Yet another confirmation that Joe Biden should never be Vice President of the United States. At a meeting/dinner for elite politicians and media personalities that wish to cozy up to elite politicians, Vice-Pres. Biden disclosed during dinner conversation the existence and location of a secret security bunker located at the Vice President's quarters. The Naval observatory has been the residence of the Vice President since 1976.
I believe that we should simply no build Vice Pres. Biden a new one. Maybe that will teach to reveal national security secrets over dinner! After the witch-hunt that followed the releasing of Valerie Plame's name by the VP office under Cheney, I wonder whether we would now be justified to charge Vice President Biden with revealing national security secrets?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Unclassified Extremism Lexicon
The biased nature of the current administration is on full display again today in an Unclassified and recalled document originally distributed to law enforcement officials by the Department of Homeland Security. This "dictionary" was an attempt to establish some sort of universal definitions for extremist groups and activities. On the surface that sounds like a great idea; all law enforcement should be on the same page as far as Federal laws are concerned. However, a more detailed reading of the 12 page document reveal the extreme bias of the current administration.
The definition of Leftist Extremism states:
"A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist or Socialist doctorines and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than the established political processes. The term also refers to leftwing, single issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition to war, and the rights of animals."
Contrast that now with Rightwing Extremism:
"A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state and local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
This differences in these two definitions illustrates the intense bias of the author. Evidently the author doesn't feel that it is leftist extremism to embrace anticapitalist, Communisit or Socialist doctorines. It is only extreme if you attempt to bring about changes in the current system through a violent revolution. The way you act and not the way your personal beliefs, make you an extremist. I would love to see any data that actually suggests that this is the way the average American defines leftist extremism.
The author of this document gives no such caveat to the rightwing extremist. Merely believing anything that the author would define at "hate-oriented" is rightwing extremism. The term is so broad that it can be interpreted to mean anything the author wants. If you do not agree with race based affirmative action, the author could feel you are motivated by hate and you are a rightwing extremist. Rightwing extremism can therefore only be defined by its opposition, making it possible to have any ideology become rightwing extremism by merely changing the individual interpreting the phrase "hate-oriented".
There is no burden of proof in order to determine a motivation. In law the appearance of a motive is enough to satisfy the demands of the law. In other words, you have to prove there is a possible motive, but you do not have to prove that an individual actually used the suggested motive when he committed an act. Many times prosecutors will state either multiple motives and tell a jury to pick one that's their favortie, or not offer a motive because they claim to be unable to comprehend what any true motive would be. The point is that the world is full of so many individuals with as many different ways of reasoning any situation that any possible motive can be concieved in any situation. Therefore, any ideology can be twisted by an interpretor to such an extent that it could be labeled "hate-oriented". Give it a try.
Here is a fun one. State welfare is directed to poor people and takes money through taxes from people who have more. If an interpretor states, "The money is being taken from the people who have, merely because the state hates rich people", then the position meets the qualifications outlined in the definition and becomes rightwing extremism. Remember, you don't even have to actually be involved in attemtpting to violently take the money like Robin Hood, you merely would have to share in Robin Hood's ideology that the rich should give their money to the poor. Taxes established through the current political process by correctedly elected officials and obtained without any violence would be rightwing extremism.
Moreover, the author defines anitgovernment not as some form of anarchism, but as those individuals who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It isn't that you don't want any government to be charge of an issue, but that you don't want the Federal government to be in charge of an issue. This means that the a majority of the drafters of the US Constitution were rightwing extremists. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you feel that states should have more control then the Federal government on any issue? If so you are a rightwing extremist according to this lexicon from the Department of Homeland Security.
Try this ridiculous example. If you believe that the states should have the right to decide whether or not they will allow homosexual marriage, even if you support homosexual marriage, and you therefore reject the federal government's authority to define marriage laws, you are a rightwing extremist.
There is little wonder this thing was recalled. Did Napolitano not hire any new proofreaders or editors for the Department of Homeland Security documents?
The definition of Leftist Extremism states:
"A movement of groups or individuals that embraces anticapitalist, Communist or Socialist doctorines and seeks to bring about change through violent revolution rather than the established political processes. The term also refers to leftwing, single issue extremist movements that are dedicated to causes such as environmentalism, opposition to war, and the rights of animals."
Contrast that now with Rightwing Extremism:
"A movement of rightwing groups or individuals who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state and local authority. This term may also refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
This differences in these two definitions illustrates the intense bias of the author. Evidently the author doesn't feel that it is leftist extremism to embrace anticapitalist, Communisit or Socialist doctorines. It is only extreme if you attempt to bring about changes in the current system through a violent revolution. The way you act and not the way your personal beliefs, make you an extremist. I would love to see any data that actually suggests that this is the way the average American defines leftist extremism.
The author of this document gives no such caveat to the rightwing extremist. Merely believing anything that the author would define at "hate-oriented" is rightwing extremism. The term is so broad that it can be interpreted to mean anything the author wants. If you do not agree with race based affirmative action, the author could feel you are motivated by hate and you are a rightwing extremist. Rightwing extremism can therefore only be defined by its opposition, making it possible to have any ideology become rightwing extremism by merely changing the individual interpreting the phrase "hate-oriented".
There is no burden of proof in order to determine a motivation. In law the appearance of a motive is enough to satisfy the demands of the law. In other words, you have to prove there is a possible motive, but you do not have to prove that an individual actually used the suggested motive when he committed an act. Many times prosecutors will state either multiple motives and tell a jury to pick one that's their favortie, or not offer a motive because they claim to be unable to comprehend what any true motive would be. The point is that the world is full of so many individuals with as many different ways of reasoning any situation that any possible motive can be concieved in any situation. Therefore, any ideology can be twisted by an interpretor to such an extent that it could be labeled "hate-oriented". Give it a try.
Here is a fun one. State welfare is directed to poor people and takes money through taxes from people who have more. If an interpretor states, "The money is being taken from the people who have, merely because the state hates rich people", then the position meets the qualifications outlined in the definition and becomes rightwing extremism. Remember, you don't even have to actually be involved in attemtpting to violently take the money like Robin Hood, you merely would have to share in Robin Hood's ideology that the rich should give their money to the poor. Taxes established through the current political process by correctedly elected officials and obtained without any violence would be rightwing extremism.
Moreover, the author defines anitgovernment not as some form of anarchism, but as those individuals who reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It isn't that you don't want any government to be charge of an issue, but that you don't want the Federal government to be in charge of an issue. This means that the a majority of the drafters of the US Constitution were rightwing extremists. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Do you feel that states should have more control then the Federal government on any issue? If so you are a rightwing extremist according to this lexicon from the Department of Homeland Security.
Try this ridiculous example. If you believe that the states should have the right to decide whether or not they will allow homosexual marriage, even if you support homosexual marriage, and you therefore reject the federal government's authority to define marriage laws, you are a rightwing extremist.
There is little wonder this thing was recalled. Did Napolitano not hire any new proofreaders or editors for the Department of Homeland Security documents?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
All Hail the New Ridiculousness
This morning as I awoke to come to work, reports were surfacing that the first US swine flu death had been reported. The loss of any human life is saddening. I feel sympathy for anyone who loses a loved one, especially, as in this case, just an infant.
More details are now starting to surface and another instance of media irresponsibility is illustrated. As it turns out, the 23 month old girl is not from the US, she is from Mexico. She contracted the disease in Mexico, and was in the US recieving treatment. There are only 65 confirmed cases of swine flu in the US and outside of this one individual, they are all reported as mild. It is ridiculousness to use the death of a little girl to insight greater viewership. It cheapens the story and the death of the little girl to report partial, false or misleading information.
Now the US government is starting to talk about taking "utmost" precautions. We must be wary of over reaction. This is not the first encounter our country has had with swine flu. In 1976 a version of swine flu hit the US originating in New Jersey on a military base. One private died and Pres. Ford, under extreme pressure, decided to start a compaign to vacinate the US population against this terrible virus. Staring in October, 40 million people were vacinated. The only problem was that the vaccine caused paralysis in a percentage of the population. The program was therefore terminated in December of the same year. When everything was said and done, only the one person ever died from the virus.
Originally we were hearing reports from all over the world that hundreds of people had contracted and died from the disease. However, the World Health Organization is saying this morning that there are only 7 confirmed deaths world wide caused by swine flu. To put that in perspective, 20,000 to 35,000 people die each year in the US due to the contraction of the more normal strains of the flu. The combinatio of flu and pneumonia is the 7th leading cause of death in the US. The fact that we have gone nearly a week with misleading news stories is just another sign that the media groups in the US need a serious overall. Why can't we just get reports of things as they really are?
More details are now starting to surface and another instance of media irresponsibility is illustrated. As it turns out, the 23 month old girl is not from the US, she is from Mexico. She contracted the disease in Mexico, and was in the US recieving treatment. There are only 65 confirmed cases of swine flu in the US and outside of this one individual, they are all reported as mild. It is ridiculousness to use the death of a little girl to insight greater viewership. It cheapens the story and the death of the little girl to report partial, false or misleading information.
Now the US government is starting to talk about taking "utmost" precautions. We must be wary of over reaction. This is not the first encounter our country has had with swine flu. In 1976 a version of swine flu hit the US originating in New Jersey on a military base. One private died and Pres. Ford, under extreme pressure, decided to start a compaign to vacinate the US population against this terrible virus. Staring in October, 40 million people were vacinated. The only problem was that the vaccine caused paralysis in a percentage of the population. The program was therefore terminated in December of the same year. When everything was said and done, only the one person ever died from the virus.
Originally we were hearing reports from all over the world that hundreds of people had contracted and died from the disease. However, the World Health Organization is saying this morning that there are only 7 confirmed deaths world wide caused by swine flu. To put that in perspective, 20,000 to 35,000 people die each year in the US due to the contraction of the more normal strains of the flu. The combinatio of flu and pneumonia is the 7th leading cause of death in the US. The fact that we have gone nearly a week with misleading news stories is just another sign that the media groups in the US need a serious overall. Why can't we just get reports of things as they really are?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter's Unethical Decision
Today Arlen Specter's staff announced that he would be switching to the Democratic party, giving the Democratic party 60 votes in the Senate and ending the ability to filibuster. What about this switch is so egregious?
Arlen Specter ran on the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania. Part of his initial appeal to the people in the area was that he was at least a Republican in name, although he has seldom been a Republican in action. His election would help to prevent a filibuster proof Democratic Senate. He received donations from Republicans and had access to general GOP funds. During the previous election there was a large debate about whether the Republican party would support Mr. Specter who had acted so many times against established party platforms. The fact that he was an incumbent played a huge factor. In the primaries, Mr. Specter had a huge fight to maintain his position that he would be the best Republican candidate.
In the business world we would call this situation fraud. There was a presumed contract between Mr. Specter and his constituents, as well as the Republican party as a whole. He took their money, received their votes, and now is betraying their most valuable asset, the filibuster.
Why is the filibuster important? It keeps any party that is in control from running rough sod over the other party. It tempers the ability of any political party to impose a tyranny of the majority. The usefulness of the threat of filibuster was illustrated earlier this year when the stimulus bill was being debated in the Senate. Threatening a filibuster vote, the Republican party was able to get at least some concessions, though extremely minimal. In the end three Republicans turned coat and sided with the Democratic party to pass a bill that no one read. Of course, Arlen Specter was one of those three turn coats. In this interview with The Hill, Mr. Specter explained that he felt that the filibuster was needed and he assured everyone he would not switch parties.
The Sunny Side
Most conservative Republicans viewed Arlen Specter as less of a Republican then a Democrat anyhow. In the wake of this controversial flip on fiscal responsibility it is understandable that he feels more comfortable on the other side of the isle. The question could be raised about when his unethical action occurred (IE. was it unethical to accept Republican money for re-election last year, or unethical to switch parties now, or both?). I guess he may be able to at least partially atone by returning all GOP and individual Republican contributions that he received for his re-election, but seeing as how he couldn't pass up the pork in the stimulus bill, then there is now way he is going to do something that honorable. At least people who gave him campaign contributions had the expectation that they would get something for their money.
Arlen Specter ran on the Republican ticket in Pennsylvania. Part of his initial appeal to the people in the area was that he was at least a Republican in name, although he has seldom been a Republican in action. His election would help to prevent a filibuster proof Democratic Senate. He received donations from Republicans and had access to general GOP funds. During the previous election there was a large debate about whether the Republican party would support Mr. Specter who had acted so many times against established party platforms. The fact that he was an incumbent played a huge factor. In the primaries, Mr. Specter had a huge fight to maintain his position that he would be the best Republican candidate.
In the business world we would call this situation fraud. There was a presumed contract between Mr. Specter and his constituents, as well as the Republican party as a whole. He took their money, received their votes, and now is betraying their most valuable asset, the filibuster.
Why is the filibuster important? It keeps any party that is in control from running rough sod over the other party. It tempers the ability of any political party to impose a tyranny of the majority. The usefulness of the threat of filibuster was illustrated earlier this year when the stimulus bill was being debated in the Senate. Threatening a filibuster vote, the Republican party was able to get at least some concessions, though extremely minimal. In the end three Republicans turned coat and sided with the Democratic party to pass a bill that no one read. Of course, Arlen Specter was one of those three turn coats. In this interview with The Hill, Mr. Specter explained that he felt that the filibuster was needed and he assured everyone he would not switch parties.
The Sunny Side
Most conservative Republicans viewed Arlen Specter as less of a Republican then a Democrat anyhow. In the wake of this controversial flip on fiscal responsibility it is understandable that he feels more comfortable on the other side of the isle. The question could be raised about when his unethical action occurred (IE. was it unethical to accept Republican money for re-election last year, or unethical to switch parties now, or both?). I guess he may be able to at least partially atone by returning all GOP and individual Republican contributions that he received for his re-election, but seeing as how he couldn't pass up the pork in the stimulus bill, then there is now way he is going to do something that honorable. At least people who gave him campaign contributions had the expectation that they would get something for their money.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Unconditional Talks
In the past Pres. Elect Obama has stated that he would sit down and talk with the leaders of Iran and Venezuela without preconditions. I wonder how he feels now. Take a look at this article picture.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
CS Lewis' Fire Extinguishers
In a book titled "The Screwtape Letters", CS Lewis write a fictional series of letters between a servant of the devil and his young nephew. In letter number XXV he states,
"We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under... "
In this light, let us examine the current Federal government plan for an economic crisis and how we arrived here in the first place.
As previously discussed in other posts, the strongest downturn in the economy was ushered in with the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. As I have also previously discussed the spending habits that led to faulty loans and mass forclosures were required by government oversight during Pres. Clinton's first term. In other words, people were taking loans that they couldn't repay and banks were giving loans that sound lending principles stated wouldn't be repaid while the federal regulators were encouraging and in the case of the Feddie Mac and Fannie Mae it was required by law. We are in the mess we are in now because the federal government encouraged and required mismangament and overspending.
So how do we get out of this mess.....
Currently the House of Representatives in response to the economic crisis is following the advice of Pres. Elect Obama and suggesting a huge spending increase with nearly a trillion dollars or more deficit. To put it simply, Pres. Elect obama has suggest we get our way out of a situation caused by overspending by overspending the national budget. This sounds like CS Lewis' fire extinguisher.
Last night on the O'Reily Factor Glenn Beck was asked if he really thought thatthe answer to our current situation was by letting unresponsible spenders and lenders fail. His repsonse embodies the historically impressive writings of Alexis De Toqueville. It is not that we expect to just let everyone fail, we expect neighbors, charities, churches and fellow human beings to step in and help each other out. The Federal Government is the world's worst big brother. Selfcentered and power hungry.
Alexis De Toqueville quipped that one of America's greatest strengths lied in the populace adn how the government was structured. He gave an example of a local bridge being damaged by nature in France and one in America. In France, he posits that the local people would complain to the mayor, who would complain to a local magistrate, who would complain to a regional magistrate, who would get someone set down from the Federal government to fixt the bridge. In America, he contrasted that the local people would get together, decide how much each individual would be responsible for the repairs, and fix the bridge. If one had no money but could work, he would work. Those with money would purchase the supplies. The point being that the bridge in America would be built faster and better and cost less because the people only built what they really needed and only spent what they actually had.
The real solution to this current problem is fiscal responsibility. We should pepole who made the incorrect decisions responsible and then also hold the rest of society responsible to help each other, not through the means of a Federal Government which has proven that they will send us fire extinguishers in a time of flood, but by holding ourselves to the old standard and authority inherent in the mores that built the nation.
"We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under... "
In this light, let us examine the current Federal government plan for an economic crisis and how we arrived here in the first place.
As previously discussed in other posts, the strongest downturn in the economy was ushered in with the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. As I have also previously discussed the spending habits that led to faulty loans and mass forclosures were required by government oversight during Pres. Clinton's first term. In other words, people were taking loans that they couldn't repay and banks were giving loans that sound lending principles stated wouldn't be repaid while the federal regulators were encouraging and in the case of the Feddie Mac and Fannie Mae it was required by law. We are in the mess we are in now because the federal government encouraged and required mismangament and overspending.
So how do we get out of this mess.....
Currently the House of Representatives in response to the economic crisis is following the advice of Pres. Elect Obama and suggesting a huge spending increase with nearly a trillion dollars or more deficit. To put it simply, Pres. Elect obama has suggest we get our way out of a situation caused by overspending by overspending the national budget. This sounds like CS Lewis' fire extinguisher.
Last night on the O'Reily Factor Glenn Beck was asked if he really thought thatthe answer to our current situation was by letting unresponsible spenders and lenders fail. His repsonse embodies the historically impressive writings of Alexis De Toqueville. It is not that we expect to just let everyone fail, we expect neighbors, charities, churches and fellow human beings to step in and help each other out. The Federal Government is the world's worst big brother. Selfcentered and power hungry.
Alexis De Toqueville quipped that one of America's greatest strengths lied in the populace adn how the government was structured. He gave an example of a local bridge being damaged by nature in France and one in America. In France, he posits that the local people would complain to the mayor, who would complain to a local magistrate, who would complain to a regional magistrate, who would get someone set down from the Federal government to fixt the bridge. In America, he contrasted that the local people would get together, decide how much each individual would be responsible for the repairs, and fix the bridge. If one had no money but could work, he would work. Those with money would purchase the supplies. The point being that the bridge in America would be built faster and better and cost less because the people only built what they really needed and only spent what they actually had.
The real solution to this current problem is fiscal responsibility. We should pepole who made the incorrect decisions responsible and then also hold the rest of society responsible to help each other, not through the means of a Federal Government which has proven that they will send us fire extinguishers in a time of flood, but by holding ourselves to the old standard and authority inherent in the mores that built the nation.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
So how many free passes does the Democratic Party get when it comes to scandals? Gov. Richardson has to resign a post that he never actually did anything in because he was tied to a financial scandal in New Mexico. Something about using his position as Govenor to make money from illegal transactions. So that makes two Democrat Govenors in a few weeks to come under fire. Both of them closely tied to President Elect Obama.
The reaction to both these Govenors' crimes is the most amusing story for the day. Let's see how did everyone react when the story about Blagojevich came out? "Moral outrage, we won't seat anyone he appoints." "We never knew." "This is deplorable." "We will revoke his authority to appoint someone. " What actually happened? The state legislature refused to take action, the Govenor appointed the replacement anyhow. Someone played the race card and now Harry Reid has decided that he will talk with this new nominee anyhow and there is definately room for negociation. What is there to negociate?
To make matters worse, it looks like we get at least four years of this crap. The Presidential term hasn't even begun. Wow, it's almost all of those corruption allegations during the campaign weren't just allegations.
The reaction to both these Govenors' crimes is the most amusing story for the day. Let's see how did everyone react when the story about Blagojevich came out? "Moral outrage, we won't seat anyone he appoints." "We never knew." "This is deplorable." "We will revoke his authority to appoint someone. " What actually happened? The state legislature refused to take action, the Govenor appointed the replacement anyhow. Someone played the race card and now Harry Reid has decided that he will talk with this new nominee anyhow and there is definately room for negociation. What is there to negociate?
To make matters worse, it looks like we get at least four years of this crap. The Presidential term hasn't even begun. Wow, it's almost all of those corruption allegations during the campaign weren't just allegations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
