What sort of jackass bastard has the FCC decided to saddle us with now? According to several sources, (and here, since I said several) the new FCC "Diversity Czar" is an unabashedly racist, excruciatingly ignorant swine.
Anyone who feels that 'white people must step down and let other races have a go at power' is ignorant of the paths of Western Civilization. BY DEFINITION, white people will have some power; this has been true for, oh, say....4000 YEARS OR SO??? Mark Lloyd needs to actually open a history textbook sometime. Oh yes...news flash: the American people just elected a Black man to be President....but I guess it's not good enough that we've reached the point where anyone of any color can grow up and become an elected official in this country. Or maybe Mark Lloyd would like some "No Whites Allowed" signs on our Government buildings?
Forget it - I'm not gonna waste the space calling this asshole out. Mark Lloyd just pisses me off with his flagrant intellectual shortcomings, his calling the First Amendment out as "communications policies", and his genuinely incredible racism. This sort of Loser being in a position of power is the sort of thing that leads to race riots and revolution....I just hope that the administration takes a cue from it's handling of Van Jones and kicks Mark "I'm a racist jerkoff" Lloyd to the curb.
And kids: racism is ugly, immoral, and wrong regardless of what color you are. Hating someone for something they have no control over is a self-defeating policy of persecution that leads to insane levels of racial tensions (think the Deep South in the early 60s) and causes problems on a widespread scale...the kind of problems that end up with large chunks of neighborhoods being burned down (and again in '92).
Anyone who thinks that this wouldn't happen with ANY ethnic/racial group that feels completely disenfranchised needs to be seriously educated; history is full of rebellions and revolutions based entirely on racial tensions. It never ends well, and is something that we can easily avoid....unless people like Mark Lloyd are there to fuck it all up....
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Young Plants
The young plants die too soon.
They wither early, then fade
soft cinders sleeping on the grass.
Contracted, spinning on a wire in
quiet breezes; dangling like
Antarctic explorers grappling
with the Roof of the World.
Beauty hangs, precarious,
stretching forth green wires with
!!Coral explosions!!
Shivering in the biting wind,yet unafraid.
They weather the storms as chance may
guide them,
grasping life by the throat,
taking her in green claws rending
(their only voice)
They wither early, then fade
soft cinders sleeping on the grass.
Contracted, spinning on a wire in
quiet breezes; dangling like
Antarctic explorers grappling
with the Roof of the World.
Beauty hangs, precarious,
stretching forth green wires with
!!Coral explosions!!
Shivering in the biting wind,yet unafraid.
They weather the storms as chance may
guide them,
grasping life by the throat,
taking her in green claws rending
(their only voice)
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Some observations on the polls
I was looking over the CNN website this morning, and I noticed that they'd done some sort of nonsense "Second 100 Days" poll, and I decided to check it out. It was actually a series of questions, apparently asked to the population at large (via CNN's website, I believe), and graded along a traditional "school-grade" system. Readers were asked to rate the following:
1. Obama Administration's handling of the economy (C-)
2. Obama Administration's handling of health care reform (D)
3. "" "" handling of foreign affairs (C)
4. Performance of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (C+)
5. Vice President Joe Biden (C-)
6. The performance of YOUR state's 2 senators (C-)
7. The performance of Congress (D)
8. The performance of the Republican Leadership in Congress (D)
9. The performance of the media (D)
10. Grade President Barack Obama (C-)
The results were kinda fun, if somewhat telling. Most of the grades indicated are averages of huge numbers (388,000) of internet viewers. The numbers also tend to skew HEAVILY into the "F" category, with sometimes 40 or 50% (or more) of those polled responding in this way.
The first thing that popped out at me was the fact that there is no poll to grade Democratic leadership. Are they afraid of the results? The Repulican leadership was roundly denounced in the polls here (although, checking results, they actually do better, on average, than the "Entire Congress" option (question 7), so read that how you will.
Then, looking at question number 6, only one state gave it's senators a grade over a C: North Dakota. I applaud Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad; you both are apparently well-liked by your constituency. I personally think that they just haven't gotten the joke yet (actually read the details of the Dorgan Tourism bill sometime...he's no better than the rest).
Fun Fact: If you check the results of those polled in Question 7, the only place where Congress got better than a D was in Washington D.C. Apparently, they all voted for themselves!
But yeah; I have better things to do than waste my time on internet polls. The internet is an unreliable, fickle creature at the best of times.....and these are definitely not the best of times
1. Obama Administration's handling of the economy (C-)
2. Obama Administration's handling of health care reform (D)
3. "" "" handling of foreign affairs (C)
4. Performance of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (C+)
5. Vice President Joe Biden (C-)
6. The performance of YOUR state's 2 senators (C-)
7. The performance of Congress (D)
8. The performance of the Republican Leadership in Congress (D)
9. The performance of the media (D)
10. Grade President Barack Obama (C-)
The results were kinda fun, if somewhat telling. Most of the grades indicated are averages of huge numbers (388,000) of internet viewers. The numbers also tend to skew HEAVILY into the "F" category, with sometimes 40 or 50% (or more) of those polled responding in this way.
The first thing that popped out at me was the fact that there is no poll to grade Democratic leadership. Are they afraid of the results? The Repulican leadership was roundly denounced in the polls here (although, checking results, they actually do better, on average, than the "Entire Congress" option (question 7), so read that how you will.
Then, looking at question number 6, only one state gave it's senators a grade over a C: North Dakota. I applaud Senators Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad; you both are apparently well-liked by your constituency. I personally think that they just haven't gotten the joke yet (actually read the details of the Dorgan Tourism bill sometime...he's no better than the rest).
Fun Fact: If you check the results of those polled in Question 7, the only place where Congress got better than a D was in Washington D.C. Apparently, they all voted for themselves!
But yeah; I have better things to do than waste my time on internet polls. The internet is an unreliable, fickle creature at the best of times.....and these are definitely not the best of times
Thursday, August 13, 2009
In Defense of Obama
I'll keep this one short; no sense getting maudlin about it, because I still have some points of disagreement with the man's policies. But..
After reading this interview from back in April, I come away with two impressions: First, President Obama is a very thoughtful, intelligent man. He does legitimately have a lot on his plate. He's not entirely responsible for policy, but he is the Captain of the Ship of State, and he unfortunately will be seen as being responsible, regardless of the truth....
And secondly, that he's had a lot of insane, horrible things dumped into his lap. He's actually trying to do something good, but he's going about it incorrectly. It doesn't help matters that Congress is packed with corrupt politicians. But he's a lawyer and a college professor; he knows these things.
I would ask anyone reading this blog, regardless of your political views, to take a moment and say a prayer for Barack Obama. I feel that he is a good man, and, however misguided some might think his policies are, he is still the President of the United States, come what may.
......Good luck, sir.
After reading this interview from back in April, I come away with two impressions: First, President Obama is a very thoughtful, intelligent man. He does legitimately have a lot on his plate. He's not entirely responsible for policy, but he is the Captain of the Ship of State, and he unfortunately will be seen as being responsible, regardless of the truth....
And secondly, that he's had a lot of insane, horrible things dumped into his lap. He's actually trying to do something good, but he's going about it incorrectly. It doesn't help matters that Congress is packed with corrupt politicians. But he's a lawyer and a college professor; he knows these things.
I would ask anyone reading this blog, regardless of your political views, to take a moment and say a prayer for Barack Obama. I feel that he is a good man, and, however misguided some might think his policies are, he is still the President of the United States, come what may.
......Good luck, sir.
Ways and Means FAQ - some clarification, please?
After seeing this on the House Majority Leaders website, I had a few questions about some of these comments. These questions are generally directed towards members of the House Ways and Means Committee; they are merely items in your press release that I would like some clarification on:
First of all, would any of those who voted to pass the bill please explain to me what "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is? I've heard a lot of things, and I'd like to know exactly what a CER-Panel would be looking for (i.e. criteria for judging different methods of treatment).
Secondly, in reference to Point/Question 27: Is 5 hours really enough time to "walk through" a 1000+ page bill? I like to think that I'm a quick reader, but anyone who can read a 200 page book in only an hour (and still comprehend the ideas expressed), well....that's ability.
Third: I noticced that you mention employers would pay insurance on a sliding scale for employees based on hourly labor. As a part-time employee who didn't qualify for food stamps a month ago (because I didn't work enough hours?), forgive my lack of enthusiasm for a program that would treat my medical care in the same way. Which brings me to point 4.
Question 4: According to this document, anyone who makes $10,000+ a year has "a responsibility" to purchase healthcare. Why? I myself made just over the cutoff for exemption from this "responsibility"; thus, I would be required by law to buy insurance that I could barely afford.
Seriously, guys...I'm a politically-minded constituent. I regularly exercise my voting rights. Why do you want to stick it to me and everyone else in my position? Part-time employees are the backbone of most larger businesses. The student age part-timers are already going to be paying for these "reforms" for the rest of our lives. Now you're going to force some of us further into poverty, simply to provide the somehow "less-fortunate" with governmentally-decided-and-run healthcare.
Thanks, but no thanks.
First of all, would any of those who voted to pass the bill please explain to me what "Comparative Effectiveness Research" is? I've heard a lot of things, and I'd like to know exactly what a CER-Panel would be looking for (i.e. criteria for judging different methods of treatment).
Secondly, in reference to Point/Question 27: Is 5 hours really enough time to "walk through" a 1000+ page bill? I like to think that I'm a quick reader, but anyone who can read a 200 page book in only an hour (and still comprehend the ideas expressed), well....that's ability.
Third: I noticced that you mention employers would pay insurance on a sliding scale for employees based on hourly labor. As a part-time employee who didn't qualify for food stamps a month ago (because I didn't work enough hours?), forgive my lack of enthusiasm for a program that would treat my medical care in the same way. Which brings me to point 4.
Question 4: According to this document, anyone who makes $10,000+ a year has "a responsibility" to purchase healthcare. Why? I myself made just over the cutoff for exemption from this "responsibility"; thus, I would be required by law to buy insurance that I could barely afford.
Seriously, guys...I'm a politically-minded constituent. I regularly exercise my voting rights. Why do you want to stick it to me and everyone else in my position? Part-time employees are the backbone of most larger businesses. The student age part-timers are already going to be paying for these "reforms" for the rest of our lives. Now you're going to force some of us further into poverty, simply to provide the somehow "less-fortunate" with governmentally-decided-and-run healthcare.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Taxes, Deficits, and Social Security
So I was reading this morning about how the White House's economic figures are meaningless and completely wrong, and I was wondering: Why don't we hear about this from more people in the media? How does this joker even have a single person backing his lame-brained healthcare ideas (or any other financial ideas).
Let's face it: The government is hemorrhaging money like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no offense to our Navy friends). And then, I got a letter from the Social Security Administration today. The letter was dated July 23, 2009, and includes the following paragraph:
"In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations."
This is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
My generation continues to pay for these benefits for the previous ones. However, through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, we will never see a dime that we have paid into the system (disability or death notwithstanding). This is screwing my generation, and in addition to the TRILLIONS of dollars in inherited deficits that we're gonna get, it's too much.
So, given that the previous generations have decided to hand us the bill in 10 or 15 years, I have a counter-proposal:
Go ahead and pass all the legislation that you want. Stick my generation with the bills. But stop taking my damn money to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Stop asking my generation to support yours gratis. You can even keep all the money you've already siphoned off from my paychecks (it's gone already, so whatever). But quit being a bunch of damnable hypocrites. If Congress can spend the Social Security pool and not have to worry about replenishing it, then I don't want to be responsible.
If someone in charge up there is willing to change the way that Social Security works (e.g. FIX THE SYSTEM), then I have no qualms about continuing to pay for it. I just want to get some kind of return on my investment, so to speak.
And for all you crooked-bastard Congressmen: I'll be seeing you on September 12th!
AEQUITAS EN TODOS!!!
Let's face it: The government is hemorrhaging money like a drunken sailor on shore leave (no offense to our Navy friends). And then, I got a letter from the Social Security Administration today. The letter was dated July 23, 2009, and includes the following paragraph:
"In 2017 we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2041 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits. We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations."
This is BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
My generation continues to pay for these benefits for the previous ones. However, through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, we will never see a dime that we have paid into the system (disability or death notwithstanding). This is screwing my generation, and in addition to the TRILLIONS of dollars in inherited deficits that we're gonna get, it's too much.
So, given that the previous generations have decided to hand us the bill in 10 or 15 years, I have a counter-proposal:
Go ahead and pass all the legislation that you want. Stick my generation with the bills. But stop taking my damn money to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Stop asking my generation to support yours gratis. You can even keep all the money you've already siphoned off from my paychecks (it's gone already, so whatever). But quit being a bunch of damnable hypocrites. If Congress can spend the Social Security pool and not have to worry about replenishing it, then I don't want to be responsible.
If someone in charge up there is willing to change the way that Social Security works (e.g. FIX THE SYSTEM), then I have no qualms about continuing to pay for it. I just want to get some kind of return on my investment, so to speak.
And for all you crooked-bastard Congressmen: I'll be seeing you on September 12th!
AEQUITAS EN TODOS!!!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Some Questions About Gov't Healthcare
After watching the discussions online about the ongoing Healthcare "crisis", I started thinking about some sticking points that I'd like to see discussed personally. I'm sure that a lot of Americans would like answers to these questions, so here they are:
1.) President Obama has repeatedly called for the legislation to be "deficit-neutral". How do our Congressmen propose we do such a thing? Should we cut the budget elsewhere, raise taxes, or what?
2.) I've also noticed several articles out there about how certain groups would be exempt from required coverage levels imposed on citizens by the proposed legislation (at least in the version that was released to the American people). Why are Congressmen afraid to be a part of their own solution?
3.) Looking at where medical costs come from, one notices that a substantial chunk of healthcare costs are incurred by doctors seeking to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. Tort Reform, as it is referred to, would greatly cut down on overhead costs; savings which would then be passed on to patients (or so it would seem). Why does the released version of the healthcare bill not have ANY MENTION of Tort Reform? Any legislation that is serious about decreasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans must address this issue.
So there you have it. Anyone with the answers, please let me know...thanks!
1.) President Obama has repeatedly called for the legislation to be "deficit-neutral". How do our Congressmen propose we do such a thing? Should we cut the budget elsewhere, raise taxes, or what?
2.) I've also noticed several articles out there about how certain groups would be exempt from required coverage levels imposed on citizens by the proposed legislation (at least in the version that was released to the American people). Why are Congressmen afraid to be a part of their own solution?
3.) Looking at where medical costs come from, one notices that a substantial chunk of healthcare costs are incurred by doctors seeking to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. Tort Reform, as it is referred to, would greatly cut down on overhead costs; savings which would then be passed on to patients (or so it would seem). Why does the released version of the healthcare bill not have ANY MENTION of Tort Reform? Any legislation that is serious about decreasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans must address this issue.
So there you have it. Anyone with the answers, please let me know...thanks!
Monday, June 15, 2009
Catch 22
I saw this article today as I was cruising the news sites: http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142009/business/us_debt_is_at_1m_per_family_174238.htm
Since the national debt is now at roughly $250,000 a head (if this guy is right), then I'm completely screwed. I only make $10,000/year right now, and I don't even qualify for d**n food stamps (yeah - there's a minimum hours requirement).
I'm already pissed about the food stamp thing - if I was getting 20 hours a week, I wouldn't need to apply for them, but right now I'm getting an average of like 14. I guess it's time to start looking for another job, but there really aren't any in my area right now that don't require a 4-year degree (which I'm working on).
A note to the Federal Government: if I can't even afford food, how in the hell am I going to be able to pay "my end" of that trillion-dollar debt? The powers that be need to definitely get responsible. I don't mind being poor, but I have an intense dislike of anyone trying to screw me over before I even have a chance to get started. If anyone in the government isn't completely corrupt or incompetent, please work on getting those in power to behave a bit more responsibly.
Thank you.
Since the national debt is now at roughly $250,000 a head (if this guy is right), then I'm completely screwed. I only make $10,000/year right now, and I don't even qualify for d**n food stamps (yeah - there's a minimum hours requirement).
I'm already pissed about the food stamp thing - if I was getting 20 hours a week, I wouldn't need to apply for them, but right now I'm getting an average of like 14. I guess it's time to start looking for another job, but there really aren't any in my area right now that don't require a 4-year degree (which I'm working on).
A note to the Federal Government: if I can't even afford food, how in the hell am I going to be able to pay "my end" of that trillion-dollar debt? The powers that be need to definitely get responsible. I don't mind being poor, but I have an intense dislike of anyone trying to screw me over before I even have a chance to get started. If anyone in the government isn't completely corrupt or incompetent, please work on getting those in power to behave a bit more responsibly.
Thank you.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
An Interesting Parallel
"The victory over the Senate was easy and inglorious. Every eye and every passion was directed to the supreme magistrate, who possessed the arms and treasure of the state; whilst the senate, neither elected by the people, nor guarded by military force, nor animated by public spirit, rested its declining authority on the frail and crumbling basis of ancient opinion. The fine theory of a republic instensibly vanished, and made way for the more natural and substantial feelings of a monarchy. As the freedom and honours of Rome were successively communicated to the provinces, in which the old government had been either unknown, or was remembered with abhorrence, the tradition of republican maxims was gradually obliterated...
In the reign of Severus, the senate was filled with polished and eloquent slaves from the eastern provinces, who justified personal flattery by speculative principles of servitude. These new advocates of prerogative were heard with pleasure by the court, and with patience by the people, when they inculcated the duty of passive obedience, and descanted on the "inevitable mischiefs" of freedom. The lawyers and the historians concurred in teaching, that the Imperial authority was held, not by the delegated commission, but by the irrevocable resignations of the senate; that the emperor was freed from the restraint of civil laws, could command by his arbitrary will the lives and fortunes of his subjects, and might dispose of the empire as of his private patrimony. The most eminent of the civil lawyers flourished under the house of Severus; and the Roman jurisprudence, having closely united itself with the system of monarchy, was supposed to have attained full maturity and perfection."
So Gibbon writes in his book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Despite the fact that he is describing events almost two thousand years ago, some eerie parallels can be drawn between the reign of Septimius Severus and the current U.S. Administration.
1.) "As the freedom and honours of Rome were successively communicated to the provinces, in which the old government had been either unknown, or was remembered with abhorrence, the tradition of republican maxims was gradually obliterated." This is Septimius Severus proclaiming universal citizenship to everyone inside Rome's borders. But President Obama is doing the same thing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/09/obama-reforms-immigration , and has been for some time.
2.) Septimius Severus' government had polished speechmakers lecturing about the "Inevitable mischiefs" of freedom. He filled the Senate with those loyal to him, and used these appointees to attack his critics. That sounds kind of familiar too...
There are others as well: using the treasury to suit his whims, distracting the media from real issues with charisma, and letting the lawyers run amok on the public dime. But the final paragraph in the chapter (immediately following the two quoted at this article's beginning), Gibbon really sums it up:
"The contemporaries of Severus, in the enjoyment of the peace and glory of his reign, forgave the cruelties by which it had been introduced. Posterity, who experienced the fatal effects of his maxims and example, justly considered him as the principal author of the decline of the Roman empire."
In the reign of Severus, the senate was filled with polished and eloquent slaves from the eastern provinces, who justified personal flattery by speculative principles of servitude. These new advocates of prerogative were heard with pleasure by the court, and with patience by the people, when they inculcated the duty of passive obedience, and descanted on the "inevitable mischiefs" of freedom. The lawyers and the historians concurred in teaching, that the Imperial authority was held, not by the delegated commission, but by the irrevocable resignations of the senate; that the emperor was freed from the restraint of civil laws, could command by his arbitrary will the lives and fortunes of his subjects, and might dispose of the empire as of his private patrimony. The most eminent of the civil lawyers flourished under the house of Severus; and the Roman jurisprudence, having closely united itself with the system of monarchy, was supposed to have attained full maturity and perfection."
So Gibbon writes in his book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Despite the fact that he is describing events almost two thousand years ago, some eerie parallels can be drawn between the reign of Septimius Severus and the current U.S. Administration.
1.) "As the freedom and honours of Rome were successively communicated to the provinces, in which the old government had been either unknown, or was remembered with abhorrence, the tradition of republican maxims was gradually obliterated." This is Septimius Severus proclaiming universal citizenship to everyone inside Rome's borders. But President Obama is doing the same thing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/09/obama-reforms-immigration , and has been for some time.
2.) Septimius Severus' government had polished speechmakers lecturing about the "Inevitable mischiefs" of freedom. He filled the Senate with those loyal to him, and used these appointees to attack his critics. That sounds kind of familiar too...
There are others as well: using the treasury to suit his whims, distracting the media from real issues with charisma, and letting the lawyers run amok on the public dime. But the final paragraph in the chapter (immediately following the two quoted at this article's beginning), Gibbon really sums it up:
"The contemporaries of Severus, in the enjoyment of the peace and glory of his reign, forgave the cruelties by which it had been introduced. Posterity, who experienced the fatal effects of his maxims and example, justly considered him as the principal author of the decline of the Roman empire."
Sunday, April 12, 2009
World Enough and Time
One of my favorite instructors at my college recently loaned me a very interesting book. The book is "World Enough and Time" by Robert Penn Warren. I was reading it earlier, and I came across this passage. I thought it really summed up a few problems with mankind:
"But, on second thought, we may be like these [duelers]. We do not stand up at dawn, but we lie in a scooped-out hole in a tropical jungle and rot in the rain and wait for a steel pellet whipping through the fronds. We go down in the deep sea in a steel casket full of mechanisms like a watch and wait for the shudder of the depth charge. At five thousand feet in the air we ride a snarling motor into the veil of flak. For Hecuba may be something to us, after all.
For who is Hecuba, who is she, that all the swains adore her? She is whatever we must adore. Or if we adore nothing, she is what we must act as if we adored. And if we adore her, we must do so, not because we know her, but because we do not know her. If before we go out on our great design we lean to kiss her hand, she will always withdraw it and we must ride away to leave her brooding on a winter lawn. Or to regard the matter in a different light, we can never leave Hecuba. She is what we must carry in the breast, though we can never know her. She is our folly and our glory and despair. And if we do not adore her, we can adore nothing or only Silly Sal, who was found tasty in Bowling Green by the hot boys of the town."
Really deep stuff - a rather pessimistic view of mankind. I look forward to discussing this with my professor tomorrow!!
"But, on second thought, we may be like these [duelers]. We do not stand up at dawn, but we lie in a scooped-out hole in a tropical jungle and rot in the rain and wait for a steel pellet whipping through the fronds. We go down in the deep sea in a steel casket full of mechanisms like a watch and wait for the shudder of the depth charge. At five thousand feet in the air we ride a snarling motor into the veil of flak. For Hecuba may be something to us, after all.
For who is Hecuba, who is she, that all the swains adore her? She is whatever we must adore. Or if we adore nothing, she is what we must act as if we adored. And if we adore her, we must do so, not because we know her, but because we do not know her. If before we go out on our great design we lean to kiss her hand, she will always withdraw it and we must ride away to leave her brooding on a winter lawn. Or to regard the matter in a different light, we can never leave Hecuba. She is what we must carry in the breast, though we can never know her. She is our folly and our glory and despair. And if we do not adore her, we can adore nothing or only Silly Sal, who was found tasty in Bowling Green by the hot boys of the town."
Really deep stuff - a rather pessimistic view of mankind. I look forward to discussing this with my professor tomorrow!!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Global Stimulus
Mark Thoma's article about the G20 failing to produce an international stimulus package is laughable. What sort of imbecile believes that ANYONE is going to float the bill for a global version of the U.S. Economic stimulus policies? Any nation on this planet is capable of handing its' citizens money; simply refund their taxes for the last month, year, etc.
The point of the G20 summit was to try to restart the engines of global trade. If Mr. Thoma had bothered to do some research, he'd see the ignorance of his statement: STIMULUS PLANS DO NOT WORK. The first one didn't magically save the U.S. Economy. It also didn't work for Germany. Or for South Korea, where officials are admitting that these measures are essentially "the best option" that they have. Of course, handing the entire global population a check would definitely increase global spending - but it wouldn't end the financial problems that the world is facing; it would merely stave them off, even if such a ridiculous plan were enacted.
The point of the G20 summit was to try to restart the engines of global trade. If Mr. Thoma had bothered to do some research, he'd see the ignorance of his statement: STIMULUS PLANS DO NOT WORK. The first one didn't magically save the U.S. Economy. It also didn't work for Germany. Or for South Korea, where officials are admitting that these measures are essentially "the best option" that they have. Of course, handing the entire global population a check would definitely increase global spending - but it wouldn't end the financial problems that the world is facing; it would merely stave them off, even if such a ridiculous plan were enacted.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
....And Again
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/business/main4918503.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories
Can't I have at least a SINGLE WEEK without hearing about a company that lost BILIONS of dollars in the last year paying out millions to "keep their top talent" around??
Everything I have to say about this, I've already said - what a mess.
Can't I have at least a SINGLE WEEK without hearing about a company that lost BILIONS of dollars in the last year paying out millions to "keep their top talent" around??
Everything I have to say about this, I've already said - what a mess.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Worm Turns
Oh yeah....NOW we start to see the "harsh new regulations" on the banking industry:
http://www.businessinsider.com/banks-plan-to-bid-on-each-others-toxic-assets-with-taxpayer-money-2009-4
Public-private investment partnership? No, this is just another way for the bloated and corrupt financial sector to continue to rape the average taxpayer to the tune of billions of dollars. And why not? I mean, look at every other major company in this country that got "slapped" by the hard economy - failed industries who should NEVER HAVE GOTTEN A HANDOUT had billions of dollars handed to them, in order to let them CONTINUE TO FAIL??? Geithner keeps lobbying for more power to fire CEO's and such - but Rick Wagoner, the recently-fired CEO of GM, was also allowed to keep his severance pay and bonuses, which came out to him being paid roughly $20 Million just to leave.
When the corporations left the taxpayers out to dry, they got rewarded. The current administration is completely incompetent, and what's worse, they continue to operate in such a way that they're KILLING OUR ECONOMY. WHY are we throwing billions of dollars away on foolishness? Why is our moron President agreeing (as I write this) to global economic changes that will probably put us out ANOTHER couple of billion dollars (simply to float the globoal economy for another 6 months, given Obama's track record). Obama needs to clue up. His handlers need to EDUCATE HIM, instead of letting him be so D***** dependent on someone else's words on a teleprompter. He needs to actually start having opinions on things: (story here ). Frankly, if he can't run the country, we need to get him out of office and put someone in who's NOT a corrupt idiot.
The Islamic religion offers an unusual view of the signs leading up to the coming of the Anti-Christ:
People will stop offering prayers
Dishonesty will be the way of life
Falsehood will become a virtue
People will mortgage their faith for worldly gains
Usuary and bribery will become legitimate
Imbeciles would rule over the wise
Blood of innocents would be shed
Pride will be taken on acts of oppression
The rulers will be corrupt
The scholars will be hypocrites
Adultery will be rampant
Women will dress like men, and men will dress like women
The liars and treacherous will be respected
There will be acute famine at the time
If there's anything to this Hadith, then we should all watch out - but I'm not one to speculate on such things. I don't feel like being "right-wing religious nut" today, but I thought that it was an interesting little bit of information.
Someone, ANYONE in the government: please start acting responsibly. I give you guys my tax-money, I vote for you and let you have control over me at a national level. We all do - it's part of being a citizen. But you won't always be in charge. The next generation will eventually take that power from you (in the same way you took it from the last generation). And when we're in charge, you'll want us to be responsible with your and your family's money. You'll want us to be good leaders that won't cripple your children's children with unnecessary debts and foolish, false ideas about "responsibility".
So start setting a good example, already!!
http://www.businessinsider.com/banks-plan-to-bid-on-each-others-toxic-assets-with-taxpayer-money-2009-4
Public-private investment partnership? No, this is just another way for the bloated and corrupt financial sector to continue to rape the average taxpayer to the tune of billions of dollars. And why not? I mean, look at every other major company in this country that got "slapped" by the hard economy - failed industries who should NEVER HAVE GOTTEN A HANDOUT had billions of dollars handed to them, in order to let them CONTINUE TO FAIL??? Geithner keeps lobbying for more power to fire CEO's and such - but Rick Wagoner, the recently-fired CEO of GM, was also allowed to keep his severance pay and bonuses, which came out to him being paid roughly $20 Million just to leave.
When the corporations left the taxpayers out to dry, they got rewarded. The current administration is completely incompetent, and what's worse, they continue to operate in such a way that they're KILLING OUR ECONOMY. WHY are we throwing billions of dollars away on foolishness? Why is our moron President agreeing (as I write this) to global economic changes that will probably put us out ANOTHER couple of billion dollars (simply to float the globoal economy for another 6 months, given Obama's track record). Obama needs to clue up. His handlers need to EDUCATE HIM, instead of letting him be so D***** dependent on someone else's words on a teleprompter. He needs to actually start having opinions on things: (story here ). Frankly, if he can't run the country, we need to get him out of office and put someone in who's NOT a corrupt idiot.
The Islamic religion offers an unusual view of the signs leading up to the coming of the Anti-Christ:
People will stop offering prayers
Dishonesty will be the way of life
Falsehood will become a virtue
People will mortgage their faith for worldly gains
Usuary and bribery will become legitimate
Imbeciles would rule over the wise
Blood of innocents would be shed
Pride will be taken on acts of oppression
The rulers will be corrupt
The scholars will be hypocrites
Adultery will be rampant
Women will dress like men, and men will dress like women
The liars and treacherous will be respected
There will be acute famine at the time
If there's anything to this Hadith, then we should all watch out - but I'm not one to speculate on such things. I don't feel like being "right-wing religious nut" today, but I thought that it was an interesting little bit of information.
Someone, ANYONE in the government: please start acting responsibly. I give you guys my tax-money, I vote for you and let you have control over me at a national level. We all do - it's part of being a citizen. But you won't always be in charge. The next generation will eventually take that power from you (in the same way you took it from the last generation). And when we're in charge, you'll want us to be responsible with your and your family's money. You'll want us to be good leaders that won't cripple your children's children with unnecessary debts and foolish, false ideas about "responsibility".
So start setting a good example, already!!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Imperial Instability
Does ANYONE in government have intelligence these days? When I see that certain lawmakers in Maine trying to give voting rights to non-citizens: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=247244&ac=PHnws
It makes me worry. One of the things that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire was that the powers of the citizenry were watered-down: essentially, anyone within Roman territory had the rights and obligations that a full-on Roman citizen was entitled to. It was done as a tax-increasing measure, but also devalued the citizenship that was the pride of the Empire. The legislators who proposed this bill (Sen. Justin Alfond and Rep. Brian Bolduc) should be forced out of office by their enraged constituents. These men clearly never paid attention in school, and don't seem to understand the signifigance of citizenship in this country. That being said, I'm all for enabling people to become citizens. If these aliens are truly interested in having citizens' rights, they should go through the process of gaining them legally. These boneheaded legislators should focus on offering aliens help with immigration exams and paperwork, not just handing them citizenship's rights because "they're here". The argument that it "thwarts the power, potential, and promise f democracy" is childishly ignorant and a bogus statement on it's face. The current system does discriminate against those who are not citizens - but since a LEGAL, CLEARLY-DEFINED METHOD ALREADY EXISTS for these people to become citizens, then these people are already capable of having their voice heard in elections, and are already capable of throwing off the illusory "shackles of oppression" that apparently hold them back because they cannot currently vote.
Get a ***** green card, kids. I have friends who went through naturalization, and are now full-fledged U.S. citizens. Giving these rights to anyone who wants them cheapens my friends' experiences and sacrifices. It cheapens my rights, and dilutes the rights of ALL citizens.
I also have a beef with the idea currently floating aroud in Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits at a heavier rate in order to pay for universal healthcare.
link here: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-tax28-2009mar28,0,6232958.story
My issue is that both my girlfriend and I currently pay OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS for healthcare provided by our jobs. The premiums aren't too terribly bad, but it's still expensive. However, it's worth it when one of us needs a doctor visit, or needs to visit the emergency room. Health care is something that everyone needs. But why should I have to pay more for someone who is unemployed and has 3 kids to be able to have health insurance?
News flash for Congress: If you hit the lower class with more and more taxes, then dilute the benefits that they're paying more for, THE LOWER CLASS WILL REVOLT. It has happened REPEATEDLY in history, and no American has ANY excuse to not realize this - it's how our nation gained it's independence. Governmentally-enforced "social equality" is a damnably foolish idea, and frankly doesn't work. Socializing the healthcare sector will destroy the overall quality of the care provided (look at Europe), and I am not happy about being considered a "cash-cow" for people who can't afford medical care.
But for these people, I have a quick question: Why can't you afford it? I work at Kroger. I make less than $12,000 a year - technically, I don't even qualify as having to pay taxes. The government takes 10% of my check EVERY WEEK. Howver, I also have healthcare. My company provides it for me (because I pay for it every week out of my paycheck). There are a great many options available for people with no healthcare - free clinics, low-cost providers, and employer-based benefits all exist in many different forms in this country. If none of these options are viable for a person - they need to get a job and quit being a drain on my economy. Unemployment may be skyrocketing, but I can go to the GA Dept. of Labor website and find (and apply for) a job online....right now. AS I AM TYPING THIS BLOG, there are dozens of jobs LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO WORK THEM shown on the GDOL website( http://www.dol.state.ga.us/ )
Note to Congressional Democrats: The unions are your backbone. My union sent out stacks of literature during the last election, pushing me to vote for the Democratic candidates in my state.
If the Democratic lawmakers in Washington are to stupid to realize what attacking organized Labor (which is what this idea amounts to) will do to one of their KEY DEMOGRAPHICS, then I have no sympathy for a clearly-doomed party. Hopefully in the next election cycle, these filthy greedheads will be flogged out of office and some actual balance will return to the government.
It makes me worry. One of the things that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire was that the powers of the citizenry were watered-down: essentially, anyone within Roman territory had the rights and obligations that a full-on Roman citizen was entitled to. It was done as a tax-increasing measure, but also devalued the citizenship that was the pride of the Empire. The legislators who proposed this bill (Sen. Justin Alfond and Rep. Brian Bolduc) should be forced out of office by their enraged constituents. These men clearly never paid attention in school, and don't seem to understand the signifigance of citizenship in this country. That being said, I'm all for enabling people to become citizens. If these aliens are truly interested in having citizens' rights, they should go through the process of gaining them legally. These boneheaded legislators should focus on offering aliens help with immigration exams and paperwork, not just handing them citizenship's rights because "they're here". The argument that it "thwarts the power, potential, and promise f democracy" is childishly ignorant and a bogus statement on it's face. The current system does discriminate against those who are not citizens - but since a LEGAL, CLEARLY-DEFINED METHOD ALREADY EXISTS for these people to become citizens, then these people are already capable of having their voice heard in elections, and are already capable of throwing off the illusory "shackles of oppression" that apparently hold them back because they cannot currently vote.
Get a ***** green card, kids. I have friends who went through naturalization, and are now full-fledged U.S. citizens. Giving these rights to anyone who wants them cheapens my friends' experiences and sacrifices. It cheapens my rights, and dilutes the rights of ALL citizens.
I also have a beef with the idea currently floating aroud in Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits at a heavier rate in order to pay for universal healthcare.
link here: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-tax28-2009mar28,0,6232958.story
My issue is that both my girlfriend and I currently pay OUT OF OUR PAYCHECKS for healthcare provided by our jobs. The premiums aren't too terribly bad, but it's still expensive. However, it's worth it when one of us needs a doctor visit, or needs to visit the emergency room. Health care is something that everyone needs. But why should I have to pay more for someone who is unemployed and has 3 kids to be able to have health insurance?
News flash for Congress: If you hit the lower class with more and more taxes, then dilute the benefits that they're paying more for, THE LOWER CLASS WILL REVOLT. It has happened REPEATEDLY in history, and no American has ANY excuse to not realize this - it's how our nation gained it's independence. Governmentally-enforced "social equality" is a damnably foolish idea, and frankly doesn't work. Socializing the healthcare sector will destroy the overall quality of the care provided (look at Europe), and I am not happy about being considered a "cash-cow" for people who can't afford medical care.
But for these people, I have a quick question: Why can't you afford it? I work at Kroger. I make less than $12,000 a year - technically, I don't even qualify as having to pay taxes. The government takes 10% of my check EVERY WEEK. Howver, I also have healthcare. My company provides it for me (because I pay for it every week out of my paycheck). There are a great many options available for people with no healthcare - free clinics, low-cost providers, and employer-based benefits all exist in many different forms in this country. If none of these options are viable for a person - they need to get a job and quit being a drain on my economy. Unemployment may be skyrocketing, but I can go to the GA Dept. of Labor website and find (and apply for) a job online....right now. AS I AM TYPING THIS BLOG, there are dozens of jobs LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO WORK THEM shown on the GDOL website( http://www.dol.state.ga.us/ )
Note to Congressional Democrats: The unions are your backbone. My union sent out stacks of literature during the last election, pushing me to vote for the Democratic candidates in my state.
If the Democratic lawmakers in Washington are to stupid to realize what attacking organized Labor (which is what this idea amounts to) will do to one of their KEY DEMOGRAPHICS, then I have no sympathy for a clearly-doomed party. Hopefully in the next election cycle, these filthy greedheads will be flogged out of office and some actual balance will return to the government.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/fannie-mae-pay-bonuses-g-execs/
DAMMIT, people!! Why can't we get some accountability in the federal government?!?!?! All I want is a promise; just a simple agreement that WILL BE HONORED to not just throw taxpayer dollars at corporate executives for "employee retention". I've never heard such a hideous joke in my life - unemployment is skyrocketing, and these same schlubs that drove the corporations into the ground are getting MORE MONEY?!?!?!?
Did I slip into a wormhole somewhere?? Is federal responsibility and competence dead???
I'm going to bed before I have to read any more about this.
DAMMIT, people!! Why can't we get some accountability in the federal government?!?!?! All I want is a promise; just a simple agreement that WILL BE HONORED to not just throw taxpayer dollars at corporate executives for "employee retention". I've never heard such a hideous joke in my life - unemployment is skyrocketing, and these same schlubs that drove the corporations into the ground are getting MORE MONEY?!?!?!?
Did I slip into a wormhole somewhere?? Is federal responsibility and competence dead???
I'm going to bed before I have to read any more about this.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The "New" JFK?
On October 28th, 1962, President John F. Kennedy and The Secretary General of the U.N. managed to negotiate the withdrawal of Russian bombs from Cuba. This was the ending of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, it seems, the Russians want to ensure their influence in the Western Hemisphere:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/14/russia.cuba.bombers/?ic
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not John F. Kennedy. His administration has shown itself repeatedly to be both corrupt and incompetent (from his handling of domestic issues, namely the financial situation in this country; also, his cabinet is rife with members under investigation and even some (Geithner comes to mind) who are flagranty inept. President Obama seems to have enough trouble trying to manage the economy (and failing - 82% of Americans are concerned about the massive increase in the deficit, and 69% are worried about the rapid growth of government under Pres. Obama). His open-handed fiscal policies are simply an outgrowth of inexperience. Such a green candidate lacks the resolve to deal properly with International affairs. Kennedy was a decorated war hero, actually wounded in the line of duty saving a fellow sailor. Obama admitted to drug and alcohol abuse, and used to "hang out" with military service-people.
Even as AIG uses federal bailout funds to hand out $165 million in executive bonuses (after posting record-setting $40 billion, no less.), the federal government has made no secret of the fact that it plans to ask for more money to continue to prop up failing businesses. A rational, intelligent leader would, at this point, nationalize AIG and other companies that follow the flagrantly exploitative business model portrayed here. Any company that can receive $70-odd-billion in bailout funds and STILL post $40 billion losses does not deserve to be privately owned. If these companies weren't being publicly-funded, it wouldn't be a problem, but the situation is definitely getting out of hand. I wonder if these huge companies will still exist in the forms we know in a year's time, or if they'll be nationalized or seized by irate citizens whose taxes went straight into executive pockets.
So, should the Cold War start back up, does President Obama have the backbone to stand up to the Russians? Does he have the competence to be able to deal effectively in global affairs? I certainly hope so.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/14/russia.cuba.bombers/?ic
Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not John F. Kennedy. His administration has shown itself repeatedly to be both corrupt and incompetent (from his handling of domestic issues, namely the financial situation in this country; also, his cabinet is rife with members under investigation and even some (Geithner comes to mind) who are flagranty inept. President Obama seems to have enough trouble trying to manage the economy (and failing - 82% of Americans are concerned about the massive increase in the deficit, and 69% are worried about the rapid growth of government under Pres. Obama). His open-handed fiscal policies are simply an outgrowth of inexperience. Such a green candidate lacks the resolve to deal properly with International affairs. Kennedy was a decorated war hero, actually wounded in the line of duty saving a fellow sailor. Obama admitted to drug and alcohol abuse, and used to "hang out" with military service-people.
Even as AIG uses federal bailout funds to hand out $165 million in executive bonuses (after posting record-setting $40 billion, no less.), the federal government has made no secret of the fact that it plans to ask for more money to continue to prop up failing businesses. A rational, intelligent leader would, at this point, nationalize AIG and other companies that follow the flagrantly exploitative business model portrayed here. Any company that can receive $70-odd-billion in bailout funds and STILL post $40 billion losses does not deserve to be privately owned. If these companies weren't being publicly-funded, it wouldn't be a problem, but the situation is definitely getting out of hand. I wonder if these huge companies will still exist in the forms we know in a year's time, or if they'll be nationalized or seized by irate citizens whose taxes went straight into executive pockets.
So, should the Cold War start back up, does President Obama have the backbone to stand up to the Russians? Does he have the competence to be able to deal effectively in global affairs? I certainly hope so.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Youth of the Nation
When I see stuff like this, I can`t help but wonder about the future of this country. As the recession mounts, more and more 20-somethings are being kicked out of the workplace and forced back into their parents` houses. I`ve been personally very fortunate thus far, but everywhere I look, more and more of my demographic is being marginalized. It`s like no one even thinks about us.
Here we are, staring down the barrel of the largest debt in this nation`s history (which we`re going to be paying down for the rest of our lives), and now we can`t even get real jobs. President Obama would do well to examine this situation again. The same youth vote that got him elected 4 months ago is going to massively turn against him as the economy gets worse. Young adults with no jobs, money, or hope are a major problem for any nation - just look at Greece, Iceland, China, Latvia, France, Ireland, etc. Historically, wars have provided a means with which to employ some of these youth (World War II helping to end the Great Depression, Continual border wars in Rome, and so on), but in the modern world, all we have is the ``War on Terror``, an extremely unpopular conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I`m not advocating war, by the way. Bloodshed is horrible, and should NEVER be condoned or accepted as ``part of life``,but I`m more interested in truth than idealism. If President Obama would avoid the protests so rampant in other parts of the world, he should look at the situations that caused these violent riots: corrupt officials (which are universal) and economic downturns, followed by massive unemployment among the youth (also found in this country). As more and more young peope realize that their government has ``sold them up the river``, I believe that there will be an escalation of violent protests - maybe not for a few months, but as the recession worsens....
Here we are, staring down the barrel of the largest debt in this nation`s history (which we`re going to be paying down for the rest of our lives), and now we can`t even get real jobs. President Obama would do well to examine this situation again. The same youth vote that got him elected 4 months ago is going to massively turn against him as the economy gets worse. Young adults with no jobs, money, or hope are a major problem for any nation - just look at Greece, Iceland, China, Latvia, France, Ireland, etc. Historically, wars have provided a means with which to employ some of these youth (World War II helping to end the Great Depression, Continual border wars in Rome, and so on), but in the modern world, all we have is the ``War on Terror``, an extremely unpopular conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I`m not advocating war, by the way. Bloodshed is horrible, and should NEVER be condoned or accepted as ``part of life``,but I`m more interested in truth than idealism. If President Obama would avoid the protests so rampant in other parts of the world, he should look at the situations that caused these violent riots: corrupt officials (which are universal) and economic downturns, followed by massive unemployment among the youth (also found in this country). As more and more young peope realize that their government has ``sold them up the river``, I believe that there will be an escalation of violent protests - maybe not for a few months, but as the recession worsens....
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Alright...I've heard of someone trying to cover all their bases, but this is ridiculous:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/24/bernanke-offers-fed-tools-stem-recession/
Ben Bernanke says that the economy may be able to recover in the next year....but wait!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090224/bs_nm/us_usa_fed_bernanke_8
or, we might just be stuck in a depression until 2010.
I get the fact that this is two different articles spinning their own story about whatever Ben Bernanke actually said, but come on now...the fact that this sort of mix-up could even happen seems (at least to me) to really damage Ben Bernanke's credibility - not that he needs the help, with the economy in the shape it is. As the FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, Bernanke needs to be very clear on what he's saying; instead of trying to cover himself "just in case", why not try some honesty? I mean, we all know it's bad...but who does he think he's fooling?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/24/bernanke-offers-fed-tools-stem-recession/
Ben Bernanke says that the economy may be able to recover in the next year....but wait!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090224/bs_nm/us_usa_fed_bernanke_8
or, we might just be stuck in a depression until 2010.
I get the fact that this is two different articles spinning their own story about whatever Ben Bernanke actually said, but come on now...the fact that this sort of mix-up could even happen seems (at least to me) to really damage Ben Bernanke's credibility - not that he needs the help, with the economy in the shape it is. As the FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, Bernanke needs to be very clear on what he's saying; instead of trying to cover himself "just in case", why not try some honesty? I mean, we all know it's bad...but who does he think he's fooling?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Open Response to Conscription
I was online this morning, and saw this article:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4659
After reading the Colonel's views on why we need a draft, I decided that the other side of the argument needs expounding. I have only a few main points (which I summarized and sent to the editor), and here they are, in a simple format:
1.) This guy obviously remembers the LAST TIME we had a conscript army; we all know how that one turned out (if you don't, I'd suggest doing some reading on the 1960's - people burning draft cards, rioting, etc). Knowing how the public reacts to conscript service, how can this guy seriously suggest we go back to such a system?
2.) When Col. Hauser retired, he probably started to receive his pension. And possibly his medicare/medicaid payments. And don't forget about Social Security. All these things come from a life of hard work and service (which anyone who served honorably in uniform deserves), but will also not be around for my generation. I'm not averse to public service, but I have to start getting all my "ducks in a row" for my own future because, unlike the authors of this page, when I hit that "magic age" of retirement, the government isn't sending a check. Or a card. Or any sort of benefits - Social Security is projected to fail within the next 20-25 years (I'll be 47 if S.S. can hold out that long). Without serious help, government medical assistance will go bankrupt soon as well.
3.) A quote:
Of course, reinstating the draft will generate opposition from all parts of the political spectrum, on the left by civil libertarians and opponents of any use of force, in the center by classic libertarians and those who would regard conscription as an unfair “tax on youth,” and even by some on the political right, who (as noted earlier) would correctly perceive that the modified draft proposed here would inherently constrain presidential unilateralism. The professional military, traditionally conservative, might initially resist such fundamental change, though we are confident the professional military will come to value its significant advantages.
The benefits of universal national service, however, far outweigh these resolvable objections. Aside from the strictly military advantages -- larger and better-educated armed forces -- there would be a number of positive social consequences. Conscription will enable the forces to reflect the full spectrum of American pluralism, in terms of both socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic groups. It is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.
- Apparently, the fact that the Army cannot recruit volunteers is "unacceptable". The author of this letter needs to look at reality for a moment, and then think about one thing: Why can't the Army recruit a larger percentage of the population? There may be a fundamental reason why recruitment has fallen in the last few years (War on "Terror", Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), but clearly the way to solve this issue is conscription. Add that to the fact that apparently, we all need to be sharing the hardships and dangers of war, and you can immediately see the "benefits" of bringing this plan into action.
America needs to care for her soldiers. Our government and people need to make sure that these brave men and women are taken care of when they've finished their service. One of the best ways to protect them is to make sure that if we send them to fight a war, that it is a just war, a "necessary" war, and one that must be fought. When the only thing a war does is make a few men at the top richer (Cheney), it is not a "just" war, or a necessary one. I, for one, choose not to become cannon fodder. I choose not to die in a meaningless war. If the terrorists bring the fight here, I'm always ready to protect my country, but I don't see how that relates to shattering national unity "in the name of freedom" halfway around the globe.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4659
After reading the Colonel's views on why we need a draft, I decided that the other side of the argument needs expounding. I have only a few main points (which I summarized and sent to the editor), and here they are, in a simple format:
1.) This guy obviously remembers the LAST TIME we had a conscript army; we all know how that one turned out (if you don't, I'd suggest doing some reading on the 1960's - people burning draft cards, rioting, etc). Knowing how the public reacts to conscript service, how can this guy seriously suggest we go back to such a system?
2.) When Col. Hauser retired, he probably started to receive his pension. And possibly his medicare/medicaid payments. And don't forget about Social Security. All these things come from a life of hard work and service (which anyone who served honorably in uniform deserves), but will also not be around for my generation. I'm not averse to public service, but I have to start getting all my "ducks in a row" for my own future because, unlike the authors of this page, when I hit that "magic age" of retirement, the government isn't sending a check. Or a card. Or any sort of benefits - Social Security is projected to fail within the next 20-25 years (I'll be 47 if S.S. can hold out that long). Without serious help, government medical assistance will go bankrupt soon as well.
3.) A quote:
Of course, reinstating the draft will generate opposition from all parts of the political spectrum, on the left by civil libertarians and opponents of any use of force, in the center by classic libertarians and those who would regard conscription as an unfair “tax on youth,” and even by some on the political right, who (as noted earlier) would correctly perceive that the modified draft proposed here would inherently constrain presidential unilateralism. The professional military, traditionally conservative, might initially resist such fundamental change, though we are confident the professional military will come to value its significant advantages.
The benefits of universal national service, however, far outweigh these resolvable objections. Aside from the strictly military advantages -- larger and better-educated armed forces -- there would be a number of positive social consequences. Conscription will enable the forces to reflect the full spectrum of American pluralism, in terms of both socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic groups. It is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.
- Apparently, the fact that the Army cannot recruit volunteers is "unacceptable". The author of this letter needs to look at reality for a moment, and then think about one thing: Why can't the Army recruit a larger percentage of the population? There may be a fundamental reason why recruitment has fallen in the last few years (War on "Terror", Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), but clearly the way to solve this issue is conscription. Add that to the fact that apparently, we all need to be sharing the hardships and dangers of war, and you can immediately see the "benefits" of bringing this plan into action.
America needs to care for her soldiers. Our government and people need to make sure that these brave men and women are taken care of when they've finished their service. One of the best ways to protect them is to make sure that if we send them to fight a war, that it is a just war, a "necessary" war, and one that must be fought. When the only thing a war does is make a few men at the top richer (Cheney), it is not a "just" war, or a necessary one. I, for one, choose not to become cannon fodder. I choose not to die in a meaningless war. If the terrorists bring the fight here, I'm always ready to protect my country, but I don't see how that relates to shattering national unity "in the name of freedom" halfway around the globe.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Racial Tensions
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/22/video-no-stimulus-money-for-white-males/
Alright - I've been expecting something like this for awhile, and to hear it proposed openly not only enrages me, but makes me seriously question whether or not I want to be a part this nation anymore. Discrimination of any kind if wrong, but I want to believe that the United States has become a nation where anyone, regardless of gender or race, can be successful. Instead of trying to deny bailout money to white males, our government should be either 1.) Looking into alternative ways of aiding our wounded economy (rather than continuing in the same foolish paths we've travelled in the past: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776284/ as an example of what I'm talking about), or 2.) if we must continue down this road towards further debt (which congressional experts believe may top $4 Trillion), let's not discriminate against anyone - I'm a white male, and my bills are just as pressing as anyone else's. If the government wants to hand out money to citizens of this nation, they should remember that racist, sexist ideas are patently offensive, regardless of who is being discriminated against.
I'm all for cutting out the "already-wealthy" (which to me means anyone making more than say...$100,000 a year), but come on - that much is obvious. When you start putting racial requirements on who gets a federal handout, then you alienate whatever demographic is left out, which in this case would almost certainly lead to another Civil War in this country.
The United States has elected their first Black president. Let's take this opportunity to move forward as a nation of equality, working together as a country, rather than moving backwards to create artificial (and governmentally-induced) racial tension.
postscript: Robert Reich should definitely work a little harder on his education. Anyone who is so supremely ignorant of history and the effects of racism on a culture should NEVER be allowed to influence governmental policy. This repulsive son-of-a-bitch should be castrated publicly, as an example to those who would try to undermine unity through discrimination.
Alright - I've been expecting something like this for awhile, and to hear it proposed openly not only enrages me, but makes me seriously question whether or not I want to be a part this nation anymore. Discrimination of any kind if wrong, but I want to believe that the United States has become a nation where anyone, regardless of gender or race, can be successful. Instead of trying to deny bailout money to white males, our government should be either 1.) Looking into alternative ways of aiding our wounded economy (rather than continuing in the same foolish paths we've travelled in the past: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28776284/ as an example of what I'm talking about), or 2.) if we must continue down this road towards further debt (which congressional experts believe may top $4 Trillion), let's not discriminate against anyone - I'm a white male, and my bills are just as pressing as anyone else's. If the government wants to hand out money to citizens of this nation, they should remember that racist, sexist ideas are patently offensive, regardless of who is being discriminated against.
I'm all for cutting out the "already-wealthy" (which to me means anyone making more than say...$100,000 a year), but come on - that much is obvious. When you start putting racial requirements on who gets a federal handout, then you alienate whatever demographic is left out, which in this case would almost certainly lead to another Civil War in this country.
The United States has elected their first Black president. Let's take this opportunity to move forward as a nation of equality, working together as a country, rather than moving backwards to create artificial (and governmentally-induced) racial tension.
postscript: Robert Reich should definitely work a little harder on his education. Anyone who is so supremely ignorant of history and the effects of racism on a culture should NEVER be allowed to influence governmental policy. This repulsive son-of-a-bitch should be castrated publicly, as an example to those who would try to undermine unity through discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
