The Obama administration has made the massive mistake of releasing documents outlining US interrogation techniques since September 11, 2001. Oddly enough, they have forgotten to release the accompanying documents that show the success of these interrogations. Former Vice-President Dick Cheny has been giving interviews, discrediting the administration's claims that these techniques did not work, and calling for them to own up to the memos showing the success of these techniques.
While it is an immense National Security threat to allow al Queda and others the ability to see step-by-step guides to US interrogation techniques, it is an even graver thing for the President of the United States to say that he is "open" to the idea of going after former President Bush and others in his administration for the "torture" of enemy combatants. He will not go after the people who actually did the torturing, however, because they "were just following orders."
Hmmm...we didn't fall for that trick with Nazis, but I guess it's ok when the president just wants to seek some sort of revenge on the previous administration.
I'm going to come right out and say it: sometimes, torture is necessary. It is not good, but it is necessary. Do you think that al Queda or other terror groups would think twice about using techniques far worse than the US has ever used on an American soldier they capture? No, they wouldn't even think about not using it.
And no, using torture does not make the US less of a leader or just like other countries and organizations. It merely evens the playing field. I do not believe that risking the lives of thousands, if not millions of people is worth not using every option to gain intelligence from a terror suspect. These people are not protected under the Geneva Convention. They are not fighting in an organized military, or for a country. They are rogue, evil, terrorists.
President Obama, however, does not seem to feel the same. And if something tragic does happen, I will have to begrudgingly say I told you so.
But really, the point of this is not to go after the Bush Administration (hrm...I seem to remember Candidate Obama talking about how he was looking to the future, not dealing with the past...). This is an attempt to change the focus. President Obama failed to get anything done at the G20, he is failing to fully address the economic crisis, and, most importantly, Rahm Immanuel, his Chief of Staff, is playing damage control by distracting America from the Presidents MASSIVE snafu at the Conference of the Americas and his becoming BFF's with socialist leader and human rights violator Hugo Chavez. Immanuel is killing two birds with one stone, he is getting the Bush Administration, and making President Obama look like the good guy.
America seems to be wising up though. The president's approval rating has dropped from 70% on inauguration day to 54%. 50% of Americans view the tea parties favorably, and a whopping 54% of moderate democrats view the tea parties favorably. Maybe there is hope, after all.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tea Time
Today, thousands if not millions of Americans expressed their displeasure with the government with Tax Day Tea Parties. In my hometown of Lafayette, IN, protesters threw hundreds of teabags into the Wabash River. In my current residence of Bloomington, people gathered outside of Representative Baron Hill's office. All over the nation, people gathered, chanted, and raised signs together.
It is important to realize that these parties are not political. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals. All stand together at these rallies to express their anger and outrage. They feel government has grown too large, that taxes have risen too high, and that we have spent enough money helping out companies that refuse to help themselves.
We have not seen something of this scale since the protests against the Vietnam War. People claim that the participants should not claim they are having tea parties, as the Boston Tea Party was held over the principle of no taxation without representation. To those participating in these parties, they feel that they are not being represented in government. And for the most part, I have to agree with them. Congress is going unchecked, as they and the president are of the same political party, so there is nothing to stop any far-left agendas from going through. I believe that while many people voted for change, they did not know that they were voting for people who were for such large expansion of government and spending.
I do have one qualm. While people complain about having high taxes, they offer no alternatives. They offer no list of government programs to cut funding for, or eliminate all together. They don't want to continue funding government bailouts, but they may not necessarily want companies to go bankrupt either.
It remains to be seen if these parties will have a lasting affect on government. ABC News reported that President Obama was unaware of the parties, so I doubt he will change any policy because of them. The parties will only have a lasting impact if the people behind them continue them. Parties, marches, anything. If they truly feel that they are being disenfranchised, then they must continue to have their voices heard, even if the mainstream media chooses to ignore them.
It is important to realize that these parties are not political. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals. All stand together at these rallies to express their anger and outrage. They feel government has grown too large, that taxes have risen too high, and that we have spent enough money helping out companies that refuse to help themselves.
We have not seen something of this scale since the protests against the Vietnam War. People claim that the participants should not claim they are having tea parties, as the Boston Tea Party was held over the principle of no taxation without representation. To those participating in these parties, they feel that they are not being represented in government. And for the most part, I have to agree with them. Congress is going unchecked, as they and the president are of the same political party, so there is nothing to stop any far-left agendas from going through. I believe that while many people voted for change, they did not know that they were voting for people who were for such large expansion of government and spending.
I do have one qualm. While people complain about having high taxes, they offer no alternatives. They offer no list of government programs to cut funding for, or eliminate all together. They don't want to continue funding government bailouts, but they may not necessarily want companies to go bankrupt either.
It remains to be seen if these parties will have a lasting affect on government. ABC News reported that President Obama was unaware of the parties, so I doubt he will change any policy because of them. The parties will only have a lasting impact if the people behind them continue them. Parties, marches, anything. If they truly feel that they are being disenfranchised, then they must continue to have their voices heard, even if the mainstream media chooses to ignore them.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Pay No Attention to that Money Behind the Curtain
While everyone was focusing on the AIG brouhaha yesterday, a far more serious thing was happening. The US treasury decided to put $1 trillion in to the system by buying up its own bad debt.
This is the same as writing an IOU to yourself. They are taking a trillion dollars from one pocket, and putting it into another pocket. Nothing gets accomplished, and there is still money owed to people.
But no one heard about this, because everyone: congress, the media, the president, were focused on AIG paying :gasp: contractually obligated bonuses to its employees! Bonuses that were perfectly legal because they were promised before the February 1st deadline passed by congress!
Imagine that, a company holding up its end of the deal and fulfilling its contracts! Oh my! Sound the alarm! We need to tax these bonuses at 100% and get this money back! How dare they use the money we gave them to fulfill their contractual obligations!
What else? Oh, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac ALSO used bailout money to pay contractually obligated bonuses to their employees. Why are people not running after them with torches and pitchforks?
Really, it's all the fed can do at this point. Interest rates range between 0 and .25%, so they can't really go any lower. The US Treasury Department currently consists only of the completely incompetent Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary, and President Obama apparently has much more important things to attend to: like appearing on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
This country is falling apart at the seems. At the G20 conference, a meeting of the top 20 industrialized nations, former Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin will propose changing the world bank reserve currency from the US dollar to something else. The dollar has lost all it's clout in the world. Gold rose $50 an ounce yesterday upon news of the Treasury's plan.
The rest of the world wants no part of the US dollar, because they've read a middle school history book and remember the pictures of people bringing wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread in Germany Post-World War I. Obviously Secretary Geithner and President Obama never read that chapter. And we are all going to pay for that in the end.
This is the same as writing an IOU to yourself. They are taking a trillion dollars from one pocket, and putting it into another pocket. Nothing gets accomplished, and there is still money owed to people.
But no one heard about this, because everyone: congress, the media, the president, were focused on AIG paying :gasp: contractually obligated bonuses to its employees! Bonuses that were perfectly legal because they were promised before the February 1st deadline passed by congress!
Imagine that, a company holding up its end of the deal and fulfilling its contracts! Oh my! Sound the alarm! We need to tax these bonuses at 100% and get this money back! How dare they use the money we gave them to fulfill their contractual obligations!
What else? Oh, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac ALSO used bailout money to pay contractually obligated bonuses to their employees. Why are people not running after them with torches and pitchforks?
Really, it's all the fed can do at this point. Interest rates range between 0 and .25%, so they can't really go any lower. The US Treasury Department currently consists only of the completely incompetent Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary, and President Obama apparently has much more important things to attend to: like appearing on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
This country is falling apart at the seems. At the G20 conference, a meeting of the top 20 industrialized nations, former Russian Prime Minister Vladamir Putin will propose changing the world bank reserve currency from the US dollar to something else. The dollar has lost all it's clout in the world. Gold rose $50 an ounce yesterday upon news of the Treasury's plan.
The rest of the world wants no part of the US dollar, because they've read a middle school history book and remember the pictures of people bringing wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread in Germany Post-World War I. Obviously Secretary Geithner and President Obama never read that chapter. And we are all going to pay for that in the end.
Entertainer In Chief?
News reached today that President OBama will be appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno this week to sell his economic policies to the american people.
Someone needs to give this guy the message that he already won and doesn't need to campaign. Is anyone else not ok with their sitting president appearing on talk shows to sell his policies? I am no OK with my president being equal to some C-list celeb pimping out their latest piece of crap movie.
Or, when I think about it, Obama's economic policies are about on par quality wise with Paul Blart: Mall Cop, so I guess this is the perfect venue for him.
Someone needs to give this guy the message that he already won and doesn't need to campaign. Is anyone else not ok with their sitting president appearing on talk shows to sell his policies? I am no OK with my president being equal to some C-list celeb pimping out their latest piece of crap movie.
Or, when I think about it, Obama's economic policies are about on par quality wise with Paul Blart: Mall Cop, so I guess this is the perfect venue for him.
Republican Hypocrisy
Yes, you read that title correctly: I'm taking on my own party. However, this is a pretty common thing, despite perceptions of me and my politics. I'm pro gay rights, pro stem cell research, and pro gun control just to name a few disagreements I have with the Republican Party. However, these disagreements are overwhelmed by my agreements with the party's platform.
That, however, is for another post. Right now my beef is the republicans and this $418-ish billion spending bill with 9000 earmarks. Guess what...60% of those earmarks are from democrats. But, if elementary school math serves me correctly, that leaves 40% of the earmarks going to republicans.
I find it almost reprehensible that republicans are stalling the bill and going on television talking about how much they are against this bill and all of the pork in it. However, as soon as it passes they are going to be completely happy to take all the earmark money they receive and take it back to their constituents.
I agree with Senator John McCain- some of these earmarks are necesary and would do good. However, they are directed to a specific geographic location. If they were nation-wide projects they would be more accepted and do more good, but as they are they are lumps of fat in an omnibus spending bill.
Don't get me wrong, I am totally opposed to this. Yes, the government runs out of money on Wednesday, but they've spend like, five years worth of money in two months. You can only print so much money before people stop using it because it's worth less than the paper its printed on, but the government doesn't seem to realize this. I am considering sending President Obama and Senator Pelosi a chapter from a world history book that talks about Germany's economic policies after World War I, so that they can see what happens when money is printed off willy nilly. I doubt it would do any good, as they can't seem to read reports about our own, current economy.
The bill is going to pass. All republicans can do is get popular support against it and hope that their hypocrisy is not pointed out. If the courts gave President Obama the power of line-item veto, maybe that would solve the problem. That, however, is a blog for another day.
That, however, is for another post. Right now my beef is the republicans and this $418-ish billion spending bill with 9000 earmarks. Guess what...60% of those earmarks are from democrats. But, if elementary school math serves me correctly, that leaves 40% of the earmarks going to republicans.
I find it almost reprehensible that republicans are stalling the bill and going on television talking about how much they are against this bill and all of the pork in it. However, as soon as it passes they are going to be completely happy to take all the earmark money they receive and take it back to their constituents.
I agree with Senator John McCain- some of these earmarks are necesary and would do good. However, they are directed to a specific geographic location. If they were nation-wide projects they would be more accepted and do more good, but as they are they are lumps of fat in an omnibus spending bill.
Don't get me wrong, I am totally opposed to this. Yes, the government runs out of money on Wednesday, but they've spend like, five years worth of money in two months. You can only print so much money before people stop using it because it's worth less than the paper its printed on, but the government doesn't seem to realize this. I am considering sending President Obama and Senator Pelosi a chapter from a world history book that talks about Germany's economic policies after World War I, so that they can see what happens when money is printed off willy nilly. I doubt it would do any good, as they can't seem to read reports about our own, current economy.
The bill is going to pass. All republicans can do is get popular support against it and hope that their hypocrisy is not pointed out. If the courts gave President Obama the power of line-item veto, maybe that would solve the problem. That, however, is a blog for another day.
Friday Grab-Bag
Let's start off with some light news: Michael Jackson is playing like, 5 shows in London this summer. Seriously, who DOESN'T want to see this train wreck? If I had the money, I would so be there.I would also be at Britney's comeback tour if I had the money. This thing looks so bad that it is amazing! Yes, I still love Britney, get over it.
Onto more serious topics. It came out today that the Obama's are having lavish parties at the White House every Wednesday. Who does he think he is, Marie Antoinette? The economy is in the sewer and he is wasting money throwing parties every week? Maybe if he stopped with the pinatas for a day, he might be able to fix America.
Rush Limbaugh announced this week on his radio show that he wants to debate President Obama on his show. Is there anyone who wouldn't pay to see this, let alone get it for free? Yes, it is kind of below any president to give in to the demands of a radio host, let alone debate them, but how awesome would a Limbaugh/Obama showdown be?
Anyone else think it's kind of cool that the government ran out of money today? How very "The West Wing," eh? Granted, the House passed an emergency spending act to get us through Wednesday, but was anyone else waiting for Obama to walk to the Capitol building all Jeb Bartlett style? That would have been kind of neat.
That's all I have for this Friday. I'm pretty exhausted from my exams this week. But never fear, tomorrow I will tackle Noah's posts, mostly because they are too long! I will embed an amazing video from this week's The Daily Show:
Onto more serious topics. It came out today that the Obama's are having lavish parties at the White House every Wednesday. Who does he think he is, Marie Antoinette? The economy is in the sewer and he is wasting money throwing parties every week? Maybe if he stopped with the pinatas for a day, he might be able to fix America.
Rush Limbaugh announced this week on his radio show that he wants to debate President Obama on his show. Is there anyone who wouldn't pay to see this, let alone get it for free? Yes, it is kind of below any president to give in to the demands of a radio host, let alone debate them, but how awesome would a Limbaugh/Obama showdown be?
Anyone else think it's kind of cool that the government ran out of money today? How very "The West Wing," eh? Granted, the House passed an emergency spending act to get us through Wednesday, but was anyone else waiting for Obama to walk to the Capitol building all Jeb Bartlett style? That would have been kind of neat.
That's all I have for this Friday. I'm pretty exhausted from my exams this week. But never fear, tomorrow I will tackle Noah's posts, mostly because they are too long! I will embed an amazing video from this week's The Daily Show:
Our De-facto Leader?
I guess I should put my two-cents into the ring on this Rush Limbaugh fiasco, as everyone else in the known universe seems to be talking about it.
I never was much of a fan of Limbaugh. I usually listened to the Radio Factor during his time slot. The only talk radio other than O'Reilly I listened to was Sean Hannity. I just never had the patience to listen to people talking on the radio. Every now and then I would tune into Limbaugh if I was in the car and couldn't find a station that carried the Radio Factor, and I liked what I heard for the most part. I just always had this idea that he was too far to the right for me, so I didn't want to listen to him.
However, I started listening to him more after the election during the hour after the Radio Factor and before Hannity, and the more I listened, the more I liked. I soon became a fan of El Rushbo and of what he was saying.
Then President Obama said his now infamous "you can't listen to Limbaugh and expect to get anything done," comment, which I already addressed in a previous blog. Doing that gave Limbaugh attention and notoriety, which was probably not the intention of the comment.
Things died down a little...until Limbaugh spoke at CPAC. I LOVED his speech. It was exactly what the republican party needed to hear. He was forceful, funny, and truthful.
That is when the media anointed him the "de-facto leader" of the republican party. The party's official leader is Michael Steel, who is head of the RNC (I am a fan of his too, by the way). He was on talk shows doing damage control, attempting to reassert himself as the leader of the party. The damage, however, was done.
Limbaugh hasn't become the apparent leader of the party because he is the best or only choice. He happens to be the loudest. With a listenership of 22 million, his microphone wields immense power, and has the ability ot spread his and the party's message all over the country. He can rally republicans around his microphone, which is what the party needs. He reminds republicans that they don't need to change their message, they merely need to reconnect with their message and adapt it, not overhaul it. He is the loudest critic of the Obama administration, and has the ability to hold them accountable far more than any other opposition voice.
Limbaugh didn't choose this position of leadership, it chose him. And he has embraced it admirably.
I never was much of a fan of Limbaugh. I usually listened to the Radio Factor during his time slot. The only talk radio other than O'Reilly I listened to was Sean Hannity. I just never had the patience to listen to people talking on the radio. Every now and then I would tune into Limbaugh if I was in the car and couldn't find a station that carried the Radio Factor, and I liked what I heard for the most part. I just always had this idea that he was too far to the right for me, so I didn't want to listen to him.
However, I started listening to him more after the election during the hour after the Radio Factor and before Hannity, and the more I listened, the more I liked. I soon became a fan of El Rushbo and of what he was saying.
Then President Obama said his now infamous "you can't listen to Limbaugh and expect to get anything done," comment, which I already addressed in a previous blog. Doing that gave Limbaugh attention and notoriety, which was probably not the intention of the comment.
Things died down a little...until Limbaugh spoke at CPAC. I LOVED his speech. It was exactly what the republican party needed to hear. He was forceful, funny, and truthful.
That is when the media anointed him the "de-facto leader" of the republican party. The party's official leader is Michael Steel, who is head of the RNC (I am a fan of his too, by the way). He was on talk shows doing damage control, attempting to reassert himself as the leader of the party. The damage, however, was done.
Limbaugh hasn't become the apparent leader of the party because he is the best or only choice. He happens to be the loudest. With a listenership of 22 million, his microphone wields immense power, and has the ability ot spread his and the party's message all over the country. He can rally republicans around his microphone, which is what the party needs. He reminds republicans that they don't need to change their message, they merely need to reconnect with their message and adapt it, not overhaul it. He is the loudest critic of the Obama administration, and has the ability to hold them accountable far more than any other opposition voice.
Limbaugh didn't choose this position of leadership, it chose him. And he has embraced it admirably.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)