Our system of government is broken. Where else can you work for someone where you get better benefits, wages, pensions and perks than the owners? Where else can you work from 2-4 years, get fired and receive pension and perks till the day you die? Where else would you get better health benefits then the bosses? I'm not talking about the people who fix the buildings, sweep the floors, or work in offices doing the many things that are needed to keep our government going. I'm also not talking about the policemen, firefighters, or the people who keep our infrastructures going. I'm talking about the politicians, the people responsible for representing us.
How can our politicians be representing us when they continually vote along party lines? Are they really representing their constituents or pushing party agendas? The way things are set up now, they hold all the cards, they vote on their own pay raises, benefits packages, pensions, they have healthcare and the whole nine yards. There are only two major parties, between the two, their contacts, their clout, they make enough money from campaigning that they can effectively shut down any outsiders. Anyone with ideas that go against the party, or ideas that are too dangerous to keeping the status quo are shunned by their party and cut from the benefit of party raised money for campaigning.
The whole idea of needing so much money to campaign is part of what corrupts our system. Most politicians spend a lot of time when they should be working for us raising money for the next election cycle. Needing such vast amounts of money gives corporations and wealthy individuals the upper hand, because even if something is right and a good cause, a politician would be committing political suicide to support it if that cause wasn't in the best interests of the people footing much of their election campaign. It is the person who has the most money to buy the most airtime, that can slander the other person the most, who has the upper hand in our elections. Politicians like that are puppets of their highest donors and will not go against their biggest donors best interests. They will not be concerned with their constituents wishes, they are a broken cog in democracy.
It is time we the people take back our government from the rich elite that runs it now. Our whole election process is a joke. There is no accountability, no consequences for cheating or not telling the truth. These people are all applying for the job of our Representatives, but they do it all on their terms, not ours. We have to step back and say whoa on a second. Do all these commercials put together to mislead, about the flaws of the other opponent or brag up the triumphs of one's self really any good to the selection of our leaders? Is it any good to have two parties that basically have a monopoly on candidates and individuals having to tow the party line? What do we do to fix this? Can this be fixed? Next time I will give my thoughts.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Agencies: Crime and the Damage: Healing
I have heard good and bad news coming out of Washington the last few days.
Some of the good news is I have heard that Obama was going to go through all the different agencies of our government, and restore them to what they should be in contrast to the way they were left from the Bush Administration. Many agencies, especially anything having to do with oversight, were completely gutted and broken. One of Bush's ways of making oversight agencies useless was to peel back funding over the years so that their staff was reduced to the point that they could not carry out their tasks required of them to do their intended jobs. Another thing the Bush Administration was good at was to put political appointees in oversight of the agencies, even though they had no scientific background, they would control the public release of reports by picking and choosing what information makes it out of them agencies to the public, this way any information that did not support the administration's agendas or ideologies would not be officially supported by agency reports.
It has been in the news more and more that Bush will possibly/probably pardon himself and most the people in his administration before leaving office in January. This would be totally outrageous. There is also talk from the other side of the isle, the Democrats, that they don't want to dwell in the past, but look to the future. So Democrats aren't concerned with bringing up charges or impeaching the Bush Administration. They talk like if Bush does pardon himself and others in his administration it will be an act of healing for our government. This is all horse pucky. The things the Bush Administration is has done should no way be pardoned with the approval of Congress or Democrats as "healing". Bush and members of his administration all took their positions by swearing an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, they did not do this. There were numerous issues of broken laws, spying on Americans illegally with the help of telecommunication companies, torture of detainees, giving out the name of a CIA operative, destroying evidence, refusals to comply with subpoenas, capturing people off the streets of other countries without their government's permission, holding people indefinitely without charging them, lieing to gain support for the Iraq war that had nothing to do with 9/11, and the list goes on and on... If Congress allows Bush to pardon any of this, it doesn't make them healers, it makes them accessories. Two years ago when many Democrats were voted into office it was because they promised to reign in the lawlessness of the Bush Administration and bring the war in Iraq to an end, we have been lied to. Now they don't want to do their duties to impeach Bush and Cheney for their illegal actions while in office, this is why they have one of the lowest ratings for congress. Again I say they are not healers, they are accessories to the crimes. If the House members do not act to impeach Bush and Cheney they should all be prosecuted as accessories to the crimes of the Bush Administration. And, believe it or not I tend to classify myself as more of a Democrat than a Republican.
Some of the good news is I have heard that Obama was going to go through all the different agencies of our government, and restore them to what they should be in contrast to the way they were left from the Bush Administration. Many agencies, especially anything having to do with oversight, were completely gutted and broken. One of Bush's ways of making oversight agencies useless was to peel back funding over the years so that their staff was reduced to the point that they could not carry out their tasks required of them to do their intended jobs. Another thing the Bush Administration was good at was to put political appointees in oversight of the agencies, even though they had no scientific background, they would control the public release of reports by picking and choosing what information makes it out of them agencies to the public, this way any information that did not support the administration's agendas or ideologies would not be officially supported by agency reports.
It has been in the news more and more that Bush will possibly/probably pardon himself and most the people in his administration before leaving office in January. This would be totally outrageous. There is also talk from the other side of the isle, the Democrats, that they don't want to dwell in the past, but look to the future. So Democrats aren't concerned with bringing up charges or impeaching the Bush Administration. They talk like if Bush does pardon himself and others in his administration it will be an act of healing for our government. This is all horse pucky. The things the Bush Administration is has done should no way be pardoned with the approval of Congress or Democrats as "healing". Bush and members of his administration all took their positions by swearing an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, they did not do this. There were numerous issues of broken laws, spying on Americans illegally with the help of telecommunication companies, torture of detainees, giving out the name of a CIA operative, destroying evidence, refusals to comply with subpoenas, capturing people off the streets of other countries without their government's permission, holding people indefinitely without charging them, lieing to gain support for the Iraq war that had nothing to do with 9/11, and the list goes on and on... If Congress allows Bush to pardon any of this, it doesn't make them healers, it makes them accessories. Two years ago when many Democrats were voted into office it was because they promised to reign in the lawlessness of the Bush Administration and bring the war in Iraq to an end, we have been lied to. Now they don't want to do their duties to impeach Bush and Cheney for their illegal actions while in office, this is why they have one of the lowest ratings for congress. Again I say they are not healers, they are accessories to the crimes. If the House members do not act to impeach Bush and Cheney they should all be prosecuted as accessories to the crimes of the Bush Administration. And, believe it or not I tend to classify myself as more of a Democrat than a Republican.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Bailing Out Automobile Manufacturers
Well we have been helping all other big businesses and industries, so now the automobile manufacturers want to get in the act too. I mean after all we have been giving the oil industry tax breaks and making it possible for them to record record profits for two quarters in a row even though the rest the country is in financial chaos. We are rewarding the banking and financial industry hundreds of billions for their ungodly salaries, greed and waste. It's only fair for the government (the American tax payers) to turn around and bail out the automobile manufacturers. These are companies who have resisted all the mpg mandates that the government tried to impose on them to make their cars better for the environment and more completable with foreign imports. They have been pushing bigger and bigger SUVs and even most their other car models are getting on average less mpg than they did 10 years ago. The people in the rest of the world have been shaking their heads at us Americans in disgust as we zip around in our gas guzzling SUVs Why has the auto industry push these dinosaurs of responsible automotive design? They make the highest profit margin on the SUVs and they can get around some of the environmental and safety requirements, so in other words greed. So now because the auto industry also hire a large number of people that are making ungodly amounts of money, we are supposed to bail them out for their refusal to make autos that can compete with cars designed overseas.
There are reasons that bailing out the auto industry is as stupid as the breaks we have been giving the oil and banking industries. As mentioned above, The government has been trying to push regulations for higher mpg, which would have made the American companies more competitive against foreign companies and would have forced companies to make more smaller and mid sized autos instead of huge SUVs that according to advertisements they push as something people just got to have. Many of the American automotive companies are tied in with foreign companies to make cars in Europe that would fit the bill for suddenly economy minded American consumers, Some of the foreign manufacturers make cars in the U.S. to sell in the U.S. aren't these basically cars made in America? The automotive manufacturer's will have no better use of the money than the banking industry. The president was just on the TV pleading with the banking industry to not sit on, or invest in acquiring other defunct banks with the money that was given them from the government to free up money for lending, the auto industry will probably not put that money into retooling like it would be meant to used, instead they will probably use it to pump up their worth and pay their shareholders and executives as they wait out the crunch while waiting for a better time to again push SUVs back at the American public.
The biggest fear by oil companies both abroad and at home is that the American public start conserving oil enough it will drive the prices way down. We have already made Saudi government nervous because we have been conservative and it has drove down prices. One of the best things we could do for our country is wean ourselves from foreign oil. If American car manufacturers made smaller cars with better mpg it would tend to drive the cost of oil down even more reducing our dependence on oil from parts of the countries that aren't necessarily friends of ours. In a way if we bail out the auto manufacturers, we are enabling them to make bigger cars that drive more of our energy dollars overseas.
Most of all if we are to have unregulated capitalism we have to allow the market fall on big industries and institutions that continue to do stupid things for greed, if the banking institutions weren't thinking the government would bail them out they would have never took such chances or paid their administration people so well. It's the same way with the auto industry, if they wouldn't have got lost in their greed of high markup SUVs they would have been concentrating on building competitive energy efficient vehicles. They would still be hit by the economic situation that our country is in, but they wouldn't have set themselves up for the loss of business to car manufacturers who have already retooled to make energy efficient vehicles long ago.
There are reasons that bailing out the auto industry is as stupid as the breaks we have been giving the oil and banking industries. As mentioned above, The government has been trying to push regulations for higher mpg, which would have made the American companies more competitive against foreign companies and would have forced companies to make more smaller and mid sized autos instead of huge SUVs that according to advertisements they push as something people just got to have. Many of the American automotive companies are tied in with foreign companies to make cars in Europe that would fit the bill for suddenly economy minded American consumers, Some of the foreign manufacturers make cars in the U.S. to sell in the U.S. aren't these basically cars made in America? The automotive manufacturer's will have no better use of the money than the banking industry. The president was just on the TV pleading with the banking industry to not sit on, or invest in acquiring other defunct banks with the money that was given them from the government to free up money for lending, the auto industry will probably not put that money into retooling like it would be meant to used, instead they will probably use it to pump up their worth and pay their shareholders and executives as they wait out the crunch while waiting for a better time to again push SUVs back at the American public.
The biggest fear by oil companies both abroad and at home is that the American public start conserving oil enough it will drive the prices way down. We have already made Saudi government nervous because we have been conservative and it has drove down prices. One of the best things we could do for our country is wean ourselves from foreign oil. If American car manufacturers made smaller cars with better mpg it would tend to drive the cost of oil down even more reducing our dependence on oil from parts of the countries that aren't necessarily friends of ours. In a way if we bail out the auto manufacturers, we are enabling them to make bigger cars that drive more of our energy dollars overseas.
Most of all if we are to have unregulated capitalism we have to allow the market fall on big industries and institutions that continue to do stupid things for greed, if the banking institutions weren't thinking the government would bail them out they would have never took such chances or paid their administration people so well. It's the same way with the auto industry, if they wouldn't have got lost in their greed of high markup SUVs they would have been concentrating on building competitive energy efficient vehicles. They would still be hit by the economic situation that our country is in, but they wouldn't have set themselves up for the loss of business to car manufacturers who have already retooled to make energy efficient vehicles long ago.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A New Process for Selecting Our Representatives
What America needs is a new process for picking it's representatives. The way we chose our leaders has basically grown more and more flawed as the years gone by, morphing elections and thus changing politics into something totally different than our founders had ever in visioned. When this country was founded, there were only 13 colonies. It was a pretty easy task for everyone to know if one person held better leadership qualities than another person by their past actions. How we chose our leaders was much different than it is today. Through time, as our population spread out across the North American Continent, it became necessary for politicians to boast more and advertise their accomplishments to win over votes from people that they have never met or who have never heard of them before. Through the years the process of selecting our leaders has become broken. I'm not saying I have a completely worked out grand new plan to fix all our problems, but today I'm going to write about some of the reasons why I think our elections fail to bring before us good candidates for presidential selection who care as much for the interests of the common person on the street as they do for the interests of big business.
I've always heard that we are never going to get a person in office that is any more ethical or morally responsible then the people that put them in office. I somewhat agree with that statement. If the voters are not very ethical or moral, they won't hold the politicians they have elected accountable to being ethical or moral either. I do think that the way we select our politicians makes a big difference in the kind of leaders we have though.
One of the biggest failings in our process of selecting a government representative is the amount of money needed for anyone to run for office. This fails our government from the start in so many ways. One of the biggest ways this has a negative effect on our politicians is that they need to spend a pretty good share of time raising money for their re-elections, because they need lots of money to get re-elected. Usually, without some extenuating circumstances, or other form of fame and publicity, the person that spends the most money wins the election. It takes large amounts of money to travel around the district, state, or our country promoting one's self putting out television, internet, and radio ads. Ads must introduce the candidate, list where they stand on issues, tell of unscrupulous acts by the opposition, and defend one's self from smears made by the opposition. As our population grew and spread across the continent the cost of campaigning has grew.
Politicians are only human and it is human nature to do nice things for people who do nice things for us. Lets face it, people give large amounts of money or favors to candidates for basically one reason, and that is with the hope that their donations will help elect the candidate of their choice, and once in office that candidate will remember the donor's issues that they wanted help with. Other than that, whether it's a large amount of money from a large corporations or small amounts of money from individual donors, there is no other reason for anyone to give money to a candidate. It's a validation for the candidate. It's a way of saying you think like I do on the issues that matter to me, so here's some money to help you get elected so you can support those issues. Politicians are not supposed to think of who gave them how much money or let it influence their decisions when they vote on issues that may affect the donor, there are laws against it. But when money is so important to getting re-elected, who in their right mind would vote for something that would adversely affect someone who gives big money towards getting them elected?
Somehow we have to take the costs of campaigning out of the equation, that is about the only way to take the advantage away from big business and special interest groups. The government actually owns control of TV and Radio frequencies, there should be a certain amount of airtime given to the process of electing our representatives that they don't have to pay for. Candidates should have to present themselves within a structured format so that people can see where each candidate stands compared to their rivals. There should be no public advertisements by special interests groups smearing rival candidates. In fact anything that is said by a candidate or endorsed by a candidate should be factual. If it is found that any candidate lied about past voting records, past positions on issues, smears against rival candidates, they should be prosecuted for lieing or slander. It should not be up to the voting public to have to check up on every statement made by politicians and try to figure out whether it is a lie or not. We should demand that when politicians speak to us that they are telling the truth, they work for us after all.
I've always heard that we are never going to get a person in office that is any more ethical or morally responsible then the people that put them in office. I somewhat agree with that statement. If the voters are not very ethical or moral, they won't hold the politicians they have elected accountable to being ethical or moral either. I do think that the way we select our politicians makes a big difference in the kind of leaders we have though.
One of the biggest failings in our process of selecting a government representative is the amount of money needed for anyone to run for office. This fails our government from the start in so many ways. One of the biggest ways this has a negative effect on our politicians is that they need to spend a pretty good share of time raising money for their re-elections, because they need lots of money to get re-elected. Usually, without some extenuating circumstances, or other form of fame and publicity, the person that spends the most money wins the election. It takes large amounts of money to travel around the district, state, or our country promoting one's self putting out television, internet, and radio ads. Ads must introduce the candidate, list where they stand on issues, tell of unscrupulous acts by the opposition, and defend one's self from smears made by the opposition. As our population grew and spread across the continent the cost of campaigning has grew.
Politicians are only human and it is human nature to do nice things for people who do nice things for us. Lets face it, people give large amounts of money or favors to candidates for basically one reason, and that is with the hope that their donations will help elect the candidate of their choice, and once in office that candidate will remember the donor's issues that they wanted help with. Other than that, whether it's a large amount of money from a large corporations or small amounts of money from individual donors, there is no other reason for anyone to give money to a candidate. It's a validation for the candidate. It's a way of saying you think like I do on the issues that matter to me, so here's some money to help you get elected so you can support those issues. Politicians are not supposed to think of who gave them how much money or let it influence their decisions when they vote on issues that may affect the donor, there are laws against it. But when money is so important to getting re-elected, who in their right mind would vote for something that would adversely affect someone who gives big money towards getting them elected?
Somehow we have to take the costs of campaigning out of the equation, that is about the only way to take the advantage away from big business and special interest groups. The government actually owns control of TV and Radio frequencies, there should be a certain amount of airtime given to the process of electing our representatives that they don't have to pay for. Candidates should have to present themselves within a structured format so that people can see where each candidate stands compared to their rivals. There should be no public advertisements by special interests groups smearing rival candidates. In fact anything that is said by a candidate or endorsed by a candidate should be factual. If it is found that any candidate lied about past voting records, past positions on issues, smears against rival candidates, they should be prosecuted for lieing or slander. It should not be up to the voting public to have to check up on every statement made by politicians and try to figure out whether it is a lie or not. We should demand that when politicians speak to us that they are telling the truth, they work for us after all.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Presidential Candidates
While I have not been affiliated with any particular political party, the last few years I have come to realize that I tend to agree with the values of the Democratic party more than the Republican party. There are things I don't like about the Democrats like most of their views on gun control, but it seems, especially the last eight years, that the Republicans are fat cats for fat cats at the expense of people who aren't so fortunate. Republicans don't seem very compassionate of the needs or desires of the common people, they are more pro big business insisting on passing laws that benefit big businesses with the insinuation that the wealth will trickle down to the masses, even though they pretty much know it doesn't. I think that it has been shown again and again that this line of thinking is flawed. Those benefits given big businesses don't give any relief to the masses and just serve to fatten the profit margins of those companies as they lay off more and more people and pay the ones they keep less and even to the point of moving their operations outside the US to take advantage of low wages, poor working conditions and lower environmental regulations. I have been totally put off by the secrecy and illegal activities of our government during the coarse of the Bush Administration that has put America in such a bad light to the rest of the world. With that said, here are my thoughts on the major three presidential candidates as I see them.
John McCain
In his words and actions seems to be pretty much hell bent on continuing the Bush legacy. Wanting to stay in Iraq for the long run no matter what the cost. Loyal to the Republican party's agendas, in other words, except for some minor differences, pretty much more of the same failed policies as we had the last eight years. If Bush is your hero, John is your man. This is a very sober statement given by McCain, "Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be." This mirrors Dick Cheney's statements on why we need to stay in Iraq even though the vast majority of the people would like us out of there. Another comment that he made in regards to the idea of a "League of Democracies", a plan of his to create an organization like the United Nations except for no communists or dictators to have to contend with, McCain says, "It could act where the UN fails to act." Bush never had much regard for the UN either. Age has to be a factor, look at Bush or any other president that has lasted through a couple of terms of president, now imagine starting off with someone that is that old to start with. Just what America needs after eight years of a president that was in denial, a president that is facing senility.
Hillery Clinton
First woman to run for President a historical event. When it comes right down to it, would you want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House as the nation's First Gentleman? Cigars anyone? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." With this in mind how strong do you think this candidate would be in the fall elections against McCain? Hillery can't resolve issues with her marriage seemingly content to put up with her husband running around as he probably is still beneficial to her goals or aspirations. Hillery has strong support of women, but a couple things has come out again and again. Hillery seems willing to say just about anything to get the nomination, from dodging sniper bullets to claiming that she can win just by sticking around...remember Kennedy's assassination? Finally the last gripes I have about Hillery are I think her campaign has been a lot more negative compared to Obama's, I think her comment about obliterating Iran was pretty scary, I'm really getting tired of hearing her say that she has the popular vote when the only way that is possible is if you count Michigan's results, a ballot that Obama's name wasn't even on the ticket. Now that I have brought up the matter of Michigan, that is another thing that really disturbs me about Hillery. Everyone involved agreed with the decision of not counting Florida and Michigan because they broke the parties rules, but now as that is the only way Hillery has a chance at the nomination, she counts them as she tells everyone she has the populist vote and she is fighting against the party now in demanding that the rules be changed, this kind of reminds me of the kind of thing Bush does and shows me that a vote for Hillery would be a vote for government as usual without regard for the rules.
Barack Obama
Another historic first, first black man to run for government. What an election, first woman and first black man running for president. This election has set the theme for issues about race and gender, something never really having been an issue in this way in the past. Truthfully I haven't looked back on voting records of either of the three candidates, so except for what I have heard in the news, I am pretty much taking the candidates at their word for what they stand for. Listening to the candidates though I like Obama's style. I believe he is fighting a lot less negative campaign and even defending some of what Hillery has said and done for the good of the party. He has had some troubles with things his paster has said, but I don't ever remember Obama appointing the paster his spokes person. The point is I think Obama has been the most refreshing of the candidates, he is believable it doesn't seem like he is hiding things as in that he spoke of his experiments with drugs in his past, he talks of diplomacy and actually talking to opposition leaders in the world that don't agree with our ideals to try to improve conditions and relations instead of rushing in with an army and the threat of force, I think this is why he has even received good comments from leaders in Cuba and Iran. I believe he will restore America's reputation among other countries in the world that we as a nation really need to do, it's a small world and it gets smaller all the time with new technologies. Obama when he responds to accusations he is thoughtful and reacts in a way that seems to show he does not get carried away with emotions in his comments.
So I guess by now you can probably tell who I'm rooting for, but what's your take?
John McCain
In his words and actions seems to be pretty much hell bent on continuing the Bush legacy. Wanting to stay in Iraq for the long run no matter what the cost. Loyal to the Republican party's agendas, in other words, except for some minor differences, pretty much more of the same failed policies as we had the last eight years. If Bush is your hero, John is your man. This is a very sober statement given by McCain, "Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be." This mirrors Dick Cheney's statements on why we need to stay in Iraq even though the vast majority of the people would like us out of there. Another comment that he made in regards to the idea of a "League of Democracies", a plan of his to create an organization like the United Nations except for no communists or dictators to have to contend with, McCain says, "It could act where the UN fails to act." Bush never had much regard for the UN either. Age has to be a factor, look at Bush or any other president that has lasted through a couple of terms of president, now imagine starting off with someone that is that old to start with. Just what America needs after eight years of a president that was in denial, a president that is facing senility.
Hillery Clinton
First woman to run for President a historical event. When it comes right down to it, would you want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House as the nation's First Gentleman? Cigars anyone? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." With this in mind how strong do you think this candidate would be in the fall elections against McCain? Hillery can't resolve issues with her marriage seemingly content to put up with her husband running around as he probably is still beneficial to her goals or aspirations. Hillery has strong support of women, but a couple things has come out again and again. Hillery seems willing to say just about anything to get the nomination, from dodging sniper bullets to claiming that she can win just by sticking around...remember Kennedy's assassination? Finally the last gripes I have about Hillery are I think her campaign has been a lot more negative compared to Obama's, I think her comment about obliterating Iran was pretty scary, I'm really getting tired of hearing her say that she has the popular vote when the only way that is possible is if you count Michigan's results, a ballot that Obama's name wasn't even on the ticket. Now that I have brought up the matter of Michigan, that is another thing that really disturbs me about Hillery. Everyone involved agreed with the decision of not counting Florida and Michigan because they broke the parties rules, but now as that is the only way Hillery has a chance at the nomination, she counts them as she tells everyone she has the populist vote and she is fighting against the party now in demanding that the rules be changed, this kind of reminds me of the kind of thing Bush does and shows me that a vote for Hillery would be a vote for government as usual without regard for the rules.
Barack Obama
Another historic first, first black man to run for government. What an election, first woman and first black man running for president. This election has set the theme for issues about race and gender, something never really having been an issue in this way in the past. Truthfully I haven't looked back on voting records of either of the three candidates, so except for what I have heard in the news, I am pretty much taking the candidates at their word for what they stand for. Listening to the candidates though I like Obama's style. I believe he is fighting a lot less negative campaign and even defending some of what Hillery has said and done for the good of the party. He has had some troubles with things his paster has said, but I don't ever remember Obama appointing the paster his spokes person. The point is I think Obama has been the most refreshing of the candidates, he is believable it doesn't seem like he is hiding things as in that he spoke of his experiments with drugs in his past, he talks of diplomacy and actually talking to opposition leaders in the world that don't agree with our ideals to try to improve conditions and relations instead of rushing in with an army and the threat of force, I think this is why he has even received good comments from leaders in Cuba and Iran. I believe he will restore America's reputation among other countries in the world that we as a nation really need to do, it's a small world and it gets smaller all the time with new technologies. Obama when he responds to accusations he is thoughtful and reacts in a way that seems to show he does not get carried away with emotions in his comments.
So I guess by now you can probably tell who I'm rooting for, but what's your take?
Thursday, April 3, 2008
An American Database
I was reading through the website of the House, Government Reform and Oversight Committee today and I came across a news release from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) dated 3/14/08 where he states that:
"We learned just yesterday that the FBI was continuing to misuse the authorities we granted it under the Patriot Act six years ago to unlawfully obtain information about law abiding Americans. We learned just four days ago that the National Security Agency was using its massive powers to create a nationwide data base of American citizens."
It seems that our fears have been realized that our government has been abusing all its powers against the American people. When I was younger and in school, we had a teacher that would tell us, "Never trust anyone that says, trust me." Oh how true that is. I was watching TV the other day and there was a television show on that showed all the times through our history when a president would get special rules to protect us from a perceived threat. Without exception every time special powers were supposedly needed to protect American citizens the special powers given were abused.
To hear Bush and Chaney talk, they are not our representatives to carry out the will of the American people, they are visionaries that need to stay the coarse no matter what the majority think because the majority are whimsical that are unable to appreciate the bigger picture to know what's good for them or their country. So we need to allow our president, his administration, and all their cronies to chose which laws that they are going to abide by or not and not question their actions because we are supposed to trust them to do what's right for the country and us. I didn't know that was how America was supposed to run. I was under the impression that the people in our government were chosen by the people to carry out the wishes of the people. I think people like Bush and Chaney were exactly the kind of people and ideas the founders of our country had in mind when they didn't give absolute power to the president and instead split it up among the president, the Senate, and the House. I think Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave now with the state of the country being what it is. The big problem now is how to fix our government so that it runs the way it is supposed to.
"We learned just yesterday that the FBI was continuing to misuse the authorities we granted it under the Patriot Act six years ago to unlawfully obtain information about law abiding Americans. We learned just four days ago that the National Security Agency was using its massive powers to create a nationwide data base of American citizens."
It seems that our fears have been realized that our government has been abusing all its powers against the American people. When I was younger and in school, we had a teacher that would tell us, "Never trust anyone that says, trust me." Oh how true that is. I was watching TV the other day and there was a television show on that showed all the times through our history when a president would get special rules to protect us from a perceived threat. Without exception every time special powers were supposedly needed to protect American citizens the special powers given were abused.
To hear Bush and Chaney talk, they are not our representatives to carry out the will of the American people, they are visionaries that need to stay the coarse no matter what the majority think because the majority are whimsical that are unable to appreciate the bigger picture to know what's good for them or their country. So we need to allow our president, his administration, and all their cronies to chose which laws that they are going to abide by or not and not question their actions because we are supposed to trust them to do what's right for the country and us. I didn't know that was how America was supposed to run. I was under the impression that the people in our government were chosen by the people to carry out the wishes of the people. I think people like Bush and Chaney were exactly the kind of people and ideas the founders of our country had in mind when they didn't give absolute power to the president and instead split it up among the president, the Senate, and the House. I think Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave now with the state of the country being what it is. The big problem now is how to fix our government so that it runs the way it is supposed to.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
The Irony of Arlen Specter
Friday there was an AP article about Republican Senator Arlen Specter-PA, stating that Senator Specter wanted the NFL to explain why it destroyed evidence of the New England Patriots cheating scandal, stating that he was concerned about the underlying facts on the taping, the reasons for the judgment on the limited penalties and, most of all, on the inexplicable destruction of the tapes.
This is from a Republican senator... Senator Specter, you are concerned about such things when it has to do with a football game? I mean, yes by all means, we have to hold these games above the accountability that your buddies in the Republican party have demonstrated while in power. After all the stakes are so much higher than say whether we as a country have illegally used torture such as water boarding against prisoners and the videos of that were destroyed. Football is maybe much more important to you then missing emails from the administration's deliberations to start a war on false pretenses, or information on the political firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys, or the leaking of a CIA operative's name. I think you are having a case of sour grapes maybe cause you had some money riding on the game or something. Same thing with the congressional investigation into doping in baseball. Is doping in sports disturbing? Yes. Is doping in sports wrong? Yes. Is it something that is so important that we should be spending time and money in the senate investigation? I don't think so. With all the other problems that we need to be sorting out, war, lies, stonewalling, illegal activities, missing emails and other missing evidence by upper administration members, wouldn't it be better to leave the sports problems to be settled out among the sports leagues and associations. Baseball is a multi billion dollar industry I think they could afford their own investigators, set their own regulations and enforce them without tax payers having to front the bill.
Update 3/13/08
I was maybe out of line somewhat on Arlen, it is noted that in the illegal wiretapping subject he wants to change defendant from the telecommunication companies to the government in the court cases now against the telecommunication companies for them going along with illegal requests by the government. I can see the logic to having the government as a defendant, I can understand how it is hard to refuse something the government is pushing you to do. I am not familiar with what effects that may have on any court case. It does seem like it's a rip to the tax payer to have to pay for the government's illegal actions of spying on tax payers. It would amount to the same thing as if someone stole something from a person and they sell it on the black market, spend the money they got from selling the stolen goods, and then we make the person that was ripped off have to pay the thief's fines and court costs. So maybe I'll reserve my praising Arlen for wanting to do that after all. To really be fair, if this was Bush's idea and he convinced the intelligence communities to take this route as a legal option, who in turn convinced the telecoms that this was legal request for information, Bush should be made the defendant and the one liable for any jail time or fines.
This is from a Republican senator... Senator Specter, you are concerned about such things when it has to do with a football game? I mean, yes by all means, we have to hold these games above the accountability that your buddies in the Republican party have demonstrated while in power. After all the stakes are so much higher than say whether we as a country have illegally used torture such as water boarding against prisoners and the videos of that were destroyed. Football is maybe much more important to you then missing emails from the administration's deliberations to start a war on false pretenses, or information on the political firings of 8 U.S. Attorneys, or the leaking of a CIA operative's name. I think you are having a case of sour grapes maybe cause you had some money riding on the game or something. Same thing with the congressional investigation into doping in baseball. Is doping in sports disturbing? Yes. Is doping in sports wrong? Yes. Is it something that is so important that we should be spending time and money in the senate investigation? I don't think so. With all the other problems that we need to be sorting out, war, lies, stonewalling, illegal activities, missing emails and other missing evidence by upper administration members, wouldn't it be better to leave the sports problems to be settled out among the sports leagues and associations. Baseball is a multi billion dollar industry I think they could afford their own investigators, set their own regulations and enforce them without tax payers having to front the bill.
Update 3/13/08
I was maybe out of line somewhat on Arlen, it is noted that in the illegal wiretapping subject he wants to change defendant from the telecommunication companies to the government in the court cases now against the telecommunication companies for them going along with illegal requests by the government. I can see the logic to having the government as a defendant, I can understand how it is hard to refuse something the government is pushing you to do. I am not familiar with what effects that may have on any court case. It does seem like it's a rip to the tax payer to have to pay for the government's illegal actions of spying on tax payers. It would amount to the same thing as if someone stole something from a person and they sell it on the black market, spend the money they got from selling the stolen goods, and then we make the person that was ripped off have to pay the thief's fines and court costs. So maybe I'll reserve my praising Arlen for wanting to do that after all. To really be fair, if this was Bush's idea and he convinced the intelligence communities to take this route as a legal option, who in turn convinced the telecoms that this was legal request for information, Bush should be made the defendant and the one liable for any jail time or fines.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The System is Down
I really don't understand what's wrong with everyone. These last couple of terms that Bush has been in office have been just unbelievable as far as constitutional rights the American people have lost. Our current administration has pretty much done what ever they wanted, even as the shady deals they were doing were being reported on the television, the radio, newspapers, and the Internet. After the last presidential elections we find out that through trickery and deceit the republicans stolen the elections both by getting people (democrats) taken off lists of of eligible voters, and intimidating other whole groups of people who would have probably tended to vote for democrats. The American people got confusing ballots, voting machines that didn't work properly and didn't have paper records to give an accounting of votes made on them, people intercepting voters on the way to the polls to discourage certain demographic groups of people from voting, voting laws changed to favor one party over another, absentee votes not counted or taken into account. During the last election in places where the president campaigned for reelection, anyone known to be against his objectives and policies, people with signs, posters, or t-shirts, that did not agree with the president's views, or anyone that seemed like they would speak up against the president's policies were barred or removed from the area, arrested if necessary to keep them out of earshot, eyesight and keep their messages from being shown on cameras at his conventions. This was done to try to give the illusion of how well the president was doing, by showing that there was hardly anyone in opposition to the president. Once in power republicans banded together to pretty much rubber stamp any thing the president wanted. Information out now suggests that the administration has in the past encouraged torture, or at least turned a blind eye to it. People in the USA and in other countries were whisked off the streets and taken to third world countries secret prisons, where they do believe in torture and they have been locked up without any charges being brought against them or any contact with their families to even as much to let them know if they are dead or alive for years. We as a country are being forced to ride along with the Bush administration as it runs the good name of America down in the eyes of the other countries in the world. I think it's in Germany that US CIA agents are charged with picking up people on their streets and sending them away to secret prisons. As word gets out that the US used water boarding, a form of torture, our president Bush appears on our TVs and tells us, the United States doesn't torture prisoners. If I could ask Mr. Bush a question, it would be, just what do you classify torture as, when prisoners die? Even that wouldn't be truthful as there has been many prisoners that have died as a result of being captured by us and our "aggressive interrogations". There probably is and will be many more prisoners though that will be marred mentally forever from their ordeals of being a captured prisoner of the US. Many of these prisoners are innocent. How many movies and books have told the story of innocent people persecuted who go back for revenge against the people who wronged them? That's us, US that has wronged them. Could it be that we are breeding the next generation of terrorists? Speaking of terrorists, the Webster's Pocket Dictionary defines terrorism as n. violence committed to achieve a political end. It defines Terrorize vt. to terrify, especially by acts of violence; to intimidate through terrorism. Now didn't Bush with an arsenal of mostly lies and bent truths lead our country into war, without an act of congress and without the support of the United Nations, invade Iraq with their "Shock and Awe" attack, with the intentions of securing our oil interests, er I mean to save the Iraqi people and advance the ideology of democracy to the middle east? Couldn't that be an act of terrorism? What about the way that we are trying to advance democracy by bombing the hell out of places of resistance members that don't agree with our plans on how to run their country? Are we trying to Terrorize them into submission? At this point in time who are the terrorists? But wait, that's not all, there are missing emails from the White House that just seem to coincide with dates of the CIA agent's name being leaked and deliberations about going to war in Iraq, they just conveniently got taped over because they were reused. Or the video tapes that the CIA had, on the interrogations of prisoners thought to be conspirators of 9/11, that just happened not to get mentioned through multiple committee investigations and now we know about them, but it is after they have been destroyed. Children's health care, economy stimulus payments, the lists just go on and on. Why didn't the democrats start impeachment and criminal proceedings when they took over being the majority in office? Why do we let such a lying crook get away with all this? Like we started impeachment proceedings on Bill Clinton pretty much cause he couldn't keep his pecker in his pants, but someone who lies, obstructs the constitution, starts illegal wars, creates secret prisons, and whisks people out of their sovereign countries and the speaker of the house and our newly elected members of congress says impeachment is off the table. I think it is owed to the American people to put impeachment back on the table. Who in the government will stand up for our constitutional rights?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)