Wiki Leaks

It has been awhile since I felt a need to scream aimlessly with no one hearing (or write on this blog). But hearing that Wiki Leaks is releasing yet more secret documents made me feel the need again.

My main problem with Wiki Leaks is that the argument for it is that the American public deserve to know what their government is doing, and the government should be willing to tell everyone what it is doing. Now I was just recently reading one of my favorite themes and that is secret activities to gain intelligence during the Cold War. Most of the stuff that I can find was released with in the last 5 to 10 years, this is stuff like sending subs into a harbor in Russia to take soundings so that they can get a idea if it is used as a sub port, and tapping a phone line off of the Russian coast that the head honchos in Russia used to communicate. Now if the government had been making all of this public as they went none of it would have succeeded. Like wise if the government were to tell us their candid opinions about how the talks with the Korea's are going, we would soon be at war. There are things that must remain within the government in order for them to do their job. We elected those men and women because we trusted that they could do the job. Now their job is becoming even harder because people do not understand that there is a need for secrecy. A diplomats job is to communicate with other diplomats in a formal almost rehearsed way. Often even during war the diplomats will speak to each other with utmost respect. Does this mean that when he calls his supervisor he maintains that respect for the other diplomat? More than likely he will tell the President or NSA flat out what he thinks the other guy was really thinking or what he thinks the other country is planning. Those conversations are what is going to be released by Wiki leaks, they are not hard facts and they are not even actions, they are simply conversations about foreign heads of states.

It is time for people who do not trust the government to quit trying to cut it down, this is the greatest country on Earth and our government, while it has its problems, is still working for the best of this country. It is time that they received some respect for this instead of the criticism that we are so glad to give.

Easy to Say...

In light of the "Official close of the combat mission in Iraq" I just had to make a few comments. One, Biden's response to claims that violence is on the rise there were shocking. He claimed that the reports were exagerated by the press. I can see from where I sit here in Liberal Oregon, that there will be a rise in violence. It is called testing the new system, I like to compare it to kids in a classroom. When a new teacher comes in the kids always throw their worst behavior at that teacher until the teacher proves they can control them. Hence the same is going to happen in Iraq. The police and security forces are going to have to prove that they have the strength then things will go back to the usual one car bombing a week.

Can we hurt it?

I was recently reading a Rush Limbaugh book (that tells you a little bit). In the book he made the claim that no matter what we do we can not possibly harm Earth short of a nuclear war. Now I would have to say in the case of carbon emissions and pollution, I do not believe that humans are powerful enough to harm this planet. My reasoning is that volcano's put far more CO2 into the atmosphere and far more toxic chemicals into the water than we will. And that has not changed anything too much. But what is making me wonder if I may have to revise my theory is the oil spill in the Gulf. Nobody seems to be willing to admit just how much oil has been leaked into the ocean so far, but with the spill threatening every coast in that region, and thoughts going on toward it crossing into Europe at some point, I would say that this could drastically change Earth. But then I may be wrong too, maybe I too am being arrogant as some others in my belief that we could ever cause a change in this planet. Maybe it will surprise us all and prove that we are very small and do not really understand this great planet as much as we wish.

Typical President

In with the new out with the old

I have been off the radar and just had to go back in time and read about the primaries. It is interesting to me that the Tea Party candidates, so far as I can tell, only won two of their primaries. That would be NV and of course Rand Paul in Kentucky. That is interesting to me because it seemed that they were the majority of the Republican votes, or so the press made them sound. But it seems that in many cases it did not matter what Tea Party wanted, all that mattered was getting the old faces and names out of office. And I believe that this is something that may carry over into November, the want for new, clean, unblemished names in office. The American people are sick and tired of being lied to, not just by those in office now but also the Bush administration and others prior to that. It seems that lies have become the way to advance your political clout. I am sure that nobody or at least very few take office because they want to pull the wool over the public's eyes. I believe they just do not see any other option, the people suck up those lies. So yes I am going to blame part of the corruption on the individual voter, we have been electing governors, presidents, party members ect. who have proven in their personal lives that they are not honest people. We have had a president who tried weed but did not inhale, and vice president nominee who can not seem to get her figures straight on her own state that she governs, several scandal cases have rocked governors. Their are judges whose motives are questionable, Congressmen that have their hands in mixed up in various money making schemes that no longer make them able to make decisions that the American people want. Now those are all over the last 25 years or so and now I think the people are finally realizing that to change the problem they need new people. They need people who can not be swayed to give in to whats "normal" instead they will stand up for own beliefs, the ones they were elected for. This is the hope of the American people as they begin to think about elections, it is no longer Rep. or Dem. but instead, will they stick to want they were elected for and will they bring a new age to America? I sincerely hope that no matter who ends up as the majority after elections, that in a year or two the polls will finally show that the people like who they elected.

Pay Now, Pay Later

The European Union is in big trouble, with their debts taking up more of their GDP than most other countries, and the euros value plunging something like the U.S. housing market two years ago, it is clear that something has got to change. But are the people willing to change and willing to learn or will they just pull out of this spiral and wait for the next. It is obvious that with out change to the system Europe will continue to have recessions. They way that the investments and euro value works was explained to me as something akin to the security backed mortgages that brought so many banks to their knees. Now I will not get into those because I don't know enough about econ to explain even what a security backed mortgage is, but I do know that part of Europe's problem is that the government has too many responsibilities. Europe has a health care system and a standard of living that for years has been the model of what a government can do for its people, now we are seeing what happens when the government takes a burden like that on its shoulders. It can only stand for so long before one little thing brings the whole system crashing down. I compare it to a building, has a foundation that is rated for so much weight and height, as you add on to that building you start to push the boundaries of what that foundation can hold, eventually a wind comes through and suddenly that foundation begins to break and crack up. Now you have a couple choices, one you can put filler in the cracks and just keep doing that till it all crumbles down, or two you can restructure the building. Aka take some rooms out, make it smaller. So it is with a government, they are designed to help the people to keep everyone pointed in a common direction, but if you start giving them more responsibilities like health care and retirement and people begin to depend on them for a standard of living, suddenly it is like that house and the foundation begins to break up. Then when that wind, for Europe Greece's mis-use of the system and the euros sudden lose, comes through something has to be done quick. Europe choose the patch method, of throwing money into the cracks to heal it. This may have been their only option but now they need to begin scaling back, raising retirement age, cutting health benefits, raising taxes. For people who have been so dependent this is a terrifying spectacle, but to me I see it has a look in the right direction. People need to be more self sufficient, it is not the governments job to make sure that we have money to retire on or that we have health care. That is our own job.

Currently America is following Europe, even as their system fails we are trying to copy it. There needs to be a wake up call to the white house that our government is not able to take care of what it has on its plate. We boast a multi trillion dollar debt and technically we already did what Greece did. We hit our debt ceiling and should have had to default on our loans, but instead we just had the power to raise our debt limit. To me this means we need to follow Europe's example today, cut benefits, cut health care, cut social security. And in due time that will lower our taxes and the country will be able to remain self sustaining and with a manageable debt.

What is Proof of Residence?

This question has been the biggest one in my following of Arizona's immigration law.


F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
 STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
 STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
 RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES

 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
 PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE.
 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
 RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

So that is what the bill says about it. NO federal officer or state officer is to be hindered in any way from obtaining proof of residence. So now I just do not seem to be able to figure out if that means a drivers license or a green card. Or if it means a birth certificate, in which case does that mean that everyone should carry theirs with them? And if you are a domicile or somebody here on a work visa or student visa do you have to carry your passport and supporting documents with you?

I believe that this bill is a good step, something needs to be done to keep illegals out. If for no other reason than to applaud those who are willing to go through the system and become legal residents. But there are hundreds of security reasons as well, we have a border that is like a sieve, anyone who wants to can come and go, both between us and Mexico and Canada and us. How is that for security? Achmed could walk right into the US and no one would be the wiser. But I also think that Arizona has placed a little too much trust in their police officers. It seems to me that the bill kind of gave law enforcement a open season on picking up Mexican immigrants. We do not need to put another race under again, come on people does no one remember history? they used this same kind of strategy to discriminate against blacks. I can just see at the voting booths people of color being turned away because they forgot to bring their papers with them. Meanwhile I walk by unquestioned simply because I am white. That is where this could and will lead to if it is not put in check. But every change has to be drastic to catch the publics attention, so maybe this will catch everyones attention and then together the people can find a bill that: supports our immigration laws, and gives everyone that is a legal resident the same rights.

Nuclear Weapons: A Blessing and a Curse

So I have been asked my opinion on the nuclear arms reduction that Obama has been leading. And my answer has been I don't know, because I really have mixed opinions on this subject. But I have been reading the articles and watching the progress that Obama has been making, with both China and Ukraine, and I have decided I am with Obama on this. One thing I will give Obama is that he can really get people to follow him and to listen to him. previous presidents have tried multiple times to reduce or flat out eliminate nuclear weapons from the world stage, but none of these men have succeeded. Reagan was one of the first to propose abolishing nuclear weapons completely while Clinton and George W. Bush both pushed programs intended to reduce the amount of weapons, primarily between the U.S. and Russia. Each was slightly successful but the threat of nuclear war is actually more likely now than it was 10 years ago.The reason behind this is that there are so many sources of material that are just waiting for a terrorist with the time and money to come and build a nuke. I have mentioned before the danger of a attack on Israel, and again I believe that the U.S. has nothing to fear from a direct attack. We are reasonably secure and separated from the terrorists, it would be far easier to just attack one of our allies. Anyways the point is that while we do not have much to fear in terms of a nuclear attack, there are countless others that are at risk. We as "The Worlds Police Force" have a responsibility to use our technology and man power to help and secure these sources of plutonium and uranium. And now with Ukraine stepping forward again and giving up their stockpiles of enriched Uranium we see that countries do still have faith in America and are willing to trust us. Another point that I really appreciate about Obama is that he has done more to tick off China than any president, yet he is still able to go and talk face to face with Hu Jintao and get a agreement from him to impose sanctions against Iran. That is some talent in foreign policy and it shows a mutual respect between the two men, something that George Bush never saw when he was delving into foreign policy. Now my gripe with Obama's foreign policy is his promise to China that he is "sensitive to China’s energy needs” and would work to make sure that Beijing had a steady supply of oil if Iran cut China off in retaliation for joining in severe sanctions. Okay, great, how in the world are we going to do that? We rely on the Middle East for nearly a third of our crude oil, if Iran were to get ticked off enough who is to say that they don't try to close down our oil import too. They have quite a bit of say in the Middle East and at the very least they have the ability to drive the price of gas through the ceiling here. How does Obama propose that we help China when we can not even help ourselves? And not only that but China has done this before, they did it to Bush twice. They would agree to a sanction but when it got to the U.N. board they would use their influence and water it down until it did very little harm to Iran while still making China look like they are trying to help solve the problem that Iran presents. So once again I will say congratulations Obama, and if he is able to secure the the nuclear stockpiles and actually do something more than talk and make verbal agreements I will even say tat he deserves that Nobel Peace Prize. But until Ukraine stockpiles begin moving into Russia, Iran has tough sanctions backed by China, and other countries are beginning to follow Ukraine's steps. Once all of that begins then I will say that Obama deserves a place as a great president, maybe not the best for America, but what the world needed. And maybe my children and grandchildren will be able to live without the thought of a nuclear war or even such weapons. 


So there it is, when I tried to explain this to one person I was called a flaming Liberal, perhaps... But this was Reagan's dream too...

Changes, Good or Bad?

Justice Stevens has stepped down from his post on the Supreme Court. This will be interesting to see how Obama handles the next appointment and how the republicans respond to Obama's appointment. I am in favor of another man like Stevens, not necessarily like him in beliefs but like him in the fact that he had set views and would not change them. Even though when Ford appointed him to the Court Stevens was a Republican, today he is considered a liberal. This is because he set his opinions and has never changed them, even though both parties have changed their ideals, he has kept his the same. This I respect, now I have never agreed with his stance on abortion or his ideas about freedom of speech, and I am hoping that Obama appoints someone who is not really associated with a party. By that I mean someone who has not either campaigned for a office before or helped in any way a campaign. Because as a Judge it is not your job to think about whether or not your party will like your choice, that is why they are appointed for life. So hopefully we get a judge with a good moral compass and a mentality like Stevens that no matter what they go with what they feel is right.

Why Things Are the Way They Are

I just finished reading a book called the Defining Moment:The Great Depression and the American Economy in the 20th Century, by Micheal D. Bordo, Claudia Goldin and Eugene N. White. It is a interesting theory that they put forward, that the changes that were brought about by the Great Depression would have happened with or with out it. The Depression just spend things up a little bit. The government prior to the Depression was small and did not have things like social security and never considered things like standardized health care. But people were growing to the idea that it is the governments job to look out for the welfare of it's people. While at this time that would have simply meant that the government should be able to help keep unemployment rates down, help stop price hikes and unfair labor practices. All of those things were not even expected of the government it was just something it would be nice if they could do. Then the Great Depression came. People who had worked and saved their whole lives, who had never gotten into debt or risked their money in investments, suddenly found themselves with out a job and their savings gone. Who could they turn to for help? No one. So they turned to the government and said "if you had been doing your job none of this would have happened" not realizing that they had voted Coolidge and Harding and Hoover into office because they had promised a small government that would run on the basis of laissez-faire. When the crash hit, Hoover's policies were that through volunteer efforts the people should be able to pull themselves out of this mess. He believed that getting the government involved was a bad idea and would only make the people dependent upon the government every time there was a need. In many ways he was right. When FDR took office he immediately began pushing new acts and committees to take care of those acts. For every problem that a American group faced FDR had another committee to help that group out. Also he believed that by giving the business's money it would help to employ those off the streets hence putting money in their pockets to go spend. That did not work (funny how history repeats itself). However out of all of FDR's committees, only one is still active and that is Social Security, but the idea that it is the governments responsibility to be taking an active part in the lives of all its citizens is still planted and growing steadily. The problem is that to go back to the days of small government, where the government only intervened after it was clear that the people could not fix it themselves, we would have to have a candidate that would say to the people "We are going to take away..." and as soon as people hear that they turn to the other guy, the guy who is offering more money for school, free health care (nothing is free), better living quality.  And nobody stops to think about the consequences of these decisions, all that they see is what is in it for them.

Baseball season is here!!!

Yet I have to remember this is not a sports blog, I will try and not compare the two.

"Iran continued to expand its nuclear infrastructure and continued Uranium enrichment despite multiple UN security council resolutions since 2006 calling for the suspension of those activities."

"Iran's intention is to develop the weapons and the materials to be the major power in the Middle East"

With this new CIA report that says things such as the above quote, I think it is time to start considering the possibility of a new war, a real war. It may not be for another 10 years or so but Iran is tired of being pushed around by us, by the UN, and they hate Israel. If I was in their position I would have my top scientists working round the clock to get those weapons manufactured. If Iran suddenly hit Israel with a nuke, even a small crude nuke, it would ruin Americas image as the ultimate world power. America has pledged support to Israel, in the past Israel has not required that help. With our technology and their guts they have showed that they are not being moved. But now Iran is on the way to having the ability to knock Israel silly with one sucker punch. Should Iran do that the President of the United States would face a decision that is a lose lose decision. They could a) Tell Israel "I'm sorry but we are spread to thin right now and do not have the military flexibility to assist you." or b) We could swallow the fact that we can not afford to go into another war, both economically and we do not have the man power to do that, and we could stand up for the little nation. Personally A is the choice that the President would have to go with, because B could mean WWIII. China may not like the fact that Iran has nuclear capabilities, but they still are trading partners with Iran receiving 19.3% of all of China's exports which makes them the biggest single buyer, and China receiving 13.6% of Iran's exports which are mainly in the form of crude oil. This puts China in a tough spot, should the US go to war with Iran we would want to shut down all trade with country so that they can not afford to fight a war, this is the easiest way to win a war. So would China be willing to cut off their main energy import and a fifth of their exports just because the US told them to? I think not, but I also do not see them going to war with us just because we went to war with Iran. The point is that the US needs to start preparing now for a nation that has little care for the world and a complete dedication to punishing infidels (or at least that is how they get their people to fight) and may have nukes at some point soon. To do this we need to finish the jobs we have started in Iraq and Afghanistan and find a way to strengthen our economy so that we are in a position of strength and power. Because there is no better way to scare someone than to have the potential to kill them, and there is no better way to make a country feel capable of taking on a giant than to make fools out of ourselves. I say it is time to quit being foolish and show the world that America is still the #1 power in the world and is willing to prove it.

For Money, Glory, or for the People? Or maybe Revenge?

I am sure that Sen. Bunning has a reason in his own mind as to why he just put up one of the biggest one-man filibusters ever in the Senate. But as for me, I am confused as to what his goals were. At one point he claimed that he only wanted the Senate to prove that they had a way to pay for the Medicare, for unemployed benefits, highway projects, flood control and many other things. Yet he then voted against a bill to curb spending. As part of a democracy, Sen. Bunning's job is to serve the people, he is to always make decisions not for his own good but for the good of the people. However, it seems to me that he is summing up all of the selfishness of our govt. in this final throe before he retires. The price for Bunning's pride is that the American people were without money for flood control programs, thousands of jobs were furloughed, all because Bunning decided since he could stop progress he would. Is this why these officials are in office? Is it so that they can salvage their political careers, so they can save their pride? Or were they put in office to look after the good of the American people? What is even more sickening to me is the way that Sen. Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell handled the problem that Dunning posed. Instead of saying "We do not support this tactic, this is wrong". He tried to avoid the question when it was posed to him, and when he finally faced it, he said that Sen. Bunning's views were not shared by everyone. And when he was asked if HE supported it he fudged around and repeated his previous statement that Bunning is not speaking for everyone. It seems like McConnell is more worried about splitting his party than he is about one of his party acting like a child. This type of politics has been going on for awhile and in both parties, Bunning has just brought it all to a point. Now it is time for both parties to start acting like mature adults and see the effects of their actions on the people. Maybe with some of this we will see America come back once again to the power that it should be. All we need is the two parties to accept each others ideas and work together.

The Cliche Subject

Now everyone has heard all of the talk about health care, some for some against, some don't know what to think about all of this. I personally fall into a category that, I will admit, is called steam rolled by the government. At this point I no longer am worried about if it is what our country needs. It is too late for that, the bill is through and changes are beginning already. On President Obama's weekly podcast that he does he said that starting today there will be no more high premiums and no more people excluded from insurance. The other changes may take 5 years or so but there are some that he is forcing through. I personally as a uninsured American do not see how anything that that bill has done is going to help me to be insured. It gives tax incentives to business's that offer insurance to their employees, it prevents insurance companies from charging an arm and a leg for premiums and it gives those who are uninsured more options for health insurance. But what bugs me is that I no longer have a choice to go without insurance. I have broken my wrist, I went to the ER, just about a week or so ago I got a personal call from the doctor who treated and set my wrist. She was thanking me for finishing paying the first part of my bill. Now some people have told me that I should be thankful for this bill because it gives me a option instead of having to pay the 3000 dollars I could have govt aid. I beg to differ, I do not need the govt. aid and I believe that as long as I am able to care for myself I should be left alone. Now should I default on a payment for my wrist I could understand the govt. stepping in and saying hey we have to cover that, therefore you will be penalized. Besides for all of the problems I have with a large govt. that I could go on about for ages, my other big gripe with health care is the way it was presented and still is being presented. Does anyone actually know what that bill says? Does our lawmakers actually know? It sure does not seem so because there ae several rumors floating around, big rumors that demand answers, and no one answers them. The one that comes straight to mind is that this health care system will undermine our already weak financial state. What is the answer that I have found? Repeatedly I find quotes saying over the next 10 years the bill will increase the GDP by 1 trillion dollars. OK cool answer sounds good. How? There is no answer to how, I have looked and looked at every paper that I can find on the subject and all that I see is spending, spending and more spending.
Grant it our health care system needs help, it is failing and giving terrible results while insurance companies charge through the roof for this service. But I just don't think that that bill is the answer. I wish the Republicans would have tried to work with the Dems on some of the basics of the bill instead of stonewalling them. I think that together both parties could find a solution that would work for everyone.

One Step Closer

So now that the Obama admin has finished socializing health care (I am holding out on bashing it just yet, I will explain why in my next blog) it seems that they now feel that it is their part to step in and take over housing loans from private investors. The reason behind this is to offer home owners who are struggling, a loan which is protected from default, has lower payments and lower interest rates. Now this is great and all except for a couple things, first I am of the opinion that our Govt. can not take care of their own loans. We are currently at 12 trillion and climbing at a rate of 4.03 billion a day. Now if I remember correctly there is a debt limit that was voted into place at I believe, 9.6 trillion dollars. So instead of finding a way to stay below that limit our govt. voted to just raise it. Now I work at a bank and one of the policies that we have is, when someone is having a tough time paying their lines of credit we lower those lines of credit, then they slowly pay back what they owe till it is below their limit then they can begin borrowing again. Now that is just where I work but it sure seems like that is the right idea. So our govt. is acting as the blind leading the blind, while they are swamped in debt and not really looking for a way out, they offer others, who are drowning in debt too, a hand... That is not how it works.
My other problem with the govt. taking over loans on housing, is that is coming way to close to home (no pun intended). It is not the govt. job to own private sectors, in this bill that they are passing they are looking to help three to four million home owners. That is a whole lot of people who are essentially at the govt's. whim. Should the govt. suddenly decide that they want to house soldiers in civilians homes, I wonder who's door they would go knocking on first? These are just far fetched theories but they have happened under similar circumstances before. Say a president knows that he is going to lose the coming election, a simple brochure or television or radio ad implying that should he leave office those mortgages go down too. I have a feeling that a lot of people's votes would suddenly change in order to keep the security of housing above them. Sure the president does not have the power to do that, does he really need it? All it takes is the idea to put fear of having to find a home for one's family. This coupled with the control that is now on the health factor is too much power even for a democracy to have. Power corrupts most everyone.

What is This All About?

This is a question that many people ask nearly every time the Govt. puts forward a new bill. This is interesting because these bills change each of our lives, they raise taxes, lower taxes, they make things legal and illegal, yet still few ever actually understand what is being debated or what they are voting for. This brings up the question, how is it that in our last election nearly 70% of those who voted between the ages 18 and 30 voted for Obama? Seeing that nearly everyone in my age group who I talk to do not understand many of Obama's plans. And some even do not know the basic things that he promised during his election. So why are these people voting for or against things that they don't understand? What is influencing these people? I think that the answer to this is two fold. One reason is that they are voting for the most publicized or most charismatic person. The other more troubling possible reason that leads the public to vote on matters without fully researching them is a phenomenon that I call party affiliation. It seems that many people vote because of the party that they are registered as. This concerns me because as one of our founding fathers stated "Partisanship is a evil but it is a necessary evil" Partisanship is good in showing two sides to a argument, however, it is bad when it becomes a matter of pride to stay within a parties affiliation. This is where many people get caught and are unable to make a clear decision because they are so caught up in what it means to be a part of their party.