Iran's True Desire

I am ecstatic about the last two weeks worth of protests in Iran. Here is why:

1) These protests, in the face of repeated threats and hostile acts by Iran's top leadership, show the Iranian people truly want the ability to choose their own leaders. They are also not happy with the environment the current political system has produced for them.

2) These protests give the Iraq war increased validation. I believe strongly that having a newly democratic neighbor (Iraq) has emboldened the Iranians and made them more willing to challenge their political system. Any idea that the Middle East is a region of the world not ready for an increase in democracy should now be rejected. Iraq is a country marked by a line of increasingly peaceful elections. Those critical of Bush's policies should keep that in mind.














Why should we push for democracy in this region of the world? Simply put, democracies are far less likely to go to war with one another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace#Explanations.

That is not to say we should try to oust every non-democratic regime. But we should definitely be paying attention when a situation like the one we are seeing in Iran arises. The Iranians are signaling they want something different. I think it is important we are as supportive as possible while not infringing on the sovereignty of Iran.

I think Obama has handled the Iranian situation very well up to this point. But if the situation becomes worse, a re-evaluation of our strategy will be necessary. Wide-spread violence caused by the government is the equivalent of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people, which in my opinion is a good reason for regime change.

One thing is for sure; if the Iranian people begin asking for our help and support, it is incredibly important we show we are there for them. It does not look like that situation has arisen yet, but only time will tell.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

The Free Market Economy Strikes Again!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31522318/ns/business-us_business/

In response to restrictions placed on employee compensation for companies accepting federal bailout money, Citigroup will pay employees normally compensated with bonuses a higher base salary.

Way to go Congress! As I predicted, the free market economy has discovered a way around your regulations. But should conservatives, or anyone for that matter, be happy about this?

I support the payment of retention bonuses to those on Wall Street. Retention bonuses are just as they sound; they are not paid in lieu of exceptional performance. Instead, they are granted to employees who do not leave their posts to see if the grass is greener on the other side. Financial companies want their employees to stay put in order to keep valuable information and intellectual property away from their competitors. These bonuses are effectively part of their employee's salary; they just do not collect the money until they serve their time.

Congress began regulating bonuses because the very nature of a bonus to employees at a failing organization outrages the majority of hard working, middle class Americans (let alone organizations receiving tax payer money to stay afloat). However, I think the average American's disgust at these bonuses is unfounded. These employees, for the most part, are not really getting bonuses. They are actually getting delayed salary payments. Americans need to understand these people were smart enough to go into a high paying industry, and skilled enough to land a high paying job in that industry. High payments, either in salary or bonus form, come with the territory.

Retention bonuses are fine in my book, even to companies receiving bailout money. Performance bonuses to companies accepting government bailout money, however, clearly can not be tolerated. There is a big difference between the two.

Until we meet again, goodbye!

Latest Installment

The advertising war between Microsoft and Apple continues!!! This time Microsoft is bringing attention to their second greatest asset (the first being their status as industry leader and worldwide popularity) - price.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIS6G-HvnkU

In case anyone missed previous blogs, I am a big fan of the "I'm a PC" campaign. Check out one of these commercials here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSiSIzXKMXw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj5UyZKo2iE&feature=related

OK, back to the US Open - Until we meet again, goodbye!

New Bumper Stickers

These bumper stickers were sent to me by David. Although I do not necessarily support the messages in each of these bumper stickers, it can be assumed I support them in general. Take this lefties!

Imminent Conflict

The U.N.'s latest round of sanctions against North Korea "authorize" searches of North Korean ships suspected of transporting ballistic missile or nuclear materials. North Korea's response was less than favorable, threatening to attack any country which stops its ships.

The situation with North Korea appears to be moving towards real, substantial conflict on a daily basis. It is obvious that North Korea would like to have nuclear capabilities to gain more power in the region. It is ridiculous for the United States to act against North Korea's right to not only defend itself, but gain strategic power in its region of the world. That is what the United States has done throughout its entire history. The only difference has been the politics of democracy vs. totalitarianism.

So why should we be working to stop this? The Christian Science Monitor reported last month that North Korea's focus may be on exporting their technology for desperately needed cash. Countries on the export list include Iran, Syria, and Yemen. In addition, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis think tank estimates North Korea makes over $1.5 billion a year in missile sales. This would not be a big deal, as the United States makes far more, but these are quite frightening clients.

While the United States may have developed nuclear technology, and probably shared that technology with its allies, it did not spread that technology to countries bent on destroying other countries and people or countries that refuse to join the international system in which we depend on economically.

For this reason, I think intervening in North Korea's nuclear ambitions is acceptable. Failure to do so will result in a situation in which the United States and its people are less secure.

Until we meet again, goodbye!