So you still think we’re bringing democracy to Iraq?

[ARTICLE]

In a curious move, the Bush Administration is now refusing a demand from the duly elected Iraqi government for a date of withdrawal. It appears that we are not done rescuing the Iraqis — no matter what the Iraqis may think. So it appears that a continued open-ended occupation now opposed by a majority of voters, a majority in Congress, and a majority of Iraqis will continue until the White House is satisfied. It appears that all that business about the freely elected government was highly more aspirational.

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos issued the rejection: “The US government and the government of Iraq are in agreement that we, the US government, we want to withdraw, we will withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based.”

One condition is apparently not the will of the Iraqi people or its government. While the Bush Administration insists that it is not an “occupying power,” this decision would appear to confirm that status. If the Iraqi government cannot demand our departure by a date certain, it would seem that we remain in the role of an occupying power.

On Tuesday, Iraq insisted that it will not consent to any security part with the United States without a date for the pullout of U.S. troops.

Well so much for liberating the Iraqi people. The U.S. fights to give them democracy (against the advice of the founding fathers) and then when the people of Iraq demand through their democratically elected leaders that the U.S. leave, the President says “No.”

The U.S. is an occupying force in a country where the people don’t want a foreign military hanging around stirring up trouble. We have become the Empire that we fought to be free from in the Revolutionary War.

McCain dodges question on Viagra. WHO CARES?

Came across this article today…

When asked Wednesday if he had voted in the Senate against a proposal to require insurance companies to cover contraceptive products, McCain replied, [Who cares what he said]

Everyone’s getting all uppity about the fact that he dodged this question. But the question they should be asking themselves is, why is the government even sticking their nose in the insurance industry’s business?

Where does the constitution give the government the power to mandate that Insurance companies cover contraceptives?

Americans need to get their priorities straight.

Kids who say ‘yuck’ may be racist?

The internet is just full of stupid stories today.

[ARTICLE]

Toddlers who say “yuck” when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says.

The London-based National Children’s Bureau released a 366-page guide counseling adults on recognizing racist behavior in young children, The Telegraph reported Monday…

The bureau says to be aware of children who “react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying ‘yuck’.”

And thought crime is extended to our 3 year olds.

How many of you have kids that enjoy curried rice?

Daily Dumb Headline

New Cars in California Must Display Global Warming Score

California is making it mandatory for cars to be labeled with global warming scores, figures that take into account emissions from vehicle use and fuel production…

The labeling law forces cars for sale to display a global warming score, on a scale of one to 10, which is based on how vehicles in the same model year compare to one another. The higher the score, the cleaner a car is. The score takes into account emissions related to production of fuel for each vehicle as well as the direct emissions from vehicles.

Ohh I’m just itching to move out of here.

Parental Rights Amendment Introduced

U.S. Congressman Pete Hoekstra a Republican from Michigan has apparently introduced a Constitutional Amendment that would protect parental rights…a little. The following is the full text of the Amendment:

`Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

`Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

`Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.’.

I like it, except I believe that section 2 should read “Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right.” Stop there. He was on a roll until he added “…without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

If a government can infringe upon a right because it really really needs to, then it isn’t a right. The first amendment doesn’t protect free speech as long as the government has no need to restrict it. The government has no power to restrict it period.

Of course we all know those are just words and the government has been doing whatever it pleases with out rights for decades. But that’s another blog entry all together.

NEWS! 100th Post!

Well the post before this about Obama and Bush was my 100th post! We also have two new authors! The first is my brother who goes by ’sixforsure’. I’m not sure if he’ll use his real name or not. The other is my Fiance, Erin…although I haven’t told her that I’ve made her an author yet so we’ll see if the actually posts anything.

Bush and Obama. What’s the difference?

Obama said the following in a speech in 2004 about Sudan:

“First, the UN Security Council should impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum government immediately. These sanctions should freeze the assets of the Sudanese government, its leaders and business affiliates; outlaw arms sales and transfers to Sudan; and prohibit the purchase of Sudanese oil. The United States must make this a high priority in our relations with other governments on the Security Council.

Doesn’t this sound a lot like Bush’s attitude leading up to Iraq? If you’re not with us, you’re against us.

“Second, the United States should raise the needed funds to ensure that the civilians in Sudan receive life-saving humanitarian assistance. The situation is deteriorating rapidly and we should lead in contributing the lion’s share of these funds so that we can convince others to give their fair share as well.

“The United States should raise the needed funds…” That means taxes. That means more of your hard-earned cash are going to going to be taken under the threat of violence by the government to pay to fight another war. Don’t forget that we’re already 9 TRILLION dollars in debt!

“Next, the United States should support the immediate deployment of an effective international force to disarm militia, protect civilians and facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur. Thus far, the African Union has offered 3,000 troops and the United Kingdom has indicated that they would offer some troops. However, international pressure is required for the Sudan regime to accept an international peacekeeping force. The U.S. must ensure humanitarian intervention with or without Sudanese government permission. And, we should urge European governments who are not willing to send troops to Iraq to take on this mission.

“The U.S. must ensure ‘humanitarian intervention‘ (i.e. killing the bad guys) with or without Sudanese government permission.”

How is that different than what we’re doing in Iraq? That’s easy. It isn’t. But the “save Darfur” attitude is in style right now so no one will complain. It’s going to be another huge fiasco. I’m voting for the other party….oh wait. The other party wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and invade Iran.

Can anyone point out any significant difference between Republicans and Democrats?

Happy Relative Independence Day

We still have such a long way to go.

14 Science Questions the Next President Should Answer?

I came across an article of Wired.com today titled 14 Science Questions the Next President Should Answer

It was a midly interesting article so I thought have a crack at it. Let’s pretend I’m running for President and Wired.com asked me these questions. Here is how I would answer them…

1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

My policy will be to simply stay out of the way. I will do nothing. I won’t help or support any industry but I also won’t hold them back. I’ll lift any and all federal regulations on industry let them do their jobs because they know how to do it a heck of a lot better than I do. Government intervention stiffles innovation.

2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
I don’t support cap-and-trade systems or carbon taxes because they put unneccessary burdens on industry and those costs are passed on to the consumers. Plus as President it would be non of my business to meddle in free industry. I also don’t support requiring fuel-economy standards or research with tax-payer dollars. The free market can handle the issue without resorting to government mandates.

3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
Again I’d stay the heck out of it. That includes lifting whatever limits there are on energy companies that want to drill or refine oil here in the United States. Industry is none of my business.

4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?
THe federal government should play absolutely no role what-so-ever in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century. In fact, as President I would do away with the Department of Education completely and replace it with absolutely nothing.

5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?
This is a pretty broad question. I would probably continue implementing sciene and technology in the same way that we have been for decades except I would bring all of our troops home from every military base we have outside of the U.S. and cut the budget by 3/4.

6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?
Are you kidding me? How are McCain and Obama supposed to answer this question? They don’t knwo anything about this and neither do I. And I’m not going to pretend that I know just so that you’ll vote for me. Let scientists work it out.

7. Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?
My policy is that it is none of the government’s business. If I am elected we won’t support any research done for any reason but we also won’t restrict it. Let the free market work on it’s own without interference.

8. Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?
Again, I support neither government funding, nor regulation of stem cell research. Do whatever you want. It’s none of our business.

9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?
You’re asking me to stiffle free industry aren’t you? I’m not going to do that. The constitution doesn’t give me the power to protect ocean health, ESPECIALLY at the expence of liberty. If the consumers want products maybe in sustainable ways, the market will provide.

10. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?
The Constituion doesn’t give me the power to enact any policy on this subject.

11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?
If I am elected President I will auction off the Nasa program to the highest private bidder and then cut all ties. No funding but also no regulations or limits. THe free market can do anything better, more efficiently, and for less money the the government can. And again, the Constitution doesn’t give me the power to pay for space exploration with tax payer money.

12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?
THe government should stay out of scientific research and development all together. There should be absolutely zero funding for scientific research but also no regulations. With federal money comes federal rules. I would keep government out of science and industry.

13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?
No priority. Scientific research would be one of the first things to be cut from the budget if it were up to me. Government money is bad for science because the guy that pays the bills is the guy that makes the rules. Total liberty is what is good for scientific research.

14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?
I see science, research, and technology contributing tremendously to health and quality of life in the future. I just don’t see them doing it with tax-payer money. If their services are really worth while, people will pay for them voluntarily. In anycase, the Constitution doesn’t give the Government the authority to pay for scientific research or universal healthcare.

You may be wondering, “What WOULD you do if you became President?”

As little as possible. My campaign slogan is “Vote me me and I’ll leave you alone.

It’s for the children!

I’m a Christian. My whole family is Christian, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, everyone. All of my friends and their parents are Christians too. So naturally I grew up around a lot of conservatives and most likely Republicans. When they’ve heard about some stupid child welfare or education program I’ve heard a lot of them say things like “Who does the government think they are? Do they think they own our kids?”. And in the very next thought they express their firm belief that television, movies, video games, the internet, you name it, should all be censored to protect the children. I have a hard time seeing the difference between the two concepts. If they really are your kids and not the government’s, why do you rely on the government to make sure they don’t see mature content on TV? Do your job and monitor your child’s television habits. If there’s something on television that you don’t want them to watch, change the channel! If you let young kids sit down in front of the TV alone for hours on end, you’re a pretty lazy parent anyway.

“But Mike, if it weren’t for the FCC, we wouldn’t be able to watch ANYTHING on TV! It would all be trashy and obscene.”

Maybe. If so, get rid of the TV. You don’t need it. Your life would be better without it. You aren’t entitled to family friendly programming.

Age limits for tobacco and alcohol are stupid nanny-state laws too.

“BUT MIKE! If we make it legal for teenagers to smoke and drink how will they know it’s bad for them?!”

They’ll know because you taught them. In many countries in Europe, if you can see over the bar, you can order a drink. Yet it’s in America that teen acohol abuse is a big problem. Why is that? Because American parents are lazy. They’ve given up their responsibility to teach kids about alcohol to the government. And what the government does is just say “Don’t drink. It’s bad.” Any parent will tell you that if you tell a kid that something is bad, they’ll immediately want to find out what they’re missing. Their whole lives they are told not to drink because it’s bad without an explaination and what do they do with their first taste of freedom? They abuse alcohol.

In Europe, kids are taught by their parents at a relatively young age how to drink responsibly. As a result, far less European teens abuse alcohol than do American teens and it’s all because American parents have neglected their parental duties and relied upon the government to handle it.

So, traditional-values-Republican-parent, next time you feel the urge to yell at your TV, “Who gave the government the power to raise our kids?” Just remember: It was you.

You were the ones that set the precedent that the government should be in the business raising our children when you insisted that they clean up the airwaves to the detriment of the freedom of speech of others. If your give the devil an inch, he’ll take a mile. And now you are reaping the rewards.

If you want to raise your own children, then do it. Stop delegating some of your own parental responsibility to the state.

If you want liberty, you have to be willing to let other people have liberty too. And sometimes that means you’ll have to change the channel.