Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
The New York Times today has an article about this. There are some interesting opinions to say the least.
“These are the worst of the worst,” Mr. Hannity of Fox News warned. “We seem to be letting our guard down again.”
John Yoo reportedly opined:
“Nobody wants to have a detention center for terrorists in their backyard.”
Also, the GOP’s unofficial chairman:
And Rush Limbaugh released a new edition of his Guantánamo Bay T-shirts with a new past-tense subtitle: “Club Gitmo — When America was safe.”
Basically, what fool would allow terrorists to be held in U.S. prisons? Well, it’s important to remember that there are people who kill because they feel that they have to and not for ideology already in U.S. prisons. So, arguably there are already more dangerous people than terrorists in U.S. prisons. Second, U.S. prisons already hold Jose Padilla, Richard Reed, and Zacarias Moussaoui; all sent there under Bush’s watch. So we must ask: was Bush a fool for putting these men in U.S. prisons? No.
This is probably the dumbest “issue” since the laughable claims that Obama is muslim. For most people this is a NIMBY issue. I live in Bozeman, MT. Move the detainees to Hardin, MT. I’m not sure 189 miles is still my backyard, but Hardin has been looking for a way to fill their vacant prison and this is an excellent way to do that.
Unfortunately, this is not an option. According to Montana News Station:
In a statement, Senator Jon Tester says quote ” I want to see a smart, long-term plan for those prisoners before we pay any tax dollars to move them.” Senator Tester does not want detainees to come to Montana.
Senator Max Baucus says he wants to review plans before funding the closure. Senator Baucus says quote “I’m committed to helping folks find a solution that would the Hardin facility to use and create jobs, but filling it with Guantanamo detainees is not the right way to do it.”
Rehberg is also opposed. Why? Because he’s a Republican. Tester and Baucus are opposed because they’re Democrats that are afraid of Republicans accusing them of “importing terrorists” or whatever they pay Luntz to come up with (if I had the money I would pay him to come up with phrasing too). It’s sad really.
I told a friend last night that I thought filling Hardin with terrorists was a great idea. If they escape, where will they go? Who will they harm? Their escape requires them to travel through hundreds of miles of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, or Idaho if they’re truly stupid. Want to know how those poor little townfolk that are so endangered will react to the idea of terrorists escaping prison and fleeing law enforcement across their property? Well, what my friend said kinda sums it up:
They’re already the same color as deer.
Perhaps not the most politically correct phrase but it’s also not a sober phrase (alcohol sober). The truth is that if the terrorists escape they will be shot. If you are on someone’s property, charging them, screaming “Jihad” and “Allah,” and are wearing a prison uniform – you’re not gonna have a good time.
I guess I don’t understand why no one seems to realize this, or that we already have several terrorists in our prisons and that’s worked out just fine. Why is everyone so afraid of everything these days? Our country is too polarized. It’s sad.
Torture: Republicans v. Democrats
Posted on: May 18, 2009
As we all know, the Republicans have put Pelosi in their sights. From CNN:
House Minority Leader John Boehner demanded that Pelosi provide evidence to support her accusations.”Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime,” Boehner, R-Ohio, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
He should be careful about making such assertions. The Bush administration wasn’t exactly honest. It seems that there was a lot said about Iraq that wasn’t truthful. Notably, information in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. Try this one:
Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
The source was Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi (aka Curveball) (that’s possibly misspelled), who made this admission to avoid further torture. According to Colonel Lawrence B Wilkerson, “former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell”:
Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just “committed suicide” in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi….)
Here’s a Washington Post article about his suicide that is not linked to in Wilkerson’s article.
It’s sad how hypocritical Rep. Boehner is about what Pelosi knew about what the Bush White House was actually doing. If he is going after what Pelosi knew, then perhaps we should actually disbar the 12 lawyers that worked for the Bush administration. After all, they did:
…[misuse] their license to practice law to provide legal cover for the war crime of torture. This misuse of their license requires the bar association to disbar them or the bar will become complicit in torture.
I guess if we’re going after everybody but those who actually approved torture this makes sense. Let’s nail Pelosi to a cross. Then we can start with the 12 attorneys who allegedly misused their law licenses. Then we can go after those who were actually responsible, and I’m not referring to those who were in the interrogation rooms physically applying the illegal techniques. I’m referring to those who approved and ordered them to be carried out.
The sooner this mess gets cleaned up the sooner we can start cleaning up the present mess – or at least prepare to clean it up in 2012.
Lol @ Republicans
Posted on: April 29, 2009
So, Senator Arlen Specter switched parties today. That means that if Franken wins Minnesota the Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority, but I’m sure you knew this. This is funny because after 8 years of Bush/Cheney the Republicans are getting what’s coming to them. I’m not an Obama cheerleader and I’m not really sure if I like him or dislike him, but I know I hate Bush. I realize that according to the LATimes, Specter supported Bush 76% of the time. According to FactCheck, Obama supported Bush 40% of the time in 2007 (and Harry Reid 39%, but perhaps not in the same year). Furthermore, McCain supported Bush anywhere from 67% (2001) to 77% (2005) to 95% (2007). Much of this (probably at least 35% but that’s a shot in the dark) was somewhat procedural. Some things just aren’t controversial – like domestic violence (unless you’re Joe Biden):
Senator Biden, how, as vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight?
BIDEN: Well, that’s what I’ve done my whole career, Gwen, on very, very controversial issues, from dealing with violence against women, to putting 100,000 police officers on the street, to trying to get something done about the genocide in — that was going on in Bosnia.
And I — I have been able to reach across the aisle. I think it’s fair to say that I have almost as many friends on the Republican side of the aisle as I do the Democratic side of the aisle.
In his fairness he did want to change the topic which is very common in politics and is done by everyone on both sides of the aisle because it’s the only way politicians get to say what they want. But these aren’t really controversial issues, although at times the way to solve them can be. Still, it shows that eventually everyone votes with the President.
I’ve digressed. While Specter has supported Bush about twice as much as Obama and Reid he still has his reputation as a moderate Republican and the switch can only hurt the Republicans. The last thing the party needs is to be losing their rational Senators.
But those of us that aren’t partisans are secretly cheering becuase the Republicans will probably face a filibuster proof majority. They deserve this. Especially after all those stupid Tea Parties. While those who took part in them are overwhelmingly decent people and not “right-wing extremists” (also funny – learn about left-wing extremists), the troubling aspect is that an overwhelming number of tea-partiers were cheering Bush on. “Don’t mortgage our childrens future!” “Taxed Enough Already.” Why wasn’t there anyone angry that Obama appears to just be furthering what Bush started: The Great Bank Robbery of 2008. Turns out, the Treasury actually overpaid $78 billion for TARP assets. But it’s not robbery because they gave it away for us – semantics really.
I for one am tired about hearing how corporations are too big to fail. That we have to save the idiots who got us into this mess in order to get out of this mess. I’m tired of hearing criticism of Obama that is as – and frequently more – applicable to Bush. The hypocrisy kills me. So while I’m happy the Republicans will more than likely face a spanking, I will end with some solid advice on how to revive the Republican party: don’t focus on the religious right or nutjobs because these two groups are already more than likely going to vote Republican (unless they defect to a third party) just to prevent a Democrat from gaining office. The defectors will be offset by Democrats defecting to other third parties. Anyway, here’s the idea: martyr creationism.
Creationism contradicts widely accepted scientific knowledge about plate tectonics, volcanoes, diamonds, oil, fossils, carbon-dating, and a host of other “less important” issues like the creation of the planet and universe. It’s just dumb. Please stop talking about it. It’s like saying that the cell isn’t the most basic unit of life (one of the foundations of biology), which of course is exactly what Pro-Choicers argue. While Roe v Wade provides women the right to choose (and there is the restriction of “undue burden” in the ability to obtain an abortion), there is no reason women can’t choose expediently. Permitting abortions in the first 3 months isn’t too controversial because the Republicans’ hands are tied by the Supreme Court. Taking this stance, with the disclaimer that your hands are tied, but that you are pragmatic and believe in science – specifically cell theory and evolutionary theory – might not win over religious zealots but it will win over moderates. That’s the key demographic. If you believe in rapture, then you’re limited in who you can vote for. When you’re rational, there’s no limit to who can be voted for.
This is wild speculation but I would think that moderates are also better at voting because they know candidates names and not just their party affiliation. I shudder when thinking about how many people in Montana voted for Steve Bullock instead of Tim Fox because they either didn’t know what an Attorney General was or didn’t care. I gave money to Tim Fox and Obama. My Obama money is regretful, but at the time I gave him 2 $5 donations as a way of saying: way to go man, Hillary sucks (I was one of those white males that inexplicably didn’t like her – Palin fixed that almost overnight… there’s a bizarre study of human psychology somewhere in there). The money to Tim Fox was to say: I like you and want you to win. I was so naive that I actually thought the there was no way that Fox could lose; he lost by 24,677 votes. Thanks mostly uneducated voters (there are definitely some really smart Democrats out there and I love talking with them but they’re the exception and not the rule, almost the same holds true for Republicans but it seems that uneducated Republicans are more familiar with why they believe what they believe – even if it doesn’t really make sense).
So, the Republicans need to martyr creationism for their position on abortion and move the party left. Not far left, just a little left. They can get Specter back and they can even get me. But I want some Republican-reparations for Bush. I want to see a resolution pass that denounces the Constitutional offenses Bush and Cheney most certainly committed so that we can move on, possibly to Obama. It’s virtually impossible for many of us to criticize Obama too harshly, which consequently could allow the Republicans to regain control, without something significant.
P.S. I reluctantly add that I voted for Ron Paul. If you didn’t figure out that the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Great Bank Robbery Article) is Austrian economics, which Ron Paul subscribes to, and that I don’t like either party (although I supported Obama in the Democratic primary, a late-comer to the Paul movement); well, someone else would have. There doesn’t need speculation on this. I’m not crazy about Ron Paul anymore – he let me down by not putting his name on all 50 states last November. Also, his movement is filled with people who keep talking about global banking cabal conspiracies and the one world government conspiracy. Alex Jones is all about this, I’m not. But if you have time you might grab some beer and watch his video on Bohemian Grove – it’s fun.
This occurred to me today. These two goals are counterproductive.
Environmentalists want to protect the environment. I reread a post I made about Ecuador’s Constitution. It’s about Aldo Leopold’s land ethic and Article 1 of the Ecuadorian Constitution:
“Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.”
Well, today I saw a reference to Article 25 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So, do you see the contradiction? How do we honor both at the same time? Now add a growing global population.
Who holds U.S. debt?
Posted on: April 6, 2009
This CNBC slideshow is facinating. Here’s who holds U.S. debt.
15. Luxembourg – $87.2 billion
14. Depository Institutions – $107.3 billion (includes commercial banks, savings banks, and credit unions.
13. Russia – $119.6 billion
12. UK – $124.2 billion
11. Insurance Companies – $126.4 billion (includes property-casualty and life insurance firms)
10. Brazil – $133.5 billion
9. Caribbean Banking Centers – $176.6 billion
8. Oil Exporters – $186.3 billion (includes Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria)
7. Other Investors – $413.2 billion (includes individuals, government-sponsored enterprises, brokers and dealers, bank personal trusts, estates, corporate and non-corporate businesses)
6. Pension Funds – $456.4 billion (includes both private and local government pension funds)
5. State and Local Governments – $522.7 billion
4. Japan – $634.8 billion
3. China (mainland) – $739.6 billion [Hong Kong – not included – holds another $71.7 billion]
2. Mutual Funds – $769.1 billion (includes money market funds, mutual funds and closed-end funds)
1. Federal Reserve and Intragovernmental Holdings – $4.806 trillion
I’m not sure where the other trillion and a half or so went.
Obama’s Stimulus: initial Success!
Posted on: March 3, 2009
CNN has an article today about
[LaHood]said the project will support 60 jobs. “And that’s how we’re going to get the country back on its feet,” LaHood added.
Mark Compton, director of government affairs for American Infrastructure, said his company received $2.1 million in federal funds, by way of the Maryland State Highway Administration.
On average, every billion in highway infrastructure spending creates 30,000 jobs. This article makes this statistic clear. The fact that we can see this start and begin to work is encouraging. It’s really annoying hearing Limbaugh pray to God that the stimulus fails and more people lose their jobs and homes. I’m convinced he’s a misanthropist.
I look forward to more articles like this.
- In: Politics | Uncategorized
- 1 Comment
Yesterday, Karl Rove wrote another piece for the WSJ. This caught my attention:
The Bush tax cuts were not targeted to “the wealthiest few.” Everyone who paid federal income taxes received a tax cut, with the largest percentage of reductions going to those at the bottom. Last year, a family of four making $40,000 saved an average of $2,053 because of the Bush tax cuts. The tax code became more progressive as the share paid by the top 10% increased to 46.4% from 46% — and the nation experienced 52 straight months of job growth after the cuts took effect. And since when is giving back some of what people pay in taxes “transferring wealth?”
Here’s what the Bush tax cuts look like from a different perspective. David Cay Johnston writes in the NYT:
* Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes – a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data – now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000.
* Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.
* The alternative minimum tax, created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a growing share of the tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million – thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars annually. Far fewer of the very wealthiest will be affected by this tax.
The analysis examined only income reported on tax returns. The Treasury Department says that the very wealthiest find ways, legal and illegal, to shelter a lot of income from taxes. So the gap between the very richest and everyone else is almost certainly much larger.
Interesting…
The U.S. government sued UBS AG, Switzerland’s largest bank, to try to force disclosure of the identities of as many as 52,000 American customers who allegedly hid their secret Swiss accounts from U.S. tax authorities.
U.S. customers had 32,940 secret accounts containing cash and 20,877 accounts holding securities, according to the Justice Department lawsuit filed today in federal court in Miami. U.S. customers failed to report and pay U.S. taxes on income earned in those accounts, which held about $14.8 billion in assets during the middle of this decade, according to the court filing.
So it appears that David Cay Johnston was right: his numbers aren’t as accurate as they could be what with $14.8 billion being hidden and all. I like Karl Rove. He has politics in his veins, knows what he believes, why he believes it, and actively works to make his beliefs a reality (an expert in legislature and bureaucracy). I like Dick Cheney for the same reasons. Their politics suck, but that aside, they’re brilliant (think about what they got away with – that’s just what we know about). It’s no wonder Republicans feel the same degree of animosity for Rahm Emanuel that the Democrats feel for Rove or Cheney.
Meanwhile, the Drudge Report is sending countless hits to a blog post by Jake Tapper that includes a $338 billion tax increase on those making $250,000 or more annually. The tax hike is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. I don’t know what to think about this. It’s annoying because there are better ways to design tax cuts. Hell, if they really cared about lowering taxes they would reform and simplify the tax code. Isn’t it sad how many of Obama’s to-be secretaries and other various Congressman have tax discrepancies? How many Republicans have suffered the same fate?
I for one am against tax cuts. You read that correctly. Tax cuts are supposed to be good because they stimulate the economy and put the power of that stimulation into the hands of the people. That’s nice, but the problem is that when the government has less tax revenue they acquire more debt. The government doesn’t spend less just because they have less, but instead take on more debt. Hillary was just in China encouraging them to buy more debt while ‘looking the other way’ on the subject of human rights. I’m not a huge human rights advocate; I would like my rights back first thank you very much. The point is that we are “mortgaging” what we believe in, our values, and ultimately this debt deteriorates our nation’s economic and financial security (this is not a winning strategy). So when taxes go up our government takes on less debt. It sucks. But “fiscal sanity” is a myth. It doesn’t exist anymore. Both parties embrace it and neither follow it.
Selling our country to the Chinese is not a prudent national defense policy. It’s the opposite of one. Raise taxes, again, and again, and again, and again, until somebody finally snaps and scares some fiscal sanity into Congress.
Alleviating Poverty
Posted on: February 15, 2009
I had an interesting idea, which led me to an even more interesting website. I was happy I wasn’t the first person to have this idea. I’m not sure what it was, but in a reading for my Poli Sci 421 class, Politics of Food and Hunger, I read about the Hassans in Bangladesh. The received a $138 dollar loan from a Microcredit bank in order to buy urea and other things they needed to improve their crop yield.
At the time I wondered, wouldn’t it be great if people like me (a college student working 15 hours a week as a pizza guy) could loan the Hassans the money they need to improve their crop and thus their livelihood. A quick google search brought me to Kiva.org, a website that allows people to finance micro-credit loans through PayPal. The implications for this are immense.
The First World can lend someone in the Third World money. Anyone can invest money into Yaneth’s crafts business (she’s already repaid one loan) and reap a benefit (profit).
The benevolent Democrat in you can put money aside to help alleviate poverty in LDCs while the evil Republican in you can take the profit from that loan, move it into a U.S. account, withdrawal it, and spend it in the local economy (perhaps at the farmer’s market). Both sides benefit from this transaction and thus both sides alleviate poverty (albeit slightly) in their respective regions.
Now imagine that 1 million people each put $25 toward micro-credit loans in the Third World. The risk is so widespread that even if someone thinks they might not be repaid, it’s not a loss that will be mourned. Write it off as a donation. I’m not sure if it’s possible in the U.S. but would be surprised if it wasn’t.
This is how to alleviate poverty the capitalist way, but it would only work on a widespread level. Provide those who repay or have a decent business plan with a loan and deprive those who don’t meet their obligation. Think about it.
There is very little wonder why the Republicans oppose Obama’s bailtout. First, they lost in 2006 and lost more in 2008 so the remaining Republicans are in districts that can weather a Democratic storm. So, being the minority it’s safe for them to oppose it. Second, it’s also smart because of everything that comes with the bailout. Specifically, as Betsy McCaughey (Gov. Pataki’s first Lt. Gov) points out, there are many similarities between the bailout and Tom Daschle’s book about health care. She even points out what page to look at, it’s a fantastic article and one of the best I’ve read on a piece of legislation.
So, the Obama Administration is sneaking a major health care reform in a stimulus bill. The problem with this reform, as succinctly put by Betsy McCaughey:
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
This stifles innovation. I like my President, but this bill seems dumb. I’m confused because this conflicts with my perception of my President.
How does this play into Bush’s legacy?
First, the Republicans oppose Obama’s bailout, and it’s for good reason.
Second, Bush’s bailout was designed so that it could be paid back (even if that wasn’t the intention) and Obama’s isn’t. It’s a spending bill plain and simple. I suspect that Bush didn’t care if TARP produced a profit or a loss. After all, the Treasury Department paid $254 billion for assets worth $176 billion (this article). It doesn’t seem like they were planning on making a profit. But now, CEOs are going before Congress. Read the article here. I like this part:
Both Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack and Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf said their banks have not used government money for executive bonuses, dividends or lobbying.
“I know the American people are outraged about some compensation practices on Wall Street,” Mack said. “I can understand why.”
Mack said banks want to pay the government in full as fast as possible.
Emphasis added. I know Paulson was CEO for Goldman Sachs. CEO’s are generally Republican leaning because of tax issues. It’s not inconcieveable that Paulson is talking to friends on Wall Street and explaining the political importance of TARP funds being paid back and the government making a profit, however minimal.
By 2012, I would be surprised if TARP funds weren’t paid back. Obama’s stimulus will come under attack because it probably won’t work. The health care feature will be particularly despised, and since Bush’s bailout made money (or at very least was paid back) he will look like a superior President in economics (I don’t think anything but another 9/11 on Obama’s watch will salvage his foreign policy legacy).
This will probably be the angle the Republicans use. Besides, the public memory fades fast and even if they’re reminded that his administration permitted torture it probably won’t seem so bad. There’s a surprising number of people who agree with Cheney’s sick mind (sorry, I’m a self-hating Republican; mostly because of Bush/Cheney).
So stay tuned for 2012, and we’ll see if I’m right. I know I’m on a limb, but I think I’m right.
The Stupid Speaker of the House
Posted on: February 5, 2009
What’s wrong with Nancy Pelosi? Is there something in the water in San Francisco? Right . . . dumb question, of course there is. Well, whatever the problem is, it appears to be getting worse. Check this YouTube video out.
The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi states in this video that: Every month we do not have an Economic Recovery Package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don’t think we can go fast enough to stop that.
Because it is clear – very clear – in the video that she does in fact say “500 million americans” we can use this in Google to find a response to this particular statement. But searching this or this does not produce a single hit. So we can assume that there is not an official response.
U.S. Census Bureau estimates there are 305,752,006 people in the U.S. I personally think the number is higher, but . . . you get it. Public officials call these incidents when they “misspoke,” “gaffes.” What I don’t get is how someone in their right mind could say that 500 million Americans lose their job every month. I’ve been pretty drunk before but those words have still never left my mouth and I’ve said some pretty dumb things.
I just don’t get it.
Change.gov: Open for Questions
Posted on: December 11, 2008
Our President-elect has this relatively new Open for Questions forum on his change.gov site where you can ask questions and then vote on others’ questions: yes, no, meh. It’s kind of interesting and there have been some hilarious questions. Some choose to troll the site and others ask great questions that I don’t imagine he’ll ever answer. But some were mind-boggling:
“Don’t you find it ironic that the first partly black president is a democrat, when democrats historically were pro-slavery?”
Mr. Perfect, Seattle
Is this guy really so inept that he thinks the Democrats that supported slavery and modern Democrats are the same? Really? Strom Thurmond and Abraham Lincoln were from the same party? That’s nice, read a book.
“Mr. Obama, You want to provide health-care to all citizens of this Republic. What Article, Section, and Clause of the Constitution, are you using as justification, to fund your proposal via the federal government?”
BasicGreatGuy, Atlanta
I like this question, it’s a good one. The simple answer is from a bill passed in Congress by the Democratic majority. The authority can be found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 which states: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.”
I think what the question intended to ask was, where in the Constitution does the President have the authority to provide healthcare, or the Federal Government have the authority to serve as a single-payer? This is a far more difficult question as this part of the Constitution doesn’t technically exist. But in the section that allows for the President or Federal Government to do this it also has other provisions:
1. The President can wiretap for any reason, anytime he feels and it’s ok if he thinks it’s ok.
2. The U.S. Government can torture people regardless of the Geneva Conventions or anything else.
3. The U.S. Government decides what’s right and wrong.
4. The Constitutionally guaranteed rights in the Constitution are subject to the approval of the President. They can be repealed at anytime.
5. The President doesn’t really need Congressional approval to go to war.
So, as we see, there’s a lot in the Constitution that’s not really in the Constitution. Didn’t stop Bush. Won’t stop Obama. I love his new little forum.
- In: Environment | Logic | Politics
- 3 Comments
I’m not your ordinary blogger. I do this occasionally when I have free time and sufficient motivation to voice my opinion. As such, sometimes I use questionable sources as I’m about to – and only now will I commit such a heinous crime – quote Wikipedia. I have taken classes that have taught Aldo Leopold’s idea of a “land ethic” so I’m comfortable in doing this:
“In [A Sand County Almanac] he wrote that there was a need for a ‘new ethic’, an ‘ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it.'”
“The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land…[A] land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.”
“Leopold argues that the next step in the evolution of ethics is the expansion of ethics to include nonhuman members of the biotic community, collectively referred to as ‘the land.’ Leopold states the basic principle of his land ethic as, ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.'”
While I was learning this I could help but to think this was a little odd but not too bad idea. Personally, I think John Muir is a douchebag but I am totally on par with the way he thinks about environmentalism. Politically, it’s impractical and I would be happy with stringent air, water, and soil pollution regulations. This means I don’t agree with Leopold’s land ethic (please re-read this sentence). That’s about the extent of it for me and I will openly admit that on the issue of environmentalism I’m liberal. I really like floating down rivers, fishing, hiking, camping, and clean air. Countless flights between LAX and FCA (in Kalispell, MT) have shown me first hand that you can taste air. It’s not bullshit.
BUT, you have to draw a line somewhere. Ecuador’s new constitution is incredibly stupid. INCREDIBLY. It makes Leopold’s land ethic look conservative. The new constitution gives “Nature” the same rights as human beings.
Taken from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) website. The page is titled, “Ecuador Adopts Constitution With CELDF Right of Nature Language.”
Article 1 of the new “Rights for Nature” chapter of the Ecuador constitution reads: “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.”
Seems this might not have been well thought out. Let’s focus on Nature having “the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” How is the fisherman supposed to fish? How does the farmer pull weeds, remove crop pests, or EAT. That’s right, how do people eat meat, vegetables, or anything else including dirt? If your food has a “right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles” how do you reap what you have sown and eat dinner? Many (mostly from the left) will tell me I’m taking an idea to the extreme, but the wording allows that to happen. Don’t blame me for someone else’s crappy wording. Aldo Leopold’s land ethic was not intended to subordinate human beings to coyotes, it was intended to make them equal. The land ethic is radical by itself. But when we say that coyotes (because they’re wild animals) don’t have to respect the right of Nature the same way humans do we make ourselves subordinate to other animals in the natural kingdom and WE DON’T HAVE FOOD ANYMORE. Hell, you can’t build a house, irrigation ditch, or mudhut without violating some part of Nature’s “right to exist.” You can’t swap a mosquito, pull a weed, eat, or take medicine lest you murder some poor helpless disease.
Now lets focus on the second part of that constitutional provision: “Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.” This means that I can sue some random housewife in Ecuador for weeding her flower garden. That’s awesome. Maybe we should have a “Save the Herpes” or “Keep AIDS” fundraiser to prevent the destruction of these beautiful members of our biotic community.
So, bottom line? Don’t go to Ecuador unless you want to sue the asshole your wife ran off with for stepping on an ant. That’ll show him! Good luck.
UPDATE: So, if you poop in nature and it destroys a micro-organism in order to promote the life of another, which micro-organism’s “right to exist” should be given more prominence? If you can poop in nature (which I’m not sure the Ecuadorian constitution allows) then you can eat. That’s somewhat encouraging.
First off, it wasn’t “hacked” it was exploited. There’s a difference and I suggest you look it up. Secondly, it’s hilarious because she used to account to avoid Alaska’s Open Records Act. Lastly, it’s utterly hilarious because the McCain campaigns response was to call it an invasion of Governor Palin’s privacy. A complaint about an invasion of privacy from a Republican senator who voted for the PATRIOT act and whose adviser told the NYTimes, “Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful.” Wait what!? Bu-But the Constitution disagrees!
If politicians don’t want people spying on them they shouldn’t spy on us. I realize that Palin never voted for the PATRIOT Act and couldn’t do anything about Bush’s wiretapping program, but I’m sure if you ask her about it today she’s agree that it was for the best.
Cognitive Coup 