It really is amazing how much Obama-lovers, hardcore Democrats, and hardcore Republicans will continually deny the fact that every last one of their candidates is bought and payed for by some lobbyist or lobbying corporation. As long as lobbying is legal or unmonitored, corporations and wealthy people that have interest will continue to donate large sums of money to political campaigns so that these politicians will remember them and make laws or loopholes to benefit them once they are in office.
The problem here is now starting to show its ugly face in America. That problem is that small businesses are getting snuffed out. Small businesses are the ones that get things done. Large corporations and the government are bureaucracies and bureaucracies take a long time to get anything done. Why they get nothing done will be left for another post.
I'm going to continue to preach the Libertarian mantra on this blog and that means that I am about to say once again, vote out Democrats and Republicans next election. We don't need greedy, war-mongering morons like George Bush or over-emotional, snake-like liars like Obama who can't keep his word about anything.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Banning Things Doesn't Work: Part 2
Related Articles:
WESH Orlando
Govtrack
I know most of my rants about things be banned by law were about drugs, but I did have an earlier post about the possibility of banning exotic pets. I talked about the Burmese python population in southern Florida and the Everglades because of people releasing their pets into the wild. Well, as usual it seems the government is doing the wrong thing. Instead of trying to hold these inconsiderate, uninformed pet owners accountable, they plan on taking away all of our rights because of a few morons.
Welcome to H.R. 669. What a surprise that the sponsor is a Democrat. A whole load of pets are in question here including hamsters, guinea pigs, and other popular rodents. Of course, my concern is with exotic snakes, which I do keep and I keep them well. People like me who keep them well and don't abuse our rights should be allowed to do as we wish. If you really want to fix this problem, make an accountability system. Charge $25 dollars to take a quick knowledge test for whatever variety of pets you wish to own. This test should demonstrate that you know basic care and why you shouldn't release these animals. All you have to do is have a simple registration system with this and just the fact that you have to pay a small $25 dollars and know a little bit will change how many people are irresponsible. Also if you suddenly find someone missing a very rare pet you can track them down through this system and hold them accountable for environmental damage.
No need to ban things; for the last time.
WESH Orlando
Govtrack
I know most of my rants about things be banned by law were about drugs, but I did have an earlier post about the possibility of banning exotic pets. I talked about the Burmese python population in southern Florida and the Everglades because of people releasing their pets into the wild. Well, as usual it seems the government is doing the wrong thing. Instead of trying to hold these inconsiderate, uninformed pet owners accountable, they plan on taking away all of our rights because of a few morons.
Welcome to H.R. 669. What a surprise that the sponsor is a Democrat. A whole load of pets are in question here including hamsters, guinea pigs, and other popular rodents. Of course, my concern is with exotic snakes, which I do keep and I keep them well. People like me who keep them well and don't abuse our rights should be allowed to do as we wish. If you really want to fix this problem, make an accountability system. Charge $25 dollars to take a quick knowledge test for whatever variety of pets you wish to own. This test should demonstrate that you know basic care and why you shouldn't release these animals. All you have to do is have a simple registration system with this and just the fact that you have to pay a small $25 dollars and know a little bit will change how many people are irresponsible. Also if you suddenly find someone missing a very rare pet you can track them down through this system and hold them accountable for environmental damage.
No need to ban things; for the last time.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Government = Cyber-Insecurity
Related Articles:
Computerworld
Wall Street Journal
CNN
As if I needed any more reason to think the government should have nothing to do with our computer security. Well, they gave me another reason not surprisingly. Apparently data on a new fighter jet was downloaded from a "secure" location and over a few terabytes of it was stolen. That means this attack was not some quick breach, it was going on for some time. Do you really want this corrupt organization, who can't even keep their own top secrets safe, trying to defend everyone in this nation, including corporations, from cyber-attacks. Many, many organizations are a lot safer than the government; why do they not go to industry experts for help? Because they are more concerned with making you think they are helping than actually making anything any better.
Computerworld
Wall Street Journal
CNN
As if I needed any more reason to think the government should have nothing to do with our computer security. Well, they gave me another reason not surprisingly. Apparently data on a new fighter jet was downloaded from a "secure" location and over a few terabytes of it was stolen. That means this attack was not some quick breach, it was going on for some time. Do you really want this corrupt organization, who can't even keep their own top secrets safe, trying to defend everyone in this nation, including corporations, from cyber-attacks. Many, many organizations are a lot safer than the government; why do they not go to industry experts for help? Because they are more concerned with making you think they are helping than actually making anything any better.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tea Party!
Related Articles:
CNN
Fox News
TEA = Taxed Enough Already
Finally it seems people are tired of sitting around and doing nothing about the government and its ineptness. When you don't like something, it won't get fixed by hoping for better. Hundreds of tea parties took place around the country today to protest the insane government spending in the last 8 months between the end of the Bush administration and beginning of the Obama administration.
In the CNN article it was stated that we don't know what will happen when people get tired of protesting and that they might take up weapons or stop paying taxes. I'll tell you what will happen, both of those. If people get tired enough and feel that the way they want to live is in jeopardy, they will stop funding the government and they will get rid of it one way or another just as this country did to get away from England.
CNN
Fox News
TEA = Taxed Enough Already
Finally it seems people are tired of sitting around and doing nothing about the government and its ineptness. When you don't like something, it won't get fixed by hoping for better. Hundreds of tea parties took place around the country today to protest the insane government spending in the last 8 months between the end of the Bush administration and beginning of the Obama administration.
In the CNN article it was stated that we don't know what will happen when people get tired of protesting and that they might take up weapons or stop paying taxes. I'll tell you what will happen, both of those. If people get tired enough and feel that the way they want to live is in jeopardy, they will stop funding the government and they will get rid of it one way or another just as this country did to get away from England.
Monday, April 13, 2009
To The Bush Haters And Obama Lovers: They Are The Same
Related Articles:
Washington Post
I loved listening to a few of my professors constantly tell me about how George Bush had his questioners picked out before any of his press conferences; and I don't disagree with them either. The funny part about it is their complete ignorance to their own left wing fools doing the same thing. I actually listened to one of these morons tell me about how Barack Obama answered hard questions from unknown people a few weeks back. Read the article.
If he didn't know who these people were he got extremely lucky. The odds are overwhelmingly not in his favor and the evidence is shouting the same thing: he picked who was going to ask him questions beforehand at a press conference.
This is the advantage of being a member of a small but growing third party who is neither more to the right or to the left. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We sit here and laugh at the bickering that these two parties start through the media to completely blind everyone to what is really going on. My professors, that will go unnamed, are a perfect example.
Washington Post
I loved listening to a few of my professors constantly tell me about how George Bush had his questioners picked out before any of his press conferences; and I don't disagree with them either. The funny part about it is their complete ignorance to their own left wing fools doing the same thing. I actually listened to one of these morons tell me about how Barack Obama answered hard questions from unknown people a few weeks back. Read the article.
If he didn't know who these people were he got extremely lucky. The odds are overwhelmingly not in his favor and the evidence is shouting the same thing: he picked who was going to ask him questions beforehand at a press conference.
This is the advantage of being a member of a small but growing third party who is neither more to the right or to the left. Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. We sit here and laugh at the bickering that these two parties start through the media to completely blind everyone to what is really going on. My professors, that will go unnamed, are a perfect example.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Ted Stevens Screw-Up
Related Articles:
Fox News
CNN
This could end up being a great example of how politicians will use any tactics to get into office. This country was built on the idea that the people choose who they want to be in office based on their ideas for the nation, correct? Well the politicians we elect don't see it that way; they see it as "anything goes to get my easy salary".
After I thought this man was a shame to politics, Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens had all charges against him dismissed by a U.S. District Judge who is now also opening a federal investigation of the prosecution team that was against Senator Stevens (he would have won if not for this so he deserves Senator). This could have been any one of three things and none of them are good for the prosecutors:
1) The prosecution was really just that inept. In this case they should all be fired and never allowed to serve in law again because they are absolutely pathetic.
2) Someone had a personal grudge against Senator Stevens and decided that this would be a good way to get at him. In this case whoever this may be, including the prosecution, should all be fired and charged with obstruction on as many counts as possible. This cannot be tolerated.
3) This may not be likely, but if this was planned by any group of people in the Democrat party to get one of their own in office, this election should be redone and the people involved should all be fired, charged with obstruction of justice, sued for everything they have by Stevens for the damages they did, and be exposed to America.
Fox News
CNN
This could end up being a great example of how politicians will use any tactics to get into office. This country was built on the idea that the people choose who they want to be in office based on their ideas for the nation, correct? Well the politicians we elect don't see it that way; they see it as "anything goes to get my easy salary".
After I thought this man was a shame to politics, Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens had all charges against him dismissed by a U.S. District Judge who is now also opening a federal investigation of the prosecution team that was against Senator Stevens (he would have won if not for this so he deserves Senator). This could have been any one of three things and none of them are good for the prosecutors:
1) The prosecution was really just that inept. In this case they should all be fired and never allowed to serve in law again because they are absolutely pathetic.
2) Someone had a personal grudge against Senator Stevens and decided that this would be a good way to get at him. In this case whoever this may be, including the prosecution, should all be fired and charged with obstruction on as many counts as possible. This cannot be tolerated.
3) This may not be likely, but if this was planned by any group of people in the Democrat party to get one of their own in office, this election should be redone and the people involved should all be fired, charged with obstruction of justice, sued for everything they have by Stevens for the damages they did, and be exposed to America.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Government Wants To Control The Banks
Related Articles:
Wall Street Journal
The only reason I say "Government" instead of "Obama" in the title is because Bush has a major part in this as well. You would think that the government would want the money back from the bailouts that it gave to banks; I mean that is what it was intended to be, a loan, right? Of course not. That is why at this point the government is not letting any major banks give back their bailouts. Some major banks do not want to have to deal with the strings the government has recently attached to the money and they don't want Obama to be able to control the pay of everyone in the company. I wouldn't want that in my company that's for sure.
This whole stink started in late 2008 under Bush when certain banks were forced to take a bailout under threat of government audit. So basically, our government blackmailed our banks, the private sector, into taking government money. The whole time they had planned to keep control over the banks and now that the banks want out, and are willing to give back all of the taxpayer money, they won't take the money back. We are about to spend trillions of dollars and the government, full of buffoons, will not take the money back because of the power it gives them. This, ladies and gentlemen, was the reason the government was not supposed to be big. Once power grows, it grows exponentially faster and it does not give up power until a revolution occurs. Someone needs to bring one really soon.
Wall Street Journal
The only reason I say "Government" instead of "Obama" in the title is because Bush has a major part in this as well. You would think that the government would want the money back from the bailouts that it gave to banks; I mean that is what it was intended to be, a loan, right? Of course not. That is why at this point the government is not letting any major banks give back their bailouts. Some major banks do not want to have to deal with the strings the government has recently attached to the money and they don't want Obama to be able to control the pay of everyone in the company. I wouldn't want that in my company that's for sure.
This whole stink started in late 2008 under Bush when certain banks were forced to take a bailout under threat of government audit. So basically, our government blackmailed our banks, the private sector, into taking government money. The whole time they had planned to keep control over the banks and now that the banks want out, and are willing to give back all of the taxpayer money, they won't take the money back. We are about to spend trillions of dollars and the government, full of buffoons, will not take the money back because of the power it gives them. This, ladies and gentlemen, was the reason the government was not supposed to be big. Once power grows, it grows exponentially faster and it does not give up power until a revolution occurs. Someone needs to bring one really soon.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Global Warming Bias
Related Articles:
The Register
News Busters
World Net Daily
The Register
There is nothing more disgusting to me than an obvious bias in the United States' mass media. The media is responsible for informing people of what is really happening and they clearly do not do that or I would have found a trace of this news on at least one of the major news sites.
First let me explain why any information about global warming is big news no matter which side it is on. Global warming could, by itself, determine the outcome of our economic situation. The government is ready to implement drastic measures to stop global warming. If the cause is us and it really is bad then we must do what is necessary. If the cause is not us this will be a gigantic waste of money and this is not a good time to waste a large sum. That said, why is the media not reporting this recent news that top Japanese scientists are breaking away from the US and the UN on the idea that global warming is caused by man?
Quote from the first article from The Register:
"One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The Register
News Busters
World Net Daily
The Register
There is nothing more disgusting to me than an obvious bias in the United States' mass media. The media is responsible for informing people of what is really happening and they clearly do not do that or I would have found a trace of this news on at least one of the major news sites.
First let me explain why any information about global warming is big news no matter which side it is on. Global warming could, by itself, determine the outcome of our economic situation. The government is ready to implement drastic measures to stop global warming. If the cause is us and it really is bad then we must do what is necessary. If the cause is not us this will be a gigantic waste of money and this is not a good time to waste a large sum. That said, why is the media not reporting this recent news that top Japanese scientists are breaking away from the US and the UN on the idea that global warming is caused by man?
Quote from the first article from The Register:
"One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary."
Read the rest of that article please.
The fourth article listed, also from The Register, explains an alternate theory actually created by American scientists and that somehow still hasn't made the major news. We are about to spend possibly trillions of dollars on stopping global warming which may be stopped already, and all because the media doesn't inform people. You have to go out and look.
What could be the reasons for this lack of reporting and obvious bias? I had actually bought into the man-made global warming to a point until now. I think we may have had an affect on it but it is a natural cycle. I can think of a few reasons for this.
1. The majority of the media wants America to fail for some unknown, sick reason.
2. The majority of the media is ultra-liberal and wants corporations to fail so by implementing cap and trade they can keep them under control and wield more power over companies.
Any other reasons why this wouldn't be reported?
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Beginning Of Censorship
Related Articles:
The Register
Computerworld
Network World
The beginning of censorship usually happens when the government wants to take over "oversight" of something or run something in "your best interest". Say hello to the future of internet censorship. The government now wants to take over cybersecurity and make cybersecurity rules that would also affect private institutions. Don't you think the government should have to show they can competently secure anything before telling a business how to be secure? The United States government is like one big cyber leak and now they want to run national cybersecurity.
Quote from The Register:
"US senators have drafted legislation that would give the federal government unprecedented authority over the nation's critical infrastructure, including the power to shut down or limit traffic on private networks during emergencies."
Wonderfully vague, as usual. What kind of emergencies are we talking? Raise the terror level to red and create an emergency so you can control what people see during that time? Everything is always vague so that the government has plenty of wiggle room to try and control something that the bill wasn't meant for. That way, since most Americans pay attention to nothing, people don't even know what is going on.
If the President had to fear for his life (or if they made up the situation), then they could easily take any content that was against the President and block it. Far too vague.
Quote from Network World:
"Federal legislation introduced in the Senate this week would give President Obama the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency and then shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems."
Too much power; too vague. Anything can be turned into a cybersecurity emergency. After watching what is going on with the internet in the likes of China, Australia, and Germany, I am not a big fan of any internet control. It is the last place with completely free flowing information; there is your reason why they want to control it.
The Register
Computerworld
Network World
The beginning of censorship usually happens when the government wants to take over "oversight" of something or run something in "your best interest". Say hello to the future of internet censorship. The government now wants to take over cybersecurity and make cybersecurity rules that would also affect private institutions. Don't you think the government should have to show they can competently secure anything before telling a business how to be secure? The United States government is like one big cyber leak and now they want to run national cybersecurity.
Quote from The Register:
"US senators have drafted legislation that would give the federal government unprecedented authority over the nation's critical infrastructure, including the power to shut down or limit traffic on private networks during emergencies."
Wonderfully vague, as usual. What kind of emergencies are we talking? Raise the terror level to red and create an emergency so you can control what people see during that time? Everything is always vague so that the government has plenty of wiggle room to try and control something that the bill wasn't meant for. That way, since most Americans pay attention to nothing, people don't even know what is going on.
If the President had to fear for his life (or if they made up the situation), then they could easily take any content that was against the President and block it. Far too vague.
Quote from Network World:
"Federal legislation introduced in the Senate this week would give President Obama the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency and then shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems."
Too much power; too vague. Anything can be turned into a cybersecurity emergency. After watching what is going on with the internet in the likes of China, Australia, and Germany, I am not a big fan of any internet control. It is the last place with completely free flowing information; there is your reason why they want to control it.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Attacks On Free Flowing Information
Related Articles:
The Register
Quote from the article:
"Government's tendency to morph from blocking "child porn" to censoring discussion of all government censorship was illustrated this week when German Police raided the offices of Wikileaks Germany."
If you want to know what Wikileaks is about, visit the website here. A quote from their website:
"We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions."
Wikileaks has long been known to have many government documents uploaded to its site and I have used it before on here. It is the best example of how to keep powerful and crooked governments in their place. Of course, they don't like this so, logically, they will try to stop it. That is exactly what the German government did and they have no excuse.
Australia is also guilty of censorship. Australia has a system set up where they block access to sites in their nation based on "complaints" from citizens and based on a list of sites "citizens" think should be blocked. That is a load of bull. Australia doesn't want its country to know what sites it is blocking. Their list of blacklisted sites was leaked to Wikileaks and they went and blocked Wikileaks. I guess they aren't just blocking sites that the citizens want then since they should already know about it? And how do web services know what sites to block then if the list is classified? Never let the government tell you they are doing something in your best interest and just let them go. The same thing happens in America all the time.
This type of censorship is not far off in America. Once the government takes over national cyber-security, as it is trying to do right now, censorhip will be imminent.
The Register
Quote from the article:
"Government's tendency to morph from blocking "child porn" to censoring discussion of all government censorship was illustrated this week when German Police raided the offices of Wikileaks Germany."
If you want to know what Wikileaks is about, visit the website here. A quote from their website:
"We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions."
Wikileaks has long been known to have many government documents uploaded to its site and I have used it before on here. It is the best example of how to keep powerful and crooked governments in their place. Of course, they don't like this so, logically, they will try to stop it. That is exactly what the German government did and they have no excuse.
Australia is also guilty of censorship. Australia has a system set up where they block access to sites in their nation based on "complaints" from citizens and based on a list of sites "citizens" think should be blocked. That is a load of bull. Australia doesn't want its country to know what sites it is blocking. Their list of blacklisted sites was leaked to Wikileaks and they went and blocked Wikileaks. I guess they aren't just blocking sites that the citizens want then since they should already know about it? And how do web services know what sites to block then if the list is classified? Never let the government tell you they are doing something in your best interest and just let them go. The same thing happens in America all the time.
This type of censorship is not far off in America. Once the government takes over national cyber-security, as it is trying to do right now, censorhip will be imminent.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Banning Things Doesn't Work
Related Articles:
CNN
I don't know how many times I will say it, but I'm sure you will see it a lot on this blog: banning things does not work.
Here we have another example of how slow the government is to react to something. Background information: owners of pet Burmese pythons have been releasing them into the Everglades for some time now, whether it be because they didn't realize just how huge they get or they just got bored of them. The species has taken hold in the Everglades and is breeding in the wild. Its population is thought to be over 30,000 individuals in the Everglades. First the good news: there is a python patrol in the Florida Keys trying to keep Burmese pythons from spreading there via the Everglades. The bad news, it is way too late and I have a few problems with trying to ban the importation of Burmese pythons (they are trying to do it):
1. When you ban something its value skyrockets, thus creating another criminal opportunity. Let responsible people own these snakes if they want. Instead of banning them, make a registration system so that when people buy one you know who is supposed to own them and who isn't. Create a penalty under the law for releasing them into the wild and hold people accountable. Don't take away the freedoms of all because of a few idiots.
2. If there are over 30,000 Burmese pythons currently in the Everglades and there has been evidence found that they are breeding in the wild, there is nothing we can do about it at this point. That is a foothold in the ecosystem that we cannot break. If you were going to do something about the population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades it should have been done years ago when we first knew about this. Of course, the government never reacts until it is too late.
3. The bill introduced by Florida Senator Bill Nelson only bans Burmese pythons. This shows how little research politicians do before writing a bill. Reticulated pythons grow longer than Burmese pythons and anacondas grow much heavier and they are both legal. Now, I am not saying ban them all I am just using this as an example of the stupidity of this Senator.
4. Accept the fact that you will not be able to eradicate them from the Everglades at this point. Now let us look at the big picture: they will not spread much farther than the immediate area because they need a very specific climate and even just a little north of the Everglades it would be no good.
Now for my real ideas on how to fix this. Make a registration system for all new imported, large snake species (i.e. large pythons and boas) and register them to an owner. Implant a microchip under the skin and there will be no problems. If it is tracked in the wild the person is in trouble and you can hold them accountable. This way, responsible owners who want to enjoy the animals, can have their animals.
It took me about ten minutes to think of this better alternative, why is it so hard for thick-headed and ignorant politicians to do that? Do they understand anything outside of the actual politics? (As you can tell I am a snake enthusiast.)
CNN
I don't know how many times I will say it, but I'm sure you will see it a lot on this blog: banning things does not work.
Here we have another example of how slow the government is to react to something. Background information: owners of pet Burmese pythons have been releasing them into the Everglades for some time now, whether it be because they didn't realize just how huge they get or they just got bored of them. The species has taken hold in the Everglades and is breeding in the wild. Its population is thought to be over 30,000 individuals in the Everglades. First the good news: there is a python patrol in the Florida Keys trying to keep Burmese pythons from spreading there via the Everglades. The bad news, it is way too late and I have a few problems with trying to ban the importation of Burmese pythons (they are trying to do it):
1. When you ban something its value skyrockets, thus creating another criminal opportunity. Let responsible people own these snakes if they want. Instead of banning them, make a registration system so that when people buy one you know who is supposed to own them and who isn't. Create a penalty under the law for releasing them into the wild and hold people accountable. Don't take away the freedoms of all because of a few idiots.
2. If there are over 30,000 Burmese pythons currently in the Everglades and there has been evidence found that they are breeding in the wild, there is nothing we can do about it at this point. That is a foothold in the ecosystem that we cannot break. If you were going to do something about the population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades it should have been done years ago when we first knew about this. Of course, the government never reacts until it is too late.
3. The bill introduced by Florida Senator Bill Nelson only bans Burmese pythons. This shows how little research politicians do before writing a bill. Reticulated pythons grow longer than Burmese pythons and anacondas grow much heavier and they are both legal. Now, I am not saying ban them all I am just using this as an example of the stupidity of this Senator.
4. Accept the fact that you will not be able to eradicate them from the Everglades at this point. Now let us look at the big picture: they will not spread much farther than the immediate area because they need a very specific climate and even just a little north of the Everglades it would be no good.
Now for my real ideas on how to fix this. Make a registration system for all new imported, large snake species (i.e. large pythons and boas) and register them to an owner. Implant a microchip under the skin and there will be no problems. If it is tracked in the wild the person is in trouble and you can hold them accountable. This way, responsible owners who want to enjoy the animals, can have their animals.
It took me about ten minutes to think of this better alternative, why is it so hard for thick-headed and ignorant politicians to do that? Do they understand anything outside of the actual politics? (As you can tell I am a snake enthusiast.)
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Is It Time For Term Limits For Congress?
Let me start by saying the answer is yes. It has been time for a long, long time. Finally enough people are complaining that it may actually get done. There is absolutely no need to have Senators or Representatives in office for more than twenty years. Being in such a realm for so long all but ensures that you will be corrupted and/or become complacent. Being a public servant means that you are doing just that: serving. You are not supposed to be making a career for yourself by sitting in Congress.
In order to restore what serving in Congress was meant to be, term limits need to be instituted. Two terms for Senators (8 years, need to cut terms to four years each) and three terms for the house (6 years) is enough time for any one person to be allowed to serve. The way it is set up now there are politicians who intend on gaining one of these positions in order to make the money and sit on it for many years. We must stop this, if this is really meant to be a public service than people who are willing to serve will step forward regardless of the pay.
While I am at it, let me state that Senators and Representatives should also have their pay cut. Again, this is a public service, not a career. 99% of these people are wealthy to begin with and don't need $169,300 salaries. Take what the average American makes and pay them that. They don't even work as much as a normal, hard-working American in the first place.
In order to restore what serving in Congress was meant to be, term limits need to be instituted. Two terms for Senators (8 years, need to cut terms to four years each) and three terms for the house (6 years) is enough time for any one person to be allowed to serve. The way it is set up now there are politicians who intend on gaining one of these positions in order to make the money and sit on it for many years. We must stop this, if this is really meant to be a public service than people who are willing to serve will step forward regardless of the pay.
While I am at it, let me state that Senators and Representatives should also have their pay cut. Again, this is a public service, not a career. 99% of these people are wealthy to begin with and don't need $169,300 salaries. Take what the average American makes and pay them that. They don't even work as much as a normal, hard-working American in the first place.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Freedom of Thought Being Cut Down
Related Articles:
Fox News
This article is a must-read. You must read the entire thing and you will be disgusted. Soon every type of thinking, that doesn't involve what people in the government want you to think, will be stopped if this keeps going on. Apparently if you support Ron Paul (the certain Republican member of Congress) or third parties, you can be considered part of a domestic paramilitary group simply because of that.
Let me state that this is a very, very dangerous road to go down. It seems like everyone who isn't on board with the main two parties is going to be considered some kind of radical. That is exactly what they want though; anyone outside is a threat to them because they aren't under their guise and they actually think.
Fox News
This article is a must-read. You must read the entire thing and you will be disgusted. Soon every type of thinking, that doesn't involve what people in the government want you to think, will be stopped if this keeps going on. Apparently if you support Ron Paul (the certain Republican member of Congress) or third parties, you can be considered part of a domestic paramilitary group simply because of that.
Let me state that this is a very, very dangerous road to go down. It seems like everyone who isn't on board with the main two parties is going to be considered some kind of radical. That is exactly what they want though; anyone outside is a threat to them because they aren't under their guise and they actually think.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Another Example of Government Stupidity
Related Articles:
CNN
I have made a number of posts about information security and the government; this is just another one. Apparently, not so surprisingly though, the new smart grid switches being implemented throughout our power system are vulnerable to a number of hacks. A security company already created a worm in its own labs capable of spreading through the power grid and China has already said they could shut down the US power grid at any time. Nice to know the government considers security before going through with something.
Actually, they don't consider anything. They think "it's green so let's do it" and don't even give two seconds to think about anything else like feasibility, cost, and security.
CNN
I have made a number of posts about information security and the government; this is just another one. Apparently, not so surprisingly though, the new smart grid switches being implemented throughout our power system are vulnerable to a number of hacks. A security company already created a worm in its own labs capable of spreading through the power grid and China has already said they could shut down the US power grid at any time. Nice to know the government considers security before going through with something.
Actually, they don't consider anything. They think "it's green so let's do it" and don't even give two seconds to think about anything else like feasibility, cost, and security.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
More Blame To The Government For AIG
Related Articles:
CNN
CNN
Newsmax
Quotes from first article:
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed Thursday that the department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth in the stimulus legislation that would have strictly limited executive bonuses."
"Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, also acknowledged Wednesday his role in controversy, after previously denying having anything to do with crafting language that permitted the bonuses."
So he lied to us, flat out. Why do we elect people we can't trust and then continue to vote for the same idiots?
"'It's my responsibility; I was in a position where I didn't know about those sooner. I take full responsibility for that,' he said."
You knew about this sooner. This deal about the AIG bonuses isn't as bad as it seems. AIG signed an agreement a year ago that stated these bonuses would be paid and they did it so that some of the executives they wanted would stay so they wouldn't have crashed even sooner. Now that the government messed up, they are trying to blame everyone else and they look really, really bad right now.
"On Tuesday, Dodd denied that he had anything to do with adding the language"
That's nice. He likes to lie. Let me ask any of you, if they lie this much until they get caught, what are they actually telling the truth about? Any of them? There is NO transparency. The government now wants to subpoena all of the executives that the head man wouldn't give up and he wouldn't give them up because he and his whole family have been receiving death threats and he doesn't want them to. Why don't we, the people, subpoena all of you Congressional morons to court to tell us every little thing you do?
"But, saying his previous comments had been misconstrued, Dodd said Wednesday that he added the exemption after getting pressure from the Treasury Department."
Now it is pressure?
"'I agreed reluctantly,' Dodd said. 'I was changing the amendment because others were insistent.'"
Now you go against your principals because of pressure? What a loser you are. If you go against what you think is right because some other people said so, you truly are a hopeless lunatic.
Quotes from second CNN article:
"Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and 'golden parachutes' at those companies."
So wait, now it is the Obama administration? Who is it really Dodd?
Quote from last article:
"President Barack Obama has called the bonuses that AIG paid its employees an 'outrage,' but Obama himself received a 'bonus' of sorts from the insurance giant — more than $100,000 in campaign contributions."
NOW we get to the bottom of it. This is why they let AIG get the bonuses and even helped them. Now that it went public they are trying to clean themselves of the situation. It is a good thing some people like me know how to put research together to stop you bunch of zoo animals.
CNN
CNN
Newsmax
Quotes from first article:
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner confirmed Thursday that the department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth in the stimulus legislation that would have strictly limited executive bonuses."
"Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, also acknowledged Wednesday his role in controversy, after previously denying having anything to do with crafting language that permitted the bonuses."
So he lied to us, flat out. Why do we elect people we can't trust and then continue to vote for the same idiots?
"'It's my responsibility; I was in a position where I didn't know about those sooner. I take full responsibility for that,' he said."
You knew about this sooner. This deal about the AIG bonuses isn't as bad as it seems. AIG signed an agreement a year ago that stated these bonuses would be paid and they did it so that some of the executives they wanted would stay so they wouldn't have crashed even sooner. Now that the government messed up, they are trying to blame everyone else and they look really, really bad right now.
"On Tuesday, Dodd denied that he had anything to do with adding the language"
That's nice. He likes to lie. Let me ask any of you, if they lie this much until they get caught, what are they actually telling the truth about? Any of them? There is NO transparency. The government now wants to subpoena all of the executives that the head man wouldn't give up and he wouldn't give them up because he and his whole family have been receiving death threats and he doesn't want them to. Why don't we, the people, subpoena all of you Congressional morons to court to tell us every little thing you do?
"But, saying his previous comments had been misconstrued, Dodd said Wednesday that he added the exemption after getting pressure from the Treasury Department."
Now it is pressure?
"'I agreed reluctantly,' Dodd said. 'I was changing the amendment because others were insistent.'"
Now you go against your principals because of pressure? What a loser you are. If you go against what you think is right because some other people said so, you truly are a hopeless lunatic.
Quotes from second CNN article:
"Dodd, a Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama administration officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and 'golden parachutes' at those companies."
So wait, now it is the Obama administration? Who is it really Dodd?
Quote from last article:
"President Barack Obama has called the bonuses that AIG paid its employees an 'outrage,' but Obama himself received a 'bonus' of sorts from the insurance giant — more than $100,000 in campaign contributions."
NOW we get to the bottom of it. This is why they let AIG get the bonuses and even helped them. Now that it went public they are trying to clean themselves of the situation. It is a good thing some people like me know how to put research together to stop you bunch of zoo animals.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
This Is How The Military Treats Personnel?
Related Articles:
The Raw Story
Memorandum PDF
During 2006, not sure about now, one of the burning pits in Iraq was found to be a health hazard because of fumes from whatever was being burned.
Now let me get this straight; according to the memorandum there was a study done January-April of 2006 and this memorandum didn't even get written until December of 2006 after it was listed as a high health concern for personnel in the area. This means it was probably still at least another few months before anything changed, could be longer or shorter, and we just keep American personnel that chose to serve in our military operating in a hazardous area? That shows you how much the government actually cares about the individuals they are sending out to these places.
Now I understand that in battle you must think of your force as a unit and not individual people and that sometimes decisions have to be made that will put people in the line of fire; fine. This is not the same; this is an obvious health hazard and could have been put on hold until it was made right.
The Raw Story
Memorandum PDF
During 2006, not sure about now, one of the burning pits in Iraq was found to be a health hazard because of fumes from whatever was being burned.
Now let me get this straight; according to the memorandum there was a study done January-April of 2006 and this memorandum didn't even get written until December of 2006 after it was listed as a high health concern for personnel in the area. This means it was probably still at least another few months before anything changed, could be longer or shorter, and we just keep American personnel that chose to serve in our military operating in a hazardous area? That shows you how much the government actually cares about the individuals they are sending out to these places.
Now I understand that in battle you must think of your force as a unit and not individual people and that sometimes decisions have to be made that will put people in the line of fire; fine. This is not the same; this is an obvious health hazard and could have been put on hold until it was made right.
Insecure Government... Again
Related Articles:
Computerworld
Unregistered News
Washington Post
Not that I needed another reason to say the government should have nothing to do with internet security, but I found one anyways. Not only does it take forever to get anything done because of the bureaucratic government, in a field where things change quickly, but then we can add corruption on top of that. Yusuf Acar, the District of Columbia's top information security official is involved in a bribery case and is currently jailed without bail for fear of the fact that he still may have access to some of the systems he once ran.
I am completely against the government even touching the internet and for a few reasons:
1) The internet is the last place where you can, literally, find anything you want. There is no limitation of free speech on the internet and you can talk to people anywhere in the world. I know there is some content that is bad and some that is untrue but learning how to weave through this and find what is good is a necessary skill to have anyways.
2) Information security is not meant to be done by one organization for all. Because of the fact that nothing is secure, you don't want everything in one place or all security measures controlled by one entity.
3) Government employees, especially if they had more information, would be a huge target for bribery and all sorts of corruption. As we know, most people are naturally corrupted when they have too much power. The point of this nation was to not give any one person too much power because our founding fathers realized this.
Computerworld
Unregistered News
Washington Post
Not that I needed another reason to say the government should have nothing to do with internet security, but I found one anyways. Not only does it take forever to get anything done because of the bureaucratic government, in a field where things change quickly, but then we can add corruption on top of that. Yusuf Acar, the District of Columbia's top information security official is involved in a bribery case and is currently jailed without bail for fear of the fact that he still may have access to some of the systems he once ran.
I am completely against the government even touching the internet and for a few reasons:
1) The internet is the last place where you can, literally, find anything you want. There is no limitation of free speech on the internet and you can talk to people anywhere in the world. I know there is some content that is bad and some that is untrue but learning how to weave through this and find what is good is a necessary skill to have anyways.
2) Information security is not meant to be done by one organization for all. Because of the fact that nothing is secure, you don't want everything in one place or all security measures controlled by one entity.
3) Government employees, especially if they had more information, would be a huge target for bribery and all sorts of corruption. As we know, most people are naturally corrupted when they have too much power. The point of this nation was to not give any one person too much power because our founding fathers realized this.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Bullying With The Law
Related Articles:
CNet News
The Register
WCAX
Tenable Network Security Blog
Sebastien Boucher was coming back into the United States from Canada and during a routine search of his car, customs officials "thought" they saw something that "could" have been child pornography on his laptop which he allowed them to see. In the end the customs officials did nothing at the time and he was allowed through.
Afterward, charges were filed against Boucher for possession of child pornography. The only problem now is that the computer's hard drive is encrypted and Boucher, by the 5th Amendment, should not have to give up the password to the computer because whether or not there is anything illegal contained on the computer, it is possible self-incrimination and you have a right granted by the Constitution that says you don't have to reveal information that would be self-incriminating.
So the government, being the bully that it is, decided it would step all over the Constitution again and force Boucher to give up his password. Here is a quoted segment from the 4th link given; it is said better than I can say it:
"First, and foremost, is the publication of a suspect's name in a child pornography case. In the event that the suspect is not proven guilty (remember: innocent unless proven guilty) the government has already ruined this man's career prospects and reputation. If you don't believe me - just google for his name.
CNet News
The Register
WCAX
Tenable Network Security Blog
Sebastien Boucher was coming back into the United States from Canada and during a routine search of his car, customs officials "thought" they saw something that "could" have been child pornography on his laptop which he allowed them to see. In the end the customs officials did nothing at the time and he was allowed through.
Afterward, charges were filed against Boucher for possession of child pornography. The only problem now is that the computer's hard drive is encrypted and Boucher, by the 5th Amendment, should not have to give up the password to the computer because whether or not there is anything illegal contained on the computer, it is possible self-incrimination and you have a right granted by the Constitution that says you don't have to reveal information that would be self-incriminating.
So the government, being the bully that it is, decided it would step all over the Constitution again and force Boucher to give up his password. Here is a quoted segment from the 4th link given; it is said better than I can say it:
"First, and foremost, is the publication of a suspect's name in a child pornography case. In the event that the suspect is not proven guilty (remember: innocent unless proven guilty) the government has already ruined this man's career prospects and reputation. If you don't believe me - just google for his name.
Second, is the notion that a border-check is "voluntary" and not coerced. It's ridiculous to say that someone "voluntarily surrendered their rights" when they were asked - however nicely - by a man with a gun at a border crossing. I've had this happen to me, returning to the US from abroad: you're forced to wait in line (I waited 2 hours!) and told you can't use your cell phone or leave, then you're asked "is this your bag? may I examine it?" It sounds as if in this case the suspect was crossing the border in an automobile but it's the same scenario: wait in line, wait in line, and the man with the gun starts asking you questions. You have to answer them, and agree to any search, or you can turn around and go back.
Third, is the stupidity of trying to coerce someone legally into giving up a hard drive password. If the hard drive contains evidence that could convict him on a 20 year sentence, there's not much they can do to him that's worse than that, if he refuses to give up his password. They can't imprison him for 20 years for refusing the judge's request. What are they going to do, waterboard him?
Lastly, is the charges against him. Interstate commerce of child pornography? That's not how the guys who do child porn for a living transport their data, and the judge knows it. What's going on is that they're trying to coerce him further by layering on as many charges as they can think of, to see if they can make him crack or plea-bargain to a lesser charge. That's not how to do "justice" - criminal charges should not be used coercively!
Obviously, if the guy's guilty, he should suffer the consequences. But I'm very uncomfortable with my government's handling of this matter. If the border cop screwed up his evidence collecting, he screwed it up, and the case was lost at that moment. Precedent-setting rulings that further erode everyone's rights is not a good response to mishandling evidence. This case has been dragging on for 3 years and has probably cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money, and consumed the suspect's life. The publicity it has garnered for hard drive encryption has probably done more damage to law enforcement efforts against child pornography than busting any individual perpetrator would, already."
Lastly, I would like to state that it has been a well established precedent that a person does not have to give up the code to a safe if it may contain something self-incriminating. You cannot force someone to reveal the contents of their own mind in a case against them. If they can get a search warrant for a safe and find another way in, that is a completely different story so if the government can somehow crack the encryption, although it is HIGHLY unlikely, then they can see what is in it. Stop bullying people because you want to be able to see anything at anytime and have total control over everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
