Where's the transparency?

My latest debate topic is about whether or not Obama's plan for the troop surge in Afghanistan is in our best interest. So I hunted down his speech transcript to read up, since I'm really poorly plugged into current events.

Interestingly enough, I found that in his speech, there was pretty much nothing. The Huffington Post, and many other reliable news sources, claim his plan includes a surge of 30,000 troops. But in his address to the union, Obama mentioned none of this.

Obama mentioned 21,000 troops total, 17,000 that he has already ordered to be sent over, and 4,000 to train the Afghan police forces. Seems to me that there's a missing 9,000 troops somewhere between reports.

We can read this several ways: either the media is hysterical and is trying to freak us out (accurate) or Obama just didn't tell us everything (also likely). Seeing as this is a blog for my government class, I'll choose the latter to focus on.

He may be a great orator, but Obama basically filled his twenty minute speech with fluff. He said things like "At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future." and "Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production."

It sounds real pretty, don't it? Well, it does until you realize that he actually didn't say anything. There were a lot of hypothetical situations and nice rhetoric, but in the end, we're left with this: "We're gonna send some more troops and everything's gonna be GREAT!"

If Obama is looking for our support for his policies, he needs to tell us what those policies are. I have no idea what his plan is for Afghanistan, because I've found claims of everything from 20,000 troops to 60,000. However, from my president himself, there is supposedly only a need for 21,000. Who am I supposed to believe? (Note: the first link I provide is a page on the White House's actual web page. Just so you don't waste your time, that's the only place on the website that the new Afghanistan plan is mentioned.)

I don't want my government to patronize me by telling me that their plan is going to work without explaining the plan to me. I want to know what's going on. When he was elected, Obama promised more transparency. But instead of transparency, we're left with a wall of television screens claiming to know what's going on. I don't want to have to hear my president's plans laid out by sensationalist news sources. I want to hear my president's plan from my president.

Another rebuttal

Jenaer and I seem to always get into political arguments, and I'd like to reply to one we had just the other day.

We were arguing about the economy, a new topic for us, and he said something that made me a bit curious. He said something to the effect of "we should stop progressing, put caps on company production and innovation, and spread the wealth because if we allow everything to continue as it is, we'll run out of space." Something like that.

Interestingly enough, these ideas are the exact ones that Ayn Rand fought against in her book, Atlas Shrugged. I read this over the summer and loved it, even though it took a while to get into the verbose language and 1100 pages.

Atlas Shrugged basically explained the economy to me. Quick synopsis: The government decides that the business owners are greedy because they make a lot of money, so they impose a bunch of really complicated laws to punish smart people for being successful. Then the smart people get together and form their own society where you have to earn the wealth you receive. What a radical idea, right?

Wrong. I don't understand why people think that large business owners that successfully keep their businesses afloat are greedy. They're just proud of their accomplishment, and are rewarded accordingly with their profits. We should not punish the innovative or the competitive; if anything, we should use them as models for society.

What Jenaer and the people who agree with him are pushing for is punishing the intellectuals and rewarding the laymen. If someone is only worth minimum wage, pay them minimum wage. Don't let them assume that they deserve any more.

Take responsibility and accountability for your own production and worth. If I'm better at my job that person A, I should get paid more. If I'm worse at my job or not as valuable as person A, I should get paid less. In this situation, I should find another job, or, better yet, get better at my job.

Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Translation: Everyone is treated like they're worth the same.

Communism is "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed." Translation: Everyone gets what they want whether they've earned it or not.

Does anyone else see how bad this is? How backwards?

You can't handle the truth!

There's been a lot of controversy over Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay, and quite frankly, I don't understand it.

According to USA Today, "The American people and a bipartisan majority of the Congress have already rejected bringing terrorists to U.S. soil for long-term detention, and current law prohibits it."

This seems silly to me. I would feel more safe if the suspected terrorists were held in the United States, for the sole reason that it would force the government to give them a trial.

It doesn't matter what someone does, or is suspected to have done; they deserve a fair trial. Because what if we've been holding innocent people who aren't given the opportunity to speak their side? What if we're wrong?

The reason I would feel safer with them getting fair trials in the US is this; it bodes well for the future of Americans. If my government uses loopholes to get around putting a suspected terrorist on the stand, then who is to say that they won't use similar tactics to me? Maybe I will someday be suspected for treason. What then?

The operative word in this scenario is suspected. Suspected terrorists. Not terrorists, suspected terrorists. That one word plants doubt in my mind, and it worries me that it doesn't plant the same seeds in the people who are allegedly trying to keep me safe. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

Yes, these people are potentially dangerous. Yes, they may have had large parts in plotting to kill Americans. Yes, they may not have anything to lose. But we don't know any of this yet. Not until we give them a trial. And the only way a trial will happen is if they're in the United States.

So bring 'em on, I say, and clear the doubt from the air.

Hey, Castro!

Today during "Congress" we got to debate the Cuban Embargo bill. And the people who argued against it really only had one thing to say; "WE SHOULDN'T AFFIRM COMMUNISM!"

There are only four countries left in the world under a communist government. China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. Of these four countries, we trade with all but Cuba. Obviously, the United States isn't that concerned with seemingly "supporting" communism.

And the thing is, we wouldn't be affirming communism at all. China freaking blocks Google, and they're our 2nd largest trading partner.

It's not about whether our priorities are the same. It's about not letting our pride get in the way of economic prospects.

We started the Cuban Embargo way back during the Cold War, because Russia was using Cuba as a missile base and there was a lot of violence that could potentially spread to us if we didn't cut them off. However, it didn't end here. In 1992, we created the "Cuban Democracy Act", to extend the embargo until there is "democratization and greater respect for human rights".

Personally, I think this is ridiculous. Sure, what the Cuban government is doing to its people is crap, but we don't have any power to change it, especially not with the "silent treatment". When Americans decided they wanted change, we fought for it. But until the masses of Cuban civilians take a stand and ask for our help, we can't do a thing.

If we really wanted to help these people, we'd lift the embargo. Not only would tourism help the overall economy, but the individual citizens as well. Trade would mean hope for these people, and right now, that's all we can give to them.

It's all the same

Last night, my parents called me out into the dining room where they were reading the paper.

"Read this," they urged me, gesturing towards the international news section. I complied. It was an article about how Uganda was working on passing a bill that would put doctors treating homosexuals in jail and the homosexuals themselves onto death row.

Watching my face carefully, my parents frowned. I made no expression. "We thought you'd be more upset." they admitted.

I smiled grimly. "It's not like it's that much different from a country of the free who disallows people to love each other. It's just another extreme.

And it is. Fun fact: "The bill has an American genesis of sorts, inspired to a large extent by the visits of U.S. evangelicals who are involved with a movement that promotes Christianity's role in getting homosexuals to become "ex-gays" through prayer and faith."

Way to go, America. Way to go.

What a waste

Did you know that the United States alone has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 18 times?

Neither did I, until I started researching for the legislation we're doing for our mock Congress activity in Gov. But now, I'm astonished at the blatant and useless wastefulness employed by our federal government under the false label of "national defense".

Why do we have 8,900 more bombs than we need? In what logical plane of mind was this deemed a "good idea"? It doesn't even make sense!

I made a comment about this to Chad, our speaker of the house, in hopes that he would choose this bill to represent my committee during our Congress session. Logan overheard, and was outraged at my idea to disarm our nuclear warheads to the amount that would destroy the world once. (approx. 500, in case you were wondering)

"How are we going to get the terrorists?" he demanded.

Unfortunately, the bell cut off my chance to retort, but really the only thing I could have said would have been "Have your stringent political opinions tarnished your ability for logical reasoning?"

There is no reason to have that many nuclear weapons. They're just festering wounds in our national debt that we ignore out of pride. Previous to this post, I wrote about fixing the economy by legalizing marijuana. Following along the same idea, I think we should also look to disarming and recycling nuclear bombs to revive our flailing finances. (I think I should get AP lit points for that top-notch alliteration)

According to the New York Times, America is already using recycled Russian warheads from the Cold War for 10% of our electricity. "Enriching raw uranium is more expensive than converting highly enriched uranium to fuel grade. To make fuel for electricity-generating reactors, uranium is enriched to less than 5 percent of the isotope U-235. To make weapons, it is enriched to about 90 percent U-235."

Essentially, not only would recycling uranium from our excess of nuclear weapons make more sense than keeping them stagnant and useless as bombs, but it would also be cheaper and feasible. What are we waiting for, America?

Final thoughts:

1. Disarming 94% of our nuclear weapons makes us no less susceptible to nuclear attack, because we'd still have enough to annihilate the planet
2. Fossil fuels are running low, and we're getting progressively more pressed for time to find an alternative
3. The 8,900 excess in nuclear bombs that we have are not only useless in war, but also is financial respects

When I Get Rich

The IRS is not happy.

Even though 14,700 more people have come forward about their foreign bank accounts that they used for tax evasion, it's estimated that there are thousands more. According to MyStateline.com, "The voluntary disclosures are part of settlements of civil and criminal cases against the Swiss bank UBS AG. As part of the agreement, UBS provided the U.S. government agencies with the identities of their American account holders."

The American government is mad because when someone puts their money in an offshore bank account, they don't get taxed. (It's important to note that only rich and upper class citizens use this outlet). I think instead of seeing this as a greedy crime, the current administration should see this as a silent economic protest.

These Americans are putting their money offshore not for greed, but for protection. Our tax system is progressive, meaning that the rich people get taxed at a greater percentage than poor people do. How is this fair? Oh, right, it's not. When people use foreign bank accounts, they're trying to avoid being taxed into oblivion. By hiding some of their income, they are taxed more moderately.

Essentially, these Americans are afraid of the government, and the only means they have of protect themselves is hiding their money.

Progressive taxation is wrong. It's unfair on all ends. With a flat tax, or a tax percentage that is consistent throughout a population, the rich would still end up giving more money up to taxes, but it would be at the same percentage as the poor. Wouldn't that make more sense?

Apparently not. But when someone feels the need to protect themselves from their government, there's a problem. And unless space travel is commercialized soon, we've really got nowhere else to go.

Drive by

Today, Colorado put into effect its new laws concerning cell phones. Texting is illegal for all ages while driving, and being on the phone at all is outlawed for people under 18.

I find this age restriction ridiculous. According to Colorado Teen Driving laws, after one year of having your license, you can drive with two people in the car. And if you got your license at the normal age, you get this privilege at 17.

Let's think about this logically. If at 17, I can drive two people not related to me or in a medical emergency, then that creates both an auditory and a visual stimulation, thus creating an auditory and visual distraction. At 18, I can talk on the phone, which is only an auditory stimulation and distraction.

Did you catch the mistake? Mistake in the law, I mean, not in my logic. If they're concerned about driving safety, why are we concentrating on cell phones and not passengers? Why not up the age we can drive people? Why let anyone drive anyone else at all?

We're starting to cross the line into the absurd. If you trust me to drive two people outside of my family, in addition to family members, at the same time, they why can't you trust me to be on the phone? The texting I understand completely, but talking on the phone doesn't make you look anywhere else. Your visual concentration remains the same.

Let's pick an age, everyone. Allegedly, we become adults at 18. We can fight in the military, get married, vote, and go to jury duty. However, we can't drink, adopt a child, or own a handgun. Why is there a difference? What happens during those three years that make me more trustworthy with alcohol, children, and guns?

Age restrictions are silly when they're inconsistent with logic.