The following YouTube video got me thinking about a lot of things. At the very least it should raise a question regarding the need things like income tax and the CIA. What is more impressive is that this is just one example of where politicians have gone wrong these days. Check it out.
Add to:
Some time ago, I authored a post discussing the nature of the economic dangers presented by the current operation of the American economy. That post detailed the dangers of inflation caused by the ever-increasing national debt. Interestingly, it appears our credit has finally run out.
Anyone who watched Chairman Bernanke's address to Congress last week knows that the economy is in a dangerous place. Without an explicit statement, the Chairman suggested that Congress pass an economic stimulus bill that does not increase the national deficit. This demonstrates the danger inflation currently presents to the economy. Add to that almost 30 years of wasteful government spending without seeming end, and the United States could easily end up bankrupt (no guarantee on how long this link will last).
This paper, published by the Federal Reserve in St. Louis, shows that our current economy will collapse absent a radical change towards a stronger dollar and stable economy. Current swings in the market clearly demonstrate the presence of these dangers driven largely by the fall out from the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
The sub-prime situation should be a sound lesson for legislators and investors alike. This situation has presented an example of what happens when debt comes due quickly and the debtor can't pay. Recent economic data from China suggests that a down-turn in their markets will likely advance the debt owed by the United States. If this occurs, the United States will end up in the hot-seat, destroying the value of the dollar and resulting in hyperinflation. This would be the end of the American economy as we know it. At this point, the United States really does look bankrupt. Maybe it is time for our governmental leaders to realize that the best economic shot in the arm starts with fiscal responsibility at home.
Add to:
I have been struggling with these thoughts since the beginning of the Presidential election season. There will likely be a very different perspective on this very same issue at my other blog, Rants of a Confused Christian, explaining the dangers to faith when religion plays a central role in politics. This post is not directed at religion in a derogatory way; rather, it aims to consider the pragmatic aspects of having a political leaders who focus on their religious beliefs instead of the needs of the people they are elected to serve. This should be considered as an examination of the detrimental effects caused by religion playing a central role in politics.
A fundamental principle undergirding the structure of American democracy is the concept of personal autonomy. Given the history of this nation, it is no surprise that part of this concept of liberty is the right and ability for any citizen to follow the religion of their choice. After all, this country was founded by people persecuted for their beliefs. The structure of our government aims very specifically at escaping the trappings of restrictions on religious beliefs.
While religion is very important on a personal level, it should not carry a strong focus in American politics. The law of the land declares this country a secular nation, lead by reason, and aimed at protecting the personal interests of the individual. Religion should be personal and remain that way for several reasons.
First, the duties of a President are to consider the interests of the individuals making up our melting-pot society. To have a President who is driven solely by religious fervor is to disregard the interests of every other individual who does not share the President's religious ideology. Current Executive policy is rife with examples. Abstinence education is an apt instance. Take the position of one think tank. Ideally, abstinence education would solve social problems created by teen sex. However, the numbers suggest such a policy fails. Abstinence only education originates from a strong Judea-Christian moral structure that advocates purity of the body before marriage. I agree with the concept, but the reality of the situation is more concerned with what non-Christians do in the face of Christian-influenced policy. The fact of the matter is this so-called "religious" policy fails because it doesn't concern itself with what non-Christians will do. Considering more ubiquitous policies that approach a problem in a contextual manner is clearly the only adequate method. This means religious ideology cannot be the driving factor behind public policy.
Second, broad executive decision making should focus on determining the consequences of policy and the effect of such policies on American citizens. All too often it seems that religion creates a singular vision in the eyes of a political leader. They may be serving God's purpose, but does that purpose live up to God's mandate? The best example of this situation is the President's "war on terror." Policy decisions made in the face of this singular agenda ascribe to a focused ideology also common in many major religious organizations. The leader loses sight of the tress, so to speak, for the forest. The only thing that matters is the major goal. Beyond this point, the minutiae makes little difference. However, in present historical examples like the "war on terror" or the Iraq War, it is all to clear that the costs to the country were not adequately considered because too much weight was/is placed on the ultimate goal. The current net result is large American casualties, a reduction in protections for civil liberties, and the creation of new enemies intent on using "terrorist tactics" against American citizens. Clearly, this kind of mono-focused policy track fails to adequately preserve the needs of the people. Limiting the role of religion in pursuing foreign policy may provide a desirous result.
These are two of the most prevalent examples of how having a political leader driven by religion in making policy can, and do, detrimentally affect the greater secular whole. The result is not a better America, but one that fails to pragmatically approach social issues confronted by the average American. The executive loses sight of the important interests of the people (the trees) for the goal of their grand policy (the forest). This single minded approach to governance fails to benefit those whom the establishment was created to foster and protect. As a result, we should aim to elect leaders who put the people before the plan, who consider the practical effect of those plans, and adjust the goal according to the best interests of the public.
Add to:
This really is blasphemy. Senator Sessions, of Alabama, made some interesting comments during the Senate debates regarding changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
For the record, defending our Constitution and civil liberties will protect Americans. Oddly, it appears that such a defense protects Americans from its over zealous and tyrannical government.
Yes Senator Sessions, I want protection as an American from elected officials like YOU! That is why I defend the Constitution and rebuke any politician elected under its bylaws who questions its authority or denigrates its purpose.
Shame on you and those you share your ideology for destroying what makes this Country great!
Add to:
That is what the government wants to investigate. The following is a cross post from MondoGlobo about the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, which seems to propose just that.
I recently stumbled across information regarding the Violent Radicalization and Home-Grown Terrorism Prevention Act. If the name wasn't enough to scare small children in the night, the text of the act is enough to make civil libertarians shiver in their boots.
Essentially, Senate Bill 1959 establishes a commission that investigates the causes of violent, radical, home-grown terrorism. This commission consists of individuals appointed by a variety of political leaders, from the President to the House Minority leader. The benefit to this particular structure is that you are reasonably assured a bi-partisan group. However, the panel's make up is what is not really to be reviewed with scrutiny.
At its core, this bill operates to create an administrative agency charged with investigating what forms of communication are used to disseminate terrorist propaganda, and issue findings on prophylactic measures to stem home-grown terrorism. While the findings of the bill do suggest that any measure must preserve the civil liberties of American Citizens, this appears to be the only reference to the Constitution in the entire bill.
Those who have raised the issue and various news reports on the issue express similar concerns about civil liberty interests. At least one member of the House shares the opinion of reasonable Americans. Representative Kucinich was one of the very few who voted against this bill because of what he considered unconstitutional aims. This is a valid concern given the operation of these kinds of commissions. Congress usually employs a panel of individuals to investigate and hold hearings regarding some issue of legislative significance. These findings ultimately make it into a law of some kind.
To be clear, this bill doesn't criminalize the kind of anti-American thought Representative Kucinich references, but it does provide the Congress with a way to investigate and establish a basis for such a law. What worries me more is the amorphous language used in describing things like home-grown terrorism or violent radicalization. For instance, the bill defines the term "homegrown terrorism" as "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The definitions only get better: the term "violent radicalization" is defined as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change," and the term "ideologically based violence" is defined as "the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs."
Each of these definitions fails to mention who or what may constitute a homegrown terrorist or violent radicalization. The terms are ubiquitously applicable to your corner protester with a sandwich board or the users of this forum. The broad terms of this bill would permit the commission to look into internet forums like this, upstart political parties like the Open Source Political party, or the Question Authority Initiative because they spread anti-American sentiment with the propensity to spark ideologically based violence.
I am in full support of adequate police prevention of societal violence, especially when the aim of such violence concerns terrorism. However, we need not investigate how Americans communicate their political ideas and consider those ideas, on their own, a threat to national security. It is very possible that these thoughts pose dangers to the ability of people in Government to retain their positions. We should be far more concerned with this bill if it is also concerned with preventing the former to protect the latter.
Add to:
I have missed a lot of blogging lately due in large part to the starting of my business. This is an attempt to catch up with a list of the veritable absurdities making headlines lately.
The President wants to be dictator, and this is the law that would make it happen. Well, the executive order at least. This is how Hitler came to power. Thankfully, Bush is no Hitler. Cheney, though, is one to worry about. It is unfortunate that tactics haven't changed. We have notable reasons to fear our government, especially since this is what it would take to activate NSPD 51. Here is the guide on how something like that might go down.
Oh, by the way, they are already watching. You know, just to keep you safe. See more on a similar issue in a forthcoming post.
For a list of how the President has really run afoul of the Constitution, check out this post over at MondoGlobo.
By the way, state secrets are BS. They are only being used to prevent the public from knowing how much our leaders detest our country, our rights, and us as citizens by keeping us in the dark. It is especially heinous that everyone in Washington is seemingly helping. An eyebrow should be raised when such an excuse used to protect a crony. While questions are at least being asked, it may be too late.
Your freedom, including access to information, means little in the face of our Government's interests (see also). Don't worry, its likely that other people will try to steal what you create anyway.
Fear your police officers, their sense of entitlement means they will violate your rights, and ask questions later. The disturbing part about this one is the support that comes from other officers of the law. Maybe as an officer of the court I see things differently, but there is no excuse for this kind of abuse of power. It needs to end, even if that means a nasty lawsuit.
Some people are habitual liars, and Karl Rove must be one of them. This is proof positive that history is entirely subjective. Thankfully, someone is asking questions.
For those who didn't know, the Iraq war really is all about the oil. I guess we aren't advancing with this eco-friendly trend like all us hippies hoped.
Adding another line item to why we should prevent corporations from having a meaningful role in the development of public policy that implicates the health and well being of Americans, you can't have your cancer drug because someone else needs to make the money first. Thanks for that great protection FDA.
They shouldn't call them debates. This is especially true when the front runners can't own up to what the rest of the civilized world (including many of their constituents) already know.
Um, NO, that's called rendition, possibly even extraordinary.
Thanks to those fighting the good fight, we may be getting somewhere.
I think that basically catches me up, except for the big one, but that is next.
Add to:
Just for the record, we were close to Osama bin Laden before September 11, 2001.
Add to:
Some time ago, I forewent several posts on Comcast Corp's decision to limit bandwidth, and basically censor the internet. I can't help sharing this gem of a Comcast experience.
I have been having some difficulties with my cable service recently. I have been on the telephone several times, technicians come out to review the infrastructure, we change connections, and nothing seems to solve the problem. One time, while on the phone with a service associate, I made reference to how the cable company wasn't upholding its end of our contract for services. The associates response, which left me dumbfounded, stated very specifically that no contract existed. This was confirmed by her supervisor, who told me he wouldn't get into a semantical argument with me about whether a contract exists. I was, and continue to be, amused by the situation. I think their legal department needs to be reeducated on some basic legal principles.
Just for the purpose of clarity, a common law contract has several basic elements. There must be an agreement between the parties (basically an offer and acceptance of that offer), the parties must have an understanding about the agreement (basically a meeting of the minds, aka mutual assent), and the parties need to exchange this thing lawyers like to call consideration (basically money or goods). With this situation, Comcast provides a service which they offer for a certain price. I agree to pay that price, and do so regularly. As a result, Comcast is obligated to provide this service for as long as I hold up my end of the bargain and continue to pay. What's even more interesting is they regularly issue paperwork that contains the "terms" of use, which explain in poorly drafted language what a user may or not do with the service.
To be clear, saying that no contract exists is idiotic. Clearly, an agreement for services exists. Unless Comcast bought a congressional representative to push a statute voiding the existence of these contracts, the law will likely support the existence of service contract on behalf of Comcast and their subscriber. The situation was too funny for words.
Add to:
Apparently, in France, if you get caught using a P2P network, you lose your internet access. Lets hope our dictators, or the RIAA/MPAA don't catch on. I wonder if they have any kind of redress against their service providers.
Add to:
Apparently so. The following video "proves" it. I find some of what this guy has to say very ironic given the "news" network broadcasting his words. I wonder if there were some producers having a conniption when he started railing on about the mindless sheep that Fox News so proficiently panders to on a regular basis. Someone needs to mark this date in history as the one time Fox got it right. Call Guinness.
Add to:
