Political Frenzy

Photo: Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2007. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

Has anyone else noticed the tension between the US and Russia? It’s so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Today Russian president Vladamir Putin, while visiting Tehran, warned the US against attacking Iran. Saying “…no Caspian nation should offer its territory to third powers for use of force or military aggression against any Caspian state.” It has been said that the US would use the Caspian region to launch attacks on Iran.

The fact that Russia is building Iran a nuclear plant in Russia does worry me a bit. But not as much as what Putin said next, “Threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and Iranian people, will lead nowhere, they are not afraid, believe me.” Wow, do I feel the rumblings of World War III?

If Russia is now in bed with Iran I suppose they don’t like threats, they like action…well covert, deniable action.

With Russia as their new ally, Iran does not need nuclear weapons. Russia has plenty!

What does Russia see in Iran anyways? Maybe Putin likes the ‘death to America’ chants, or perhaps he has a love for secretly building bombs that kill Americans without any repercussions.

Nah, it’s probably just the food.

Source: VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press

According to reports, veteran Navy SEALS and Army Green Berets are being offered up to $150,000 in bonuses to remain in uniform for a few extra years. This story has made its way up the importance ladder because of the recent Blackwater Security problems.

Recently Blackwater Security, who the US pays to protect diplomats in Iraq, killed 17 Iraqis and have had their license suspended. After this story broke most people were surprised to see that our soldiers were not the only ones with boots on the ground in Iraq.

Blackwater security members get paid significantly more than US commandos. According to Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, “Of the estimated 25,000 security personnel working in Iraq, only about 2,000 are Americans and they earn between $350 to $500 a day.”

The word ‘Blackwater’ has since had a “Watergate” ring to it and what they do is now under the microscope. Are Blackwater Security members mercenaries? Is what they do unethical?

Is getting paid to protect someone unethical?

No it isn’t. They are simply heavily armed bodyguards. Just because they tend to fire their weapons daily does not make what they do unethical. This may be why we are viewing Blackwater different than typical security guards. Typical security guards rarely draw their weapon, while Blackwater commandos have to use their weapons almost daily.

Blackwater is not in Iraq to fight insurgents, they are there to protect certain individuals. There is nothing wrong with that.

The thing that irks me a bit about this is the fact that Special Forces, who carry out much more dangerous assignments than Blackwater, get paid so little to do so. If you knew exactly what these guys do you wouldn’t be able to sleep tonight! Everyday these heroes have to kiss their families goodbye knowing that it may very well be the last time that they see them. And they do it for me and you. These guys should be getting paid a million dollars a year. They display more patriotism and courage than will ever come out of most Americans.

If you ever watch “The Unit” you will begin to understand.

As many of you know today Al Gore won a piece of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change.

Now it seems that everyone is speculating that Gore will soon announce his presidential candidacy. Could there be a better time to do so? I have heard today that he will be using this to catapult his presidential run, and I have also heard that he will not run against the Clinton political machine unless she falters.

My previous post King Gore explains why he would easily win the presidency if he runs. Adding the Nobel Peace Prize to his resume all but solidifies the inevitable.

Every textbook on political campaigns says that a serious candidate will not run for office unless he or she knows that they can win. I can understand if Gore is apprehensive at running because of how the 2000 elections turned out, that can’t be easy on your stomach. But that is not Gore’s reason. He hasn’t announced that he is running yet because of timing. He could have been waiting for this, he could be waiting for the other candidates to rip each other apart, or he might just not want to be president.

Maybe Gore thinks that he can do more by not being president. He sure has accomplished a lot in the past 8 years.

I can’t, for one second, believe that Gore thinks he cannot defeat Hillary Clinton. In adding up the simple political positives and negatives between the two (in my mind) has Gore ahead by a million points.

But that’s just me

Hey everyone. Thanks for being patient. I am making some upgrades to the blog. Soon it will include interviews and book reviews. So if you think of someone you would like me interview or have any books in mind drop me an email at Ryan.Miller@451press.net

A column by Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times today brings up some interesting points. He argues that any presidential candidate running on the 9/11 platform should not be doing so. He says we don’t need a president of 9/11, we need a president of 9/12.

Has our government been harping on 9/11 too much? Friedman says we have become the “United States of Fighting Terrorism.” He wants our next president to know who our enemies are and also who WE are.

This is a tough issue to tackle.

Since 9/11 we have all been looking in one direction, the direction of avoiding future terrorism attacks. Have we forgotten about other priorities? Have we given up freedoms? We have, and the only reason why is because we feel like we have to choose between staying alive and universal health care.

This is not true.

We need to balance our priorities as a nation. Terrorism has been around for centuries and unfortunately will most likely be around for my children’s children to deal with. An act of terrorism is so easy to carry out by cowards, and because it is, we are constantly in fear of it.

The two things that terrorists need in order to succeed are: fear and media attention. The media will continue to give terrorists media attention. But we do not have to give them our fear.

We shouldn’t be as fearful as we are in the first place. In the past few years with the majority of our resources focused on preventing terrorism, we have had zero attacks on US soil. We have made it very difficult to do so. There are so many things going on behind the scenes to protect YOU that it would bewilder you if the curtain were lifted.

I’m not saying that we don’t have to worry, but you can’t worry about everything. You never know when your time is up.

With our new found effectiveness in preventing terrorism I would like to see our government shift some focus to domestic issues. There are too many people without healthcare, too many people living in poverty, and too many school children without textbooks.

Terrorists think that we are in fear of them, we shouldn’t be, we can’t be.

I won’t let a group of cowardly smelly cave dwellers have my fear.

We are the greatest nation in the world; we need to start acting like it.

According to the morning Stratfor morning intelligence brief Cuban (do I call him president?) Fidel Castro was shown today in a recorded interview on Cuban television. To dispel rumors that he is dead he held a copy (like a hostage) of US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s new book.

Why does it matter if Castro is still clinging onto life, the government there is not legitimate. I’m surprised that the Cuban people allowed Castro to pass on power to anybody. Castro seized power of Cuba through revolution and typically the people will eventually overthrow that ‘government’ when the ‘leader’ can’t rule anymore.

Life in Cuba is not great right now. It is so bad that their people actually risk their lives daily by getting into black inner tubes and drift their way through shark infested waters to Florida. I always got a kick out of the law that says something like if they make it to our shores we can’t deport them. What a smack in Castro’s face!

In the next few years there will most likely be an overthrow in Cuba and the US will have to make some decisions. Our next president will have to decide whether to help Cuba out and have a strong relationship with the little island or to keep things the way they are.

Personally I hope the US befriends post-Castro Cuba. It would be nice to see the people there driving cars that were made after 1950. It would also be nice to go on vacation there!

Photo: stock.xpert

Do you know the position on immigration your members of congress have? How about your favorite presidential candidate? Most people don’t.

Why?

It is way to easy for a politician’s position on immigration to be attacked. It is such a divisive issue, and an issue that cuts to the core of a core group of future voters. Politicians make a living from appearing to please everybody, the last thing they want to do is upset a group of the population (Mexican immigrants) whose votes they will eventually need.

Where do I stand? I’m not sure yet.

Immigration is a tough issue to have a stance on. I have been friends with illegal immigrants, and friends with people who think that they should all be deported. On one side of the argument being here illegally is (ahheemmm) illegal, and technically they should be deported. On the other side, they (mostly) do the tough jobs that need to get done that nobody wants to do, and they DO pay taxes.

Farming is the number one production in California. In the words of one farm owner I spoke with, “without the help of our Latin American friends California would fall apart.” He said that the cost of anything that comes from a farm would go up as much as 3 times without the work of immigrants. The work that is being done by an (illegal/undocumented) immigrant for $8 an hour would have to be done by someone for $25 an hour. Imagine the effects on other goods and services if an apple cost $5.

Our need for immigrants is the reason why we don’t enforce illegal immigration laws to the extent that most people think we should.

Should we build a wall, or open the borders? Wrong question…let’s get to the root.

If we want to fix the illegal immigration problem we need to start at the source of the problem…Mexico. The conditions are bad enough in Mexico to make people want to leave their families and risk death to come here to work in fields so they can send money back home. Mexico needs to work on their government to make it possible for people to earn a living there. In order for this to happen the US would have to help them, will they?

What I think is the best solution is to relax the restrictions to come to the US. It is not the US that has the most stringent qualifications to come here, it is Mexico. I have known Mexican citizens who had to apply to come on vacation here years in advance, and in the mean time had to jump through a serious of ridiculous hoops just for the opportunity to come on VACATION here! It is absurd. On top of that they have to deal with the restrictions that the US has for immigration; no wonder people swim and jump their way here!

There are many solutions, but does our government think the wheel is broken?

Bill, sorry, Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of candidates who are actually trying (appearing) to want to do something! She has announced her plan for “universal” healthcare. On her website you can download her plan in a pdf file.

She must have read how much I love pdf files!!

I’m pretty sure that this is the first time that I have said something positive about Hillary. I’m not agreeing with the plan, I’m just happy that she has come up with one (in a pdf). The other candidates who have no plans are a waste of time.

Fred Thompson was quick to criticize “HillaryCare” on a video on his website Fred08.com. Thompson, ever the advocate for the small government, showed his frustration in the video which was filmed in the back of a moving car. Thompson said that he does not agree with Hillary’s principles, especially the part of her plan in which employers being required to check if new applicants have healthcare.

Ehh, ok that does make sense. Employers do provide employees with healthcare, so why are they required to have it when applying for a job?

Chicken or the egg?

Universal healthcare has been the Bain of politician’s existence for years now. They mostly agree that our healthcare system needs reform, but don’t seem able to get past the dreaded drug companies and their lobbyists.

Will the BILLary plan work? I don’t know, but at least s/he has proposed one. It is mostly smoke and mirrors but how many Republicans have released a healthcare plan?

As I was checking out the presidential candidates stances on abortion today I asked myself ‘why?’

Abortion is the single most divisive issue in existence today. I saw a study once that said something like over 99% of people have an opinion on it. There is no other issue that anywhere near 99% of people have an opinion on. My question to you is: does a candidate’s stance on abortion affect your vote? If so, why?

Back in “simpler times” when there were no significant wars or acts of terrorism running rampid throughout the globe it seemed that abortion was the #1 issue.

For two reasons in this next election abortion will be close to a non-issue.

First: People only care about things that affect them. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of other wars and random acts of terrorism make us feel much more insecure than someone getting an abortion. Terrorists can come and kill us at any time, someone’s abortion cannot. It’s that simple.

Second: What can the president actually do? I personally don’t support abortion, but I would support a candidate who supports abortion. Ahhhh, I can hear you all screaming from here…calm down. Think about it, President Bush is as anti-abortion and conservative as they come, and he has appointed 3 Supreme Court justices during his administration. That sounds like a recipe for change, but abortion is still legal.

Another example of how much of a non-issue this has become is Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani, who announced that he supports abortion before the primary election. In past years that would have been a political death sentence! Only conservatives vote in the Republican primary! But Guiliani remains on the top of the Republican polls. I highly doubt that he will drum up support from the very conservative voters who vote in the primaries. But the fact that he said that before the primary speaks volumes of how much this issue has changed.

People’s opinions on abortion will always be decisive and consistent, but Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

Today Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill into law that will make it illegal for 16 and 17 year olds to text message while driving. According to reports 90% of people think that “drive-texting” should be illegal, but most of them do it themselves.

I’m guilty.

Who hasn’t been proud of a good text fired out without looking down while in traffic!?

OUTBOX: Nice drivetxt
INBOX: I kno

It is dangerous as hell and whenever someone else is doing it while they are driving I’m the first to yell “DRIVE!!!”

Why is it OK to do it ourselves, but not for someone else?

I’m asking you…I don’t know!

This law will be impossible to enforce. All it will do is make teens even more efficient at texting (if that is even possible). The “drive-texters” that we should be worried about are not teenagers. Have you seen one of these kids send a text, it’s amazing!! If they have to look at their phone while sending one out it is equivalent to staring at the keyboard while typing. I think some of them can even read an incoming text without looking at it.

All “drive-texting” should be illegal…except for 24 year olds.

Source: Harris Poll, The Sacramento Bee

Before President Bush’s speech announcing the troop surge last January I remember watching it in anticipation of the announcement of a new shift in the direction of the quagmire in Iraq. I left it wondering what 30,000 troops could possibly accomplish.

Tomorrow President Bush will deliver a prime time speech announcing that he may reduce our troop level in Iraq by 30,000 next summer, if certain benchmarks are met.

Man does this look bad…. Or does it?

This can be taken either way. On one side it can show that there has been success with the surge and the additional troops are no longer needed, on the other side it can show that the surge did nothing and the president will finally begin to withdrawal troops.

Let’s be honest here, I wish more than you that it did, but the troop surge did not work, it was not large enough. For the amount of sectarian violence happening in Iraq, 30,000 troops was a drop in the pan.

I’m no general but to me it feels like our troops have a lack of objective. They are playing defense, trying not to die. This is no way to fight a war. Think about it, what is their goal right now? To make the Iraq government strong enough to stand on it’s own. This is a great goal, and one that needs to be achieved. However it can’t be achieved without reasonable troop strength.

I can hear you from here, “130,000 troops are not enough?!!!” No it isn’t. Why? What are our troops accomplishing right now? They are defending themselves, thats pretty much it. In your mind what constitutes a successful day in Iraq when you watch the evening news? If nobody dies? That is no way to be at war.

If a group of your friends are outnumbered 4 to 1 and getting pummeled, are you going to go help them, or are you just going to sit back and hope the enemy just stops attacking?

There is strength in numbers.

Most lefties are crying for a complete withdrawal of troops. This would only lead to more hell in Iraq. By pulling out we would leave nothing but unorganized chaos behind us, with more and more people dying everyday. This new plan seems a bit of an ‘out’ by the president and will not change a thing. A new direction is needed…

As my sister once told me, “either crap or get off the pot.”

Fred Thompson (seen above with his wife Jeri) has officially declared his candidacy for president, about time. He joins the race “late” with tons of support from the right.

Thompson says he will promote, “limited government, an aggressive foreign policy and lower taxes — and promised a commitment to securing the borders and appointing conservative judges.”

Excuse me for not giving Thompson a ’standing O.’

Not to say that some (2) of the Democratic candidates are actually promoting change more so than any Republican, but give me a break. In a campaign promise he says he will ‘appoint conservative judges?’ Oh boy, that will change everything!

Not to sound like one of those lefties, but issues such as our soldiers dying in Iraq without clear objectives and millions of uninsured Americans unable to get life saving surgeries are a bit more important to me than appointing conservative judges!!!

I understand that he is aiming at getting the Republican nomination, and to do so you have to say things that make you look like you are teetering on the edge of the right, because only hard core Republicans will be voting in the primary. But he will have to bring his promises back to the middle if he wants to win over swing voters in the general election. However, in his speech he criticized other candidates who have flip-flopped their positions.

He is setting himself up to fail.

I don’t want a president who only caters to one ideology, and neither should you. We have seen what can happen. A president has to make tough choices for the greater good, not the greater right edge (or left edge). There are far more Americans who are in the middle than who are on either side.

The only ones who are on the two extremes are the people we elect to ‘represent’ us.

Sources: WashingtonPost.com

In this week’s presidential polls a familiar yet-unfamiliar face has taken up the number three position in the democratic race: Al Gore.

First in the poll is Hillary Clinton with (an I hope we don’t really vote like this) 35%, second is Senator Obama with 23%, and Al Gore who hasn’t even mentioned that he would be willing to run for president pulled in the third spot with 10%. John Edwards is next with 6%.

The only way Al Gore will not be elected president is if he doesn’t run.

All of these candidates are running full scale campaigns and the name Gore is beating nearly all of them. For a person to consistently pull in such high poll numbers without even being a candidate is incredible. And I’m not talking a Fred Thompson “I’m not a candidate,” because clear Mr. Thompson IS a candidate. Al Gore is NOT a candidate.

Gore is waiting for everyone else to attack each other and spend all of their money. At a time when we are all sick of the names we have been hearing over and over for the past year, Gore will swoop in as the savior and announce that he is running for president. As we all know Gore won the popular vote in 2000, at a time when his name was tarnished by the Clinton scandals. Can you imagine how much support he would have today?

Let’s be honest, presidential campaigns are popularity contests. It is sad but we as citizens do not know enough about government to make truly informed electoral decisions. Al Gore is as popular as any politician can be. He is the face of the global warming movement, he represents change, and will capitalize on the ‘if I were elected’ aspect of the Bush presidency. Not to mention he will have all sorts of celebrities coming out to support him, which will drive even more people to vote.

The best candidates are the ones who don’t want to run.

Recently the issue of health care has been at the top of the agendas of the media and presidential candidates. So let’s roll with it.

An editorial in the New York Times today, “Bleak Findings on Health Insurance,” discussed how there are over 47 million Americans without health insurance. This is a terrible number because each of these people are one health problem away from being ruined financially, which means our taxes WILL go up. Somebody has to pay their bills.

In my home state, California, there is a heated debate between Governor Schwarzenegger and the state legislature on what to do about the health care crisis (I like how when people pay attention to it it becomes a crisis, even though the numbers have been the same for years). California has the opportunity to set the example for the rest of the country, let’s hope we do so.

However the big crisis is not that of health care, it is of politics.

The only reason that our nation does not have truly universal health care is because of partisan bickering. Canada has universal health care; there is no reason that we cannot! The only thing that politicians care about is who gets the credit for coming up with the plan.

It is ridiculous.

Here is a video from John Edwards’ presidential campaign in which he discusses health care. I am not supporting any candidates yet, but this video has some strong points:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, feeling heat from every corner of the political world, resigned today. Democrats were very happy saying that they have been calling for his resignation for months.

Gonzales is blamed for approving illegal wiretapping of Americans, the firing of US Attorneys, and approving torture on enemy combatants (among other things). President Bush said that Gonzales was being “dragged through mud for political reasons.”

It is very easy for any Attorney General to be criticized because the job, much like the presidency, entails making decisions that are so tough that they are brought up the ladder to him. When a decision reaches this place in the political system whatever decision is made is bound to make one group of people mad, and the other happy.

We never hear from the group of people who are happy, it doesn’t sell newspapers.