Does the UN have a backbone?

I just reading an article about Iran's nuclear centrifuge capabilities being confirmed by the IAEA. They are very obviously pushing the envelope of what should be allowed. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

Decision time for US over Iran threat

To me the real question is: Does the UN have a backbone at all? Will they finally stand up and say enough is enough or will they again condemn the behavior and say knock it off PLEASE.

So many people around the world condemn the U.S. for acting unilaterally. If the UN had any spine or any place where they would actually draw a line and not back down, the US might not have to do that. Unfortunately, again it is beginning to look like the UN will shirk it's responsibilities.

Who will again deal with the problem, pay the cost, pay the price, and make the world safer for all? The same people who have been doing it for decades... the U.S. and it's real allies (UK, Australia, etc.). France, Germany, and Russia will wring their hands and then complain about our unilateral nature.

When will the UN or the hand wringers finally show some spine??

Politically Homeless 6: New Book

Well, I really meant to continue writing the series of articles about the lack of a political party that really fits my viewpoints but then some other items came up and took up a lot of time. I do intend to keep working down this path for my own sanity.

Anyway, along the same line of thinking, I started reading Bernard Goldberg's book Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right and I really find it to be interesting. He seems to discuss some of the exact concepts that I have been thinking about.

We'll see what the rest of the book brings.

Value of a Dollar

I am very interested by macro-economics. Not quite to the point of reading many of the books that true economists read such as Friedmann and the like (maybe with some time I might). Anyway the current currency market really interests me. I just found an interesting article on ABC News. Here it is.

Why Is the Dollar Losing Value?

One thing I do find fascinating is that many people are simple minded in their analysis of the issues with the dollar. Why is the dollar so low? Because Bush is moron. Great analysis, thank you, we are all dumber for having read that.

Very interesting dynamics at work with the dollar. Good article.

LinkedIn Joins Google integration

I was just reading an article by Scott Allen on this LinkedIntelligence blog that sounds like a very cool addition to LinkedIn capabilities.

LinkedIn Joins Google OpenSocial API Initiative

Reverse Logic for Profit

It appears that the oil markets have no sense of common logic. I was just reading an article about the OPEC decision to not raise production quotas and the following statement was made:

"Badri said there was no reason for oil to reach $100, as it almost did last week, and continued to blame refinery bottlenecks, geopolitical issues and the weak U.S. dollar for oil's ascent from below $70 a barrel in mid-August."
-- http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071114/bs_nm/opec_badri_dc_1

This statement makes absolutely no sense to me. A bottleneck at the refining step is causing the price of crude oil, the product that supplies refineries, to go up. That is like saying that because the temperatures outside have been higher is the reason that natural gas prices have gone up.

From an economic perspective, it is reversed logic. It seems to me that bottlenecks in the refineries would cause there to be a larger crude oil supply because they are not processing it as quickly. This would cause supply surplus. Laws of economics say surpluses cause prices to fall not rise.

Is it possible that the all the players in the oil game have learned from politicians that if you just find something to blame people will buy it?

The Making of Queen Hillary

Madame President...

That is exactly what many people want to hear and what many campaign advisors in Hillary's campaign are trying to create (or manufacture).

I have read two stories today about Hillary's campaign officials dictating or manipulating how the questions are asked during debates. After the last debate and the beating that she took in the non-Clintonesta press I do understand.

Here is an article about rigging the questions:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html

Now it seems that Wolf Blitzer is being told to be nice and not gang up on her in Thursday's debate.

Are the Democrats really interested in Democracy? Is there something that Hillary is afraid of?

Your Presidential Candidate?

Want to find out who your Presidential Candidate should be? Try this quiz.

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

One-sided Freedom of Speech for the Boss

I haven't posted in some time but the stupidity I just read gave me a great reason. Here are a a couple of excerpts from the news report about poor Bruce Springsteen (from Drudge Report).

"When reminded that his anti-war views, prominent on his new album, "Magic," will cause people to say he is unpatriotic -- as his critic have charged before -- Springsteen says "That's just the language of the day... the modus operandi for anybody who doesn't like somebody... criticizing where we've been or where we're going," he tells Pelley. "I believe every citizen has a stake in the course, direction of their country. That's why we vote... It's unpatriotic at any given moment to sit back and let things pass that are damaging to some place that you love so dearly and that has given me so much," says the 58-year-old musician. In the interview, Springsteen points out the direction in which the U.S. is going, by his estimation. "I think we've seen things happen over the past six years that I don't think anybody ever thought they'd ever see in the United States," says Springsteen. "When people think of the Unites States' identity, they don't think of torture. They don't think of illegal wiretapping. They don't think of voter suppression," he tells Pelley. "They don't think of no habeas corpus," he says, referring to the people being held by the U.S. government in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "Those are things that are anti-American," Springsteen says. "There's been a whole series of things that... I never thought I'd ever see in America," he tells Pelley."

Okay two issues I have with this political genius's comments. First of all you have the freedom of speech to say whatever you want on your albums. I completely support your right to bash everything that is going on in the U.S. I even support people's right to bash Bush, the Iraq war, and yes even the soldiers (even though that proves how stupid they are). Those soldiers and many before them have fought, shed blood, and died for your right to be stupid. My problem is that you complain when people call you unpatriotic. Isn't that just freedom of speech? It just happens to be speech you don't like. Amazingly freedom of speech goes both ways.

Second issue, should someone who says "They don't think of no habeas corpus" really be trying to discuss habeas corpus? Do you know what habeas corpus is and who is a right granted to "Boss"? Bruce: For your information habeas corpus is granted by the Constitution. The Constitution is a document "For the people and by the people". Definition of The people: Citizens of the United States. Last I knew the people in Club Gitmo were from the Middle East. Unless something has changed the Middle East still isn't covered by the Constitution, neither is Gitmo.

I wish that people would get their facts straight and attempt to tie some actual facts to their rants.


Technorati Tags: Politics, Springsteen, Freedom of Speech

Politically Homeless 5: Peggy Noonan

As I am writing my analysis of why I feel politically homeless, Peggy Noonan comes up with a great article on the basic problem in politics. Take a look!

Article: Third Time

Technorati Tags: Politics, Party Politics, Political Parties, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian

Politically Homeless 4: Libertarian Party

The Libertarian party claims to be the third largest political party in the U.S. today. They tend to lean toward small Constitutionally contained government. I have stated that I view myself as conservative leaning libertarian (notice the little L). I have read a lot about the Libertarian party and have a few issues with their ideals. Here is the breakdown:

Government Size
The Libertarian party has very strong beliefs in the model of limited government. They believe that the size of government should be very small and people should follow the rule of self-responsibility. They only the see the need for limited services such as foreign relations, fire, police, defense, etc.

State/Federal (Federalist)
The Libertarians appear to believe in the concept of states rights. They believe that ALL government should be limited in nature. It appears that they would tend to side with stronger state government instead of stronger federal if they had to choose.

Foreign Policy
It appears that Libertarians believe in a fairly isolationist viewpoint on foreign policy. They believe in free trade among countries. They believe that the United States should stop getting involved in so many international issues and focus on the homeland. They also believe that we could save billions (if not trillions) by not funding every international entity and scheme. For obvious reason, Libertarians tend to be against the United Nations as a government body. Libertarians want to limit federal government so creating a world government is not a good decision.

Taxes/Spending
As I stated earlier, Libertarians believe in low taxes, low spending, and small government. They believe that this will cause the government to have the least impact on the citizens of the country. They have a very conservative view of fiscal policy. Most Libertarians do not agree with the idea of a Federal Income Tax. They believe that the federal government should have more than enough money from fees and tarriffs as it did in the beginnings of our country.

Military Issues
As I stated in foreign policy, they believe that the U.S. should keep their focus at home and not abroad. They tend to keep a very isolationist viewpoint on this. Also, they do not believe in spending the money on fighting. Their basic opinion is have a strong national defense but only utilize it for defensive purposes. Many Libertarians were very against the war in Iraq.

Social Issues
Libertarians follow an approach of let people do what they want to as long as it doesn't affect other people. They take a very liberal approach to personal freedoms. Many believe in legalization of drugs and prostitution as victimless crimes. They do not support government social programs.

Business
Libertarians are very pro-Business. They believe in a laissez-faire style of government when it comes to business. They typically don't believe in the idea of taxing business because "businesses don't pay taxes, people do". They would push for the idea of removing regulation over businesses. They believe that the free market can control business using natural mechanisms.

I tend to side with many of the general principles of Libertarians. I love the idea of a small government and lower taxes. I think allowing business to flourish under decreased regulation would be a very positive economic change. I strongly agree that the government should not be allowed to set price caps/controls in the economy (such as minimum wage). It goes against the idea of capitalism.

I usually break with Libertarians with some of their more anarchic theories. I don't believe that legalizing ALL drugs is a good idea. I don't necessarily agree that all gun controls should be removed (convicted felons should lose that right and people don't need armor piercing rounds). Although I tend to agree that the government should get out of the business of marriage, I believe some controls should still exist (people shouldn't molest children even if that is their sexual preference). I don't completely agree with the isolationist ideals either. I do think that we shouldn't be so involved in the world's problems but that we must remain somewhat engaged.

All in all, I agree with libertarian (little l) concepts. I find that the Libertarian party is too anarchist for my tastes.

Your thoughts on my opinions?

Technorati Tags: Politics, Party Politics, Political Parties, Libertarian

Politically Homeless 3: Democratic Party

Well, I will start this portion of my analysis of the parties with the Democratic party. I must say that I find very little to agree with them on. I think that the Democrats of old were more in touch than the current Democrats are. I believe that there are still a few Democrats who I can relate to like Zell Miller. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the liberal arm of the Democratic party is bent on running these people out. Anyway, here we go.

Government Size
The Democratic party tends to believe that the government should provide a lot of services for the citizenry of the United States. This is the party that brought the U.S. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, and took a shot at Hillary-care. They tend to believe that the government should always provide a safety net for people and should make sure that no one feels pain.

State/Federal (Federalist)
The Democratic party tend to believe that things should be provided at the Federal level. This position can be pointed out by the fact that many Democrats immediately pointed at the Federal government for the poor response during Katrina. Although the local and state governments had responsibility the Democrats decried the horrible job FEMA did.

Foreign Policy
The basic foreign policy of the Democratic party is make friends with everyone and sign alliances. They believe that no action should be taken without the blessing of the U.N., NATO, or all of our allies. They also tend to lean toward appeasement instead of confrontation. This can be illustrated by President Clinton offering light-water reactors to North Korea in exchange for their "promise" of behaving themselves. In a perfect world, this foreign policy may work but in the real world it shows weakness.

Taxes/Spending
As I stated in the government size section, Democrats believe that the government should be the provider for many services. This of course, points to increased spending which logically points to increased taxes. In my opinion this is not an economically sound concept.

Military Issues
In the foreign policy section I outlined the belief that we should form alliances with everyone and use the "world body" opinion to judge our fights. This attitude tends to push Democrats to not spend as much on military and spend more on social programs. They do not like to utilize the military in a war-fighting mode but prefer they act as a police force. Again, I do not think this projects strength.

Social Issues
As with much of the Democratic mindset this is a place where the government needs to control things. The government needs to handle retirement, medicine, prices, wages, education, etc. They like to legislate social norms instead of trying to change the mindset through intellectual debate.

Business
The Democratic party claims to believe in the American dream but they are the first to attack business. Everytime they need to spend more money they try to either tax evil business or evil rich people. They attack companies like WalMart for not paying their people more. They attack business by constantly trying to increase minimum wage or adding required benefits.

I believe that the Democratic party has a vision. I believe that it is a socialist vision. I want to say that I do not mean that in a negative manner but in the true definition of the word. They would like the government to have strong controls over the economy, industry, jobs, social norms, medicine, etc. They would tax people and then would provide the "necessary" services. This is a socialist mindset. On the political diagram in my previous post they would typically qualify as a Left/Liberal Authoritarian.

I personally have a lot of respect for the socialist/marxist ideas, I just simply don't believe that they work in the real world. Capitalism works even though many times it can be ugly. I would tend to believe that the Democratic party will never be my home.

Your thoughts on my opinions?

Technorati Tags: Politics,Party Politics, Political Parties, Democrats

Politically Homeless 2: Some Definition

As a follow-up to last night's post I want to clarify a few things before I go on my exploration. First of all when I use terms like conservative, liberal, socialist, libertarian, etc. I mean it in the true political sense not with any derrogatory meaning. I like the following diagram to describe politcal leanings instead of the typical right-left dicotomy.



On the same web page they give a great explanation of each of the terms used in the diagram. Take a look. I personally consider myself a conservative leaning libertarian. The "World's Smallest Politcal Quiz" confirms that belief. In my opinion, there is no political party that currently fits that set of beliefs.

I have also decided that I want to use the following categories as rating categories for me:

• Government size
• State/Federal (Federalist argument)
• Foreign policy
• Taxes/Spending
• Military issues
• Social Issues
• Business

So with that I am going to do some research. I will continue to post as I look. I will go through the 3 or 4 "major" parties. As I said, if you have something to add let me know.

Technorati Tags: Party Politics, Political Parties, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian

Politically Homeless

As I continue to read about decisions that our glorious politicians are making regarding spending our money, energy policy, taxes, and immigration I am coming to the conclusion that I have no political party that I can call home. I thought that the base views of the Republican party were closest to my beliefs but that is definitely proving to not be true.

To start here are a summary points of my political beliefs:

• Government is bureaucratic so it doesn't really do anything efficiently
• Smaller federal government is better from a financial, economic, and personal perspective
• The Federal Government should not interfere in business with some basic exceptions of OSHA, very small portions of EPA, EEOC. Basically enough that we don't have children working in coal mines or people working in life threatening situations unless they are duly informed. But there should not be corporate welfare. If companies can't make on their merits they should not exist
• States rights should outweigh federal rights (As the constitution intended)
• States should be allowed to govern as they see fit with only exceptions as to where the constitution SPECIFICALLY defines federal jurisdiction. This does not include education, roads, health care, retirement accounts, income tax, etc., etc., etc.
• Taxes should be fair for the entire population. Just because people make more does not mean they should pay a higher percentage. Just by paying the same percentage the rich pay more. We should also remove the loopholes such as mortgage tax credits, earned income credits, etc.
• The tax code should not be the largest document in world history!!!
• Competition should be allowed to reign in most markets. This would allow for better schools, cheaper gasoline, more efficient airlines, no tax subsidies for phony rail companies, etc.
• Saving should be encouraged by removing the tax burdens and removing stupid class warfare tactics from investment accounts. Instead of saving the broken social security program encourage and train people how to do it themselves.
• France and Germany are NOT global superpowers and we should not use them as role models to create a welfare state
• The United Nations was designed as a place to discuss issues with other countries not as a government body. Reform it or remove it.
• War is never pretty and should always be a last resort but is sometimes required. Fight to win.
• War is best left to the military and not politicians.
• As Teddy Roosevelt said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick". We need to have the biggest heaviest stick that we can possibly create. We also need to learn how to speak softly.

I have many other opinions but I think this starts the discussion. I am going to try to explore a few of the major parties and why I don't think that they fit the bill. If you have ideas I am open.

Technorati Tags: Party Politics, Political Parties, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians

Finally...

I just read a speech by Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana. The speech was in regards to a plan that he will be proposing in the House regarding immigration reform. This is a topic that has been talked about a lot but I have not heard a solid solution from a politician until now. I encourage you to take a look at this speech (it's kind of long but a great plan).

Transcript of Speech

What are your thoughts? Will you contact your representatives and senators about this plan?

Technorati Tags: Pence, Congress, Immigration, Illegal Immigration

Hypocritical?

With everything that is currently going on in the United States ILLEGAL immigration debate, it is kind of interesting to find out what Mexico's laws are. They make it very difficult for LEGAL immigrants to be part of their society. Yet they want the U.S. to ease policies for ILLEGAL immigrants. Here is an article that describes some of Mexico's laws:

Article: Mexico Works to Bar Non-Natives From Jobs

A little hypocritical?

Technorati Tags: Mexico, Immigration, Illegal Immigration

Is Iran an issue?

I was shocked today when I read the article about Iran preparing to pass a law requiring Muslims to wear specific clothing and requiring non-Muslims to wear badges of their religion. This is very reminiscent of the 1930s and 1940s. I find it to a very chilling move on the part of the Iranians.

Article: Iran eyes badges for Jews

That on top of the fact that they have called the holocaust a hoax and called for the destruction of Israel. How far will they be allowed to progress with their weapons programs and their very aggressive statements and moves toward Jews before some says "enough is enough"? In my opinion Iran continues to move itself closer and closer to military action almost on a daily basis.

Very scary developments.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Jews, Israel, Religious Intolerance, Religion

Tax Cuts will break the government

To put to rest another falsehood that the Democrats were selling during the discussion of tax cuts here is the real data:

Article: April Tax Revenue 2nd-Highest in History

I wonder why they aren't admitting that they were wrong about the tax cuts CAUSING the deficits? If the revenue is the higher than before, what could possibly be causing the deficits? Hmmmm... maybe spending?

Technorati Tags: Taxes, Tax Cuts, Taxation, Economics

Taxation by U.N.

I have read about it before and I see that they are not changing their tune. The U.N. is again pushing the idea of taxation by the "world government". Of course with the frivolous and unregulated spending that they have going on they are running out of funds. That on top of the fact that they can no longer make money on the "Oil For Food" program. So they think that they should be able to tax global citizens without going through the sovereign countries that are their members.

Article: UN Taxation of Americans – A Persistent Problem

I must say that I think that it is ridiculous for us to even allow the U.N. to consider this idea to take away sovereignty from us. Also, I think that the U.N. has done a great job of proving that they are not in need of more money but more oversight. For me personally I would rather see the U.S. pull out of the U.N. (not a completely bad idea) than to allow the U.N. to bypass the federal government to directly tax citizens (terrible idea).
Remember no U.N. officials are elected by public election. Many countries that are members are cruel oppressive dictators

Technorati Tags: UN, Taxes, Taxation, World Government

Rotten Economy

Well, less than a year ago everyone was talking about how terrible the economy was (even though it wasn't). Why is no one talking about how well it is doing now? Didn't they talk about during the 1990s?

The Dow broke 11,500 this morning. Unemployment is something like 4.7% nationally (BTW - Many economists will say that 4% is full employment) . Over a hundred thousand jobs added. Increases in salaries. All of this in an environment where oil prices are high and interest rates keep rising. I would have to say the economy is roaring again.

Even the federal government is bringing in more money than they were before the tax cuts. The size of the deficit is shrinking each year. Maybe they could stop the increased spending to pull that a little tighter. Do we really need a bridge to nowhere?

It is quite apparent to me that the Democrats must be right -- Tax Cuts don't work! All they do is damage the economy.

What is your opinion? Was the negativity about the economy just electioneering or did they have a point?


Technorati Tags: Economy, Taxes

Oil Price Explanation

Okay, I can't believe that I am doing this but I am going to link to an NPR article about the explanation behind the rising oil prices. (I am not a fan of NPR or their public paid for politics) This is a great article that describes the problem and the possible solutions (much to the dismay of many politicians).

Article: Q&A: What's Behind High Gas Prices?

What do you think?

Technorati Tags: Oil Prices, Oil, Gas Prices, Energy