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?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
More Bailout Blues
As I was reading the news online this morning, I came across an article about how Congress has included a pay raise for federal judges in their $15 BILLION bailout package for the U.S. Auto Industry.
Article is here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pay-raise-for-judges-tucked-apf-13798044.html
So my question is this: If the United States is in financial dire straits (which it is), and we have such a high unemployment rate (533,000 jobs lost in November this year, and the unemployment rate is at 6.7%), why is the government awarding itself pay raises and bailing out every industry that asks? How can we afford a $5000 pay raise for EACH congressman and a 2.8% raise for every federal judge when we can't keep American employment going? Add this to the fact that the entire bailout system is failing - the companies involved have lied and purposely not revealed the extent of their problems to the U.S. people before (see article here ), and we start to see why the Federal government needs to start REALLY LOOKING at the things they're signing. AIG suddenly "finding" an additional $10 Billion in debt is a pretty grim indicator of how little the government's "oversight" seems to work.
Instead of just hemhorraging money at failing industries, the federal government needs to let the free market work itself out. Rather than trying to keep these companies "alive" for a few more months, we need to let CAPITALISM follow it's course. To demonstrate: if I had an "established" printing company that suddenly started to fail, would the government owe me any money? Or would my printing company fall by the wayside as a casualty of the free market system? Our economic system is based on competition and wise business practices; giving any company a leg-up without VERY good reason (or nationalizing the company - but that's a topic for another post) is foolhardy at best, and can become catastrophic at worst.
Rather than undercut the free market, we need to spend the money to revitalize American industry; build American factories and create American jobs that will put currency back into the economic structure. We don't need to just blindly throw money at our problems; we need to look for economically-viable solutions. Increase import tariffs and start producing what we need here at home - it helped bring us out of the Great Depression, so why wouldn't it work now? Creating domestic jobs and goods, while creating an incentive to "buy American" would certainly help our economy. Are we afraid of a little Nationalism?
I've heard it said that the two "engines" of the world economy are American consuming, and Chinese production. I say we re-build the system: Instead of relying on foreign powers for the bulk of our goods, we should create for ourselves and keep all that money here.
Article is here: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pay-raise-for-judges-tucked-apf-13798044.html
So my question is this: If the United States is in financial dire straits (which it is), and we have such a high unemployment rate (533,000 jobs lost in November this year, and the unemployment rate is at 6.7%), why is the government awarding itself pay raises and bailing out every industry that asks? How can we afford a $5000 pay raise for EACH congressman and a 2.8% raise for every federal judge when we can't keep American employment going? Add this to the fact that the entire bailout system is failing - the companies involved have lied and purposely not revealed the extent of their problems to the U.S. people before (see article here ), and we start to see why the Federal government needs to start REALLY LOOKING at the things they're signing. AIG suddenly "finding" an additional $10 Billion in debt is a pretty grim indicator of how little the government's "oversight" seems to work.
Instead of just hemhorraging money at failing industries, the federal government needs to let the free market work itself out. Rather than trying to keep these companies "alive" for a few more months, we need to let CAPITALISM follow it's course. To demonstrate: if I had an "established" printing company that suddenly started to fail, would the government owe me any money? Or would my printing company fall by the wayside as a casualty of the free market system? Our economic system is based on competition and wise business practices; giving any company a leg-up without VERY good reason (or nationalizing the company - but that's a topic for another post) is foolhardy at best, and can become catastrophic at worst.
Rather than undercut the free market, we need to spend the money to revitalize American industry; build American factories and create American jobs that will put currency back into the economic structure. We don't need to just blindly throw money at our problems; we need to look for economically-viable solutions. Increase import tariffs and start producing what we need here at home - it helped bring us out of the Great Depression, so why wouldn't it work now? Creating domestic jobs and goods, while creating an incentive to "buy American" would certainly help our economy. Are we afraid of a little Nationalism?
I've heard it said that the two "engines" of the world economy are American consuming, and Chinese production. I say we re-build the system: Instead of relying on foreign powers for the bulk of our goods, we should create for ourselves and keep all that money here.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Economic Stimulus Package
As I keep reading in the news that Senate Democrats (such as Nancy Pelosi, whom the article quotes directly) want to put yet another "economic stimulus" package on the table for President Obama to sign on his first day as President. I think it goes without saying that another economic stimulus package is not what this country's leadership needs to be worried about. Giving free money to all Americans who file taxes sounds good, but where is all this money coming from?
Our children will still be paying this "Economic stimulus" crap off in 50 years. For a party that seems so concerned about protecting the environment and ensuring a "decent" standard of living for future generations, going $500 BILLION into debt doesn't seem to add up. Add this to the fact that, despite anything President-elect Obama promised on the campaign trail about lowering taxes in the middle- and lower-class brackets, he can't do it. There's no way - in order to pay for all the governmental "change we believe in", the government is going to have to increase taxes all around - how's THAT for change? If anyone out there can explain to me how Obama can give Americans another economic stimulus package, bail out Corporate America, lower taxes, and increase our standard of living (with any number of ideas that were bandied around during the election cycle: socialized medicine, green power, etc) and still make any sense at all, I'd love to hear it.
Another fun note: Obama has taken a stance on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Obama, in only his second public statement of policy, has committed the United States to being in the "leading role of saving the environment". A quote, from my sources:
Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.
Scary, no? If you read the article further, it points out the flaws in Obama's ecological views (most of which seem to have come from Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth). But, judge for yourselves - read the article and hit me up with your ideas and observations.
Our children will still be paying this "Economic stimulus" crap off in 50 years. For a party that seems so concerned about protecting the environment and ensuring a "decent" standard of living for future generations, going $500 BILLION into debt doesn't seem to add up. Add this to the fact that, despite anything President-elect Obama promised on the campaign trail about lowering taxes in the middle- and lower-class brackets, he can't do it. There's no way - in order to pay for all the governmental "change we believe in", the government is going to have to increase taxes all around - how's THAT for change? If anyone out there can explain to me how Obama can give Americans another economic stimulus package, bail out Corporate America, lower taxes, and increase our standard of living (with any number of ideas that were bandied around during the election cycle: socialized medicine, green power, etc) and still make any sense at all, I'd love to hear it.
Another fun note: Obama has taken a stance on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Obama, in only his second public statement of policy, has committed the United States to being in the "leading role of saving the environment". A quote, from my sources:
Alarming though it may be that the next US President should have fallen for all this claptrap, much more worrying is what he proposes to do on the basis of such grotesque misinformation. For a start he plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system", a massive "carbon tax", designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions "to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 per cent by 2050". Such a target, which would put America ahead of any other country in the world, could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.
Scary, no? If you read the article further, it points out the flaws in Obama's ecological views (most of which seem to have come from Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth). But, judge for yourselves - read the article and hit me up with your ideas and observations.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Stupid Poliical Drama
I was just checkin up on my "social networking" pages, and I came across a group called something like "Don't Go To Class If John McCain Wins the Election" or some such nonsense. Honestly, people! If you don't want to go to class, then don't go. Ignore the fact that you might actually learn something; cutting classes doesn't hurt anyone but yourself. Regardless of who wins the election, there are better ways of making a political statement. Actually DO something (like attend a rally, or - god forbid - actually get your friends motivated to vote! Do something; just don't do nothing.
So yeah - everyone get out there and help pick the new president!!
So yeah - everyone get out there and help pick the new president!!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Right to Privacy, anyone?
Recently, a member of the 4chan internet forum (an anonymous-posting board that, of late, has been used for internet "terrorism") apparently managed to hack into Sarah Palin's yahoo e-mail account, posting her e-mails and data to the boards.
Story here: http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked
I've been against these 4chan "scriptkids" for a long time. Their methods are questionable at best, and this board's forced anonymity is enabling criminal activity to be perpetrated in the virtual realm. If a non-anonymous person had hacked this account, there would be severe legal repercussions. But since this board irresponsibly allows such things to happen, and since 4chan does not cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities (as evidenced by their refusal to turn over records of "raids" on the Church of Scientology and on Hal Turner, a talk-show host. These raids were organized on the 4chan and 7chan boards).
I am disgusted by the amazing levels of irresponsibility and jackassery that are allowed to be perpetrated on the internet. That being said, I am not against anonymity on the internet, or against political statements (as long as they are within the confines of the law). Personally, I hope that our authorities can figure out who perpetrated this violation of Sarah Palin's privacy, and then send this anonymous loser to jail, where he belongs. Doubtless, upon being questioned, these "channers" would say that they are only "providing free information". They like to talk about providing information; but they dont' seem to have any qualms about breaking the law to do so. If the situation were reversed (with their "private" e-mail and data being splashed all over the web), no doubt these immature children would start screaming bloody murder about their "rights being violated", and would most likely try to fight back. I'm not advocating the removal of internet privacy, just pointing out the hypocritical policies of these ignorant "channers".
If the chan board admins have any respect at all for the applicable laws (in this country at least, the boards are hosted in another counry), they will turn over information on the anonymous hacker. I don't think they will, though; their track record seems to counter-indicate any shred of being responsible in any way. The website posted images of private e-mails, Sarah Palin's ENTIRE contact list, and personal photos. There are some political e-mails in this account (or were until the account was deleted), which was definitely not a good idea for Gov. Palin. However, if her e-mail account was subject to the same privacy policies as these 4channers' accounts (apparently) are, then the situation would not have happened. Despite being a sitting Governor and a Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is entitled to her privacy just as much as some script-kiddie on a forum board that prides itself on hatred, racism, and immaturity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Feds!
Story here: http://gawker.com/5051193/sarah-palins-personal-email-account-hacked
I've been against these 4chan "scriptkids" for a long time. Their methods are questionable at best, and this board's forced anonymity is enabling criminal activity to be perpetrated in the virtual realm. If a non-anonymous person had hacked this account, there would be severe legal repercussions. But since this board irresponsibly allows such things to happen, and since 4chan does not cooperate with U.S. Federal authorities (as evidenced by their refusal to turn over records of "raids" on the Church of Scientology and on Hal Turner, a talk-show host. These raids were organized on the 4chan and 7chan boards).
I am disgusted by the amazing levels of irresponsibility and jackassery that are allowed to be perpetrated on the internet. That being said, I am not against anonymity on the internet, or against political statements (as long as they are within the confines of the law). Personally, I hope that our authorities can figure out who perpetrated this violation of Sarah Palin's privacy, and then send this anonymous loser to jail, where he belongs. Doubtless, upon being questioned, these "channers" would say that they are only "providing free information". They like to talk about providing information; but they dont' seem to have any qualms about breaking the law to do so. If the situation were reversed (with their "private" e-mail and data being splashed all over the web), no doubt these immature children would start screaming bloody murder about their "rights being violated", and would most likely try to fight back. I'm not advocating the removal of internet privacy, just pointing out the hypocritical policies of these ignorant "channers".
If the chan board admins have any respect at all for the applicable laws (in this country at least, the boards are hosted in another counry), they will turn over information on the anonymous hacker. I don't think they will, though; their track record seems to counter-indicate any shred of being responsible in any way. The website posted images of private e-mails, Sarah Palin's ENTIRE contact list, and personal photos. There are some political e-mails in this account (or were until the account was deleted), which was definitely not a good idea for Gov. Palin. However, if her e-mail account was subject to the same privacy policies as these 4channers' accounts (apparently) are, then the situation would not have happened. Despite being a sitting Governor and a Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is entitled to her privacy just as much as some script-kiddie on a forum board that prides itself on hatred, racism, and immaturity.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but: Go Feds!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
