It is well know that the US intelligence agencies knew about 9/11 long before it happened. The reason that 9/11 was not stopped was the hefty layers of Government that surround the entire operation.

To stop the next attack we need to focus on not giving the government more power, but getting the government to use the power it already has to stop the next terrorist attack. Just adding more money and more people isn’t going to solve the problem. If we had the Department of Homeland Security back in 2001, the attack probably still would have occurred.

I think the best way to solve the problem is to cut the funds going to the Intelligence services. Cutting the funds will force them to layoff the extra people that are on the job. Less people, less problems. We need to have a plan for where we want the intelligence to go. Perhaps Homeland Security can act as a center for the whole operation. Foreign intelligence can go to the CIA, while domestic intelligence would be routed to the FBI. As far as I am concerned, the NSA can be picked apart and the appropriate pieces can be reassigned to the CIA and the FBI (perhaps Homeland Security, if we are using that as a hub).

Overall, there has to be less people involved. Government bureaucrats just make the situation worse. Perhaps the military should play a larger role in Intelligence management.

I realize that much of what I have just described is already happening (layout wise) however, they still have a surplus of people and that is dangerous as far as I am concerned.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Legal, Other, Politics, Terrorism by Will Gries on Sunday, April 29th 2007; 3:44 pm

Comments (0)

Approving a Line-Item Veto would make cutting through the crap in spending budgets a million times easier for the President. So many bills get filled up with earmark projects that spend money on things that don’t even fall under what the budget is supposed to be financing. This kind of stuff wastes our money. The sad fact is, the President is usually forced to approve these budgets.

Now, senators and congressmen are, rightly, worried that approving the Line-Item Veto would give the President too much power. Give him the power to cut out important parts of bills that would be too hard to get passed separate from the rest of the bill, in other words discourage comprises between the Capitol and the White House. I understand this, and this is a very important issue.

The way the Line-Item Veto is purposed to work is that the President can veto parts of the bill that he doesn’t agree with. Then, the fractured bill (that wasn’t approved) gets sent back to the Senate and must be revote on the parts with a 2/3 majority like usual. The rest of the bill becomes law (with the other parts joining it later on, if they are approved).

In fact, most Governors hold this power. Only seven states do not give this power to their Governors. The Line-Item Veto was even passed in 1996 by Republicans (supported by President Clinton). However this specific veto power was ruled to be unconstitutional. However, the Line-Item veto allows Congress to re-approve the parts that the President has vetoed. So this power isn’t unconstitutional and is a reasonable solution to a spending crisis.

Congress still fails to get behind this veto power. I say that in order to get them on deck that we should limit the power to only spending bills. In this way they can have the same power that they have always had on everything else. If you are up to it, I would recommend that you write to your elected officials.

Posted under Legal, Politics by Will Gries on Saturday, April 28th 2007; 8:50 pm

Comments (0)

The Democrats had a pretty elaborate plan coming in to office. They were going to do all these things that the Republicans wouldn’t do, or didn’t do. For voters, this would be the “change” that they wanted.

Well, it is almost May of 2007, and they have accomplished almost nothing. It seems that they have spent the majority of their time fighting the President on the War in Iraq. Now I realize that Democrats are perfectly entitled to have a difference in ideas of how we should be fighting the war. In fact, I think that the conflicting ideas are good, hopefully it will lead to a better solution for all. However, Democrats don’t have a 2/3 majority and the President has vowed to veto any spending bill that attaches a time table.

So why are they spending so much of their time devoted to this very bill that there is no way in hell that they are getting passed.  I just do not understand why they can’t spend their time on something else.  Even if they are passing bills that I don’t agree with, at least they will be doing something productive.  The only time that they seemed concerned with is going against the President.

Good job Dems.  But seriously, keep this up and you will insure a Republican victory in ‘08.  So thanks; your ensuring that we get the lesser of two evils.

Posted under Iraq War, Politics by Will Gries on Saturday, April 28th 2007; 8:13 pm

Comments (1)

In the wake of the VA Tech tragedy; we have seen how easy it was for the shooter to buy his mass-murder weapon. It hurts us that somebody so mentally disturbed can even touch a gun not to mention use it. Perhaps, if guns weren’t legal then we could easily avoid such a tragedy in the future. Right?

Wrong. It is as simple as the say ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’. This simple phrase sums it up nicely: The gun doesn’t actually kill anyone, it just enables people to kill in a different way. People killed long before guns and people would still kill after they are (if they ever) taken away. Nut-job killers will just have to find a new way to kill people.

Now for a history lesson. The framers intended for us to have guns; they even say so in the second amendment. Why? Well, our country wouldn’t have ever started if it wasn’t for the fact that Americans had guns to fight the British with. We would still be British if it wasn’t for those guns. Furthermore, our founders believed that it was our right to abolish governments that stood in the way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They say so in the Declaration of Independence: “…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” It becomes very clear that they want us to have guns for our own good; to over throw our government when it begins to oppress.

Let’s consider this for a second. We outlaw guns right now… no citizens have them, however our military and police forces do. Right now, we can consider these forces friendly but what happens in 150 years when the government begins to oppress Americans. Perhaps they even harm us. We have no way to overthrow the government as the founders wanted and we have no way to protect ourselves from our government. Sounds like a terrible situation to me.

If we outlaw guns, will criminals (law breakers) stop using them? NO, of course not: they are law breakers and WILL break the law. They just will have to get their guns from Mexico or other sources which presents two big problems for America. One, we won’t have any record of these guns. When a criminal uses them in a murder, we won’t be able to identify the gun killed the victim and the person who actually committed the crime. And two, criminals will still have guns however law abiding Americans won’t have the right to have a gun for protection. What I mean to say is that currently, criminals have to play it safe not know if the person they are about to rob has a handgun in her jacket or a gun in his shoe. They have to guess and hope; they don’t have the guarantee of safety. Make them certain of what they are doing and they will be almost unstoppable.

What happens to all the guns currently in possession? Lots of professional and amateur hunters spend quite a lot of money on guns. Are we just to force these people to throw away items that they paid quite a bit of money for? What about those people who have guns passed down as family heirlooms? Are we to expect them to throw away something that has been in their family possession for ages?

What happens to the deer population? It is already exploding, I’d hate to see what would happen if we took away all the hunters that are keeping them in check. Our society would experience more car crashes with deer meaning higher costs (insurance) and more fatal accidents.

What would we do with the people that we put of a job? Many, many people make a living off of things relating to the gun industry. Are we really willing to allow these people to lose their jobs?

After examining the issue (and hopefully covering everything), I think that it is pretty safe to say that completely removing guns from our society would be a harmful thing. It would be expensive, it would be economically harming, it would have a small effect on crime, and it would put in a bad place if we ever need to have a change of regime right here in our own country.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Legal, News, Politics by Will Gries on Friday, April 20th 2007; 9:34 pm

Comments (0)

It just gets old after awhile. In our society, we barely go three months without hearing at least something about racism. Somebody was racist or somebody accused somebody of being racist. Right now, it is beat up Don Imus day. As far as I am concerned this isn’t the first and won’t be the last ‘Let’s have a discussion on racism’ moment.

Sure, Don Imus’ remarks were uncalled for. What he said on the air was absolutely ridiculous. It was insulting for all of the rest of us to listen to. But was it really necessary to fire him?  No, let the free market do that.  Lets face it; NBC and CBS WANT public attention. It gets their companies money and that is what is needed in our open market place. So why did they fire the guy that gets them the money?

The simple answer: Americans are willing to ‘People of color’ to say insulting things about their own race (see almost ever song ever made) but not willing to let white Americans say the same thing. Ironically, the only reason why rappers can afford to say these things is because Americans buy their albums. As long as we are willing to buy music that insults Blacks, Whites, Women, etc; they will be willing to make it.

If we have reached a point in our history where we have decided that it is time to end racism, we need to stop feeding the people who fuel it. Stop listening to the Imus’ of the world; stop buying hateful rap. Stop making race something to be talked about.

Of course, this applies to diversity on the whole. You go anywhere that ‘celebrates diversity’ and take a look around. You can see information on Black culture, Asian culture, Indian culture but you will never see anything on European Culture. Similarly, you can see stuff on Islam and Hindu religions but you will never encounter stuff on Christianity or, in some cases, even Judaism.

The simplest method to solving the problem is to just stop talking about it. Or, if you are going to talk about it, give everyone equal spotlight.

Posted under Cultural Battles, Politics, Religion by Will Gries on Sunday, April 15th 2007; 6:22 pm

Comments (0)

Several clips depicting the Thai king as a monkey were posted on YouTube this past week. Apparently, the Thai Government is extremely offended and has requested that Google (Google owns YouTube) remove the video clips. They view it as an insult to the Thai people and they view it as illegal; insulting the monarchy in Thailand carries a punishment. In fact, recently a Swiss man was sentenced 10 years in prison for defacing a photograph of the King.

I find this a little crazy. Firstly, if somebody is going to play the game; that is be involved in politics whether it be as a President, King, Senator, whatever - they had better be ready to be made fun of. They shouldn’t strike back because somebody is making fun at them; in fact I would say that if they can manage to laugh at themselves they turn out better in the end.

Secondly, the Minister of Information and Technology, Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom, is on the record stating that he is a proponent of free speech but will not tolerate materials that offend the monarchy! How contradictory, this guy says he wants free speech and then kills it in the same sentence.

Of course Google made a rather surprise move to refuse aid… they aid the Chinese government in censoring results for Chinese users meaning that Chinese users only receive results approved by the Chinese government. Then again, Thailand had it right, it is all about the money. See Thailand actually only blocked YouTube and not Google so Google can still make money in Thailand plus even if Google was blocked Thailand is such a small market that it wouldn’t break Google’s back to not have it. But not having China would break Google’s back, so that is why they help with the censoring.

“Don’t Be Evil.” Wikipedia. 3 Apr. 2007. Wikipedia. 8 Apr. 2007

“More Clips Mocking Thai King Posted on YouTube.” CNet News. 6 Apr. 2007. cNet. 8 Apr. 2007 http://news.com.com/More+clips+mocking+Thai+king+posted+on+YouTube/2100-1028_3-6174042>.

“YouTube Offers to ‘Educate’ Thai Officials to End Ban Over Videos Mocking Revered King.” FOXNews. 7 Apr. 2007. FOXNews. 8 Apr. 2007

Posted under Comic Relief, Cultural Battles, News, Other, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, April 9th 2007; 3:16 pm

Comments (0)

Have a Happy Easter!

Posted under Other by Will Gries on Sunday, April 8th 2007; 12:23 am

Comments (0)

“The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.” (New York Times)

Despite what many people in the rest of the world, this is a step in the wrong direction. Carbon controls are a truly dangerous thing to play around with. Carbon controls are just a synonym for market controls. Since most consumers wouldn’t willing chose a more expensive car just because it had less emissions (although if the car had some other redeeming feature, like being a hybrid and thus getting more miles to the gallon) the government must force car companies to make cars that have less emissions. In turn, this will getting passed on to the consumer (eliminating their choice in the matter) making us have to pay more for cars. This won’t stop here though; soon everything will have carbon caps and making us have to pay more for almost everything.

This is the primary reason the US opted not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (although we signed it, it has no force of law until ratified by Congress, which it hasn’t been). The economic weight of such a move would be very harmful of our still growing economies (although the effect probably wouldn’t be immediate). Just check out the countries that did ratify the Kyoto Protocol: almost all of them are struggling to meet the next deadline, most of the European countries have more carbon emissions that when they signed.

The way to lower carbon is to give some tax breaks to people who choose to buy carbon efficient technologies. In this manner, the activity of buying carbon efficient technologies is encouraged and the economy isn’t going to be broken over this. Heck as we reach Al Gore’s ten year mark (the world will cease to exist in ten years because of global warming) we can even add a carbon tax, something that Gore just argued for on Capital Hill (OK! I am just kidding).

Stout, David. “Justices Rule Against Bush Administration on Emissions.” New York Times. 2 Apr. 2007. New York Times. 2 Apr. 2007 .

“Kyoto Protocol.” Wikipedia. 31 Mar. 2007. Wikipedia. 2 Apr. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty>.

Posted under Climate Change, Global Warming, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, April 2nd 2007; 6:58 pm

Comments (2)

The story behind the kidnapping of the 15 British sailors has more to it than the Iranian government is revealingly.

There is no doubt in my mind that the 15 British sailors were in Iraqi waters.  I don’t doubt the GPS data released by the British Government proving that they were in legal waters.  I also don’t doubt that they were in Iraqi waters because Iranians frequently move between Iraq and Iran kidnapping and terrorizing as they please.

I think the Iranians who kidnapped the sailors weren’t really aware of their position when they happened upon the 15.  I think they kidnapped, taking the opportunity that was given to them.  I also think that these Iranians don’t report to the President of Iran, but to the religious zealots that practically run Iran.  Now Iran has the hostages and my best guess is that they don’t really know what to do with them now.

They aren’t really of any value to them dead or alive so I don’t see why they are keeping them alive (or in custody).  It seems odd to me that they haven’t already killed them; they know that they won’t get their demands.  So far the have demanded a total British troop withdrawal from Iraq.

The only value that these saliors have the government is to keep the country united, to keep the country from falling apart (which it will eventually, all these regimes of terror will - to be replaced with new regimes of terror or otherwise).  It gives the Government some power; they can say look, here are the beginnings of the invaders.  They will try to charge the country with nationalism; a last ditch effort to keep the country from falling into a revolution.

I also think that they are keeping them to distract the World from the ongoing Nuclear development.  Granted, it will only work for so long but have you heard the media talk about the nukes since the hostage taking?

The British should find where they are keeping the hostages (easier said than done, but the British have a good espionage agency) and rescue them.  Not a Carter style rescue either (unsuccessful) but a rescue that the elite Brits are capable of.  Good Luck and God’s Speed.

Posted under Cultural Battles, News, Politics by Will Gries on Monday, April 2nd 2007; 3:01 pm

Comments (0)