These are two responses from the Chinese government after articles that accuse the Chinese government of creating and maintaining elite cyber-armies that are capable of assaulting any foreign government.
“There is a ghost called the Cold War and a virus called the Theory of China’s Threat overseas,… Some people, possessed by this ghost and infected with this virus, ‘fall ill’ from time to time. Their attempts at using rumors to disgrace China will never succeed… It is the ghost and the virus that should be ferreted out” - Qin Gang (April 2009)
“Saying that the Chinese military has made cyber-attacks on the networks of foreign governments is groundless and irresponsible and are a result of ulterior motives” – Jiang Yu (September 2007)
BELOW is a piece of a conversation with a good friend of mine who has been in China for awhile now that started when Google started talking about withdrawing from China because of hackers.
Him:
I can't judge [Chinese] Gov't involvement [in international hacking], but I can smell change in the wind and its falling along national lines. There's momentum building in the U.S. against the Chinese hacking world. I'm worried that the US government is doing similar things, but we just don't know about it. I can't find anything about american cyber intellegence or american cyberarmies. Perhaps, that's because our gov't agencies do a better job of covering their tracks?
My Response:
As I understand it, the US has similar positions, but not nearly as many (kind of like everything in the US v China contest). I am lead to believe the Chinese hackers are more elite, but then again the US hackers could just be behind more complicated firewalls, creating the illusion that the Chinese are more adept.
The guy that works out of a military base and has his own blog about Chinese hackers seems to believe the US is totally unprepared for a cyber attack, and all signs suggest that he is correct.
The major problem in finding information about it is the natural secrecy and mystique of what hackers are actually doing makes the topic shaded at best. However, the most difficult problem being informed about International Secret Government Wars is that we do not know any solid information except what we see. Er go, if the topic is intended to be secret, then how can we believe the things we do see? This thought would suggest both governments have some kind of super double secret hacker armies, and that level of absurdity is difficult for me to believe.
What I think is that the Chinese are much better in this field, or at least ahead of the game. Considering the median age of Chinese officials being closer to 100 than 50 leads me to believe that the government is probably involved, but not heavily. The outspoken attacks on high profile U.S. government websites, and now Corporations, does not seem like an intelligent thing for a government to coordinate, as it shows the other player your hand. The hackers work against each other because that is where the challenge lies for them, but they do that without anyone telling or asking them to. Some of them probably work for the government giving them access to newer faster technology, but I doubt they are incited to use their job to go after the US in a professional capacity.
Then again, I always love a good Double Secret Hidden War of Data!
-E
There is plenty of information circulating about this right now, but The Dark Visitor has information going back years and he seems to be the most informed American on the issue. At least the most informed who is talking.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Back in Black! (Ok, so we're still in the red)
I'll begin by saying I do not even like AC/DC all that much, but that is not what I want to vent about right now.
I read this today and begin to think about exactly what could be done at this juncture to stop this money from being spent, or how to at least reclaim this kind of future investment (read: money we done stole from our kids) effectively. The answer I came up with is ironically what the banks are doing anyways by investing in other smaller assets to protect their own interests. Congress is irritated at Paulson for this fact, but since they gave him control of the $$$ and he has no real controls on how the money is spent after it leaves his hands then who is really to blame? How about the people who passed the damn thing?
Banks strengthening themselves with this money is the only way they will be able to pay it back, and if the banks are stronger then your investments will be stronger and eventually it will have a large enough impact on the economy to hit the consumer/homeowner/lender. At least that is my current thought.
-E
You'd probably do the same thing they are doing and so would I.
I read this today and begin to think about exactly what could be done at this juncture to stop this money from being spent, or how to at least reclaim this kind of future investment (read: money we done stole from our kids) effectively. The answer I came up with is ironically what the banks are doing anyways by investing in other smaller assets to protect their own interests. Congress is irritated at Paulson for this fact, but since they gave him control of the $$$ and he has no real controls on how the money is spent after it leaves his hands then who is really to blame? How about the people who passed the damn thing?
Banks strengthening themselves with this money is the only way they will be able to pay it back, and if the banks are stronger then your investments will be stronger and eventually it will have a large enough impact on the economy to hit the consumer/homeowner/lender. At least that is my current thought.
-E
You'd probably do the same thing they are doing and so would I.
Friday, October 10, 2008
So, I'm not the only one.
-E
i took care of it
-Z
Friday, October 3, 2008
They passed it alright
Well, I thought it would happen, but even being prepared for it does not make me feel better about it. 263-171 is a number to remember because it shows how inept our officials are if we give them enough time. Monday they turned down a very simple bailout plan that would have cost $700 billion, and now they are jumping in after the Senate threw some pork in there to the tune of another $112 billion. The POTUS signed this within 90 minutes, I guess he was in a hurry to get on vacation this weekend.
-E
I'm too disgusted to talk anymore about this right now.
-E
I'm too disgusted to talk anymore about this right now.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
"Help is on the Way(?)"
This November 31 senators will be up for re-election. Of these 31 senators 21 voted YES while the other 10 voted NO on the $700 billion ($700,000,000) bailout package. Other than highly suggesting that you, or anybody else looks to see where your senators voted, as well as your congressmen/women I suggest contacting them and letting them know how you feel.
I know in my state (Georgia) only 2 congressmen out of 13 voted yes and both Senators voted Yes. Someone explain the logic there? I have always considered the congressmen to have a better grasp on the voters because they have the opportunity to listen to constituents while Senators are simply stuck with voting party lines most of the time since their individual votes a bit more hefty, but. . . THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE ! ! ! It is blatantly apparent by looking at the split of 74-25 and seeing that there is no really clear cut decision that the two parties could come up with to separate themselves.
To keep it within my realm of understanding I am going to stick to my local example of my own state. 11 out of 13 State representatives voted NO against the bailout while 2 voted YES. The two that voted YES were Democrats. The two senators both voted YES and they are both Republicans. Can it make less sense? These people who are supposed to represent what We the People desire failed miserably at their one real task. I'm not here to suggest that the People are always right, or that we can even agree, but I think this one was a slam dunk for policy makers. Why not vote the way your constituents want you to? The answer is obvious for me. The representatives are up for reelection so often it probably makes their heads spin while Senators sit around for half a dozen years before having to campaign. The representatives did just what they were charged to do, for the most part, by nixing this thing out of the gate. It is an election year and they like to be reelected. Now the senate has spoken and they forgot how to listen. The Representatives will show up tomorrow and likely pass the same legislation that the Senate just did and we will have successfully, as the people, paid banks and stock brokers $1.5 Trillion ($1,500,000,000). What little thought process went into this is harrowing, and I hope the people remember this in 2 years when many more of these Senators are up for reelection. McCain's vetting process to pick Palin was probably slightly longer thought out.
Lets look at the other side of this poor reality in terms of how our economy is reacting to this "crisis." Bear Sterns failed, Lehman Brothers failed, Washington Mutual failed, AIG got bailed out, Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America, and Wachovia was bought by Citigroup, but it is worth mentioning that Well's Fargo AND Citigroup both wanted to buy Wachovia. So what exactly has happened? Well, a handful of companies that made terrible investments got hurt when their bets did not pay off and other companies in the same field were still in a position to buyout large banks. Certainly a $700 Billion more dollars for companies to invest would churn the market up allowing banks to go back to making loans and apparently. Would they be inclined to make good decisions this time around? I tend to not believe that in the slightest. If nothing else the next time the hens come home to roost they will only let it get WORSE and expect another bailout.
"Help is on the way," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. I just want to know exactly who this help is for.
-E
EDIT: The bill the Senate passed on top of the $700 Billion increases the FDIC backed money from $100,000 to $250,000. Do you have that much money in the bank or do you think it is for people who do not think much like the everyman? This is no longer the Wild West where people are actually robbing banks and you lose the money they take, this is the modern day where the Government robs straight from you and says put the rest in the bank they just kept afloat for safety.
I know in my state (Georgia) only 2 congressmen out of 13 voted yes and both Senators voted Yes. Someone explain the logic there? I have always considered the congressmen to have a better grasp on the voters because they have the opportunity to listen to constituents while Senators are simply stuck with voting party lines most of the time since their individual votes a bit more hefty, but. . . THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE ! ! ! It is blatantly apparent by looking at the split of 74-25 and seeing that there is no really clear cut decision that the two parties could come up with to separate themselves.
To keep it within my realm of understanding I am going to stick to my local example of my own state. 11 out of 13 State representatives voted NO against the bailout while 2 voted YES. The two that voted YES were Democrats. The two senators both voted YES and they are both Republicans. Can it make less sense? These people who are supposed to represent what We the People desire failed miserably at their one real task. I'm not here to suggest that the People are always right, or that we can even agree, but I think this one was a slam dunk for policy makers. Why not vote the way your constituents want you to? The answer is obvious for me. The representatives are up for reelection so often it probably makes their heads spin while Senators sit around for half a dozen years before having to campaign. The representatives did just what they were charged to do, for the most part, by nixing this thing out of the gate. It is an election year and they like to be reelected. Now the senate has spoken and they forgot how to listen. The Representatives will show up tomorrow and likely pass the same legislation that the Senate just did and we will have successfully, as the people, paid banks and stock brokers $1.5 Trillion ($1,500,000,000). What little thought process went into this is harrowing, and I hope the people remember this in 2 years when many more of these Senators are up for reelection. McCain's vetting process to pick Palin was probably slightly longer thought out.
Lets look at the other side of this poor reality in terms of how our economy is reacting to this "crisis." Bear Sterns failed, Lehman Brothers failed, Washington Mutual failed, AIG got bailed out, Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America, and Wachovia was bought by Citigroup, but it is worth mentioning that Well's Fargo AND Citigroup both wanted to buy Wachovia. So what exactly has happened? Well, a handful of companies that made terrible investments got hurt when their bets did not pay off and other companies in the same field were still in a position to buyout large banks. Certainly a $700 Billion more dollars for companies to invest would churn the market up allowing banks to go back to making loans and apparently. Would they be inclined to make good decisions this time around? I tend to not believe that in the slightest. If nothing else the next time the hens come home to roost they will only let it get WORSE and expect another bailout.
"Help is on the way," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. I just want to know exactly who this help is for.
-E
EDIT: The bill the Senate passed on top of the $700 Billion increases the FDIC backed money from $100,000 to $250,000. Do you have that much money in the bank or do you think it is for people who do not think much like the everyman? This is no longer the Wild West where people are actually robbing banks and you lose the money they take, this is the modern day where the Government robs straight from you and says put the rest in the bank they just kept afloat for safety.
Senate bailout bill
The Senate bill passed Wednesday night included measures that:- Allow Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to buy up to $700 billion in bad mortgage-related securities and other bad assets.
- Allow the Treasury Department to modify mortgage terms to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.
- Permit the government to receive equity in companies it helps so taxpayers get a share of any future profits.
- Restrict executive pay for companies aided by the program.
- Create an independent oversight board to oversee the Treasury Department program.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
An Honest Explantion From A Duck Who Earned It Square
Below is a selection from the May 1994 Uncle Scrooge Adventures comic. I used to read Duck comics when I was younger. The adventures were fun and the humor was dry. I always liked Scrooge the most. Recently, I found my old stack and read what seemed pretty poignant considering the current state of economic affairs in the US.
The excerpt below is taken from the wikipedia entry for Uncle Scrooge.
-Z
The excerpt below is taken from the wikipedia entry for Uncle Scrooge.
Carl Barks gave Scrooge a definite set of ethics that was in tone with the time he was supposed to have made his fortune. The robber barons and industrialists of the 1890–1920 era were McDuck's competition as he earned his fortune. Scrooge proudly asserts "I made it by being tougher than the toughies and smarter than the smarties! And I made it square!" It is obvious that Barks's creation is averse to dishonesty in the pursuit of money.Note that the author of the strip I've included is unknown, it could be Barks, but I don't think it is. Regardless, I hope you enjoy.
-Z
Monday, September 29, 2008
The House Defeated the Bill
Who would have seen this one coming? Not me, that is for sure. I am a negative minded individual especially when it comes to talking Congressional oversights on my wallet. I know, I know, I know, they are the ones who are supposed to watch out for my money and not trusting them is theoretically bad.
Our money, as far as I can gather, is based solely on the "trust" in the government which plays itself out via how strong our country appears militarily and monetarily i.e. big guns and big houses makes our dollar size bigger. Well, when it comes to trusting the government with my money I have not had a lot to look forward to. Since I could vote I've seen the government flush money down the drain in foreign wars that have done nothing for me feeling personally safe, nor make me want to be at war with anyone. The financial crisis we are in HAS to be at least partially blamed by the exorbitant amount of dollars we have been using to create craters in Afghanistan and Iraq with Patriot Missiles(freedom yay!). I am generally proud to be an American even if it means admitting I enjoy the thought that our militaristic member is larger and generally more effective than the rest of the world, but perhaps we can take a step back from all of these grandiose attempts to solve our problems and just fucking try to sit down with them before we bankrupt ourselves via war and poor policies.
Some unidentified terrorist organization attacked us so we invade Afghanistan and Iraq. 7 years later we are entrenched in a "war" that has no end in sight. When France fucked it up in Vietnam and retreated to get home to work on their falling economy we decided to pick up that loose end and were stuck there for a decade. Tell me how great the economy was in the 70s again. The supposed largest militaristic might in the world has failed to find Osama Bin Laden for 7 years now and as far as I can tell no one really cares to. Shrinking those operations might make it easier to find someone in hiding, because to date this large scale hubabaloo has only given us massive debt, many casualties and I guess we killed a bunch of terrorists who I do not even hear about until after they are dead. France figured it out in the 60s, but we were so afraid of Communism that we could not let it go, and we seem to have a similar mentality here only this -ism is terror and not commune. It is almost like America finds it important to impose their way of life on others even though we have no real right to; My guess is some early Americans might have revolted against this mentality.
So, here we are under the same administration that insists on walking loudly and constantly pointing out at how big our stick is telling us all to trust them on this big stick approach to fix the economy. We let them pass $800 billion at the end of July without saying a word. Now that went nearly unnoticed and without any resistance because WE DID NOT KNOW about it. This $700 Billion is pointed out early and it is pissing everyone off one way or the other. The Representatives listened to a public outcry and defeated it for now. Sadly, I have every expectation that they will turn this decision around and pass it eventually, but for now I will be content to tighten my belt and know tomorrow will be here without costing so much money.
-E
I'd like to formally apologize to the current administration for me not "Trusting" you because I feel it is important to our economy to do so, but give me one fucking reason to think that this administration has a clue on how to resolve this economic crisis without just throwing money at it with the hopes it will rebound, that is not a solution or a plan, it is an admission that you are clueless.
Our money, as far as I can gather, is based solely on the "trust" in the government which plays itself out via how strong our country appears militarily and monetarily i.e. big guns and big houses makes our dollar size bigger. Well, when it comes to trusting the government with my money I have not had a lot to look forward to. Since I could vote I've seen the government flush money down the drain in foreign wars that have done nothing for me feeling personally safe, nor make me want to be at war with anyone. The financial crisis we are in HAS to be at least partially blamed by the exorbitant amount of dollars we have been using to create craters in Afghanistan and Iraq with Patriot Missiles(freedom yay!). I am generally proud to be an American even if it means admitting I enjoy the thought that our militaristic member is larger and generally more effective than the rest of the world, but perhaps we can take a step back from all of these grandiose attempts to solve our problems and just fucking try to sit down with them before we bankrupt ourselves via war and poor policies.
Some unidentified terrorist organization attacked us so we invade Afghanistan and Iraq. 7 years later we are entrenched in a "war" that has no end in sight. When France fucked it up in Vietnam and retreated to get home to work on their falling economy we decided to pick up that loose end and were stuck there for a decade. Tell me how great the economy was in the 70s again. The supposed largest militaristic might in the world has failed to find Osama Bin Laden for 7 years now and as far as I can tell no one really cares to. Shrinking those operations might make it easier to find someone in hiding, because to date this large scale hubabaloo has only given us massive debt, many casualties and I guess we killed a bunch of terrorists who I do not even hear about until after they are dead. France figured it out in the 60s, but we were so afraid of Communism that we could not let it go, and we seem to have a similar mentality here only this -ism is terror and not commune. It is almost like America finds it important to impose their way of life on others even though we have no real right to; My guess is some early Americans might have revolted against this mentality.
So, here we are under the same administration that insists on walking loudly and constantly pointing out at how big our stick is telling us all to trust them on this big stick approach to fix the economy. We let them pass $800 billion at the end of July without saying a word. Now that went nearly unnoticed and without any resistance because WE DID NOT KNOW about it. This $700 Billion is pointed out early and it is pissing everyone off one way or the other. The Representatives listened to a public outcry and defeated it for now. Sadly, I have every expectation that they will turn this decision around and pass it eventually, but for now I will be content to tighten my belt and know tomorrow will be here without costing so much money.
-E
I'd like to formally apologize to the current administration for me not "Trusting" you because I feel it is important to our economy to do so, but give me one fucking reason to think that this administration has a clue on how to resolve this economic crisis without just throwing money at it with the hopes it will rebound, that is not a solution or a plan, it is an admission that you are clueless.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
You cannot spell Trillion without 12 zeroes.
Anyone else excited (*sarcasm) about our Guv`mint pulling out $1.5 Trillion ($1,500,000,000,000) out of their nether region for the sake of some people with bad mortgages and some banks that screwed the pooch. . . Did I mention that currently there are no plans on making these banks pay anything back for these bailouts? AIG is getting $85 Billion ($85,000,000,000) and not being asked to pay any of it back ever. Congress and the Feds are on the hook for the first $800,000,000,000 and Dubyah is pushing the next $700,000,000,000.
In short, this means that banks and investment groups and even some individuals who made risky investments and got completely burned by them are getting bailed out. Even AIG Executives and CEOs who were pulling in millions a year for doing a bad job. What exactly is bailing them out though since this money is coming out of thin air? Well, it is coming from everyone who made bad investments AND those who lived within their means. So, if you made millions doing a poor job investing you'll still have millions and you will be fine, maybe you will have less millions, but you still are better off than 95% of Americans. If you were making a modest living and living modestly you will be punished for the other's sins.
Imagine that Tom Cruise drove his porsche into a lake and decided to make some very risky business ventures to pay for that porsche only this time the Government is whoring you out instead of Tom. We might come out of this having avoided a sticky situation for Tom, but how come Tom still keeps his porsche and we just get boned by our adolecently minded "leaders?"
Now Johnny "POW" Mac and The O to the Hussein Bama are going up to Washington to do what? Curtail uneasiness in the market? Come up with alternate solutions? NOPE! they are simply going to create a bipartisan atmosphere in D.C. to help get this money printed.
BipartisanShip is a sinking one and I'm looking for rowboats.
-E
In short, this means that banks and investment groups and even some individuals who made risky investments and got completely burned by them are getting bailed out. Even AIG Executives and CEOs who were pulling in millions a year for doing a bad job. What exactly is bailing them out though since this money is coming out of thin air? Well, it is coming from everyone who made bad investments AND those who lived within their means. So, if you made millions doing a poor job investing you'll still have millions and you will be fine, maybe you will have less millions, but you still are better off than 95% of Americans. If you were making a modest living and living modestly you will be punished for the other's sins.
Imagine that Tom Cruise drove his porsche into a lake and decided to make some very risky business ventures to pay for that porsche only this time the Government is whoring you out instead of Tom. We might come out of this having avoided a sticky situation for Tom, but how come Tom still keeps his porsche and we just get boned by our adolecently minded "leaders?"
Now Johnny "POW" Mac and The O to the Hussein Bama are going up to Washington to do what? Curtail uneasiness in the market? Come up with alternate solutions? NOPE! they are simply going to create a bipartisan atmosphere in D.C. to help get this money printed.
BipartisanShip is a sinking one and I'm looking for rowboats.
-E
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The New Housing Bill
Ron Paul should be in charge.
The US House and Senate passed some bail out legislation at the end of July for the housing crisis that is possibly about to make my job very interesting. The initial report I got on it was from a City Director who just casually mentioned the bill did pass and it meant that we would be getting somewhere between $1-3 million to spend from this bill via the Federal government. The restrictions of these funds is the issue I have to overcome because they are fuzzy at best, but none of you will be interested in that. I am adding a link to Ron Paul explaining why this bill is a disaster, and I think he is dead on and I'm glad to hear at least 1 person in Congress say something, but it is impossible to stop the steamrolling lobbyist machines of the Republican and Democratic parties. We have an economic crisis since the housing bubble popped and the government, who claims to back a free market economy, is trying to fix it by pouring money on it with the same discretion the Bush administration buys missiles. Just wait, this money drops to the states in October and they are doling it out to the municipalities in November. They are also giving people 18 months to spend or have a projected allocation for the funds. Did I mention, it is $300 billion that is coming basically out of thin air? Ron Paul touches on the real problems inlaid in the legislation with regards to the Feds when he mentions the the $800 billion in securities they are allocating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy6SlUpbnIU
Icing on the cake for this is Bush threatened to veto it, but failed to do so because of party pressure. In a time when Presidents really show their true colors (the last year in office) Bush is still toeing the party line for no apparent reason.
The only thing that even remotely makes me happy about this is that John Kerry is the original sponsor of it (I'm pretty sure about that at least) and it makes me happy to know at least the last 4 years were not under his watch.
I highly suggest we all start ignoring our politicians and listening to people with a sound mind for understanding the "American Condition" such as South Park. This clip is from an episode right before the Bush v. Kerry election and is metaphorically showing what they thought about our options for POTUS. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154575
Does anyone feel any better about it now?
-E
P.S. Ron Paul's ideas on fixing the economy are brilliant and I'm terrified for the economy no matter who gets elected. I also still don't like Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, John McCain, or Barak Obama in that order of dislike.
The US House and Senate passed some bail out legislation at the end of July for the housing crisis that is possibly about to make my job very interesting. The initial report I got on it was from a City Director who just casually mentioned the bill did pass and it meant that we would be getting somewhere between $1-3 million to spend from this bill via the Federal government. The restrictions of these funds is the issue I have to overcome because they are fuzzy at best, but none of you will be interested in that. I am adding a link to Ron Paul explaining why this bill is a disaster, and I think he is dead on and I'm glad to hear at least 1 person in Congress say something, but it is impossible to stop the steamrolling lobbyist machines of the Republican and Democratic parties. We have an economic crisis since the housing bubble popped and the government, who claims to back a free market economy, is trying to fix it by pouring money on it with the same discretion the Bush administration buys missiles. Just wait, this money drops to the states in October and they are doling it out to the municipalities in November. They are also giving people 18 months to spend or have a projected allocation for the funds. Did I mention, it is $300 billion that is coming basically out of thin air? Ron Paul touches on the real problems inlaid in the legislation with regards to the Feds when he mentions the the $800 billion in securities they are allocating.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Icing on the cake for this is Bush threatened to veto it, but failed to do so because of party pressure. In a time when Presidents really show their true colors (the last year in office) Bush is still toeing the party line for no apparent reason.
The only thing that even remotely makes me happy about this is that John Kerry is the original sponsor of it (I'm pretty sure about that at least) and it makes me happy to know at least the last 4 years were not under his watch.
I highly suggest we all start ignoring our politicians and listening to people with a sound mind for understanding the "American Condition" such as South Park. This clip is from an episode right before the Bush v. Kerry election and is metaphorically showing what they thought about our options for POTUS. http://www.southparkstudio
Does anyone feel any better about it now?
-E
P.S. Ron Paul's ideas on fixing the economy are brilliant and I'm terrified for the economy no matter who gets elected. I also still don't like Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, John McCain, or Barak Obama in that order of dislike.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
on The 17th
Ratified in 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the way America votes for its senators in the federal legislature. Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution states:
Let's go on a journey. Let's pretend that the nations of Europe decided one day that it would benefit them to knit their nations together into one super-nation, let's call it the European Union. Each country would be represented in the daily legislative activities of the EU by people selected by each member country's government, to represent the wants and needs of those particular governments. The member countries people aren't out of the loop either; no, they were a part of the national elections that selected the government as a whole. The people cast their vote for their local representatives and the local representative chose one among themselves to represent them in the EU.
If the above situation looked familiar, that's because it was. That is similar to how it used to be. The states shouldn't be regarded as some antiquated part of the governmental system we live in. Think about it this way, the country we live in is supposed be a Union of States, not a homogeneous Union of People. Each state has a say in the course the Federal Government takes. Each person has a say too; it's at the local level. Good government filters up. If the only thing you are voting for is the Federal Election, you are missing all the elections in between that actually affect your daily life. If you want better roads, look to your county or state, not the federal government. If you need more schools, that's also your municipal government. It's amazing how many things we take for granted that ought to originate as local policy or legislation and not as federal.
When the 17th Amendment was enacted it took away some of the checks that the state governments had within the Federal Government.
I want to talk about war. Why do you suppose that a declaration of war has to filter its way through the Senate? Perhaps because each state has a vested interest when our entire country decides that there is a threat which must be pursued. If a state such as East Jimbob isn't entirely keen on war, the state government has the ability to let its senator know they want to vote against it.
The bicameral legislature is supposed to be an opportunity for the people to weigh in against the state governments. When the state governments are no longer a part of the legislative process, they lose their ability to protect their own sovereign rights as granted by the 10th Amendment. For example, the REAL ID Act of 2005 was a rider in a spending bill that requires all states to meet certain standards with their drivers' licenses. The cost of compliance is fairly large, in Maine the cost to the state is estimated at $185 million dollars in five years. Why the large cost? The Federal Government doesn't plan on subsidizing it. Maine's state legislature has voted to ignore the REAL ID Act; as have 19 others, including Georgia. Another 19 states have pending legislation that would also serve to block REAL ID. That's 78% of the states that aren't interested in what the Federal Government has planned. Amazingly enough, the REAL ID Act of 2005 had zero opposing votes from the Federal Senate.
The number of states that oppose REAL ID are enough to pass an Amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.Federal Senators represented the interests of the state prior to the 17th amendment.
Let's go on a journey. Let's pretend that the nations of Europe decided one day that it would benefit them to knit their nations together into one super-nation, let's call it the European Union. Each country would be represented in the daily legislative activities of the EU by people selected by each member country's government, to represent the wants and needs of those particular governments. The member countries people aren't out of the loop either; no, they were a part of the national elections that selected the government as a whole. The people cast their vote for their local representatives and the local representative chose one among themselves to represent them in the EU.
If the above situation looked familiar, that's because it was. That is similar to how it used to be. The states shouldn't be regarded as some antiquated part of the governmental system we live in. Think about it this way, the country we live in is supposed be a Union of States, not a homogeneous Union of People. Each state has a say in the course the Federal Government takes. Each person has a say too; it's at the local level. Good government filters up. If the only thing you are voting for is the Federal Election, you are missing all the elections in between that actually affect your daily life. If you want better roads, look to your county or state, not the federal government. If you need more schools, that's also your municipal government. It's amazing how many things we take for granted that ought to originate as local policy or legislation and not as federal.
When the 17th Amendment was enacted it took away some of the checks that the state governments had within the Federal Government.
I want to talk about war. Why do you suppose that a declaration of war has to filter its way through the Senate? Perhaps because each state has a vested interest when our entire country decides that there is a threat which must be pursued. If a state such as East Jimbob isn't entirely keen on war, the state government has the ability to let its senator know they want to vote against it.
The bicameral legislature is supposed to be an opportunity for the people to weigh in against the state governments. When the state governments are no longer a part of the legislative process, they lose their ability to protect their own sovereign rights as granted by the 10th Amendment. For example, the REAL ID Act of 2005 was a rider in a spending bill that requires all states to meet certain standards with their drivers' licenses. The cost of compliance is fairly large, in Maine the cost to the state is estimated at $185 million dollars in five years. Why the large cost? The Federal Government doesn't plan on subsidizing it. Maine's state legislature has voted to ignore the REAL ID Act; as have 19 others, including Georgia. Another 19 states have pending legislation that would also serve to block REAL ID. That's 78% of the states that aren't interested in what the Federal Government has planned. Amazingly enough, the REAL ID Act of 2005 had zero opposing votes from the Federal Senate.
The number of states that oppose REAL ID are enough to pass an Amendment.
representation
people need it like water
what about the states?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
http://mason.gmu.edu/~tzywick2/Cleveland%20State%20Senators.pdf
people need it like water
what about the states?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
http://mason.gmu.edu/~tzywick2/Cleveland%20State%20Senators.pdf
Saturday, February 9, 2008
on Representative Democrazy
When these United States were formed as an experiment in democracy, each state joined as an independent experiment in democracy. When the original 13 colonies became the 13 first states, they entered into a competition to see who could do the best job of implementing representational democracy. Some ideas were good enough that the other states began similar programs. However, other ideas were regional, where the utility of every state having the same program was low. In today's nation, it has become popular to pretend that every state needs the same programs. This is unfortunate because this nation wasn't founded to be completely homogeneous, it was founded to be multiple experiments in democracy. This nation needs competition and without it this nation loses what makes it so great.
protecting freedom
it's exhibitionism
when guns are involved
it's exhibitionism
when guns are involved
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
on These United States
What was wrong with these United States, and why did we try to fix them?
Well, what's wrong with them now?
Well, what's wrong with them now?
Why? What makes it so strong?
- Too strong a Federal Government.
What facilitated a change in the first place?
- Disregard for the 10th Amendment.
- Implementation of the 16th amendment.
- A national income tax coupled with paycheck withholding.
- No State Representation due to the 17th Amendment.
How can we readjust the United States so that it is a United States and not a United Peoples of America?
- WW II helped to bring federal politics to the forefront of the American political theater.
- The Cold War
- Growth of government through bureaus to "help" the American people do the things they've always done.
- Federally run education programs are a fast way to make teaching a science rather than an art. Teachers that have to focus on an end of course test aren't as free to build the curriculum for the class at hand.
- Take away the states power to officiate marriages.
- Institute a national sales tax, repeal the 16th Amendment.
- Re-enforce the 10 Amendment.
- Repeal the 17th Amendment
- Give the voting of Senators back to the State Governments, rather than the State populations; that's what House of Representatives is for.
start. cough. start. cough, cough.
vroom... the stars jump back. IMPACT!
it's dark. cough, cough. shit.
vroom... the stars jump back. IMPACT!
it's dark. cough, cough. shit.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
on Conspiracy
Only a conspiracy such as the constitutional convention could accomplish the government we have rejected.
No people would willingly vote away power and accept the reality of the checks and balances that we have rejected.
It takes a politician's pandering to destroy the very heart of what the founding fathers established in their treason.
I do not condone tyranny, but the idea of a true democracy is abhorrent. People are not ready for that amount of responsibility and never will be.
A people who are unwilling to make it their job to vote for local representatives to talk for them in government cannot be expected to vote on individual issues on a day by day basis.
No people would willingly vote away power and accept the reality of the checks and balances that we have rejected.
It takes a politician's pandering to destroy the very heart of what the founding fathers established in their treason.
I do not condone tyranny, but the idea of a true democracy is abhorrent. People are not ready for that amount of responsibility and never will be.
A people who are unwilling to make it their job to vote for local representatives to talk for them in government cannot be expected to vote on individual issues on a day by day basis.
automatic guns.
resisting the urge to run,
you will die for god.
resisting the urge to run,
you will die for god.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
