During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama spoke of his desire to "remake" America, to be a "transformational" President. He didn’t say "restore" nor "rebuild", but rather "Remake", as if he plans to turn our country into something quite different from the nation most of us (or at least those of us on the right, or in the center) revere. So far we’ve been lucky I guess, in that nearly everything President Obama has accomplished during his two months in office has turned out to be the exact opposite of what his campaign promises claimed, but even with that, I haven’t noticed any real change in the liberal Obama-Pelosi-Reid “Axis of Evil”. In the guise of solving our current economic crisis (caused in part by liberal economic ideas), they’re engineering what will probably be the most radical changes in our government in the nations 233-year history. And it’s not going to be the “change” we might have expected either. They seem quite intent on remaking America into a socialist utopia, no matter what it costs us. And rest assured, it will cost us…
It would be a socialist America where “redistributing the wealth” means out-of-work citizens would receive lavish government handouts and benefits, supported by the ever shrinking minority who do work and pay taxes, and at ever increasing rates naturally. Our industries, crippled by government mandates, excessive taxes, incessant regulations, and downright political interference, will end up becoming taxpayer-supported dinosaurs that can no longer compete in the marketplace, further increasing the number of unemployed Americans forced to survive on the dole. The liberal regime is further attempting to deny workers the right to a secret ballot when voting on whether or not they want to be part of a union, and eliminate present Right to Work laws in 22 states. This is a key point for Big Labor, because it would allow forced unionization of millions of workers into the dues-paying union ranks, and not incidentally that much more political power and money to labor leaders.
European style socialized medicine under the heading of "universal health care" will mean waiting weeks or perhaps even months for needed treatment, unless you happen to have the proper political connections. Treatment will be rationed by government bureaucrats on a “cost effective” basis rather than by medical doctors, in a manner similar to the profitable HMO policies of today. Your private medical records will be stored in a government database and available to all medical providers, secured I’m sure on somebody’s “ready to be stolen” laptop computer, making it just one more target for mass identity theft.
Government enforced environmentalist demands will determine where we live and what we drive. The government will decide where we live, where we work, and what sort of house we are allowed. Our food will be rationed as will our energy usage. There are efforts afoot to give the government the right to limit the number of children we’re allowed, and I hate to think what will happen to anyone who exceeds the approved limit.
We already see vast tracts of “public” lands locked away in wilderness areas, and that is rapidly expanding even as I write. Roadless areas were determined by bureaucratic decree in yet another wilderness expansion, bypassing the requirement for Congressional consent. Now we see the new “Travel Plan” regulations from federal land management agencies ordering the closure or “decommissioning” of hundreds of miles of existing roads, thus denying the public use of thousands of square miles of our public property, all by bureaucratic decision, and you might notice without our permission. We’re quite aware of the damage “environmental concerns” can do to rural economies, particularly when those concerns are based on “junk science”, and not on proven fact or common sense. In our new liberal world order we can expect to see a lot more of that I’m sure. The Supreme Court recently affirmed our second amendment right to “Keep and Bear Arms” despite massive liberal opposition. But now the liberal anti-gun crowd is at it again with plans to massively tax and regulate the ammunition for those arms.
Our centers of finance, industry, culture, and innovation, from New York to Silicon Valley, will become slums crowded with unemployed welfare recipients, while our surviving business and industry immigrate to foreign lands. We will become a socialist utopia where only politicians, government bureaucrats, and their favored friends, are able to thrive in any manner… where the only remaining "liberty" is the government's freedom to control every aspect of our lifes. A utopia where all the common citizens are equal in every way… and all living at the lowest possible subsistence level.
Our would-be masters will stop at nothing to secure the power they've come to think of as theirs by divine appointment. They will do anything to harass, intimidate, and marginalize any opposition to their rule by decree. Already, they're preparing to use federal power to stifle any opposition… by passing the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence conservative talk-radio... by enacting "card check" laws that would leave anti-union workers exposed to intimidation and harassment... by passing the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would force pro-life medical professionals to refer patients desiring an abortions.
Would you want to live in such an America? Would you want to leave such an America to your children or grandchildren? It’s certainly not something I look forward to!
If you don't believe that Barack Obama is the embodiment of the Second Coming... you don't believe that America needs a "New New Deal" in the form of a trillion-dollar "stimulus package" ... you don't believe that bans on oil drilling in the ANWR and off-shore areas serve America's need for energy independence… you don't believe that the U.S. Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever any activist Court declares it to mean... and if you do believe in the old-fashioned virtues and principles such as faith, family, freedom, and self-reliance that once made America great and can help restore that greatness today, then raise your voice in a howling storm of protest.
Get active with your protest! Talk to your relatives, friends, and neighbors. Explain to them what’s happening in this country! Write letters to the editor and call the talk radio programs voicing your opinion! Write, call, or e-mail your congressional contingent expressing your view, and remind them that you are a voter. And most importantly, at the next election, get out and vote for what you believe in!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Response
In reply to the comment from “Deerhunter” appended to “Wild Pigs” that I posted a couple of weeks ago.
How true How true about the pigs...but look out "the commies are coming--the commies are coming.. They have infiltrated in YOUR own back yard Bob and you are totally oblivious.. That nice lady that runs the CIP evens helps their cause by running articles from them every week.. I would love to see your opinion on what you consider private property ownership and rights to it.. Think you have it in you???? I doubt it.. Your "brainwashed" like the rest you right about.
Since the “end” of the Cold War a couple of decades ago, the term “commies” has pretty much gone out of style, even though the Communist agenda is still with us in full force. With that, I seldom mention “commies”, but you’ll note that I tend to get upset with “socialists” which I think are exactly the same thing, nothing more than wolves wearing a different sheepskin. Personally I see little difference in today’s “Liberals”, Socialists, Communists, and the common, run-of-the-mill “Do-gooder” that wants to control my every waking moment in making sure that whatever I’m doing is “good for me”. As far as “the commies are coming”… I’m very well aware that they’re here, in the guise of liberals and environmentalists. But what would you have me do, go out and shoot them? The last I looked, that’s against the laws of both God and Man, both of which disregard just how much those people might need shooting!
For anyone not familiar with this area, I live in the only county in Idaho that does not subscribe to Planning & Zoning laws, building codes, or other forms of government control over private property. I’m sure that’s coming of course, considering the influx of people moving to this area to escape those controls, and then demand we implement them in the interest of their “quality of life”! But those of us who have lived here for most of our lives put our best efforts into avoiding that dreaded day. We do abide by state and federal laws, most of the time at least, with the deliberate intent of keeping any specific outside interest in us at arms length! You might however be aware of the latest liberal “land grab” whereby Federal land management agencies are removing even more of our public lands from public use, and that definitely hurts us all. If they get away with that, how long before they start seizing private property as well, to expand their beloved wilderness and/or roadless areas? How long before we’re forced from our homes, to live in the cities where we can be more easily controlled?
If you’ll read further back in my posts Deerhunter, you’ll find that I am and always have been a staunch supporter of private property rights, and individual rights as well. But between arthritis and a failing heart I’m getting a bit old to run out and be a revolutionary! (These “Golden Years” ain’t all they’re cracked up to be!) But “Brainwashed”? I doubt it. I grew up in the 50's, what I’d like to think of as the last good years of a more or less “free” country, and I much prefer that to what I see happening in this country today!
Keep reading, I’m always glad to get comments.
How true How true about the pigs...but look out "the commies are coming--the commies are coming.. They have infiltrated in YOUR own back yard Bob and you are totally oblivious.. That nice lady that runs the CIP evens helps their cause by running articles from them every week.. I would love to see your opinion on what you consider private property ownership and rights to it.. Think you have it in you???? I doubt it.. Your "brainwashed" like the rest you right about.
Since the “end” of the Cold War a couple of decades ago, the term “commies” has pretty much gone out of style, even though the Communist agenda is still with us in full force. With that, I seldom mention “commies”, but you’ll note that I tend to get upset with “socialists” which I think are exactly the same thing, nothing more than wolves wearing a different sheepskin. Personally I see little difference in today’s “Liberals”, Socialists, Communists, and the common, run-of-the-mill “Do-gooder” that wants to control my every waking moment in making sure that whatever I’m doing is “good for me”. As far as “the commies are coming”… I’m very well aware that they’re here, in the guise of liberals and environmentalists. But what would you have me do, go out and shoot them? The last I looked, that’s against the laws of both God and Man, both of which disregard just how much those people might need shooting!
For anyone not familiar with this area, I live in the only county in Idaho that does not subscribe to Planning & Zoning laws, building codes, or other forms of government control over private property. I’m sure that’s coming of course, considering the influx of people moving to this area to escape those controls, and then demand we implement them in the interest of their “quality of life”! But those of us who have lived here for most of our lives put our best efforts into avoiding that dreaded day. We do abide by state and federal laws, most of the time at least, with the deliberate intent of keeping any specific outside interest in us at arms length! You might however be aware of the latest liberal “land grab” whereby Federal land management agencies are removing even more of our public lands from public use, and that definitely hurts us all. If they get away with that, how long before they start seizing private property as well, to expand their beloved wilderness and/or roadless areas? How long before we’re forced from our homes, to live in the cities where we can be more easily controlled?
If you’ll read further back in my posts Deerhunter, you’ll find that I am and always have been a staunch supporter of private property rights, and individual rights as well. But between arthritis and a failing heart I’m getting a bit old to run out and be a revolutionary! (These “Golden Years” ain’t all they’re cracked up to be!) But “Brainwashed”? I doubt it. I grew up in the 50's, what I’d like to think of as the last good years of a more or less “free” country, and I much prefer that to what I see happening in this country today!
Keep reading, I’m always glad to get comments.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
L.O.S.T.
It would seem that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), has not died an unlamented natural death within the hallowed halls of the US Congress. Once again Congress is seriously considering ratifying this insult to America, thus surrendering yet another portion of our national sovereignty to the UN, apparently because they don’t know what else to do. (They might try declaring an extended congressional recess until we can elect a whole new congress, or at least let this nation fix its own problems without their esteemed “assistance”, but that’s a bit much to ask I suppose.) The Law of the Sea Treaty originated as part of the United Nations' agenda known as the "New International Economic Order" (which is a means for the UN bureaucrats to take over the world). The convention covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose over seabed mining. In essence, the treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrialized nations to the Third World. It applies "eminent domain" to give the UN the power to seize technology and share it with anyone who might request it, including potential enemy states. Our new Vice-president, Joe Biden, who has never seen a binding treaty he didn't like, is leading the ratification efforts in the Senate.
Anyway, LOST is the international agreement that resulted from the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. It defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, and establishes guidelines for the management of marine resources. To date 157 nations and the EU have joined in the Convention. It’s now generally regarded as international law on maritime issues. As it presently stands, the UN has no direct role in the implementation of the Convention. But… there is a role played by UN auxiliary organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority. The UNCLOS replaces the older “freedom of the seas” concept that dates from the 17th century and has served the world quite well since that time. National rights were limited to a specified distance from their coastline, usually three miles according to the 'cannon shot' rule. All waters beyond that were considered international waters, open to use by all nations but belonging to none. During the 20th century some nations expressed an understandable desire to extend their national maritime claims to include mineral resources, to protect national fisheries, and to enforce assorted pollution regulations. This has led to claims of “territorial waters” ranging from the original three miles to upwards of two hundred or more miles by different nations, such as President Truman’s 1945 extension of United States control of the sea to include the natural resources on our continental shelf, and Libya’s not so smart military claim to the entire Gulf of Sidra. There are some parts of LOST that I could logically support, as it would simplify many parts of international law, standardize national maritime boundries, put a serious crimp in the activities of pollutors, and seriously reduce overfishing. There are however a number of flies in the ointment so to speak. The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in 1967 and in 1973 at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. In an attempt to reduce groups of nations dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982, once again proving the theory that an international committee has plenty of heads but no brains!
Some of the conservation provisions would provide for non-U.S. environmental organizations to affect our domestic environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts. What this means is that if some foreign entity decided that farm runoff in Idaho was polluting the Columbia River, and due to that rivers connection with the Pacific Ocean, an International Court could legally order John Q. Farmer in Idaho to refrain from using the creek running through his back pasture, for any purpose. In addition, there is a requirement that nations either harvest their entire allowable fisheries catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations. With this, if the US decided to limit salmon fishing to preserve the species, any outside nation would have the legal right to enter US waters with the intent of catching whatever is left. This obviously could result in UN mandated overfishing, and the end of our shrinking salmon runs.
This also requires UN licensing of ocean users, the fees and taxes thus levied on economic activities in the ocean areas by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Like so many other UN activities, no nation would have any say in establishing those fees and taxes, even though their citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities. The treaty would also require all ocean vessels, including unmanned submarines used for mine detection and clearing, to exercise the right of innocent passage, which means they must navigate on the surface “showing their flag” in any territorial waters (that’s going to make naval counter-mine warfare somewhat difficult). Yet another choice tid-bit of the navigational clause (which goes to show just how silly this thing really is) effects the rights of passage of aircraft (civil or military) flying over the Earths oceans. By logical extension that can also be interperted to include spacecraft orbiting the earth, which could put a real dent in the future of space exploration!
Two decades ago President Reagan refused to sign the treaty. The then Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick, testified that United States ratification of the treaty “Viewed from the perspective of U.S. interests and Reagan Administration principles, it was a bad bargain," and that "its ratification will diminish our capacity for self-government, including, ultimately, our capacity for self-defense." U.S. leadership caused the Europeans and even the Russians stayed out, and eventually a good number of countries acknowledged the treaty's flaws. Still, treaties attract diplomats somewhat like lights attract moths. The first Bush and the Clinton administrations tried to "fix" the treaty with a revised agreement. Washington then signed, leading to ratifications from other countries. GOP gains in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton administration from pushing for ratification. Now of course Obama has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would be a priority for her. I still don’t advocate our withdrawal from the UN, as our Security Council veto authority is one of the few effective limitations to international insanity. But somebody is going to have to explain to a lot of congressmen that the American people aren’t going to give up our national rights to a string of greedy third world countries that really aren’t big enough to play on the first string, or at least not yet.
You can read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Anyway, LOST is the international agreement that resulted from the third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. It defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, and establishes guidelines for the management of marine resources. To date 157 nations and the EU have joined in the Convention. It’s now generally regarded as international law on maritime issues. As it presently stands, the UN has no direct role in the implementation of the Convention. But… there is a role played by UN auxiliary organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority. The UNCLOS replaces the older “freedom of the seas” concept that dates from the 17th century and has served the world quite well since that time. National rights were limited to a specified distance from their coastline, usually three miles according to the 'cannon shot' rule. All waters beyond that were considered international waters, open to use by all nations but belonging to none. During the 20th century some nations expressed an understandable desire to extend their national maritime claims to include mineral resources, to protect national fisheries, and to enforce assorted pollution regulations. This has led to claims of “territorial waters” ranging from the original three miles to upwards of two hundred or more miles by different nations, such as President Truman’s 1945 extension of United States control of the sea to include the natural resources on our continental shelf, and Libya’s not so smart military claim to the entire Gulf of Sidra. There are some parts of LOST that I could logically support, as it would simplify many parts of international law, standardize national maritime boundries, put a serious crimp in the activities of pollutors, and seriously reduce overfishing. There are however a number of flies in the ointment so to speak. The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in 1967 and in 1973 at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. In an attempt to reduce groups of nations dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982, once again proving the theory that an international committee has plenty of heads but no brains!
Some of the conservation provisions would provide for non-U.S. environmental organizations to affect our domestic environmental policies by pursuing legal action in both US and international courts. What this means is that if some foreign entity decided that farm runoff in Idaho was polluting the Columbia River, and due to that rivers connection with the Pacific Ocean, an International Court could legally order John Q. Farmer in Idaho to refrain from using the creek running through his back pasture, for any purpose. In addition, there is a requirement that nations either harvest their entire allowable fisheries catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations. With this, if the US decided to limit salmon fishing to preserve the species, any outside nation would have the legal right to enter US waters with the intent of catching whatever is left. This obviously could result in UN mandated overfishing, and the end of our shrinking salmon runs.
This also requires UN licensing of ocean users, the fees and taxes thus levied on economic activities in the ocean areas by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Like so many other UN activities, no nation would have any say in establishing those fees and taxes, even though their citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities. The treaty would also require all ocean vessels, including unmanned submarines used for mine detection and clearing, to exercise the right of innocent passage, which means they must navigate on the surface “showing their flag” in any territorial waters (that’s going to make naval counter-mine warfare somewhat difficult). Yet another choice tid-bit of the navigational clause (which goes to show just how silly this thing really is) effects the rights of passage of aircraft (civil or military) flying over the Earths oceans. By logical extension that can also be interperted to include spacecraft orbiting the earth, which could put a real dent in the future of space exploration!
Two decades ago President Reagan refused to sign the treaty. The then Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick, testified that United States ratification of the treaty “Viewed from the perspective of U.S. interests and Reagan Administration principles, it was a bad bargain," and that "its ratification will diminish our capacity for self-government, including, ultimately, our capacity for self-defense." U.S. leadership caused the Europeans and even the Russians stayed out, and eventually a good number of countries acknowledged the treaty's flaws. Still, treaties attract diplomats somewhat like lights attract moths. The first Bush and the Clinton administrations tried to "fix" the treaty with a revised agreement. Washington then signed, leading to ratifications from other countries. GOP gains in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton administration from pushing for ratification. Now of course Obama has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would be a priority for her. I still don’t advocate our withdrawal from the UN, as our Security Council veto authority is one of the few effective limitations to international insanity. But somebody is going to have to explain to a lot of congressmen that the American people aren’t going to give up our national rights to a string of greedy third world countries that really aren’t big enough to play on the first string, or at least not yet.
You can read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty at: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Limbaugh
On the third day of the Conservative Political Action Conference recently held in Washington DC recently, Rush Limbaugh was the headline speaker, and his speech wound-up an event featuring some of the top names in the conservative movement including Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and the rather fiery Ann Coulter. All-in-all a list of speakers guaranteed to give liberals nightmares! Limbaugh, who was greeted with a standing ovation, gave a summary of what it means to be a conservative, then turned to discussing their recent electoral record. Limbaugh is of course considered to be a complete nut by the liberals, a rabble rouser by the center, and nearly a prophet to many on the far right. Now it appears that the Republican National Committee is once again making every effort to ignore both Limbaugh and the hard core conservative wing of the party. Limbaugh’s “crime”? His popularity is obviously increasing among young Republicans, he’s certainly not playing to a moderate audience, and he’s not “toeing the party line” as established by RNC Chairman Michael Steele. As one commenter stated “If someone in the Republican party disagrees or has a somewhat different take, they are treated like garbage and called every name in the book, including traitors.” As proof of that statement, when Snowe, Collins, and Spector voted for the Obama stimulus package they were quickly labeled the “3 traitors” by Republicans, but consider the facts. The Senate needed three GOP votes to get the bill passed, and they got exactly three GOP votes. Not more, not less, but exactly the number of votes needed, and strangely enough those votes were from Senators whose seats are not presently at risk. I smell a deal here… but like most political wheeling and dealing, if this is what happened it’s certainly being kept a deep dark secret, and the rant continues.
Limbaugh’s statement of "We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate," was nothing more than what a good many pundits have been stating since long before the Republican convention or the national election. How many Republicans were comfortable with John McCain’s candidacy? For that matter, how many Republican voters were comfortable with any of the Republican candidates!? No, it seems that the Republicans sleepily conducted “business as usual” throughout what proved to be a most important campaign, where Sarah Palin was the only breath of fresh air to be found! This is why they lost in November, and this is why fewer and fewer Americans call themselves republicans. The Republican Party has to offer alternatives that will work. If they don't, they won't attract the middle-of-the-road "silent majority" that’s so crucial to success in national politics. Nothing we don’t already know. But Limbaugh is being treated like a pariah by the GOP for saying just that, and particularly so by Michael Steele who described Rush’s comments as “incendiary”! Despite the ever popular stereotype view of Republicans being big city “fat cat businessmen” in a three piece suit complete with oversize watch fob and top hat, it’s the red-neck, bible belt, gun toting, hard core conservatives have always been the backbone of the party, and those are the very people who listen to Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter. Instead of pushing them off into limbo, the RNC had better start cultivating those very people! There's a storm brewing in this country, and the RNC had better get on the band wagon if they don’t want the silent majority and the hard core conservatives to jump ship and leave them far behind.
Washington has seemingly forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around, a point that Republicans should be stressing day and night. Throwing away taxpayer money is not the answer to our economic woes. I’m sick and tired of republican congressmen raking assorted CEO's over the coals for making poor business decisions, while those same congressmen have been wasting taxpayer money for decades. I’m also sick and tired of hearing that it’s my responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford, particularly so when I know very well that I can’t afford to buy so much as a used car right now!
At the moment Obama is still hugely popular with the majority of the American people, but cracks are already showing in the Democratic façade. The numerous failed cabinet nominees aren’t helping any, nor is the continued threat of a total economic collapse as described by both Republican and Democratic economists. It seems the rest of the world is looking to the US to shore up their failing banks, Pakistan has become a political powder keg yet again, and no sooner has George Bush left office than North Korea is back to rattling sabers and threatening the South with war, along with threatening China and Japan. The Beltway insiders are publicly questioning Obama’s plans, and there is a small but growing rebellion within the Democratic ranks as well. (Many of Mr. Obama’s tax and spend plans are already drawing more than a little Democratic opposition.) In an attempt to make political points, congress is loudly telling the world all about what we’re going to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is no way to preserve the lives of US troops, or to win any wars either. Adding insult to injury on the military front, the Democrats plan to further reduce the size and capabilities of our overstrained armed forces over the next four years. Further adding to his problems, Mr. Obama has a tendency to overly depend on his political advisors for final decisions, rather like the trouble prone regime of G.W. Bush. There is a growing protest among the American people to demand that Congress and the President listen to us for a change. The Obama economic plan is nothing more than increased taxes and more spending, not anything new and it’s certainly not change. It’s simply a rehash of FDR’s failed New Deal, and it’s not the way to handle a worldwide economic free fall! I’d say that our unproven President has a full set of problems to deal with, and I question the ability of his regime to successfully handle them. Were I the chair of the RNC, I’d be heavily stressing those points in the press!
Rush is right I think, in that the Republicans are unknowingly being handed the 2012 election on a platter, or at least they will be, if they can get their act together, if they come up with an effective platform that will handle our nations problems, and of course if they can find a few viable candidates.
On a more pleasant note, Beannachtaà na Féile Pádraig, or, if you don’t happen to speak Gaelic, have a Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
Limbaugh’s statement of "We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate," was nothing more than what a good many pundits have been stating since long before the Republican convention or the national election. How many Republicans were comfortable with John McCain’s candidacy? For that matter, how many Republican voters were comfortable with any of the Republican candidates!? No, it seems that the Republicans sleepily conducted “business as usual” throughout what proved to be a most important campaign, where Sarah Palin was the only breath of fresh air to be found! This is why they lost in November, and this is why fewer and fewer Americans call themselves republicans. The Republican Party has to offer alternatives that will work. If they don't, they won't attract the middle-of-the-road "silent majority" that’s so crucial to success in national politics. Nothing we don’t already know. But Limbaugh is being treated like a pariah by the GOP for saying just that, and particularly so by Michael Steele who described Rush’s comments as “incendiary”! Despite the ever popular stereotype view of Republicans being big city “fat cat businessmen” in a three piece suit complete with oversize watch fob and top hat, it’s the red-neck, bible belt, gun toting, hard core conservatives have always been the backbone of the party, and those are the very people who listen to Gingrich, Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter. Instead of pushing them off into limbo, the RNC had better start cultivating those very people! There's a storm brewing in this country, and the RNC had better get on the band wagon if they don’t want the silent majority and the hard core conservatives to jump ship and leave them far behind.
Washington has seemingly forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around, a point that Republicans should be stressing day and night. Throwing away taxpayer money is not the answer to our economic woes. I’m sick and tired of republican congressmen raking assorted CEO's over the coals for making poor business decisions, while those same congressmen have been wasting taxpayer money for decades. I’m also sick and tired of hearing that it’s my responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford, particularly so when I know very well that I can’t afford to buy so much as a used car right now!
At the moment Obama is still hugely popular with the majority of the American people, but cracks are already showing in the Democratic façade. The numerous failed cabinet nominees aren’t helping any, nor is the continued threat of a total economic collapse as described by both Republican and Democratic economists. It seems the rest of the world is looking to the US to shore up their failing banks, Pakistan has become a political powder keg yet again, and no sooner has George Bush left office than North Korea is back to rattling sabers and threatening the South with war, along with threatening China and Japan. The Beltway insiders are publicly questioning Obama’s plans, and there is a small but growing rebellion within the Democratic ranks as well. (Many of Mr. Obama’s tax and spend plans are already drawing more than a little Democratic opposition.) In an attempt to make political points, congress is loudly telling the world all about what we’re going to do in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is no way to preserve the lives of US troops, or to win any wars either. Adding insult to injury on the military front, the Democrats plan to further reduce the size and capabilities of our overstrained armed forces over the next four years. Further adding to his problems, Mr. Obama has a tendency to overly depend on his political advisors for final decisions, rather like the trouble prone regime of G.W. Bush. There is a growing protest among the American people to demand that Congress and the President listen to us for a change. The Obama economic plan is nothing more than increased taxes and more spending, not anything new and it’s certainly not change. It’s simply a rehash of FDR’s failed New Deal, and it’s not the way to handle a worldwide economic free fall! I’d say that our unproven President has a full set of problems to deal with, and I question the ability of his regime to successfully handle them. Were I the chair of the RNC, I’d be heavily stressing those points in the press!
Rush is right I think, in that the Republicans are unknowingly being handed the 2012 election on a platter, or at least they will be, if they can get their act together, if they come up with an effective platform that will handle our nations problems, and of course if they can find a few viable candidates.
On a more pleasant note, Beannachtaà na Féile Pádraig, or, if you don’t happen to speak Gaelic, have a Happy St. Patrick’s Day!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Wild Pigs
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson
It’s common internet practice for people to send assorted pictures, cute sayings, religious tracts, and very often political commentary, to a large number of relatives and acquaintances. (The internet is much cheaper than the US Postal Service if you’re into bulk mailing.) With that, I recently received an interesting note that I thought I’d share, slightly edited. I don’t know where this originated, and it has been around for a while, but I do like the author’s style.
Catching Wild Pigs
A professor at a large college had some foreign exchange students in the class. While having a background discussion with one of the students, the student looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.
A democracy will falter, and finally fail, starting when the citizens find they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. It might be added that this same process occurs when politicians find that they could legally “buy” votes with ever expanding social giveaway programs, instead of illegally with a five dollar bill and a pint of cheap whisky. With that, nearly every student of American history is well aware that our political system has long been the abode of shady practices, dating clear back to the days of George Washington. Surprisingly enough our republic was strong enough to survive such wheeling and dealing for nearly a hundred and fifty years. Then, with the great depression of 1929 and FDR’s “New Deal” bailout socialism of 1933, the United States began a long and painful slide into histories trash heap. As originally envisioned, FDR’s social security program was a good idea, and badly needed at the time. Since then however, social security has turned into a typical federal boondoggle and little more than another source of funds for federal spending. Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Medicare program was another good idea (as much as I hate to give Johnson credit for anything), that was badly needed, and has since turned into nothing more than a bureaucratic means of channeling ever increasing federal funds to the medical industry. Nearly every other “social” program instituted by the government has failed, often disastrously. Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, exploded at the failed New Deal programs. "We have tried spending money," Morgenthau noted. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . and have an enormous debt to boot!"
Back during the Clinton era, the left decided they should help all the “poor folk” live the American dream, and own their own home, which wasn’t a bad idea either, IF those “poor folks” had jobs that paid more than minimum wages, and had a bit of job security as well. The White House applied a bit of political pressure, and the banking industry was making home loans to a lot of people that they’d normally not touch with a ten-foot pole! In the view of the liberal left this brought about prosperity, as people were “spending money”. Borrowed money perhaps, but they were spending, and the real estate market was booming with artificially inflated prices. ‘Course when those loans came due… There's been a lot of economic manipulation over the last decade or so, with political pressure on banks to lend where they really shouldn't have, adjusting the interest rate to stimulate or slow the economy, all depending on the whims of the White House, Treasury Department, and of course the Federal Reserve. The biggest question to today’s liberals is, how do we get people spending again? After all, that's what creates strength in an economy, the rate at which they spend. Nor does it matter I guess, if it’s John Q. Citizen doing the spending, or the federal government! Who cares that the bills are slowly piling up, and are going to have to be paid someday, by somebody. We should always remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch!
For the most part I’m opposed to these bailout and stimulus bills proposed by the White House, and so readily accepted by Congress. Certainly I realize that our nation is in deep economic doo-doo, and a return to prosperity will be a long and difficult project. I’d also think that President Obama and our elected representatives are trying to do the best they can under the circumstances. It’s not their fault they were severely shortchanged in the “original thinking” department! Now, to solve our current economic problems, (for lack of any better ideas I guess), the Obama White House and congressional democrats are planning a “New New Deal”, based in large part on the failed socialist policies of the FDR era. As history has demonstrated, the centralized control that President Bush began and President Obama plans to continue isn't going to work. Although it may increase the control of government over people's lives… it will fail to restore America’s economy. Historically we have every reason to that if we get a New New Deal, then universal health care, federal bailouts, and jobs stimulus programs will be quite costly, highly politicized, and will inevitably fail.
So, today the fences are up, the corn is being scattered, and our government stands ready to slam the gate. Your choice…
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Robotics
Since Robby the Robot first appeared in 1956’s “Forbidden Planet”, science fiction in print, film and on television has pushed the limits of our imagination regarding machines of the future and their abilities to perform human tasks. From Star Wars to Robot Warriors, our glimpse at the potential of tomorrow has sometimes been rather an eye-opener. The word robot was introduced to the public by Czeck writer Karel Capek in his play R.U.R. in 1921. Robots are of course intended to be labor saving devices, machines designed, constructed, and operated to relieve human drudgery, and in many cases danger. We’ve all seen pictures of the police bomb squad robots on the TV News. I doubt anyone would debate the value of such a machine, or of the newer high-hazard firefighting version. Robots are already common in many industrial applications, preforming mind numbing repetive work, particularly at jobs requiring considerable physical strength and/or high precision. Your new car was probably built in part by a robot, as were the circuit boards in your home electronic equipment. You can even buy a robot vacuum cleaner for your home on the open market.
But robots have other applications as well. Most people have seen the rather frightening opening scenes of the movie “Terminator”, where robotic fighting machines battle the few remaining humans for control of a devastated Earth. The movie is futuristic science fiction of course… but the future may be closer than you think. Broadly defined, military robots date back to the WWII era in the form of German “Goliath” mobile mines and Soviet “Teletanks”. Essentially these were simple remotely controlled weapons with limited effectiveness and made little impact on warfare. The V-1 and V-2 missiles were slightly more properly called robotic devices, as when fired they automatically went (in theory) where they were programmed to go. “Smart Bombs” and “Smart Missiles” are more of the same, rather dim-witted robots that usually go where they’re told, and do what they’re supposed to do. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan military robots have suddenly become much more than a historical footnote, and their development has advanced rapidly. Defense contractors are currently hard at work developing autonomous "robot soldiers" of various types, with most of these machines presently looking more like trucks or mini-tanks that human soldiers. They also have problems with threat recognition, as most can’t seem to recognize guerillas crouched behind an obstacle or even who the friendly soldiers are, but some are quite happy to shoot at anything with an AK-47 silhouette painted on it.
Today’s engineers can build nearly anything the human mind can envision, and nearly any machine can be automated and armed. The problem (and major R&D efforts) with today’s robotic weapons systems revolves around the sensor systems and computer controls, along with the artificial intelligence software they require to become fully autonomous. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is that part of computer science devoted to creating “expert systems”, machines that can engage in behavior that humans would consider “intelligently guided”. Researchers are creating systems which can mimic human thought, understand speech, and many other tricks never before possible. AI is a step that can be quite helpful to humanity, in that machines can do dangerous or repetitive jobs that require detailed instructions and mental alertness. AI, with its learning capabilities, can accomplish those tasks but only if we are ready to allow this to happen. In theory the more use we get of machines the less work is required by us. This in turn leads to fewer injured workers (or soldiers) and far less stress to the humans involved. AI can be quite a blessing to human endeavor. With all that, I am quite a fan of Robots and AI, as long as we know what we’re doing…
We need to be prepared for the worst of AI as well. Something this new and revolutionary is sure to have many kinks that will need to be worked out. There are many things that can go wrong with any new system so we must be as prepared as we can for this new technology. Computer programs this complex include millions of lines of code and are not written by any individual programmer, but rather by teams of professionals, none of whom know the entire program. Accordingly, no individual can predict how the various portions of large programs will work together without extensive field testing, an option that may well be deliberately sidestepped in the press of military requirements and an industrial “rush to market”.
For the moment, US Mechatronics has produced a working automated sentry gun system and is currently developing it for commercial, police, and military use. Scientists at MIT are "looking into building a mechanical super-fighter... able to heal his own wounds, leap buildings, deflect bullets and even become invisible" which "won't be ready for at least 10 years." The U.S. Joint Forces Command "Project Alpha" envisioned a 2025 fighting force that 'is largely robotic', taking humans out of the loop for the most part. AI programmers appear to be in a pell-mell rush to “field something” irregardless of it’s reliability. That sense of haste among designers has been increased by a congressional mandate that by 2010 a third of all operational “deep-strike” aircraft must be unmanned, and that by 2015 one third of all ground combat vehicles must be unmanned.
Still, a note of sanity is creeping into the robotic revolution. Autonomous military robots must be programmed to live by a strict military credo or we risk untold horrors at their steel hands. This warning, which includes a Terminator type scenario where robots turn on their human masters, is contained in a report funded by the US Navy’s high-tech Office of Naval Research. The report foresees an era where robots are smart enough to make crucial battlefield decisions, and eventually display “significant advantages over human soldiers”. Robots don’t get tired, they don’t go on strike, they don’t have to be paid, and they can be designed to do almost anything. Best of all from the government’s view is that they don’t have to be convinced as to who the enemy is… they just attack whoever they’re told to attack. If a government pulls a really raw deal on its citizens, a robot army won’t mutiny, it would just continue to defend the government from all comers. ‘Course a simple computer glitch, a stray virus, or a malevolent hacker could do much the same thing…
The death and destruction of war is often the only thing that keeps nations from fighting. When we finally make warfare little more than a glorified auto race with machines fighting machines, that hesitation will all but disappear, and war will become even more common than it is today. Military robotics and artificial intelligence, like genetic engineering and stem cell research is here today, and it’s just one more facet of our high-tech world that we’ll have to get used to, like it or not. After all, once the genie is out of the bottle, we’re not going to get it back in, as much as we might like to. But we should demand that our leaders keep a very cautious eye on developments, and not necessarily depend on commercial hyperbole.
But robots have other applications as well. Most people have seen the rather frightening opening scenes of the movie “Terminator”, where robotic fighting machines battle the few remaining humans for control of a devastated Earth. The movie is futuristic science fiction of course… but the future may be closer than you think. Broadly defined, military robots date back to the WWII era in the form of German “Goliath” mobile mines and Soviet “Teletanks”. Essentially these were simple remotely controlled weapons with limited effectiveness and made little impact on warfare. The V-1 and V-2 missiles were slightly more properly called robotic devices, as when fired they automatically went (in theory) where they were programmed to go. “Smart Bombs” and “Smart Missiles” are more of the same, rather dim-witted robots that usually go where they’re told, and do what they’re supposed to do. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan military robots have suddenly become much more than a historical footnote, and their development has advanced rapidly. Defense contractors are currently hard at work developing autonomous "robot soldiers" of various types, with most of these machines presently looking more like trucks or mini-tanks that human soldiers. They also have problems with threat recognition, as most can’t seem to recognize guerillas crouched behind an obstacle or even who the friendly soldiers are, but some are quite happy to shoot at anything with an AK-47 silhouette painted on it.
Today’s engineers can build nearly anything the human mind can envision, and nearly any machine can be automated and armed. The problem (and major R&D efforts) with today’s robotic weapons systems revolves around the sensor systems and computer controls, along with the artificial intelligence software they require to become fully autonomous. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is that part of computer science devoted to creating “expert systems”, machines that can engage in behavior that humans would consider “intelligently guided”. Researchers are creating systems which can mimic human thought, understand speech, and many other tricks never before possible. AI is a step that can be quite helpful to humanity, in that machines can do dangerous or repetitive jobs that require detailed instructions and mental alertness. AI, with its learning capabilities, can accomplish those tasks but only if we are ready to allow this to happen. In theory the more use we get of machines the less work is required by us. This in turn leads to fewer injured workers (or soldiers) and far less stress to the humans involved. AI can be quite a blessing to human endeavor. With all that, I am quite a fan of Robots and AI, as long as we know what we’re doing…
We need to be prepared for the worst of AI as well. Something this new and revolutionary is sure to have many kinks that will need to be worked out. There are many things that can go wrong with any new system so we must be as prepared as we can for this new technology. Computer programs this complex include millions of lines of code and are not written by any individual programmer, but rather by teams of professionals, none of whom know the entire program. Accordingly, no individual can predict how the various portions of large programs will work together without extensive field testing, an option that may well be deliberately sidestepped in the press of military requirements and an industrial “rush to market”.
For the moment, US Mechatronics has produced a working automated sentry gun system and is currently developing it for commercial, police, and military use. Scientists at MIT are "looking into building a mechanical super-fighter... able to heal his own wounds, leap buildings, deflect bullets and even become invisible" which "won't be ready for at least 10 years." The U.S. Joint Forces Command "Project Alpha" envisioned a 2025 fighting force that 'is largely robotic', taking humans out of the loop for the most part. AI programmers appear to be in a pell-mell rush to “field something” irregardless of it’s reliability. That sense of haste among designers has been increased by a congressional mandate that by 2010 a third of all operational “deep-strike” aircraft must be unmanned, and that by 2015 one third of all ground combat vehicles must be unmanned.
Still, a note of sanity is creeping into the robotic revolution. Autonomous military robots must be programmed to live by a strict military credo or we risk untold horrors at their steel hands. This warning, which includes a Terminator type scenario where robots turn on their human masters, is contained in a report funded by the US Navy’s high-tech Office of Naval Research. The report foresees an era where robots are smart enough to make crucial battlefield decisions, and eventually display “significant advantages over human soldiers”. Robots don’t get tired, they don’t go on strike, they don’t have to be paid, and they can be designed to do almost anything. Best of all from the government’s view is that they don’t have to be convinced as to who the enemy is… they just attack whoever they’re told to attack. If a government pulls a really raw deal on its citizens, a robot army won’t mutiny, it would just continue to defend the government from all comers. ‘Course a simple computer glitch, a stray virus, or a malevolent hacker could do much the same thing…
The death and destruction of war is often the only thing that keeps nations from fighting. When we finally make warfare little more than a glorified auto race with machines fighting machines, that hesitation will all but disappear, and war will become even more common than it is today. Military robotics and artificial intelligence, like genetic engineering and stem cell research is here today, and it’s just one more facet of our high-tech world that we’ll have to get used to, like it or not. After all, once the genie is out of the bottle, we’re not going to get it back in, as much as we might like to. But we should demand that our leaders keep a very cautious eye on developments, and not necessarily depend on commercial hyperbole.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Common Sense
One comment I often hear, and even make myself, is that - “I wish our politicians would use a little common sense”. That’s not to say that they don’t… part of the time at least. I realize that politicians have to wheel and deal with a lot of folks that they probably don’t agree with, and who may be anything from a friend to an acquaintance to someone they actively hate. This of course can make life difficult when ‘ya have to smile and shake hands with some ignorant fool you just reached a compromise with, even if you would prefer to visit great bodily harm on his slimy carcass. It’s all part of the job and there’s not much you can do about it, irregardless of whether you happen to be the Mayor of a town to small to have a horse, President of the United States, or even the “Galactic Overlord”. Local politics can get downright bloody at times, particularly in the larger jurisdictions, but those of us in the smaller communities are “reasonably satisfied” with the job our elected officials are doing, most of the time. Generally they’re people we know, and usually we can talk to ‘em, explaining our problems and viewpoints, and they also know the local voters aren’t going to buy a scam. If the Grangeville City Council makes a bum call, they’ve only got three thousand people mad at them. If the county commissioners do it, they’ve got fourteen thousand irate people snapping and snarling at their heels. But if the US Congress makes a major mistake, three-hundred-million people out for blood isn’t a pretty sight!
But we still maintain that “Common Sense” is sorely lacking in American politics, which I usually agree with. Common sense is defined as what people “in common” would agree on as prudent and sound, without reliance on an in depth study or prolonged research. Thus "common sense" equates to the knowledge and experience the person using the term believes that they do or should have. And there’s the rub. We don’t all have exactly the same knowledge and experience, therefore we have different viewpoints. As an example, most Democrats apparently think the bailout and stimulus plans makes perfectly good sense, while most Republicans think its complete insanity. As I’ve often stated in the past, my knowledge of economics is severely limited. But even I know that you can’t long survive if you continue to spend money you don’t have and aren’t going to get!
Bailout and stimulus seem to be the hot button subjects at present, and a good reason why common sense is so necessary in our government. The present plan is to spend another eight hundred billion bailout dollars or so over and above the Bush era bailout, and I’ve yet seen anything said about how we’re supposed to pay for all this. The eight-hundred billion dollar Bush bailout essentially went to the big banks to keep them solvent, wherein the banks promptly split the take between their major stockholders and executives (none of whom are exactly poor by any measure). The “little guy” investor was left holding the bag, and waving good-by to his hopes for a comfortable retirement. The “Big Three” automakers got a few bucks as well, to keep them in business, but I notice they’re still loosing money hand over fist! Congress is happily investigating all the “wastage” of investors’ money, which strikes me as a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Now we’re going to come up with yet another bail-out, and stimulate the economy to the tune of another eight hundred plus billion dollars. Five-hundred or thousand dollar “free money” checks from the government is a nice chunk of change for most of us, but hardly enough to “stimulate” anything. For most Americans, that isn’t even enough to pay the months rent, or cover a car payment! I suspect the grocery stores will do pretty good… for the month… but what happens next month? The states are supposed to get a few bales of money to sink into an assortment of infrastructure projects that have been deferred for years. All well and fine I suppose, there are a lot of roads and bridges that need repair, schools that could use a facelift, and hospitals that need an up-grade. But how much of this needed work is going to be pork-barrel projects designed to enrich the friends and supporters of prominent politicians? Another thought comes to mind as well, why sink a lot of money into fixing roads and bridges when nobody is going to be able to afford to drive on them?
President Obama plans to cut taxes for roughly 95% of the American people, which leaves the remaining 5% to pay the bills. That’s a lot of government income that we won’t see! At the same time we’re going to spend another two trillion (approximately) dollars in covering bad debits and kick-starting the economy? Well, I don’t work for the Treasury Department or the White House, but I do know enough about home finances that when my income is dropping I’m not about to run out and buy a new car along with remodeling the house! Certainly there are a lot of things I’d like to accomplish, yesterday if not sooner, but if I can’t afford them right now, they’re going to have to wait until I can. Do it all on credit? Yeah, right! Far to many people have found to their sorrow that credit card bills have to be paid as well, and it would have been a lot cheaper in the long run to delay that big purchase, waiting until they had cash in hand. Keeping in mind that government cannot create wealth (it can only spend what it can extort from the citizens) the proposed tax cuts and skyrocketing unemployment are going to severely depress the government’s revenues (income). Bailouts and stimulus programs will do nothing more than increase an already staggering annual budget.
President Obama says we have to act boldly to solve the financial crisis. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner added that we have to try things that have never been tried before. The Obama team wants to boldly take our economy where no economy has gone before. Humm… somewhat like “Star Trek”, only right now we apparently aren’t going to have the assistance of the Vulcans to save the day. Obama’s economics also begins with a violation of the Prime Directive of a free-market economy, you can’t stabilize the economy by increasing the deficit! We’re going to “bring the full force of the United States government to bear to strengthen our financial system” according to Geithner, but he didn’t say how, when or why. That’s not so much a plan as a wild idea! Besides, “the full force of the United States government” hasn’t been very successful at anything since we fought World War Two! This approach is based on the idea that doing something quickly is more important than doing it right. And if you don’t know what you’re going to do, make an announcement that is designed to placate people with vague promises of “change”.
Our republic has been threatened by socialism (with a striking lack of success) for many decades, but now it looks like Obama-Pelosi-Geithner Axis just might make it happen. The Democrats seem to think that that throwing government money at a problem will immediately solve it and the grandkids will be happy to foot the bill. Congressional Republicans on the other hand are using a bit more common sense I’d say, wherein they seem to realize that bankrupting the nation isn’t going to solve anything.
But we still maintain that “Common Sense” is sorely lacking in American politics, which I usually agree with. Common sense is defined as what people “in common” would agree on as prudent and sound, without reliance on an in depth study or prolonged research. Thus "common sense" equates to the knowledge and experience the person using the term believes that they do or should have. And there’s the rub. We don’t all have exactly the same knowledge and experience, therefore we have different viewpoints. As an example, most Democrats apparently think the bailout and stimulus plans makes perfectly good sense, while most Republicans think its complete insanity. As I’ve often stated in the past, my knowledge of economics is severely limited. But even I know that you can’t long survive if you continue to spend money you don’t have and aren’t going to get!
Bailout and stimulus seem to be the hot button subjects at present, and a good reason why common sense is so necessary in our government. The present plan is to spend another eight hundred billion bailout dollars or so over and above the Bush era bailout, and I’ve yet seen anything said about how we’re supposed to pay for all this. The eight-hundred billion dollar Bush bailout essentially went to the big banks to keep them solvent, wherein the banks promptly split the take between their major stockholders and executives (none of whom are exactly poor by any measure). The “little guy” investor was left holding the bag, and waving good-by to his hopes for a comfortable retirement. The “Big Three” automakers got a few bucks as well, to keep them in business, but I notice they’re still loosing money hand over fist! Congress is happily investigating all the “wastage” of investors’ money, which strikes me as a case of the pot calling the kettle black! Now we’re going to come up with yet another bail-out, and stimulate the economy to the tune of another eight hundred plus billion dollars. Five-hundred or thousand dollar “free money” checks from the government is a nice chunk of change for most of us, but hardly enough to “stimulate” anything. For most Americans, that isn’t even enough to pay the months rent, or cover a car payment! I suspect the grocery stores will do pretty good… for the month… but what happens next month? The states are supposed to get a few bales of money to sink into an assortment of infrastructure projects that have been deferred for years. All well and fine I suppose, there are a lot of roads and bridges that need repair, schools that could use a facelift, and hospitals that need an up-grade. But how much of this needed work is going to be pork-barrel projects designed to enrich the friends and supporters of prominent politicians? Another thought comes to mind as well, why sink a lot of money into fixing roads and bridges when nobody is going to be able to afford to drive on them?
President Obama plans to cut taxes for roughly 95% of the American people, which leaves the remaining 5% to pay the bills. That’s a lot of government income that we won’t see! At the same time we’re going to spend another two trillion (approximately) dollars in covering bad debits and kick-starting the economy? Well, I don’t work for the Treasury Department or the White House, but I do know enough about home finances that when my income is dropping I’m not about to run out and buy a new car along with remodeling the house! Certainly there are a lot of things I’d like to accomplish, yesterday if not sooner, but if I can’t afford them right now, they’re going to have to wait until I can. Do it all on credit? Yeah, right! Far to many people have found to their sorrow that credit card bills have to be paid as well, and it would have been a lot cheaper in the long run to delay that big purchase, waiting until they had cash in hand. Keeping in mind that government cannot create wealth (it can only spend what it can extort from the citizens) the proposed tax cuts and skyrocketing unemployment are going to severely depress the government’s revenues (income). Bailouts and stimulus programs will do nothing more than increase an already staggering annual budget.
President Obama says we have to act boldly to solve the financial crisis. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner added that we have to try things that have never been tried before. The Obama team wants to boldly take our economy where no economy has gone before. Humm… somewhat like “Star Trek”, only right now we apparently aren’t going to have the assistance of the Vulcans to save the day. Obama’s economics also begins with a violation of the Prime Directive of a free-market economy, you can’t stabilize the economy by increasing the deficit! We’re going to “bring the full force of the United States government to bear to strengthen our financial system” according to Geithner, but he didn’t say how, when or why. That’s not so much a plan as a wild idea! Besides, “the full force of the United States government” hasn’t been very successful at anything since we fought World War Two! This approach is based on the idea that doing something quickly is more important than doing it right. And if you don’t know what you’re going to do, make an announcement that is designed to placate people with vague promises of “change”.
Our republic has been threatened by socialism (with a striking lack of success) for many decades, but now it looks like Obama-Pelosi-Geithner Axis just might make it happen. The Democrats seem to think that that throwing government money at a problem will immediately solve it and the grandkids will be happy to foot the bill. Congressional Republicans on the other hand are using a bit more common sense I’d say, wherein they seem to realize that bankrupting the nation isn’t going to solve anything.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Legacy of Gun Control
On April 19th, 1775, aproximately seven hundred British soldiers marched on Concord Massachutes with orders to seize and destroy the military stores held there by the colonial militia. The had the misfortune to tangle with a militia company at Lexington Green, where the “Shot heard ‘round the World” triggered the American Revolution. Shortly thereafter, a meeting engagement with three more companies of militia near Concord convinced the British to withdraw to Boston, leaving the Redcoats with a grudging respect for the marksmanship of the “armed rabble” they had anticipated easily dispersing, and leaving Americans a lasting legacy of gun control efforts.
The Governor General of Massachusetts and Army Commander Gen. Sir Thomas Gage began preporations to defend his base of Boston, and was rightfully concerned about the possibility of having large numbers of armed rebels in his rear areas. He decided to disarm Boston’s 16,000 civilian residents in America’s first “gun control act”, including the many loyalist citizens not involved with revolution nor guilty of any transgression, in complete disregard of their rights as Englishmen. With typical British prefidity, Gage promised the return of those confiscated weapons when the emergency was concluded, a promise that was never kept. The Selectmen of Boston, believing this was best for their citizens, arranged the surrender of guns to the civil authority at Faneuil Hall, where they were soon seized by troops of the Royal Army. In five days the inhabitants had surrendered “1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 273 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses”. I can only assume that the loyalists of Boston happily turned in their weapons, abiding by the “lawful” order of the British governor. There are no records of course, about what the Rebels had to say about those orders, or of how many rebel guns were turned in rather than hidden away for future use.
Nearly a hundred years earlier, in 1689, the then new King of England, William of Orange, enacted a series of guarenteed rights for his subjects, one of which was the right to bear arms. (Irishmen, Scotsmen, and English Catholics of course were famously excluded.) This right extended to all English subjects in the American Colonies, where General Gage’s ill advised Boston gun ban became the reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, denying government any authority to ban the citizen’s ownership of weapons.
British disarmament was a "creeping" program, much as we see hapening in the US today. In 1870 Britain, licensing was decreed for anyone who wanted to carry a gun outside their home. Further restrictions came with the 1903 Pistols Act, denying handgun ownership to anyone who was "drunken or insane". After soldiers returned from the trenches in 1918, the government became concerned about the number of souvenir weapons they had brought home with them. Further fueled by fears of socialist and anarchist movements along with the 1917 Russian revolution, the resulting 1920 Firearms Act introduced a registration system that allowed local police to deny a license to anyone they deemed "unfitted to be trusted with a firearm". Restrictions were tightened with the 1937 Firearms Act, which banned most fully automatic weapons. The 1967 Criminal Justice Act required licensing of shotguns, while the 1968 Firearms Act consolidated existing gun laws. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, and short shotguns with magazines. Registration was also enacted for shotguns, which were required to be kept in secure storage. The government drew up legislation banning handguns larger that .22 caliber, and later introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which outlawed .22s as well. More recently, in response to a series of high-profile shootings, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 was introduced, which made it illegal to manufacture, import or sell realistic imitation guns. With the most restrictive gun laws in Europe, England still has a higher per capita crime rate that does the United States.
Disarming the British public in the wake of a mass murder of children by a psychopath who had slipped through the cracks of the criminal justice system has done nothing to make Britain safer, but, this British system of disarmament is the model that the head of the National Education Association has called for in America. In some ways, Draconian gun laws are worse when they are enacted in countries that had once been bastions of firearms freedom. The carry of concealed weapons was common among South Africans at the time of apartheid, where the practice extended to Black and Coloured citizens as well as White. Then came the communist-connected African National Congress. From the beginning, the ANC made it clear that they had a prohibitionist agenda insofar as gun owners' rights. This at a time when violent crime in South Africa, including car-jackings and home invasions, is skyrocketing. Gun writer Jeff Cooper's wife Janelle once said, "Saying that we should ban guns because crime is rising is like saying we should ban boats because the floodwaters are rising."
In the end, we need to remember why it's so important to fight for the human right of self-defense, and for the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners in America. If nothing else, we have no place to flee to if we lose our rights here. We have the power to build weapons to defend ourselves with, but sadly, there are plenty of those who would take that basic right away from us. No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But the Brady Bunch pretends that they supplied Obama's victory in November, and have since handed him a long list of gun bans and assorted restrictions that they expect him to deliver in gratitude, and they're very serious. The "non-aligned" anti-gun folks are jumping on the band wagon as well.
In the fight over firearms civil rights, the best word-smiths seem to be among the opposition. Have you noticed how the popular term today is "gun violence"? If a soldier shoots an enemy of our nation in war, it’s "gun violence." When the police shoot an armed criminal in the line of duty, it's "gun violence." When a mother shoots an intruder to protect her child, it's "gun violence." But remember that there are times when violence is required to protect the innocent from lawlessness, which is why the cops have guns in the first place, and why so many law abiding private citizens have them as well. The next time someone starts jabbering about “gun violence”, explain to them that the problem isn't "gun violence”, but rather "It's gun crime, stupid!"
The Governor General of Massachusetts and Army Commander Gen. Sir Thomas Gage began preporations to defend his base of Boston, and was rightfully concerned about the possibility of having large numbers of armed rebels in his rear areas. He decided to disarm Boston’s 16,000 civilian residents in America’s first “gun control act”, including the many loyalist citizens not involved with revolution nor guilty of any transgression, in complete disregard of their rights as Englishmen. With typical British prefidity, Gage promised the return of those confiscated weapons when the emergency was concluded, a promise that was never kept. The Selectmen of Boston, believing this was best for their citizens, arranged the surrender of guns to the civil authority at Faneuil Hall, where they were soon seized by troops of the Royal Army. In five days the inhabitants had surrendered “1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 273 bayonets and 38 blunderbusses”. I can only assume that the loyalists of Boston happily turned in their weapons, abiding by the “lawful” order of the British governor. There are no records of course, about what the Rebels had to say about those orders, or of how many rebel guns were turned in rather than hidden away for future use.
Nearly a hundred years earlier, in 1689, the then new King of England, William of Orange, enacted a series of guarenteed rights for his subjects, one of which was the right to bear arms. (Irishmen, Scotsmen, and English Catholics of course were famously excluded.) This right extended to all English subjects in the American Colonies, where General Gage’s ill advised Boston gun ban became the reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, denying government any authority to ban the citizen’s ownership of weapons.
British disarmament was a "creeping" program, much as we see hapening in the US today. In 1870 Britain, licensing was decreed for anyone who wanted to carry a gun outside their home. Further restrictions came with the 1903 Pistols Act, denying handgun ownership to anyone who was "drunken or insane". After soldiers returned from the trenches in 1918, the government became concerned about the number of souvenir weapons they had brought home with them. Further fueled by fears of socialist and anarchist movements along with the 1917 Russian revolution, the resulting 1920 Firearms Act introduced a registration system that allowed local police to deny a license to anyone they deemed "unfitted to be trusted with a firearm". Restrictions were tightened with the 1937 Firearms Act, which banned most fully automatic weapons. The 1967 Criminal Justice Act required licensing of shotguns, while the 1968 Firearms Act consolidated existing gun laws. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, and short shotguns with magazines. Registration was also enacted for shotguns, which were required to be kept in secure storage. The government drew up legislation banning handguns larger that .22 caliber, and later introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which outlawed .22s as well. More recently, in response to a series of high-profile shootings, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 was introduced, which made it illegal to manufacture, import or sell realistic imitation guns. With the most restrictive gun laws in Europe, England still has a higher per capita crime rate that does the United States.
Disarming the British public in the wake of a mass murder of children by a psychopath who had slipped through the cracks of the criminal justice system has done nothing to make Britain safer, but, this British system of disarmament is the model that the head of the National Education Association has called for in America. In some ways, Draconian gun laws are worse when they are enacted in countries that had once been bastions of firearms freedom. The carry of concealed weapons was common among South Africans at the time of apartheid, where the practice extended to Black and Coloured citizens as well as White. Then came the communist-connected African National Congress. From the beginning, the ANC made it clear that they had a prohibitionist agenda insofar as gun owners' rights. This at a time when violent crime in South Africa, including car-jackings and home invasions, is skyrocketing. Gun writer Jeff Cooper's wife Janelle once said, "Saying that we should ban guns because crime is rising is like saying we should ban boats because the floodwaters are rising."
In the end, we need to remember why it's so important to fight for the human right of self-defense, and for the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners in America. If nothing else, we have no place to flee to if we lose our rights here. We have the power to build weapons to defend ourselves with, but sadly, there are plenty of those who would take that basic right away from us. No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But the Brady Bunch pretends that they supplied Obama's victory in November, and have since handed him a long list of gun bans and assorted restrictions that they expect him to deliver in gratitude, and they're very serious. The "non-aligned" anti-gun folks are jumping on the band wagon as well.
In the fight over firearms civil rights, the best word-smiths seem to be among the opposition. Have you noticed how the popular term today is "gun violence"? If a soldier shoots an enemy of our nation in war, it’s "gun violence." When the police shoot an armed criminal in the line of duty, it's "gun violence." When a mother shoots an intruder to protect her child, it's "gun violence." But remember that there are times when violence is required to protect the innocent from lawlessness, which is why the cops have guns in the first place, and why so many law abiding private citizens have them as well. The next time someone starts jabbering about “gun violence”, explain to them that the problem isn't "gun violence”, but rather "It's gun crime, stupid!"
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Gloom and Doom?
Even when considering the subject matter of my last few columns, I was shocked to hear that a few acquaintances actually consider me to be a doomsayer and sometimes rumor monger! Moi!? Gloom and doom!? Purveyor of rumors!? Heaven forbid!! Why, I’m the friendliest, happy-go-luckiest, easy going guy you’d ever want to meet! Well, my wife does think I’m a bit grumpy and grouchy, somewhat cantankerous, totally pessimistic, and I imagine a bit paranoid as well (particularly when I’m thinking about Congress, the IRS, the UN, and al-Qaeda). It’s to be expected I guess, considering that during most of my working life I’ve probably seen nearly all the bad things that can happen to people, and few of the good ones. After all, people usually call the Fire Department when they’ve got a disaster in the making, not when they win the lottery. Besides, I write about national and international politics for the most part, and that means gloom and doom are pretty much the order of the day.
However, in the interest of keeping the peace among my acquaintances, I’ll pass on discussing our politicians and the mess they’ve gotten us into (only for the week you understand), and talk a bit about a few non-political threats instead. So, with a smile on my face I’ll ask, how could the world end? No, I’m not about to go running around in a hair shirt, ringing a bell, and wearing a sandwich board sign claiming that “the end is near”! The end might well be near for all I know, but somehow I rather doubt it.
Seriously though, what sort of disasters might befall our little blue marble floating around in space? And how might that impact the human race? I can think of a few ways the applecart might get upset… But before I start speaking about real possibilities, there are two currently popular “threats” that are not going to destroy the Earth and all its inhabitants. Those two are global warming and global cooling. Global warming could be a bad thing for people who live near the coast or on the desert, but we really need to remember that our planet has been much warmer throughout most of history, and it seems that life is still here (although I sometimes wonder about “intelligent life”). At the other extreme, a new ice age would probably curtail most human habitation of the northern latitudes, but the tropics would be pretty much the same as we see today. However, I expect there'd be a lot more vacation property for sale in Florida as the sea level drops. Right now we're in the later half of an interglacial period, so it's a reasonably safe bet that the glaciers will again be on the move, probably within the next 10,000 years or so. No matter what the climate does, and despite Al Gore, we can expect to see any number of species extinctions, as always happens during climatic shifts. A species become extinct when for one reason or another they are no longer able to survive changing conditions, and typically that happens within 10 million years of its first appearance. It’s also estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.
On to more serious threats that really could cause the end of life on Earth…
The Earth is struck by asteroids and comets all the time. On January 3rd of this year a large meteor exploded in the air near Tok Alaska, severely rattling the local citizenry. A hundred years ago what was believed to be a small comet exploded in the air over Tunguska Siberia with the effects of a nearly 15 megaton blast. Fortunately these incidents occurred in remote areas, and there were no known human casualties. But scientists keep finding evidence of medium-sized impacts that caused regional devastation, one near New York around 300 B.C., another in eastern Canada about 11,000 B.C., and the famous Meteor Crater impact in Arizona around 50,000 years ago. Even larger asteroids have been credited with mass extinctions in Earths biological history. The end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is one, and the more devastating Permian-Triassic extinction event 251 million years ago in which some 80 percent of animal species vanished. It would take an asteroid the size of a small planet to really snuff out life on Earth, but nobody has noticed one of those heading our way… yet.
An alternate theory for the flat featureless Martian northern hemisphere is that huge lava flows simply erased any previous features. Similarly, there's some evidence that the dinosaurs on Earth were killed by enormous volcanic eruptions in what now is India, instead of by an asteroid, or maybe in addition to. Moderate volcanic eruptions stir up huge amounts of soot, ash, and dust, blocking sunlight and that does have climatic effects. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines measurably cooled the planet in 1991-92, as did Indonesia's Krakatoa eruption in 1883. Even worse was the Mt. Tambora eruption on Java in 1815, which cooled the Earth so much that Europeans called 1816 "the year without a summer". The Mount Toba super volcano in Sumatra erupted 75,000 years ago and cooled things down enough that most of Earth’s human population died, leaving just a few survivors to repopulate the world. Then we have the Yellowstone supervolcano which will probably wipe out almost everything between the Rockies and the Appalachians, again. Ahh… and it’s already overdue.
But even supervolcanos couldn’t end life on Earth. To do that we’d need something similar to the eruptions that created India's Deccan Traps, or the Siberian Traps in Russia. In both cases huge fissures opened up in the ground and oozed lava that spread hundreds of miles in all directions. They released enormous amounts of gases, smoke, and soot into the atmosphere, and those eruptions continued for tens of thousands of years. In Siberia, 3 million square miles were covered by layer after layer of lava. It doesn't take much imagination to conclude that an eruption event two or three times the magnitude of the Siberian one could end life on Earth.
Still, while life seems to be quite hard to eradicate, the Earth will certainly come to an end in about 5 or so billion years when it’s engulfed by our expanding sun. It’s a natural event, as stars expand into red giants near the end of their lifespan, leaving their planets little more that burnt-out cinders drifting in the void. Some calculations indicate we've only got a billion or so years left on this planet, which is rather gloomy in itself, since life in some form or other has been around the third rock from our sun for nearly 3.7 billion years.
On the more cheerful side, scientists of an advanced future civilization could simply move Earth to a safer orbit. If we haven’t already been swallowed by a wandering black hole.
However, in the interest of keeping the peace among my acquaintances, I’ll pass on discussing our politicians and the mess they’ve gotten us into (only for the week you understand), and talk a bit about a few non-political threats instead. So, with a smile on my face I’ll ask, how could the world end? No, I’m not about to go running around in a hair shirt, ringing a bell, and wearing a sandwich board sign claiming that “the end is near”! The end might well be near for all I know, but somehow I rather doubt it.
Seriously though, what sort of disasters might befall our little blue marble floating around in space? And how might that impact the human race? I can think of a few ways the applecart might get upset… But before I start speaking about real possibilities, there are two currently popular “threats” that are not going to destroy the Earth and all its inhabitants. Those two are global warming and global cooling. Global warming could be a bad thing for people who live near the coast or on the desert, but we really need to remember that our planet has been much warmer throughout most of history, and it seems that life is still here (although I sometimes wonder about “intelligent life”). At the other extreme, a new ice age would probably curtail most human habitation of the northern latitudes, but the tropics would be pretty much the same as we see today. However, I expect there'd be a lot more vacation property for sale in Florida as the sea level drops. Right now we're in the later half of an interglacial period, so it's a reasonably safe bet that the glaciers will again be on the move, probably within the next 10,000 years or so. No matter what the climate does, and despite Al Gore, we can expect to see any number of species extinctions, as always happens during climatic shifts. A species become extinct when for one reason or another they are no longer able to survive changing conditions, and typically that happens within 10 million years of its first appearance. It’s also estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct.
On to more serious threats that really could cause the end of life on Earth…
The Earth is struck by asteroids and comets all the time. On January 3rd of this year a large meteor exploded in the air near Tok Alaska, severely rattling the local citizenry. A hundred years ago what was believed to be a small comet exploded in the air over Tunguska Siberia with the effects of a nearly 15 megaton blast. Fortunately these incidents occurred in remote areas, and there were no known human casualties. But scientists keep finding evidence of medium-sized impacts that caused regional devastation, one near New York around 300 B.C., another in eastern Canada about 11,000 B.C., and the famous Meteor Crater impact in Arizona around 50,000 years ago. Even larger asteroids have been credited with mass extinctions in Earths biological history. The end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago is one, and the more devastating Permian-Triassic extinction event 251 million years ago in which some 80 percent of animal species vanished. It would take an asteroid the size of a small planet to really snuff out life on Earth, but nobody has noticed one of those heading our way… yet.
An alternate theory for the flat featureless Martian northern hemisphere is that huge lava flows simply erased any previous features. Similarly, there's some evidence that the dinosaurs on Earth were killed by enormous volcanic eruptions in what now is India, instead of by an asteroid, or maybe in addition to. Moderate volcanic eruptions stir up huge amounts of soot, ash, and dust, blocking sunlight and that does have climatic effects. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines measurably cooled the planet in 1991-92, as did Indonesia's Krakatoa eruption in 1883. Even worse was the Mt. Tambora eruption on Java in 1815, which cooled the Earth so much that Europeans called 1816 "the year without a summer". The Mount Toba super volcano in Sumatra erupted 75,000 years ago and cooled things down enough that most of Earth’s human population died, leaving just a few survivors to repopulate the world. Then we have the Yellowstone supervolcano which will probably wipe out almost everything between the Rockies and the Appalachians, again. Ahh… and it’s already overdue.
But even supervolcanos couldn’t end life on Earth. To do that we’d need something similar to the eruptions that created India's Deccan Traps, or the Siberian Traps in Russia. In both cases huge fissures opened up in the ground and oozed lava that spread hundreds of miles in all directions. They released enormous amounts of gases, smoke, and soot into the atmosphere, and those eruptions continued for tens of thousands of years. In Siberia, 3 million square miles were covered by layer after layer of lava. It doesn't take much imagination to conclude that an eruption event two or three times the magnitude of the Siberian one could end life on Earth.
Still, while life seems to be quite hard to eradicate, the Earth will certainly come to an end in about 5 or so billion years when it’s engulfed by our expanding sun. It’s a natural event, as stars expand into red giants near the end of their lifespan, leaving their planets little more that burnt-out cinders drifting in the void. Some calculations indicate we've only got a billion or so years left on this planet, which is rather gloomy in itself, since life in some form or other has been around the third rock from our sun for nearly 3.7 billion years.
On the more cheerful side, scientists of an advanced future civilization could simply move Earth to a safer orbit. If we haven’t already been swallowed by a wandering black hole.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Agenda
At approximately 11:56 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2009 - The oath of office as President of the United States of America was administered by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. to Barack Hussein Obama, on the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC. With that oath, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States, our first Black president, and not incidentally the inheritor of what can, in redneck speak, probably be called the biggest bucket of worms in American history.
Mr. Obama might do well to remember that of the two previous presidents he holds in such high esteem and evidently hopes to emulate, history considers Abraham Lincoln to be America’s first dictator, while Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the second. He might also remember that he faces a situation eerily similar to those of Lincoln and FDR, in that if they could solve the problems that faced the nation upon their assuming office, they would be considered among Americas greatest Presidents. But if they had failed, both had a very good chance of being America’s last president. Lincoln is obviously Obama's favorite president, and they have many positions in common: -- They both believe that levying more taxes is the way to economic recovery. -- They both believe the Constitution is a living document that allows them more flexibility and greater presidential powers. -- They both believe in big government. Of the more or less conventional problems facing the new administration, we find the war in Iraq and the worldwide economic downturn leading the pack. To these two I would think we might want to add the ongoing “corruption in government” situation as well. The Obama/Biden regime has announced their political agenda (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/) for the next few years, which seems to be a composite of many sacred cows, in that it contains a little something for almost everybody. It also leaves me with a number of serious questions. First of course, is just how does the government intend to pay for what appears on the surface to be a multi-trillion dollar social services program? Are we to borrow even more money from China and the Arabic world, or just print a few more train loads of cash? Secondly, do we really want such a vast expansion in the influence government has over our daily lives? Finally, if you think we’re buried in federal bureaucracy now, wait till you see the paperwork snowstorm these programs will generate! We were promised change, and it appears that we’re going to get it, in spades.
Overall, the essential idea is a massive investment of federal funding in America. That certainly is a fine sounding idea that nobody could possibly object to, right? But I will ask, what federal funds? Where are they to come from? I seem to remember that when President Bush suggested cutting taxes, the democrats were quite hysterical about how that would cause the cutting back of so many beloved social programs! Now however, with the republicans being out of power, the democrats are going to cut taxes for 95% of the American population and still invest a trillion dollars? We’re going to computerize America’s medical records? A safe claim I guess, as most of them already are. But if we have such a hard time securing the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs computers now, how are we going to keep the hackers out of our medical records? Apparently we’re going to equip “tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries”, so that America will lead the world in science and technology. Following the scientific boom days of Kennedy/Johnson, the democrats have had a pretty poor track record on supporting science research, and this isn’t going to be cheap either!
The claim is that President Obama has been a strong advocate for sound budget practices and the reduction of wasteful spending in Washington. How do we know? After all, he has no congressional track record to indicate where he stands, and the democratic party has never been known for not wanting to spend bales government money, unless that spending was a republican idea in the first place. They claim he is committed to fiscal transparency and accountability. He wants to ensure that “tax cuts and spending commitments are paid for without burdening our children and grandchildren with excessive debt.” Humm… that’s definitely a change for the democrats! We’re going to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or so the claims go, while increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and of course modernizing the Armed Forces… Modernizing the military and winning the War on Terror? Just try getting that past Reid and Pelosi! We’re also going to spend hundreds of billions on small business improvements, make two million American homes energy efficient, build an alternative energy network, and not incidentally reduce global warming. (Right now, the climate change question argued among the scientists is, are we actually warming up, or are we cooling down?) The democratic plan for the next few years sounds all well and fine, or at least it hasn’t totally antagonized the republicans yet. But to this old realist it also sounds somewhat like a utopian pipe dream, and I’m very much afraid that with it, this country is being led down the primrose path to European style socialism!
And we still have that dark cloud hovering over Mr. Obama himself. Foremost in a good many minds is the question of Mr. Obama’s qualification to be our president. Most Americans accept that he is a “natural born” American citizen, and thus is qualified to hold office. Quite a few others however, seriously question his natural born status, and thus the legitimacy of his presidency. Then there are those who quite frankly “don’t know” and are waiting for somebody, preferably the Supreme Court, to make a decision and lay the question to rest. In my case, I’m one of the “don’t know” group and will be rather uneasy with the entire situation until we get a final decision. The left of course blames this mess on radical right “dirty politics” and right leaning conspiracy theorists who would believe anything. In return, the far right points out the left’s clumsy attempt to bring John McCain’s citizenship into question during the campaign, and with that they consider Obama to be at the center of a nefarious plot to take over the nation. And there's the rub. It is of course quite possible that Mr. Obama conspired his way into the world's most powerful office. But we should also remember that doing so would involve a network of people and government agencies spread over three separate nations, working together in complete secrecy, over a long period of time. But then, in today’s world almost anything's possible.
We shall see I guess, but in the meantime I’ll agree with the bumper sticker that says “I’ll keep my freedom, money, and guns… you can keep the change.”
Mr. Obama might do well to remember that of the two previous presidents he holds in such high esteem and evidently hopes to emulate, history considers Abraham Lincoln to be America’s first dictator, while Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the second. He might also remember that he faces a situation eerily similar to those of Lincoln and FDR, in that if they could solve the problems that faced the nation upon their assuming office, they would be considered among Americas greatest Presidents. But if they had failed, both had a very good chance of being America’s last president. Lincoln is obviously Obama's favorite president, and they have many positions in common: -- They both believe that levying more taxes is the way to economic recovery. -- They both believe the Constitution is a living document that allows them more flexibility and greater presidential powers. -- They both believe in big government. Of the more or less conventional problems facing the new administration, we find the war in Iraq and the worldwide economic downturn leading the pack. To these two I would think we might want to add the ongoing “corruption in government” situation as well. The Obama/Biden regime has announced their political agenda (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/) for the next few years, which seems to be a composite of many sacred cows, in that it contains a little something for almost everybody. It also leaves me with a number of serious questions. First of course, is just how does the government intend to pay for what appears on the surface to be a multi-trillion dollar social services program? Are we to borrow even more money from China and the Arabic world, or just print a few more train loads of cash? Secondly, do we really want such a vast expansion in the influence government has over our daily lives? Finally, if you think we’re buried in federal bureaucracy now, wait till you see the paperwork snowstorm these programs will generate! We were promised change, and it appears that we’re going to get it, in spades.
Overall, the essential idea is a massive investment of federal funding in America. That certainly is a fine sounding idea that nobody could possibly object to, right? But I will ask, what federal funds? Where are they to come from? I seem to remember that when President Bush suggested cutting taxes, the democrats were quite hysterical about how that would cause the cutting back of so many beloved social programs! Now however, with the republicans being out of power, the democrats are going to cut taxes for 95% of the American population and still invest a trillion dollars? We’re going to computerize America’s medical records? A safe claim I guess, as most of them already are. But if we have such a hard time securing the Defense Department and Veterans Affairs computers now, how are we going to keep the hackers out of our medical records? Apparently we’re going to equip “tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries”, so that America will lead the world in science and technology. Following the scientific boom days of Kennedy/Johnson, the democrats have had a pretty poor track record on supporting science research, and this isn’t going to be cheap either!
The claim is that President Obama has been a strong advocate for sound budget practices and the reduction of wasteful spending in Washington. How do we know? After all, he has no congressional track record to indicate where he stands, and the democratic party has never been known for not wanting to spend bales government money, unless that spending was a republican idea in the first place. They claim he is committed to fiscal transparency and accountability. He wants to ensure that “tax cuts and spending commitments are paid for without burdening our children and grandchildren with excessive debt.” Humm… that’s definitely a change for the democrats! We’re going to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan or so the claims go, while increasing troop strength in Afghanistan, and of course modernizing the Armed Forces… Modernizing the military and winning the War on Terror? Just try getting that past Reid and Pelosi! We’re also going to spend hundreds of billions on small business improvements, make two million American homes energy efficient, build an alternative energy network, and not incidentally reduce global warming. (Right now, the climate change question argued among the scientists is, are we actually warming up, or are we cooling down?) The democratic plan for the next few years sounds all well and fine, or at least it hasn’t totally antagonized the republicans yet. But to this old realist it also sounds somewhat like a utopian pipe dream, and I’m very much afraid that with it, this country is being led down the primrose path to European style socialism!
And we still have that dark cloud hovering over Mr. Obama himself. Foremost in a good many minds is the question of Mr. Obama’s qualification to be our president. Most Americans accept that he is a “natural born” American citizen, and thus is qualified to hold office. Quite a few others however, seriously question his natural born status, and thus the legitimacy of his presidency. Then there are those who quite frankly “don’t know” and are waiting for somebody, preferably the Supreme Court, to make a decision and lay the question to rest. In my case, I’m one of the “don’t know” group and will be rather uneasy with the entire situation until we get a final decision. The left of course blames this mess on radical right “dirty politics” and right leaning conspiracy theorists who would believe anything. In return, the far right points out the left’s clumsy attempt to bring John McCain’s citizenship into question during the campaign, and with that they consider Obama to be at the center of a nefarious plot to take over the nation. And there's the rub. It is of course quite possible that Mr. Obama conspired his way into the world's most powerful office. But we should also remember that doing so would involve a network of people and government agencies spread over three separate nations, working together in complete secrecy, over a long period of time. But then, in today’s world almost anything's possible.
We shall see I guess, but in the meantime I’ll agree with the bumper sticker that says “I’ll keep my freedom, money, and guns… you can keep the change.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)