Amazingly the United States public and most politicians still appear clueless about the war going on south of the U.S. border.
There seems to be a feeling that the violence and corruption will not spill over into the U.S. Unfortunately they are deeply mistaken. National Geographic Explorer recently did a show on the problems of Mexico’s failed drug war and how it affects the U.S.
It is widely accepted fact that corruption permeates through the Mexican government at all levels. To believe that it can’t happen here is simply ignorant. The money at stake is high. Already there have been cases of police and sheriffs prosecuted for aiding drug shipments across South Texas.
MSNBC.com reports that the Mexican drug cartels are stepping up efforts to recruit and infiltrate U.S. customs and border law enforcement agencies.
The case of Luis F. Alarid highlights a battle within the war. Alarid on the surface appeared on the straight path and headed on career in law enforcement. He served in the military, in the Army and Marines, did two tours in Iraq and returned home to pursue his dreams of law enforcement. An investigation into his activities revealed within in months of becoming a border agent, he earned $200,000 for waving trucks through with drugs and illegal immigrants. Alarid received seven years in federal prison.
The article states a few more cases. In one, another agent received 15 years for her crimes. A friend with connections to the cartels enticed her to turncoat while she was still in the academy. A former customs inspector received 20 years for her crimes.
In all cases, the convicted agents knew or were related to drug smugglers. With the need for increased numbers after September 11th, 2001, not every recruit could be scrutinized closely. Even if they had, who was going to disqualify Luis Alarid? He had a clean criminal and military service record. No matter how tight requirements tighten up, someone will always slip through or corrupted. There is no easy solution.
The sentences for all three agents strike me as light given the degree of the crimes. Corruption, breaches of security, betrayal of public trust and allowing illegal drugs and immigrants into the country should carry heavier sentences. In Texas, a corrupt public servant convicted of first degree felony can face 2-99 years or life imprisonment. With the threat of drugs and national security, I see know reason the laws aren’t toughened up and heavier sentences handed out. Drug lords pay large amounts of ransom for cooperation so it should be fitting that the U.S. extract a heavy sum too for breaking the public trust and allowing criminals to breach our borders.
Chaos doesn’t rule the border completely but politicians and the general public need to wake up and take action soon. Once the system breaks down completely then it will take many more years, if ever, to fix it.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Military, CIA and Blackwater used in Some Ops
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34372364/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/
The New York Times reports that Blackwater Worldwide security forces worked side by side with the CIA on some raids and special operations in Iraq. They also allege that Blackwater security helped transport detainees to the CIA's secret prison program. The article states that originally Blackwater personnel were hired to provide security to CIA agents and their bases.
Sources from former Blackwater and CIA operatives confirm that Blackwater forces did more that provide security.
Back when the war started in Afghanistan, I commented to a friend about the outsourcing of the war to the Northern Alliance. I had made an analogy to the Romans hiring mercenary armies toward the end of the Empire. Rome no longer used citizen soldiers for its army. My friend corrected me in my analysis. He said it was an interesting point but off the mark. Instead he believed it was a different scenario. The U.S. was aiding a local army fight its rebellion against a ruling regime. The U.S. wasn't really outsourcing the war but only aiding an ally. It just so happened that the ally's goals served the U.S.'s purpose. The U.S. ousted the Taliban with aid from the Northern Alliance. No mercenary army was hired. The Northern Alliance had a vested interest in ousting the Taliban.
After that point of view, I agreed with him for the most part. Still something bothered me about what I viewed as outsourcing.
On the surface, I don't see a problem with using a contractor for security. The CIA doesn't have a force to protect them in the field and the military is stretched around the world. I also don't see a problem using third parties for prisoner security and transportation.
According the Times article, former Blackwater employees said that "their involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred."
The line blurring is what bothers me. Military, CIA and Special Ops forces
are trained specifically for the tasks at hand. Involving third party contractors into operations opens a whole can of worms. First of all, who do the contractors answer to? The military, CIA or corporate headquarters? How much influence do they have in planning missions? Sources are quoted saying that since Blackwater was involved with security they became involved in planning routes.
Another controversial point has been who are under whose legal system do they fall under? U.S, law or Iraqi or Afghan law? The military falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The CIA falls under U.S. laws for the most part. Third parties are civilian contractors. They aren't afforded the same legal protections that military and other government officials are. Even CIA agents don't fall under complete U.S. protection. If they are caught as spies in another country, that country can legal prosecute them and punish them. Similarly armed third party security aren't afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. Technically they could
be held and prosecuted as mercenaries. Mercenaries are generally prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
On the other hand, it is not so cut and dry as some critics would like.
After 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government had to act quick. In an instant the U.S. fight against terrorism changed. The intelligence community needed to expand rapidly. Translators, analysts and other technical experts were needed. It's not like the U.S. government had a stockpile of Pashtun speakers on staff. So while a plan was put in place to recruit for intelligence agencies for the long term, many slots needed to be field immediately. Thus came in the third party contractors.
The other part is we aren't on the ground with CIA and Special Ops. Who knows how bad the security situation is? Maybe occasionally it is permissible to use contractors to help in a mission. I prefer that they weren't but sometimes a situation may dictate that they are needed that way. Honestly we just don't know nor should we know everything that happens in the field.
The bottom line is that lives are at stake both on the frontlines and maybe here at home. Used wisely, third party contractors can be an asset. Steps must be taken though that the U.S. agencies and military don't become to dependant on them. If not careful, then maybe we are hiring mercenaries to fight our wars and starting to slip into a Roman like decline.
The New York Times reports that Blackwater Worldwide security forces worked side by side with the CIA on some raids and special operations in Iraq. They also allege that Blackwater security helped transport detainees to the CIA's secret prison program. The article states that originally Blackwater personnel were hired to provide security to CIA agents and their bases.
Sources from former Blackwater and CIA operatives confirm that Blackwater forces did more that provide security.
Back when the war started in Afghanistan, I commented to a friend about the outsourcing of the war to the Northern Alliance. I had made an analogy to the Romans hiring mercenary armies toward the end of the Empire. Rome no longer used citizen soldiers for its army. My friend corrected me in my analysis. He said it was an interesting point but off the mark. Instead he believed it was a different scenario. The U.S. was aiding a local army fight its rebellion against a ruling regime. The U.S. wasn't really outsourcing the war but only aiding an ally. It just so happened that the ally's goals served the U.S.'s purpose. The U.S. ousted the Taliban with aid from the Northern Alliance. No mercenary army was hired. The Northern Alliance had a vested interest in ousting the Taliban.
After that point of view, I agreed with him for the most part. Still something bothered me about what I viewed as outsourcing.
On the surface, I don't see a problem with using a contractor for security. The CIA doesn't have a force to protect them in the field and the military is stretched around the world. I also don't see a problem using third parties for prisoner security and transportation.
According the Times article, former Blackwater employees said that "their involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred."
The line blurring is what bothers me. Military, CIA and Special Ops forces
are trained specifically for the tasks at hand. Involving third party contractors into operations opens a whole can of worms. First of all, who do the contractors answer to? The military, CIA or corporate headquarters? How much influence do they have in planning missions? Sources are quoted saying that since Blackwater was involved with security they became involved in planning routes.
Another controversial point has been who are under whose legal system do they fall under? U.S, law or Iraqi or Afghan law? The military falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The CIA falls under U.S. laws for the most part. Third parties are civilian contractors. They aren't afforded the same legal protections that military and other government officials are. Even CIA agents don't fall under complete U.S. protection. If they are caught as spies in another country, that country can legal prosecute them and punish them. Similarly armed third party security aren't afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. Technically they could
be held and prosecuted as mercenaries. Mercenaries are generally prohibited by the Geneva Convention.
On the other hand, it is not so cut and dry as some critics would like.
After 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government had to act quick. In an instant the U.S. fight against terrorism changed. The intelligence community needed to expand rapidly. Translators, analysts and other technical experts were needed. It's not like the U.S. government had a stockpile of Pashtun speakers on staff. So while a plan was put in place to recruit for intelligence agencies for the long term, many slots needed to be field immediately. Thus came in the third party contractors.
The other part is we aren't on the ground with CIA and Special Ops. Who knows how bad the security situation is? Maybe occasionally it is permissible to use contractors to help in a mission. I prefer that they weren't but sometimes a situation may dictate that they are needed that way. Honestly we just don't know nor should we know everything that happens in the field.
The bottom line is that lives are at stake both on the frontlines and maybe here at home. Used wisely, third party contractors can be an asset. Steps must be taken though that the U.S. agencies and military don't become to dependant on them. If not careful, then maybe we are hiring mercenaries to fight our wars and starting to slip into a Roman like decline.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Prison Escapee Caught, Mom Turns in Murder Suspect Son
The Escapee and the Gun
On December 1, 2009, convict Arcade Joseph Comeaux, Jr. escaped from a prison van while in transport from one prison unit to another one. He allegedly pulled a gun on the two officers transporting. He then stripped the officers and took the clothes for his disguise and weapons for his use.
Officials suspect a prison guard may have sneaked the gun into the prison for Comeaux.
He was finally caught by some workers at a flange factory.
Comeaux fooled prison officials he was wheelchair bound for ten years. Yet he was able to walk off during his escape.
One trouble spot seems to recur with in the Texas Correctional Department. Some prison guards supply contraband to inmates. Last year there was a scandal about cell phones smuggled into death row. In light of the cell phone smuggling, cries are starting to call for a shake up.
Both cases of smuggling are serious issues. Inmates are put in prison to not only punish but to protect society. When the jailers and guards are bringing contraband, the lives the public are a danger. One cell phone was used to threaten a family of a state Senator. Not only the inmates are responsible but so are the ones who facilitate life and smuggle items in for prisoners.
The only way to help remedy the situation is to come on down hard on those that receive the contraband but also on those that facilitate the smuggling harshly. When a prison guard takes the position he becomes a public servant of trust. The guard is entrusted to keep those on the inside locked up but also charged to keep the inmates influence outside to a minimum. Governments should just fire the guards but prosecute to the maximum the law allows. If for nothing else but betraying the public trust.
Scrupulous Mom
Over the week, a Galena Park teacher was stabbed, beaten and mutilated to death.
The amazing thing is the mother of the alleged suspect heard he was involved and called the police.
From the Houston Chronicle article linked above:
Good for Mom. She made a choice and decision over the nature of her son's alleged behavior. Maybe empathizing with the murdered teach and his family she called him in. I'm sure it's not an easy thing to do at all but she had the moral strength and judgment to do it. Congrats, Mom!
On December 1, 2009, convict Arcade Joseph Comeaux, Jr. escaped from a prison van while in transport from one prison unit to another one. He allegedly pulled a gun on the two officers transporting. He then stripped the officers and took the clothes for his disguise and weapons for his use.
Officials suspect a prison guard may have sneaked the gun into the prison for Comeaux.
He was finally caught by some workers at a flange factory.
Comeaux fooled prison officials he was wheelchair bound for ten years. Yet he was able to walk off during his escape.
One trouble spot seems to recur with in the Texas Correctional Department. Some prison guards supply contraband to inmates. Last year there was a scandal about cell phones smuggled into death row. In light of the cell phone smuggling, cries are starting to call for a shake up.
Both cases of smuggling are serious issues. Inmates are put in prison to not only punish but to protect society. When the jailers and guards are bringing contraband, the lives the public are a danger. One cell phone was used to threaten a family of a state Senator. Not only the inmates are responsible but so are the ones who facilitate life and smuggle items in for prisoners.
The only way to help remedy the situation is to come on down hard on those that receive the contraband but also on those that facilitate the smuggling harshly. When a prison guard takes the position he becomes a public servant of trust. The guard is entrusted to keep those on the inside locked up but also charged to keep the inmates influence outside to a minimum. Governments should just fire the guards but prosecute to the maximum the law allows. If for nothing else but betraying the public trust.
Scrupulous Mom
Over the week, a Galena Park teacher was stabbed, beaten and mutilated to death.
The amazing thing is the mother of the alleged suspect heard he was involved and called the police.
From the Houston Chronicle article linked above:
Vega, a Mexican citizen, is believed to be in Mexico, said a source close to the investigation who asked not to be identified. Vega called his mother from Mexico and told her what he had done, and his mother then called police, the source said.
Good for Mom. She made a choice and decision over the nature of her son's alleged behavior. Maybe empathizing with the murdered teach and his family she called him in. I'm sure it's not an easy thing to do at all but she had the moral strength and judgment to do it. Congrats, Mom!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Highway Thievery?
We all know bank and financial service companies nickel and dime us to death. High interest rate, unreasonable fees, cutting credit lines for even people who pay on time and late fees despite the payment late on another card.
Basically banks look to make the most amount of money with the least amount of effort.
Take my case for instance. I went to the dentist Monday morning. I paid $280 for the visit. Then the receptionist noticed I had a credit due to insurance payments. She asks me if I want to apply the $280 to future visits or refund to my debit card. Of course I decided for the refund.
I get home to check my balance. Sure enough the amount online showed the bank happily subtracted the amount from my checking account. They weren't so quick to refund my money. I called Chase and asked why they deducted but didn't refund. The customer service rep kindly told me that they didn't refund accounts right away. It took 3-5 business days for the credit to appear.
At first I left it at that. Then I started thinking about it. Basically the bank uses my money for free. The money never changed hands. It was refunded less than an hour from when it was deducted. The bank never paid it out. They have free access to my money to earn interest and what other evil things banks to do make money.
I'm a free market capitalist. I have no problem with banks, business and individuals making money. I only have one requirement and that is they make money honestly. Things like trade secrets and company information that's proprietary is fair to keep secret. A business is entitled to keep anything they discover or invent confidential.
What Chase has done to me is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You might think that $280 is no big deal or that it is. To me it's not the amount but how they handle it. The money is rightfully mine. The bank has no right to use it and not credit my account right away. That money is still with the bank. It's money I can't use to pay a bill, buy a book or rent a movie. It's money I can't invest or save. It's free money for the bank to use for 3-5 days. At least they could return some interest to me.
In the grand scheme of things, what is $280. For some people it's a huge amount. For others it's pocket change. But the money belongs to them and not the bank. Think also of how many times in a day, week, month and year a bank does this practice. My guess is that it amounts to millions of dollars if not billions that they are using dishonestly to make money.
Of course I sent off an email to Chase customer service. I was assured the bank would reply in one business day. It's been more than one business day. Not only are they dishonest in using my money but also lie on their website about how long they take to reply.
This is just a small fraction of practices the banks can use to earn dishonest profits.
Basically banks look to make the most amount of money with the least amount of effort.
Take my case for instance. I went to the dentist Monday morning. I paid $280 for the visit. Then the receptionist noticed I had a credit due to insurance payments. She asks me if I want to apply the $280 to future visits or refund to my debit card. Of course I decided for the refund.
I get home to check my balance. Sure enough the amount online showed the bank happily subtracted the amount from my checking account. They weren't so quick to refund my money. I called Chase and asked why they deducted but didn't refund. The customer service rep kindly told me that they didn't refund accounts right away. It took 3-5 business days for the credit to appear.
At first I left it at that. Then I started thinking about it. Basically the bank uses my money for free. The money never changed hands. It was refunded less than an hour from when it was deducted. The bank never paid it out. They have free access to my money to earn interest and what other evil things banks to do make money.
I'm a free market capitalist. I have no problem with banks, business and individuals making money. I only have one requirement and that is they make money honestly. Things like trade secrets and company information that's proprietary is fair to keep secret. A business is entitled to keep anything they discover or invent confidential.
What Chase has done to me is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You might think that $280 is no big deal or that it is. To me it's not the amount but how they handle it. The money is rightfully mine. The bank has no right to use it and not credit my account right away. That money is still with the bank. It's money I can't use to pay a bill, buy a book or rent a movie. It's money I can't invest or save. It's free money for the bank to use for 3-5 days. At least they could return some interest to me.
In the grand scheme of things, what is $280. For some people it's a huge amount. For others it's pocket change. But the money belongs to them and not the bank. Think also of how many times in a day, week, month and year a bank does this practice. My guess is that it amounts to millions of dollars if not billions that they are using dishonestly to make money.
Of course I sent off an email to Chase customer service. I was assured the bank would reply in one business day. It's been more than one business day. Not only are they dishonest in using my money but also lie on their website about how long they take to reply.
This is just a small fraction of practices the banks can use to earn dishonest profits.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Yale University 0, Terrorists 1
Yale University Press decided not to reprint the cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in an upcoming book.
Now for the absurd part. The book is about the cartoons and the ensuing violence they allegedly caused.
"The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Jytte Klausen explores the fallout that took place after the cartoons were published by a Danish newspaper.
The university honchos decided not to run the cartoons out of fear that violence and death would follow publication. Frankly it's a cowardly stance to take. The cartoons were published in 2005. Everyone who wanted to see them has already seen them. I'm almost positive that those who were insulted have burned and killed all they plan on doing. Events that happened in 2005 are dictating what is published today. The idiots and zealots who were enraged will riot over something else if the pictures aren't publish. If Yale withholds the cartoons, the fanatics will just wait for the next perceived insult to carry out their crazy acts of violence.
A university should be a place for free exchange of information. Hiding the cartoons stops that free flow. It also stifles debate on whether or not the cartoons are insulting.
In this case, the terrorists have won. Yale is a private institution and may choose what to publish. First Amendment rights and censorship laws don't apply to Yale. However Yale is allowing the past acts of terrorists to control what they publish. As a nation we should stand up to these threats and live our lives despite the
terrorists. We should show that yes we may be vigilant against attack but we will not allow terrorist acts to undermine our core values as a culture and nation.
Yale instead took the low road and decided that a group of terrorist may or may not carry out violence. In fear, Yale decided that the prospect of violence outweighed the American values of free speech and free flow of information. Yale allowed past terrorist acts to dictate policy.
Thank you Yale. Fear and intimidation won while Yale cratered.
Now for the absurd part. The book is about the cartoons and the ensuing violence they allegedly caused.
"The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Jytte Klausen explores the fallout that took place after the cartoons were published by a Danish newspaper.
The university honchos decided not to run the cartoons out of fear that violence and death would follow publication. Frankly it's a cowardly stance to take. The cartoons were published in 2005. Everyone who wanted to see them has already seen them. I'm almost positive that those who were insulted have burned and killed all they plan on doing. Events that happened in 2005 are dictating what is published today. The idiots and zealots who were enraged will riot over something else if the pictures aren't publish. If Yale withholds the cartoons, the fanatics will just wait for the next perceived insult to carry out their crazy acts of violence.
A university should be a place for free exchange of information. Hiding the cartoons stops that free flow. It also stifles debate on whether or not the cartoons are insulting.
In this case, the terrorists have won. Yale is a private institution and may choose what to publish. First Amendment rights and censorship laws don't apply to Yale. However Yale is allowing the past acts of terrorists to control what they publish. As a nation we should stand up to these threats and live our lives despite the
terrorists. We should show that yes we may be vigilant against attack but we will not allow terrorist acts to undermine our core values as a culture and nation.
Yale instead took the low road and decided that a group of terrorist may or may not carry out violence. In fear, Yale decided that the prospect of violence outweighed the American values of free speech and free flow of information. Yale allowed past terrorist acts to dictate policy.
Thank you Yale. Fear and intimidation won while Yale cratered.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Pay Compensation Restrictions, Cash for Clunkers, Health Care Reform
Are the power mad Democrats over reaching? Don't get me wrong, President George W. Bush helped create the mess. The Dems are just adding fuel to the fire.
The federal government shouldn't have bailed out financial institutions to begin with. They made bad business decisions and took on dumb risks. They got exactly what they paid for. A mess. But Uncle Sam's deep pockets lent them the money to stay afloat. High risk, bad decisions were still rewarded.
Don't get me wrong. I think there must be some government regulation of banks, business and capital. The beauty of free market capitalism though is that good decisions and business ideas are rewarded. If someone creates a service or product others are willing to pay for then they are rewarded with sales and profit. If they come up with something folks don't want then the business fails. It's almost that simple.
Government regulation now is trying to go to far. The Democrats want to limit Wall Street pay and bonuses. I think this is just a bad idea. According to the article:
The problem becomes who in government gets to decide what's risky and what's not? Also the $1 billion number is more than likely an arbitrary number the picked because it sounds so big. There is no economic theory to suggest limiting risk by companies over $1 billion in assets would improve or prevent the current mess. There really is no rhyme or reason for the House's bill.
I'm not even sure why there is a Cash for Clunkers program funded by the federal government. The program is supposed to help subsidize cars purchases for those who purchase a new car with significantly higher mileage. The House has approved $2 billion more for the program. Then again with a $1 trillion deficit what's another $2 billion among friends?
Finally, this health care overhaul needs to slow down drastically. In my idealistic youth I believed everyone should have access to health care. I still do but we have to figure out a way to pay for it. Sensibly. President Barack Obama and the Congress wanted to have a bill signed into law before the summer Congressional recess. Reportedly the bill was over 1,000 pages. Can anyone honestly say they've read it, understand it and know the true cost of it? Absolutely not. It's probably a hodgepodge of ideas piled on top of one another. Every legislator more than likely put in his request for favorite ideas and programs. I truly doubt a bill so hastily put together will improve the health care system or lower costs. Something this mammoth needs a good study by experts in the field and in economics and not a bunch of Congressional aides piece mealing a bill into law.
The federal government shouldn't have bailed out financial institutions to begin with. They made bad business decisions and took on dumb risks. They got exactly what they paid for. A mess. But Uncle Sam's deep pockets lent them the money to stay afloat. High risk, bad decisions were still rewarded.
Don't get me wrong. I think there must be some government regulation of banks, business and capital. The beauty of free market capitalism though is that good decisions and business ideas are rewarded. If someone creates a service or product others are willing to pay for then they are rewarded with sales and profit. If they come up with something folks don't want then the business fails. It's almost that simple.
Government regulation now is trying to go to far. The Democrats want to limit Wall Street pay and bonuses. I think this is just a bad idea. According to the article:
The legislation's ban on risky compensation would apply to any firm with more than $1 billion in assets, including bank holding companies, broker-dealers, credit unions, investment advisers and mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The problem becomes who in government gets to decide what's risky and what's not? Also the $1 billion number is more than likely an arbitrary number the picked because it sounds so big. There is no economic theory to suggest limiting risk by companies over $1 billion in assets would improve or prevent the current mess. There really is no rhyme or reason for the House's bill.
I'm not even sure why there is a Cash for Clunkers program funded by the federal government. The program is supposed to help subsidize cars purchases for those who purchase a new car with significantly higher mileage. The House has approved $2 billion more for the program. Then again with a $1 trillion deficit what's another $2 billion among friends?
Finally, this health care overhaul needs to slow down drastically. In my idealistic youth I believed everyone should have access to health care. I still do but we have to figure out a way to pay for it. Sensibly. President Barack Obama and the Congress wanted to have a bill signed into law before the summer Congressional recess. Reportedly the bill was over 1,000 pages. Can anyone honestly say they've read it, understand it and know the true cost of it? Absolutely not. It's probably a hodgepodge of ideas piled on top of one another. Every legislator more than likely put in his request for favorite ideas and programs. I truly doubt a bill so hastily put together will improve the health care system or lower costs. Something this mammoth needs a good study by experts in the field and in economics and not a bunch of Congressional aides piece mealing a bill into law.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Paris Palin, Senate Super Majority, Hope for Obama
Alaskan governor and former Vice-Presidential candidate Paris Palin announced her resignation effective at the end of the month. (Note: I credit FoxSports.com's Jason Whitlock for the Paris Palin moniker). All I can say is don't let the door hit your cougar wannabe ass on the way out.
That Palin was on the presidential ticket still amazes me. She has the intelligence of a box of rocks (my apologies to the rocks).
My opinion of her was pretty much shaped by the Tina Fey faux interviews. I saw the Fey bit before the actual Katie Couric interviews. The first thing that stuck out was how much Fey resembled Palin. I laughed, of course, and thought man that was a bit overboard. Then I saw the real interviews. Wow. Fey was dead on. She didn't go overboard at all. She mimicked Palin to the bone.
My opinion went from being amused to appalled. I started thinking do I really think Palin should be the literal one heart beat away from the presidency. It's not being morbid. It's being realistic. Her ticket mate isn't exactly a spring chicken. This is the first election that a VP candidate influenced my vote. For the record, I voted for Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party.
Palin didn't announce the reasons she resigned. Some speculate it's her political swan song. Others think it's a precursor to a presidential run in 2012.
My assumption, based on the wind direction, is that Paris Palin is gearing up for a behind the scenes presidential run. She's going to spend time working the power brokers and money people. She doesn't have to work the GOP right wing to hard. They are firmly in her back pocket. It's the moderates and independents she must win over. My guess is she'll keep herself in the public eye. It's easy to criticize when you don't have any say in the game. She'll be able to run her mouth at the Democrats and President Barack Obama. What she won't do is leave a voting record behind for others to scrutinize.
As the 2012 election cycle gears up, my guess is she re-evaluate her chances based on polls, the party power brokers and the money bags. Unless she has a strong hand, she won't run. Failing at that, she'll fade to the Alaskan wilderness and return to putting lipstick on bull dogs or pitbulls or whatever it is they do back there.
Super Majority
Al Franken will finally take his seat in the Senate. His arrival gives the Democrats the 60 votes they need to shut down any Republican filibuster. What scares me is the potential for damage the Donkey party has to inflict before 2010. My hope is the moderates and conservative state Democrats can keep things in line.
Nothing scares me more than when one party has so much control. The GOP seems to be reeling with scandal and disunity. The Democrats seem drunk with the new found power. Remember it wasn't to long ago during the Bill Clinton administration and Newt Gingrich's revolution that the Democrats were being written off. Fortunes can change quickly for the parties. If the economy is still in the doldrums, health care reform tanks and terrorism or one of the wars goes bad, I can see the public turning the Dems out. If the nation is suffering still then historically the ruling
party is on the outs.
Hopes for Obama
Only time will tell. I'm no Obama supporter but I hope he does well enough. I hope he brings the war in Afghanistan close to an end. I hope he finds Osama Bin Laden. I hope there is some way to flip the tables on North Korea and Iran. I definitely hope he turns the economy around.
There are things I hope he doesn't do either. I hope he doesn't run wild with tax hikes. Tax hikes are the bane of a free market. The more capital at work the better the economy. Free markets definitely spend money more efficient than the government. Taxes are a necessary evil but they should be kept to a minimum.
I hope the Dems can find a reasonable way to reform health care. If not they should leave it alone until someone smarter can do it. I think it's better to leave a bad system, and I don't believe it's bad, in place than let the government come in and make it worse.
Update Frequency
I usually have plenty of topics to weigh in on. The problem is finding the time to write. I used to do a lot of my writing at work. I don't have as much time anymore due to a transfer. I hope to update at least once a week on one of the websites blogs. Right now is just a slow time in sports. Football season is my big time for writing the sports blog and the Houston Texans Bull Site. I really haven't made any financial moves so I haven't updated the Monkee Portfolio. I found a few things I want to put up on the main web page.
That's all for now,
Unkle Monkee
That Palin was on the presidential ticket still amazes me. She has the intelligence of a box of rocks (my apologies to the rocks).
My opinion of her was pretty much shaped by the Tina Fey faux interviews. I saw the Fey bit before the actual Katie Couric interviews. The first thing that stuck out was how much Fey resembled Palin. I laughed, of course, and thought man that was a bit overboard. Then I saw the real interviews. Wow. Fey was dead on. She didn't go overboard at all. She mimicked Palin to the bone.
My opinion went from being amused to appalled. I started thinking do I really think Palin should be the literal one heart beat away from the presidency. It's not being morbid. It's being realistic. Her ticket mate isn't exactly a spring chicken. This is the first election that a VP candidate influenced my vote. For the record, I voted for Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party.
Palin didn't announce the reasons she resigned. Some speculate it's her political swan song. Others think it's a precursor to a presidential run in 2012.
My assumption, based on the wind direction, is that Paris Palin is gearing up for a behind the scenes presidential run. She's going to spend time working the power brokers and money people. She doesn't have to work the GOP right wing to hard. They are firmly in her back pocket. It's the moderates and independents she must win over. My guess is she'll keep herself in the public eye. It's easy to criticize when you don't have any say in the game. She'll be able to run her mouth at the Democrats and President Barack Obama. What she won't do is leave a voting record behind for others to scrutinize.
As the 2012 election cycle gears up, my guess is she re-evaluate her chances based on polls, the party power brokers and the money bags. Unless she has a strong hand, she won't run. Failing at that, she'll fade to the Alaskan wilderness and return to putting lipstick on bull dogs or pitbulls or whatever it is they do back there.
Super Majority
Al Franken will finally take his seat in the Senate. His arrival gives the Democrats the 60 votes they need to shut down any Republican filibuster. What scares me is the potential for damage the Donkey party has to inflict before 2010. My hope is the moderates and conservative state Democrats can keep things in line.
Nothing scares me more than when one party has so much control. The GOP seems to be reeling with scandal and disunity. The Democrats seem drunk with the new found power. Remember it wasn't to long ago during the Bill Clinton administration and Newt Gingrich's revolution that the Democrats were being written off. Fortunes can change quickly for the parties. If the economy is still in the doldrums, health care reform tanks and terrorism or one of the wars goes bad, I can see the public turning the Dems out. If the nation is suffering still then historically the ruling
party is on the outs.
Hopes for Obama
Only time will tell. I'm no Obama supporter but I hope he does well enough. I hope he brings the war in Afghanistan close to an end. I hope he finds Osama Bin Laden. I hope there is some way to flip the tables on North Korea and Iran. I definitely hope he turns the economy around.
There are things I hope he doesn't do either. I hope he doesn't run wild with tax hikes. Tax hikes are the bane of a free market. The more capital at work the better the economy. Free markets definitely spend money more efficient than the government. Taxes are a necessary evil but they should be kept to a minimum.
I hope the Dems can find a reasonable way to reform health care. If not they should leave it alone until someone smarter can do it. I think it's better to leave a bad system, and I don't believe it's bad, in place than let the government come in and make it worse.
Update Frequency
I usually have plenty of topics to weigh in on. The problem is finding the time to write. I used to do a lot of my writing at work. I don't have as much time anymore due to a transfer. I hope to update at least once a week on one of the websites blogs. Right now is just a slow time in sports. Football season is my big time for writing the sports blog and the Houston Texans Bull Site. I really haven't made any financial moves so I haven't updated the Monkee Portfolio. I found a few things I want to put up on the main web page.
That's all for now,
Unkle Monkee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
