Sold SNDY

Sold my SNDY for a 50% gain.

Question of the Week - June 7, 2010

Is it a fair assessment for pundits to still be issuing warnings that President Obama could become a lame duck or comparing him to the Carter administration?

So building a mosque near Ground Zero is politically correct?

Political correctness has infected America. It's been this way for some time now, but every once in a while something happens that makes it obvious. A mosque and Islamic cultural center is planned to be built near Ground Zero, and in all our American political correctness, a New York City community board voted 29-1 in favor of allowing the construction. If the location is not insensitive enough, the scheduled start of construction is September 11th, 2011, the tenth anniversary of the September 11th attacks. So it's politically correct to be insensitive now? The board does not want to upset the Muslim community, but is apparently just fine with upsetting the families who lost loved ones in the name of Islam. Yes, the terrorists may not necessarily represent the billions of people in the Muslim community, but you have to ask if the Muslims who are opening a mosque near Ground Zero on September 11th do? My guess would be that most Muslims would understand that opening a mosque there is insensitive. Opening a mosque near Ground Zero is not just practicing the right to religious freedom in this country, it is a political statement. And if it's not, what is the explanation? There just happens to be a need for a mosque and Islamic cultural center right where the terrorist attack occurred? Doubtful. Christians, Jews, and atheists realize how insensitive it is, so don't tell me the Muslims don't. It's not surprising a political statement would be made though, since Islam is intertwined with national political systems across the world.

So has our political correctness and desire to be tolerant muzzled us to the point where disagreeing with a mosque being built near a sacred ground is labeled bigotry? It appears so. Our country has taught us to assume that people have the best intentions, and when it happens that a group of people do bad things, they are nothing more than an anomaly. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. What is the motivation to build a hundred million dollar mosque so close to Ground Zero, knowing there would be such an uproar? I don't know, only the people planning it know. Though with all of this said, do the Muslims have the right to build a mosque there? Yes, of course they do. This is America after all. But in the age of political correctness, how is it more politically correct to build the mosque than not to build it?

Question of the Week - May 30, 2010

Is it unpatriotic to boo/heckle the president?

Why is the Military Allowed to Be Anti-Gay?

It looks like the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for military service may be repealed soon. On Thursday, congress voted for an amendment that would end the DADT policy. DADT does not allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. I know there are many Americans who are anti-gay or homophobic, so obviously it would not be expected to hear much outrage from a large percentage of Americans, and actually you would expect support of DADT. But wouldn't you expect the government to to recognize blatant discriminatory actions, especially given our past?

Although, it can be said that the government is just being representative of the people, because it seems that democrats are against DADT, and the republicans are for it. Most of the opposition to gays serving in the military, obviously comes from conservatives, but it really comes from a place of homophobia and a non-understanding of homosexuality. It is anyone's right to feel that homosexuality is immoral, and the US is largely Christian, so it's understandable that many people would feel that way since this concept is taught in churches. But the Christian laws do not govern this country, or at least they should not, because what is considered immoral by Christianity is not considered immoral by everyone. Immorality should be judged by whether an action intentionally hurts someone, and being gay obviously does not fall in this category. But that is really besides the point, because how being gay affects whether these people can serve in the military is what should be examined.

How does being gay affects anyone's ability to strategize, fire a weapon, or show compassion for others? It doesn't, and I think the military realizes this, because otherwise they would be actively conducting investigations to determine whether people enlisted in the military are gay. But they do not, so why even have the law at all? I guess congress has realized this, but the policy still has to go through more barriers before being repealed. According to Reuters.com, "...repeal also would require certification from Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that the new law would not have a negative impact on readiness, unit cohesion, recruitment and troop retention." Any one of these things could allow the discrimination to continue, which is absurb, since none of these factors would allow for discrimination in any other work environment. Knowing that, it should hopefully be an easy repeal. If people want to fight and defend their country, they should be allowed to without worrying about discrimination.

The Cost of War

What is the price of defense? Sure, we know the world has spent combined total of about 1.2 trillion last year on defense and the US was responsible for 623 billion of that amount (not including funding for the wars she currently finds herself in). When you see a list like this, it tends to be very self serving to one degree or another, like saying you could hire 200 baseball players at X dollars. What I wanted to do here is to first give some perspective in terms of what the US brings in vs. what it spends on more humanitarian programs. Secondly I wanted to show the cost of some actual initiatives, and thirdly I wanted to compare costs with some world wide problems. Below is a list of of various amounts to compare the defense spending to.

• 1.2 trillion was last years deficit
• 1.06 trillion the amount paid in taxes by US taxpayers
• 222 billion the amount paid in taxes by US corporations
• 695 billion the amount spent on Social Security
• 453 billion is the amount spent on Medicare
• 290 billion is the amount spent on Medicaid
• 47 billion is the amount spent on Education
• 100 billion is the amount spent on building the International Space Station
• 44 billion is needed to modernize the US air traffic control system
• 2.2 trillion is needed to upgrade the US infrastructure to 'fair' conditions
• 1 trillion is needed to upgrade the US power system to smart grid technology
• 100 billion is needed to be able to return to the moon in a new spaceship
• 600 billion is needed for a manned mission to mars
• 71 billion would allow for for the relieving of debt for the Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC)
• 100 billion a year would allow for the funding of the Millennium development goals
• 100 billion a year would allow for the education of the worlds poor
• 195 billion a year would allow for ending world hunger
• 27 billion a year would help eradicate AIDS from the world by 2050

I am not here to say all spending needs to stop and that world peace is right around the corner. Those are unrealistic expectations. What this shows is that a lot of the problems that seem monumental in task and scope are a reality if the world could redirect some spending habits. If the US were able to cut spending in half we would be able to fund much needed upgrades, and it would be even faster if you calculate in the costs of the wars. Lets just make it easy and say the two wars average out to about 100billion, that 400billion total could be used to upgrade the infrastructure, the power grid , the traffic control system, and double the education budget as well as possible help NASA get back to the moon. In the next decade if the world worked together we could end world hunger, poverty and cut down drastically the many forms of diseases that run rampant through the 3rd world.

These initiative could spur trillions of dollars worth of economic growth. The projects as well would give hope to billions of people and very well could help remove some of recruiting pools and tools for extremist groups. They also have the added benefits of helping regions fraught with famine and war stabilize. These expenditures are only recent yearly spending and the potential that this money could have if applied to more humanitarian means. Sadly the tens of trillions of dollars spent in the last 60 years on various weapons and wars, while some have helped with everyday life, mostly have been wasted.To give an idea of that cost, the US has spent over 20trillion dollars on defense spending since 1940 while almost all other government spending during this time totals closer to 25trillion (I have been unable to find similar numbers for the entire world as of yet). Maybe if we had spent even half of that money on trying to help those in need and taking care of what we had we would not be in such dire times.

Does it make sense to take away freedom, in the name of freedom?

Did the terrorists win when we implemented the Patriot Act? Americans' freedoms were greatly affected, all in the name of security. In the name of fear. We are surrendering the things that make this country the best country in the world. And besides the death of America, isn't that what the terrorists want? If they affect our daily lives where our freedoms are the not same, and our privacy is not the same, then maybe they are winning the battle. The Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Police will soon have the right to ask for proof of citizenship, and if you do not have it you can be considered an illegal immigrant. The security at some airports are allowed to do revealing full body scans, which we found out recently are much more revealing that we were led to believe after a TSA employee attacked his colleagues after they made fun of how endowed he is. The government wanted the right to take away citizenship rights for suspected terrorists. It has become a common occurrence lately that freedoms are taken away in order to make us safer. Religious extremists are here to stay, so does that mean some of our freedoms are gone for good? A war on terror may keep the terrorists down, and somewhat control their power, but it won't eliminate them. So should we live in a police state for the rest of our days, where the government apparently has the right to take away any freedoms and privacies that they justify as necessary to protect us? The government will take what we give them, and more unfortunately, because it makes their job easier.

I don't want to understate the threat that terrorists pose to the US, but everyone should not be punished for the actions of few. I understand why the actions were taken, but I don't agree with them. The problem is, it seems every time we give up freedoms in the name of safety, we do not get them back. And with some of these laws aimed at terrorism, if a loose definition of terrorism is applied, then those powers can be used on citizens unjustly. Authority to presume guilt without a trial. Guilty until proven innocent. Some of these laws will never affect the average citizen, but it's still important not to become complacent about freedom. Today it's someone else's freedoms being taken away, but tomorrow it could be your's. Stand up for freedom, because it's what makes life worth living.