Libya... Where do I begin? For years Quddafi was regarded as a good example for dictators around the world. He was becoming friendly with the leaders of the western world; he was supposedly not funding terrorism anymore etc. But then his people started protesting and he couldn't handle it. So he came up with a brilliant idea lets BOMB THEM!!! I am sure that will shut them up. Ohh wait... The entire world is now angry at me. Cue civil war...
Quddafi's actions have been condemned internationally and yet the nations of the world have been reluctant to formally state that Quddafi should be removed from power. I for one do not understand it. The entire world has ganged up against Quddafi and we are currently flying over Libya, bombing Quddafi's tanks but in spite of all this, we aren't officially "at war" against Quddafi.
Somehow NATO and the U.N. have convinced themselves they can bomb Quddafi's forces and STILL claim to be impartial. The most ironic thing is that France and Italy are the first nations to formally state that Quddafi must go. FRANCE AND ITALY? When was the last time that France and Italy took the lead role in any foreign policy issues? Meanwhile, the United States has waffled on the issue.
President Obama has stated that we must protect Human Rights in Libya but he unfortunately seems to be ignoring the logical conclusion of this goal. The only way to TRULY uphold Human Rights is to ensure that Quddafi is brought to justice in a court setting reminiscent of the Nuremberg trials. If the United States wants to be able to claim that they are still the leader of the free world, then we have a duty not to make non-committal statement. We have a duty to protect the Human Rights of the people of Libya, no matter the cost or the commitment.
Will this be hard to implement practically? Yes. It will cost money and American lives, but it is the only way for the United States to live up to the goal that President Obama has set out for us.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Healthcare Reform? "We are reforming a reform by repealing a reform." WHAT?!?!?
I will be honest, as a fiscal conservative I am not a fan of so called "obamacare". I think it is spending alot of money we don't have while simultaneously forcing people into care they don't want. So one would think I would be ecstatic about the republican plan to repeal healthcare reform! Right? WRONG! I admire the principle of ridding the United States of Obamacare but I have a two issues with the Rebublicans' tactic:
1: I think that the 2010 election showed quite clearly that Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. One of the things many people are not pleased with is healthcare "reform". Thus the republicans claim that they have a clear mandate to repeal healthcare reform. But is this really the case? I think Republicans should not mistake hatred for support. Just because people hate the democrats' healthcare plan doesn't mean they automatically support the republicans' views on the topic. Republicans need to be very careful moving forward that they indeed come up with a plan Americans want. Which brings us to issue two: do republicans even have a plan?
2: "WE SHALL REFORM HEALTHCARE BY REPEALING THE REFORM OF HEALTHCARE!" Does this make sense to you? Healthcare reform was started because it was widely considered that the current system was broken. So perhaps we don't like Obamacare as a plan to fix the current system, but we cannot allow the current system to continue on either. So far, I have seen alot of republicans decrying the evils of obamacare but not alot of them offer any other alternative. It is not enough to repeal obama care, you must have an alternate plan to fix the current system.
So should obamacare be repealed? I think that yes it should. But the solution is two fold. As republicans repeal obamacare they must replace it with an alternate reform. In addition to all this, people seem to forget that the republicans are not in control of the senate and it is doubtful that Harry Reid will allow any bill that aims to kill Obamacare to pass through the Senate. So it is doubtful any real reform will come out of this situation.
~The Extemp Guy
1: I think that the 2010 election showed quite clearly that Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. One of the things many people are not pleased with is healthcare "reform". Thus the republicans claim that they have a clear mandate to repeal healthcare reform. But is this really the case? I think Republicans should not mistake hatred for support. Just because people hate the democrats' healthcare plan doesn't mean they automatically support the republicans' views on the topic. Republicans need to be very careful moving forward that they indeed come up with a plan Americans want. Which brings us to issue two: do republicans even have a plan?
2: "WE SHALL REFORM HEALTHCARE BY REPEALING THE REFORM OF HEALTHCARE!" Does this make sense to you? Healthcare reform was started because it was widely considered that the current system was broken. So perhaps we don't like Obamacare as a plan to fix the current system, but we cannot allow the current system to continue on either. So far, I have seen alot of republicans decrying the evils of obamacare but not alot of them offer any other alternative. It is not enough to repeal obama care, you must have an alternate plan to fix the current system.
So should obamacare be repealed? I think that yes it should. But the solution is two fold. As republicans repeal obamacare they must replace it with an alternate reform. In addition to all this, people seem to forget that the republicans are not in control of the senate and it is doubtful that Harry Reid will allow any bill that aims to kill Obamacare to pass through the Senate. So it is doubtful any real reform will come out of this situation.
~The Extemp Guy
Monday, November 29, 2010
Bush Tax cuts.... Hmmmm
I was raised on a steady diet of Reaganonomics and I am a big fan of low taxes and limited government. So when I heard that Washington was considering ending the Bush tax cuts I thought... NOOOOOOOOOOOO DOOOOOOOOOOOON'T DOOOOOOOOOOOO IT!!!!!!!!!!!! But I have since looked at the subject more closely and have revised my position.
Let me start off by saying that I am glad I am not in congress for the purpose of this issue because I am still on the fence about this issue. Before you freak out, let me share with you why.
I think it is a demonstrable fact that businesses love low taxes and chafe under high taxes. So, low taxes are good! YAY FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!! Wait not so fast. Fiscal conservatives also love to talk about a curve wherein the government lowers taxes and as a result business improves to the point where the government actually makes more money with lower taxes than they would with higher taxes. This is great in theory and in practice works too... when the economy is good. However, when the economy is bad and business is slow anyway, that curve ceases to be effective. So in a slow economic climate as long as the government is fine with lower incomes, then low taxes are good. But here is when the trouble comes in...
Our government has spent money in the last year at unprecedented levels. Health care, stimulus package, social security, all of these have caused our debt and deficit to rise exponentially. Which raises a conundrum, either continue racking up debt or pay for your legislation. In order to pay for it you need to cut budgets and programs or raise taxes. As already established, we are implementing more legislation so cutting programs is out. So that leaves us with raising taxes.
So we have come full circle. In order to pay for our programs we must raise taxes. But if we raise taxes it hurts business. So, should the Bush tax cuts be continued or repealed? I really don't know. Both sides are right. repealing the Bush tax cuts will hurt business. So is it worth hurting business to pay for our programs? if not, will we continue down a road that leads to situations like Greece and Ireland.
There are no easy options. But this is the mess we have made for ourselves.
~The Extemp Guy
Let me start off by saying that I am glad I am not in congress for the purpose of this issue because I am still on the fence about this issue. Before you freak out, let me share with you why.
I think it is a demonstrable fact that businesses love low taxes and chafe under high taxes. So, low taxes are good! YAY FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!! Wait not so fast. Fiscal conservatives also love to talk about a curve wherein the government lowers taxes and as a result business improves to the point where the government actually makes more money with lower taxes than they would with higher taxes. This is great in theory and in practice works too... when the economy is good. However, when the economy is bad and business is slow anyway, that curve ceases to be effective. So in a slow economic climate as long as the government is fine with lower incomes, then low taxes are good. But here is when the trouble comes in...
Our government has spent money in the last year at unprecedented levels. Health care, stimulus package, social security, all of these have caused our debt and deficit to rise exponentially. Which raises a conundrum, either continue racking up debt or pay for your legislation. In order to pay for it you need to cut budgets and programs or raise taxes. As already established, we are implementing more legislation so cutting programs is out. So that leaves us with raising taxes.
So we have come full circle. In order to pay for our programs we must raise taxes. But if we raise taxes it hurts business. So, should the Bush tax cuts be continued or repealed? I really don't know. Both sides are right. repealing the Bush tax cuts will hurt business. So is it worth hurting business to pay for our programs? if not, will we continue down a road that leads to situations like Greece and Ireland.
There are no easy options. But this is the mess we have made for ourselves.
~The Extemp Guy
Friday, November 26, 2010
North Korea... WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?
North Korea is currently blaming the the U.S. and South Korea for wanting war. I doubt I have ever seen or heard anything quite so pompous. Lets recap the situation...
The Korean war technically did not end, North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war. They have been under a cease fire since the fifties. Since then the two nations have been building up their armies, planting mines in the DMZ and aggressively postulating all in an effort to intimidate the other side. Spies have been been captured and open war has been threatened numerous times. However, till now neither side has done anything quite so rash as North Korea's latest step. Just a few months ago things were even starting to look up. Kim Jong Il was rumored to be stepping down, the north and south had agreed to allow people who had family on the other side to visit their family. It was more cooperation between the two countries than has been seen in a long time.
Then one day, KA BOOM!!!!!!!! North Korea starts shelling a south Korean military base!!! not just a stray round, but 200 rounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And then they have the gaulle to say that the United States and South Korea are escalating the situation by conducting military maneuvers!!!!!!!!! The sheer arrogance of it is astounding!
If there was ever any doubt that the leaders of North Korea are nuts, it is gone now. Any nation that would be so stupid as to provoke war like that deserves to be internationally condemned at the very least and removed from power at the very most.
~The Extemp Guy
The Korean war technically did not end, North Korea and South Korea are still technically at war. They have been under a cease fire since the fifties. Since then the two nations have been building up their armies, planting mines in the DMZ and aggressively postulating all in an effort to intimidate the other side. Spies have been been captured and open war has been threatened numerous times. However, till now neither side has done anything quite so rash as North Korea's latest step. Just a few months ago things were even starting to look up. Kim Jong Il was rumored to be stepping down, the north and south had agreed to allow people who had family on the other side to visit their family. It was more cooperation between the two countries than has been seen in a long time.
Then one day, KA BOOM!!!!!!!! North Korea starts shelling a south Korean military base!!! not just a stray round, but 200 rounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And then they have the gaulle to say that the United States and South Korea are escalating the situation by conducting military maneuvers!!!!!!!!! The sheer arrogance of it is astounding!
If there was ever any doubt that the leaders of North Korea are nuts, it is gone now. Any nation that would be so stupid as to provoke war like that deserves to be internationally condemned at the very least and removed from power at the very most.
~The Extemp Guy
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Election time!
Why is it that in 2008, American's overwhelmingly voted the democrats into office and now just two short years later most analysts predict that the Democrats are going to lose and lose big? Is it really possible that Americans can change their minds that much that quickly? Most of us hold certain beliefs very dearly, so if that is the case how can so many Americans change their political positions so quickly?
I believe that the reason that we change which party is in power so much is not because our viewpoints change but precisely because our core viewpoints do not change.
George Patton said that "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser!" I believe that is the crux of the issue. At the heart of it, the vast majority of Americans want America to continue to be seen as a strong nation in the world. Most Americans also want to enjoy economic prosperity. Most Americans want to know that they are safe from crime and that they will be protected by the police. Americans want their children to have access to top quality education. So really, Americans hold the same views. They differ which methods best achieve those ends but they believe in the same ideals. So why do we switch parties in and out of power so much? Because a large percentage of Americans vote for whichever party they feel will best uphold the aforementioned ideals. When the republicans were in power and the economy collapsed (ala Great Recession) so Americans perceived that Republicans couldn't uphold the ideal of American economic prosperity. Conversely when the Democrats were in power and appeared weak internationally (ala Iranian Hostage Crisis), Americans perceived that the democrats couldn't uphold the ideal of American international power.
So in the end we are mostly divided by different methods to achieve the same ends and we vote for which ever party we feel best helps us achieve those ends. So for 2010, sorry democrats, Americans are disgruntled with the current state of affairs so you won't fair so well this cycle. By next election though.... Who knows?
~The Extemp Guy
I believe that the reason that we change which party is in power so much is not because our viewpoints change but precisely because our core viewpoints do not change.
George Patton said that "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser!" I believe that is the crux of the issue. At the heart of it, the vast majority of Americans want America to continue to be seen as a strong nation in the world. Most Americans also want to enjoy economic prosperity. Most Americans want to know that they are safe from crime and that they will be protected by the police. Americans want their children to have access to top quality education. So really, Americans hold the same views. They differ which methods best achieve those ends but they believe in the same ideals. So why do we switch parties in and out of power so much? Because a large percentage of Americans vote for whichever party they feel will best uphold the aforementioned ideals. When the republicans were in power and the economy collapsed (ala Great Recession) so Americans perceived that Republicans couldn't uphold the ideal of American economic prosperity. Conversely when the Democrats were in power and appeared weak internationally (ala Iranian Hostage Crisis), Americans perceived that the democrats couldn't uphold the ideal of American international power.
So in the end we are mostly divided by different methods to achieve the same ends and we vote for which ever party we feel best helps us achieve those ends. So for 2010, sorry democrats, Americans are disgruntled with the current state of affairs so you won't fair so well this cycle. By next election though.... Who knows?
~The Extemp Guy
Monday, October 18, 2010
YAY for Chile!
If you aren't aware that Chile just rescued 33 miners from the depths of the earth and brought them back into the light of day, then you have either been living under a rock or you blind. It's all over the news. Those miners have, rightfully so, turned overnight into international sensations. But what does all this mean for Chile?
So let's recap rewinding back a year: Chile = South American country, struggling to pull itself out of grinding poverty. Then February 27, A massive earthquake hits Chile. As Chile struggles to rebuild, Sebastian Pinera is elected president of Chile. Mr. Pinera, was already a private business success before he turned to politics. Since then Pinera has been rebuilding Chile and moving it forward.
Then in August, a mine collapsed in Chile. It was found that 33 Miners were still alive but trapped in a small cavern underneath the ground. In previous years, it would have been a death sentence. But Chile refused to let that happen. They outsourced to the rest of the world and brought in mining experts from all over to help them rescue the miners.
But more importantly than Chile's willingness to ask for help has been the world's willingness to support Chile! As the Chile has rejoiced over the rescue the rest of the world rejoiced too.
Watch in the future for the rise of Chile. As Chile reforms its image it is making friends all over the world. It is setting itself up to be a regional powerhouse.
In short, Don't underestimate Chile!
~The Extemp Guy
So let's recap rewinding back a year: Chile = South American country, struggling to pull itself out of grinding poverty. Then February 27, A massive earthquake hits Chile. As Chile struggles to rebuild, Sebastian Pinera is elected president of Chile. Mr. Pinera, was already a private business success before he turned to politics. Since then Pinera has been rebuilding Chile and moving it forward.
Then in August, a mine collapsed in Chile. It was found that 33 Miners were still alive but trapped in a small cavern underneath the ground. In previous years, it would have been a death sentence. But Chile refused to let that happen. They outsourced to the rest of the world and brought in mining experts from all over to help them rescue the miners.
But more importantly than Chile's willingness to ask for help has been the world's willingness to support Chile! As the Chile has rejoiced over the rescue the rest of the world rejoiced too.
Watch in the future for the rise of Chile. As Chile reforms its image it is making friends all over the world. It is setting itself up to be a regional powerhouse.
In short, Don't underestimate Chile!
~The Extemp Guy
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Intro + Federal vs. State authority
This is my first post on a new blog which I have created for the purpose of sharing my take on current events for the purpose of helping me organizing my thoughts as practice for Extemporaneous speech. So here is my first article:
The NYT reported in this article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16pot.html?partner=rss&emc=rss that Attorney General Holder Told California that if they legalize marijuana in California, the Federal government would step in, to enforce the federal drug laws.
This brings up a much more important point that drug laws. Can States pass laws that directly contradict federal laws? It seems like a silly question to even ask but in case you are wondering, the answer is NOOOO!!!!!!
State laws can go further than federal laws. For instance if the federal minimum wage is $8.00 a state could pass a law setting the minimum wage at $8.50. The state could not however, pass a law that set the state minimum wage lower than the federal minimum wage. For those unsure on this issue, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY SUPERSEDES THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY.
California should keep this in mind as they move forward with their new drug laws. And all other states should take note that the Federal government is serious about asserting its authority.
~The Extemp Guy
The NYT reported in this article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16pot.html?partner=rss&emc=rss that Attorney General Holder Told California that if they legalize marijuana in California, the Federal government would step in, to enforce the federal drug laws.
This brings up a much more important point that drug laws. Can States pass laws that directly contradict federal laws? It seems like a silly question to even ask but in case you are wondering, the answer is NOOOO!!!!!!
State laws can go further than federal laws. For instance if the federal minimum wage is $8.00 a state could pass a law setting the minimum wage at $8.50. The state could not however, pass a law that set the state minimum wage lower than the federal minimum wage. For those unsure on this issue, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY SUPERSEDES THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORITY.
California should keep this in mind as they move forward with their new drug laws. And all other states should take note that the Federal government is serious about asserting its authority.
~The Extemp Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)