Much attention has been devoted in the press to the debate between Cheney and Obama over the best way to protect our national security. Cheney believes Bush administration policies of cracking down on terrorism should be upheld. These include allowed interrogation techniques and detainment of terror suspects. Obama believes in a mixture of policies; he wants to ban torture and other harsh interrogation techniques and close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center, while continuing the process of detaining terrorists indefinitely without trial.
On the issue of interrogation techniques, I think Cheney is in the right. The fact is we have not endured another attack on our mainland since September 11. Eliminating interrogation options could keep valuable information away from those who are charged with protecting us. I am not saying we should torture every suspect; just that we should be able to. I think some people are forgetting 9/11; I would rather torture a suspected terrorist than endure another terrorist attack.
I do not particularly care about Guantanamo Bay. If Obama wants to close it because of the negative symbol it creates, that is fine. Unlike both Obama and Cheney, I do not think we should detain terror suspects indefinitely. If we have a suspected terrorist, we should charge him, try him, and then imprison or release him. I do not see how it is beneficial to leave the suspect in limbo. Our government needs to finish this debate and iron out a process for handling these people.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Say it Ain't So Joe!
Joe Biden may have really done it to himself this time! According to Fox News, Biden actually gave away the location of the secret bunker used to house Dick Cheney in the aftermath of 9/11 (and probably the secret bunker that would have been used to protect himself if a similar incident were to occur again).
Check out the details here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Check out the details here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Friday, May 15, 2009
Watch for Crocadiles
Yeah, it has been a while since I posted. I have been busy going to New York City, Niagara Falls, golfing, and sitting out on my porch. I even went to the Lilac Festival for a night. It's good to dust myself off every once in a while...
Have you heard Tom Golisano is moving? To Europe? The Caribbean? Maybe some other glamorous location? Nope, just to Florida. To save money on taxes. By living in Florida for just over 180 days a year, Golisano can claim Florida residency, saving him $13,800 a day in taxes - which is over $5 million a year!
Golisano is doing what I wish I had the guts to do. Instead of complaining about being over taxed and having my state reduced to an economic dead zone, Golisano is up and moving to a place with a better tax climate. If more follow his steps, the results will be catastrophic for New York.
When one gas station charges $4.00 for gas, and the one across the street charges $3.00 for gas, we almost always choose the station that is charging $3.00. Yeah, the $4.00 station may have a smaller line, and maybe even a better location, but if no one is paying the quality will suffer or the prices will have to go up even further. That is basically what is happening in this state right now. I sure hope the state gets its act together before I have the option to move...
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Have you heard Tom Golisano is moving? To Europe? The Caribbean? Maybe some other glamorous location? Nope, just to Florida. To save money on taxes. By living in Florida for just over 180 days a year, Golisano can claim Florida residency, saving him $13,800 a day in taxes - which is over $5 million a year!
Golisano is doing what I wish I had the guts to do. Instead of complaining about being over taxed and having my state reduced to an economic dead zone, Golisano is up and moving to a place with a better tax climate. If more follow his steps, the results will be catastrophic for New York.
When one gas station charges $4.00 for gas, and the one across the street charges $3.00 for gas, we almost always choose the station that is charging $3.00. Yeah, the $4.00 station may have a smaller line, and maybe even a better location, but if no one is paying the quality will suffer or the prices will have to go up even further. That is basically what is happening in this state right now. I sure hope the state gets its act together before I have the option to move...
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Defense of the Conservative Mindset
"Beyond all the prattle about big and small government, this is the mega-irony of the Republican Party: that of all people conservatives ought to have been the first to grasp the dangers of unregulated markets. If big government is susceptible to the abuses of “sinful” human beings, how much more susceptible is a corporate system that is bigger than any government?"
---Garret Keizer, "Shine, perishing Republicans" - Harpers Magazine, April 2009
I have seen this argument used as evidence the conservative movement is hypocritical several times. If government should not be trusted, and we should work to reduce its size and power, why should we trust private business?
Simply put, government exists as a result of power and security it has created for itself. The government really can not go out of business. It can charge as much as it wants for its services. It creates the social system, and subsequent law enforcement structure, that we as a society must live under. The only chance for the government to go "out of business" is a loss in war or mass anarchy; both of which seem unlikely in the short term.
All this is correct except for one key fact; government functions and operates based on the private sector (obviously there are exceptions to this statement and the ones that follow). The government does not create its own wealth; it creates a system in which wealth can be created privately. This free-market style economy allows for a society to automatically adjust for its needs and wants, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. Whereas change in government is planned ahead of time and based on politics, change in business is more immediate, and based more on economics. This system produces competition and raises the standard for production by the members of the society; when you have to earn your own way, you produce better results collectively than when you wait for someone else to keep you alive (the case for less Capitalistic societies).
Government can not be trusted compared with private enterprise because it does not create its own wealth. It would take a lot more for government employees to feel like they are about to lose their economic livelihoods than those in private enterprise. Over 95% of government decisions are carried out by non-elected officials. A Pentagon employee's goal is likely to keep hiss boss happy. Besides a change in budget allocation or the departure of his immediate supervisor, he has nothing to worry about. Similarly, a private employee is generally safe except under the same two exceptions. However, it is far more likely a private employee will experience the first two conditions due to the free market economy private enterprise operates under. This ensures that private employees are more productive, and more competitive, raising the production level at their companies and contributing to the growth of this country.
Just my thoughts...This is obviously an extremely difficult topic to fully explain in a four paragraph blog. Please let me know which part of this I need to explain in more detail!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
---Garret Keizer, "Shine, perishing Republicans" - Harpers Magazine, April 2009
I have seen this argument used as evidence the conservative movement is hypocritical several times. If government should not be trusted, and we should work to reduce its size and power, why should we trust private business?
Simply put, government exists as a result of power and security it has created for itself. The government really can not go out of business. It can charge as much as it wants for its services. It creates the social system, and subsequent law enforcement structure, that we as a society must live under. The only chance for the government to go "out of business" is a loss in war or mass anarchy; both of which seem unlikely in the short term.
All this is correct except for one key fact; government functions and operates based on the private sector (obviously there are exceptions to this statement and the ones that follow). The government does not create its own wealth; it creates a system in which wealth can be created privately. This free-market style economy allows for a society to automatically adjust for its needs and wants, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. Whereas change in government is planned ahead of time and based on politics, change in business is more immediate, and based more on economics. This system produces competition and raises the standard for production by the members of the society; when you have to earn your own way, you produce better results collectively than when you wait for someone else to keep you alive (the case for less Capitalistic societies).
Government can not be trusted compared with private enterprise because it does not create its own wealth. It would take a lot more for government employees to feel like they are about to lose their economic livelihoods than those in private enterprise. Over 95% of government decisions are carried out by non-elected officials. A Pentagon employee's goal is likely to keep hiss boss happy. Besides a change in budget allocation or the departure of his immediate supervisor, he has nothing to worry about. Similarly, a private employee is generally safe except under the same two exceptions. However, it is far more likely a private employee will experience the first two conditions due to the free market economy private enterprise operates under. This ensures that private employees are more productive, and more competitive, raising the production level at their companies and contributing to the growth of this country.
Just my thoughts...This is obviously an extremely difficult topic to fully explain in a four paragraph blog. Please let me know which part of this I need to explain in more detail!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
More Sanctions?
It looks like the world community will go the route of sanctions in response to North Korea's missile launch today. It seems this is the best option; however, I am not really sure what else we can do to this country in terms of sanctions.
Although President Bush, in response to positive steps in nuclear disarmament talks, terminated the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to North Korea in June 2008, there are still extensive sanctions against North Korea held by the United States (let alone the rest of the world). The most notable of these sanctions prevents the import of North Korean goods into the United States, either directly or indirectly.
I think the most logical sanction would be to prevent the export of American goods into North Korea. I am not quite sure what they would buy from us, but I do know the enactment of this measure by other countries (especially China) would certainly have negative consequences for their already dire economy.
An even smarter idea would be for every country to prohibit the travel of North Korean government personnel over their airspace. Doing so would prevent North Korean scientists and engineers from visiting their friends in Iran for nuclear technology pointers. Of course, for this to be effective we should also look into doing the same for Iran. I am sure North Korea could get around this policy through telephone or Internet, (and it would probably not be wise to cut off those resources) but it would at least make things more difficult for them.
The only items we should provide for this country should be humanitarian in nature, and even then there needs to be regulation of their distribution.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Although President Bush, in response to positive steps in nuclear disarmament talks, terminated the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to North Korea in June 2008, there are still extensive sanctions against North Korea held by the United States (let alone the rest of the world). The most notable of these sanctions prevents the import of North Korean goods into the United States, either directly or indirectly.
I think the most logical sanction would be to prevent the export of American goods into North Korea. I am not quite sure what they would buy from us, but I do know the enactment of this measure by other countries (especially China) would certainly have negative consequences for their already dire economy.
An even smarter idea would be for every country to prohibit the travel of North Korean government personnel over their airspace. Doing so would prevent North Korean scientists and engineers from visiting their friends in Iran for nuclear technology pointers. Of course, for this to be effective we should also look into doing the same for Iran. I am sure North Korea could get around this policy through telephone or Internet, (and it would probably not be wise to cut off those resources) but it would at least make things more difficult for them.
The only items we should provide for this country should be humanitarian in nature, and even then there needs to be regulation of their distribution.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)