It's been a while since I last posted. I can't expect anybody to read this blog if I'm not actively posting, right?
Over the last week or so the "Federal" Reserve has lowered rates an astonishing 1.25%, all in an effort to stimulate the economy. This is where the normal rantings about deficit spending and paying for illegal wars would normally commence, but we've heard it all before, so I won't go there.
I read an article that I found very interesting:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022528.html
One thought I had was that if the values of houses drop to 50% of their high then I will owe on my house what it is worth. Where'd my equity go? I understand that you can't legitimately call equity in a house wealth, unless maybe you own the house outright. However there's a certian feeling knowing that you have 50% equity in your house.
Another thought I had was in respect to the following paragraph in the article posted above:
"But given that most Americans are still likely to vote for status quo candidates and not for the radical changes required to bring economic sanity to our nation, it seems inevitable that this nation won't learn its lessons about the laws of economics until the currency is near-worthless, the population is destitute, the banks are owned by wealthy foreigners and the neighborhoods are boarded up and abandoned due to a massive wave of foreclosures."
It seems that everyone I talk to that is mildly aware of the direction we are going says that a collapse/crash/downturn (or insert your particular phrase here) is inevitable, but is also necessary to correct the problem. Most of them even go so far to say that it is needed to awaken the people of this great nation to the horrible goings-on that we are subject to.
I've begun to think that the people won't wake up. We don't think for ourselves anymore. We just watch CNN or FoxNews and take their subterfuge as gospel. The people will also just cry about how horribly we were treated and misled and expect the government to fix it for us.
And then the cycle will start all over again.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
New Hampshire debate on ABC
It has been a couple of days since the New Hampsire debate on ABC, so this should have been posted earlier, but I gave it a couple of days to digest. Also, I had a conversation about it yesterday with some family memebers that made me think of some additional points to ponder.
One thing that struck me as odd was the demeanor of the candidates during the debate. They were not harsh or mean to each other outside of the normal jesting and wisecracks, except for the way they treated Ron Paul. All of the other candidates, except for maybe John McCain seemed to gang up on Ron Paul and treat his comments as stupid and absurd. His views are a little different from the others, but why do they gang up on him? What purpose or agenda do they have that they will band together and repress him and his views?
During the debate each of the candidates, except for Ron Paul backed President Bush's continued "Troop surges" in Iraq. Mitt Romney made a comment about Iraq and the ongoing war. Allow me to summarize in my own words: He said that we were attacked on 9/11/01, and that we needed to stand up for ourselves and fight back. It made me wonder why? Is it right that we are so proud of ourselves and our nation that we need to retaliate? It makes it sound as if our collective ego is pointing the direction we should be going. I am not in any way meaning to sound unpatriotic. I am a patriot. I support the United States Consitution in the original intent of the founding fathers. It is also my duty as a patriot to question my leaders which I believe includes my prospective leaders. Back to our ego. When did we become so proud that we put retaliation first on our list of tasks? The attack of 9/11happened, and it was a horrible time. Why did we not resolve to retaliate by closing down our borders so these people could not longer get into our country and try to implement the same type of terror? Why did we not resolve to protect America where we can the best, on our native soil?
Yesterday we were at a family gathering (my wife's family) and my father-in-law said he watched the New Hampsire debate. He was aiming his comments at me because he knows that I am becoming more involved in politics and government ongoings. He said that the candidates were calling Mitt Romney the "King of Change," and other such names. Now don't get me wrong, I really like my father-in-law. He is a really great guy, and this is not a personal charge on him--I am using this as an illustration. He said that he wants someone in office who will be wanting to change. Someone who won't be affraid to change or think of a different direction, or way to do things. I told him that they were talking about Romney's flip-flopping, and how he would change his stance from one day to the next. As soon as I opened my mouth he stopped listening. I don't know why. I think it may be because he is LDS, and Romney is LDS. Don't get me wrong, I'm LDS as well, I'm not anti-LDS in any way, but I've seen that people will vote for a candidate without being truly educated on what they stand for.
I just had a conversation with a coworker about this. I'm further convinced that this country is on it's way down the tubes. He reinforced the thought that people will vote for a candidate because Ron Paul won't win, so he'll vote for Romney because he is the next best thing. Even though Romney has standings that he doesn't agree with.
God bless America.
One thing that struck me as odd was the demeanor of the candidates during the debate. They were not harsh or mean to each other outside of the normal jesting and wisecracks, except for the way they treated Ron Paul. All of the other candidates, except for maybe John McCain seemed to gang up on Ron Paul and treat his comments as stupid and absurd. His views are a little different from the others, but why do they gang up on him? What purpose or agenda do they have that they will band together and repress him and his views?
During the debate each of the candidates, except for Ron Paul backed President Bush's continued "Troop surges" in Iraq. Mitt Romney made a comment about Iraq and the ongoing war. Allow me to summarize in my own words: He said that we were attacked on 9/11/01, and that we needed to stand up for ourselves and fight back. It made me wonder why? Is it right that we are so proud of ourselves and our nation that we need to retaliate? It makes it sound as if our collective ego is pointing the direction we should be going. I am not in any way meaning to sound unpatriotic. I am a patriot. I support the United States Consitution in the original intent of the founding fathers. It is also my duty as a patriot to question my leaders which I believe includes my prospective leaders. Back to our ego. When did we become so proud that we put retaliation first on our list of tasks? The attack of 9/11happened, and it was a horrible time. Why did we not resolve to retaliate by closing down our borders so these people could not longer get into our country and try to implement the same type of terror? Why did we not resolve to protect America where we can the best, on our native soil?
Yesterday we were at a family gathering (my wife's family) and my father-in-law said he watched the New Hampsire debate. He was aiming his comments at me because he knows that I am becoming more involved in politics and government ongoings. He said that the candidates were calling Mitt Romney the "King of Change," and other such names. Now don't get me wrong, I really like my father-in-law. He is a really great guy, and this is not a personal charge on him--I am using this as an illustration. He said that he wants someone in office who will be wanting to change. Someone who won't be affraid to change or think of a different direction, or way to do things. I told him that they were talking about Romney's flip-flopping, and how he would change his stance from one day to the next. As soon as I opened my mouth he stopped listening. I don't know why. I think it may be because he is LDS, and Romney is LDS. Don't get me wrong, I'm LDS as well, I'm not anti-LDS in any way, but I've seen that people will vote for a candidate without being truly educated on what they stand for.
I just had a conversation with a coworker about this. I'm further convinced that this country is on it's way down the tubes. He reinforced the thought that people will vote for a candidate because Ron Paul won't win, so he'll vote for Romney because he is the next best thing. Even though Romney has standings that he doesn't agree with.
God bless America.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
CNN Bias during Iowa Caucus
I watched the Iowa Caucus on CNN on January 3. I normally don't watch CNN because I believe they are biased, but I chose CNN because they were giving good explanations, as well as showing pretty good coverage of the local events. It got rather annoying that they would switch to coverage of local events, and the host would say "Let's listen in," at times when nobody was speaking or saying anything noteworthy.
One thing in particular that struck me as interesting during the night was their pie charts showing the standings of each candidate. I'm speaking of the large pie charts that they showed on the screen, and not of the little charts rotating at the bottom of the screen.
Throughout the night the Republican chart showed Huckabee with 35-38%, Romney with around 25%, McCain & Thompson with 13% each, then left a large empty space on the pie chart.
The Democratic chart on the other hand showed Obama with around 38%, Edwards and Clinton with around 29-33% each, and Richardson with 2%, leaving a very small section of the pie chart empty.
Why did they pretty much fill the Democratic chart, but not the Republican chart? Paul had 9-10% throughout the night, and Giuliani had 3%, yet they were both left out of the Republican chart. Why leave them out when they had more than Democratic follower Richardson who had only 2% but was included?
One thing in particular that struck me as interesting during the night was their pie charts showing the standings of each candidate. I'm speaking of the large pie charts that they showed on the screen, and not of the little charts rotating at the bottom of the screen.
Throughout the night the Republican chart showed Huckabee with 35-38%, Romney with around 25%, McCain & Thompson with 13% each, then left a large empty space on the pie chart.
The Democratic chart on the other hand showed Obama with around 38%, Edwards and Clinton with around 29-33% each, and Richardson with 2%, leaving a very small section of the pie chart empty.
Why did they pretty much fill the Democratic chart, but not the Republican chart? Paul had 9-10% throughout the night, and Giuliani had 3%, yet they were both left out of the Republican chart. Why leave them out when they had more than Democratic follower Richardson who had only 2% but was included?
I will admit I've gotten to like Paul, and have to question their motives. I'm sure they would have included Giuliani, but then they would have to explain why they left Paul off, so they just left them both off.
Images borrowed from Matt Stooks
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
I finally heard back from Bob Bennett
"October 25, 2007
"Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
[address withheld]
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]:
"Thank you for writing regarding S. 1927, the Protect America Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
"As you may know, the Protect America Act of 2007 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. It allows the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. Attorney General to authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information regarding people not in the U.S. for up to one year if they meet reasonable guidelines. This bill was introduced in its final form in the senate on August 1, 2007, and passed by the senate on August 3, 2007. I voted for the bill, as well as did 59 of my colleagues. The House of Representatives also passed the bill and President Bush signed it into law on August 5, 2007.
"The issues you raise underscore the importance of maintaining the proper balance between ensuring our security and preserving our basic freedoms. I respect the president's constitutional obligation to protect the American people. In meeting this duty, the president requested that the NSA monitor international communications between known terrorists and individuals in the United States. The Attorney General, lawyers from the Department of Justice, and the NSA agreed that the president possesses the authority to direct this surveillance without the approval of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. At present, there is no evidence that this program targeted purely domestic communications or any communication not involving known members of terrorist organizations.
"I believe that the most important role of the federal government is to protect the physical security of U.S. citizens. As such, I believe that the threat of terrorism is one of the most pressing matters facing congress today. I believe that the FISA serves an integral role in our national security.
"When the reauthorization of FISA is again discussed in the Senate, I will certainly keep our views in mind. Thank you for informing me of your views. As an elected representative, I welcome all Utahns to share with me their concerns and priorities. Only through these conversations can I meet my obligation to represent all of my constituents.
"Sincerely,
Robert F. Bennett
United States Senator"
It's funny. He wants to protect us from terrorists, but we created the problem with our horrible foreign affairs policy. If we didn't meddle in other country's goings-on, we wouldn't upset them to the point of them wanting to terrorize us. We are the problem. Or rather, the government is.
"Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
[address withheld]
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]:
"Thank you for writing regarding S. 1927, the Protect America Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
"As you may know, the Protect America Act of 2007 amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. It allows the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. Attorney General to authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information regarding people not in the U.S. for up to one year if they meet reasonable guidelines. This bill was introduced in its final form in the senate on August 1, 2007, and passed by the senate on August 3, 2007. I voted for the bill, as well as did 59 of my colleagues. The House of Representatives also passed the bill and President Bush signed it into law on August 5, 2007.
"The issues you raise underscore the importance of maintaining the proper balance between ensuring our security and preserving our basic freedoms. I respect the president's constitutional obligation to protect the American people. In meeting this duty, the president requested that the NSA monitor international communications between known terrorists and individuals in the United States. The Attorney General, lawyers from the Department of Justice, and the NSA agreed that the president possesses the authority to direct this surveillance without the approval of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. At present, there is no evidence that this program targeted purely domestic communications or any communication not involving known members of terrorist organizations.
"I believe that the most important role of the federal government is to protect the physical security of U.S. citizens. As such, I believe that the threat of terrorism is one of the most pressing matters facing congress today. I believe that the FISA serves an integral role in our national security.
"When the reauthorization of FISA is again discussed in the Senate, I will certainly keep our views in mind. Thank you for informing me of your views. As an elected representative, I welcome all Utahns to share with me their concerns and priorities. Only through these conversations can I meet my obligation to represent all of my constituents.
"Sincerely,
Robert F. Bennett
United States Senator"
It's funny. He wants to protect us from terrorists, but we created the problem with our horrible foreign affairs policy. If we didn't meddle in other country's goings-on, we wouldn't upset them to the point of them wanting to terrorize us. We are the problem. Or rather, the government is.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Politician's accountability
Around the middle of July, I sent an email and made a phone call to both Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch urging them the vote against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which would expand the federal government's ability to illegally spy on American citizens. Both Senators voted in favor of FISA. Around the middle of August, not too long after the vote I sent an email to both senators voicing my displeasure:
"Dear Senator __________,
"I hope this email finds you well.
"I am writing you with great dismay due to your vote in favor of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As a citizen of the great state of Utah, I have been happy with the freedoms we have in one of the best states in the nation. The citizens of the united States of America cannot afford to give up any more freedoms in the name of security. As my duly elected senator, I urge you to reconsider your stand on many issues, including FISA. I have talked with a great number of constituents who also feel the same way I do--in fact, I have not heard a single person who agrees with FISA. It seems the bill was slipped in under the radar since a lot of people I have talked to didn't even know it has already been voted on, possibly to avoid negative response from the public.
"Our nation was founded as a Democratic Republic (democracy: the governmental philosophy in which the people ideally have a high degree of control over political leaders. Republic: the type of government in which voters elect representatives to make the laws for the country). It seems that the people are losing control over the political leaders.
"In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I have not chosen to give up any liberty, it has been taken from me by my political leaders. You have chosen to give up our liberty, so do you deserve liberty or security?
"My friends and I are no longer sure we can count on you to protect our fundamental Constitutional rights and inherent freedoms as human beings and citizens of this great republic. Should we not see a turnaround soon we will be forced to look to someone else more dedicated to those principles we hold so dearly.
"Sincerely,
[name withheld to protect the innocent]"
I only received a response from Senator Hatch:
"August 15, 2007
"Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
[address withheld]
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
"Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the recent legislation that Congress enacted to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (P.L. 110-55). I appreciate hearing from you.
"I supported this bill because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has not been changed to reflect the vast technological changes that have occurred since this law was passed in 1978. Since the law has not been appropriately modified, our nation is missing potentially valuable intelligence that is essential to protect our country. Getting this intelligence is essential for our safety. It is about getting the enemy's secrets - their plans and intentions - without them knowing we've got them.
"Let me share with you a quote that Director McConnell recently stated: "Many Americans would be surprised at just what the current law requires. To state the facts plainly: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries. We are in this situation because the law simply has not kept pace with technology."
"This law brings FISA back to its original intent to protect the rights and privacy of American individuals while allowing us to monitor foreign individuals outside of the United States.
"Again, thank you for writing.
"Sincerely,
"Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator"
Now, I'm confused. The second paragraph says that the advances in technology essentially made FISA obsolete, and the legislation brings it up to date. Yet the third paragraph talks about needing to obtain a court order to spy on people. Well, which is it? And why are we passing legislation on foreigners in foreign countries? Who are we to be messing with people that live outside the U.S.? Shouldn't we be passing legislation in their country rather than in our own? He also doesn't address the ability to spy (or eavesdrop, wiretap, etc.) on American citizens or others who are physically in the States.
We need to make sure our legislators have full accountability for their actions, both regarding the country and themselves. With that, I will pose the question that many people ask: Will it make a difference? Would reproaching or censuring, or even calling for their removal make a difference?
"Dear Senator __________,
"I hope this email finds you well.
"I am writing you with great dismay due to your vote in favor of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As a citizen of the great state of Utah, I have been happy with the freedoms we have in one of the best states in the nation. The citizens of the united States of America cannot afford to give up any more freedoms in the name of security. As my duly elected senator, I urge you to reconsider your stand on many issues, including FISA. I have talked with a great number of constituents who also feel the same way I do--in fact, I have not heard a single person who agrees with FISA. It seems the bill was slipped in under the radar since a lot of people I have talked to didn't even know it has already been voted on, possibly to avoid negative response from the public.
"Our nation was founded as a Democratic Republic (democracy: the governmental philosophy in which the people ideally have a high degree of control over political leaders. Republic: the type of government in which voters elect representatives to make the laws for the country). It seems that the people are losing control over the political leaders.
"In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." I have not chosen to give up any liberty, it has been taken from me by my political leaders. You have chosen to give up our liberty, so do you deserve liberty or security?
"My friends and I are no longer sure we can count on you to protect our fundamental Constitutional rights and inherent freedoms as human beings and citizens of this great republic. Should we not see a turnaround soon we will be forced to look to someone else more dedicated to those principles we hold so dearly.
"Sincerely,
[name withheld to protect the innocent]"
I only received a response from Senator Hatch:
"August 15, 2007
"Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
[address withheld]
"Dear Mr. & Mrs. [name withheld]
"Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the recent legislation that Congress enacted to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (P.L. 110-55). I appreciate hearing from you.
"I supported this bill because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has not been changed to reflect the vast technological changes that have occurred since this law was passed in 1978. Since the law has not been appropriately modified, our nation is missing potentially valuable intelligence that is essential to protect our country. Getting this intelligence is essential for our safety. It is about getting the enemy's secrets - their plans and intentions - without them knowing we've got them.
"Let me share with you a quote that Director McConnell recently stated: "Many Americans would be surprised at just what the current law requires. To state the facts plainly: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries. We are in this situation because the law simply has not kept pace with technology."
"This law brings FISA back to its original intent to protect the rights and privacy of American individuals while allowing us to monitor foreign individuals outside of the United States.
"Again, thank you for writing.
"Sincerely,
"Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator"
Now, I'm confused. The second paragraph says that the advances in technology essentially made FISA obsolete, and the legislation brings it up to date. Yet the third paragraph talks about needing to obtain a court order to spy on people. Well, which is it? And why are we passing legislation on foreigners in foreign countries? Who are we to be messing with people that live outside the U.S.? Shouldn't we be passing legislation in their country rather than in our own? He also doesn't address the ability to spy (or eavesdrop, wiretap, etc.) on American citizens or others who are physically in the States.
We need to make sure our legislators have full accountability for their actions, both regarding the country and themselves. With that, I will pose the question that many people ask: Will it make a difference? Would reproaching or censuring, or even calling for their removal make a difference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
