“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the
CIA. I will speak until I can no
longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is
sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that
your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be
killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a
crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court, that Americans
could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in
Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination. It is
something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.”
This quote is taken from the ongoing filibuster of Senator Rand Paul that is taking place as I type. I must first applaud Senator Paul for doing a filibuster properly and standing, continually holding the senate floor as long as he can. This is a rarity in our modern government and a symbol iconically portrayed in the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." The issue at hand is the confirmation of John Brennan as the head of the CIA and, the deeper issue, drone strikes on US soil.
Over the last year we have heard more and more about the US's use of drone strikes. We first heard of drone strikes as an overseas tactic against foreign terrorists. It was then expanded to include the possibility of drone strikes on US citizens overseas. Most recently it has been brought to the public's attention that policies allow for the use of drones on US soil and against US citizens suspected of terrorism.
When Rand Paul asked President Obama "Can you kill an American on American
soil?" The President's answer was not the obvious "no" but Rand Paul quotes him as responding "I haven’t killed anyone yet... And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might."
I wish to remind our President that, although he may have no intention of using drone strikes against American citizens, he is setting a precedent for all who follow after him. This undermining of American liberties must stop. We must be proactive in our protection of American liberties not just from the current administration but for all future generations.
Read more Rand Paul's Filibuster here:
ABC News
New York Times
Huffington Post
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Playing on Sympathies
President Obama's announcement earlier this week that he supported legalizing gay marriage has caused quite a stir, as I'm sure his campaign intended it to. Though he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman" he is still coming our in support of gay marriage. Overall his speech is full of mixed messages.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Mutually Exclusive
Today I was musing on the concepts of freedom and equality. Both are spectacular ideals that cause as many problems as they solve because they are mutually exclusive, or nearly so. To many people this may seem like a lie, but a little examination into the true meaning and consequences of each reveals it all.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Obama Falling to Pieces
Comments about Russia "backing off" until after November's election aside, Obama needs to learn that the things that come out of his mouth say a lot more than he means, or would at least like known. Tuesday's speech to the associated press had several such moments. Some of the highlights, outlined here on msnbc, are items that I feel must be touched on.
The first, which rubs me the wrong way though it's a smart political move, is Obama's use of presidential air time to essentially campaign against his most likely opponent, Mitt Romney. With so many regulations and people monitoring where and how much money is coming in to the different political candidates I'm surprised that more people aren't raising an eyebrow to Obama's low blow. Honestly, commenting on Romney's use of the word marvelous to describe the budget proposal, no matter how misplaced the description may be, appears to me as a flippant, childish jab. The fact that he is using a presidential forum, air time paid for by our tax dollars, makes me even more annoyed.
But I'm only getting started as he goes on to say that domestic spending is the area targeted for cuts under the proposed budget even though it's “exactly the area where we’ve already cut the most.” Excuse me?! Mr. President, it's not good to lie to the American people. As I've shown in not one, but two previous posts, Obama has not been responsible for spending cuts, but rather a ballooning of our national debt and the expansion of some areas of domestic services, such as the health care reforms, that will have a huge overhead cost in order to enforce. But maybe he isn't exactly lying, the truth may be that we've cut the most there since we've cut next to nothing or nothing from everywhere else.
I take insult to Obama referencing Ronald Reagan by saying "Ronald Reagan, who as I recall was not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases ... He did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today." This implies that our current president thinks he has followed in Reagan's footsteps (a weak appeal to Reaganites who should be able to follow the numbers) but he has neither cut spending nor raised taxes.
Finally, I'm amazed at Obama's gall and over confidence about his health care reform that is currently sitting in front of the Supreme Court. If the court throws the bill out, as it appears likely they will, then without a back-up plan all that time, money, and effort are down the drain. Obama should be afraid of the supreme court, otherwise they are not a proper check on his power.
The first, which rubs me the wrong way though it's a smart political move, is Obama's use of presidential air time to essentially campaign against his most likely opponent, Mitt Romney. With so many regulations and people monitoring where and how much money is coming in to the different political candidates I'm surprised that more people aren't raising an eyebrow to Obama's low blow. Honestly, commenting on Romney's use of the word marvelous to describe the budget proposal, no matter how misplaced the description may be, appears to me as a flippant, childish jab. The fact that he is using a presidential forum, air time paid for by our tax dollars, makes me even more annoyed.
But I'm only getting started as he goes on to say that domestic spending is the area targeted for cuts under the proposed budget even though it's “exactly the area where we’ve already cut the most.” Excuse me?! Mr. President, it's not good to lie to the American people. As I've shown in not one, but two previous posts, Obama has not been responsible for spending cuts, but rather a ballooning of our national debt and the expansion of some areas of domestic services, such as the health care reforms, that will have a huge overhead cost in order to enforce. But maybe he isn't exactly lying, the truth may be that we've cut the most there since we've cut next to nothing or nothing from everywhere else.
I take insult to Obama referencing Ronald Reagan by saying "Ronald Reagan, who as I recall was not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases ... He did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today." This implies that our current president thinks he has followed in Reagan's footsteps (a weak appeal to Reaganites who should be able to follow the numbers) but he has neither cut spending nor raised taxes.
Finally, I'm amazed at Obama's gall and over confidence about his health care reform that is currently sitting in front of the Supreme Court. If the court throws the bill out, as it appears likely they will, then without a back-up plan all that time, money, and effort are down the drain. Obama should be afraid of the supreme court, otherwise they are not a proper check on his power.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A Rock and a Hard Place
The race for the Republican nomination has officially turned into a circus. With Romney and Gingrich acting like 5-year-olds fighting over a trip to Disneyland I am dumbfounded by their apparent leadership in the race. A reality TV show would be a more appropriate arena for their bickering. Whether you are for or against Obama it's becoming rapidly apparent that Republicans have little to no chance of winning this election. While the GOP worries about insulting Ron Paul enough for him to run as a third-party candidate (taking his vast following with him), they seem to be turning a blind eye on the shameful behavior of their two leading candidates.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Abuse of Statistics in Action
Please look at the following graph and tell me what is wrong with this picture:
Can't see it?
Well the Washington Post did and you can check out their article here. Or you can read on.
Even someone with the most basic understanding of statistics can see where this graph goes wrong. Let me use the example from the above mentioned Washington Post article. If one person increases the national debt from 10 to 20 they are said to have increased it by 100% but then if another person increases the debt from 20 to 30 they are only increasing it by 50%. Beginning to see the problem?
A better way to see who increased the debt is to show the increase in dollars, and even more so to divide it over the length of the president's term. Reagan and Bush the younger may have increased by greater dollar amount but they also served longer terms that both the Elder Bush and Obama so far. Here are a few numbers for you:
President Start of term End of term Total increase Average yearly Increase
Reagen $994B $2.9T $1.9T $238B
Elder Bush $2.9T $4.4T $1.5T $375B
Clinton $4.4T $5.7T $1.3T $163B
Younger Bush $5.7T $10.4T $4.7T $588B
Obama $10.4T $11.8T(2010) $1.4T $700B
Now these are extremely rough estimates that do not take into account the state of the economy, world affairs, war, and certainly not inflation but you see a very different trend. Clinton, a democrat, is by far the best. But it is Obama, another democrat, who is by far the worse, closely followed by the younger Bush. We need to realize that Obama has increased the national debt more in 2 years than Clinton did in his entire 8 years in office.
This graph is laughable. And the fact that it is taken seriously by people on social media sites is even more so. It is sad to see that Americans have fallen so far.
Can't see it?
Well the Washington Post did and you can check out their article here. Or you can read on.
Even someone with the most basic understanding of statistics can see where this graph goes wrong. Let me use the example from the above mentioned Washington Post article. If one person increases the national debt from 10 to 20 they are said to have increased it by 100% but then if another person increases the debt from 20 to 30 they are only increasing it by 50%. Beginning to see the problem?
A better way to see who increased the debt is to show the increase in dollars, and even more so to divide it over the length of the president's term. Reagan and Bush the younger may have increased by greater dollar amount but they also served longer terms that both the Elder Bush and Obama so far. Here are a few numbers for you:
President Start of term End of term Total increase Average yearly Increase
Reagen $994B $2.9T $1.9T $238B
Elder Bush $2.9T $4.4T $1.5T $375B
Clinton $4.4T $5.7T $1.3T $163B
Younger Bush $5.7T $10.4T $4.7T $588B
Obama $10.4T $11.8T(2010) $1.4T $700B
Now these are extremely rough estimates that do not take into account the state of the economy, world affairs, war, and certainly not inflation but you see a very different trend. Clinton, a democrat, is by far the best. But it is Obama, another democrat, who is by far the worse, closely followed by the younger Bush. We need to realize that Obama has increased the national debt more in 2 years than Clinton did in his entire 8 years in office.
This graph is laughable. And the fact that it is taken seriously by people on social media sites is even more so. It is sad to see that Americans have fallen so far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)