For those keeping score: Number of arrests in Michael Phelps case: 8. Number of arrests in peanut company salmonella case: 0

In an absurd mis-balance of law enforcement, 8 people have now been arrested in the case of Olympic 14 gold medalist Michael Phelps.  South Carolina seems to be pushing with everything it has to catch Michael Phelps for illegal Marijuana posession after a photo surfaced with the athlete  holding a bong.  While a breach of the law, this seems greatly exaggerated and a mis-use of authorities time and resources. Phelps Arrests Else-where in the country, Peanut Corporation of America has filed bankruptcy after a salmonilla outbreak, and now rat parts, droppings, and other animal matter has shown up in it's peanut butter coming out of a facility in Texas.  2 seperate peanut butter facilities, operated by the same company, threatening the lives and health of people across the country, and so far no arrests. Peanuts + Rats As a lover of peanut butter, and knowing how much children across the country love peanut butter, I'd much rather have authorities accross the country checking and enforcing healthy food laws and regulations than a private weed smoking photo that is much less harmful and damaging to society.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Why the Current Stimulus Plan Won't Work.

The current stimulus plan is a lot of bad, or misguided ideas. The current recession has multiple causes, but one lords over them all, too much debt. Our government owes too much money, our citizens owe too much money, and our businesses owe too much money. The savings rate in this country is almost non-existent. We are borrowing money on nothing but the promise that we'll eventually get around to paying it back. There is no substance to back it up.   The other reason for the severity of this recession is our lack of previous recessions. We used to have many more, but MUCH less devastating recessions. Our leaders have come to the conclusion that all recessions are bad, no matter what. Recessions are normal. They're needed as corrections on the markets and to keep the economy stable. Our government has gotten into such a habit of throwing stimulus at the economy to avoid recessions, instead of having a few mild recessions we're instead having a deep and painful one. Stimulus plans in the history of the country have NEVER worked as they were "supposed" to. They've always done either nothing, or in fact made things worse. Either way, it's borrowing money, increasing our debt, for very little to show for it.   How much more do you thing the rest of the world is going to finance this country? What people forget is that if we can't borrow the money, we can't spend it. This plan fails if the rest of the world simply stops lending us money.   Phase 1 of the current stimulus package is an investment in infrastructure. I believe this needs to be done and is a good idea, but I do not believe it is a stimulus. Some people will get work, but it hurts private sector competition and marketplace in doing so. We need to fix our infrastructure. There's no argument there. The problem is we can't afford it right now with our current budget. Borrowing money from other countries to fix our infrastructure isn't going to magically create wealth or a good that can be sold to people. It's like fixing your bathroom at home. You need it, and it's wonderful to have a new one, but if you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Fixing your bathroom isn't going to help you save or make money.   Phase 2 are tax cuts. Tax cuts will help people afford to pay their bills, but in the current market they won't go towards new purchases that will fuel a resurgence in the economy. People will save it or use it to pay off the debts they've gotten themselves into. This is exactly what happened with the "stimulus checks". Most people paid down their debt (which is good), but didn't buy new stuff to stimulate the economy. And again, any tax cuts means we're just borrowing that much more money from other countries, which we can't afford much longer.   The only effective stimulus of the economy has been a long term investment in Science and Engineering. Things like the space program and military Research that result in goods that can be sold in the market and creates wealth.   The only part of this plan that comes close is the investment in energy. The government provides the start-up costs to create the energy grid in the country which would start a new privately owned industry. They providing the funds to create the technology, the infrastructure, then turn it over to the private markets would jump-start the industry and also start the process of moving us to a completely domestic energy market. We could then export this technology to other nations under licenses and patents and create an export market to bring foreign funds into the country.   The biggest thing the government should do, which they won't, is to DECREASE the national budget, not increase the deficit. That would free up funds that we're currently using to be lent to other countries and businesses. On the news you're constantly hearing about liquidity and how banks aren't lending money to people or businesses anymore. If the government paid all $10 TRILLION it owes back, then the people that lent us that $10 TRILLION could lend that $10 TRILLION to other people/businesses/governments. With those funds freed up, the cost of borrowing money in the way of interest rates would also drop. THAT would be a stimulus to the entire world.   They won't do it though. Cutting spending anywhere would upset whoever that money's going to, and that would hurt re-election chances.

Popularity: unranked [?]

Is The President Above The Law?

In the United States we believe in the "Rule of Law".  A term meaning that everyone must obey the law, and nobody is above the law.  These laws are to be written, public, and challengable in court.

Bush's nomination for Attorney General thinks one man is above this.

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

SOURCE

His arguement basically comes down to the fact that The Constitution is above all laws, and that since the President is required "the defense of the nation" in the Constitution, laws are null and void in pursuit of this goal.

This is NOT a view the nation should embrace.  The defense of the nation can and should be pursued following the Constitution, International Law, and also following our domestic laws.  Violating these ideals has led other nations to dictatorship, corruption, and loss of liberty.  It CAN happen here as well, not just other nations.

The Attorney General is THE law enforcement official in the country.  It's their job to ENFORCE the laws of the land, not make exceptions to them.  If something is illegal, the Attorney General should be the first one to stop the President and his actions.  That was the main problem with the last one.  Gonzales was seen as just defining things and changing them to fit the current Administration.  Not holding the Administration to the law.

Popularity: 1% [?]

72 Senators vote to condemn MoveOn 'Betray Us' ad

"The Senate voted by a wide margin Thursday to condemn a controversial anti-war advertisement accusing Gen. David Petraeus of betraying the country. Only 24 Democrats, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, voted against the symbolic resolution."
Well I'm glad the Senate can pass SOMETHING. I don't like the ad myself, but I'm pretty sure the Senate has better things to do than pass pointless resolutions that have no purpose but for use in advertising and propaganda. Full Story

Popularity: 1% [?]