murtha: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Frank: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Moore: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Pastor: http://iava.www.capwiz.com
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
The Challenge of Our Generation?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I had a bit of an epiphany tonight, that I find rather troubling. It comes after having been reading BLACKWATER by Jeremy Scahill, which partly talks about the neoconservative ideal of “spreading democracy” through the use of force.
For whatever reason I started to think about the Cold War, especially between the 1950s and 1970s. I realized that maybe the Cold War hasn’t really ended, rather just merely changed form. During the Cold War, one of the Soviet Union’s main goals was to expand its communist ideals (which they believed were “right”) throughout the world by force or otherwise. Of course the Western World opposed their idea and did all that they could (relying on BOTH U.S. hard and soft power) to prevent the S.U. from doing it.
Now that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force has taken hold of right-wing politics, and become the main U.S. foreign policy, many nations now vehemently oppose us. It seems as if the United States has adopted a very Soviet Union-like position in the world of today. I mean can one truly say that there is NO comparison between the Soviet ideal of expanding communism and the ideal of “spreading democracy” by force? I honestly don’t believe that you can. More often than not, forcing beliefs, or political systems, on others is a very bad idea and can often have major consequences, such as the utter collapse of the Soviet Union.
“Spreading democracy” by force is a complete contradiction in terms! The core of democracy is the ideal that people CHOOSE their own governments in their own time, and on their own terms, or put simply self-determination. By forcing a country, such as by the use of war, to become a democracy, isn’t a true democracy at all! For example, the citizens of the 13 Colonies, were never forced to break away from the British Empire and establish a wholly new nation and government. They CHOSE to do it! If you look around the world, the most stable, longest lasting, and most successful countries are ones where the people have chosen their own government. As opposed to countries where force is used to grab power, rather than the people freely choosing the government, such as many countries in Africa and which are considered “failed states”. I do admit that force was used in World War II to topple the Nazis and Axis Powers, and that those countries have succeeded as democracies. But the entire world helped ensure that those countries were put back onto stable feet with policies, such as the Marshall Plan, which don’t really have any modern counterparts.
I truly hope that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force ends, and ends soon because I fear that if it doesn’t the position of the U.S. in the world could be forever drastically altered. I do believe that democracy IS the best form of government, and that eventually it will be in practiced in every country, but it MUST be the PEOPLE to choose their country’s government! Democracy comes with many responsibilities, as we all know, but if it is forced upon people in a country who aren’t ready, or don’t know how, to handle those responsibilities then that country is likely to fail or at least have severe set backs. This country showed time and patience with itself when it was first formed, and so we must be willing to do the same for other countries.
I had a bit of an epiphany tonight, that I find rather troubling. It comes after having been reading BLACKWATER by Jeremy Scahill, which partly talks about the neoconservative ideal of “spreading democracy” through the use of force.
For whatever reason I started to think about the Cold War, especially between the 1950s and 1970s. I realized that maybe the Cold War hasn’t really ended, rather just merely changed form. During the Cold War, one of the Soviet Union’s main goals was to expand its communist ideals (which they believed were “right”) throughout the world by force or otherwise. Of course the Western World opposed their idea and did all that they could (relying on BOTH U.S. hard and soft power) to prevent the S.U. from doing it.
Now that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force has taken hold of right-wing politics, and become the main U.S. foreign policy, many nations now vehemently oppose us. It seems as if the United States has adopted a very Soviet Union-like position in the world of today. I mean can one truly say that there is NO comparison between the Soviet ideal of expanding communism and the ideal of “spreading democracy” by force? I honestly don’t believe that you can. More often than not, forcing beliefs, or political systems, on others is a very bad idea and can often have major consequences, such as the utter collapse of the Soviet Union.
“Spreading democracy” by force is a complete contradiction in terms! The core of democracy is the ideal that people CHOOSE their own governments in their own time, and on their own terms, or put simply self-determination. By forcing a country, such as by the use of war, to become a democracy, isn’t a true democracy at all! For example, the citizens of the 13 Colonies, were never forced to break away from the British Empire and establish a wholly new nation and government. They CHOSE to do it! If you look around the world, the most stable, longest lasting, and most successful countries are ones where the people have chosen their own government. As opposed to countries where force is used to grab power, rather than the people freely choosing the government, such as many countries in Africa and which are considered “failed states”. I do admit that force was used in World War II to topple the Nazis and Axis Powers, and that those countries have succeeded as democracies. But the entire world helped ensure that those countries were put back onto stable feet with policies, such as the Marshall Plan, which don’t really have any modern counterparts.
I truly hope that this idea of “spreading democracy” by force ends, and ends soon because I fear that if it doesn’t the position of the U.S. in the world could be forever drastically altered. I do believe that democracy IS the best form of government, and that eventually it will be in practiced in every country, but it MUST be the PEOPLE to choose their country’s government! Democracy comes with many responsibilities, as we all know, but if it is forced upon people in a country who aren’t ready, or don’t know how, to handle those responsibilities then that country is likely to fail or at least have severe set backs. This country showed time and patience with itself when it was first formed, and so we must be willing to do the same for other countries.
$700 Billion
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Ok just a few thoughts on this proposed $700 billion bail-out. First off, this CANNOT be rushed to a vote! With this much money involved, money that has to be borrowed from other countries I might add, Congress simply CANNOT push something though without looking at it closely and deliberately. ALL of this money must be monitored and the companies who it buys must be monitored. THERE MUST BE OVERSIGHT! The CEOs and other heads of these companies MUST NOT be allowed to walk away with billions made from companies they have run into the ground (ie no golden parachuets period). 6 months ago Bear Sterns failed and yet nothing was done. Yes things are bad BUT if they are that bad then why wasn't something done sooner? I'm no expert but what I do know is that when bills are pushed through without proper thought and time to evaluate (ie Patriot Act, Authorization to invade Iraq, etc), even when there are obvious flaws, it is a very bad thing. Flaws are NEVER fixed later on and with this much money involved, passing a bad bill will cripple us. Lastly all of this bailing will mean absolutely NOTHING if the regulations are REINSTATED to stop this from happening again. The Great Depression, Savings and Loan collapse, and the present state ALL were caused in part by deregulationing, or completely lacking regulations, companies and agencies that NEED to be regulated.
Ok just a few thoughts on this proposed $700 billion bail-out. First off, this CANNOT be rushed to a vote! With this much money involved, money that has to be borrowed from other countries I might add, Congress simply CANNOT push something though without looking at it closely and deliberately. ALL of this money must be monitored and the companies who it buys must be monitored. THERE MUST BE OVERSIGHT! The CEOs and other heads of these companies MUST NOT be allowed to walk away with billions made from companies they have run into the ground (ie no golden parachuets period). 6 months ago Bear Sterns failed and yet nothing was done. Yes things are bad BUT if they are that bad then why wasn't something done sooner? I'm no expert but what I do know is that when bills are pushed through without proper thought and time to evaluate (ie Patriot Act, Authorization to invade Iraq, etc), even when there are obvious flaws, it is a very bad thing. Flaws are NEVER fixed later on and with this much money involved, passing a bad bill will cripple us. Lastly all of this bailing will mean absolutely NOTHING if the regulations are REINSTATED to stop this from happening again. The Great Depression, Savings and Loan collapse, and the present state ALL were caused in part by deregulationing, or completely lacking regulations, companies and agencies that NEED to be regulated.
What the hell?!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The McCain campaign needs to back the hell out of the investigation in Alaska over the firing of the state's public safety commissioner! How in the hell can you talk about holding the government accountable and all the other shit you are talking about when you can't keep your damn hands off of such an investigation?!?! The fact that you have the governor of Alaska nominated as VP makes it even more important to stay the hell out of it! Explain to me how in the hell Gov. Palin agrees with having the investigation, saying "hold me accountable", and then suddenly once she becomes the VP nomine for McCain its suddenly bad and being "hijacked" by Democrats. Give me a god damn break! For one thing its a bipartisian investigation, approved 14-0, so how in the hell can it be "hijacked" by the Democrats in Alaska? Seems to me like its being hijacked by the McCain campaign to protect their VP. If she did nothing wrong at all then why the fuck is she not even going to meet with the investigator now? Why are the people subpoenaed for the investigation refusing to testify if they have notthing to hide???? Sounds like her position has become "hold me accountable" but if its potentailly damaging to me its a witch hunt by Democrats even though I did nothing wrong.
If the shoe was on the other foot would the Democrats seriously be able to get away with this? I highly doubt it. In fact if you will recall, one of the charges against Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial was obstruction of justice, and REFUSING TO TESTIFY IS EXACTLY THAT! By refusing to testify at a trial, investigation, or anything similar, especially when subpoenaed, you are obstructing justice! No if ands or buts. SARAH PALIN IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ACT LIKE A VP NOMINE THEN GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR AND DO WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY AGREED TO DO AND THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN NEEDS TO BUTT THE HELL OUT OF IT OR THEY ARE ALSO GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/530493.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
The McCain campaign needs to back the hell out of the investigation in Alaska over the firing of the state's public safety commissioner! How in the hell can you talk about holding the government accountable and all the other shit you are talking about when you can't keep your damn hands off of such an investigation?!?! The fact that you have the governor of Alaska nominated as VP makes it even more important to stay the hell out of it! Explain to me how in the hell Gov. Palin agrees with having the investigation, saying "hold me accountable", and then suddenly once she becomes the VP nomine for McCain its suddenly bad and being "hijacked" by Democrats. Give me a god damn break! For one thing its a bipartisian investigation, approved 14-0, so how in the hell can it be "hijacked" by the Democrats in Alaska? Seems to me like its being hijacked by the McCain campaign to protect their VP. If she did nothing wrong at all then why the fuck is she not even going to meet with the investigator now? Why are the people subpoenaed for the investigation refusing to testify if they have notthing to hide???? Sounds like her position has become "hold me accountable" but if its potentailly damaging to me its a witch hunt by Democrats even though I did nothing wrong.
If the shoe was on the other foot would the Democrats seriously be able to get away with this? I highly doubt it. In fact if you will recall, one of the charges against Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial was obstruction of justice, and REFUSING TO TESTIFY IS EXACTLY THAT! By refusing to testify at a trial, investigation, or anything similar, especially when subpoenaed, you are obstructing justice! No if ands or buts. SARAH PALIN IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ACT LIKE A VP NOMINE THEN GET YOUR ASS IN GEAR AND DO WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY AGREED TO DO AND THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN NEEDS TO BUTT THE HELL OUT OF IT OR THEY ARE ALSO GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!
http://www.adn.com/palin/s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
