Randy,
I just heard a radio summary of your recent newsletter, concerning Afghanistan.
You are reported as having said that you are not against troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, but if it is done too quickly, serious damage could result. You said that we would be giving up the ground we have gained in the last year and the total progress we have made in the last 10 years. In addition, we would be giving a signal to the rest of the world that we're not serious in various military endeavors.
Randy, these are all wrongheaded thoughts. In the first place, we have no business being in Afghanistan in the first place. I don't see that we have made any progress in the last year, or even in the last 10 years. Perhaps we interpret progress in different terms. If you interpret it as nation building, you may have a point. If I interpret it, Afghanistan is no threat to us and we should not be there. The sooner we get out the better.
I believe the world is smart enough to know that withdrawal from a conflict does not necessarily mean surrender. In this case, there is nothing to surrender. The Russians have given us a great example.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1978 and remained there until 1989, a total of 11 years. The purpose of the original invasion was to expand the Soviet empire, but by 1989 the Soviet empire was already being weakened by overextended military expense. The Soviet empire collapsed in 1991.
The US invaded Afghanistan for essentially the same reason as the Soviets. Namely, to expand the empire. The question we now face is exactly the same as the Russians faced. Are our military expenses now so high that in addition to other financial problems, we face a US empire collapse? It may already be too late for the US to do anything about it. It took another two years for the Soviet empire to collapse primarily through the military spending competition promoted by Pres. Reagan. The US does not now have the same problem of outsiders forcing our collapse. We are doing it ourselves.
Randy, as I said, it may be too late, but it may not be. Let's get out of Afghanistan now. Let's not use lame excuses such as the Afghanistan security forces cannot handle their current problems. That should make no difference to us, it's not our business.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Open Letter to Rep. Randy Neugebauer
Randy,
I read your latest newsletter.
You say the President has remained remarkably detached from the overwhelming financial crisis we have in this government. You summarize it by saying, "Higher taxes, more government and an anti-business attitude seem to be the underlying foundation of this Presidency." That is mostly true, but you need to change the words "seem to" to "are". He has made that perfectly clear. The reason for his detachment is that things are working well on his schedule. He has essentially a unilateral interest in only one thing, which is to be reelected. There are enough "gimme" voters to likely guarantee that result, providing he doesn't say the wrong thing to shake them up. His best approach is to keep speaking in generalities, as he continues to raise money for his 2012 campaign. Your best approach is to discontinue telling us things about Obama that we already know and take a more positive action to counteract the problems being created by his administration.
Occasionally even Pres. Obama will do something right. Removal of 33,000 troops from Afghanistan can only be bettered by removing all troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else. We are not in the business of nation building, nor are we out to obtain spoils of war. Ron Paul calls all of our international actions those of Empire. He's right. We can't afford an empire, because we don't know how to handle one. Our presence in Afghanistan does not in any way defend us.
You are giving the Gary Avenue post office too much attention. Kiss Chris Davis' relatives and let's get on with the important business of the nation.
You are apparently giving the Libyan conflict more than lip service. Even a very limited use of American funds to support a military conflict there is unbelievable. We have no business there. We should not be funding anything. We don't need to support our European buddies in any economic conflicts, which in this case apparently involves Libyan oil.
I read your latest newsletter.
You say the President has remained remarkably detached from the overwhelming financial crisis we have in this government. You summarize it by saying, "Higher taxes, more government and an anti-business attitude seem to be the underlying foundation of this Presidency." That is mostly true, but you need to change the words "seem to" to "are". He has made that perfectly clear. The reason for his detachment is that things are working well on his schedule. He has essentially a unilateral interest in only one thing, which is to be reelected. There are enough "gimme" voters to likely guarantee that result, providing he doesn't say the wrong thing to shake them up. His best approach is to keep speaking in generalities, as he continues to raise money for his 2012 campaign. Your best approach is to discontinue telling us things about Obama that we already know and take a more positive action to counteract the problems being created by his administration.
Occasionally even Pres. Obama will do something right. Removal of 33,000 troops from Afghanistan can only be bettered by removing all troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere else. We are not in the business of nation building, nor are we out to obtain spoils of war. Ron Paul calls all of our international actions those of Empire. He's right. We can't afford an empire, because we don't know how to handle one. Our presence in Afghanistan does not in any way defend us.
You are giving the Gary Avenue post office too much attention. Kiss Chris Davis' relatives and let's get on with the important business of the nation.
You are apparently giving the Libyan conflict more than lip service. Even a very limited use of American funds to support a military conflict there is unbelievable. We have no business there. We should not be funding anything. We don't need to support our European buddies in any economic conflicts, which in this case apparently involves Libyan oil.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Deny Funds for Libyan Non-War
Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
Good move In shutting off money for the Libyan non-war.
NATO partners must get the message that we are not the primary support of NATO for their convenience. Aggressive military action by the US in Libya to assure a European supply of oil is not in the direct interest of the US.
Randy,
Good move In shutting off money for the Libyan non-war.
NATO partners must get the message that we are not the primary support of NATO for their convenience. Aggressive military action by the US in Libya to assure a European supply of oil is not in the direct interest of the US.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Out Of Afghanistan
EIN News says, "U.S. President Obama Orders Rapid Drawdown of U.S. Troops From Afghanistan Citing success in the war against insurgents over the last two years, he calls for 33,000 'surge' troops to begin coming home, and says it's time for America to take a more 'pragmatic' approach to military intervention. (latimes.com)".
Great news! I guess all it takes is a desire to be reelected and the ability to listen to the American public.
We shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's not America's job to redesign countries. That's up to the Afghanis. If we later don't like their new government (or old government) posing a threat to the US, we defeat that threat by a head-on attack to the perpetrators, who are normally called terrorists. That attack need not involve ground forces. We kill terrorists with remote operations, such as missiles.
Great news! I guess all it takes is a desire to be reelected and the ability to listen to the American public.
We shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's not America's job to redesign countries. That's up to the Afghanis. If we later don't like their new government (or old government) posing a threat to the US, we defeat that threat by a head-on attack to the perpetrators, who are normally called terrorists. That attack need not involve ground forces. We kill terrorists with remote operations, such as missiles.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Open Letter to Rep. Randy Neugebauer
Randy,
I read your newsletter.
While I didn't understand completely your write up on the Balanced Budget Amendment, it's a step in the right direction. You didn't say you did it, but if you did, congratulations. Let's be more specific in the future on what you have done.
Also you indicated that it is a Resolution. Good start, but I want a bill that passes and becomes an Act. What are you doing to accomplish that?
You gave as much space to the discussion of the Sgt. Chris Davis Post Office. While I have no objection to honoring Sgt. Chris Davis, something like this affects only a few people while a Balance Budget Amendment affects the whole country.
On "Other Events", spend as little time as possible on the Agricultural Committee. Chances are nothing much needs changing except eliminating subsidies. Spend some time on the military. We need to keep that strong to fight terrorists; not on the ground, but through satellite and missile deployment.
On American Job Creation, I am not a small-business owner, but I associate with a lot of them I know their thinking. The primary change the government needs to make is to get out of the way. Stop the various federal agencies from requesting data, forms completion, and reports to satisfy the bureaucrats desire for power, and absolutely get rid of healthcare mandates. One example an agency that seems to operate pretty well is OSHA. It has a nice set of rules which protects the safety and occupational health of employees and yet does not apply them in such a way as to cause the employer's unnecessary difficulty. Try to use it as a model.
Conversely, get rid of EPA in the present form that it is operating. It is causing consternation in major industries in the US, limiting production and expansion in a completely unnecessary manner. Its operation is such that in conjunction with the main body of the Obama Administration, it can be considered subversive to the interest of the United States and its citizens.
I'm proud of the Lubbockites as they voted 70% in favor of dumping the "No Child Left Behind Program". It's not that we're against children. We are much for them and for their education. However, we are strongly opposed to such a federal program not only in this but in anything related to public education.
I am also proud of the Lubbock population voting 92% against subsidizing ethanol from corn as a replacement for gasoline. A ridiculous notion that should have never gotten a nickel's worth of support from the taxpayers.
I read your newsletter.
While I didn't understand completely your write up on the Balanced Budget Amendment, it's a step in the right direction. You didn't say you did it, but if you did, congratulations. Let's be more specific in the future on what you have done.
Also you indicated that it is a Resolution. Good start, but I want a bill that passes and becomes an Act. What are you doing to accomplish that?
You gave as much space to the discussion of the Sgt. Chris Davis Post Office. While I have no objection to honoring Sgt. Chris Davis, something like this affects only a few people while a Balance Budget Amendment affects the whole country.
On "Other Events", spend as little time as possible on the Agricultural Committee. Chances are nothing much needs changing except eliminating subsidies. Spend some time on the military. We need to keep that strong to fight terrorists; not on the ground, but through satellite and missile deployment.
On American Job Creation, I am not a small-business owner, but I associate with a lot of them I know their thinking. The primary change the government needs to make is to get out of the way. Stop the various federal agencies from requesting data, forms completion, and reports to satisfy the bureaucrats desire for power, and absolutely get rid of healthcare mandates. One example an agency that seems to operate pretty well is OSHA. It has a nice set of rules which protects the safety and occupational health of employees and yet does not apply them in such a way as to cause the employer's unnecessary difficulty. Try to use it as a model.
Conversely, get rid of EPA in the present form that it is operating. It is causing consternation in major industries in the US, limiting production and expansion in a completely unnecessary manner. Its operation is such that in conjunction with the main body of the Obama Administration, it can be considered subversive to the interest of the United States and its citizens.
I'm proud of the Lubbockites as they voted 70% in favor of dumping the "No Child Left Behind Program". It's not that we're against children. We are much for them and for their education. However, we are strongly opposed to such a federal program not only in this but in anything related to public education.
I am also proud of the Lubbock population voting 92% against subsidizing ethanol from corn as a replacement for gasoline. A ridiculous notion that should have never gotten a nickel's worth of support from the taxpayers.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Little Lizard That Could Cause Big Problems
Congress set up the Endangered Species Act in 1973, with the intention to protect endangered species of natural wildlife. This is a law with a noble aspiration, but like many congressional laws, it gave an opportunity to individuals and organizations for abuse. Part of the Endangered Species Act involves restricting economic development of any area which includes the habitat of an endangered species.
The significance of the law at this time is that it has the potential to stop oil and gas production in West Texas, through designation of the West Texas Sand Dune lizard as an endangered species.
As is typical of most federal laws, Congress gave the administration of the law to the Fish and Wildlife Service, who works for Pres. Obama. Our president has been anti-fossil fuel in his efforts to promote solar and wind energy. His administration recently said they would speed up action on various environmental petitions.
The Center for Biological Diversity had asked that the West Texas Sand Dune Lizard be listed as an endangered species about 10 years ago. More recently, this has been supported by a federal lawsuit by Wild Earth Guardians, and also verbally supported by the strongly influential Sierra Club.
The Executive Director of the Sierra Club is Michael Brune. He has written a book entitled, " Coming Clean -- Breaking America's Addiction to Oil and Coal", so we know his position on oil drilling.
John Horning is the Executive Director of Wild Earth Guardians. Horning has a BA in History. Notice that he has no science or environmental background, other than what he has picked up. His background is typical of those who end up as political activists.
Kierán Suckling is the Executive Director of the Center for Biological Diversity. He has a BA and MA in Philosophy. In addition, he studied natural language processing and math. His philosophical work was primarily in phenomenology, hermeneutics, deconstruction, modern philosophy and philosophy of language. Notice he has no science or environmental background. He is another educated person who ends up as a political activist in an area where he has no education.
Neal Boortz, the radio talk show host, has recently concluded with justification that the general environmental movement in the US has been infiltrated by communists intent on destruction of our economy and the establishment of communism. It is likely that the three above-indicated organizations fit this category. The problem for the economic development of the US is that such subversive organizations, in collaboration with the US President and his Administration are now using Congressional laws to foster their ends of subversion.
The fate of the Sand Dune Lizard is not significant. The key point is whether the Endangered Species Act can be used to shut down economic progress in the US. This is not a new political activist program. It has taken time for some of us more dull-witted persons to recognize the basic intent. We now see that Spotted Owl protection intended to shut down the West Coast lumbering industry. The Snail Darter attempted to shut down a nuclear power plant. And, the Sand Dune Lizard now attempts to shut down oil and gas development in West Texas.
Congress made the original law, which allows this misuse, and Congress now has the obligation to correct the law to accomplish what was originally intended and eliminate the possibility of misuse, which is now rampant.
The significance of the law at this time is that it has the potential to stop oil and gas production in West Texas, through designation of the West Texas Sand Dune lizard as an endangered species.
As is typical of most federal laws, Congress gave the administration of the law to the Fish and Wildlife Service, who works for Pres. Obama. Our president has been anti-fossil fuel in his efforts to promote solar and wind energy. His administration recently said they would speed up action on various environmental petitions.
The Center for Biological Diversity had asked that the West Texas Sand Dune Lizard be listed as an endangered species about 10 years ago. More recently, this has been supported by a federal lawsuit by Wild Earth Guardians, and also verbally supported by the strongly influential Sierra Club.
The Executive Director of the Sierra Club is Michael Brune. He has written a book entitled, " Coming Clean -- Breaking America's Addiction to Oil and Coal", so we know his position on oil drilling.
John Horning is the Executive Director of Wild Earth Guardians. Horning has a BA in History. Notice that he has no science or environmental background, other than what he has picked up. His background is typical of those who end up as political activists.
Kierán Suckling is the Executive Director of the Center for Biological Diversity. He has a BA and MA in Philosophy. In addition, he studied natural language processing and math. His philosophical work was primarily in phenomenology, hermeneutics, deconstruction, modern philosophy and philosophy of language. Notice he has no science or environmental background. He is another educated person who ends up as a political activist in an area where he has no education.
Neal Boortz, the radio talk show host, has recently concluded with justification that the general environmental movement in the US has been infiltrated by communists intent on destruction of our economy and the establishment of communism. It is likely that the three above-indicated organizations fit this category. The problem for the economic development of the US is that such subversive organizations, in collaboration with the US President and his Administration are now using Congressional laws to foster their ends of subversion.
The fate of the Sand Dune Lizard is not significant. The key point is whether the Endangered Species Act can be used to shut down economic progress in the US. This is not a new political activist program. It has taken time for some of us more dull-witted persons to recognize the basic intent. We now see that Spotted Owl protection intended to shut down the West Coast lumbering industry. The Snail Darter attempted to shut down a nuclear power plant. And, the Sand Dune Lizard now attempts to shut down oil and gas development in West Texas.
Congress made the original law, which allows this misuse, and Congress now has the obligation to correct the law to accomplish what was originally intended and eliminate the possibility of misuse, which is now rampant.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Anti-Austerity Uprisings in Greece Portend What Is to Come in the US
EIN News says, "Greece Crippled As Anti-Austerity Protesters Clash With Police Groups of youths on the edge of a major anti-austerity protest in central Athens threw rocks and firebombs at police outside Parliament, where the struggling government sought support for new cutbacks required to save the country from default. (theglobeandmail.com)".
This portends what is to come in the US. As a people, we are no more altruistic than the Greeks. We have already had a taste of it in Wisconsin.
The Greek government had a choice of postponing government austerity, or least partially facing it now. They chose the latter, and probably wisely. Further postponement only makes matters worse and the uprisings more violent.
The Greek situation is our model for the US. We must watch it carefully. The first thing to do is be sure we have established a good corps of riot police.
This portends what is to come in the US. As a people, we are no more altruistic than the Greeks. We have already had a taste of it in Wisconsin.
The Greek government had a choice of postponing government austerity, or least partially facing it now. They chose the latter, and probably wisely. Further postponement only makes matters worse and the uprisings more violent.
The Greek situation is our model for the US. We must watch it carefully. The first thing to do is be sure we have established a good corps of riot police.
Shut Doi wn the National Science Foundation and save $7 Billion Per Year
According to the June 5 Issue of C&E News, Sen. Tom Coburn accuses the The National Science Foundation (NSF) of wasting $3 billion of US citizen money through mismanagement.
I will go one step farther and suggest that the total operations of the NSF are unnecessary and the agency should be disbanded. This would save US citizens about $7 billion per year.
From the NSF Web Page, the agency was created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…" . Historically, "The 1940s were one of the pivotal decades in the development of American business. By the end of the decade Americans never had it so good". To put this into proper context, Americans had money in 1949, and Congress had little reluctance to spend it for them on pie-in-the-sky projects.
We are now 60+ years later, and the agency is rolling along following the same policies on which basis it was originally created. But, Americans no longer have the wealth of 1949, and we all know about the tremendous national debt and budget deficits of the federal government, as it continues on its merry way.
The original charter to promote the progress of science etc. still sounds attractive. However, Let's take a look at what the NSF is now spending money on, other than just the high cost of running its own operation with attendant salaries, building amortization and maintenance, etc.. According to the NSF webpage, it is tasked with keeping the United States at the leading edge of discovery in areas from astronomy to geology to zoology. It does this by handing out money to university professors to conduct "research". However, let's be specific about "research". While theoretically involves something which could be of value to the average citizen, in most cases, research projects are pet projects of the professors or the NSF employees granting the funds. This is likely to include such things as why a praying mantis has wings, or why a frog can jump 3 feet.
Let's also go back to the original charter. It is the responsibility of various organizations, such as the American chemical Society to "promote the progress of science". The main job of the pharmaceutical industry is to "advance the national health". It is Congress' separate responsibility to "promote prosperity and welfare". It is the Military's responsibility to "secure the national defense".
That leaves nothing for the NSF to do except boondoggle. Let's get rid of it and reduce the budget deficit by $7 billion per year.
I will go one step farther and suggest that the total operations of the NSF are unnecessary and the agency should be disbanded. This would save US citizens about $7 billion per year.
From the NSF Web Page, the agency was created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…" . Historically, "The 1940s were one of the pivotal decades in the development of American business. By the end of the decade Americans never had it so good". To put this into proper context, Americans had money in 1949, and Congress had little reluctance to spend it for them on pie-in-the-sky projects.
We are now 60+ years later, and the agency is rolling along following the same policies on which basis it was originally created. But, Americans no longer have the wealth of 1949, and we all know about the tremendous national debt and budget deficits of the federal government, as it continues on its merry way.
The original charter to promote the progress of science etc. still sounds attractive. However, Let's take a look at what the NSF is now spending money on, other than just the high cost of running its own operation with attendant salaries, building amortization and maintenance, etc.. According to the NSF webpage, it is tasked with keeping the United States at the leading edge of discovery in areas from astronomy to geology to zoology. It does this by handing out money to university professors to conduct "research". However, let's be specific about "research". While theoretically involves something which could be of value to the average citizen, in most cases, research projects are pet projects of the professors or the NSF employees granting the funds. This is likely to include such things as why a praying mantis has wings, or why a frog can jump 3 feet.
Let's also go back to the original charter. It is the responsibility of various organizations, such as the American chemical Society to "promote the progress of science". The main job of the pharmaceutical industry is to "advance the national health". It is Congress' separate responsibility to "promote prosperity and welfare". It is the Military's responsibility to "secure the national defense".
That leaves nothing for the NSF to do except boondoggle. Let's get rid of it and reduce the budget deficit by $7 billion per year.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Open Letter to Rep. Neugebauer
This is an open letter to Rep. Neugebauer:
Thanks for your latest newsletter.
I notice from the first part that you do a lot of "kissing babies". I suppose you need to do some of that for reelection, but let's not overdo it. It detracts from the main problems.
I'm glad to see that you are doing a little more than lamenting about the economy. You actually said, "the most important thing we can focus on is encouraging and pushing the growth of the private sector and job creation." Nice that you are continuing to advocate that, but what are you doing about it? I noticed that the Feds are doubling or tripling federal inspectors for drilling operations in the Gulf. You and I know that this will only inhibit production. What are you doing to eliminate that program? Even so, that would be reactive. What is your proactive program?
With respect to the appropriations bills, vote yes on HR 2055. We need a strong military and to have it, we must take care of its members.
With respect to HR 2112, perhaps some of the program should be rewritten. You can look at Lubbock County from an agricultural point of view, but most of us who live in Lubbock are not farmers, and we are voters. I believe most of us non-farmers feel that there's a lot of slush in agricultural appropriations. Let's cut that. If there is anything related to subsidies for corn production to be used for ethanol, kill that as well. Our energy sources are based on coal, oil, and gas, not ethanol.
I did not like your question on "no Child left behind". When we mention children, we pull heartstrings. However, I voted no, and I see that 70+ percent did also. We are not against children or children's education, we really are voting on the quality of the existing education that children are getting. The farther away that the decisions are made on education quality, the poorer will be the judgments. It's up to you to get the Feds out of the education business. Most of us are willing to pay local taxes to support public education, but we need more control on what that education is. We don't need a Federal Department of Education to mandate the program.
Thanks for your latest newsletter.
I notice from the first part that you do a lot of "kissing babies". I suppose you need to do some of that for reelection, but let's not overdo it. It detracts from the main problems.
I'm glad to see that you are doing a little more than lamenting about the economy. You actually said, "the most important thing we can focus on is encouraging and pushing the growth of the private sector and job creation." Nice that you are continuing to advocate that, but what are you doing about it? I noticed that the Feds are doubling or tripling federal inspectors for drilling operations in the Gulf. You and I know that this will only inhibit production. What are you doing to eliminate that program? Even so, that would be reactive. What is your proactive program?
With respect to the appropriations bills, vote yes on HR 2055. We need a strong military and to have it, we must take care of its members.
With respect to HR 2112, perhaps some of the program should be rewritten. You can look at Lubbock County from an agricultural point of view, but most of us who live in Lubbock are not farmers, and we are voters. I believe most of us non-farmers feel that there's a lot of slush in agricultural appropriations. Let's cut that. If there is anything related to subsidies for corn production to be used for ethanol, kill that as well. Our energy sources are based on coal, oil, and gas, not ethanol.
I did not like your question on "no Child left behind". When we mention children, we pull heartstrings. However, I voted no, and I see that 70+ percent did also. We are not against children or children's education, we really are voting on the quality of the existing education that children are getting. The farther away that the decisions are made on education quality, the poorer will be the judgments. It's up to you to get the Feds out of the education business. Most of us are willing to pay local taxes to support public education, but we need more control on what that education is. We don't need a Federal Department of Education to mandate the program.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Sec. Clinton off on Another Tear to Spend US Money
EIN News says, "U.S. Secretary of State Clinton Calls for Peacekeepers; Sudan Leaders Meet U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. believes a strong peacekeeping force should be a central part of security arrangements in a contested area between north and south Sudan. (sfgate.com)".
Sec. Clinton's job is to handle international discussions and related matters, which are distinctly of interest to the United States. This would include matters of international trade, threats of war, etc.
She has no business monkeying around with security arrangements in Sudan. This kind of meddling has routinely led to US involvement in very costly military operations; for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. I'm surprised she's not beating the drum for US military involvement in Syria and Yemen. Perhaps she is.
The best way to shut her up and allow other peoples and their nations to go about their own business, is to defeat Obama in the 2012 elections. We can then have a new Secretary of State, who likely will view things from the perspective of direct interest to the US.
Sec. Clinton's job is to handle international discussions and related matters, which are distinctly of interest to the United States. This would include matters of international trade, threats of war, etc.
She has no business monkeying around with security arrangements in Sudan. This kind of meddling has routinely led to US involvement in very costly military operations; for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. I'm surprised she's not beating the drum for US military involvement in Syria and Yemen. Perhaps she is.
The best way to shut her up and allow other peoples and their nations to go about their own business, is to defeat Obama in the 2012 elections. We can then have a new Secretary of State, who likely will view things from the perspective of direct interest to the US.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Governor Romney as US President?
With tremendous national debt, the housing market in shambles, and terrible unemployment, the Republicans are knocking themselves out to find a potential candidate who can defeat Pres. Obama in the 2012 elections.
According to polls, Mitt Romney, present governor of Massachusetts is a leading candidate. Two days ago I saw an interview with him on TV.
Gov. Romney is very presidential looking and speaks well. However, his brain is either full of mush or he is an opportunist willing to sell his soul for power. I look at Gov. Romney from a prejudicial viewpoint. He believed in mandated government healthcare, which he instituted in Massachusetts. I consider mandated government healthcare to be an infraction of my personal liberty. It is now hanging fire at the federal level, with the likelihood that since the bill was passed, most of its provisions will be enacted. Unless Gov. Romney changes his mind, he will promote the complete establishment of mandated healthcare at the federal level.
Without the healthcare background, I was especially interested in his response to the interview ion a question concerning global warming. The Governor pussyfooted around the subject a bit but ultimately said that he believed carbon dioxide to be an agent of global climate disruption and its concentration in the atmosphere must be controlled by government.
The general concept of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to global warming and its negative consequences has been dying over the past year. However, there are continued attempts at its revival and a large number of people still believe in the concept. I do not, and continue to apply efforts to convince believers in the theory and fear monger promoters that this is a destructive attitude for the economy of the United States and the world at large.
Without getting too scientific, we need to talk about heat insulation and concentration. These are really simple terms which everyone faces in their daily life. We insulate the walls and ceiling of our houses with fiberglass bats in order to reduce loss of heat from the inside in the winter and reduce gain of heat to the inside during summer. The fiberglass is a heat insulator. We also use insulated containers to hold our cold beer and soft drinks on picnics. The second simple concept is concentration. If we put 2 teaspoons of sugar in a cup of coffee, it will taste sweeter than if we put in only one spoonful.
Gov. Romney and the various theorists who have preceded him say that carbon dioxide gas is a wonderful insulator. They say that it is such a good insulator its presence in the atmosphere will strongly limit the passage of heat to pass from the earth to the stratosphere. Since the heat can't escape from Earth, the temperature builds up, and we have global warming.
If carbon dioxide is a perfect insulator, think of the technical possibilities for its use outside of considerations of global warming. Manufacturers could put carbon dioxide between the two panes of glass in double paned windows. We could use plastic confinement containing carbon dioxide for use in the walls and ceilings of our houses and commercial and manufacturing buildings. We could have carbon dioxide in a separately confined layer of our tents for camping. We could put carbon dioxide in the space between the roofs and ceilings of our automotive vehicles. The opportunities are boundless! Why is this not being done? The answer is that carbon dioxide is not that good a heat insulator, in spite of talk to the contrary. Manufacturers of double pane windows use argon in the space between the panes, and building supply manufacturers still produce large quantities of fiberglass for insulation. I know of no cases where carbon dioxide is being used as a local heat insulator. If it is not good is a local heat insulator, why would anyone think it would be good as a global heat insulator?
Let's talk a little about concentration. The atmosphere is composed of about 21% oxygen and 79% nitrogen. Those gases are reasonably good heat insulators in their own right. If this were not true, we would all freeze to death at night. However, both nitrogen and oxygen are not quite as good heat insulators as carbon dioxide in the pure form. Notice that I have said "pure form", which means 100%. But, like the sugar in the coffee, concentration makes a huge difference. One grain of sugar in a cup of coffee goes unnoticed. Similarly, a very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have little or no effect on global warming. In fact, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, which is 0.02% of the atmosphere. That's about the same concentration as one grain of sugar in a cup of coffee.
If you like a man who speaks well and has a good appearance, but doesn't have the mental capacity to understand global warming, elect Gov. Romney as President of the United States. He likely can't do any worse than Pres. Obama.
According to polls, Mitt Romney, present governor of Massachusetts is a leading candidate. Two days ago I saw an interview with him on TV.
Gov. Romney is very presidential looking and speaks well. However, his brain is either full of mush or he is an opportunist willing to sell his soul for power. I look at Gov. Romney from a prejudicial viewpoint. He believed in mandated government healthcare, which he instituted in Massachusetts. I consider mandated government healthcare to be an infraction of my personal liberty. It is now hanging fire at the federal level, with the likelihood that since the bill was passed, most of its provisions will be enacted. Unless Gov. Romney changes his mind, he will promote the complete establishment of mandated healthcare at the federal level.
Without the healthcare background, I was especially interested in his response to the interview ion a question concerning global warming. The Governor pussyfooted around the subject a bit but ultimately said that he believed carbon dioxide to be an agent of global climate disruption and its concentration in the atmosphere must be controlled by government.
The general concept of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to global warming and its negative consequences has been dying over the past year. However, there are continued attempts at its revival and a large number of people still believe in the concept. I do not, and continue to apply efforts to convince believers in the theory and fear monger promoters that this is a destructive attitude for the economy of the United States and the world at large.
Without getting too scientific, we need to talk about heat insulation and concentration. These are really simple terms which everyone faces in their daily life. We insulate the walls and ceiling of our houses with fiberglass bats in order to reduce loss of heat from the inside in the winter and reduce gain of heat to the inside during summer. The fiberglass is a heat insulator. We also use insulated containers to hold our cold beer and soft drinks on picnics. The second simple concept is concentration. If we put 2 teaspoons of sugar in a cup of coffee, it will taste sweeter than if we put in only one spoonful.
Gov. Romney and the various theorists who have preceded him say that carbon dioxide gas is a wonderful insulator. They say that it is such a good insulator its presence in the atmosphere will strongly limit the passage of heat to pass from the earth to the stratosphere. Since the heat can't escape from Earth, the temperature builds up, and we have global warming.
If carbon dioxide is a perfect insulator, think of the technical possibilities for its use outside of considerations of global warming. Manufacturers could put carbon dioxide between the two panes of glass in double paned windows. We could use plastic confinement containing carbon dioxide for use in the walls and ceilings of our houses and commercial and manufacturing buildings. We could have carbon dioxide in a separately confined layer of our tents for camping. We could put carbon dioxide in the space between the roofs and ceilings of our automotive vehicles. The opportunities are boundless! Why is this not being done? The answer is that carbon dioxide is not that good a heat insulator, in spite of talk to the contrary. Manufacturers of double pane windows use argon in the space between the panes, and building supply manufacturers still produce large quantities of fiberglass for insulation. I know of no cases where carbon dioxide is being used as a local heat insulator. If it is not good is a local heat insulator, why would anyone think it would be good as a global heat insulator?
Let's talk a little about concentration. The atmosphere is composed of about 21% oxygen and 79% nitrogen. Those gases are reasonably good heat insulators in their own right. If this were not true, we would all freeze to death at night. However, both nitrogen and oxygen are not quite as good heat insulators as carbon dioxide in the pure form. Notice that I have said "pure form", which means 100%. But, like the sugar in the coffee, concentration makes a huge difference. One grain of sugar in a cup of coffee goes unnoticed. Similarly, a very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have little or no effect on global warming. In fact, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, which is 0.02% of the atmosphere. That's about the same concentration as one grain of sugar in a cup of coffee.
If you like a man who speaks well and has a good appearance, but doesn't have the mental capacity to understand global warming, elect Gov. Romney as President of the United States. He likely can't do any worse than Pres. Obama.
Rep. Wiener Has Raised an Inportant Question
This morning CNN continued with the sexual exploits of Rep. Wiener on the Internet. Other than the details, CNN raise an interesting question, "Is Tweeting cheating?"
Several people had opinions. All of them started from the position of the "absolute". That is, they gave their personal opinions without reference to any base. In actual fact those opinions were based on their previous training, their desires, their judgment, and the environment in which they find themselves. This is a very variable base on which to operate, especially from the present environment. For example, people from San Francisco and New York City have a completely different sexual philosophy than persons from small Midwest towns.
Because of the variability of "absolute" base, it may be more productive to think in terms of previously established rules. Such rules can change with changes in technology. For example, Jews and Muslims were denied eating pork for thousands of years. This was based upon the that pigs were generally infected with trichinosis, which wrecked havoc when transmitted to the human body . New technology has cleaned up the trichinosis problem, and we now have "clean" pork for human consumption. The fact that many segments of society retain the old restrictions is not especially relevant.
Conversely while technology can lead to a justifiable change in rules concerning physical situations, there is no technological change for psychological and theoretical considerations. The use of condoms, birth control pills, and medications to cure physical sexual diseases are now available, which allows more freedom in sexual practices with less physical risk. However, these mechanisms have no effect on the psychological aspects of guilt, lying, and the need for continued personal relationships on a broader "love" basis.
Jesus addressed these problems more than 2000 years ago. Many who read the first word of the sentence will be turned off for various reasons. Two of these are negative feelings from early childhood and present restrictions on personal liberty.
However those who can think more objectively, may wish to consider that humanity in general has agreed to Jesus' philosophy, as indicated by his sayings, some of which can be interpreted as "rules". Many do not accept this philosophy, usually for reasons specified above. But, the majority of society considers that this philosophy is still of value.
With respect to sex, I paraphrase Jesus saying that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed infidelity. This may sound a little harsh, if we gloss over the word "lust". For example if a man is thinking of having this woman in his bed for sexual intercourse, that is lust, and he is obviously infringing the rule. On the other hand, if he looks at a woman with appreciation of her stature and beauty, he is not lusting and is not infringing the rule. In essence, a man has control of his thoughts. As he wanders into the area of infidelity, he has the responsibility to correct that himself.
How is this related to Rep. Wiener's exploits on the Internet? We have no way of knowing what is in a man's mind. We only have an inkling, when we hear what he says verbally or see what he writes. These two give at least a hazy picture of his total philosophy and related aspects. The more he talks and the more he writes, the more we know. The details of Rep. Wiener's e-mails clearly indicate that he was thinking about physical sexual encounter with the recipients. Therefore, he has betrayed the 2000-year-old rule of sexual morality. He then must live with the consequences of societal judgment. If his party members and his constituents support his sexual immorality, then they also are contributing to further destruction of the 2000 year-old rule.
The question may then be raised as to whether the 2000 year-old rule is the same as the restriction against eating pork, and should be eliminated based upon new aspects of the society. However before scuttling the rule, consider first the aspects on which it was probably based. There are some key points. Man is attracted to women for sexual intercourse to reproduce humanity. In the reproduction aspect, certain emotional factors prevail such that man and woman stay together to raise the progeny. While socialistic governments work against this, man is imbued with this requirement. Man also requires a close companion for his emotional satisfaction, other than sex. Women fits this bill through her feminine emotional makeup, which involves love, caring, stability and all those other things which most of us appreciate as part of a satisfactory family life.
The fundamental question is then whether "family life" and all of its manifestations are worth continuing? Some may say that we can have both. That is, we can have a stable family life and complete sexual freedom in all of its forms. That approach is idealistic and impractical, since at least one primary member in every family has a desire for family life continuity. US society in general thinks the same or Rep. Wiener would not be on the pan for so-called rule infractions.
The bottom line is that Rep. Wiener must be relieved of his responsibilities. As a Representative, he is a leader in society. He has the power to lead either positively or negatively. A negative approach would be a further destruction of family values.
Several people had opinions. All of them started from the position of the "absolute". That is, they gave their personal opinions without reference to any base. In actual fact those opinions were based on their previous training, their desires, their judgment, and the environment in which they find themselves. This is a very variable base on which to operate, especially from the present environment. For example, people from San Francisco and New York City have a completely different sexual philosophy than persons from small Midwest towns.
Because of the variability of "absolute" base, it may be more productive to think in terms of previously established rules. Such rules can change with changes in technology. For example, Jews and Muslims were denied eating pork for thousands of years. This was based upon the that pigs were generally infected with trichinosis, which wrecked havoc when transmitted to the human body . New technology has cleaned up the trichinosis problem, and we now have "clean" pork for human consumption. The fact that many segments of society retain the old restrictions is not especially relevant.
Conversely while technology can lead to a justifiable change in rules concerning physical situations, there is no technological change for psychological and theoretical considerations. The use of condoms, birth control pills, and medications to cure physical sexual diseases are now available, which allows more freedom in sexual practices with less physical risk. However, these mechanisms have no effect on the psychological aspects of guilt, lying, and the need for continued personal relationships on a broader "love" basis.
Jesus addressed these problems more than 2000 years ago. Many who read the first word of the sentence will be turned off for various reasons. Two of these are negative feelings from early childhood and present restrictions on personal liberty.
However those who can think more objectively, may wish to consider that humanity in general has agreed to Jesus' philosophy, as indicated by his sayings, some of which can be interpreted as "rules". Many do not accept this philosophy, usually for reasons specified above. But, the majority of society considers that this philosophy is still of value.
With respect to sex, I paraphrase Jesus saying that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed infidelity. This may sound a little harsh, if we gloss over the word "lust". For example if a man is thinking of having this woman in his bed for sexual intercourse, that is lust, and he is obviously infringing the rule. On the other hand, if he looks at a woman with appreciation of her stature and beauty, he is not lusting and is not infringing the rule. In essence, a man has control of his thoughts. As he wanders into the area of infidelity, he has the responsibility to correct that himself.
How is this related to Rep. Wiener's exploits on the Internet? We have no way of knowing what is in a man's mind. We only have an inkling, when we hear what he says verbally or see what he writes. These two give at least a hazy picture of his total philosophy and related aspects. The more he talks and the more he writes, the more we know. The details of Rep. Wiener's e-mails clearly indicate that he was thinking about physical sexual encounter with the recipients. Therefore, he has betrayed the 2000-year-old rule of sexual morality. He then must live with the consequences of societal judgment. If his party members and his constituents support his sexual immorality, then they also are contributing to further destruction of the 2000 year-old rule.
The question may then be raised as to whether the 2000 year-old rule is the same as the restriction against eating pork, and should be eliminated based upon new aspects of the society. However before scuttling the rule, consider first the aspects on which it was probably based. There are some key points. Man is attracted to women for sexual intercourse to reproduce humanity. In the reproduction aspect, certain emotional factors prevail such that man and woman stay together to raise the progeny. While socialistic governments work against this, man is imbued with this requirement. Man also requires a close companion for his emotional satisfaction, other than sex. Women fits this bill through her feminine emotional makeup, which involves love, caring, stability and all those other things which most of us appreciate as part of a satisfactory family life.
The fundamental question is then whether "family life" and all of its manifestations are worth continuing? Some may say that we can have both. That is, we can have a stable family life and complete sexual freedom in all of its forms. That approach is idealistic and impractical, since at least one primary member in every family has a desire for family life continuity. US society in general thinks the same or Rep. Wiener would not be on the pan for so-called rule infractions.
The bottom line is that Rep. Wiener must be relieved of his responsibilities. As a Representative, he is a leader in society. He has the power to lead either positively or negatively. A negative approach would be a further destruction of family values.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Open Letter to Rep. Neugebauer
Randy,
I just read your newsletter.
There two primary considerations in agricultural bills. One consideration is to be sure that we are not hamstringing food production which might lead to famine in times of unusual weather. The other consideration is to look at agricultural commodities, such as cotton, as equivalent to other commodities, such as oil, copper, etc. The food products are necessary to sustain life in the US. The commodity products are equivalent to manufactured goods and generate revenue from the global economy.
It should not be the taxpayers responsibility to subsidize agriculture, except for famine insurance purposes on food products. All other agricultural products should be able to stand on their own feet economically.
I suggest you spend little time in kissing babies. You need to do some of that to maintain a voting base, but you know what the country needs. Let's get on with the main problems.
I cannot congratulate you on spending $40.85 billion in funding the Department of Homeland Security for the 2012 fiscal year. We don't measure program effectiveness on how much money we spend, but on the accomplishments. How much did we spend last year? Was it more or less than $40.85 billion? We seem pretty secure. The FBI seems to be doing its job. Maybe we are spending too much on homeland security.
Don't worry about shutting parts of the government down because of lack of an overall spending bill. Do it piecemeal. You will probably save money that way.
You are lamenting about the employment situation, but you don't say what you are doing about it.
With respect to Libya, it would be ridiculous to be sending US troops there. Furthermore, it doesn't make any difference what the President says with respect to justification, the House has the power to shut down spending for that operation, and it should immediately do so.
I just read your newsletter.
There two primary considerations in agricultural bills. One consideration is to be sure that we are not hamstringing food production which might lead to famine in times of unusual weather. The other consideration is to look at agricultural commodities, such as cotton, as equivalent to other commodities, such as oil, copper, etc. The food products are necessary to sustain life in the US. The commodity products are equivalent to manufactured goods and generate revenue from the global economy.
It should not be the taxpayers responsibility to subsidize agriculture, except for famine insurance purposes on food products. All other agricultural products should be able to stand on their own feet economically.
I suggest you spend little time in kissing babies. You need to do some of that to maintain a voting base, but you know what the country needs. Let's get on with the main problems.
I cannot congratulate you on spending $40.85 billion in funding the Department of Homeland Security for the 2012 fiscal year. We don't measure program effectiveness on how much money we spend, but on the accomplishments. How much did we spend last year? Was it more or less than $40.85 billion? We seem pretty secure. The FBI seems to be doing its job. Maybe we are spending too much on homeland security.
Don't worry about shutting parts of the government down because of lack of an overall spending bill. Do it piecemeal. You will probably save money that way.
You are lamenting about the employment situation, but you don't say what you are doing about it.
With respect to Libya, it would be ridiculous to be sending US troops there. Furthermore, it doesn't make any difference what the President says with respect to justification, the House has the power to shut down spending for that operation, and it should immediately do so.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
There Has Been No Recession
There has been no recession. There has been no recovery. It is all a matter of perspective.
When the second President Bush was in office, he inadvertently accentuated a program, which had been started many years before by Presidents Roosevelt, Carter, and Johnson, and which will ultimately lead to a complete restructure of the economy and social culture of the US.
We then elected Pres. Obama on the basis of a promise of "change". The content of "change" was unspecified, nor was a specification necessary at the time. After all, campaigner Obama was a wonderful speaker, excellent appearance, and was able to make emotional promises which we easily believed. We did not know at the time that Pres. Obama's "change" interpretation meant a headlong acceleration to socialism. We now have that.
From that perspective, we are only now in the intermediate phases of change. The standard of living of the American people has not been growing. It is controversial as to whether it is declining, but it eventually will, as American wealth is redistributed to others of the world, who have been less fortunate. Perhaps this is as it should be, since we are a compassionate people.
We are also only in an intermediate phase of unemployment, which presently stands at 9%. In fact, this will decrease to zero. All citizens of the previous Soviet Union previously had complete employment, as do the present citizens of Cuba, and North Korea. The Soviets all did and the others still work for their governments.
Pres. Obama does not completely specify this program. Perhaps because he doesn't quite understand it himself, but more likely because there is still a broad segment of the US population, who believes in private enterprise. He doesn't want to get them aroused, although he has so far been unable to control talk radio which is mostly against his programs. Perhaps he considers talk radio unimportant or has not yet figured out how to exercise control. There has already been talk in the Congress of shutting down talk radio.
All told, we are moving nicely in the direction of autocratic socialism. There had been and will remain a few bumps and hazards along the way, such as high unemployment, high gas prices, massive national debt, the prospect of higher interest rates and inflation, etc. But in the long run, we will all be happy and content in our autocratic socialistic lives. Government will handle all of our responsibilities, which we have had previous difficulty in resolving.
When the second President Bush was in office, he inadvertently accentuated a program, which had been started many years before by Presidents Roosevelt, Carter, and Johnson, and which will ultimately lead to a complete restructure of the economy and social culture of the US.
We then elected Pres. Obama on the basis of a promise of "change". The content of "change" was unspecified, nor was a specification necessary at the time. After all, campaigner Obama was a wonderful speaker, excellent appearance, and was able to make emotional promises which we easily believed. We did not know at the time that Pres. Obama's "change" interpretation meant a headlong acceleration to socialism. We now have that.
From that perspective, we are only now in the intermediate phases of change. The standard of living of the American people has not been growing. It is controversial as to whether it is declining, but it eventually will, as American wealth is redistributed to others of the world, who have been less fortunate. Perhaps this is as it should be, since we are a compassionate people.
We are also only in an intermediate phase of unemployment, which presently stands at 9%. In fact, this will decrease to zero. All citizens of the previous Soviet Union previously had complete employment, as do the present citizens of Cuba, and North Korea. The Soviets all did and the others still work for their governments.
Pres. Obama does not completely specify this program. Perhaps because he doesn't quite understand it himself, but more likely because there is still a broad segment of the US population, who believes in private enterprise. He doesn't want to get them aroused, although he has so far been unable to control talk radio which is mostly against his programs. Perhaps he considers talk radio unimportant or has not yet figured out how to exercise control. There has already been talk in the Congress of shutting down talk radio.
All told, we are moving nicely in the direction of autocratic socialism. There had been and will remain a few bumps and hazards along the way, such as high unemployment, high gas prices, massive national debt, the prospect of higher interest rates and inflation, etc. But in the long run, we will all be happy and content in our autocratic socialistic lives. Government will handle all of our responsibilities, which we have had previous difficulty in resolving.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Another War for the US in Yemen?
EIN News says, "Yemen Fighting Halts Flights, U.S. Sends Envoy to Region
Overnight clashes in the Yemeni capital killed dozens more people and grounded flights as a U.S. envoy arrived in the region to press President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down and prevent his country imploding. (reuters.com)".
We don't care about flights being halted. We have compassion for the dozens of people being killed, but is not our responsibility to protect them. Bloodshed is traditionally involved as people and governments struggle for a new order.
I concentrate on the fact that the US has sent an envoy to the region. An absolutely stupid move! How many envoys have been sent from Italy, Japan, Russia, China, Germany, etc.? The problem with sending an envoy is that such action makes us immediately involved. What does Congress plan to do as Obama is starting to take on another war?
Overnight clashes in the Yemeni capital killed dozens more people and grounded flights as a U.S. envoy arrived in the region to press President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down and prevent his country imploding. (reuters.com)".
We don't care about flights being halted. We have compassion for the dozens of people being killed, but is not our responsibility to protect them. Bloodshed is traditionally involved as people and governments struggle for a new order.
I concentrate on the fact that the US has sent an envoy to the region. An absolutely stupid move! How many envoys have been sent from Italy, Japan, Russia, China, Germany, etc.? The problem with sending an envoy is that such action makes us immediately involved. What does Congress plan to do as Obama is starting to take on another war?
Osama bin Laden - A One Act Play
Location: Oval Office of the White House
Time: A few weeks ago
Scene: Pres. Obama meeting with his CIA Director
CIA Dir.: "Mr. President, we have finally located Osama bin Laden. Should we kill him?"
Pres. Obama: "Where is he located and what are the risks".
CIA Dir.: "He is in Pakistan. We would have to do an aerial assault on his residence. If we do this by bombing, or missile attack, we will not be sure whether we got him. The most certain way is a manned attack from helicopters. There is a possibility it could go wrong, but I'll give it a 90% chance of success. Even if it goes wrong, the Pakistani government is favorable to us. We give them a lot of money".
Pres. Obama [thinking]: Bush set this up a few years ago, and he didn't get any negative reaction at that time. This is somewhat different than the Carter attempt in Iran many years ago, which turned out to be a complete disaster. The Iranian government at that time was the enemy. If this operation fails or becomes publicly known, we might at least get an E. for effort. However, we can keep it quiet until hopefully favorable results are in. If successful, this ought to be good for many votes in my reelection.
Pres. Obama: "After due consideration and in the interest of humanity, I am forced to say we should make every effort to capture, or if necessary, kill him".
Time: A few weeks ago
Scene: Pres. Obama meeting with his CIA Director
CIA Dir.: "Mr. President, we have finally located Osama bin Laden. Should we kill him?"
Pres. Obama: "Where is he located and what are the risks".
CIA Dir.: "He is in Pakistan. We would have to do an aerial assault on his residence. If we do this by bombing, or missile attack, we will not be sure whether we got him. The most certain way is a manned attack from helicopters. There is a possibility it could go wrong, but I'll give it a 90% chance of success. Even if it goes wrong, the Pakistani government is favorable to us. We give them a lot of money".
Pres. Obama [thinking]: Bush set this up a few years ago, and he didn't get any negative reaction at that time. This is somewhat different than the Carter attempt in Iran many years ago, which turned out to be a complete disaster. The Iranian government at that time was the enemy. If this operation fails or becomes publicly known, we might at least get an E. for effort. However, we can keep it quiet until hopefully favorable results are in. If successful, this ought to be good for many votes in my reelection.
Pres. Obama: "After due consideration and in the interest of humanity, I am forced to say we should make every effort to capture, or if necessary, kill him".
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Hands off Syria
EIN News says, "EU Draft UN Resolution on Syria Could Hurt Stability, China Says China warned that a European draft resolution asking the UN Security Council to condemn Syria would not defuse tension in the region, suggesting Beijing could block it if it is submitted for a vote. (reuters.com)".
Although this is an EU draft to the United Nations, it affects us because we will be expected to vote on it and also be expected to support the EU.
The Syrians have every right to determine their own government, without interference from the outside. If the Syrian people don't like the present government, it is their sole responsibility to change it, not ours. I generally support the Chinese position on the situation.
If it comes to a vote in the UN, I strongly suggest that the US vote against it or at least abstain. Any vote to the contrary will lead to a Syrian government censure, which will result in military support for the rebels, and we will have another great US cost, in the same manner as we have just experienced in Libya, and our long-term problems in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We can't afford to continue this attitude of trying to change the world to match that perceived by the Obama Administration.
I call on the U.S. Congress to bring a sense of reality to all of these international nation building problems.
Although this is an EU draft to the United Nations, it affects us because we will be expected to vote on it and also be expected to support the EU.
The Syrians have every right to determine their own government, without interference from the outside. If the Syrian people don't like the present government, it is their sole responsibility to change it, not ours. I generally support the Chinese position on the situation.
If it comes to a vote in the UN, I strongly suggest that the US vote against it or at least abstain. Any vote to the contrary will lead to a Syrian government censure, which will result in military support for the rebels, and we will have another great US cost, in the same manner as we have just experienced in Libya, and our long-term problems in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We can't afford to continue this attitude of trying to change the world to match that perceived by the Obama Administration.
I call on the U.S. Congress to bring a sense of reality to all of these international nation building problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
