A Response to "Energy"

I agree with Blaine in that we need to do something about the fuel situation. We rely so much on oil, that we(the country) don't care how much it costs or the effects that it will have on the world. What we need to do is to find an alternate source of renewable fuel that we can use instead of depending so much on imports of oil.

Reasons for National Debt

The United States spends a lot of money on maintaining its position as a world power. However, since we do not make more money than we spend, we end up borrowing most of the money we use from other national powers(France, England, etc) and other rich countries(the Middle East). As a result, our nation debt is extremely high(over 9.5 trillion).

There are many factors contributing to our need to borrow money from other rich and influential countries. A major factor is that we import more goods(ranging from unimportant items, that we don't even need!, like toys to important commodities, that we can't bear to live without, like oil) than we export. The problem is that most of these imports are in high demand so we import them regardless of the cost.

Another of the major factors is that we spend an excessive amount of money during wars, whether they are necessary and official or not. Pointless wars waste time, money, and man power when they could be used elsewhere effectively. The problem is that we NEED to participate in these, wars in order to save face, prove supiriority, and help countries that DO NOT want our help to hopfully recieve their help when we need it, or to allign themselves with us so they don't oppose us in the future.

Another, and possibly the most important, factor and major reason why the national debt is so high are the pork barrel projects that senators bring home in order to ensure their re-election. These pork barrel projects are extremely costly and they only help the state in which the senator works lives in as an individual, rather than the nation as a whole. The problem with this is that, even knowing that pork barrel projects are costly(and sometimes seemingly useless), no senator will willingly cut, trim, shelve, or stop their project for fear of losing their position in government.

A Response to "Death upon Texas"

I believe what you say is true and that we need stricter laws and a swifter death penalty. However, I disagree with your "immediate death sentence" idea.

There are times when a person accused of murder is innocent. If we use your "immediate death sentence" idea, then the innocent person is executed unjustly.

I agree that the death penalty needs to be swifter, but not immediate. I think that the death sentence should be a year or so after conviction in order to review the case and make sure that the accused is not innocent.


http://bnationalreport.blogspot.com/2007/10/death-upon-texas.html

The War on "Terrorism"

I believe that we should pull our troops out of the middle east and end this "war" immediately. There is no reason to remain in Iraq. The reason this war was started was because we need a scapegoat for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Immediately after the 9/11 bombing, we wished to go to war against those responsible for the bombing but had no idea who did it. We only went to war against the "terrorism" in Iraq because the president told us they were responsible.

The president picked the middle east as the attacker because it was "suspected" that Osama bin Ladin was behind the attacks and was taking refuge there. While in the middle east we also fought Saddam Hussein's armies as well. While I believe that we should do what we can to stop terror, I also believe that we should think rationally about what to do before taking such a dramatic step as war.

I believe that a deciding factor in going to war against "terrorism" in the middle east was because that is where most of our oil comes from. By fighting "terrorism" in the middle east, we protect president Bush's investment in the oil. And because he is still president, we continue to fight this costly war which really gets us nothing.

When we fought World War II was fought, it was to prevent Adolf Hilter from taking over Europe and the spread of Communism. We got involved when Japan, one of Hitler's allies, bombed a U.S. outpost, Pearl Harbor. It was with our help that we stopped Adolf Hitler and it cost us roughly $600 billion. It was well spent to prevent Hilter from ruling Eurasia.

This war in the middle east is costing us around $500 billion against an enemy that we believe was responsible for the 9/11 bombings. However, we started this war because president Bush said they were responsible. It seems like a really bad idea to continue this war based on the word of a power hungry president who has shown us time and time again that he has made bad decisions in the past.

Bush's Attempt to Increase Presidential Power

President Bush and his team ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which requires a warrant to intercept international communications involving anyone in the United States, to grab more power for its vision of an imperial presidency. When Bush was exposed, he still refused to stop. He claimed that FISA was too limiting for the Internet-speed war against terror. But he never explained those limits and rebuffed lawmakers’ offers to legally accommodate his concerns.

When Congress attempted to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, President Bush’s lawyers made it work for them. They added dangerous additions to a bill being rushed through Congress before the recess. When the smoke cleared, Congress had fixed the real loophole, but because of the additions to the bill, also endorsed the idea of spying without court approval. It gave President Bush legal cover to more than five years of illegal spying.

When the law expires, the bill will be fixed properly. However President Bush wishes to place the “checks” under a few individuals giving the president power over the issue. However, giving such power to any president would be un-American.

President Bush says that the law should give immunity to communications companies that gave data to the government over the last five years without a court order because they should not be punished for helping to protect America. Bush’s real goal is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he authorized after 9/11.

One reporter said, "Ever since 9/11, we have watched Republican lawmakers help President. Bush shred the Constitution, the very thing that governs us, in the name of fighting terrorism. We have seen Democrats agree or retreat in fear. I believe that it is time for that to stop." I completely agree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

The Effects of the United States' Show of Militaristic Might

In 1953, the Air Force's Strategic Air Command began a systematic and sustained campaign of harassment and intimidation by launching planes and penetrated Soviet Union airspace, “probing for weaknesses in radar defense.” Some planes were nuclear-laden long-range bombers that would head for Moscow, but at the last minute, turn back. Some squadrons of B-47 Stratojets flew in attack formations deep in Siberian territory during broad daylight. One pilot said, “With any luck, we could have started World War III."

In retaliation, the Soviet Union began to build an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, the person in charge, was given a blank check for the building the IBCM. In 1957, The unveiling of the Sputnik, a tiny Soviet Union satellite on which the ICBM was placed on, demonstrated Russia’s air superiority.

By flaunting our air superiority at the expense of the Russians, they retaliated by starting a crash program to build an ICBM. While we cut our budget for missiles and expanded our budget for bombers, we lost air superiority to the Russians when the Sputnik was launched. By placing a missile interceptor shield in Poland instead of in Central Asia were it was publicized to be, Russia resumed the global patrols of its nuclear bomber fleet, tested a new "father of all bombs" and fast-tracked development of a new-generation ballistic missile capable of evading U.S. interceptor shields. What would have happened if we didn’t do these things?

If we didn’t flaunt our air superiority, the Soviet Union wouldn’t have built an ICBM and launched the Sputnik. If we didn’t shift our budget towards bombers, we might have been able to have regained air superiority by building an ICBM of our own. If we had announced what we planned to do with our missile interceptor shield or placed it in Central Asia like it was supposed to and trusted Russia not to launch any missiles, they wouldn’t have resumed the global patrols of their nuclear bomber fleet, wouldn’t have tested a new “father of all bombs” or fast-tracked the development of a new-generation ballistic missile capable of evading U.S. interceptor shields.

By choosing such militaristic routes, we have sped-up the militaristic advances of Russia. If we had carefully weighed the options and effects they would inevitably bring, we might have avoided this outcome.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-brzezinski30sep30,0,7479398.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Bush Selects Ex-Judge as Attorney General Nominee

This posting is about Bush selecting an ex-judge as an Attorney General Nominee. The ex-judge is Mukasey who will hopefully replace Gonzales as Attorney Gereral. One reason to view this link is to learn more about Mukasey's backround and abilities.

Many people, including presidential canidate Rudolph W. Giuliani and Republican Party General Chairman Mel Martinez, belive that Mukasey is the right person for the job. Mukasey has spent nineteen years on the federal branch and is known for his expertise on national security issues. One of the trials Mukasey prisided over was of Omar abdel Rahman and other people in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091700515.html?hpid=topnews