Remember the story about American Soldiers committing atrocities and torturing Iraqi Prisoners at Abu Ghraib? In fact right now go google "Abu Ghraib". The top link is Wikipedia report of abuse scandals. Everyone remembers it.
Interesting the historical word for atrocities and torture would usually relate to the gouging of eyes, ripping off of fingernails, whipping, acid baths, screw drivers into muscles, etc. The pictures of prisoners who were rescued from Japanese POW camps were weighing around 100 pounds while being disease infested and nearly starving to death. But these "atrocities" were soldiers making Iraqi prisoners get naked around each other in front of women (whom they are not to be naked around according to their religion). They were on dog leashes or simulated sexual acts. The worse things was being urinated on or maybe hit with a rifle in the groin. Are those from a historical standpoint considered atrocities? I would say not. Neither are they right or should their actions be condoned. But "Torture"? NO!
In other cultures prisoners are tortured to near death. The recently released Chinese "terrorist" that were released from Gitmo and sent to Bermuda talked about how much better they were treated in Cuba by Americans than they are their own government. In fact if they were sent back to China they would have surely been killed by their own government. Yet terrorist commit the most evil acts you can imagine and your hard pressed to find other Muslims condemning their acts. Don't get me wrong by no means am I saying that All Muslims are evil or terrorist. There are lots of great Muslim people. But where are the majority of them condemning their acts. Yet when Americans do things that are far from those extremes they are condemned by the U.S. media and politicians, and are usually put on trial and sentenced to punishment that is not justified when put into context.
These Iraqi terrorist have killed and tortured many of these soldiers fellow soldiers. Put yourself in their place and lets say your best friend was killed by them. Would you be tempted to embarrass and irritate many of the prisoners? Yes of course. Does it make it right to do? No. But in America we strongly condemn our few soldiers who commit these acts. But to call them atrocities or torture is just stupid. In fact the only truly stupid thing these soldiers did as Walter William once wrote was allow people to photograph their actions. That truly was stupid.
America is in fact different. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. I like that. But lets put into context our actions. We are a great country and different!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Different Regulations=same ole problems
The Obama administration, just like any other great political administration, is taking proactive steps in fixing the financial system in our nation. To put in context, the economy is in a serious recession that began under the Bush administration and is continuing even through the stimulus era of increased government spending. I have already explained why I hate stimulus packages whether put together by Republicans or Democrats in past posts. But today the administration is going to fix the problems with more centralized regulation.
I have not read the full details but instead of having many different regulatory agencies, the federal reserve and the Treasury Secretary will have ultimate power on regulation. No more doubt on who has the power to punish people for making bad loans. Actually that sentence should be written "reward people for making bad loans and punishing those who do not." The reason being is that government regulators require a bank to make a certain amount of loans to people whom that political party or government official might want to make happy.
In reality we need less regulation and quite nearly none whatsoever. I take that back we need the most efficient regulation of all time. That being the regulation that the free market naturally puts on banks. If banks make bad risky loans to people who can not repay them, the government does not bail them out or help. The bank loses as well as the borrower. If government would stop forcing or pressuring financial institutions to make risky loans, and secondly stop giving them safety nets, then financial institutions will make decisions that would only benefit them. Which is- make good loans at affordable interest rates so they can compete with other loaning institutions while not making lots of risky loans to people who will not be able to repay them. Will fewer people be able to buy a house? The answer is yes. The percentage will lower by a couple at most few percentage points in the long run. The good news is you don't have a artificially inflated markets that causes inflation of home values and then a drop that bottoms out to a point where every persons property and house's value dissipates. Thus causing the entire economy to go into a recession of not depression.
Solution: Federal Government do only what the Constitution gives you authority to do. Meaning only about 35% of what you currently do. Furthermore, allow states to set whatever laws and regulations they want. I believe within a few years states that let the free market work will see its people and companies flourishing with prosperity. Then other states will follow suit and our entire nation will use the system that works best. Very light regulation, strong laws though, with free markets doing most of the regulation. Instead we have one giant fascist federal government making a mockery of the Constitution of the United States.
I have not read the full details but instead of having many different regulatory agencies, the federal reserve and the Treasury Secretary will have ultimate power on regulation. No more doubt on who has the power to punish people for making bad loans. Actually that sentence should be written "reward people for making bad loans and punishing those who do not." The reason being is that government regulators require a bank to make a certain amount of loans to people whom that political party or government official might want to make happy.
In reality we need less regulation and quite nearly none whatsoever. I take that back we need the most efficient regulation of all time. That being the regulation that the free market naturally puts on banks. If banks make bad risky loans to people who can not repay them, the government does not bail them out or help. The bank loses as well as the borrower. If government would stop forcing or pressuring financial institutions to make risky loans, and secondly stop giving them safety nets, then financial institutions will make decisions that would only benefit them. Which is- make good loans at affordable interest rates so they can compete with other loaning institutions while not making lots of risky loans to people who will not be able to repay them. Will fewer people be able to buy a house? The answer is yes. The percentage will lower by a couple at most few percentage points in the long run. The good news is you don't have a artificially inflated markets that causes inflation of home values and then a drop that bottoms out to a point where every persons property and house's value dissipates. Thus causing the entire economy to go into a recession of not depression.
Solution: Federal Government do only what the Constitution gives you authority to do. Meaning only about 35% of what you currently do. Furthermore, allow states to set whatever laws and regulations they want. I believe within a few years states that let the free market work will see its people and companies flourishing with prosperity. Then other states will follow suit and our entire nation will use the system that works best. Very light regulation, strong laws though, with free markets doing most of the regulation. Instead we have one giant fascist federal government making a mockery of the Constitution of the United States.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
a country of ignorant people
Liberals are brilliant to the point that they began to dismantle our traditional American heritage many decades ago. If a country of people are uneducated on economics and American history, they might believe anything. I tend to concentrate on economics in this blog.
It is hard for me to express my displeasure of the Obama administration's growth into our lives with the takeover of GM, the introduction of czars that will control aspects of the economy, and now the greater regulation of tobacco and the getting close to huge overhaul of our healthcare in America. The reason it is hard is that most Americans do not understand the bases of an argument because their knowledge of simple economics (in my opinion the most important school subject after basic English and Math) is so poor. How can I argue against well intended policies that sound good if the American people do not know the cost associated with the growth of government despite good intentions.
Pay Czar? Please read my past blogs about CEO pay. There you will learn why it is so dangerous to allow the government to manipulate the market pay of CEO's no matter how many millions they make when YOU don't think they are worth it.
I have also written past blogs about Healthcare and why free markets have worked so well there. I give examples of government healthcare in other nations as well.
Christians like the fact that government regulates some things. Tobacco use, prostitution, seat belts, helmets on bikes, etc... Many conservatives love those regulations too. I hate them. I don't think government should regulate parts of our lives that do not affect other people. I disagree with doing the many of the things that government outlaws. But giving it the right to prohibit or regulate the use thereof could give government the go ahead on other things. What if you went into a restaurant and ordered a dessert and the waiter said "I'm sorry but according to new government standards, you have already reached your calorie limit". You think that sounds crazy but they already outlawed different ways to make food at restaurants. McDonald's went away with the "Super Size" due to lawsuits, etc...
If government takes over healthcare you better believe to keep cost down they will prohibit your liberty to eat what you want when you want it and how much of it you can have.
Solution: More education with less government involvement = more economics without agenda. The more a person knows and understands economics, the less government they usually want. It hurts government to teach about economics. In other words government is smart to keep us dumb. Lets not let them keep doing it to us.
It is hard for me to express my displeasure of the Obama administration's growth into our lives with the takeover of GM, the introduction of czars that will control aspects of the economy, and now the greater regulation of tobacco and the getting close to huge overhaul of our healthcare in America. The reason it is hard is that most Americans do not understand the bases of an argument because their knowledge of simple economics (in my opinion the most important school subject after basic English and Math) is so poor. How can I argue against well intended policies that sound good if the American people do not know the cost associated with the growth of government despite good intentions.
Pay Czar? Please read my past blogs about CEO pay. There you will learn why it is so dangerous to allow the government to manipulate the market pay of CEO's no matter how many millions they make when YOU don't think they are worth it.
I have also written past blogs about Healthcare and why free markets have worked so well there. I give examples of government healthcare in other nations as well.
Christians like the fact that government regulates some things. Tobacco use, prostitution, seat belts, helmets on bikes, etc... Many conservatives love those regulations too. I hate them. I don't think government should regulate parts of our lives that do not affect other people. I disagree with doing the many of the things that government outlaws. But giving it the right to prohibit or regulate the use thereof could give government the go ahead on other things. What if you went into a restaurant and ordered a dessert and the waiter said "I'm sorry but according to new government standards, you have already reached your calorie limit". You think that sounds crazy but they already outlawed different ways to make food at restaurants. McDonald's went away with the "Super Size" due to lawsuits, etc...
If government takes over healthcare you better believe to keep cost down they will prohibit your liberty to eat what you want when you want it and how much of it you can have.
Solution: More education with less government involvement = more economics without agenda. The more a person knows and understands economics, the less government they usually want. It hurts government to teach about economics. In other words government is smart to keep us dumb. Lets not let them keep doing it to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
