Privacy Policy for www.politic-zen.blogspot.com
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at madzkur@gmail.com.
At www.politic-zen.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by www.politic-zen.blogspot.com and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, www.politic-zen.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
www.politic-zen.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include Google Adsense, .
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on www.politic-zen.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
www.politic-zen.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. www.politic-zen.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
Rabu, 16 April 2008
Senin, 07 April 2008
5 Reasons Why Hillary is Not Ready for the Red Phone
by zenprise
As we all know now, the "3 AM" ad that Hillary ran was very successful at casting doubts on Barack Obama's readiness to be Commander-and-Chief. Well, I'd like to ask, what qualifies Hillary for the task? Despite all the bs lap dog Howard Wolfson has been spewing, surprisingly little. So I made a list of the 5 reasons Hillary is unfit to be our president during a time of war. Hear goes:
1. The Iraq War Vote - This one's easy. Obama was right in saying that this was the single most important decision of our generation, and she got it wrong. Not only have we put our soldiers in harms way, unnecessarily killing and maiming both them and innocent Iraqis, but we've taken our eye off the real problem, which is Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan. 21 of her colleagues in the senate had the right judgment, and I would vote for anyone of them for President. In my opinion, her vote makes her unfit for the office. 2. The Iran Resolution - After spending months trying to explain away her vote on the Iraq war as a byproduct of faulty intelligence, she goes and does it again. Whether she admits it or not, labeling the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization gives President Bush all the justification he needs to start another war of choice (and profit). John Edwards was very correct in saying that he would never give this President even the slightest opportunity to attack Iran. 3. John McCain has more experience - If you're really going to make this a referendum on who has the most experience, then you have to vote for Sen. McCain. With 20+ years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as a former Navy pilot and prisoner of war, McCain really has the experience argument in the bag. When Sen. Obama is officially the nominee, he will be able to run on his good judgement against McCain's line about experience. Hillary will have no such option. 4. Clapping for the surge - For those of you who don't know what I'm referring to, when the President said in this year's State of the Union address that the surge is working, Hillary Clinton jumped out of her seat, grinning and clapping in agreement. This caused conservative pundit Ann Coulter to wet her pants in delight. You see, Coulter and Crew are not happy about McCain being their guy, and so she said that she was willing to support Hillary based on Coulter's belief that Sen. Clinton was more hawkish than she is willing to admit in Democratic circles. I never thought I would say this, but I have to agree with Ann Coulter. 5. Not sleeping with the former Commander-in-Chief isn't experience - I guess I could have phrased that differently, but she keeps droning on about her "35 years of experience", but fails to provide any details. If we take here at her word, I guess she was the brains behind our operations in Somalia. That went really well. She could argue that Kosovo was a great success, but then she'd also have to take responsibility for the bombings of the USS Cole and of our embassies overseas. By the way, where was the elected President Clinton in all of this? I guess he was too busy getting blown. And for the real kicker, she didn't go after Bin Laden back before 9/11, so I guess we can blame her for that as well.
She can't have it both ways, even those she always tries.
I bet there are more reasons that can be mentioned. If you can think of any, I'd love to hear them. Just sign in (or sign up) and leave your comments.
About the Author
I'm a programmer, entrepreneur and Obama supporter. Visit my Obama blog at http://www.eyesonobama.com
As we all know now, the "3 AM" ad that Hillary ran was very successful at casting doubts on Barack Obama's readiness to be Commander-and-Chief. Well, I'd like to ask, what qualifies Hillary for the task? Despite all the bs lap dog Howard Wolfson has been spewing, surprisingly little. So I made a list of the 5 reasons Hillary is unfit to be our president during a time of war. Hear goes:
1. The Iraq War Vote - This one's easy. Obama was right in saying that this was the single most important decision of our generation, and she got it wrong. Not only have we put our soldiers in harms way, unnecessarily killing and maiming both them and innocent Iraqis, but we've taken our eye off the real problem, which is Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan. 21 of her colleagues in the senate had the right judgment, and I would vote for anyone of them for President. In my opinion, her vote makes her unfit for the office. 2. The Iran Resolution - After spending months trying to explain away her vote on the Iraq war as a byproduct of faulty intelligence, she goes and does it again. Whether she admits it or not, labeling the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization gives President Bush all the justification he needs to start another war of choice (and profit). John Edwards was very correct in saying that he would never give this President even the slightest opportunity to attack Iran. 3. John McCain has more experience - If you're really going to make this a referendum on who has the most experience, then you have to vote for Sen. McCain. With 20+ years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as a former Navy pilot and prisoner of war, McCain really has the experience argument in the bag. When Sen. Obama is officially the nominee, he will be able to run on his good judgement against McCain's line about experience. Hillary will have no such option. 4. Clapping for the surge - For those of you who don't know what I'm referring to, when the President said in this year's State of the Union address that the surge is working, Hillary Clinton jumped out of her seat, grinning and clapping in agreement. This caused conservative pundit Ann Coulter to wet her pants in delight. You see, Coulter and Crew are not happy about McCain being their guy, and so she said that she was willing to support Hillary based on Coulter's belief that Sen. Clinton was more hawkish than she is willing to admit in Democratic circles. I never thought I would say this, but I have to agree with Ann Coulter. 5. Not sleeping with the former Commander-in-Chief isn't experience - I guess I could have phrased that differently, but she keeps droning on about her "35 years of experience", but fails to provide any details. If we take here at her word, I guess she was the brains behind our operations in Somalia. That went really well. She could argue that Kosovo was a great success, but then she'd also have to take responsibility for the bombings of the USS Cole and of our embassies overseas. By the way, where was the elected President Clinton in all of this? I guess he was too busy getting blown. And for the real kicker, she didn't go after Bin Laden back before 9/11, so I guess we can blame her for that as well.
She can't have it both ways, even those she always tries.
I bet there are more reasons that can be mentioned. If you can think of any, I'd love to hear them. Just sign in (or sign up) and leave your comments.
About the Author
I'm a programmer, entrepreneur and Obama supporter. Visit my Obama blog at http://www.eyesonobama.com
Sometimes Nothing is the Right Thing to Do
by NotYourDaddy
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." -- John McCain
Despite the fact that Senator McCain has said the economy isn't his strong point, he has a lot stronger grasp of basic economic principles than anybody else running for president, not to mention a lot of other people in Washington who ought to know better.
In addition to the Bear Stearns bailout, since the beginning of the year, the Fed has loaned over $260 billion to banks that got into financial trouble by making bad mortgage loans. The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 is on the horizon, and there's another bill lined up behind it to extend an additional $300-400 billion in federally guaranteed (that means guaranteed by you and me) mortgages for people who overextended themselves to buy houses that were well beyond their means.
Senator Obama talks about "folks [being] tricked into purchasing loans they can't afford." Both Senators Obama and Clinton think we need to kick in a $30 billion dollar emergency housing fund (at taxpayer expense) to help bail out these poor victims, never mind that they're victims of their own greed and irresponsibility. Senator Clinton also wants to freeze subprime mortgage rates and impose a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures for the poor dears. And, earlier this week, Senator Clinton suggested that perhaps the government should start buying up foreclosed homes. It's not enough for the government to be in the healthcare business, now she wants to get it into the real estate business, too. (Is there any business Mrs. Clinton doesn't think the government should be in?)
While Senators Clinton and Obama are leaping over one another trying to come up with more innovative and expensive ways for the government to manipulate the housing market, Senator McCain is quietly saying it isn't the role of the government's to bail out either the banks or the borrowers. The Democrats scoff. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean sneers that McCain is taking "the same hands-off approach that President Bush used to lead us into this crisis."
What the Democrats fail to understand is the basic principles of economics. (But what else is new?) It was not a "hands off" policy that got us into this mess, but a "hands on" policy of lowering interest rates and expanding FHA, FNMA, and FHLMC financing to encourage unprecedented (and unwarranted) growth in the housing market. The government got us into this situation by meddling in the free market. It isn't going to get us out by meddling more. What needs to happen is the market needs to find a balance where the demand meets the supply. The only way for that to happen is to let it occur naturally. Yes, it means housing prices will drop. They're doing that anyway. Yes, it's painful. But it has to happen.
Federal policies aimed at making it easier for first time home buyers to buy houses before they could actually afford those houses led to an artificially high demand, which artificially inflated prices. People (and financing companies) started playing fast and loose, speculating that the manic spiral in home prices would continue indefinitely. But it couldn't. Supply increased to meet demand, interest rates went up, people who overextended themselves couldn't meet their payments and started defaulting, demand fell off just as supply was peaking, and the market was oversaturated. Now it has to correct.
The laws of economics weren't made up by economists, any more than the laws of physics were made up by physicists. These "laws" are based on observation and analysis of naturally occurring phenomena. They can't be changed or wished away. Imbalances do occur but, over time, they correct themselves. The housing market is self-correcting now. It will eventually reach equilibrium. Any measures that attempt to forestall that will only postpone the inevitable. A problem deferred is not a problem solved.
The Democrats insist that the government can't just stand by and do nothing. Something bad is happening. We must do something! Anything! They have no idea how to solve the problem, because the problem can't be solved by more government meddling, and government meddling is the only thing they know how to do. But, since they can think of nothing more embarrassing than standing around doing nothing, they're leaping over each other trying desperately to show us that they will do something. (Not nothing, like Senator McCain.) And what they'll do is what they always do. When they see a problem, they throw money at it. Your money. My money. Everybody's money. Unfortunately, that won't solve the problem. Because, sometimes, nothing is the right thing to do.
The Democratic response, as usual, is like a parent with a spoiled child. They think it's their job as parent to prevent their child from ever experiencing any pain, so they go to any lengths to shield it from the consequences of its own actions. But a child who never faces consequences never learns. Sometimes pain is necessary, especially when it's a natural consequence of irrational behavior.
About the Author
NotYourDaddy is a conservative libertarian who believes in free will and the free market. NYD thinks the role of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. Stop there.
NYD's attitude toward ever-expanding government can best be summed up by snarling "Get your hand out of my pocket and leave me alone!"
Visit NotYourDaddy's blog at Government is Not Your Daddy.
"I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers." -- John McCain
Despite the fact that Senator McCain has said the economy isn't his strong point, he has a lot stronger grasp of basic economic principles than anybody else running for president, not to mention a lot of other people in Washington who ought to know better.
In addition to the Bear Stearns bailout, since the beginning of the year, the Fed has loaned over $260 billion to banks that got into financial trouble by making bad mortgage loans. The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 is on the horizon, and there's another bill lined up behind it to extend an additional $300-400 billion in federally guaranteed (that means guaranteed by you and me) mortgages for people who overextended themselves to buy houses that were well beyond their means.
Senator Obama talks about "folks [being] tricked into purchasing loans they can't afford." Both Senators Obama and Clinton think we need to kick in a $30 billion dollar emergency housing fund (at taxpayer expense) to help bail out these poor victims, never mind that they're victims of their own greed and irresponsibility. Senator Clinton also wants to freeze subprime mortgage rates and impose a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures for the poor dears. And, earlier this week, Senator Clinton suggested that perhaps the government should start buying up foreclosed homes. It's not enough for the government to be in the healthcare business, now she wants to get it into the real estate business, too. (Is there any business Mrs. Clinton doesn't think the government should be in?)
While Senators Clinton and Obama are leaping over one another trying to come up with more innovative and expensive ways for the government to manipulate the housing market, Senator McCain is quietly saying it isn't the role of the government's to bail out either the banks or the borrowers. The Democrats scoff. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean sneers that McCain is taking "the same hands-off approach that President Bush used to lead us into this crisis."
What the Democrats fail to understand is the basic principles of economics. (But what else is new?) It was not a "hands off" policy that got us into this mess, but a "hands on" policy of lowering interest rates and expanding FHA, FNMA, and FHLMC financing to encourage unprecedented (and unwarranted) growth in the housing market. The government got us into this situation by meddling in the free market. It isn't going to get us out by meddling more. What needs to happen is the market needs to find a balance where the demand meets the supply. The only way for that to happen is to let it occur naturally. Yes, it means housing prices will drop. They're doing that anyway. Yes, it's painful. But it has to happen.
Federal policies aimed at making it easier for first time home buyers to buy houses before they could actually afford those houses led to an artificially high demand, which artificially inflated prices. People (and financing companies) started playing fast and loose, speculating that the manic spiral in home prices would continue indefinitely. But it couldn't. Supply increased to meet demand, interest rates went up, people who overextended themselves couldn't meet their payments and started defaulting, demand fell off just as supply was peaking, and the market was oversaturated. Now it has to correct.
The laws of economics weren't made up by economists, any more than the laws of physics were made up by physicists. These "laws" are based on observation and analysis of naturally occurring phenomena. They can't be changed or wished away. Imbalances do occur but, over time, they correct themselves. The housing market is self-correcting now. It will eventually reach equilibrium. Any measures that attempt to forestall that will only postpone the inevitable. A problem deferred is not a problem solved.
The Democrats insist that the government can't just stand by and do nothing. Something bad is happening. We must do something! Anything! They have no idea how to solve the problem, because the problem can't be solved by more government meddling, and government meddling is the only thing they know how to do. But, since they can think of nothing more embarrassing than standing around doing nothing, they're leaping over each other trying desperately to show us that they will do something. (Not nothing, like Senator McCain.) And what they'll do is what they always do. When they see a problem, they throw money at it. Your money. My money. Everybody's money. Unfortunately, that won't solve the problem. Because, sometimes, nothing is the right thing to do.
The Democratic response, as usual, is like a parent with a spoiled child. They think it's their job as parent to prevent their child from ever experiencing any pain, so they go to any lengths to shield it from the consequences of its own actions. But a child who never faces consequences never learns. Sometimes pain is necessary, especially when it's a natural consequence of irrational behavior.
About the Author
NotYourDaddy is a conservative libertarian who believes in free will and the free market. NYD thinks the role of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. Stop there.
NYD's attitude toward ever-expanding government can best be summed up by snarling "Get your hand out of my pocket and leave me alone!"
Visit NotYourDaddy's blog at Government is Not Your Daddy.
Had I known You Were a Jew
by Bob Miller
It was a dark and stormy night in Las Vegas. When I walked out of the casino, my partner said as he got into his car, "Do your best not to kill anyone tonight, Miller." I didn't bother to answer him because that would have been a commitment. Our vocation required that we carry a concealed weapon, and I almost never went anywhere without it.
Somewhere near the intersection of Sahara and Las Vegas Blvd., I saw two men trying to beat up some old guy. I say trying because the old man was holding his own. I decided to just watch since he was raising some knots on the heads of these two guys. However, the odds and youth began to take their toll, so I made my presence known thinking the two thugs would not like the odds and leave. That was not to be the case. One of them pulled out a weapon and headed towards me. Big mistake on his part. My weapon was larger and far more deadly than his.
To make a long story short, the two would-be robbers left the area in need of serious medical attention. As I was taking the old man to the hospital to get some stitches, I said, "You're quite a fighter, old man."
He replied, "When you're a Jew, you'd better know how to fight or they'll kill you."
This really took me back. I was born and raised in the backwoods of Alabama and there were no Jews in that area, at least none that I knew of. Everything I had been told about the Jewish people wasn't good. So I said to the old man, "Hell, had I known you were a Jew, I wouldn't have stopped to help."
With big crocodile tears running down his cheek, he asked, "Why?" I didn't know why and told him so. We were close friends until his death.
About the Author
Bob Miller born in Florence AL, served as a pilot in Vietnam in 1968-69. He was shot down twice and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal. He ran for a seat in the U.S. Senate in 1992. He produced the television show, The Late Show (BLAB 2001), and worked as the golf pro on Holland America's ms Westerdam. Miller is considered one of America's most controversial writers.
It was a dark and stormy night in Las Vegas. When I walked out of the casino, my partner said as he got into his car, "Do your best not to kill anyone tonight, Miller." I didn't bother to answer him because that would have been a commitment. Our vocation required that we carry a concealed weapon, and I almost never went anywhere without it.
Somewhere near the intersection of Sahara and Las Vegas Blvd., I saw two men trying to beat up some old guy. I say trying because the old man was holding his own. I decided to just watch since he was raising some knots on the heads of these two guys. However, the odds and youth began to take their toll, so I made my presence known thinking the two thugs would not like the odds and leave. That was not to be the case. One of them pulled out a weapon and headed towards me. Big mistake on his part. My weapon was larger and far more deadly than his.
To make a long story short, the two would-be robbers left the area in need of serious medical attention. As I was taking the old man to the hospital to get some stitches, I said, "You're quite a fighter, old man."
He replied, "When you're a Jew, you'd better know how to fight or they'll kill you."
This really took me back. I was born and raised in the backwoods of Alabama and there were no Jews in that area, at least none that I knew of. Everything I had been told about the Jewish people wasn't good. So I said to the old man, "Hell, had I known you were a Jew, I wouldn't have stopped to help."
With big crocodile tears running down his cheek, he asked, "Why?" I didn't know why and told him so. We were close friends until his death.
About the Author
Bob Miller born in Florence AL, served as a pilot in Vietnam in 1968-69. He was shot down twice and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal. He ran for a seat in the U.S. Senate in 1992. He produced the television show, The Late Show (BLAB 2001), and worked as the golf pro on Holland America's ms Westerdam. Miller is considered one of America's most controversial writers.
Why So Corrupt?
by John Barell
Recently The New York Times (3/16/08) reported that up to one third of the oil supplies from an Iraqi oil refinery in Baiji are being stolen and sold on the black market. The reporter, Richard A Oppel, Jr., noted that most if not all of these stolen monies are going to insurgents and, thus, being used to kill Iraqis and Americans.
Oppel writes: "The sea of oil under Iraq is supposed to rebuild the nation, then make it prosper. But at least one-third, and possibly much more, of the fuel from Iraq's largest refinery here [in Baiji] is diverted to the black market, according to American military officials." He continues to note that oil tankers are being hijacked, drivers are being bribed, papers forged "and some of the earnings go to insurgents who are still killing more than 100 Iraqis a week."
This is a very unfortunate situation--not only that the oil is being diverted away from needed domestic purposes but that so many Iraqis are being killed every week, if we can believe these figures.
One wonders why, after five years of this conflict, we are in this position. Why are we not able to control this kind of corruption? Why is not the Iraqi Army able to "stand up" and defend its own oil resources? (Remember when we were told that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for this entire conflict? Why then are we now spending upwards of 10 billion a month to fund this war?)
Perhaps it is the case that those who are doing the stealing are people who want to heat their own homes, who want a steady stream of electricity into their living rooms. All reasonable desires.
Perhaps it is also the case that those who are engaged in fueling the insurgency in this way are participating in the on-going feud between Shia, Sunni and Kurds. It may also be the case that our "winning" with the Surge, as some claim, has not gone far enough to quell this kind of internal strife amongst the various parties.
More recently, the fighting in Basra between Shia militias and Iraqi Army forces, indicates that even with our Surge troops in place we haven't helped these rival groups reconcile with each other.
I wonder when we will realize that the force of armament alone, as General David Petraeus has often asserted, will not be sufficient to bring stability to Iraq. When will we realize that it is up to the politicians to effect national reconciliation? Perhaps it is a lot easier to wage military combat than slowly develop and foster the institutions required for democracy--those local and national forums where all can discuss and debate important issues.
About the Author
John Barell, Author: Quest for Antarctica--A Journey of Wonder and Discovery (2007); Surviving Erebus--An Antarctic Adventure (2008); Developing More Curious Minds (2003). http://www.morecuriousminds.com
Recently The New York Times (3/16/08) reported that up to one third of the oil supplies from an Iraqi oil refinery in Baiji are being stolen and sold on the black market. The reporter, Richard A Oppel, Jr., noted that most if not all of these stolen monies are going to insurgents and, thus, being used to kill Iraqis and Americans.
Oppel writes: "The sea of oil under Iraq is supposed to rebuild the nation, then make it prosper. But at least one-third, and possibly much more, of the fuel from Iraq's largest refinery here [in Baiji] is diverted to the black market, according to American military officials." He continues to note that oil tankers are being hijacked, drivers are being bribed, papers forged "and some of the earnings go to insurgents who are still killing more than 100 Iraqis a week."
This is a very unfortunate situation--not only that the oil is being diverted away from needed domestic purposes but that so many Iraqis are being killed every week, if we can believe these figures.
One wonders why, after five years of this conflict, we are in this position. Why are we not able to control this kind of corruption? Why is not the Iraqi Army able to "stand up" and defend its own oil resources? (Remember when we were told that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for this entire conflict? Why then are we now spending upwards of 10 billion a month to fund this war?)
Perhaps it is the case that those who are doing the stealing are people who want to heat their own homes, who want a steady stream of electricity into their living rooms. All reasonable desires.
Perhaps it is also the case that those who are engaged in fueling the insurgency in this way are participating in the on-going feud between Shia, Sunni and Kurds. It may also be the case that our "winning" with the Surge, as some claim, has not gone far enough to quell this kind of internal strife amongst the various parties.
More recently, the fighting in Basra between Shia militias and Iraqi Army forces, indicates that even with our Surge troops in place we haven't helped these rival groups reconcile with each other.
I wonder when we will realize that the force of armament alone, as General David Petraeus has often asserted, will not be sufficient to bring stability to Iraq. When will we realize that it is up to the politicians to effect national reconciliation? Perhaps it is a lot easier to wage military combat than slowly develop and foster the institutions required for democracy--those local and national forums where all can discuss and debate important issues.
About the Author
John Barell, Author: Quest for Antarctica--A Journey of Wonder and Discovery (2007); Surviving Erebus--An Antarctic Adventure (2008); Developing More Curious Minds (2003). http://www.morecuriousminds.com
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
