Really? What An Absurd Thing For A Government To Do

Last week the United States government gave an apology to Guatemala for purposely injecting Guatemalan citizens with syphilis in the 1940s. I was aghast when I heard that this occurred. Why? Why was the U.S. federal government wasting its time, resources and money with giving Central Americans STDs? So it turns out that they did all of this to test penicillin. Was there not people already carrying the disease in our own country that probably would have gladly volunteered to test the drug if it meant curing this ailment? That makes more sense to me. An article I read said that Guatemala is considering whether to press for crimes against humanity or not, and why wouldn't they? Chances are the scientists that did this are either dead or very close to it. So, unfortunately they probably won't get real justice for this heinous act. They got an apology, and let's face it they are lucky to get that.
I don't know why people think that our government is infallible and pure and always such a great thing. Sure this isn't a common thing that we hear in the news. However, we don't know everything that goes on. Governments keep secrets because they like to give the appearance of being this grand and generous entity. This is a reason why the press has to do its surveillance duties and be a watchdog for the citizens. Governments lie and do evil things. Don't kid yourself. There is this example with Guatemala, the Tuskegee experiment where they did the same thing to our own citizens, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Ruby Ridge, the WMD justification for Iraq, and the list could go on. I'm pretty sure it'd be naive to think that this crap might end one day, but I certainly have my doubts of that. I only can only hope that the media will continue to try and expose these things then maybe one day things like this will cease. Ha, yeah right.

Pledge To America: Some new old ideas from the newly unchanged GOP

With the GOP poised to retake the House and possibly the Senate they have released their "Pledge to America." This is supposed to outline some of the ways Republicans plan to govern this time around if they are given Congress back. In all honestly, what issues have changed, and also what is the likelihood of actually getting most of this done. Mainly, the person in the white house who has to sign these bills into law isn't the biggest fan of theirs. I'm definitely no democrat, and I'm not really that enthused with the Republicans either. I really don't think that this pledge has any real significance, and I don't think a whole lot of people have really taken it that serious. I do admit I didn't read the entire 40+ page document, but I did read through their smaller, pocket edition, of the pledge that lays out the general main points. Anyway, let's look a few points they lay out. 
-It starts out talking about how they plan to not introduce any job-killing bills. I must admit that is a very good plan.
-Spending: They want to plan a way to balance the budget, and start reducing the debt. That would be good if they really intended to do that. One way they say to do this is by cutting spending to a pre-stimulus and pre-bailout level. That's nice except even before all of that the budget wasn't balanced. Also, put a cap on new discretionary spending. That's never really happened before, and I'm sure anything defense is exempt from this. They also say they will have weekly spending cuts. I hope no one is really that naive.
-They talk about getting rid of unnecessary programs. Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done, but I hope they can come through on this. Also they don't really list out exactly what programs they want to get rid of. Maybe this is in the actual document, but I have my doubts about that.
-There's a health care section, but we're all aware of the stances and situations there so there's not much to go into.
-There's a read the bill with a three day waiting period prevision, but let's be honest they never really did before so why start now. Most of them probably don't even completely read the short bills. Also, who would enforce this.
-They talk about how they will adhere to the Constitution, and require every piece of legislation to cite where that is legal under the Constitution. I like this a lot, but Bush and Republican blatantly violated the Constitution, so I don't expect that to really be truthful. I like having to cite where the Constitution gives congress the authority to do whatever, but this is sort of flawed. You can use the commerce clause or other things for just about anything, but I would at least still like to have this requirement there.
-Foreign Policy: This is where Republicans really don't understand much of anything, and where they're less government, lower spending, etc. doesn't ever come up. Instead this is the area where government should apparently grow and grow and never stop expanding. Point Two: Keep terrorists out of America. Thanks! I'm glad they mentioned that, or I would've thought terrorists were welcome. The next point says they will, "Enact an overarching detention policy for terrorists combatants." That is just completely ridiculous. I don't want Gitmo to continue to be what it is. Capture the dangerous people then try them then put them in a jail or execute the worst of them or something, but quit the indefinite suspensions of habeus corpus. That's not what America should be. Then Iran comes up, and I cannot fully figure out the fascination by conservatives of Iran. Yes their president is a crazy idiot. I do not deny that, but I'm not afraid of Iran. I'm pretty sure that Iran is never going to drop a bomb on America, and in reality Israel can defend itself  since they have their own nukes. The thing that scares me most if Republicans come back to power is a possible invasion of Iran. I can't fathom how they think this would be a reasonable or good decision.
-Immigration is briefly discussed. We'll see what actually happens with that. I would guess nothing really sensible though. They say they will strengthen visa security. I'm not completely positive what exactly that is, but I would guess they are going to make it harder for people get visas. This would make it harder to come here legally therefore causing more illegal immigration. Let's face it this issue is never going to be fully resolved.
They go on to conclude with basically saying that they're not going to do anything that the Democrats have done. Good. I am just so doubtful that Republican policies will show any real difference than before. I don't agree with them on too much, and I probably disagree with Obama and the democrats more. Therefore, I say vote libertarian. Vote for freedom. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils because the lesser of two evils is still evil!

What Exactly Does It Take To Be An Economic Expert?

In class we watched the Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer clip, and discussed financial reporting in the media. It seems like that it's too often that these economic experts are pretty far off. Do they just not want to report bad news? The picture is often painted as everything is ok or it's getting better. It seems like people continually take Ben Bernake's word on the status of the economy, but why trust a man who is continually wrong? He will give reports saying the economy is getting better when obviously the situation is no better off than before. Also, you got to love when the president has given interviews at the beginning of the month saying that they created however many jobs in the previous month, but the unemployment has risen. Do people really not realize this? Then there are the people that are on TV, such as Cramer, who give predictions and report on the economic and financial systems. Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and all the other channels have shows  and "expert" guests that are on everyday dedicated to this. I understand nobody is perfect, but do the majority of these people really not get it or understand what has, is happening, and going to happen at all. It seems like when someone speaks against the optimism that is being discussed they get criticized and are said to be preaching doom and gloom. Why is that a bad thing? I understand people don't enjoy bad news. However, would you not want to be told that you have cancer then go on living as if everything was going to be alright because you don't think anything bad could ever happen to you.

When we started talking about this in class there was one person and some videos that came to mind. That was Peter Schiff who correctly predicted back in 2006 and 2007 that the country was headed for a massive economic recession, but was continually laughed and scolded at for saying that the fundamentals of the economy were not sound. Why are people like this and their ideas not given more credit? It's not like he never gave reasons for this thought process either. He also ran for U.S. Senate in Connecticut this year, but lost in the primary to millionaire WWE CEO Linda McMahon because she was basically able to buy the election by spending millions on it. Whereas, Peter Schiff had less financial support and not the same name recognition, and there was also former Connecticut Congressman in the running. It seems as though there was a real lack of investigation of the candidates by voters in this race. You can watch the video below and develop your own opinion, but I want people like this in D.C. fighting for Americans. You got to love how he proves one of Reagan's former top economic advisers wrong. Then there was when a panel of Fox News economic experts are asked what stocks to invest in and they all suggest to invest in businesses that collapsed and were at the head of the crisis when all of it really started to unravel, but Schiff suggested that people should have stayed away from stock market. He suggested that people should have invested in gold because he thought that it would go above $1,000/ounce; this was when it was under $90/oz. To say the least he could not have been more right. I encourage you to take the time and watch the video because it really is fascinating.






He was also on The Daily Show if that helps legitimize him. 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Peter Schiff
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

She Just Couldn't Stay In Alaska

For whatever reason Sarah Palin has become a pretty big political celebrity. A few years ago she was pretty much unknown outside the state of Alaska. Then after becoming the Republican VP nominee she and her political inexperience was later criticized for being one of the reasons that John McCain didn't do better in the election. Now nobody really likes old man McCain anymore, but now she is apparently one of  the greatest things to ever happen to the Republican Party. It really was quite a switch, and all she had to do was resign as governor and start working for Fox News. Then somewhere along the way she became the face of the Tea Party movement. In my opinion she has done all of the this without really becoming any more intelligent on anything that matters. I'm getting tired of her being this great political figure all of the sudden while she has become nothing more than a talking head for the Republican Party. Something else that really gets on my nerves is Palin going from state to state endorsing these candidates that I'm willing to bet she doesn't even really know much about. Especially as of recent she has been endorsing the women in select races because I guess that's what matters to her. Her influence almost worked in Georgia when she backed Handel for Governor, but luckily Palin couldn't change enough of Georgians' minds. (Not that the other options were much different/better) Anyway, then when these often tea party candidates win their primaries it is considered as an accomplishment for Palin. The only thing she has really accomplished is not minding her own business, and intruding into local elections where she doesn't belong. I'll admit I voted McCain/Palin in 2008, but I could not honestly give you a good reason why other than I saw it as the lesser of two evils. I guarantee I won't do that again if she is on a ballot in 2012. It just baffles me that she has become what she has, but good for her and candidate that gets her seal of approval because no one would ever consider turning down that kind of endorsement.

If you are a Palin supporter and wish to give me a reason why I am wrong and she is a respectable political figure then please comment. If you are also confused or frustrated by Palin's celebrity status then I welcome your comments as well.

When will it all end?

About a week and a half ago President Barack Obama announced the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, more commonly referred to as the Iraq War. However, he went on to make known that it was only the "combat" part of the mission was over. I'm sure that everyone is aware of this, and the fact that there are still around 50,000 soldiers still in Iraq. That's still a lot of troops, and those troops still face serious dangers. Unfortunately, no one can deny that there will still be casualties despite their "non-combative" status. With that being said, Why go through the theatrics of sitting in your chair in the oval office and proclaim to the nation that you've ended the war when you really haven't? I understand the scale back in number of troops is part of the process of ending the war, and had John McCain been elected not even that would have happened. I just don't understand why the big speech was necessary just because you changed  the name of the strategy. Last week on a special episode of the Colbert Report dedicated to the end of the war and bringing  troops home Vice President Joe Biden was a guest, and during his interview he admitted that the war was not won. Therefore, one can logically conclude that it's not over. It just seems to me that the big prime time address didn't necessarily need to be done in the way that it was. When all of the troops are brought home a big speech would make sense, or at least when almost all of the troops are home because lets face it there are going to be U.S. military bases in Iraq for a long time. That's just the way it is. Either way there will probably always be serious chaos in one way or another in Iraq, so let's hope that's not what they're waiting on. There was Bush's Mission Accomplished speech, and there was this speech by Obama along with more moments in between. I'm not saying there aren't moments that aren't important, but just a regular speech giving updates like this latest one would have been sufficient in my opinion. I'm just don't want to see the theatrics that pretend that the president was or is such a great accomplisher when not much of anything has changed.

Does Anybody Really Care?

Now that we don't really have to think about Georgia politics again until late October when the automated calls start coming to remind us there will be an election soon we don't have to worry about the issues concerning Georgia. It's important to note that the two main candidates running for governor don't seem to be that concerned with the issues either. Roy Barnes has been running a few campaign ads on TV, and why talk about something you would actually like to accomplish in the state if elected when you can just talk how your main opponent has had some corruption issues. I suppose that is important, but a campaign should consist of more than that. I assume that Nathan Deal's main campaign attack will be the fact of how Barnes did a terrible job as governor before so why would you give him another chance. As a matter of fact I heard a radio commercial this morning from some PAC about how Roy has been going around the state on an apology tour just like Obama did earlier on in his presidency. It informs that Roy's tour is about apologizing for his bad job as governor. This commercial was not endorsed by Deal's campaign, but I'm sure he will air similar ads. The commercial ended by saying that "Roy Barnes is worse than Obama." I'm no Obama fan, but I have to say that line was kind of ridiculous because it's not really a fair comparison. I know the demagoguery will be the main talking point, but would it kill them to slide in a sentence or two about something that could possibly one day help Georgians. Of course come November most people will again be entrenched with who they think is the best person for the job that actual issues to most won't be relevant because it's as simple as Republican vs. Democrat. That was quite a primary from the Republicans this year. I especially enjoyed one of the debates on GPB between Deal and Handel. When they would get a question about whatever the typical response was something along the lines of, "I will make better the whatever issue, and I'm better than my opponent and my opponent won't be the best person to deal with this." There was no real solution about helping the education situation that is plaguing the state currently. No mention of getting rid of the state income tax. It's almost like all they care about is getting elected. Johnny Isakson will enjoy what will pretty much be an automatic reelection. This is even though he voted for Bush's bailouts and has been an easy party line vote for Republicans. It seems also like he's just content to be in the Senate without being a true constitutional leader. I'm sick of people saying  "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils", or "he/she may not be the ideal candidate, but they're better than the other guy." Remember come November there will be a third option. You can vote Libertarian, and don't give that terrible line, "I don't want to waste my vote," or "I would, but they don't have a chance." Vote for someone who really has principle. Vote for real change; really send a message to politicians. Voting for someone because he's not someone else isn't going to help Georgia or the nation.

Here are a few links to get you thinking:
http://www.votemonds.com/
http://www.donovanforsenate.com/
http://www.lp.org/states/Georgia

About this mosque

The issue with the Islamic community center/mosque has become one of the biggest and most controversial issues of the year in the past month or so. Even though it has been planned to be built for months it for some reason has just recently become this outrageous thing. I'm not sure when or who ignited the fire of the mosque issue, but it grew and spread quickly. Now it's discussed on every TV and radio talk show everyday. Politicians in New York and every other state in country are using it in campaigning and for political leverage. Honestly, I am tired of it being controversial because there is nothing that can be done that will stop it. I do not like thw fact that a candidate for office inside and outside of New York may win this November because they have denounced it and/or proclaimed that it should not be built. It shouldn't be a campaign issue outside of New York, and I don't really think it should there either. Yes, I understand the controversy about the mosque. However, I don't think that this Islamic center is being built to praise the terrorists that attacked America. It's not like Al Qaeda is building a memorial there. Considering this is a country that has a constitution based on natural rights there is freedom of religion in America. The people that are building the community center have done nothing illegal, and they have every right to build there if they want to. There is nothing anyone can do that will stop it from being built on the basis of them being Muslims. The property belongs to them therefore they have property rights, and the property cannot be taken away from them. As long as they are in compliance with New York City zoning laws then there is no constitutional violation that should take place. The fact that saying this is disrespectful is making a generalization that Muslims are ok with what happened, and that is simply not true. America should be able to show that our enemy isn't Islam, but some radical ideologues that don't represent an entire religion. I liked what Jon Stewart had to say on the issue, and I think he did well to explain why America can't over react to this situation. Even though he is the host of "comedy show" he decides to be serious sometimes, and for most of this segment he is and he does a good job of explaining why most people aren't acting the way they should. It is unfortunate this issue has become what it has, but America has to be a country that values its constitution.


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition?xrs=share_copy