Over the past couple of years, I've gotten kind of tired of the "Bush Lied" about the Iraq war and our reasons for being there.
If you are one of those people who truly believe that "Bush Lied", please answer these questions for me.
1) Why would he go into Iraq knowing that there were no WMD's and risk re-election failure and the perception that he was a competent commander in chief? Why not wait until after he was at least re elected?
2) Why were Tony Blair, John Howard, et al willing to put their own political careers on the line for a "Bush Lie".
3) What is the motivation for the Lie? Afterall, if it was strictly about oil, he could have simply lifted the UN sanctions and let all the US oil companies make big time deals with Saddam.
4) If Iraq was never a terrorist haven/threat why is it that terrorists such as Abu Nidal were living there and Musab Al-Zarqawi went there after we invaded Afghanistan?
5) Do you really believe that Bush would have invaded Iraq if the Towers were never attacked? (note, I'm not saying that Iraq was responsible for the WTC attacks I'm just suggesting that the invasion was a direct response to terrorist activity in general and part of an overall terrorist strategy)
6) If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et al knew there were no WMD's, Don't you think they would have had people plant them to justify the war?
I've just listened to a news report regarding Bob Woodward's interviews with Gerald Ford prior to his death. According to Woodward, Ford suggested that the invasion was wrong since there were no WMD's but we should have increased sanctions on Iraq.
What for? If they had no WMD's, why would we increase sanctions? How would we get the UN to bite on that one?
By the way, in case everyone forgot, we already had sanctions Hussein refused to follow already, why would we just add some more?
I do believe there were other reasons we went into Iraq besides WMD's. I'm sure that there are many other geo political reasons for going in, the least of which is to be right next door to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria with an established political presence.
However, it really bothers me there is so much criticism of Bush's hadndling of the war yet no one in our media ever holds any critic up to challenge with these types of questions and now we have the head of the House Intelligence Committee who cannot tell you if Al-Queda is a Sunni or a Shiite led organization. How can this party really be the judge of Bush's motives when they can even pass the basic test on knowledge in the region?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Who are you?
Information lose and identity theft are becoming bigger and bigger problems as more information about ourselves is floating around in cyberspace. Identity theft insurance is now available and will likely become as common as home owner's insurance in the coming years. It's estimated that nearly a third of all Americans has had their personal info or identity compromised in the last year.
Here's a list of some of the most recent large information lose disasters:
Boeing: Stolen laptop containing employee HR records - 382,000 records
Aetna: Customer data stolen - 130,000 records
UCLA: Database compromised containing student and faculty information - 800,000 records
Starbucks: Lost multiple laptops containing employee HR records - 60,000 records
GE: Stolen laptop containing employee and HR records - 51,000 records
Circuit City : Lost tapes containing customer credit card records - over 2.1 million records
US DOT: Laptop containing license records stolen - 132,000 records
Here's a list of some of the most recent large information lose disasters:
Boeing: Stolen laptop containing employee HR records - 382,000 records
Aetna: Customer data stolen - 130,000 records
UCLA: Database compromised containing student and faculty information - 800,000 records
Starbucks: Lost multiple laptops containing employee HR records - 60,000 records
GE: Stolen laptop containing employee and HR records - 51,000 records
Circuit City : Lost tapes containing customer credit card records - over 2.1 million records
US DOT: Laptop containing license records stolen - 132,000 records
Edwards
John Edwards, Democratic 2008 Presidential candidate, says he wants to "create tax fairness by rewarding work". Isn't it ironic when liberals praise hard work but then tax people's butts off when they start making the money that is often a result of that hard work?
He also want to provide "universal health care for all Americans". Think of the last time you had to visit your local Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Social Security Administration offices, the Department of Job And Family Services, the unemployment offices or any other kind of state or federal government run agency. Now imagine the same experience and service every time you visit your doctor or the emergency room. That's universal health care.
He also want to provide "universal health care for all Americans". Think of the last time you had to visit your local Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Social Security Administration offices, the Department of Job And Family Services, the unemployment offices or any other kind of state or federal government run agency. Now imagine the same experience and service every time you visit your doctor or the emergency room. That's universal health care.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
European Secular Socialist
A while back, I wrote about the ultimate struggle for world vision between three opposing visions of the world; those being European/secularist/socialism model, a US/Judeo-christian/capitalist model and a Arab/Islamic/totalitarian model.
The first world view is a belief in man over a deity. The belief that all opinions have value and that there are no moral absolutes. The best way to aid mankind is through government sanctioned redistribution of wealth.
Unfortunately, this world view cannot gets it's arms around a social contract that believes that evil truly exists in the world. It's why most of Europe has abolished capital punishment and why entry into the EU requires abolition of capital punishment. After all, how can you sentence someone to death when there are no moral contracts saying that something is absolutely wrong.
The other aspect of this core belief is that there really is nothing worth fighting for. It always reminds me of the cliche "when you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."
On those rare occasions I listen to the talking heads of Air America, I'm always dying to ask one of them what they are willing to sacrifice to protect their freedom of speech. They don't recognize that freedoms are only as valuable as the sacrifice you're willing to make for them.
I bring all this up because of a report in Little Green Footballs regarding the Islamic take over of France. For years, the French have failed to assimilate immigrants into the French culture.
Of course how do you require a assimilation of culture when there is absolutely no agreement as to what the national culture should be. One only look at the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada to visualize a day when the southwest wants to secede from the rest of the states.
For years, the French and the rest of Europe, have been able to piggy back off of the US defense to prevent an outright attack from many of these hostile countries. What has ultimately happened is the gradual erosion of culture to the point that every thing it means to be French is imploding from within.
It's why I'm big on establishment of a national culture in this country; that being language, work ethic, education, etc. To not do so, means that everything it means to be American means nothing.
Why even have a border. The Islamic Fascists understand this. They understand that the infiltration of American culture into Iran, Saudi Arabia, ET AL means their culture will go away and they are willing to die to prevent that from happening.
I know it's easy to pick on the French, but really isn't our country just a few years behind when we cannot or will not secure our borders, require full immersion education, or put an end to the fallacy of multiculturalism?
So our country has a question as it relates to the fascists in the middle east. What are we willing to fight and die for?
The first world view is a belief in man over a deity. The belief that all opinions have value and that there are no moral absolutes. The best way to aid mankind is through government sanctioned redistribution of wealth.
Unfortunately, this world view cannot gets it's arms around a social contract that believes that evil truly exists in the world. It's why most of Europe has abolished capital punishment and why entry into the EU requires abolition of capital punishment. After all, how can you sentence someone to death when there are no moral contracts saying that something is absolutely wrong.
The other aspect of this core belief is that there really is nothing worth fighting for. It always reminds me of the cliche "when you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything."
On those rare occasions I listen to the talking heads of Air America, I'm always dying to ask one of them what they are willing to sacrifice to protect their freedom of speech. They don't recognize that freedoms are only as valuable as the sacrifice you're willing to make for them.
I bring all this up because of a report in Little Green Footballs regarding the Islamic take over of France. For years, the French have failed to assimilate immigrants into the French culture.
Of course how do you require a assimilation of culture when there is absolutely no agreement as to what the national culture should be. One only look at the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada to visualize a day when the southwest wants to secede from the rest of the states.
For years, the French and the rest of Europe, have been able to piggy back off of the US defense to prevent an outright attack from many of these hostile countries. What has ultimately happened is the gradual erosion of culture to the point that every thing it means to be French is imploding from within.
It's why I'm big on establishment of a national culture in this country; that being language, work ethic, education, etc. To not do so, means that everything it means to be American means nothing.
Why even have a border. The Islamic Fascists understand this. They understand that the infiltration of American culture into Iran, Saudi Arabia, ET AL means their culture will go away and they are willing to die to prevent that from happening.
I know it's easy to pick on the French, but really isn't our country just a few years behind when we cannot or will not secure our borders, require full immersion education, or put an end to the fallacy of multiculturalism?
So our country has a question as it relates to the fascists in the middle east. What are we willing to fight and die for?
Illegals addendum
After reading Midas' Illegal post, it reminded me of something I heard on the radio regarding the Swift meat packing raids.
Apparently, the Swift company suspected many of their applicants of having forged documentation, yet because of privacy issues, Swift was not permitted access to the social security system to document the legal status of the applicant. In addition, when they challenged some documentation, they were threatened with discrimination lawsuits.
Near many of the meat packing plants, a cottage industry of identity theft has been going on in which brokers are selling illegals stolen identification.
Swift reported this to the Labor Department which did nothing on the case, they even testified in Congress regarding their suspicions. Lo and behold an ICE raid.
I guess that's where I differ from Midas on immigration, if businesses find individuals to work for "x" dollars an hour and they have the appropriate documentation, they should be able to hire them. It should not be incumbent on business to be document experts; that's the government's job.
It's also the government's job to provide a secure border so that any average person can reasonably assume that anyone in this country is actually here legally.
I've always been a proponent of guest worker cards/visas. It would provide people with safe entry and exit into and out of the country. In addition, anytime these people board planes, buses, trains, rental cars, etc., we can monitor their whereabouts at all times.
A couple of years ago I was at a hockey game and when I ordered a beer, the vendor swiped my license and here pops up my name and age right on a screen. Somehow if a beer vendor can have access to this documentation surely we should allow the same access to employer's and, for that matter, airports, rental cars, & boards of elections.
Apparently, the Swift company suspected many of their applicants of having forged documentation, yet because of privacy issues, Swift was not permitted access to the social security system to document the legal status of the applicant. In addition, when they challenged some documentation, they were threatened with discrimination lawsuits.
Near many of the meat packing plants, a cottage industry of identity theft has been going on in which brokers are selling illegals stolen identification.
Swift reported this to the Labor Department which did nothing on the case, they even testified in Congress regarding their suspicions. Lo and behold an ICE raid.
I guess that's where I differ from Midas on immigration, if businesses find individuals to work for "x" dollars an hour and they have the appropriate documentation, they should be able to hire them. It should not be incumbent on business to be document experts; that's the government's job.
It's also the government's job to provide a secure border so that any average person can reasonably assume that anyone in this country is actually here legally.
I've always been a proponent of guest worker cards/visas. It would provide people with safe entry and exit into and out of the country. In addition, anytime these people board planes, buses, trains, rental cars, etc., we can monitor their whereabouts at all times.
A couple of years ago I was at a hockey game and when I ordered a beer, the vendor swiped my license and here pops up my name and age right on a screen. Somehow if a beer vendor can have access to this documentation surely we should allow the same access to employer's and, for that matter, airports, rental cars, & boards of elections.
Vista
I just read an article regarding the Microsoft Vista operating system.
Billed by Microsoft as their "most secure O/S ever" many corporate accounts have already found security flaws in the system. Microsoft claims in the article that someone needs to have their hands on the actual computer (they couldn't use remote access) in order to seize any information.
I feel better already.
I wonder if Microsoft has ever considered hiring a bunch of fourteen year old geeks to beta test their O/S before they actually put it out on the market; or maybe they could hire some geeks from Apple.
I have already recommended to clients that they hold off in upgrading to Vista for this reason. In addition, I already received informtation from Intuit that their older applications will not work on Vista.
Be aware
Billed by Microsoft as their "most secure O/S ever" many corporate accounts have already found security flaws in the system. Microsoft claims in the article that someone needs to have their hands on the actual computer (they couldn't use remote access) in order to seize any information.
I feel better already.
I wonder if Microsoft has ever considered hiring a bunch of fourteen year old geeks to beta test their O/S before they actually put it out on the market; or maybe they could hire some geeks from Apple.
I have already recommended to clients that they hold off in upgrading to Vista for this reason. In addition, I already received informtation from Intuit that their older applications will not work on Vista.
Be aware
Illegals
For some stupid reason, I found myself watching Tom Brokaw's news show last night. The topic of the show was the huge increase in the numbers of illegals (specifically near Carbondale, Colorado) and the impact which it is having on the schools, businesses, etc. in the community and state.
One of the arguments you always hear, especially from business owners, is that if all the illegals were sent packing they wouldn't be able to find enough workers to fill their jobs. This is a lie! What they should be saying (if they want to be truthful about it) is that they would not be able to find enough workers, at the rate they would currently like to pay, to fill their jobs. In most cases, if the employers increased the salaries of the positions they are looking to fill, they would have plenty of hard working, legal workers to choose from. Whether it's cleaning hotel rooms or working in construction, the legal workers will come if you pay them well enough and what the market stipulates. It's the same model used for jobs that are dangerous and risky. You can always find someone willing to do it if the money is good.
I realize that this could lead to higher costs for the business owner and eventually the consumer. I'm all for business owners finding ways to keep prices down by legal means. But hiring people who are in our country illegally only encourages the offense. Many of them do not pay taxes, send much of the money they make elsewhere and are burdens on the education, health care and criminal justice systems. I like it when employers try to save a buck... because it might help be save a buck too. But do it legally.
Someones going to say, what's the difference between hiring illegals at a lower rate of pay here versus shipping jobs off to India? There's a big difference... sending a job to India isn't illegal. At least not yet.
One of the arguments you always hear, especially from business owners, is that if all the illegals were sent packing they wouldn't be able to find enough workers to fill their jobs. This is a lie! What they should be saying (if they want to be truthful about it) is that they would not be able to find enough workers, at the rate they would currently like to pay, to fill their jobs. In most cases, if the employers increased the salaries of the positions they are looking to fill, they would have plenty of hard working, legal workers to choose from. Whether it's cleaning hotel rooms or working in construction, the legal workers will come if you pay them well enough and what the market stipulates. It's the same model used for jobs that are dangerous and risky. You can always find someone willing to do it if the money is good.
I realize that this could lead to higher costs for the business owner and eventually the consumer. I'm all for business owners finding ways to keep prices down by legal means. But hiring people who are in our country illegally only encourages the offense. Many of them do not pay taxes, send much of the money they make elsewhere and are burdens on the education, health care and criminal justice systems. I like it when employers try to save a buck... because it might help be save a buck too. But do it legally.
Someones going to say, what's the difference between hiring illegals at a lower rate of pay here versus shipping jobs off to India? There's a big difference... sending a job to India isn't illegal. At least not yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)