Freely Bestowing Information
Feb 12, 2007 Uncategorized
The FBI is an organization that is supposed to investigate crime, gather information, and protect the citizens of this country. Unfortunately, they have changed from an information gathering organization to an information dispensing one. In fewer than four years the FBI has lost 160 laptop computers at least ten of which contained classified information. This information comes from an organization that has had trouble keeping track of its property for many years. It appears that instead of gathering information on the criminals, the FBI is allowing people to gather our information. Who knows where that information has landed and how it will be used. It would be criminal if the next terrorist attack occurred because of information contained on one of those laptops.
If it is not bad enough that they lost the laptops and all that information, the FBI reports that it has lost 160 weapons during that same time period. Since those numbers are exactly the same, it would be interesting to see if the same people lost both items. In any event, there are 160 weapons unaccounted for and that means they could be used to harm others as has happened in the past. This is inexcusable and the agents who lost this equipment need to be held accountable. They need to be put on probation or lose their jobs for this carelessness.
The FBI is required to keep track of around 52,000 weapons and 26,000 laptops. Do these agents not have to sign for their equipment and do not their supervisors have to accomplish a regular inventory? These are not large sums and they should be able to be controlled. In the military if a soldier loses a weapon (aside from losing it in combat) the whole unit is out searching for it until it is found. I can remember more than one occasion walking around for hours looking for the weapon of a lunkhead who failed to secure it. I also know that when a soldier loses a weapon there is a price to pay. It usually involves loss of rank, loss of pay, and reimbursement for the weapon if it is not found.
This report does not indicate if any of the people responsible were punished for their carelessness. If this is not the case they need to receive punishment. There also needs to be a public documentation of that punishment so the taxpayers will know that there are repercussions for careless acts by public servants.
I am not too happy with this report. Th Inspector General can laud the FBI for decreasing the number of losses but that does not wash with me. If these agents are not able to secure their weapons and their laptops, how in the world will they secure this country. If they can’t protect their equipment I have little faith they can protect America.
Source:
Washington Post
Tags: Commentary
Obama Flunks Foreign Policy 101
Feb 12, 2007 Uncategorized
Since the war on terror started the Democratic Party has told us time and again that we are alienating the world and that our allies are unhappy with us. We need to make nice with them and the rest of the world and the terrorists will stop being bad and trying to kill us. The Democrats have forgotten what allies are and what it means to be an ally. All during the Iraq phase of the war on terror the Democrats have failed to recognize other countries that are helping. They were relegated to the status of insignificant.
Prime minister John Howard of Australia this past week made a comment that indicated the terrorists should pray that Obama wins and the democrats are in charge. This was in response to Obama’s assertions that our troops should be removed from Iraq by March of next year. Howard indicated that this would be a defeat for the US and would impact the security of his nation. He is, of course, correct. Obama’s response demonstrates how he lacks an understanding of the world.
Obama, in Iowa a day after formally announcing his candidacy, responded to Howard’s initial comments by saying he was flattered that one of Bush’s close allies had chosen to single him out for attack.
He then challenged Howard on his commitment to the Iraq conflict, noting the United States has nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq compared with Australia’s about 1,400 forces in the region.
“So if he is ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq,” Obama said. “Otherwise it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.” Washington Post
Here is where Obama gets it wrong. John Howard is not one of Bush’s allies. Australia is one of the allies of the United States. While there might be individual friendships, alliances are between nations. Obama should realize that Howard is Obama’s ally too. That is because Howard represents Australia and Obama is a citizen of the US and that makes us ALL allies. For a man who wants to be President it does not seem very wise for him to question the commitment of an ally. Of course, this is what the left has been doing since the war started.
Obama also told us, without realizing it, that the plan by the president to send more troops is the right one. Obama said that if Howard is ginned up for a fight he needs to send 20,000 more troops or his talk is empty rhetoric. So Obama is admitting that if you want to fight you need more troops. Those are his words. Bush has stated that he wants to take the fight to the enemy and decided to send 21,500 more troops. Obama opposes that troop increase. The fact that Obama does not want to send more troops shows that he does not want our President to succeed in Iraq and that he does not want us to fight the terrorists. When Obama tells anyone he wants us to have national security it is empty rhetoric.
Obama admitted that the way to win the fight is to send more troops. Since he opposes sending more of our troops he does not want us to win. For a guy who wants to be President he sure does not act very Presidential.
Cheers to John Howard and all our allies and friends in Australia. I will take a group of Aussie Diggers over any American Liberal any day of the week. With the Diggers you know you have someone who will watch your back, not stab you in it like the Liberals will do. I will take any of our Aussie friends who support us over any of our Liberals. With the Aussie, you get someone you can count on to help you succeed. The same can not be said about an American Liberal.
Tags: Commentary
Increased Minimum Wage Means Increased Unemployment
Feb 11, 2007 Uncategorized
I have discussed the minimum wage and why increasing it would be a bad idea. I even cited the studies showing that in states where the minimum wage has been increased above the federal minimum there have been layoffs and fewer people being hired. When this issue was discussed in the past I talked about how employers would reduce workforce in order to keep payroll in line and in order to keep costs down. I spoke about many of these things and so much more here at my site and on my radio program. It would appear that the media is confirming that once again, the Big Dog is always right.
AZ Central is reporting that teens are losing their part time jobs or their hours are being cut in order to keep payroll costs down. As I discussed many times, companies are now more reluctant to hire unskilled or untrained workers because it costs them more to train them and to pay them.
Some Valley employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much that they’re cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.
And teens are among the first workers to go.
Companies maintain the new wage was raised to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour to help the breadwinners in working-poor families. Teens typically have other means of support.
Mark Messner, owner of Pepi’s Pizza in south Phoenix, estimates he has employed more than 2,000 high school students since 1990. But he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others. Of his 25-person workforce, roughly 75 percent are in high school.
“I’ve had to go to some of my kids and say, ‘Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent,’ ” he said. ” ‘Sorry, I don’t have any hours for you.’ “AZ Central
We will see much more of this as the new federal minimum wage increases and more businesses, especially small ones, are squeezed. There will be fewer workers hired and more laid off. This will raise the unemployment rate and hurt the economy. The law of unintended consequences will hurt the average worker, those the Democrats so desperately wanted to help (except those working for a tuna company in Nancy Pelosi’s district who was exempted by her).
The real fun will be watching as the Democrats, who pushed this increase through entirely on their own, try to find someone to blame. When they were the minority they pointed to the right but now they are in the majority so all fingers point to them. In reality it will be entirely their faults but you can bet, and I know in my military mind that they will blame George Bush. Of course, I will place some of the blame on him as well. If it is enacted it is because he signed it instead of vetoing it.
Big Dog Salute to Ms. Underestimated
Tags: Commentary
The Dixie Chicks Are Victims
Feb 11, 2007 Uncategorized
I don’t know if they are victims of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy like Bil Clinton was but they are victims nonetheless. Natalie Maines, the Chicks lead singer made some nasty remarks about George Bush a few years ago and almost overnight the Chicks’ sales went down. They received less airtime and their concerts had many unsold seats. This was, according to them, an unfair backlash for exercising their free speech right. Some in the music industry seem to agree:
“I think people are paranoid,” former Grateful Dead member Mickey Hart told Reuters. “I think that if they speak out, they think they’re gonna get whacked by the government. It’s pretty oppressive now. Look at the Dixie Chicks. They got whacked.” al-Reuters
I don’t expect much from the entertainment industry and it is evident that Hart does not understand that actions have repercussions. How could he know when many in the entertainment industry routinely get away with acts that would land the average person in jail? His assertion that the Chicks got whacked lacks a fundamental understanding that everyone has the right to choose. To Hart, the backlash was unfair because Maines is allowed to say what she wants regardless of the rights of others.
The fact is, the people who did not like what she said have freedoms as well. They are free to choose not to buy the Chicks’ music and not to attend their concerts. Radio stations are free not to play the Chicks’ music. Free speech carries with it responsibility and while no one will argue that Maines has every right to say what she wants people have to realize that those who hear her words are free to react the way that they want (barring violence). The KKK has the right to spew their hatred but I doubt they feel put off because people are appalled by what they say. Likewise, Maines said something that a lot of people did not like so those people exercised their right not to support her and the group. The Chicks should not be surprised or offended. They should appreciate that the people did the very same thing that Maines did and that is exercise their rights.
Of course, with the left it is not about people exercising their rights. Maines and her ilk (like Hart) believe that the elite among us have the right to say and do what they want and the rest of us should sit idly by and allow that to happen. How dare we peons speak up or react to what our masters have said or done?
George Bush said that he was not offended by what Maines said. He also added that they should not be offended if people decided not to buy their music. Bush has this right and he actually took the high road.
I can’t blame Maines for being upset. It must be hard having a popularity lower than the person they hate.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Maggie’s Notebook ♦ Stuck On Stupid ♦ Cao’s Blog, The Florida Masochist ♦ Conservative Thoughts ♦ Wake Up America ♦ Rightlinx ♦ Faultline USA ♦ Right Celebrity ♦ Pentimento ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Renaissance Blogger ♦ Dumb Ox Daily News ♦ Right Voices ♦ Gone Hollywood
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Commentary, Link Fest
What does Being Treated Like an African-American Mean?
Feb 11, 2007 Uncategorized
Barack Obama announced on Saturday that he is indeed running for the office of President. Obama was born to a white mother and a black father and has indicated that when he was growing up he faced an internal conflict about his true identity. That is the reason he gave for his drug use as a teen. Though I believe this is a lame reason for drug use (most kids use drugs because of peer pressure and to get high) I do believe that he faced some tough problems because of his mixed race.
Something Obama said that struck me as odd was that if you look like an African-American you get treated like one. Exactly what does that mean? It would appear that Obama made it through life in relatively good shape and makes good money as a US Senator. Though I do not agree with his politics he seems like a decent man. Sure, he has had troubles along the way but show me someone who hasn’t. I would not vote for him but that does not mean he is not a worthy candidate regardless of what color he considers himself. I just have some real trouble with a statement that sounds like a veiled message that he was treated differently (by whites) because he looks black. This whole if you look African-American argument smacks of race baiting, as if we are supposed to feel sorry for him.
His wife got in on the baiting when she said she does not worry about him being targeted while on the campaign trail. According to his wife Michelle; “I don’t lose sleep over it because the realities are that… as a black man… Barack can get shot going to the gas station.” This sounds like another race baiting statement. It can be interpreted as her saying, because he is a black man he could get shot by some white guy when he is getting gas. Perhaps now is a good time to state the facts. A black man is more likely to be attacked by another black man. Blacks commit crimes against other blacks at a much higher rate than whites on black or even white on white. A little mentioned fact is that whites are more likely to be victims of crime committed by blacks.
I do not want to belabor the point about black and white because I believe there are good and bad in all colors but I think it is a tactical error for him to make such statements and for his wife to pipe in with the same nonsense. Dr. King said something about judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Obama should read that speech again and take those words to heart. If he wants to be President than he needs to act Presidential and not like a victim. The victim mentality is not the proper approach for anyone who wants to be President.
That also goes for anyone who thinks that women are victims so a woman should be handed the job. Demonstrate leadership and qualification for the job and leave the rhetoric at home.
Source:
Drudge
Tags: Commentary