Should volunteerism be voluntary?

According the CNN, the House of Representatives passed legislation today that would greatly expand AmeriCorps as well as create other government sponsored volunteer organizations. In addition, it would create a program that would give small monetary compensation to the elderly if they completed 350 hours of volunteer work. A modest sum, admittedly. This bill also expands the educational stipend from Americorps to $5350, the same amount as a Pell grant. So, why should we care? Well, to start, I have to admit that I think people should volunteer. I think it is a valuable service to those around us. As a college student and a church member (there are other ways to volunteer, these are just from my experience) I volunteered to work with several organizations. Working on a house for Habitat for Humanity was very rewarding and educational since I am actually capable of doing most of the repairs on my own house because of some of the things I learned doing this. In college, I helped build a fence on a farm in central Texas. The people were very nice and it was a very rewarding experience for me because the people were very nice, the work was hard but worthwhile. It was just a fun day, even though we worked our butts off. Now, I do not want to minimize anyone's volunteer experience. If you choose to volunteer, AmeriCorps is probably just as good a place as a church or through a college program or however you manage to spend time helping others. However, volunteering should always remain a choice for the individual. I read this story and thought it was great. I don't really think the government needs to be involved in volunteerism, but of the things it does, this is very benign and very rewarding and tends to have few unintended consequences. However, I have read elsewhere that some of our representatives in Congress would like to create a program that would "require" one year of service for every young high school graduate. This kind of a program I would have a lot of problems with, not the least of which is its questionable constitutionality. Nonetheless, this isn't what this legislation does. My problems here are twofold. One, why are we providing compensation for volunteerism. Even though it is only 1000 dollars for 350 hours, that still kind of seems like it isn't really volunteerism. After all, that's 2.85 an hour. Certainly well below minimum wage, but significantly higher than 0, which is typically what a volunteer gets. After all, shouldn't someone volunteer because they feel strongly about the cause or because they want to help people? It should be because they want to do it. By providing compensation, it is true that you might increase participation, but I don't think it remains volunteer. The second problem I have here is that it seems it'll cost us, the taxpayer, 6 billion dollars over the next five years. That's 1.2 billion a year. Not a lot of money in a 3.6 trillion dollar budget, admittedly, but that isn't really my complaint here. Studies of the Great Depression have shown, contrary to what might have been expected, that charitable giving and volunteerism were at all time highs during this period. It suggests that during the toughest times, that the best comes out of people and they dig deeper into their time and their pockets to help others. Expanding volunteer programs at a taxpayer cost of 6 billion dollars ignores this reality, instead assuming that people will give less of their time and money during a recession/depression. It just seems to me that now is not the time. If you want to expand volunteer programs to help spur volunteerism, it should happen in good times, when people are less likely to volunteer, not now, when they will actually do it for free. I guess it comes down to the old adage of why pay for something you can get for free, especially when government spending is running amok anyway.

Why are we the only ones who can't see this?

Oh wait, it is just our government that can't see it. All I hear from people is that they don't think this is such a good idea. What am I talking about? What's happening to our money, that's what. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain has his own central bank telling him not to seek further stimulus because it will only hurt the economy and now we have the President of the EU, Mirek Topolanek saying that Obama's economic plans are a "path to Hell". Pretty strong statement for a European considering they've always been much more socialist than we have. Now, Russia, China, France and other countries have gone before the U.N. and made an attempt to uncouple the financial system around the world from the dollar. This hasn't even really made the news! Why would they do this? Well, because they've seen us print 2 trillion dollars in new money in the last couple of weeks, or is it days, and they can see the handwriting on the wall. This is bad business. It is bad policy. It is bad strategy. It is a path taken by the Weimar Republic after World War I. Don't know about this because history is so poorly taught in our country? Okay, well, after WWI, Germany was in shambles and the European victors had strapped them with so much debt (reparations) that the economy was awful. This "Republic" couldn't make enough money to pay off their debts, they couldn't do much of anything because of their debt. So, in order to pay off the debt, they printed money and a lot of it. By the time Hitler took power, Germans were literally pushing wheelbarrows full of money to the store just to buy bread. Then of course, it led to Hitler coming to power. Europe learned this lesson from that period and didn't do it again to Germany after WWII. Why is it that our leaders seem to think they can do the same thing and get away with it? It simply doesn't work. The ONLY way to get out of this recession (depression) is to tighten our belts, stop spending so much, cut pork and government programs (not create new ones) and allow companies to fail. This is how a capitalist system works. Once those things are done, we will begin to recover. Good luck recovering under this spend more than you have scheme that includes new programs and ill thought out schemes (such as cap and trade). These are more likely to lead us into bankruptcy as a country, not into prosperity. Why is it that so many people, and it isn't really just our leaders, can't see this!

Is this really worth advocating?

Today's USAToday ran a story about PlanB. This is a drug, that if taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex is very likely to prevent a pregnancy. The sooner it is taken, the more effective it becomes. It is commonly known as the morning after pill. Originally it wasn't allowed at all in the U.S., then it required a prescription, which admittedly made it harder to get since people's busy schedules would delay their going to a doctor. Then, a recommendation was made to make it available over the counter to people over 17. We could quibble about the age, but that doesn't make a lot of difference. This story is talking about people wanting to expand the availability of this drug to simply being an over the counter medication. The "Center for Reproductive Rights" is really pushing for this. The name of this organization is so PC, I can't tell ya. Nonetheless, are we really advocating giving over the counter access to children under the age of 17 to the morning after pill? Some even argue it is an abortion pill. I mean really, at least adults have the ability to comprehend their actions fully. Children? Not so much. After all, it is an over the counter medication for those over 17, so if a parent wants it so badly for their child, all they have to do is go buy it. The fact that the government requires a prescription for children doesn't prevent that, does it. So, the only real reason to advocate for expanded access to this drug is so that children can go out and buy it with their lunch money and hide their sexual activity and perhaps their pregnancy from their parents. That's what we are really talking about here. Just another way for the government to take the decision making about the health of your child away from the parents and assume it themselves, or even worse (as appears to be the case here), to give it to the children. Really? This is worth advocating for? I guess to the "Center for Reproductive Rights" it is. But for those of us who really believe that abortion is not birth control, this is not only not worth advocating, it is a despicable abuse over our individual and parental rights. Oh but you ask, "what about the rights of the child". Well, when I was growing up, it was made perfectly clear by our parents, our society and our courts that children's rights were limited at best until they reach 18. So, I don't want to here about the rights of the child. The rights of a parent take precedent unless that parent is abusing their child in some fashion. Anything else would undermine the role of a parent and therefore society and would create out of control and undisciplined children. Oh wait, that sounds familiar.

Equal opportunity hater

At least Hugo Chavez is consistent. The "President" tyrant of Venezuela continually criticized Bush for perceived offenses. Now we know it wasn't Bush he hated so much as America and Americans in general. After being, uh rightfully, criticized by Obama for exporting terrorists (can anyone say FARC rebels?) he calls Obama ignorant. Now, I've never been a fan of our current President, but I won't sit idly by while some leftist totalitarian insults him. I didn't care much for a lot of what Bush did and I criticized Chavez for his inane comments on our former President. Well, I certainly don't like a lot of what Obama has done so far, but I will be consistent as well and criticize Chavez for his comments on Obama as well. Obama called him an "exporter of terrorism". Well, when you arm, support and provide safe haven for terrorists such as FARC, what else would you like us to call you. I don't really care if Chavez wants to destroy his own people through his, now, clearly communistic and totalitarian ideology, but this is different. He is deliberately undermining the sovereignty of his neighbor, Colombia, simply because he doesn't like the fact that they asked us for help in combating terrorists. Hmm... sounds like Chavez is looking for an excuse for something to me. Oh what, oh what could that be?

Bills of attainder

A bill of attainder is defined as: a legislative act that singles out a single individual or group for punishment without a trial. Another definition is: a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. So, anytime Congress passes a law for any reason that would negatively impact a specific individual or group (basically punish them for something) without a trial, they have enacted a bill of attainder. Can they do that? Well, Article I, Section 9 (the section limiting the powers of Congress) of the United States Constitution states unequivocally, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." So, no, they can't do this. Ever. If they did, it would be a clear violation of the constitution. So, that brings me to a story I read on FoxNews.com today. It explained that Congress is looking at all the possibilities in dealing with the AIG situation, specifically recouping taxpayer dollars for bonuses paid out by the company. The fact that Congress hasn't even considered the possibility that they are simply wrong to be giving money to companies in the first place and would therefore have avoided this obvious conflict of interest doesn't seem to bother them at all. In fact, the story states: "Ten House Democrats introduced a bill Tuesday to tax all bonuses above $100,000 at 100 percent to recoup all the "outrageous" AIG bonuses. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that recouping a "substantial portion" through taxation is one of several viable possibilities. And Rep. Charlie Rangel, the Democratic chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, authored a resolution that would place a 90 percent income tax on bonuses for employees with family incomes above $250,000 for firms, like AIG, that received at least $5 billion in bailout money." Hmm... so, people who have legally binding contracts with AIG (who would have gotten nothing if the company had failed) are now being told that simply because the company doesn't know how to do business (which we should have all known already anyway) that they will now be singled out for excessive taxation. Um... that's a bill of attainder folks, pure and simple. If either of these two pieces of legislation were to pass and be signed into law, these people would be within their rights to sue (and probably would). If they did sue, it could be that they'd get even more money than the 165 million from the government, assuming they'd win, which they should. Not to mention the amount of money the Justice Department would have to spend to defend the government in the case. This is simply a disaster and PR nightmare for Congress that would most likely be decided just in time for the upcoming elections. This kind of thinking is derived from the thought that somehow the rich deserve to be taxed higher, just because they are rich. I'm not going to argue for or against that, I'm just saying that taxing this specific group of people is only being considered because of the amount of money involved. If Congress had proposed a bill of attainder for virtually any other group, the entire country would be up in arms over them overstepping their power and authority. Where's the outrage? Simple. We don't care because we think somehow they deserve it. Well, sorry to say that they don't deserve it. Congress, Democrat Christopher Dodd, specifically placed into the legislation a loophole that allowed AIG and other companies to do this. Even if they hadn't, are we as a people really ready to say that contracts are no longer valid and can be voided simply because Congress doesn't like the outcome? I mean, where is the logical conclusion to that? Oh right, a complete loss of constitutional rights to property and probably several other things I can't think of right now. This legislation should not be allowed and the President shouldn't sign it even if it passes. It is repugnant and a stain on the constitution if it were to pass. Why can't Congress figure out that the only reason there is controversy here is because of them. They are the ones who decided to bail out AIG. They are the ones who decided not to require cancellation of contracts (which would be legal under bankruptcy proceedings), and they are the ones who seem to have a complete lack of understanding of our financial system. It is them. Oh, by the way, they (whether Republican or Democrat) caused the housing bubble that resulted in the banking and credit crisis that resulted in AIG's failure. We have our own government's meddling to thank for our problems and for this scandal. They just don't see it.

Something good to say

I was asked recently if I had anything good to say about our new President. My response was that when he did something good, I'd gladly say so. So, my understanding is that the President has acted very presidential recently in regards to the AIG scandal. He is quoting as saying that "the buck stops here", the he is ultimately responsible. This I respect and the kind of thing I'd like to hear more often.

Don't believe these people anymore!

So, I also read today, in USAToday, that the Fed Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, thinks that we will avoid a depression and that we will show signs of recovering from the economic recession by year's end. Really?! This is one of the architects of the housing bubble, one of the architects of low interest rates which left us nowhere to turn when things went bad and one of the guys behind giving out billions of our taxpayer dollars to undeserving companies that should be allowed to fail. Why should I now trust his opinion. In fact, we have a bunch of politicians who seem to have suddenly changed their tune on the economy. Our President last week said things were awful, then a few days later turned around and said things weren't as bad as they looked! Oh really Mr. President? Which is it because you can't have it both ways. I know that trying to have it both ways is politically expedient. Perhaps someone finally pointed out to him that every time he made a speech full of economic gloom and doom, the markets reacted negatively. Uncertainty is the real culprit here. The President needs to decide which socialist policies he's going to put in place and get it over with. Only then, once the corporations know what set of rules they are playing under, can things begin to get better. This is unlikely to happen because the administration is clearly following the New Deal playbook, meaning they are trying anything and everything they can try. This only makes the problem worse because it achieves nothing except increasing the amount of uncertainty. This is why the markets react badly everytime the President makes a speech. Stop talking and stop trying to fix it and it'll get better Mr. President and Congress too. Of course, that advice is considered laughable by people in Washington, so they won't heed it. Therefore, prepare yourselves for a depression because these people don't know what they are talking about.

AIG, again!

Our country has given about 180 billion dollars of taxpayer money to AIG, because it is too big to fail and its failure would cause the failure of many others. Well, finally we are seeing just who AIG gave some of that money to. It seems we really are bailing out Europe as much as we are ourselves. You see, 4.1 billion to Societe Generale, 2.6 billion to Deutsche Bank. I mean really. In addition, AIG gave some of this money to companies like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. Isn't our government already giving these companies bailout money? Why should they also get a piece of the AIG pie? See, the problem with this whole bailout scheme is that it assumes that some companies/banks/etc. are too big to fail. That if we allowed them to fail, it would have ripples throughout the economy. Duh! That's what is supposed to happen. The economy can't heal itself if the chaff is left amongst the wheat. You have to weed it out. This happens through corporate failures. I'm so tired of hearing about how "our" money is being improperly spent. Well, if we'd have done what we should have done in the first place and not given any bailout funds, things would be hard and unemployment higher, I guarantee, but we'd be on our way to recovery now, instead of still on the way down.

Do we owe anyone an apology for economic crisis?

I read a very nice commentary on CNN.com today. It was a nice look at why we (I'm guessing anyone born after WWII should give our parents and grandparents who survived the Great Depression and WWII an apology. It is a nice sentimental message meant to illicit a guilt ridden emotional response from the reader. I have to ask this question though. Does the writer even understand the generation about which he is speaking? These are the people who learned the hard way that you can only rely on yourself. The government isn't the answer (although many think this is what they learned, it isn't) and investments aren't the answer, etc. These people came out of the depression and WWII with a belief that you have to take care of yourself and fight for what you believe in. Hmm... a bit of this attitude would be nice right about now. At any rate, they are notoriously known for being conservative investors, unwilling to take risks with their money. Therefore, the large majority of them have not been hurt by the collapse of the stock market. In fact, anyone who has aggressively invested money in the stock market at the age of 70 really didn't learn anything from the Great Depression, did they? They didn't even listen to financial advisers either. I'm sure there are some people of the older generation who have been hard hit by the economy, but not as the writer of this article suggests, because greedy Wall Streeters lost all their money. This is true for some of us, but unlikely to be true for the vast majority of people who survived the Great Depression. In addition, are these people not getting Social Security? Isn't the Social Security program the very thing the country created in order to allow the older generations peace of mind in their old age? Why are we supposed to apologize if these folks are, in fact, getting what they were promised? I know I can't rely on Social Security in my old age, so perhaps we should be apologizing to my generation for setting up a system destined for bankruptcy before I'll ever see one penny. I don't know. Times are tough, and there are some prosecutions that certainly need to be made in court, but I believe this "crisis" would have happened inevitably. You see, that's how a capitalist system works. There are good times and bad times. Sometimes you can do things that put off the really bad times (like we've done over the past 70 years) but you can't stave it off forever. So, I would argue that perhaps greed brought this thing on faster than it might otherwise have occurred, but it would have happened regardless, so really Mr. Greene, who are you kidding?

The U.S. Constitution

I thought I'd take an occasional look at our constitution. See what it actually says! So, article I, section 1-5 (of 10), the Legislative Branch:

Section 1 - The Legislature
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

This is an important statement, not to be taken lightly. It specifically states that the powers given to Congress in the constitution are vested in Congress, meaning nobody else has that power.

Section 2 - The House
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Okay, so what is important here? 1. The famous 3/5 compromise. A real stain on the constitution, but the only possible outcome at the time if union if what they were after. 2. We do continue to follow the procedures and requirements for election stated here: 25 years, elections every 2 years, citizen for 7 years and be an inhabitant of their state. 3. The House has the sole power of Impeachment. No matter how much any of us might dislike a President or find his/her actions reprehensible, only the House can call for impeachment. Not the Senate, not us, not the Judiciary, the House of Representatives, period.

Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; (and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 17th Amendment, section 2.)

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

There are some real important things to remember here. 1. The Senate was designed to be the representative of the states to the federal government. The House of Representatives is called the people's house for a reason. That is because the Senate was supposed to be the states house. Now, the 17th amendment changed that, making the Senators elected by the people instead of the states. This is a very important development considering it meant that the state's role in federalism was hugely diminished, specifically in foreign policy since the Senate's role of approving treaties was important in regards to state permission. Since the Senate is now elected by the people, the states no longer have a say in government or in foreign policy, in reality. 2. The rules for being a Senator also remain the same and are pretty much enforced. 3. Contrary to recent statements in the media and by our current Vice President, the constitution makes it very clear here that the Vice President is the President of the Senate (which means he runs things) and does have a vote in the event of a tie. This is a much greater role for the Vice President in the legislative branch than current wisdom would argue. 4. The Senate is responsible for trying an impeached individual. This could be a judge, a Congressman or a President, anyone elected or appointed into public office basically. It is very important that 2/3 of the body vote guilty in order to remove someone from office. In fact, our founders made this process intentionally difficult.

Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall (be on the first Monday in December,) (The preceding words in parentheses were superseded by the 20th Amendment, section 2.) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

This is a nice little section that doesn't really effect much. In other words, you won't find any controversy over this section.

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

I find it interesting that this section talks about qualifications and ability to sit or remove members. If 2/3 of the House or Senate vote to remove a member, they can do so. They can also discipline a member through unspecified means, this is usually a censure statement of some sort. I do find it extremely interesting that the constitution does not give Congress the power to censure the President, which means they can't and shouldn't have done it, but they have. Finally, this section refers to publishing what goes on in Congress. This is done pretty well through the Congressional Record, although it says that things deemed to be secret can be edited out, but members of Congress edit their remarks on a fairly regular basis before they are entered into the official record. Hmm... I guess Congress doesn't think secrecy is required after all? That's obviously not constitutional. The last thing mentioned here is adjournment. Each house of congress must give permission to adjourn for an extended period of time. I guess they follow this rule. In reality, they just get together and decide it, which is fine, there is no constitutional stipulation about how they should do this, just that they need to do it.

So, not too much controversy in the first half of the legislative section, except that Congressional power is limited (which our Congress doesn't believe) and that whole Vice President thing, not to mention who the Senate was really meant to represent before we changed it (at least we changed it constitutionally which is more than I can say for a lot of stuff).

Interesting what was said here

There's been a lot of coverage of Obama's first 100 days, or first 50 actually, so far. This isn't unusual really. I do find this Reuter's summation of his actions to date to be rather interesting. Not even so much for what it said, but for what it left out. It only mentioned those things they felt were positive. Hmm... At any rate, here is what Reuters had to say about the developments since he took office:

* Obama, a Democrat, was able to gain swift passage in the Democratic-controlled Congress of a $787 billion economic stimulus plan, signing the bill into law on February 17, less than a month after taking office. The aim is to create or save more than 3 million jobs.

Umm... I think we all knew he's a Democrat!

* So far, his efforts to stop the bleeding in the U.S. economy have not had an impact on turning around the recession he inherited. The U.S. unemployment rate shot up to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since 1983, as the economy continued to hemorrhage jobs at a rate of more than 600,000 a month.

Had to point out it was inherited eh? Of course it was, but when is it going to be Obama's economy? Every President eventually gets labelled with everything they inherited, whether deservedly or not, at least that's how it has always been in the past.

* The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen from about 8,000 points on January 20 to 6,866 points at midday on Tuesday, a day the stock market was on a rare surge.

Yeah, he didn't make a speech about how awful the economy was on Tuesday. That seems to help.

* Largely fulfilling a campaign pledge, Obama has put in place a plan to end U.S. combat operations in Iraq in 18 months while drawing complaints from some Democrats for saying he will leave up to 50,000 combat troops there. He has ordered the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan to bolster the military presence against a strengthened Taliban.

I'm with him on Iraq, conceptually, but not Afghanistan. Just saying...

* Obama has signaled he wants to move early to follow through on his campaign promise to engage Iran. His administration has invited Tehran to participate in a conference on Afghanistan later this month.

Yes, this is smart. Let's ask the extremists how best to handle the extremists.

* Obama and his economic team are preparing for his trip to attend the Group of 20 leading economies summit in London in early April. He is also planning a visit to Turkey to confer about Iran.

OK

* The president proposed a huge $3.55 trillion budget that funds Democratic priorities and would generate a $1.75 trillion deficit for fiscal 2010, drawing fire from Republicans who voiced concern about rising deficits.

Don't even get me started on this. How on Earth can you propose a budget with a deficit almost as large as our total annual income and then make a speech about lowering the deficit in half?

* Obama launched an effort to overhaul the costly U.S. healthcare system with a summit that drew bipartisan praise from its participants, with the goal of reaching an agreement this year.

You really want to fix the healthcare system, you've got to get the government out of the business, not make things worse, this is just gonna drive costs up. Oh wait, but you might not see higher costs, you'll just be paying higher taxes. Same difference.

* He has taken steps to advance his proposal to tackle global climate change, sketching out some estimated revenue the government could receive from requiring companies to adhere to emissions caps.

Yes, tax energy companies to the moon and see them pass that tax on to consumers. This is really smart, especially considering the President is tackling a non-existent problem.

* Obama filled out his Cabinet with several mainstream establishment figures, such as Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Robert Gates as defense secretary and Lawrence Summers as chief White House economic adviser. But the administration has been criticized for its slowness in filling deputy and undersecretary positions at key agencies like the Treasury.


Yeah?

* Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner got past some tax problems to gain Senate confirmation, while Tom Daschle's bid to become Health and Human Services secretary could not overcome tax issues. Republican Senator Judd Gregg withdrew from consideration as commerce secretary, citing political differences with the Democratic president.

Yes, it seems that many people in his cabinet and other appointments don't know how to pay their taxes (that's me being generous).

So, what am I talking about they didn't cover anything negative. As far as I'm concerned there hasn't been much positive, but here's what you didn't find in the article:
1. Executive orders to remove restrictions on government funding for abortions overseas and to remove restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research.

2. An executive order to close Guantanamo Bay (without a plan to put them anyplace else), even though we are now finding former detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq who are fighting us again. Seems maybe keeping them there until after the fighting was over might have been a smarter idea after all?

3. Giving his first official news interview with an Arab television station. Wonder how that looked to our friends in Israel.

4. Snubbing our greatest ally by not having a dinner or a joint press conference and by giving them a pack of dvds. Sorry, a dinner and press conference is normal for a visiting head of state so we should be going out of our way for a visit from our greatest ally, right?

5. Betraying our Eastern European allies in the name of getting help from Russia to solve the Iran crisis. Oh yeah, turn out backs on our newest friends who actually know the value of freedom having lived under Soviet rule while our western friends turn their backs on us and freedom (of course we are doing the same thing so...)

6. Finally, saying he'd talk with the "moderate" elements of the Taliban. This is a group that desires strict Sharia law be implemented, not just in Afghanistan, but around the world. What really does anyone have to say to them?

So, disagree with me on my assessment of the President's first 50 days, that's fine, but something has sure gone and caused his approval ratings to drop 15 points. Sure, he's got the highest approval at 50 days since Reagan, but I doubt any President before him had a 75 percent approval to start, so he really had nowhere to go but down, I suppose.

The end of global warming as we know it!

The Discovery Channel published a story today describing a new study in "Geophysical Research Letters". It talks about how global warming is taking a hiatus and might take about 30 years off despite rising carbon dioxide levels. In fact, it talks about how scientists are confounded by the global climate since temperature levels should have increased by .2 degrees celsius over the last ten years, but has instead remained stable, steady or, as it was put in the article, have flatlined. Some even argue the temperatures have gone down, but that doesn't really matter. I thought the science was settled, that there was consensus. In fact, this article continues to make those claims regardless of mounting evidence to the contrary. My point is this. Man made climate change has now moved from plausible to laughable in my book.

Obama's new deal!

The New Deal is hailed as one of the greatest achievements of FDR and the ideals of Keynesian economics. However, many people refute that the New Deal was all that effective and some go so far as to say it actually prevented our recovery, held us back. These are arguable points for certain, but now, we are blindly moving forward based on the assumption that the New Deal worked and not giving any credence to those who claim otherwise. Those who do so are not just Republicans and conservatives, fyi. At any rate, the New Deal had a political symbol designed to let everyone know that a certain project or company was supporting the New Deal or receiving funds from it. That symbol looked like this:

Now, I go to the website for Obama's recovery effort, our new "New Deal" and see this banner:

Nice to know that imagery is still considered effective. In fact, I saw this image as well, purportedly to serve the same purpose as the original New Deal posters:

You'll see in these images some real similarities. After all, they serve similar purposes. The New Deal image is of an eagle, representing the great American eagle symbol we've all come to know, holding a cog in one talon and electricity in the other with the words "We do our part" across the bottom. This is clearly meant to get people on board with the New Deal by appealing to their baser instincts and desires to make America better. The second image is interesting. It uses the blue field of our flag to gain similar imagery as that of the eagle (I think this is less effective) and also uses a cog on one side representing as in the original image putting people to work. Finally, there is a leaf in a green background, a very common symbol for going green representing our changing over to a more green society, ironically away from the energy based imagery of the New Deal image. The really striking thing about this image though is not that it resembles New Deal imagery, that really is to be expected, but that it's circle shape and design clearly invokes imagery of the O stickers from the Obama campaign. So, this imagery goes a step further than FDR's image in that it actually tries to relate the image to the President, as opposed to America. Finally, we have the third image. It has similar themes to that of the other images, including the same negative issues I see in associating the entire thing directly with the President. However, there is one disturbing addition to this image, assuming it is really part of the program at all. That is the pointing hand coming out of a red background. While I'm sure this is meant to share imagery with uncle Sam and is supposed to have a similar effect as the "we do our part" words on the original image, suggesting the government wants "you" to do your part, again playing off the uncle Sam imagery, I did not get this as my first impression. Instead, my first impression was see an accusatory hand pointing at me and saying I was not doing my part, or worse yet, the image of someone from Soviet Russia or even the McCarthy era saying, "he is the one, he did it" when in fact there was no evidence to back it up. In other words, it struck me as a totalitarian/authoritative like image. So, all hail the new New Deal, if you don't, you're part of the problem. That's the political message I received from this. This imagery (propaganda) could have been so much better and so much more effective (see FDRs propaganda image above), instead, they just had to politicize it.

Oops!

Okay, this was just too funny to not mention. CNN announces Northwest Airlines will be serving penis as a snack, er, peanuts. Not only did she mess it up once, but several times. Here's the video link on YouTube.

The ineptitude of the United Nations!

Here is another perfect example of why the U.N. is now and forever will be an inept institution. As long as countries are able to prevent action on issues, whether those countries be Libya, Russia, France or even the U.S. simply because it might harm their interests or their biases, the U.N. simply can't function.

Bush a constitutional violator!

USAToday is reporting today about the release of many Justice Department documents written during the Bush administration. These documents clearly show that the Bush administration and the Justice Department were struggling with first and fourth amendment rights following Sept. 11, 2001. The story also points out that the administration eventually abandoned most of these positions. The sorry truth is that Bush, and every, I'll say it again, every, wartime President before him has violated the Constitution of the United States in the name of keeping us safe or protecting the nation or national security. This is not a new phenomena and in the end, every President who has done so has been largely repudiated by the Supreme Court, usually after the end of the war. At least with Bush, the Supreme Court bothered to do their job during the war. Still don't believe me? Here are some examples: Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, Wilson arrested dissenters and had them imprisoned, FDR, well, can we say Japanese internment, During the Korean conflict, we had de facto Presidential support for people like McCarthy, then during the Vietnam era, well, that's the Civil Rights era as well, anyone really want to challenge that the constitution wasn't being violated then? Of course, maybe not by the Presidents, but nonetheless, wartime violations. So, it is actually quite common, not the exception that modern day politicians would have you believe. Do I like it? Absolutely not, but I do prefer that people be honest about it. In fact, the sweeping powers that the Justice Department documents refer to are only a pen stroke away. I addressed in an earlier post all the onerous executive orders that could be enacted with a single stroke of a pen. You think Bush was bad, wait to see what would happen if a President decided to do that. So, I agree Bush was wrong, but no more wrong than any previous wartime President and I wish people would be honest about that. However, with each wartime President, the powers of the executive have been expanded until now the President is more powerful than the constitution and our founders intended. This has got to change, but it won't. It will go on and on until one day, we'll have a President who will just ignore the legislature and perhaps the courts entirely. Think that can't happen here? Guess again.

Betraying allies in a different way!

Fox news reported today that Obama sent a letter to the Russian President saying that the need to place a missile defense shield in Europe would be unnecessary if they, Russia, helped us solve the Iranian nuclear crisis. Okay, I get that he wants diplomacy to work but I want to give you a little history lesson. Ronald Reagan did something very smart to win the cold war. He knew that the missile defense shield we were working on would not work for a very long time, but he never let the Soviet Union know that. In fact, they were desperately trying to get him to give up on missile defense and he consistently refused to do so. This, in conjunction with other acts, were designed to get them, the Soviets, to spend money they couldn't afford. It drove them into bankruptcy trying to keep up with us in military spending and technology. At any rate, Clinton killed missile defense and Bush reinstated it. So, I'm not really surprised that Obama would give up on missile defense, even though it actually appears that it could work now. Nevertheless, right or wrong, the Bush administration made a promised to several of our European allies, Poland and the Czech Republic among them, that our missile defense technology would be deployed in their countries to help protect them against rogue states. So, I ask, did Obama inform those countries of his letter to the Russians? After all, between Russia and Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic saw some of the most horrible abuses of the twentieth century. I wonder how their leaders feel today. They've been significantly better allies to this country than our "traditional" allies who have worked hard to undermine us rather than help us over the last nine years. I'm sure they feel betrayed today. Whether the shield works or not isn't the point here. The point is that we have cultivated a strong relationship with the eastern European countries after they gained their freedom from the Soviet Union. So, now, it seems that the President, who campaigned on repairing our image overseas and working closely with our allies, doesn't value those relationships, but instead would rather work with our "old traditional" allies and our former enemies in order to make a threat go away. Build missile defense and it doesn't matter if Iran can deliver one by a missile to us or any of our allies. Give it up in exchange for "help" from Russia makes our allies more vulnerable. This includes Israel, and our western European allies, not just those eastern European ones. Of course, I actually doubt that we'd even continue to build it. The economy is awful and this is a logical place to cut spending. It is a convenient target. Missile defense doesn't solve true terrorist threats, but it would help against rogue states. In the end, none of this really matters much. But Obama has just betrayed our allies just as he has consistently accused Bush of doing, he just managed to do it in a completely new way.