Bush didn't think there was anything wrong as he made many people rich by starting a private security contracting company, such as Blackwater. Obama seems to have the same opinion as Bush as he has really boosted the number of private security contractors in Afghanistan. They now make up 30% of the armed forces in Afghanistan. And that does not include the 100,000 contractors doing other work for us there. But one difference between the Bush and Obama use of these contractors is that 90% of the contractors in Afghanistan are Afghan nationals. However, some of these Afghan nationals in the private security contracting company have been known to attack their - not necessarily our - enemies using the weapons we have supplied.
It's not fashionable to say this but I really think we should reinstate the draft. While it would put many of our young people at risk, it would also make us realize the futility of the war on terror.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
She believes
It looks as though Elizabeth Warren thinks Obama will follow through with his announcement to curtail the banks power.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Starting Year 2
Our experience with the Obama administration thus far does not make me stand up and cheer at his announcement today of proposed legislation to reduce the power of the big banks. Seeing Paul Volcker in back of the president as he made the announcement did raise some hope that Obama may finally be ditching the stand-pat urgings of Geithner and Summers. Maybe Obama will finally act on this vital issue.
It sounds as though he wants to reinstate a version of Glass-Steagall and prevent the banks from investing in proprietary trading. And there appear to be some words to limit the size of the banks. Will he have the courage to move on this? Or, will he agree with Tim and Larry tomorrow? Will he begin a crusade on what is necessary to prevent a recurrence of the Great Recession? That's what it's going to take- a crusade - as the lobbyists work hard to continue their winning streak.
It sounds as though he wants to reinstate a version of Glass-Steagall and prevent the banks from investing in proprietary trading. And there appear to be some words to limit the size of the banks. Will he have the courage to move on this? Or, will he agree with Tim and Larry tomorrow? Will he begin a crusade on what is necessary to prevent a recurrence of the Great Recession? That's what it's going to take- a crusade - as the lobbyists work hard to continue their winning streak.
They need to go back to school
On what planet do the Democrats live? Following the win by Scott Brown, the Democratic 'leadership'' has issued a memo in which they state "It is mathematically impossible for Democrats to pass legislation on our own." Huh? They have a majority in both the House and Senate that is larger than W had when he got just about everything he wanted.
They and the press have attempted to convince us that 60 votes are needed to pass anything in the Senate. But in a democracy majority rules. Why don't the Democrats understand that? If they feel that the filibuster rule is what is stopping them from making things happen, why don't they change the rule? The issue comes down to the willingness and ability to do their jobs - working to make America a better place for all of us.
Let the filibusters begin!
They and the press have attempted to convince us that 60 votes are needed to pass anything in the Senate. But in a democracy majority rules. Why don't the Democrats understand that? If they feel that the filibuster rule is what is stopping them from making things happen, why don't they change the rule? The issue comes down to the willingness and ability to do their jobs - working to make America a better place for all of us.
Let the filibusters begin!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Go Forth and Procreate
That's the command of South Korea's Ministry of Health. The country's birth rate is close to the lowest in the world and the country is getting worried about its ability to support a constantly aging society. So, the Ministry is sending all of its staff home once a month on Procreation Family Day with the hope that the country will really adopt the idea and start producing children.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Coakley has to be nuts
I have received 5 phone calls today, the last at 7 p.m. The polls close at 8. It's raining here on the Vineyard and possibly snowing on the mainland. Even if I had not voted, these calls would cause me to vote for Brown.
What can they be thinking?
What can they be thinking?
Finally it will soon be over
Today we elect our next U.S. Senator. Back in October we all thought it would be Coakley. I still think so but there is a slight possibility she will lose. I say 'slight' because if you look at Brown's record and statements it is pretty obvious that he represents a relatively small minority of the voters in this state. For example, he is for waterboarding.
While I have not studied her record in detail, she seems to have done a decent job as DA and Attorney General. However, the embarassment of her campaign raises questions as to whether I am mistaken. Politicians that hold major office, such as Senator, need to have a good staff. If her political advisers in this campaign accurately reflect her people skills, she will be another weak senator. One technique she's used - telephone calls to private homes - could backfire in the voting booth.
In my case I would certainly vote for Brown - if he were not so opposed to what I think is good for this country - because of the number and timing of the phone calls touting her candidacy; it does not matter if those calls included ones by Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Vicki Kennedy.
While I have not studied her record in detail, she seems to have done a decent job as DA and Attorney General. However, the embarassment of her campaign raises questions as to whether I am mistaken. Politicians that hold major office, such as Senator, need to have a good staff. If her political advisers in this campaign accurately reflect her people skills, she will be another weak senator. One technique she's used - telephone calls to private homes - could backfire in the voting booth.
In my case I would certainly vote for Brown - if he were not so opposed to what I think is good for this country - because of the number and timing of the phone calls touting her candidacy; it does not matter if those calls included ones by Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden and Vicki Kennedy.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Reality should not intrude
At least when it comes to fighting evil. We have this fixation that banning things makes them go away. If we ban alcohol, the problems of alcohol will go away. I'm shocked that we had the sense to repeal prohibition; maybe people were more critical then. We have certainly not been critical with regards to our war on drugs. We've wasted billions in trying to remove 'illegal' drugs from the world. What could we have done with the effort and talent that has gone into this 'voluntary' war?
There are some things we can't ban, although we'd like to. Unfortunately, terrorists will appear anyplace in the world. And, the current thinking of our leaders is that we must do almost anything to prevent terrorism in this country, no matter the risk, no matter the cost.
The risk of terrorism is a topic discussed in a recent Wall Street Journal, of all places. Paul Campos compares the risk of death by terrorism to the risk of death by some more common means. Nate Silver analyzes the terrorism risk itself.
Campos argues that this war on terror is making us cowards because we are not willing to be treated as adults nor is the government seemingly eager to do so. Silver uses a lot of numbers. Some of the more interesting ones taken largely from the past decade: 1 in 25,000,000 passengers on an American airline was a terrorist victim, the second largest number of people killed in one terrorist attack was 329, there were five times fewer violent passenger incidents in the last decade than in any decade from the 1940s. So, the risk is tiny and getting tinier. Silver is not naive. He recognizes that a terrorist nuclear attack would be really devastating killing hundreds of thousands. Would we not be smarter to focus our anti-terrorism efforts and money here?
There are some things we can't ban, although we'd like to. Unfortunately, terrorists will appear anyplace in the world. And, the current thinking of our leaders is that we must do almost anything to prevent terrorism in this country, no matter the risk, no matter the cost.
The risk of terrorism is a topic discussed in a recent Wall Street Journal, of all places. Paul Campos compares the risk of death by terrorism to the risk of death by some more common means. Nate Silver analyzes the terrorism risk itself.
Campos argues that this war on terror is making us cowards because we are not willing to be treated as adults nor is the government seemingly eager to do so. Silver uses a lot of numbers. Some of the more interesting ones taken largely from the past decade: 1 in 25,000,000 passengers on an American airline was a terrorist victim, the second largest number of people killed in one terrorist attack was 329, there were five times fewer violent passenger incidents in the last decade than in any decade from the 1940s. So, the risk is tiny and getting tinier. Silver is not naive. He recognizes that a terrorist nuclear attack would be really devastating killing hundreds of thousands. Would we not be smarter to focus our anti-terrorism efforts and money here?
It's not starting out well
2010 that is. A year into his administration Obama does not seem to be moving this country forward. The economy is nowhere near even thinking about becoming robust, although you wouldn't know it if you followed the stock market or listened to the wonderful bankers and their lackeys in Congress. Geithner continues to be an embarassment; he was afraid to let AIG tell the world they were reimbursing Goldman and Company 100 cents on the dollar. The financiers can pay unreal bonuses while failing to spend our money to help the economy. We're sinking in Afghanistan and will likely spend the next twenty years there and in Iraq. For what end? How does Obama define change? Is it only talk? It sure seems that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)