Early this morning a madman attacked a theatre crowd watching the latest Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises." So far their have been twelve confirmed deaths and fifty people wounded in this attack. No reasoning for the shooting has been deduced, but this is a tragedy in which another coward went to an area where they were confident no one would have weapons and conducted mass murder. These people were patrons simply attending a highly atticipated movie, they were mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and this slug walked up and gunned them down. The reasons why will be coming out in the news as more becomes known and the need to know "why" remains unsatisfied. Ultimately though, the reasons are irrelevant as this incident shows we still live in a dangerous world where nothing is entirely sacred or safe.
A person named James Holmes has been arrested for the shooting. A recent news release states the young man was from California, but had moved to Colorado to study medicine at the University of Colorado. People will no doubt assume this man was mentally unbalanced, and perhaps as more information is known that may be the case. As a college student though, and as a person who apparently conducted a fair amount of pre planning before this attack, I think this man knew exactly what he was doing. He was aware it was wrong and I believe that makes him competant enough to stand trial and to hopefully be sent to death row.
In the meantime, I would say that although these events make us feel that much more vulnerable, I hope people will still live their lives free. Don't let the actions of a mad man trap you in your homes. Don't let the actions of a mad man make afraid to go to public places. Live you life and have faith justice will prevail against this man, in this life or the next. As for me, I am going to the batman movie tonite as I have been looking forward to it's release for weeks. I hope to see many others there as well.
-Zach
Friday, July 20, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Obama and the Left's latest Attacks on Business
I remember hearing a story about a dozen years ago regarding Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo. The story took place during the filming for "Vegas Vacation." Anyway, whenever they weren't filming the actors were spending some time playing the slot machines at the hotels they were staying at. D'Angelo spent a good part of one day feeding a machine that never really paid out for her. The next day Chase was at the same machine and suddenly the machine was paying out jackpot after jackpot. D'Angelo was angry with Chase's success at the same machine she had been feeding so much and demanded Chevy pay her some of his winnings, claiming it was her feeding the machine the day prior which lead to his current success. Chevy reportedly denied D'Angelo this, rationalizing that if he was to pay her, than logically he would also owe money to anyone else who ever played that particular machine.
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Book Review: Ike's Spies by Stephen E. Ambrose
I picked up this book at an airport and figured it would be a good read. I wasn't disappointed, but one thing that did surprise me was that this book was written back in 1981. I did not pay enough attention to that fact prior to buying the book, but it took little away from the book, while adding the unappreciated fact that the author many times when referring to Eisenhower would actually refer to conversations he himself had with the former President and General. That kind of closeness and intimacy is rare when reading a historical account of events which transpired more than fifty years ago, but added considerably to my enjoyment of the book.
With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.
From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.
Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.
One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.
Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.
While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.
In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.
In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.
-Zach
With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.
From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.
Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.
One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.
Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.
While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.
In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.
In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.
-Zach
Friday, February 24, 2012
Santorum has appeal because of low unfavorability rating?
Listening to the radio today I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about how Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been boldly talking to the media about the so called contraception issue currently between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church.
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Republican Voters Stuck Looking for the next Reagan
Almost a year since my last post, let's see if I can try and keep up the high quality that was my commentary before my prolonged absence.
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
Monday, February 21, 2011
Obama and the protests in Wisconsin
Alright ladies and gentlemen, I am back, your humble correspondent, el rush..... o wait a minute. No it's just me, you humble little blatherer giving his two cents on events around the world that effect the US. This post will be dedicated to the situation in Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker is trying to pass through legislation that would require state workers to pay more into their pensions and insurance policies. The plan on the surface seems alright, but the controversial parts of it are that it would allow people to choose whether or not to join a union, and it would end the ability of the unions to negotiate pay raises and benefits for state workers.
On state workers being able to opt not to join the union I ask why not? If unions are so great and they are so valuable than they will survive easily. They no doubt will lose some dues, but that hardly seems worth the kind of outrage that is currently being displayed in Madison. People should have a right to decide what to do with their own money, they give enough often in state and federal taxes, why should they be forced to pay union dues as well especially when those unions often times are proven to be wasteful with said funds?
That said the other part of the spending bill does draw a good bit of ire, and that is this refusal of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. This appears to tie in with the first line above, if you allow the union to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, what does that mean for the non-unionized people? Should they get the raise even though they did not pay any dues? Should they be paid less for wanting to not join a union? The solution is to take the CBR off the table and leave it up to someone else to get the pay raises and make them universal for all state workers.
With that said you may ask why people would then want to join a union, what good does it do if it can't have the power to negotiate pay raises? Well to that I would say that they still act as an agent to protect the pensions and healthcare plans of their members. Those are no small things and I would suggest that it is more than fair to pass this state spending bill with an eye towards further cuts, and if Walker really wants to close the gap, a temporary or permanent tax of some kind. Yes, it's a key broken campaign promise but this spending bill is essentially "taxing" or requiring state workers to give back as it is, it should be matched my some measure in the private sector if it's all to be fair. Perhaps a additional nickle tax on gasoline, or cigarettes, or sales tax. Plenty of avenues here, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
In closing I want to highlight comments made by President Barrack Obama on the issue. He has called it an "assault on unions." An "assault" language like this again used by those who decry it after the tragedy at Tuscon, but I digress. The President again weighed in on a state issue as he did in Arizona's immigration bill and in a local matter as he did in the "beer gate" incident in Mass. Each time he has done this the results have not been favorable to him and I think this will be another one that hurts him in Wisconsin and among independent voters. The federal has racked up a huge deficit on his watch and it is something that voters are not happy about, attacking a governor who is attempting to close a budget gap will be political fodder against him soon after this is past in Wisconsin.
That's it for me, any comments from the peanut gallery?
-Zach
On state workers being able to opt not to join the union I ask why not? If unions are so great and they are so valuable than they will survive easily. They no doubt will lose some dues, but that hardly seems worth the kind of outrage that is currently being displayed in Madison. People should have a right to decide what to do with their own money, they give enough often in state and federal taxes, why should they be forced to pay union dues as well especially when those unions often times are proven to be wasteful with said funds?
That said the other part of the spending bill does draw a good bit of ire, and that is this refusal of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. This appears to tie in with the first line above, if you allow the union to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, what does that mean for the non-unionized people? Should they get the raise even though they did not pay any dues? Should they be paid less for wanting to not join a union? The solution is to take the CBR off the table and leave it up to someone else to get the pay raises and make them universal for all state workers.
With that said you may ask why people would then want to join a union, what good does it do if it can't have the power to negotiate pay raises? Well to that I would say that they still act as an agent to protect the pensions and healthcare plans of their members. Those are no small things and I would suggest that it is more than fair to pass this state spending bill with an eye towards further cuts, and if Walker really wants to close the gap, a temporary or permanent tax of some kind. Yes, it's a key broken campaign promise but this spending bill is essentially "taxing" or requiring state workers to give back as it is, it should be matched my some measure in the private sector if it's all to be fair. Perhaps a additional nickle tax on gasoline, or cigarettes, or sales tax. Plenty of avenues here, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
In closing I want to highlight comments made by President Barrack Obama on the issue. He has called it an "assault on unions." An "assault" language like this again used by those who decry it after the tragedy at Tuscon, but I digress. The President again weighed in on a state issue as he did in Arizona's immigration bill and in a local matter as he did in the "beer gate" incident in Mass. Each time he has done this the results have not been favorable to him and I think this will be another one that hurts him in Wisconsin and among independent voters. The federal has racked up a huge deficit on his watch and it is something that voters are not happy about, attacking a governor who is attempting to close a budget gap will be political fodder against him soon after this is past in Wisconsin.
That's it for me, any comments from the peanut gallery?
-Zach
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A Few Words on Egypt
Well unless you've been living under a rock you are aware that the dictator in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, has been removed from power in Egypt. Surprisingly he has been removed all due to peaceful protests that took place continually for 18 days. So far it is everyones hope that this leads to a transition towards a representative democracy in Egypt, the country with the worlds largest arab population and one of the best militarily.
Still some concerns remain. What role will the muslim brotherhood play in Egypt's future? They do not represent the majority in Egypt, but among opposition parties they are the best organized.
Will they, MB, attempt to usurp power turning the government into another Iran and likely sparking a war with Israel? While this is a possibility it would appear unlikely at this time. The muslim brotherhood would need to either develop military powers in a hurry, or gain sympathizers in the military, or both. Neither is likely though, the military junta that has taken power has stated that it will respect the treaty the country has with Israel. It does this in no small reason due to the foreign aid that the country receives from the US, at last count around 1.8 billion a year most of which goes towards military spending.
Right now the military has dissolved Parliament and states that it will run the country for the next six months until elections are held. Will they hold to this deadline and allow a transfer of power to a civilian government or will they seek to rule the country longer? Now this is the million dollar question. Before elections are held the country needs to draft a new constitution which will be put up for a vote. This is no small matter and if the political parties in Egypt can't do this than there won't be any elections in September. How the populace reacts here is anyones guess but should the constitution process drag out this peaceful process could become violent in a hurry which again would likely lead to a military crackdown and the military running the country for a longer period of time.
If they do get a constitution passed in time for elections in September I would expect the military to allow them to be held without interference. So long as there is little violence and the newly elected government respects the treaty with Israel and does not interfere with military spending I don't see many objections being raised.
What does new civilian leadership mean for Egyptian/Israeli relationships? That depends on the government. Best case scenario is a very secular leadership is elected and relations carry on much like they did before. Worst case scenario is a more fundamental islamic view of government takes place and we have the making for a very bloody war, maybe not now but within the next 5 years.
So that's my take on it so far. A lot of unknowns, but so far the process has been peaceful. Let us all hope that this continues.
-Zach
Still some concerns remain. What role will the muslim brotherhood play in Egypt's future? They do not represent the majority in Egypt, but among opposition parties they are the best organized.
Will they, MB, attempt to usurp power turning the government into another Iran and likely sparking a war with Israel? While this is a possibility it would appear unlikely at this time. The muslim brotherhood would need to either develop military powers in a hurry, or gain sympathizers in the military, or both. Neither is likely though, the military junta that has taken power has stated that it will respect the treaty the country has with Israel. It does this in no small reason due to the foreign aid that the country receives from the US, at last count around 1.8 billion a year most of which goes towards military spending.
Right now the military has dissolved Parliament and states that it will run the country for the next six months until elections are held. Will they hold to this deadline and allow a transfer of power to a civilian government or will they seek to rule the country longer? Now this is the million dollar question. Before elections are held the country needs to draft a new constitution which will be put up for a vote. This is no small matter and if the political parties in Egypt can't do this than there won't be any elections in September. How the populace reacts here is anyones guess but should the constitution process drag out this peaceful process could become violent in a hurry which again would likely lead to a military crackdown and the military running the country for a longer period of time.
If they do get a constitution passed in time for elections in September I would expect the military to allow them to be held without interference. So long as there is little violence and the newly elected government respects the treaty with Israel and does not interfere with military spending I don't see many objections being raised.
What does new civilian leadership mean for Egyptian/Israeli relationships? That depends on the government. Best case scenario is a very secular leadership is elected and relations carry on much like they did before. Worst case scenario is a more fundamental islamic view of government takes place and we have the making for a very bloody war, maybe not now but within the next 5 years.
So that's my take on it so far. A lot of unknowns, but so far the process has been peaceful. Let us all hope that this continues.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)