Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States will extend a "defense umbrella" over our Persian Gulf allies if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. That should make them feel better. Wait, what?
"The secretary's remarks also suggested the course the Obama administration might pursue if, as many analysts predict, an unchecked Iran succeeds in obtaining a nuclear weapons capability before President Obama's term expires -- in effect, how the United States might live with a nuclear-armed Iran. Clinton's comments evoked a vision of the U.S. countering such a threat by bolstering regional defenses and reminding Iran of the dangers of mutually assured destruction -- but not by seeking regime change in Iran or by taking military action to destroy the country's nuclear apparatus."
Theories like mutual assured destruction don't apply to Iran the same way they applied to the Soviet Union. Iran doesn't care one way or the other if they are retaliated against, they will feel that they have the upper hand once they have that weapon. That gives them the edge.
Now try to follow this logic: "We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment that if the United States extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it's unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon," Clinton said.
While Clinton may believe it's unlikely that Iran will stand to gain from having a nuke, I personally don't want to let it get to the point where we have to find out. I don't think a U.S. "umbrella" is going to make Israel feel any less threatened if Iran goes nuclear. Also, as far as I recall, once a rogue country gains a nuclear capability, regardless of a regional defense umbrella or not, that is what they call a "game changer." Nukes have to be respected, even if the people wielding them don't garner such sentiment.
I figure the only thing that will stop Iran from obtaining its nuclear capability is a series of strategic military strikes by Israel. God knows our milquetoast foreign policy isn't going to eliminate the threat. With that being said, I also worry that we won't give Israel the support it will need to defend against retaliatory strikes if/once it takes care of Iran's nuclear development sites. Godspeed, boys, it looks like you'll be on your own.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Insurers Feeling The Squeeze To Help Pay For Public "Option"
Democrat Charles Schumer and others said, "Insurance companies should use their profits to help fund as much as $100 billion of a landmark overhaul of the U.S. health-care system."
For an insurance company, that's like putting a round in the gun that's already pointed at their head! Why on Earth would they voluntarily do that? Short answer...they wouldn't.
"Schumer and other Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee, which is leading the effort to forge a bipartisan compromise on health care, said they will probably assess fees on insurers, a plan that drew fire from the industry.
Industry leader UnitedHealth Group Inc. and rivals are facing pressure to contribute after drugmakers and hospitals agreed to billions of dollars of cost savings."
Again, why should the insurance companies contribute just because drugmakers and hospitals have signed on? Those two entities don't offer or pay for insurance! As long as the drugmakers and hospitals still get their money, what do they care? Plus, the revenue they receive will almost certainly increase under a government-run health care plan, because as we all know the government doesn't do anything inexpensively. The private insurance companies are getting strong-armed and forced down the road to their own demise.
"'We need the insurance companies to step up to the plate to be part of the solution,' Schumer said at a news conference in Washington yesterday." Is health care run by the government REALLY a solution? Why won't Schumer and the other Dems step up to the plate and pledge to put themselves and their families on the government health plan, huh? Lead the way!
My fault, I forgot...the government health legislation specifically exempts lawmakers from having to join the system. They get to keep their horrible, overpriced, inconsiderate private health care, but they are saving the rest of us by forcing us into health care run by the government, an omnipotent entity that can do no wrong!
What a travesty. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Take a look at this HHS breakdown of the uninsured population in the United States. The numbers tell the story. For example:
The Uninsured by Citizenship Status
The vast majority (79%) of the uninsured are citizens. However, a disproportionate percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens. While non-citizens are 7% of the population, they are 21% of the uninsured. Non-citizens are a disproportionate percentage of the uninsured because they are more likely to have characteristics associated with higher uninsured rates. Non-citizens are more likely than citizens to:
•be Hispanic (59% vs. 12%),
•have incomes below 200% FPL (51% vs. 30%),
•be young adults age 18 to 34 (42% vs. 22%), and
•work for small firms with fewer than 100 employees (34% vs. 22%).
Or:
The Uninsured by Work Status
The vast majority of the uninsured are working individuals or the children of those who work.(8) In 2004, almost half of the uninsured (46%) worked full time, and another 28% worked part time or for part of the year. Many of the uninsured worked for firms that did not offer coverage, or if their employers offered coverage, they either were not eligible or did not accept the offer. Based on data from the 2001 February Supplement to the CPS matched with the 2001 March Supplement to the CPS, 18 million workers were not offered coverage and another 6 million were not eligible for coverage that their firm offered, representing 54% of the uninsured.(9) In addition, there are 6.9 million workers and dependents that have declined employer coverage and remain uninsured (19% of the uninsured).(10) These individuals are most likely to decline employer coverage because it was too costly: 3.8 million, or 52% said coverage was too expensive. The February-March match file shows another 2.9 million dependents who live with a family member covered by employer sponsored insurance. While there are no follow-up questions on the February CPS to determine why dependents are uninsured, one can surmise that many of those dependents could have been insured under the covered worker's employer plan but the worker found it unaffordable to purchase family coverage.(11)
Part-time workers comprise a disproportionately large percentage of the uninsured because employers often do not offer coverage to part-time workers and because part-time income may make offered insurance less affordable. The median family income of part-time workers is about $13,000 less than the median family income of full-time workers, $63,500 vs. $50,300.
So there you have it. A full 75% of the uninsured in this country are either people who are here illegally, were not offered health care through their employer and chose not to get it on their own, or were not eligible (which could mean a number of things). This article explains the process of buying private health insurance quite nicely. An important paragraph to note is this one:
"If you think you can't afford your own insurance, you might be wrong. While there is a lot of hype in the media about the rising cost of healthcare, health insurance plans are available at a variety of prices. You might not be able to afford the kind of plan an employer would offer, but any plan is better than no plan. At a minimum, you want to be covered in the event of a major incident, such as an illness or the aforementioned broken bone."
Long story short, the government is going to deep-six all of us in an effort to cover the minority of the population that doesn't carry insurance. I would rather have great treatments available to most people, available at all times, as opposed to treatments available to almost all people, available only some of the time. Who will decide who needs a treatment, and when they can get it? Look at Canada and England. Patients in those countries wait exorbitant amounts of time for treatments they desperately need, but the powers that be have decided the patients can wait for. Countless people have died as a result of such a system. This U.S. government health care plan will kill more people than it will save as well.
For an insurance company, that's like putting a round in the gun that's already pointed at their head! Why on Earth would they voluntarily do that? Short answer...they wouldn't.
"Schumer and other Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee, which is leading the effort to forge a bipartisan compromise on health care, said they will probably assess fees on insurers, a plan that drew fire from the industry.
Industry leader UnitedHealth Group Inc. and rivals are facing pressure to contribute after drugmakers and hospitals agreed to billions of dollars of cost savings."
Again, why should the insurance companies contribute just because drugmakers and hospitals have signed on? Those two entities don't offer or pay for insurance! As long as the drugmakers and hospitals still get their money, what do they care? Plus, the revenue they receive will almost certainly increase under a government-run health care plan, because as we all know the government doesn't do anything inexpensively. The private insurance companies are getting strong-armed and forced down the road to their own demise.
"'We need the insurance companies to step up to the plate to be part of the solution,' Schumer said at a news conference in Washington yesterday." Is health care run by the government REALLY a solution? Why won't Schumer and the other Dems step up to the plate and pledge to put themselves and their families on the government health plan, huh? Lead the way!
My fault, I forgot...the government health legislation specifically exempts lawmakers from having to join the system. They get to keep their horrible, overpriced, inconsiderate private health care, but they are saving the rest of us by forcing us into health care run by the government, an omnipotent entity that can do no wrong!
What a travesty. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Take a look at this HHS breakdown of the uninsured population in the United States. The numbers tell the story. For example:
The Uninsured by Citizenship Status
The vast majority (79%) of the uninsured are citizens. However, a disproportionate percentage of the uninsured are non-citizens. While non-citizens are 7% of the population, they are 21% of the uninsured. Non-citizens are a disproportionate percentage of the uninsured because they are more likely to have characteristics associated with higher uninsured rates. Non-citizens are more likely than citizens to:
•be Hispanic (59% vs. 12%),
•have incomes below 200% FPL (51% vs. 30%),
•be young adults age 18 to 34 (42% vs. 22%), and
•work for small firms with fewer than 100 employees (34% vs. 22%).
Or:
The Uninsured by Work Status
The vast majority of the uninsured are working individuals or the children of those who work.(8) In 2004, almost half of the uninsured (46%) worked full time, and another 28% worked part time or for part of the year. Many of the uninsured worked for firms that did not offer coverage, or if their employers offered coverage, they either were not eligible or did not accept the offer. Based on data from the 2001 February Supplement to the CPS matched with the 2001 March Supplement to the CPS, 18 million workers were not offered coverage and another 6 million were not eligible for coverage that their firm offered, representing 54% of the uninsured.(9) In addition, there are 6.9 million workers and dependents that have declined employer coverage and remain uninsured (19% of the uninsured).(10) These individuals are most likely to decline employer coverage because it was too costly: 3.8 million, or 52% said coverage was too expensive. The February-March match file shows another 2.9 million dependents who live with a family member covered by employer sponsored insurance. While there are no follow-up questions on the February CPS to determine why dependents are uninsured, one can surmise that many of those dependents could have been insured under the covered worker's employer plan but the worker found it unaffordable to purchase family coverage.(11)
Part-time workers comprise a disproportionately large percentage of the uninsured because employers often do not offer coverage to part-time workers and because part-time income may make offered insurance less affordable. The median family income of part-time workers is about $13,000 less than the median family income of full-time workers, $63,500 vs. $50,300.
So there you have it. A full 75% of the uninsured in this country are either people who are here illegally, were not offered health care through their employer and chose not to get it on their own, or were not eligible (which could mean a number of things). This article explains the process of buying private health insurance quite nicely. An important paragraph to note is this one:
"If you think you can't afford your own insurance, you might be wrong. While there is a lot of hype in the media about the rising cost of healthcare, health insurance plans are available at a variety of prices. You might not be able to afford the kind of plan an employer would offer, but any plan is better than no plan. At a minimum, you want to be covered in the event of a major incident, such as an illness or the aforementioned broken bone."
Long story short, the government is going to deep-six all of us in an effort to cover the minority of the population that doesn't carry insurance. I would rather have great treatments available to most people, available at all times, as opposed to treatments available to almost all people, available only some of the time. Who will decide who needs a treatment, and when they can get it? Look at Canada and England. Patients in those countries wait exorbitant amounts of time for treatments they desperately need, but the powers that be have decided the patients can wait for. Countless people have died as a result of such a system. This U.S. government health care plan will kill more people than it will save as well.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Pentagon Health Experts Urge Ban On Tobacco Use In Military
Pentagon health experts are campaigning to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates "to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property." This is based on a report by the Institute of Medicine, which focused on tobacco use in the military. The reasoning behind the move is that "tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, says the report, which used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, says the study, which was released late last month."
The report found that "troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a 'stress reliever.'" Since that is the case, why would you want to take that outlet away from them? They defend our freedoms, why shouldn't they be able to make the choice as to whether or not they want to smoke? To save some money? How about killing just one pork program? Viola, there's the money for tobacco-related health care!
Of course, the anti-smokers also weighed in. "The military complicates attempts to curb tobacco use by subsidizing tobacco products for troops who buy them at base exchanges and commissaries, says Kenneth Kizer, a committee member and architect of California's anti-tobacco program.
Seventy percent of profits from tobacco sales — $88 million in 2005 — pays for recreation and family support programs, the study stays."
With that in mind, consider that maybe military personnel know what other military personnel want, and find ways to help each other out. They know their brothers and sisters in arms may smoke, so they took steps that would benefit the military community. That doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. Those who choose to smoke can smoke, and the money generated from that goes to help their families.
Instead of trying to figure out ways to keep service members from smoking, maybe the Pentagon and Washington should try to figure out ways to, I don't know, HELP THEM WIN THE WAR?
The report found that "troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a 'stress reliever.'" Since that is the case, why would you want to take that outlet away from them? They defend our freedoms, why shouldn't they be able to make the choice as to whether or not they want to smoke? To save some money? How about killing just one pork program? Viola, there's the money for tobacco-related health care!
Of course, the anti-smokers also weighed in. "The military complicates attempts to curb tobacco use by subsidizing tobacco products for troops who buy them at base exchanges and commissaries, says Kenneth Kizer, a committee member and architect of California's anti-tobacco program.
Seventy percent of profits from tobacco sales — $88 million in 2005 — pays for recreation and family support programs, the study stays."
With that in mind, consider that maybe military personnel know what other military personnel want, and find ways to help each other out. They know their brothers and sisters in arms may smoke, so they took steps that would benefit the military community. That doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. Those who choose to smoke can smoke, and the money generated from that goes to help their families.
Instead of trying to figure out ways to keep service members from smoking, maybe the Pentagon and Washington should try to figure out ways to, I don't know, HELP THEM WIN THE WAR?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Justice Ginsburg Just Lets It All Out
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a soon to be released interview in the New York Times Magazine, gave her thoughts on Sonia Sotomayor, as well as her (Ginsburg's) views on abortion.
"In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish 'populations that we don’t want to have too many of.'"
*Crickets chirping*
"Ginsburg discussed her surprise at the outcome of Harris v. McRae, a 1980 decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use of Medicaid and other federal funds for abortions."
*In the distance, a dog barks*
"In 1993, she told the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing:
'(Y)ou asked me about my thinking on equal protection versus individual autonomy. My answer is that both are implicated. The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When the government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.'"
Justice Ginsburg has, how can I say this politely, a...skewed...view on abortion. Deciding to get an abortion isn't a choice, it's a crime. What else do you call the voluntary termination of a life? Government doesn't control a woman's decision to get pregnant, she makes that for herself. Where government intervention should come in is when that woman decides she wants to take the life of the baby, more often than not because of a question of convenience. THAT is when somebody MUST step in. That isn't being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices, that's acting to stop a crime from being committed by someone who is trying to avoid being responsible for a choice she already made. Being stupid or not having the forethought to think of what raising a child will do to your life is not an excuse to snuff out an innocent life. You didn't take precautions to avoid getting pregnant, you pay the consequences...it's not the unborn child's fault you have no self control.
"In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish 'populations that we don’t want to have too many of.'"
*Crickets chirping*
"Ginsburg discussed her surprise at the outcome of Harris v. McRae, a 1980 decision that upheld the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use of Medicaid and other federal funds for abortions."
*In the distance, a dog barks*
"In 1993, she told the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing:
'(Y)ou asked me about my thinking on equal protection versus individual autonomy. My answer is that both are implicated. The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When the government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.'"
Justice Ginsburg has, how can I say this politely, a...skewed...view on abortion. Deciding to get an abortion isn't a choice, it's a crime. What else do you call the voluntary termination of a life? Government doesn't control a woman's decision to get pregnant, she makes that for herself. Where government intervention should come in is when that woman decides she wants to take the life of the baby, more often than not because of a question of convenience. THAT is when somebody MUST step in. That isn't being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices, that's acting to stop a crime from being committed by someone who is trying to avoid being responsible for a choice she already made. Being stupid or not having the forethought to think of what raising a child will do to your life is not an excuse to snuff out an innocent life. You didn't take precautions to avoid getting pregnant, you pay the consequences...it's not the unborn child's fault you have no self control.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
G8 Leaders Agree to Weather Control
It's no secret that many world leaders have inflated views of their own power, but this is just ridiculous.
"President Obama joined other leaders of the industrialized world Wednesday in backing new targets for battling global warming. But the wealthy nations were unable to persuade leaders of developing countries to commit to reductions of their own, and their cooperation is critical to avoiding the worst effects of climate change.
White House officials confirmed that Obama agreed to language supporting a goal of keeping the world's average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
Yes, you read that right. The G8 leaders have agreed to keep the world's temperature from rising more than 3 degrees in the coming years. How in the hell are they going to do that? Would it work the way the $787 billion stimulus worked to keep unemployment below 8 percent? What if every country on Earth limited their greenhouse gas emissions, and the temperature still rose? That would not only thwart their plans to prevent the temperature from rising, but it would also prove that climate change is just as much a natural mechanism as it is a man-made one.
"President Obama joined other leaders of the industrialized world Wednesday in backing new targets for battling global warming. But the wealthy nations were unable to persuade leaders of developing countries to commit to reductions of their own, and their cooperation is critical to avoiding the worst effects of climate change.
White House officials confirmed that Obama agreed to language supporting a goal of keeping the world's average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."
Yes, you read that right. The G8 leaders have agreed to keep the world's temperature from rising more than 3 degrees in the coming years. How in the hell are they going to do that? Would it work the way the $787 billion stimulus worked to keep unemployment below 8 percent? What if every country on Earth limited their greenhouse gas emissions, and the temperature still rose? That would not only thwart their plans to prevent the temperature from rising, but it would also prove that climate change is just as much a natural mechanism as it is a man-made one.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Senate Democrats Unveil Public Health Insurance Legislation
The dawn of government-run healthcare is upon us. Today Senate Democrats revealed their plans to create the "public option" for health care, one which they say will extend coverage to 97% of all Americans.
"According to Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, their legislation would extend health insurance coverage to 21 million uninsured people over 10 years at a net cost of $611.4 billion. Combined with separate legislation being developed by the Senate Finance Committee, senators said their healthcare reform plan would bring the total number of newly insured people to 41 million by 2019, or 97 percent of the projected U.S. population, excluding illegal immigrants."
I'm not a mathematician, but spending *at least* $611 billion to insure an additional 21 million people seems like quite a lot of money per person.
20 million more people would be covered through an expansion of the Medicaid program. Also, "under the new provisions, employers with more than 25 workers would be required to either provide "affordable" coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time employee and $375 for part-timers." Again, the "or else" language from the government rears its ugly head.
"President Obama praised the HELP Committee bill in a statement. 'Today the Senate HELP Committee has produced legislation that lowers costs, protects choice of doctors and plans and assures quality and affordable health care for Americans,' Obama said. 'The HELP Committee legislation reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out,' he said, such as the creation of a health insurance 'exchange' through which people can shop for insurance, a ban on insurance companies excluding people with pre-existing conditions, and the public option."
I can't even begin to describe how bad these ideas are. First, you can ALREADY shop and compare insurance options, we don't need a government organization for that (though I presume he means an "exchange" for government-run health care). Second, banning insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions will tank their business (not to mention it's a major intrusion into free market principles), resulting in higher costs for the few remaining people that decide to stick with them. Pre-existing conditions generally mean higher medical costs for that person, which means the insurer must pay out more money. More money out per person = higher costs for all subscribers to reimburse the company's expenses and to keep it afloat. That, however, is exactly how the Democrats and Mr. Obama want it. They want the private insurance companies to have to pay out more, raise prices, and ultimately lose customers, because that will drive people to the "public option," thus giving the government more control over what you can and can't do.
The government has (or rather, should have) a limited supply of money. With gobs of people presumably signing on to the public option, how much money will be available for each person's care? What if you need a costly operation, who decides whether you need it, you and your doctor, or the government? For the answer, look at any country that currently uses a socialized medical system, i.e. Canada or England. Read over this short article by John Stossel, or the offical site for England's National Health Service.
One thing I find striking is how much is spent trying to regulate what people can or cannot do in regards to their health, and how that affects the overall "health" of the system. Apparently people exercising their right to be overweight, smoke, or drink, costs the system money. Let's look at England's plan for tackling the growing obesity problem.
"Obesity is one of the biggest health challenges we face. The Government is committed to taking action to reverse the rising tide of obesity. Almost 1 in 4 adults in England are currently obese, and if we carry on as we are by 2050, 9 in 10 adults will be overweight or obese. The cost of overweight and obese individuals to the NHS is estimated to be £4.2 billion and is forecasted to more than double by 2050. The cost to the wider economy is £16 billion, and this is predicted to rise to £50 billion per year by 2050 if left unchecked.
In January 2008 the Government published “Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: A Cross-Government Strategy for England”. £372 million has been made available to implement the strategy, which sets out how the Government will enable everyone in society to maintain a healthy weight."
Part of the attack plan involves the proper labelling, marketing, and consumption of foods. The government will decide what is good for you, and will direct the media and companies to market those products to consumers, as well as direct the consumers themselves on how much to eat. From the report at the bottom of the page linked above:
"Early identification of at-risk families
Throughout the CHPP, a series of health reviews provide an opportunity for health professionals to identify families that are most at risk from child weight issues and least able to tackle them.
In particular, the assessment by the 12th week of pregnancy allows health professionals to identify mothers who are already obese or overweight, and to give them advice on healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This is crucial for their baby’s development, safety and also to ease delivery.
The forthcoming update of National Service Framework (NSF) Standard One (CHPP) will prioritise the promotion of healthy weight in early life, and specify the monitoring and interventions that are to be offered to all children and families."
If that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, it should. And it's coming home. This legislation isn't about health care, it's about control, and how the government can wrest more from you.
"According to Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, their legislation would extend health insurance coverage to 21 million uninsured people over 10 years at a net cost of $611.4 billion. Combined with separate legislation being developed by the Senate Finance Committee, senators said their healthcare reform plan would bring the total number of newly insured people to 41 million by 2019, or 97 percent of the projected U.S. population, excluding illegal immigrants."
I'm not a mathematician, but spending *at least* $611 billion to insure an additional 21 million people seems like quite a lot of money per person.
20 million more people would be covered through an expansion of the Medicaid program. Also, "under the new provisions, employers with more than 25 workers would be required to either provide "affordable" coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time employee and $375 for part-timers." Again, the "or else" language from the government rears its ugly head.
"President Obama praised the HELP Committee bill in a statement. 'Today the Senate HELP Committee has produced legislation that lowers costs, protects choice of doctors and plans and assures quality and affordable health care for Americans,' Obama said. 'The HELP Committee legislation reflects many of the principles I’ve laid out,' he said, such as the creation of a health insurance 'exchange' through which people can shop for insurance, a ban on insurance companies excluding people with pre-existing conditions, and the public option."
I can't even begin to describe how bad these ideas are. First, you can ALREADY shop and compare insurance options, we don't need a government organization for that (though I presume he means an "exchange" for government-run health care). Second, banning insurance companies from excluding people with pre-existing conditions will tank their business (not to mention it's a major intrusion into free market principles), resulting in higher costs for the few remaining people that decide to stick with them. Pre-existing conditions generally mean higher medical costs for that person, which means the insurer must pay out more money. More money out per person = higher costs for all subscribers to reimburse the company's expenses and to keep it afloat. That, however, is exactly how the Democrats and Mr. Obama want it. They want the private insurance companies to have to pay out more, raise prices, and ultimately lose customers, because that will drive people to the "public option," thus giving the government more control over what you can and can't do.
The government has (or rather, should have) a limited supply of money. With gobs of people presumably signing on to the public option, how much money will be available for each person's care? What if you need a costly operation, who decides whether you need it, you and your doctor, or the government? For the answer, look at any country that currently uses a socialized medical system, i.e. Canada or England. Read over this short article by John Stossel, or the offical site for England's National Health Service.
One thing I find striking is how much is spent trying to regulate what people can or cannot do in regards to their health, and how that affects the overall "health" of the system. Apparently people exercising their right to be overweight, smoke, or drink, costs the system money. Let's look at England's plan for tackling the growing obesity problem.
"Obesity is one of the biggest health challenges we face. The Government is committed to taking action to reverse the rising tide of obesity. Almost 1 in 4 adults in England are currently obese, and if we carry on as we are by 2050, 9 in 10 adults will be overweight or obese. The cost of overweight and obese individuals to the NHS is estimated to be £4.2 billion and is forecasted to more than double by 2050. The cost to the wider economy is £16 billion, and this is predicted to rise to £50 billion per year by 2050 if left unchecked.
In January 2008 the Government published “Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: A Cross-Government Strategy for England”. £372 million has been made available to implement the strategy, which sets out how the Government will enable everyone in society to maintain a healthy weight."
Part of the attack plan involves the proper labelling, marketing, and consumption of foods. The government will decide what is good for you, and will direct the media and companies to market those products to consumers, as well as direct the consumers themselves on how much to eat. From the report at the bottom of the page linked above:
"Early identification of at-risk families
Throughout the CHPP, a series of health reviews provide an opportunity for health professionals to identify families that are most at risk from child weight issues and least able to tackle them.
In particular, the assessment by the 12th week of pregnancy allows health professionals to identify mothers who are already obese or overweight, and to give them advice on healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This is crucial for their baby’s development, safety and also to ease delivery.
The forthcoming update of National Service Framework (NSF) Standard One (CHPP) will prioritise the promotion of healthy weight in early life, and specify the monitoring and interventions that are to be offered to all children and families."
If that doesn't scare you at least a little bit, it should. And it's coming home. This legislation isn't about health care, it's about control, and how the government can wrest more from you.
Proposed Bill Will Fine The Happily Uninsured
A bill introduced by Senate Democrats today would tag Americans who can afford health care, but choose not to get it, with fines in excess of one thousand dollars.
"The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.
In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.
Called 'shared responsibility payments,' the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation."
The above excerpt, to me, means that the government is saying, "We're going to get your money whether you buy into our program or not. If you do, you're handing over your money; if you don't, we'll make you wish you had." It almost sounds like a mob minion making you an offer for "protection" you can't refuse. Extortion, in other words.
What happened to freedom of choice? Can't we decide for ourselves if we want to spend money on health insurance? What's with the government making our decisions for us?
"The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.
In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.
Called 'shared responsibility payments,' the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation."
The above excerpt, to me, means that the government is saying, "We're going to get your money whether you buy into our program or not. If you do, you're handing over your money; if you don't, we'll make you wish you had." It almost sounds like a mob minion making you an offer for "protection" you can't refuse. Extortion, in other words.
What happened to freedom of choice? Can't we decide for ourselves if we want to spend money on health insurance? What's with the government making our decisions for us?
Explain To Me How This Is Legal
A new Massachusetts law that took effect recently has many motorists angry, and rightly so. "Armed with the knowledge that more than 250,000 tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions were challenged in the state last fiscal year, legislators have voted to charge drivers $25 for such hearings." In other words, if you get a speeding ticket or moving violation, and plead not guilty, you will automatically be charged $25.
"State Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, was a member of the conference committee that discussed attaching a cost to clerk hearings. Legislators estimate the change will yield $5 million this fiscal year in revenue, all of which will be returned to the court system's budget.
By law, drivers who receive tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions are entitled to a hearing with a clerk magistrate. Until this fiscal year, which started Wednesday, there has been no cost to drivers who want to plead their case in front of a clerk, though it does cost $20 for drivers who lose the clerk hearing and want a second appeal with a judge.
With trial courts collectively taking an $18 million hit this year, Mr. Brewer said, 'This provides a measure of restoration.'”
Basically, the powers that be in Massachusetts have decided that your right to plead not guilty before a court clerk is worth $25 to them, money they apparently need to reimburse the courts for all the times they have to hear whiny motorists contest their tickets. It amounts to a personal taxation for exercising your rights. Last time I checked, such freedoms were not taxable. However, with the state budget deficit approaching a billion dollars, it appears as though nothing is beyond taxation.
"State Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, was a member of the conference committee that discussed attaching a cost to clerk hearings. Legislators estimate the change will yield $5 million this fiscal year in revenue, all of which will be returned to the court system's budget.
By law, drivers who receive tickets for civil motor vehicle infractions are entitled to a hearing with a clerk magistrate. Until this fiscal year, which started Wednesday, there has been no cost to drivers who want to plead their case in front of a clerk, though it does cost $20 for drivers who lose the clerk hearing and want a second appeal with a judge.
With trial courts collectively taking an $18 million hit this year, Mr. Brewer said, 'This provides a measure of restoration.'”
Basically, the powers that be in Massachusetts have decided that your right to plead not guilty before a court clerk is worth $25 to them, money they apparently need to reimburse the courts for all the times they have to hear whiny motorists contest their tickets. It amounts to a personal taxation for exercising your rights. Last time I checked, such freedoms were not taxable. However, with the state budget deficit approaching a billion dollars, it appears as though nothing is beyond taxation.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Missing Link?
Today, in a special news conference in New York, scientists unveiled the fossil of a 47 million year old monkey they claim is the missing link between primates and humans. The fossil, named Ida, was found 25 years ago in Germany.
The article's author states, "With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own.
Another important discovery is the shape of the talus bone in her foot, which humans still have in their feet millions of lifetimes later."
It certainly sounds intriguing. The following excerpt from the article explains the evolutionary period in which this specimen lived: "47 million years ago in the Eocene period...this was when tropical forests stretched right to the poles, and South America was still drifting and had yet to make contact with North America.
During that period, the first whales, horses, bats and monkeys emerged, and the early primates branched into two groups - one group lived on mainly as lemurs, and the second developed into monkeys, apes and humans.
The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a 'lemur monkey', displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line."
To me, it sounds like the scientists have determined not only that lemurs and monkeys were related, but that monkeys and humans are directly linked. If that is the case, I think the true missing link would be one that could show the transition from monkey to human, if there is one to be found. All Ida shows is that there was a transition from lemurs to monkeys. Hardly the missing link, as far as I'm concerned. Regardless, this will add a new element to, and heat up, the evolution vs. creation argument.
The article's author states, "With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own.
Another important discovery is the shape of the talus bone in her foot, which humans still have in their feet millions of lifetimes later."
It certainly sounds intriguing. The following excerpt from the article explains the evolutionary period in which this specimen lived: "47 million years ago in the Eocene period...this was when tropical forests stretched right to the poles, and South America was still drifting and had yet to make contact with North America.
During that period, the first whales, horses, bats and monkeys emerged, and the early primates branched into two groups - one group lived on mainly as lemurs, and the second developed into monkeys, apes and humans.
The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a 'lemur monkey', displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line."
To me, it sounds like the scientists have determined not only that lemurs and monkeys were related, but that monkeys and humans are directly linked. If that is the case, I think the true missing link would be one that could show the transition from monkey to human, if there is one to be found. All Ida shows is that there was a transition from lemurs to monkeys. Hardly the missing link, as far as I'm concerned. Regardless, this will add a new element to, and heat up, the evolution vs. creation argument.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Naivety, Thy Name Is Obama
President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today, and the two talked about the various problems in the Middle East. As expected, the bulk of the conversation dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the problems with Iran.
Netanyahu said that "he was ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinians immediately but said any agreement depended on their acceptance of Israel's right to exist."
I can accept that, because it makes sense. Why should the Palestinian state issue be a one-way street? Israel is the one with the country, after all; the Palestinians can't dictate to them what they want or should get. Netanyahu did not, however, "say he was ready to negotiate a so-called two-state solution" with the Palestinians. The two-state solution calls for the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel, and is supported by the US and a number of other countries. Again, this goes back to the Palestinians and the need for them to stop wanting to destroy Israel. The Palestinians have the Gaza strip, essentially their own territory, already; it's not Israel's fault that the Palestinians elected Hamas as their governing body. Israel must defend itself, first and foremost. An official Palestinian state is secondary. If the Palestinians can stop Hamas and the other resident terrorists from attacking Israelis on a regular basis, they may have a case for their own state. Right now it appears they can't handle the responsibility.
Concerning Iran, President Obama said, "he expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year. The president said the United States wanted to bring Iran into the world community, but declared 'we're not going to have talks forever.'"
I think Obama is overestimating his persuasive abilities here. The leadership of Iran has shown absolutely no interest in anything the international community has to say concerning what they should do with their nuclear program. They've been doing the same thing for years, pushing hard to develop a nuke while at the same time saying they are doing peaceful research. There have been no consequences, so why should they stop now because another politician asked them to?
Also, "Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against the Islamic Republic if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Washington and many key allies contend Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.
'The important thing is to make sure there is a clear timetable, at which point we say these talks don't seem to be making any clear progress,' Obama said. 'If that hasn't taken place I think the international community will see that it's ... Iran itself that is isolating themselves.'"
Let me break that down for you: "We'll go to the UN if you don't do what we're asking, and they may issue a statement of condemnation or implement minor sanctions against you. Furthermore, if the talks aren't making any headway, there isn't much we can do, but Iran will have isolated itself even further, which makes absolutely no difference to their nuclear program."
So Obama "expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year." Wasn't it a little over a year ago when intelligence analysts said Iran was about two years away from having a nuke? So, that's one year past already, and Obama is giving them until the end of this year, so...1 year + 1 year = ? It sounds to me like we're going to keep talking and talking until Iran has a nuke, and then instead of simply talking about the "what if," we'll be talking about the "what now?"
Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. Talk to Iran tomorrow. Give them one month to cease all work on the nuclear program, begin dismantling what they have done so far, and allow UN inspectors in to verify the progress. Don't like it? Witness the implementation of harsh sanctions, and Israel, you have the go-ahead to take out the nuke development site(s). Have a good day, Iran.
What is so difficult about this? Doesn't the old saying go, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?" You don't have to look very far into the past to learn that Iran isn't going to stop because you asked them to. Get with the program, people!
Netanyahu said that "he was ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinians immediately but said any agreement depended on their acceptance of Israel's right to exist."
I can accept that, because it makes sense. Why should the Palestinian state issue be a one-way street? Israel is the one with the country, after all; the Palestinians can't dictate to them what they want or should get. Netanyahu did not, however, "say he was ready to negotiate a so-called two-state solution" with the Palestinians. The two-state solution calls for the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel, and is supported by the US and a number of other countries. Again, this goes back to the Palestinians and the need for them to stop wanting to destroy Israel. The Palestinians have the Gaza strip, essentially their own territory, already; it's not Israel's fault that the Palestinians elected Hamas as their governing body. Israel must defend itself, first and foremost. An official Palestinian state is secondary. If the Palestinians can stop Hamas and the other resident terrorists from attacking Israelis on a regular basis, they may have a case for their own state. Right now it appears they can't handle the responsibility.
Concerning Iran, President Obama said, "he expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year. The president said the United States wanted to bring Iran into the world community, but declared 'we're not going to have talks forever.'"
I think Obama is overestimating his persuasive abilities here. The leadership of Iran has shown absolutely no interest in anything the international community has to say concerning what they should do with their nuclear program. They've been doing the same thing for years, pushing hard to develop a nuke while at the same time saying they are doing peaceful research. There have been no consequences, so why should they stop now because another politician asked them to?
Also, "Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against the Islamic Republic if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Washington and many key allies contend Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.
'The important thing is to make sure there is a clear timetable, at which point we say these talks don't seem to be making any clear progress,' Obama said. 'If that hasn't taken place I think the international community will see that it's ... Iran itself that is isolating themselves.'"
Let me break that down for you: "We'll go to the UN if you don't do what we're asking, and they may issue a statement of condemnation or implement minor sanctions against you. Furthermore, if the talks aren't making any headway, there isn't much we can do, but Iran will have isolated itself even further, which makes absolutely no difference to their nuclear program."
So Obama "expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year." Wasn't it a little over a year ago when intelligence analysts said Iran was about two years away from having a nuke? So, that's one year past already, and Obama is giving them until the end of this year, so...1 year + 1 year = ? It sounds to me like we're going to keep talking and talking until Iran has a nuke, and then instead of simply talking about the "what if," we'll be talking about the "what now?"
Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. Talk to Iran tomorrow. Give them one month to cease all work on the nuclear program, begin dismantling what they have done so far, and allow UN inspectors in to verify the progress. Don't like it? Witness the implementation of harsh sanctions, and Israel, you have the go-ahead to take out the nuke development site(s). Have a good day, Iran.
What is so difficult about this? Doesn't the old saying go, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?" You don't have to look very far into the past to learn that Iran isn't going to stop because you asked them to. Get with the program, people!
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Biden Reveals Location of VP's Secret Bunker
You can always count on Joe Biden to say something stupid whenever he opens his mouth. This time it wasn't asking a handicapped man to stand up, or opining that people shouldn't take public transportation during the flu outbreak, however. This time he revealed the location of the secret bunker most recently used by VP Cheney, which is under the Naval Observatory, on whose grounds is the home to Vice Presidents past and PRESENT. Now he, or any other VP, won't be able to use the bunker, the "secret undisclosed location," anymore.
How idiotic do you have to be to let your political mindset dictate what you do, especially when it comes to matters of security in an emergency? What possible good can come of revealing the location? Does Biden want it to be turned into a museum? That's about the only thing we can do with the bunker now; since everyone knows where it's at, the protective value of the bunker is essentially nil. My question is, will another bunker have to be constructed, and if so, how many tax dollars will it take? Why should we have to pay for another politician's stupidity?
And, of course, Biden couldn't go without taking a shot at the Bush administration:
"He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."
Policies that were "off the wall?" Does he think policies were being made from inside the bunker? I'm pretty sure the policies were already in place, and furthermore, what was so "off the wall" about them? They helped keep us safe for almost eight years. The only thing that sounds "off the wall" to me is what comes out of Joe Biden's mouth.
How idiotic do you have to be to let your political mindset dictate what you do, especially when it comes to matters of security in an emergency? What possible good can come of revealing the location? Does Biden want it to be turned into a museum? That's about the only thing we can do with the bunker now; since everyone knows where it's at, the protective value of the bunker is essentially nil. My question is, will another bunker have to be constructed, and if so, how many tax dollars will it take? Why should we have to pay for another politician's stupidity?
And, of course, Biden couldn't go without taking a shot at the Bush administration:
"He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."
Policies that were "off the wall?" Does he think policies were being made from inside the bunker? I'm pretty sure the policies were already in place, and furthermore, what was so "off the wall" about them? They helped keep us safe for almost eight years. The only thing that sounds "off the wall" to me is what comes out of Joe Biden's mouth.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wow, Look At Leon Panetta Doing Something Right
In a surprise move, Obama-appointed CIA director Leon Panetta sent a message to all CIA employees: we didn't lie to Congress. He goes on to tell them to stay focused on their job, which is protecting the nation, and not get caught up in Nancy Pelosi's little web.
I never would have expected such a strong move from an Obama appointee. He wants the CIA to continue to "tell it like it is," even if some people do not agree. Here is the full memo:
"Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Well played, sir.
I never would have expected such a strong move from an Obama appointee. He wants the CIA to continue to "tell it like it is," even if some people do not agree. Here is the full memo:
"Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume
There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.
Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.
My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.
We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Well played, sir.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Pelosi Really Stepped In It
"Tactful" is not a word I would use to describe Nancy Pelosi. In her most recent episode, she denied knowing that the CIA was using waterboarding on terrorists, saying she was only briefed on techniques they were considering using in the future. "The CIA report details 40 briefings of congressional leaders, including a Sept. 4, 2002, memo that says Pelosi was present for a 'briefing on EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques), including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities and a description of particular EITs that had been employed." Okay, well...let's just move on.
Now she's saying she wasn't briefed on the use of waterboarding at all. "'To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used,' she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002."
"CIA records show Pelosi attended only one briefing — the one in the fall of 2002 where she says she was told that waterboarding had not been used. A chart released by the CIA detailing its briefings for lawmakers is vague on what transpired at that session. It says Pelosi and the top Intelligence Committee Republican, then-Rep. Porter J. Goss of Florida, were given a 'description of the particular (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed,' without further details.
As if being contradicted wasn't bad enough, she then turns her guns on the CIA and Republicans: "'They mislead us all the time,' she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency had lied, Pelosi said yes.
She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration's actions.
'They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don't want that focus on them, so they try to turn the attention on us,' she said.
Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said.
But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.
'No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job — the Congress part,' Pelosi said.
Let me get this straight; the CIA lied to her, Republicans lied to her, the President lied to her, and she didn't do anything about it because she was focused on getting control of the government for the Democrats? You're a legislator! Write up some legislation that addresses your qualms, don't sit there and do nothing because you have other matters on your mind. Oh, wait, wait...my fault. I didn't realize that her job - the Congress part - was to sit there and do nothing. Please, focus on getting your party back in power when national security issues are at stake.
If she was that upset about it, Pelosi should have taken a stand then, not now, when *oops* all of a sudden the details are coming out. Sounds like damage control to me. You know what though, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps she wasn't explicitly told that waterboarding was being used during the 2002 briefing she attended. She surely knew, however, by the time her aide sent the letter to the CIA in 2003 questioning the use of waterboarding. "Pelosi herself acknowledged in a December 2007 statement that she was aware that Harman had learned of the waterboarding interrogations and had objected in a letter to the CIA's top counsel.
'It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred,' Pelosi said in the Dec. 9, 2007, statement." Pelosi is trying to tap dance her way out of the hot zone on a technicality, which may or may not be true. I would think that someone with such a lofty position in government would have more character than that. Oh, wait, my fault again...she's a liberal. What character?
Pelosi also called for a truth commission to "determine how intelligence was misused and how controversial and possibly illegal activities like torture were authorized within the executive branch." Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself. You can't go retroactive with the "torture" label. Back then waterboarding, etc. wasn't "torture." She just wants to punish anyone she can from the Bush administration because it's popular right now and she has to appease her wildly liberal base.
Now she's saying she wasn't briefed on the use of waterboarding at all. "'To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used,' she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002."
"CIA records show Pelosi attended only one briefing — the one in the fall of 2002 where she says she was told that waterboarding had not been used. A chart released by the CIA detailing its briefings for lawmakers is vague on what transpired at that session. It says Pelosi and the top Intelligence Committee Republican, then-Rep. Porter J. Goss of Florida, were given a 'description of the particular (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed,' without further details.
As if being contradicted wasn't bad enough, she then turns her guns on the CIA and Republicans: "'They mislead us all the time,' she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency had lied, Pelosi said yes.
She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration's actions.
'They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don't want that focus on them, so they try to turn the attention on us,' she said.
Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said.
But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.
'No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job — the Congress part,' Pelosi said.
Let me get this straight; the CIA lied to her, Republicans lied to her, the President lied to her, and she didn't do anything about it because she was focused on getting control of the government for the Democrats? You're a legislator! Write up some legislation that addresses your qualms, don't sit there and do nothing because you have other matters on your mind. Oh, wait, wait...my fault. I didn't realize that her job - the Congress part - was to sit there and do nothing. Please, focus on getting your party back in power when national security issues are at stake.
If she was that upset about it, Pelosi should have taken a stand then, not now, when *oops* all of a sudden the details are coming out. Sounds like damage control to me. You know what though, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps she wasn't explicitly told that waterboarding was being used during the 2002 briefing she attended. She surely knew, however, by the time her aide sent the letter to the CIA in 2003 questioning the use of waterboarding. "Pelosi herself acknowledged in a December 2007 statement that she was aware that Harman had learned of the waterboarding interrogations and had objected in a letter to the CIA's top counsel.
'It was my understanding at that time that Congresswoman Harman filed a letter in early 2003 to the CIA to protest the use of such techniques, a protest with which I concurred,' Pelosi said in the Dec. 9, 2007, statement." Pelosi is trying to tap dance her way out of the hot zone on a technicality, which may or may not be true. I would think that someone with such a lofty position in government would have more character than that. Oh, wait, my fault again...she's a liberal. What character?
Pelosi also called for a truth commission to "determine how intelligence was misused and how controversial and possibly illegal activities like torture were authorized within the executive branch." Whoa, don't get ahead of yourself. You can't go retroactive with the "torture" label. Back then waterboarding, etc. wasn't "torture." She just wants to punish anyone she can from the Bush administration because it's popular right now and she has to appease her wildly liberal base.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Colin Powell Says GOP Needs To Move To Center
Colin Powell, famous as the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the one-time Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, and most recently, ship jumper/supporter of Barack Obama, says that the GOP must move to the center if it wants to survive. He says "the GOP is 'getting smaller and smaller' and 'that's not good for the nation.'" I can agree with that. What I do not agree with, however, is his next remark: "'The Republican Party is in deep trouble,' Powell told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington...The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. 'Americans do want to pay taxes for services,' he said. 'Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.'"
I wholeheartedly disagree. I can't imagine any circumstance where Americans would want to pay more taxes for services, and want more government intrusion into their lives. I understand liberals have no problem with raising taxes and drastically expanding government, but the average American, I would venture to say, does not want to pay more in taxes, and either thinks government is big enough already, or would like it to be smaller.
Also, why is he telling the GOP this, at the same time he is telling them to move to the center? Taxation and big government are bastions of the left, not the right or center.
Were the Dems in this position, I doubt Powell would be telling them to move to the center and stop listening to the left of the party. I think he knows that the future of the Republican party is going back to its base, the real Conservative movement. Moving to the center would emaciate the party further and strip any remaining identity; nominating a centrist candidate is one reason why the GOP lost the 2008 Presidential election. The country may be moving left, but in order to save it there needs to be a strong stand from the right, not the center.
The term "polarizing figure" has often been thrown about over the last several years when talking about political figures. I don't think it's the political figures that are themselves polarizing, it is instead the movements they represent. The country is split wide right down the middle. There is no center ground anymore. It is a no-man's land, one where John McCain and Arlen Specter treaded. McCain left much to be desired, both from the right and the left and was thus dismissed, and Arlen Specter saw the writing on the wall and chose his side instead of staying in the kill zone.
This country wasn't founded on liberal principles. It wasn't founded on centrist principles. It was founded on principles which are today represented by only one party, albeit not very well. We need to get back to those roots if we want the United States to remain the dominant superpower for the coming years.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I can't imagine any circumstance where Americans would want to pay more taxes for services, and want more government intrusion into their lives. I understand liberals have no problem with raising taxes and drastically expanding government, but the average American, I would venture to say, does not want to pay more in taxes, and either thinks government is big enough already, or would like it to be smaller.
Also, why is he telling the GOP this, at the same time he is telling them to move to the center? Taxation and big government are bastions of the left, not the right or center.
Were the Dems in this position, I doubt Powell would be telling them to move to the center and stop listening to the left of the party. I think he knows that the future of the Republican party is going back to its base, the real Conservative movement. Moving to the center would emaciate the party further and strip any remaining identity; nominating a centrist candidate is one reason why the GOP lost the 2008 Presidential election. The country may be moving left, but in order to save it there needs to be a strong stand from the right, not the center.
The term "polarizing figure" has often been thrown about over the last several years when talking about political figures. I don't think it's the political figures that are themselves polarizing, it is instead the movements they represent. The country is split wide right down the middle. There is no center ground anymore. It is a no-man's land, one where John McCain and Arlen Specter treaded. McCain left much to be desired, both from the right and the left and was thus dismissed, and Arlen Specter saw the writing on the wall and chose his side instead of staying in the kill zone.
This country wasn't founded on liberal principles. It wasn't founded on centrist principles. It was founded on principles which are today represented by only one party, albeit not very well. We need to get back to those roots if we want the United States to remain the dominant superpower for the coming years.
Monday, May 4, 2009
April Was Deadliest Month of Last Seven For US Forces
Things have been decent in Iraq for the past year or so. Not great, but definitely not as bad as they had been. Well, you can scratch that notion, at least as far as last month is concerned. April was the deadliest month for US forces in the last seven months of fighting in Iraq. No less than 18 service members paid the ultimate price in April, along with 371 Iraqis. Strange how we haven't heard anything about the US death toll or injury count since Mr. Obama took office.
"Tensions also rose Friday in northern Iraq after American forces killed two men during a raid in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.
The provincial governor's office and tribal leaders said the raid violated the security agreement regulating U.S. forces' conduct and demanded an apology.
The U.S. military, however, said it was an Iraqi-led joint operation and the two men killed were suspected of planting roadside bombs. The suspects were armed and resisted arrest, according to a statement, adding that U.S. troops shot the two men 'for their own safety and the safety of their Iraqi partners.'
Security was tightened in Tikrit after hundreds of angry mourners - some firing weapons into the air - took to the streets to protest the killings. The demonstrators shouted 'Down with America!' and promised revenge."
I don't know about you all, but I am getting a might bit tired of hearing about these Iraqi demonstrators flipping out every time one of their bomb-planting buddies gets waxed. News flash! The bombs can kill you too!
Maybe it is time we pull out of Iraq. Maybe we have given them plenty of time to stand on their own. Maybe they don't want to govern themselves, make choices for themselves, or live on their feet. Maybe they want, maybe they need some dictator to make life's decisions for them.
Now re-read that last paragraph; only this time, replace "Iraq" with "Washington," and "dictator" with "President." Which group of Americans does that sound like? Exactly. Ironic that those among us with the government-nanny mindset are the same ones saying Iraqis have had enough chances and need to do things for themselves.
I fear the sacrifices our fighting men and women gave will be for naught when we pull out of Iraq. It would have been nice to let them make the call as to when they should leave, but as we all know, politics come first, even in matters of life and death.
"Tensions also rose Friday in northern Iraq after American forces killed two men during a raid in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit.
The provincial governor's office and tribal leaders said the raid violated the security agreement regulating U.S. forces' conduct and demanded an apology.
The U.S. military, however, said it was an Iraqi-led joint operation and the two men killed were suspected of planting roadside bombs. The suspects were armed and resisted arrest, according to a statement, adding that U.S. troops shot the two men 'for their own safety and the safety of their Iraqi partners.'
Security was tightened in Tikrit after hundreds of angry mourners - some firing weapons into the air - took to the streets to protest the killings. The demonstrators shouted 'Down with America!' and promised revenge."
I don't know about you all, but I am getting a might bit tired of hearing about these Iraqi demonstrators flipping out every time one of their bomb-planting buddies gets waxed. News flash! The bombs can kill you too!
Maybe it is time we pull out of Iraq. Maybe we have given them plenty of time to stand on their own. Maybe they don't want to govern themselves, make choices for themselves, or live on their feet. Maybe they want, maybe they need some dictator to make life's decisions for them.
Now re-read that last paragraph; only this time, replace "Iraq" with "Washington," and "dictator" with "President." Which group of Americans does that sound like? Exactly. Ironic that those among us with the government-nanny mindset are the same ones saying Iraqis have had enough chances and need to do things for themselves.
I fear the sacrifices our fighting men and women gave will be for naught when we pull out of Iraq. It would have been nice to let them make the call as to when they should leave, but as we all know, politics come first, even in matters of life and death.
Friday, May 1, 2009
ABC News Outs "Architects" of CIA Interrogation Program
This will do wonders for their personal safety, I'm sure.
"According to current and former government officials, the CIA's secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Washington.
Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, former military officers, together founded Mitchell Jessen and Associates.
Both men declined to speak to ABC News citing non-disclosure agreements with the CIA. But sources say Jessen and Mitchell together designed and implemented the CIA's interrogation program."
I'd like to know who these "sources" are that say two men designed an interrogation plan for an entire government agency. You can't order a box of pens for a government office with less than five people.
The abc contributors, Brian Ross, Matthew Cole, and Joseph Rhee, may also want to pause for a second and get their story straight: "...and a new focus on two private contractors who were apparently directing the brutal sessions that President Obama calls torture...Former U.S. officials say the two men were essentially the architects..."
Well, were they directing the interrogations, or were they kind of-sort of the ones who designed the program?
"Both Mitchell and Jessen were previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics if captured." Okay, now watch this next part: "But it turns out neither Mitchell nor Jessen had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them.
'They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience,' said Col. Kleinman. 'They are not interrogators.'"
If Mitchell and Jessen were teaching pilots how to resist harsh interrogations, that would indicate they have some knowledge of interrogation practices, and should also be a tip-off that since they know what can break a person, they will know what to implement themselves.
Then you have the politicians weighing in. "The use of these tactics tends to increase resistance on the part of the detainee to cooperating with us. So they have the exact opposite effect of what you want," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich).
So I guess that's why they decided to talk, huh?
The writers of the abc news article also haven't caught up with current information, apparently: "The new memos also show waterboarding was used 'with far greater frequency than initially indicated' to even those in the CIA.
Abu Zubaydah was water boarded at least 83 times and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at least 183 times."
Take a gander at this blog, two posts down. What do you see?
My whole point is not to judge whether Mitchell and Jessen are innocent or guilty, right or wrong; it is to put the brakes on the fervent uproar coming from the left, who want to do anything and everything they can to anyone who had anything to do with George W. Bush's policies, foreign or domestic. They feel wronged, and now they want blood. So much for the bipartisan spirit they all campaigned on.
"According to current and former government officials, the CIA's secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Washington.
Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, former military officers, together founded Mitchell Jessen and Associates.
Both men declined to speak to ABC News citing non-disclosure agreements with the CIA. But sources say Jessen and Mitchell together designed and implemented the CIA's interrogation program."
I'd like to know who these "sources" are that say two men designed an interrogation plan for an entire government agency. You can't order a box of pens for a government office with less than five people.
The abc contributors, Brian Ross, Matthew Cole, and Joseph Rhee, may also want to pause for a second and get their story straight: "...and a new focus on two private contractors who were apparently directing the brutal sessions that President Obama calls torture...Former U.S. officials say the two men were essentially the architects..."
Well, were they directing the interrogations, or were they kind of-sort of the ones who designed the program?
"Both Mitchell and Jessen were previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics if captured." Okay, now watch this next part: "But it turns out neither Mitchell nor Jessen had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them.
'They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience,' said Col. Kleinman. 'They are not interrogators.'"
If Mitchell and Jessen were teaching pilots how to resist harsh interrogations, that would indicate they have some knowledge of interrogation practices, and should also be a tip-off that since they know what can break a person, they will know what to implement themselves.
Then you have the politicians weighing in. "The use of these tactics tends to increase resistance on the part of the detainee to cooperating with us. So they have the exact opposite effect of what you want," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich).
So I guess that's why they decided to talk, huh?
The writers of the abc news article also haven't caught up with current information, apparently: "The new memos also show waterboarding was used 'with far greater frequency than initially indicated' to even those in the CIA.
Abu Zubaydah was water boarded at least 83 times and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at least 183 times."
Take a gander at this blog, two posts down. What do you see?
My whole point is not to judge whether Mitchell and Jessen are innocent or guilty, right or wrong; it is to put the brakes on the fervent uproar coming from the left, who want to do anything and everything they can to anyone who had anything to do with George W. Bush's policies, foreign or domestic. They feel wronged, and now they want blood. So much for the bipartisan spirit they all campaigned on.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
100
President Obama has made many bold decisions and committed many blunders during his first 100 days in office. The nice folks at the New York Post put together a list of 100 mistakes perpetrated by Obama and his associates during his first stretch as President. Among my favorites are #20, #26, and #92. Read all of them though, they're good for a laugh...and a cringe.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Despite Earlier Report, Terrorist Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times
While I have no problem with waterboarding terrorists, some people do, and those people were likely horrified when they heard that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. As it turns out, he wasn't. He simply had 183 pours of water on his face, each lasting a few seconds.
Another high level terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, was also not waterboarded 83 times, as reported. "The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times."
See, we're really not bad people!
Another high level terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, was also not waterboarded 83 times, as reported. "The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times."
See, we're really not bad people!
Changing the World's Perception of the United States: The Obama Way
It is no secret that Barack Obama's desired perception of the United States among the rest of the world is that of a kinder, gentler America, one who listens to everyone on the world stage before making decisions. He wants to distance himself, and America's image, from that of former President George W. Bush. The "cowboy" from Texas had a far different way of doing things, and while the rest of the world may have not liked him very much, he got things done and placed America's interests above all.
This article from NPR details some of the things Mr. Obama has done since taking office to distance himself from his predecessor and "restore America's standing" with the rest of the world. Among the steps he's taken (see article) were ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, prohibiting any kind of torture (i.e. waterboarding), eliminating secret prisons for detainees, and directing that all detainees be handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Of course, I must pick apart those decisions. First, by closing Guantanamo Bay and giving the detainees (terrorists) the ability to to challenge their detainments in U.S. courts, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, that these creatures should be given the same legal rights I have. They are not citizens of the United States, they follow no government at all, and they have professed the desire to kill as many Americans as possible. So we're going to give them a push towards freedom to help them do just that? Ludicrous.
Next, eliminating "torture" of detainees. "It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines." Well, what do the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines actually say?
"Enemy Combatant: In general, a person engaged in hostilities against theUnited States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term“enemy combatant” includes both “lawful enemy combatants” and “unlawful enemy combatants.” All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status,shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program”, and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.
–
Lawful Enemy Combatant: Lawful enemy combatants, who are entitled toprotections under the Geneva Conventions, include members of the regulararmed forces of a State Party to the conflict; militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a State Party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the laws ofwar; and members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.
–
Unlawful Enemy Combatant: Unlawful enemy combatants are persons not entitled to combatant immunity, who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict. For the purposes of the war on terrorism, the term “unlawful enemy combatant” is defined to include, but is not limited to, an individual who is or was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, orassociated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
Taking that into account, and after reading through the DOD directive and Detainee Treatment Act, as well as this DOD document, I have found that the powers that be don't actually know the extent or legality of the interrogations, because there were no set directives; it was basically a free-for-all, with the interrogators relying on their immediate commanders and the Army Field Manual techniques for guidance. Another issue is that of waterboarding, and if it actually falls under the established definitions of torture. I recommend that you review Army Field Manual 34-52, the descriptions of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the memo from the DOJ, and see what conclusions you can draw for yourself.
The elimination of secret CIA prisons for detainees looks good to the rest of the world, but doesn't really help our cause. I see no reason why the CIA couldn't have continued to whisk away enemy combatants to isolated places where they would be more likely to crack and divulge important information. Instead, with Guantanamo Bay being closed (where many of the CIA detainees went) as well as the secret prisons being closed, the detainees will now likely be housed in regular old prisons, possibly even in the United States, where they will be able to invoke their newly given rights of habeas corpus and avoid any intensive questioning. That will do wonders for our intelligence gathering, I'm sure.
Lastly, terrorists have no ruling government, wear no uniform, and don't abide by the Geneva Conventions. Among the provisions of said Conventions, namely in the Third Convention (which covers the treatment of POWs), are:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
By those definitions, terrorists do not fall into the category of "POW." Thus, there is no reason to follow the Geneva Conventions when it comes to their treatment. This is not to say we should practice wanton harsh interrogation, but rather to say we should not handicap ourselves and our ability to fight the war correctly simply to appease global opinions.
I'm sure President Obama had good intentions when he made these decisions. Taking into account that he is not a military strategist, however, I doubt he was able to foresee the issues that will stem from them. While the world may like us more now than when President Bush was in office, what solace will that be should another attack occur against the United States?
This article from NPR details some of the things Mr. Obama has done since taking office to distance himself from his predecessor and "restore America's standing" with the rest of the world. Among the steps he's taken (see article) were ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, prohibiting any kind of torture (i.e. waterboarding), eliminating secret prisons for detainees, and directing that all detainees be handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Of course, I must pick apart those decisions. First, by closing Guantanamo Bay and giving the detainees (terrorists) the ability to to challenge their detainments in U.S. courts, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, that these creatures should be given the same legal rights I have. They are not citizens of the United States, they follow no government at all, and they have professed the desire to kill as many Americans as possible. So we're going to give them a push towards freedom to help them do just that? Ludicrous.
Next, eliminating "torture" of detainees. "It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines." Well, what do the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines actually say?
"Enemy Combatant: In general, a person engaged in hostilities against theUnited States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term“enemy combatant” includes both “lawful enemy combatants” and “unlawful enemy combatants.” All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status,shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program”, and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.
–
Lawful Enemy Combatant: Lawful enemy combatants, who are entitled toprotections under the Geneva Conventions, include members of the regulararmed forces of a State Party to the conflict; militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a State Party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the laws ofwar; and members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.
–
Unlawful Enemy Combatant: Unlawful enemy combatants are persons not entitled to combatant immunity, who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict. For the purposes of the war on terrorism, the term “unlawful enemy combatant” is defined to include, but is not limited to, an individual who is or was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, orassociated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
Taking that into account, and after reading through the DOD directive and Detainee Treatment Act, as well as this DOD document, I have found that the powers that be don't actually know the extent or legality of the interrogations, because there were no set directives; it was basically a free-for-all, with the interrogators relying on their immediate commanders and the Army Field Manual techniques for guidance. Another issue is that of waterboarding, and if it actually falls under the established definitions of torture. I recommend that you review Army Field Manual 34-52, the descriptions of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the memo from the DOJ, and see what conclusions you can draw for yourself.
The elimination of secret CIA prisons for detainees looks good to the rest of the world, but doesn't really help our cause. I see no reason why the CIA couldn't have continued to whisk away enemy combatants to isolated places where they would be more likely to crack and divulge important information. Instead, with Guantanamo Bay being closed (where many of the CIA detainees went) as well as the secret prisons being closed, the detainees will now likely be housed in regular old prisons, possibly even in the United States, where they will be able to invoke their newly given rights of habeas corpus and avoid any intensive questioning. That will do wonders for our intelligence gathering, I'm sure.
Lastly, terrorists have no ruling government, wear no uniform, and don't abide by the Geneva Conventions. Among the provisions of said Conventions, namely in the Third Convention (which covers the treatment of POWs), are:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
By those definitions, terrorists do not fall into the category of "POW." Thus, there is no reason to follow the Geneva Conventions when it comes to their treatment. This is not to say we should practice wanton harsh interrogation, but rather to say we should not handicap ourselves and our ability to fight the war correctly simply to appease global opinions.
I'm sure President Obama had good intentions when he made these decisions. Taking into account that he is not a military strategist, however, I doubt he was able to foresee the issues that will stem from them. While the world may like us more now than when President Bush was in office, what solace will that be should another attack occur against the United States?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Wow, You Are Really Not Intelligent
Ordinarily, I wouldn't link to articles written by people who have serious mental issues and hate America, but I felt the need to share this one if for no other reason than to demonstrate the incomplete way of thinking such people are afflicted with.
What we have here is an article by Markos Moulitsas, aka "Kos" of Daily Kos fame. "Kos" is well known for his, shall we say, "batsh*t insane" views of the United States and those not leaning heavily left. In this article, he tries to explain why the GOP is, of course, pitiful and on the wrong side of pretty much every issue.
Here is the beginning of his article (emphasis mine): "Pity the poor GOP, isolated and lonely, on the fringes of a country that is moving forward without it. Indeed, watching GOP leaders speak these days is painful, like listening to a racist uncle who doesn’t realize that certain words are simply no longer acceptable in civilized company.
For example, there was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) back in February, accusing President Obama of 'an audacious effort to Europeanize the country,' adding that Obama’s efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act would 'turn the country into a Western European-type country pretty rapidly.'
This line of criticism seemed a bit bizarre. Do Americans now hate Europeans? Had I somehow missed the memo? I needed to know if I was behind the times, so I asked nonpartisan pollster Research 2000 to include the question as part of the Daily Kos weekly survey. Well, it turns out that 63 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the continent, compared to just 29 percent who don’t.
Uh-huh. You asked a non-partisan pollster (acceptable) to put a poll on your heavily liberal website, and claim the findings are representative of Americans as a whole?
Or how about completely missing the point of McConnell's message, which is that by basically eliminating secret ballots and making it easier for unions to build their ranks, business will suffer due to the usual exorbitant union demands. This excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article summarizes it quite well: "The larger union economic model here is Europe, where organized labor first led the charge to build welfare states. Then it concentrated on fighting back attempts to roll back costly entitlements and regulations once the bill of chronic debt, stagnant growth and stubbornly high unemployment came due." An current example of why unions no longer have a place in the workforce is the U.S. automotive industry; two of the "Big 3" are close to bankruptcy, while foreign rivals with plants in the U.S. that have non-union workforces, rake in profits.
So to answer Mr. Moulitsas' comment, no, Americans don't now hate Europeans. We just hate having our businesses destroyed by corrupt organizations that declare themselves the voice of the working people they represent.
One more thing from the Moulitsas article: "How about national security? Republicans can always depend on that, can’t they? True to form, they spent this past weekend in a collective frenzy over Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was apoplectic, accusing Obama of bolstering America’s enemies. Yet polling has consistently shown the American people prefer dialogue with countries like Cuba and Iran over the typical conservative response of belligerence and bombs.
'Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States,' Obama said in response to that criticism. 'It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.'
It’s easy for Obama to mock detractors when they are so clearly out of step with the American mainstream, be it on Venezuela, France, San Francisco, the gays or pretty much anything else. Their fringe, mostly Southern, base may love the rhetoric, but it ultimately alienates the women, youth and independents whom Republicans need for an electoral revival."
No, "the American people" don't support dialogue with our enemies, a slight majority of the American people favor dialogue with our enemies, as polls show. Don't forget that a slight majority of the American people also voted for Barack Obama to be President. Coincidence? I think not. I remember a sign hanging on the wall of a classroom in my middle school; it said, "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular." How true.
I must also take issue with Mr. Obama's statement that we aren't endangering the strategic interests of the United States by capitulating to our enemies. Of course we're not in danger militarily; we're in danger because Obama bends to their wills and is likely to push legislation that will benefit them economically and socially (see Cuba). Also, what kind of message does it send to the oppressed peoples and political prisoners in countries like Venezuela, when the leader of the free world is hamming it up with a cruel, corrupt dictator?
Lastly, why does "Kos" think that the only people opposed to Obama are the "fringe" of the right, who are apparently all old Southern men? The last time I checked, there were plenty of women, young people, and even *gasp* Northerners that don't agree with President Obama. Stop drinking your own Kool-Aid and take a trip to the South. You may be shocked to find that there are actually people in that region that like President Obama, and may have even voted for him. Likewise, you may be shocked to find that there are actually people across the country that don't support gay marriage, and some of them are gay! Ah, America. Don't you just love it?
What we have here is an article by Markos Moulitsas, aka "Kos" of Daily Kos fame. "Kos" is well known for his, shall we say, "batsh*t insane" views of the United States and those not leaning heavily left. In this article, he tries to explain why the GOP is, of course, pitiful and on the wrong side of pretty much every issue.
Here is the beginning of his article (emphasis mine): "Pity the poor GOP, isolated and lonely, on the fringes of a country that is moving forward without it. Indeed, watching GOP leaders speak these days is painful, like listening to a racist uncle who doesn’t realize that certain words are simply no longer acceptable in civilized company.
For example, there was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) back in February, accusing President Obama of 'an audacious effort to Europeanize the country,' adding that Obama’s efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act would 'turn the country into a Western European-type country pretty rapidly.'
This line of criticism seemed a bit bizarre. Do Americans now hate Europeans? Had I somehow missed the memo? I needed to know if I was behind the times, so I asked nonpartisan pollster Research 2000 to include the question as part of the Daily Kos weekly survey. Well, it turns out that 63 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the continent, compared to just 29 percent who don’t.
Uh-huh. You asked a non-partisan pollster (acceptable) to put a poll on your heavily liberal website, and claim the findings are representative of Americans as a whole?
Or how about completely missing the point of McConnell's message, which is that by basically eliminating secret ballots and making it easier for unions to build their ranks, business will suffer due to the usual exorbitant union demands. This excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article summarizes it quite well: "The larger union economic model here is Europe, where organized labor first led the charge to build welfare states. Then it concentrated on fighting back attempts to roll back costly entitlements and regulations once the bill of chronic debt, stagnant growth and stubbornly high unemployment came due." An current example of why unions no longer have a place in the workforce is the U.S. automotive industry; two of the "Big 3" are close to bankruptcy, while foreign rivals with plants in the U.S. that have non-union workforces, rake in profits.
So to answer Mr. Moulitsas' comment, no, Americans don't now hate Europeans. We just hate having our businesses destroyed by corrupt organizations that declare themselves the voice of the working people they represent.
One more thing from the Moulitsas article: "How about national security? Republicans can always depend on that, can’t they? True to form, they spent this past weekend in a collective frenzy over Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was apoplectic, accusing Obama of bolstering America’s enemies. Yet polling has consistently shown the American people prefer dialogue with countries like Cuba and Iran over the typical conservative response of belligerence and bombs.
'Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States,' Obama said in response to that criticism. 'It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.'
It’s easy for Obama to mock detractors when they are so clearly out of step with the American mainstream, be it on Venezuela, France, San Francisco, the gays or pretty much anything else. Their fringe, mostly Southern, base may love the rhetoric, but it ultimately alienates the women, youth and independents whom Republicans need for an electoral revival."
No, "the American people" don't support dialogue with our enemies, a slight majority of the American people favor dialogue with our enemies, as polls show. Don't forget that a slight majority of the American people also voted for Barack Obama to be President. Coincidence? I think not. I remember a sign hanging on the wall of a classroom in my middle school; it said, "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular." How true.
I must also take issue with Mr. Obama's statement that we aren't endangering the strategic interests of the United States by capitulating to our enemies. Of course we're not in danger militarily; we're in danger because Obama bends to their wills and is likely to push legislation that will benefit them economically and socially (see Cuba). Also, what kind of message does it send to the oppressed peoples and political prisoners in countries like Venezuela, when the leader of the free world is hamming it up with a cruel, corrupt dictator?
Lastly, why does "Kos" think that the only people opposed to Obama are the "fringe" of the right, who are apparently all old Southern men? The last time I checked, there were plenty of women, young people, and even *gasp* Northerners that don't agree with President Obama. Stop drinking your own Kool-Aid and take a trip to the South. You may be shocked to find that there are actually people in that region that like President Obama, and may have even voted for him. Likewise, you may be shocked to find that there are actually people across the country that don't support gay marriage, and some of them are gay! Ah, America. Don't you just love it?
That President Obama and His Silly Teleprompter
Ahh, President Obama cracks me up sometimes. His spending proposals, his ineptness with even the most simple social gestures, the way he carefully chooses his words. It may come as a surprise that his list of speech errors is long and distinguished, something that can happen because a) you're making the speech up on the fly and hit a snag, or b) YOU CAN'T READ A TELEPROMPTER CORRECTLY. With Obama, we all know for sure it isn't "a."
I don't recall any prior President relying solely on a teleprompter for all of his speeches. Maybe it's simply a format Obama enjoys using. Maybe he has an aversion to notecards, whether they're printed on new or recycled paper. Whatever the reason, one thing is certain: when there is no teleprompter, you can expect Obama to avoid talking as much as possible, and stammer when he does talk. For being a great orator, he doesn't orate very well without that teleprompter. At least when he's using the video device, chances are the speeches have been fact-checked and edited for errors, thus helping him avoid any gaffes. I'm looking at you, Joe Biden.
I don't recall any prior President relying solely on a teleprompter for all of his speeches. Maybe it's simply a format Obama enjoys using. Maybe he has an aversion to notecards, whether they're printed on new or recycled paper. Whatever the reason, one thing is certain: when there is no teleprompter, you can expect Obama to avoid talking as much as possible, and stammer when he does talk. For being a great orator, he doesn't orate very well without that teleprompter. At least when he's using the video device, chances are the speeches have been fact-checked and edited for errors, thus helping him avoid any gaffes. I'm looking at you, Joe Biden.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Effectiveness Of Harsh Questioning Is Unclear?
According to some people on both sides of the political isle, as well as in the media, the effectiveness of harsh questioning is unclear. They say things like, "The systematic, calculated infliction of this scale of prolonged torment is immoral, debasing the perpetrators and the captives," said Philip D. Zelikow, a political counselor to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who reviewed secret Bush administration reports about the program in 2005. "Second, forfeiting our high ground, the practices also alienate needed allies in the common fight, even allies within our own government. Third, the gains are dubious when the alternatives are searchingly compared. And then, after all, there is still the law."
"The Obama administration's top intelligence officer, Dennis C. Blair, has said the information obtained through the interrogation program was of 'high value.' But he also concluded that those gains weren't worth the cost."
So here we have men from both sides giving their reasons why the "harsh" interrogation tactics should not have been used. I take issue with both statements. First, Mr. Zelikow says that such treatment, for a prolonged period, is immoral. Immoral compared to what? Cutting off the heads of innocent people? Hijacking aircraft and flying them into civilian buildings? Sending suicide bombers into crowded marketplaces to inflict maximum damage? Who is he to say what is immoral and what isn't, especially in the face of what our enemy is doing? Also, Zelikow says the gains are "dubious" when the alternatives are searchingly compared, meaning he thinks less-harsh methods may have yielded the same information. Let me ask you this: if you knew something someone else needed to know, which would make you spill the beans, having a stern talking to, or being deprived of sleep, having water poured on your face to make you feel like you were about to drown, and having your head bounced off a piece of plywood (to note, none of which cause permanent damage)? That's what I thought. Parents give their kids a stern talk when they do something bad. Terrorists are not kids, they are murderers or aspiring murderers. The fact that they made it to the interrogation without being killed on the battlefield should be relief enough.
Then we have Mr. Blair of the Obama administration. He says, though the information gained from the interrogations was of "high value," those gains weren't worth the cost. Did the information save even one life? If it did, then the cost was worth it. Simple as that. We are in a war, do we want to win or not?
Nitpicking and Monday-morning quarterbacking have no place in the War on Terror (oops, I mean the "Overseas Contingency Operation"). If we are going to go back and retroactively punish intelligence officials and past Presidents because of steps they took to keep us safe from terrorist attack, why not go even further back and punish those who decided to keep Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II? Wasn't that racially motivated? The point is, where do you draw the line? Where does common sense cease and political maneuvering begin? It disgusts me that we are hanging out to dry those in the intelligence community that did what they were supposed to do to keep us from being attacked again. Have we been attacked again since September 11, 2001? No. How then can the effectiveness of the interrogations be questioned? The "folks" in Washington need to stop playing politics with our safety and start realizing that a time of war requires a different kind of thinking and different kinds of actions.
"The Obama administration's top intelligence officer, Dennis C. Blair, has said the information obtained through the interrogation program was of 'high value.' But he also concluded that those gains weren't worth the cost."
So here we have men from both sides giving their reasons why the "harsh" interrogation tactics should not have been used. I take issue with both statements. First, Mr. Zelikow says that such treatment, for a prolonged period, is immoral. Immoral compared to what? Cutting off the heads of innocent people? Hijacking aircraft and flying them into civilian buildings? Sending suicide bombers into crowded marketplaces to inflict maximum damage? Who is he to say what is immoral and what isn't, especially in the face of what our enemy is doing? Also, Zelikow says the gains are "dubious" when the alternatives are searchingly compared, meaning he thinks less-harsh methods may have yielded the same information. Let me ask you this: if you knew something someone else needed to know, which would make you spill the beans, having a stern talking to, or being deprived of sleep, having water poured on your face to make you feel like you were about to drown, and having your head bounced off a piece of plywood (to note, none of which cause permanent damage)? That's what I thought. Parents give their kids a stern talk when they do something bad. Terrorists are not kids, they are murderers or aspiring murderers. The fact that they made it to the interrogation without being killed on the battlefield should be relief enough.
Then we have Mr. Blair of the Obama administration. He says, though the information gained from the interrogations was of "high value," those gains weren't worth the cost. Did the information save even one life? If it did, then the cost was worth it. Simple as that. We are in a war, do we want to win or not?
Nitpicking and Monday-morning quarterbacking have no place in the War on Terror (oops, I mean the "Overseas Contingency Operation"). If we are going to go back and retroactively punish intelligence officials and past Presidents because of steps they took to keep us safe from terrorist attack, why not go even further back and punish those who decided to keep Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II? Wasn't that racially motivated? The point is, where do you draw the line? Where does common sense cease and political maneuvering begin? It disgusts me that we are hanging out to dry those in the intelligence community that did what they were supposed to do to keep us from being attacked again. Have we been attacked again since September 11, 2001? No. How then can the effectiveness of the interrogations be questioned? The "folks" in Washington need to stop playing politics with our safety and start realizing that a time of war requires a different kind of thinking and different kinds of actions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)