I’ve stated repeatedly that I for one am not real impressed with the Presidential candidates currently parading themselves before the voters. For the most part they strike me as being little more than a mob of Ho-Hum “kinder, gentler” wimps with not a lot of leadership traits, which, considering the global mess we’ve managed to get ourselves into during the course of the last few regimes is about the last thing we need in the White House! The concept of a kinder, gentler world is all well and fine I suppose, and would probably be a very nice place to live, as long as they leave the socialism part out of it. But to make that happen, the rest of the world has to agree with the idea, and everyone would have to work towards that lofty end. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, it’s also an unachievable goal, and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future for that matter. Comparing today’s geopolitics to the sea, those are shark infested waters out there, and certainly no place for a peaceful little sardine to be swimming around in if he hopes to survive. In today’s world you had better be the biggest shark around if you don’t want to be somebody else’s supper! As a sop to the bleeding hearts among us I’ll add that the big shark doesn’t necessarily have to be an aggressive bully either, just big and bad enough that nobody else wants to pick a fight with him. Unfortunately the United States no longer meets those standards, instead we’ve become little more than the biggest, fattest, juiciest sardine in the sea, and the real sharks are quickly gathering ‘round.
The president of the United States is inevitably faced with two broad categories of problems, usually defined as Foreign policy and Domestic policy, and he’d better be an expert on both subjects. Then of course he has a few other concerns such as a congress that seemingly can’t agree with anybody about anything, bloodthirsty political opponents, a sensation seeking media that has learned to make immense mountains out of minor molehills, a politically ignorant population, special interests, and a bureaucracy that’s out to grab everything they can. To be successful he’s got to be brilliant, courageous, a master of diplomacy, an expert in the military sciences, an economist, a world class administrator, an accomplished public speaker, and a “man of the people” preferably with the Wisdom of Solomon. I also think it would help to have an extensive background in tightrope walking.
All the current candidates claim to have “experience” of course, although none of them have ever occupied the Oval Office, or faced the problems that come with the job. Instead we get some with experience in congress to one extent or another. A few have been the governors of their home states or big city mayors. Some have assorted corporate executive experience as well. One is even a medical doctor. Hillary is the only candidate that’s actually lived in the white house, but as “co-president” she seemed to spend most of her time firing the travel office people, and apologizing for Bill’s interest in interns and his difficulties in understanding the simpler words in the English language. None of the candidates are very charismatic, and for the most part are hardly known outside their home states. While I hear a lot of talk about how they’re going to do this, that, or the other thing, I don’t hear much about the important things, like how they plan to get all these bright ideas past congress and other special interest groups, nor of how they figure to finance things.
I found an interesting internet website that’s a computerized matrix combining the various candidates and their stance on the primary issues. It’s open to the public, wherein you can “vote” on how much you agree or disagree with the particular position of any candidate. On a scale of nine, with “one” being strongly agreed with, “five” being indifferent, and “nine” being strongly disagreed with, all the candidates were rated at a more or less “Blah” four, five, and six by the respondents, with some being only a bit more popular on certain issues than others. For viewers with a mathematical bent the voter statistics are given, but for the rest of us the results are color coded, with bright red being strongly disagree, and bright green being strongly agree. The five issues considered are; the economy, energy, health care, immigration, and the war in Iraq.
The condition of the national economy generates a lot of bright ideas and instant cures among the candidates, but the respondent rating is a more or less indifferent “five” in all cases. Energy independence seems to be about the same, with Bill Richardson’s ideas being the most popular at a three. The response to health care proposals is also rather indifferent, with Chris Dodd being the least popular by a very small margin. The immigration issue is much the same, with Ron Paul having by far the most popular stance at a resounding three, and Chris Dodd the least popular. Despite all the media coverage, the proposals for ending the war in Iraq can only be analyzed as varying levels of indifference! Here, Joe Biden and Ron Paul’s ideas are tied for being the most agreed with, and Tom Tancredo leads the pack in disagreement. Keeping in mind that the ratings change with every vote, Obama is the most popular Democrat at the time of this writing, and Ron Paul is the leading Republican. However, no candidate is yet a clear winner on any issue.
Perhaps these presidential hopefuls should start looking for a different set of issues to pillory their opponents with? How about things like the burgeoning bureaucracy, looming national bankruptcy, public education, tax reform, our worn out highways, and the rather run down condition of the military? Perhaps they could explain their position on homeland security, domestic spying, constitutional law, and our slowly disappearing Bill of Rights. Personally I’m very interested in what we’re going to do about manned space development as well, although I don’t hear much from any candidate on that subject.
All in all I guess the somewhat mediocre quality of the candidates we’ve been offered over the last few years is really a blessing in disguise. If we think about the congressional powers that have been meekly surrendered to the president, along with the powers of the Patriot Act and the long standing Executive Orders law, it’s not the least bit unimaginable that a strong and ambitious president could make himself dictator in short order. Nor is that unprecedented, remember that Adolf Hitler went from being the lawfully elected Chancellor of Weimar Germany to absolute dictator of the Third Reich, completely in accordance with existing German laws, and seemingly did it overnight.
As the great hot air machine on capitol hill seems to be little more than a debating society nowdays, perhaps our next President should make an issue of insisting Congress repeal some of those laws, and take back the authority granted them by our constitution.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Police State
“The Constitution of the United States was written by 55 men—and one ghost,” wrote military historian Dave R. Palmer. The nation’s Founders were quite well aware of Oliver Cromwell, who led the revolution that deposed King Charles I and established civil government in Great Britain. That democracy was short lived because when the newly formed Parliament refused to meet Cromwell’s demands, he used the army to seize power, establishing himself as Great Britain’s “Lord Protector.” To America’s Founding Fathers, the lesson was obvious: standing armies threaten liberty. Which explains why our Constitution divides control of the military between the executive and legislative branches of the government.
What America’s Founders did not foresee was the cold war era, where war could break out in a matter of moments, and widespread death and destruction was only a missile launch away. The war powers act was passed to allow the sitting president the authority to defend the nation (read “vaporize the Soviet Union”) in the event of a nuclear attack, where time would not allow Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. I suspect that if the cold war had turned hot, whatever was left of Congress, hunkered down in the national command bunker, would have been asked to issue a declaration of war, just to make things nice and legal of course. However, the War Powers Act was not intended to allow the President to indiscriminately start wars on his own. Just to confuse the issue even more, congress has not seen fit to rescind the war powers act in the seventeen years since the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today there’s even a movement afoot within the executive branch to militarize our borders, and to rescind the “Posse Comitatis” laws, which would give the president unlimited power to do anything he wants with the military, inside the United States.
In addition to handing their military authority over to the President, Congress also happily allows the president to control a small army of civilian police. The Secret Service, the National Park Police, the Transportation Security Administration, FBI, ATF, US Marshals Service, and dozens of other executive agencies act solely at the president’s behest and under his authority. It’s also been my understanding that the US Constitution does not give the federal government any law enforcement powers, instead leaving that authority with the Several States. The US Marshal Service was founded to police the vast western territories before they gained statehood. The FBI was only intended to be an investigative agency to assist the various state law enforcement organizations, and without any powers of arrest. The Secret Service was formed to chase down counterfeiters, not to protect the president! But instead of checking the expansion of executive police powers, members of Congress have virtually abandoned their oversight responsibilities, and allowed the president to become the virtual dictator of a shadowy Federal police state!
Although the growth of federal police powers began well before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the threat of terrorism is now used to justify their continued expansion. Restrictions on individual freedom are completely unchallenged as long as they are called “security measures.” After 9/11, the president closed the Statue of Liberty. Liberty Island has since reopened, but people can no longer go inside the statue to overlook New York City and the harbor. The statue that stands as a beacon of courage and freedom has now been closed off because of fear. Independence Hall in Philadelphia now resembles a heavily guarded prison facility. In Washington, D.C., entrances to public buildings are blocked by metal detectors and armed guards. Drivers near the Capitol can be randomly stopped by police on city streets and their cars searched by bomb sniffing dogs. Visiting museums requires waiting in long lines while backpacks and pocketbooks are searched. The Park Service has turned the Washington Monument into a surveillance tower, placing cameras on its observation deck that record activity on the National Mall and beyond. The Park Police fence off the National Mall before such events as the Fourth of July festivities and herd visitors in through checkpoints, which they no longer pretend are purely anti-terrorism measures. Park officials have admitted that they search picnic baskets and coolers for contraband, “alcoholic beverages, glass bottles, fireworks.”
In October 2001 Osama bin Laden boasted that terrorist attacks would achieve their purpose:
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The United States government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Life in the United States remains fairly good so far, and is a far cry from bin Laden’s “unbearable hell.” But some recent changes are rather worrying. Long lines, insistent searches, and odious identification requirements are becoming routine. Unwarranted intrusion and inconvenience are becoming the American way of life. To counter this insidious push for diminished liberty, we must examine the arguments behind it. The most common of course is that 9/11 “changed everything.” But life was also changed forever with the invention of gunpowder, aerial warfare, and of the atomic bomb. History is in large part the story of aggression, and restricting our freedoms certainly can’t stop that aggression.
Another argument used to justify excessive security at public landmarks is that police are merely “protecting the symbols of democracy.” But the symbol of democracy is an open society, not an ominous police presence. Terrorists have already hit our national monuments through the years, the difference being that after those earlier attacks, the government did not respond with hysteria. The war against terrorism is in large part a war against fear. To win this war, all Americans must accept the reality that our society will never be able to afford an environment that is totally free of risk from terrorist attacks. Nor would most Americans want to live with the restrictions that such a risk-free environment would demand. Then too, our nation’s leaders must be willing to demonstrate courage. Freedom prevailed in other times of national emergency only because our leaders did not succumb to fear. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated during the worst days of the Cold War, many in his administration feared his death was the start of a coup. If so, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson, would likely be the next target. Yet when Kennedy’s widow announced her intention to walk from the White House to her husband’s funeral, Johnson helped lead the procession that marched through the streets of downtown Washington rather than hiding out in the White House war room.
After winning rather vicious wars against the empires of Great Britain, Germany (twice), Japan, and the Soviet Union, will America now lose its freedom to a handful of religious zealots? “Terrorism succeeds,” said the late senator Patrick Moynihan, “when people become terrified.” Sadly, such success looms, unless America’s leaders begin defending our freedom and our Constitution, rather than giving in to their fears.
What America’s Founders did not foresee was the cold war era, where war could break out in a matter of moments, and widespread death and destruction was only a missile launch away. The war powers act was passed to allow the sitting president the authority to defend the nation (read “vaporize the Soviet Union”) in the event of a nuclear attack, where time would not allow Congress to issue a formal declaration of war. I suspect that if the cold war had turned hot, whatever was left of Congress, hunkered down in the national command bunker, would have been asked to issue a declaration of war, just to make things nice and legal of course. However, the War Powers Act was not intended to allow the President to indiscriminately start wars on his own. Just to confuse the issue even more, congress has not seen fit to rescind the war powers act in the seventeen years since the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today there’s even a movement afoot within the executive branch to militarize our borders, and to rescind the “Posse Comitatis” laws, which would give the president unlimited power to do anything he wants with the military, inside the United States.
In addition to handing their military authority over to the President, Congress also happily allows the president to control a small army of civilian police. The Secret Service, the National Park Police, the Transportation Security Administration, FBI, ATF, US Marshals Service, and dozens of other executive agencies act solely at the president’s behest and under his authority. It’s also been my understanding that the US Constitution does not give the federal government any law enforcement powers, instead leaving that authority with the Several States. The US Marshal Service was founded to police the vast western territories before they gained statehood. The FBI was only intended to be an investigative agency to assist the various state law enforcement organizations, and without any powers of arrest. The Secret Service was formed to chase down counterfeiters, not to protect the president! But instead of checking the expansion of executive police powers, members of Congress have virtually abandoned their oversight responsibilities, and allowed the president to become the virtual dictator of a shadowy Federal police state!
Although the growth of federal police powers began well before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the threat of terrorism is now used to justify their continued expansion. Restrictions on individual freedom are completely unchallenged as long as they are called “security measures.” After 9/11, the president closed the Statue of Liberty. Liberty Island has since reopened, but people can no longer go inside the statue to overlook New York City and the harbor. The statue that stands as a beacon of courage and freedom has now been closed off because of fear. Independence Hall in Philadelphia now resembles a heavily guarded prison facility. In Washington, D.C., entrances to public buildings are blocked by metal detectors and armed guards. Drivers near the Capitol can be randomly stopped by police on city streets and their cars searched by bomb sniffing dogs. Visiting museums requires waiting in long lines while backpacks and pocketbooks are searched. The Park Service has turned the Washington Monument into a surveillance tower, placing cameras on its observation deck that record activity on the National Mall and beyond. The Park Police fence off the National Mall before such events as the Fourth of July festivities and herd visitors in through checkpoints, which they no longer pretend are purely anti-terrorism measures. Park officials have admitted that they search picnic baskets and coolers for contraband, “alcoholic beverages, glass bottles, fireworks.”
In October 2001 Osama bin Laden boasted that terrorist attacks would achieve their purpose:
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The United States government will lead the American people into an unbearable hell and a choking life.” Life in the United States remains fairly good so far, and is a far cry from bin Laden’s “unbearable hell.” But some recent changes are rather worrying. Long lines, insistent searches, and odious identification requirements are becoming routine. Unwarranted intrusion and inconvenience are becoming the American way of life. To counter this insidious push for diminished liberty, we must examine the arguments behind it. The most common of course is that 9/11 “changed everything.” But life was also changed forever with the invention of gunpowder, aerial warfare, and of the atomic bomb. History is in large part the story of aggression, and restricting our freedoms certainly can’t stop that aggression.
Another argument used to justify excessive security at public landmarks is that police are merely “protecting the symbols of democracy.” But the symbol of democracy is an open society, not an ominous police presence. Terrorists have already hit our national monuments through the years, the difference being that after those earlier attacks, the government did not respond with hysteria. The war against terrorism is in large part a war against fear. To win this war, all Americans must accept the reality that our society will never be able to afford an environment that is totally free of risk from terrorist attacks. Nor would most Americans want to live with the restrictions that such a risk-free environment would demand. Then too, our nation’s leaders must be willing to demonstrate courage. Freedom prevailed in other times of national emergency only because our leaders did not succumb to fear. When John F. Kennedy was assassinated during the worst days of the Cold War, many in his administration feared his death was the start of a coup. If so, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson, would likely be the next target. Yet when Kennedy’s widow announced her intention to walk from the White House to her husband’s funeral, Johnson helped lead the procession that marched through the streets of downtown Washington rather than hiding out in the White House war room.
After winning rather vicious wars against the empires of Great Britain, Germany (twice), Japan, and the Soviet Union, will America now lose its freedom to a handful of religious zealots? “Terrorism succeeds,” said the late senator Patrick Moynihan, “when people become terrified.” Sadly, such success looms, unless America’s leaders begin defending our freedom and our Constitution, rather than giving in to their fears.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Climate Change
So far the presidential candidates haven’t had much to say about climate change or global warming. However, as the election draws nearer I’d expect to hear a lot of bright ideas about the subject, although I’m not real confident that they can pass an effective law against long hot summers. Oh well, somebody will try I’m sure.
The blame for the present global temperature rise is generally laid at the feet of western industrialized civilization and its genius for generating clouds of greenhouse gases that trap sunlight in the atmosphere. The world’s incessant demand for more and more energy has pressed us into consuming the fossil fuels that nature required millions of years to lay down, in little more than a hundred years. Consumption of these fuels, (oil, coal, and natural gas), primarily by burning them, releases a number of waste products that are popularly called “Greenhouse Gases”. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others), allow the suns visible and ultraviolet light to enter the atmosphere freely, but when sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat), acting as a balance to maintain a steady temperature. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. These gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, leaving a few scientists and many non-scientists believing this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases. People call this climate change “Global Warming.”
But another possible culprit is fast emerging. For centuries, scientists have known that the Sun is less steady than sunbathing and casual observation suggest. It has seasons and storms and rhythms of activity, its sunspots and flares appearing in cycles roughly 11 years long. But only in the last decade or so have these and other solar variations begun to be tied to climate shifts on Earth -- first tenuously, and more solidly of late. Today, a growing number of scientists contend that the Sun's fickleness might rival human pollution as a factor in climatic change. And some research, though sketchy and much debated, suggests that the Sun's variability could account for virtually all of the global warming measured to date. Others dismiss the possibility of such an influence, even while they agree the solar factor should be studied more thoroughly.
Global warming skeptics freely admit that earth’s climate is changing for one reason or another. However, they also challenge many of the claims that it is solely due to the activities of humankind over the last 150 years, stating that those claims are based on “junk science” and are heavily biased in favor of the desired results. Junk science can often be detected when the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. Then we have the politicization of science, which occurs when government, big business, or special interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which might differ from their prefered viewpoint, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Please note that these special interest groups can range from the local power company to the Serria Club.
Fears are that if humans keep producing such gases at increasing rates, the results will be negative in nature, causing severe changes in the Earths climate. It’s claimed by alarmists that these changes to the environment will most likely cause negative effects on society, such as a lower level of general health and decreasing economic development. At the same time, we have climate records that indicate we’re presently coming out of a mini ice-age, and that the Earths “normal” temperature is several degrees higher than we see at present. During the time of the dinosaurs the global mean temperature was approximately 35* F higher than today, with the tropics extending nearly to the current polar regions!
The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement, despite the fact that they emit even more greenhouse gases than the United States. Essentially, the Kyoto agreement severely penalizes the western nations, while doing nothing about the rapidly increasing emissions from industries of the developing countries. Under Kyoto, China is free to continue producing unlimited greenhouse gases even though it has recently become the world’s single largest producer.
While the environmentalists weep and wail about the soon to be announced total collapse of nature (for which Al Gore will probably win another Oscar), many countries and much of the multi-national corporate world are making money hand over fist buying, selling, and trading “carbon credits” issued under the aegis of the Kyoto protocol. These credits are issued for not producing greenhouse gases. Al Gore castigates President Bush for not signing the Kyoto agreement even while visiting his Hollywierd friends in a gas guzzling, smog generating SUV. Environmental activists collect outrageous speaking fees for telling the rest of the world how environmentally insensitive Americans are. The Sierra Club leaders fly around in private jets while drawing six figure salaries from their membership for “directing” the clean air and water drive. The rest of us are supposed to pay for everything while living a stone-age, non-technical existence I guess.
Dunno about anybody else in this neck of the woods, but my poor old aching joints definitely support global warming!
The blame for the present global temperature rise is generally laid at the feet of western industrialized civilization and its genius for generating clouds of greenhouse gases that trap sunlight in the atmosphere. The world’s incessant demand for more and more energy has pressed us into consuming the fossil fuels that nature required millions of years to lay down, in little more than a hundred years. Consumption of these fuels, (oil, coal, and natural gas), primarily by burning them, releases a number of waste products that are popularly called “Greenhouse Gases”. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others), allow the suns visible and ultraviolet light to enter the atmosphere freely, but when sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat), acting as a balance to maintain a steady temperature. Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. These gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, leaving a few scientists and many non-scientists believing this is because of an increase in concentration of the main greenhouse gases. People call this climate change “Global Warming.”
But another possible culprit is fast emerging. For centuries, scientists have known that the Sun is less steady than sunbathing and casual observation suggest. It has seasons and storms and rhythms of activity, its sunspots and flares appearing in cycles roughly 11 years long. But only in the last decade or so have these and other solar variations begun to be tied to climate shifts on Earth -- first tenuously, and more solidly of late. Today, a growing number of scientists contend that the Sun's fickleness might rival human pollution as a factor in climatic change. And some research, though sketchy and much debated, suggests that the Sun's variability could account for virtually all of the global warming measured to date. Others dismiss the possibility of such an influence, even while they agree the solar factor should be studied more thoroughly.
Global warming skeptics freely admit that earth’s climate is changing for one reason or another. However, they also challenge many of the claims that it is solely due to the activities of humankind over the last 150 years, stating that those claims are based on “junk science” and are heavily biased in favor of the desired results. Junk science can often be detected when the discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists. Then we have the politicization of science, which occurs when government, big business, or special interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which might differ from their prefered viewpoint, or to influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted. Please note that these special interest groups can range from the local power company to the Serria Club.
Fears are that if humans keep producing such gases at increasing rates, the results will be negative in nature, causing severe changes in the Earths climate. It’s claimed by alarmists that these changes to the environment will most likely cause negative effects on society, such as a lower level of general health and decreasing economic development. At the same time, we have climate records that indicate we’re presently coming out of a mini ice-age, and that the Earths “normal” temperature is several degrees higher than we see at present. During the time of the dinosaurs the global mean temperature was approximately 35* F higher than today, with the tropics extending nearly to the current polar regions!
The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations. The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement. Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement, despite the fact that they emit even more greenhouse gases than the United States. Essentially, the Kyoto agreement severely penalizes the western nations, while doing nothing about the rapidly increasing emissions from industries of the developing countries. Under Kyoto, China is free to continue producing unlimited greenhouse gases even though it has recently become the world’s single largest producer.
While the environmentalists weep and wail about the soon to be announced total collapse of nature (for which Al Gore will probably win another Oscar), many countries and much of the multi-national corporate world are making money hand over fist buying, selling, and trading “carbon credits” issued under the aegis of the Kyoto protocol. These credits are issued for not producing greenhouse gases. Al Gore castigates President Bush for not signing the Kyoto agreement even while visiting his Hollywierd friends in a gas guzzling, smog generating SUV. Environmental activists collect outrageous speaking fees for telling the rest of the world how environmentally insensitive Americans are. The Sierra Club leaders fly around in private jets while drawing six figure salaries from their membership for “directing” the clean air and water drive. The rest of us are supposed to pay for everything while living a stone-age, non-technical existence I guess.
Dunno about anybody else in this neck of the woods, but my poor old aching joints definitely support global warming!
Monday, October 8, 2007
Issues
With the presidential election fast approaching, the politicians are all making fine sounding pronouncements of what legislation they hope to pass, and of what they’ll accomplish once in office. Some of these things they could actually do, if they can get a majority of congressmen to agree with their ideas, and if they can find the funding. A lot of the things they promise, they simply can’t do, for any number of perfectly sound reasons.
The war in Iraq appears to be a leading bone of contention, with the Democrats generally wanting to pull out, and the Republicans generally figuring to stay the course. Personally I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, as we had to many other and less combative ways and means of eliminating Hussein as a power in the mid-east. But the fact remains, we did invade, we did eliminate the existing power structure, American air strikes certainly didn’t do the Iraqi infrastructure any good, economic sanctions did more harm to the Iraqi people than to the regime, and now we more or less demand that they form a democratic government that meets with our approval. We’ve made ourselves responsible for the present mess, and like it of not, we’re morally responsible for cleaning things up. Then to, if the United States abruptly walks away from Iraq, we’d be leaving a power vacuum and a full blown civil war in our wake, one that can only be advantageous to our real enemy, fundamentalist Islam. Consider also, if we walk, there’s no reason for any of the mid-eastern peoples or governments to ever again trust the United States, or believe anything we say. We’d have the same sort of situation that followed our surrender in Vietnam, where our friends of 1970 were left in the lurch, and they certainly don’t trust our word very far today.
Another favored talking point concerns taxes. Like most Americans I’d surely like to see a massive tax cut as proposed by many of the republican candidates. But that isn’t going to do this country any good at all! We don’t need the tax increase and massive expenditures proposed by a number of democratic candidates either. What I’d propose is that we leave the taxes at about the current level, make the tax system more equitable for all of us, and devise a massive cut in expenditures. With that, we could use the surplus to pay down the debt, and edge away from a looming national bankruptcy. Despite the claims of Wall Street financial gurus, it’s not the job of the US government (or American taxpayers) to keep their stockholders rolling in dough! What do they expect the government to do when the treasury runs dry, or the taxpayers run out of patience, start selling the rest of us into slavery!? The stock market is where you put some of the extra cash you’ve got on hand and don’t know what else to do with. It’s not supposed to be a national gambling casino in which you bet your life savings so that some business executive can make an obscene salary, leaving the US taxpayer to pick up the tab when things go sour!
Yet another point of contention is national security, mostly the arguments over the department of homeland security. Some people want to completely eliminate the whole thing, while others want to massively expand the department and its powers. I for one fail to understand just why we need such a department in the first place, unless it’s to provide work for a lot of unemployed paper shufflers. I’d think the federal money being tossed at homeland security would be much better spent in securing our borders, and perhaps helping the Canadians secure theirs as well. Instead, the government has pretty well managed to ignore the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rapidly turning us into a police state, while managing to antagonize a lot of formerly friendly countries with a flurry of senseless rules and regulations about passports, secure identification cards, and air travel. Our borders are effectively wide open as is demonstrated by the continuing flood of illegal immigrants. Our ports certainly aren’t secure despite all the promises from Washington. What I understand is called “airline security” consists of a bunch of people confiscating nail clippers and bottled water, while looking for hidden facial expressions. Profiling is out of the question for political reasons, despite the terrorist threat coming from a known and specific group of people. Instead of looking at wild-eyed Arabic types, we have a no-fly list of “terrorist suspects” that might have been randomly selected from the local phone book!
The government has created yet another layer of supervision for the various intelligence agencies, with of course yet another hidden budget. I find it quite strange that we need a new agency to do exactly the job that the CIA was created to do back in the 1940’s, that of overseeing all US intelligence efforts! For decades the government has ignored the interagency turf wars in the intelligence community, and has not supported the CIA mandate in doing its job. Instead, the agency takes the rap whenever we have a perceived intelligence failure, no matter which agency originated the problem. How about we eliminate this “Intelligence Czar” position (and the entire office), and just enforce the rules allowing the CIA to do what it’s supposed to be doing?
The last newsletter I received from Sen. Larry Craig gave the results of a straw poll conducted among Idahoans, indicating what subjects they felt were most important, and should have a high priority in being addressed by Congress. 31.6% felt that immigration was the most important subject, closely followed by the war in Iraq with 28.0%. 9.5% felt that the economy should receive immediate attention, 6.9% were greatly concerned with health care, and only 4.8% indicated that national security was of major importance. Following the top five, only 4.4% of the respondents were worried about Congressional ethics.
Strangely enough, I would think that ethics and morality, not just in congress either, would be considered a very important subject by most Americans. After all, the folks we elect to various government offices are representing us before the entire world. These people hold the reputation of our nation, the well being of our citizens, indeed our very lives, in their hands! The President of the United States, with his red and gold phones, controls more naked power than any other man in the history of the world. I for one certainly don’t wish to have my life decided by anyone who would sell my future (such as it is), to the highest bidder! Public office is far to important to be decided by voters considering little more than physical appearances and trivial personalities. I’d much rather have a crotchety guy like Harry Truman in the white house, than another photogenic Slick Willie Clinton! There isn’t a one of the leading candidates today, of either party, that I’d trust to take out the trash, much less lead this country in what’s proving to be a very dangerous 21st century!
Perhaps the voters should do some really serious thinking about the issues and the candidates, before the 2008 election rolls around.
The war in Iraq appears to be a leading bone of contention, with the Democrats generally wanting to pull out, and the Republicans generally figuring to stay the course. Personally I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq in the first place, as we had to many other and less combative ways and means of eliminating Hussein as a power in the mid-east. But the fact remains, we did invade, we did eliminate the existing power structure, American air strikes certainly didn’t do the Iraqi infrastructure any good, economic sanctions did more harm to the Iraqi people than to the regime, and now we more or less demand that they form a democratic government that meets with our approval. We’ve made ourselves responsible for the present mess, and like it of not, we’re morally responsible for cleaning things up. Then to, if the United States abruptly walks away from Iraq, we’d be leaving a power vacuum and a full blown civil war in our wake, one that can only be advantageous to our real enemy, fundamentalist Islam. Consider also, if we walk, there’s no reason for any of the mid-eastern peoples or governments to ever again trust the United States, or believe anything we say. We’d have the same sort of situation that followed our surrender in Vietnam, where our friends of 1970 were left in the lurch, and they certainly don’t trust our word very far today.
Another favored talking point concerns taxes. Like most Americans I’d surely like to see a massive tax cut as proposed by many of the republican candidates. But that isn’t going to do this country any good at all! We don’t need the tax increase and massive expenditures proposed by a number of democratic candidates either. What I’d propose is that we leave the taxes at about the current level, make the tax system more equitable for all of us, and devise a massive cut in expenditures. With that, we could use the surplus to pay down the debt, and edge away from a looming national bankruptcy. Despite the claims of Wall Street financial gurus, it’s not the job of the US government (or American taxpayers) to keep their stockholders rolling in dough! What do they expect the government to do when the treasury runs dry, or the taxpayers run out of patience, start selling the rest of us into slavery!? The stock market is where you put some of the extra cash you’ve got on hand and don’t know what else to do with. It’s not supposed to be a national gambling casino in which you bet your life savings so that some business executive can make an obscene salary, leaving the US taxpayer to pick up the tab when things go sour!
Yet another point of contention is national security, mostly the arguments over the department of homeland security. Some people want to completely eliminate the whole thing, while others want to massively expand the department and its powers. I for one fail to understand just why we need such a department in the first place, unless it’s to provide work for a lot of unemployed paper shufflers. I’d think the federal money being tossed at homeland security would be much better spent in securing our borders, and perhaps helping the Canadians secure theirs as well. Instead, the government has pretty well managed to ignore the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and rapidly turning us into a police state, while managing to antagonize a lot of formerly friendly countries with a flurry of senseless rules and regulations about passports, secure identification cards, and air travel. Our borders are effectively wide open as is demonstrated by the continuing flood of illegal immigrants. Our ports certainly aren’t secure despite all the promises from Washington. What I understand is called “airline security” consists of a bunch of people confiscating nail clippers and bottled water, while looking for hidden facial expressions. Profiling is out of the question for political reasons, despite the terrorist threat coming from a known and specific group of people. Instead of looking at wild-eyed Arabic types, we have a no-fly list of “terrorist suspects” that might have been randomly selected from the local phone book!
The government has created yet another layer of supervision for the various intelligence agencies, with of course yet another hidden budget. I find it quite strange that we need a new agency to do exactly the job that the CIA was created to do back in the 1940’s, that of overseeing all US intelligence efforts! For decades the government has ignored the interagency turf wars in the intelligence community, and has not supported the CIA mandate in doing its job. Instead, the agency takes the rap whenever we have a perceived intelligence failure, no matter which agency originated the problem. How about we eliminate this “Intelligence Czar” position (and the entire office), and just enforce the rules allowing the CIA to do what it’s supposed to be doing?
The last newsletter I received from Sen. Larry Craig gave the results of a straw poll conducted among Idahoans, indicating what subjects they felt were most important, and should have a high priority in being addressed by Congress. 31.6% felt that immigration was the most important subject, closely followed by the war in Iraq with 28.0%. 9.5% felt that the economy should receive immediate attention, 6.9% were greatly concerned with health care, and only 4.8% indicated that national security was of major importance. Following the top five, only 4.4% of the respondents were worried about Congressional ethics.
Strangely enough, I would think that ethics and morality, not just in congress either, would be considered a very important subject by most Americans. After all, the folks we elect to various government offices are representing us before the entire world. These people hold the reputation of our nation, the well being of our citizens, indeed our very lives, in their hands! The President of the United States, with his red and gold phones, controls more naked power than any other man in the history of the world. I for one certainly don’t wish to have my life decided by anyone who would sell my future (such as it is), to the highest bidder! Public office is far to important to be decided by voters considering little more than physical appearances and trivial personalities. I’d much rather have a crotchety guy like Harry Truman in the white house, than another photogenic Slick Willie Clinton! There isn’t a one of the leading candidates today, of either party, that I’d trust to take out the trash, much less lead this country in what’s proving to be a very dangerous 21st century!
Perhaps the voters should do some really serious thinking about the issues and the candidates, before the 2008 election rolls around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)