5 Times America Intervened in the Middle East

1.  In 1953, America and the United Kingdom teamed up to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Modaddegh.  This leader intended to bring the oil profits back to his own country instead of allowing foreign oil companies to control the valuable resource.  America promoted its involvement by connecting the Iranian leader to Communism, but we now know that the true motive was oil profits.  The leader that we put in power, the Shah, held power for over two decades.  He ruled as a tyrant who killed anyone who spoke out against him or his government. 


2.  In the late 70's America helped train and arm the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.  One of the prominent members was a young Osama bin Laden.  And as we all know, Bin Laden went on to lead one of the largest terrorist groups, Al Qaeda.


3.    In the 1980's, America aided Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war against Iran.  America provided strategic satellite imagery and advice to Saddam, knowing his history of using chemical weapons and intent to use chemical weapons on the Iranians as a result of America's involvement.  Recently declassified CIA documents proved that we were well aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite what they were telling the American public at the time.  The use of chemical weapons in war has been banned since 1925 under the Geneva Protocol.  Iraq never ratified the Geneva Protocol, but America did in 1975.


4.  In 2011 - 2012, America approved the shipment of arms from Qatar to the Libyan rebels in their fight against Muammar Qaddafi.  Many of these arms were ending up end the hands of Islamic militants, including Al Qaeda.  There was very little oversight of the transfer of arms at the time.    They have since been confirmed to have ended up all across the middle east from Mali to Syria. 


5.  In 2013, America began providing training and arms to the Free Syrian Army in their civil war against the Assad regime in Syria.  The FSA slowly devolved into ISIS, and they turned their efforts to northern Iraq.  As ISIS took city after city in Iraq, it grew stronger and stronger, taking left over American military equipment that was abandoned after the Iraq war.


Maybe it's time we stop intervening in the Middle East.  Just sayin'.

Police and the Use of Force

Police brutality has been a hot topic for the past several years now.  With the increased access to camera phones (thanks to capitalism), police are being held accountable more than in years past.

Every situation comes down to the basic concept of the appropriate use of force.  When is force necessary?  When is force justified?  I'd like to give my thoughts on the recent shooting of Deven Guilford in Michigan in February 2015.

Click here to read CNN's report if you are unfamiliar with the case.

There are two videos posted at the end of the article.  Discretion advised.  The first video is the side-by-side cell phone video with the officer's body camera.  The second is an in depth analysis in defense of Deven Guilford.  

If someone told you that a routine traffic stop for flashing your high beams would lead to a murder, you wouldn't believe them.  What could escalate a situation to that point?  There is undoubtedly several decisions that both the officer and the 17 year old could have made differently to better resolve the situation.  The teen could have been honest from the beginning and said he didn't have his license on him.  The officer could have explained the bright light situation to the teen instead of making the teen paranoid that the officer was purposefully lying.  The teen could have simply accepted the officer was lying to him and not pushed him any further.  The officer could have avoided further escalation -- and paranoia for the teen -- if he didn't play the semantics game with the question "can I see your badge number?"   In hindsight, many mistakes were made.

But it is clear to me when the situation got out of control:  the moment the officer quickly opened the door and attempted to pull the teen from the car.  This was the first use of force.  This obviously caught the teenager by surprise, but he calmed down and complied once he got his cell phone camera back on.  The teen followed the order to "get on the ground" as he got on his knees.  The teen followed the order to "get on your belly."  The teen followed the order to spread his arms.  All of this while being threatened with a taser.  As the officer approaches, the face-down teen says "I don't have a weapon."  Despite the teen following every order, the officer still found it necessary to throw the teens phone away and forcefully attempt to cuff him as the teen pleads "Officer what are you doing? Officer!  Officer!".  This was the second use of force.   The teen began to struggle, still face down, and the officer jumped up and deployed his taser.  This was the third use of force.  The resulting struggle ended the 17 year old's life.

So back to my original question:  When was force necessary in this situation?  Sure, the teen was being argumentative, but does that justify force?  The verbal exchange never involved threats of violence at all.  Does the initial reaction of the teen not wanting to get out of the car justify force?  He eventually complied with every command.

In the end, it was determined that the officer followed all the correct procedures and training, broke no police regulations, and no charges were brought against him.

Let me restate that: police training/procedures can justify the death of a 17 year old during a routine traffic stop.  This is the problem.  As I highlighted above, the officer was responsible for escalating the situation with the use of force.  Opening the car door and attempting to pull the teen out is justified based on our current laws.  If the officer's training/procedures would have included being infinitely patient with a verbally argumentative subject, then this could have been avoided.  Officers are supposed to be the ones trained to keep their cool and manage the situation -- not the American people.  We don't have "how to get pulled over" training classes.  The worst part is (and this is from the second video) that the final report mentions on behalf of the officer that "self-defense is justified if there's a belief that deadly force is needed, but that belief does not have to be correct."  What about on the teen's behalf?  Is the same not true if he feels threatened?

Then there is the argument for protecting against police shootings.  Police are trained to be super defensive and pro-active against what they perceive as a potential threat.  Our laws have become more and more lenient, allowing police to justify the use of force in situations where none was necessary.  But what about the American people?  We don't get to write our own procedures and regulations that protect us against over-zealous cops who are allowed to use force to defend against a potential threatening situation.  Simply having a bad attitude is enough to warrant the use of force -- the last time I checked a bad attitude isn't against the law.

Do we err on the side of officer safety or citizen safety?  Lenient procedures/training only allow the bad-apples to abuse their power.  In my opinion, we err on the side of the American people.  The job of an officer is to serve and protect.  Let's pay them more money for the dangerous work they do, and let's adjust the standards at which they are held when it comes to the use of force.

Net Neutrality and Comcast

Net Neutrality is a joke.  It is an attempt to fix a symptom of a bigger problem -- lack of competition.

Supporters of Net Neutrality will tell you that lack of regulation is what allowed Comcast and Time Warner to become the powerhouse that they are.  That is just not the case.

How did this happen?

The Cable Communications Act of 1984 established the first set of regulations around cable companies.  Local municipalities were given the power to act as a franchisee to license cable operations in their areas.  The cable companies were subject to a franchise fee, facility and equipment requirements, as well as some broad requirements to provide access to local content/programming.

This resulted in very few instances of cable companies overlapping their coverage area.  Do you remember when you would travel to your relatives' house in the next town over and all their channels were different?  That's because your cable providers differed from town to town.  It just wasn't cost effective to negotiate for franchise rights with the local municipality, duplicate an existing network of physical cables, and be forced to compete with another company.

So cable companies did the most logical thing to expand business -- they merged.  The Wall Street Journal posted a great chart that shows the consolidation of cable companies over the past two decades (image below).  Twenty years later, Time Warner Cable and Comcast are consistently the most hated companies in America.

 

Government Regulation

So how do we fix this problem?  Some people argue that government regulation is the answer.  In almost every case, when the government attempts to regulate a private industry it results in higher prices for the consumer.  Another proposed solution is to make the cable lines a public utility and regulate it similar to phone lines.  How much have phone lines evolved over the past 50 years?  When a company's profits are regulated by the government, it removes incentives to reinvest or reinvent the technology.  With something as powerful as the internet, the last thing we want to do is hinder its growth.

The Solution

The solution is to break up the monopolies horizontally.  The physical cable network should not be owned and operated by the same company that provides the internet service.  That is the root cause of all the problems.  Allow ISP's to purchase non-discriminatory usage of the cable lines and do not allow ISP's to write language into their contracts that restrict their competition from using those same lines.  This promotes actual competition and removes a huge barrier to entry for the ISP market.  

"Net Neutrality" would be a positive by-product as well!  The companies that own the physical infrastructure don't care what data is moving through their lines because they have no interest in the content as long as the ISP's are paying for the usage.  The ISP's, on the other hand, would still be able to favor one source of content over another if the free market supports them.  With the introduction of more competition, the free market would be able to decide which ISP's win and lose based on quality of service instead of government bureaucrats and lobbyists.

If you look at Comcast right now, they are a content provider (e.g. Hulu) and a data mover (ISP), not to mention they are heavily invested in the physical infrastructure of the internet.  So naturally, Comcast will take advantage of opportunities to limit/hinder the growth of its competition.  That is a huge conflict of interest for the consumer who wants cheap, high quality internet content in a variety of options. 

Vaccination Q & A

Do vaccinations work?  Yes.  There is absolutely no denying that fact.  Feel free to ask Google yourself.  The evidence is overwhelmingly positive.

Should the government require vaccinations?  In a perfect world, no, the free market would have led us to vaccinations because it is the safe and efficient thing to do.  However, we are too far down the path to go back now.  You are free to choose if you want to send your kids to public, private, or home school.  In order to go to public school, the government requires your kids to be vaccinated (with some exceptions).  This is no different from a private business setting their own rules and regulations.  The government is free to regulate the services it provides.

Should we have any freedom to choose which vaccinations we give our kids?  Yes.  The most dangerous viruses are the ones that are required by most states before kids can enter public school -- measles, tetanus, polio, etc.  Flu and other less dangerous viruses, however, are completely up to you.  Not all flu vaccinations have high success rates, and the flu strains are rarely fatal. 

Do vaccinations cause autism?  This is a theory, currently.  There are studies that are inconclusive at best. 

Should we continue to research vaccinations and their effects?  Absolutely.  If there is even the slightest doubt that vaccinations could be harmful in anyway, then it's our responsibility to keep researching and testing until that doubt is gone. 

Should we continue to seek improvements in vaccinations that make them as safe as possible?  Yes. 

Are there people who are overreacting about vaccinations causing autism?  Yes.  There is a current trend right now for all those "forward thinking" people that involves not getting your children vaccinated.  Despite all evidence supporting vaccinations, there are parents who would rather risk the spread of diseases to their kids and others instead of risking the theory of vaccinations causing autism.

Should parent's get their kids vaccinated?  Yes.  And if you are scared of vaccinations causing autism, a common compromise is to spread out the timeline that your child receives the vaccinations.  Senator Rand Paul, a doctor, chose to stagger the vaccinations over a period of time for his children.  In my opinion, this is the best strategy to avoid any potential side effects.

Are vaccinations being blown out of proportion for political reasons?  Of course.  Politicians would make an issue out of cutting the edges off sandwich bread if they thought it would gain them political advantage -- especially in an election year. 

How Obamacare Passed

If you haven't heard the story of how Obamacare passed, it's very interesting.  I wouldn't be surprised if it's turned into an episode of 24 or House of Cards eventually.  Here we go...

1.  The Democrats in the House of Representatives were struggling to pass their version of the Affordable Care Act. 

2.  All revenue bills must originate from the House -- not the Senate.  

3.  The Senate took a separate bill that passed the House -- HR3590, a military housing bill -- and gutted it entirely until it became the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", also known as Obamacare.

4.  At this point, the Senate had 60 Democrats which was exactly enough to pass Obamacare.  It passed with exactly 60 votes.

5.  Ted Kennedy, a Democrat Senator for Wisconsin, died and was replaced by newly elected Republican Scott Brown.

6.  The Democrats new that if the House made any changes to the bill, it wouldn't pass on the next required vote in the Senate because they only had 59 instead of the necessary 60.

7.  The Democrat controlled House and Senate made a deal:  If the House will pass Obamacare without any changes, then the Senate will pass a new bill from the House with amendments to Obamacare without any changes.  This second bill from the House was called the "Reconciliation Act of 2010".

8.  So the House passed both Obamacare (without any changes) and the Reconciliation Act.

9.  The Senate then declared they were going to use the "reconciliation rule" to pass the Reconciliation Act because this allows bills to pass with only 51 votes instead of 60.  This rule is intended for quick changes in taxes, spending, or debt.

10.  The Affordable Care Act and Reconciliation Act were signed into law. 


So what is wrong with this process?  Firstly, the Affordable Care Act, with many revenue related items in it, clearly originated from the Senate.  It's like a 5th grader wrote a homework assignment on the Civil War, then his high school sibling re-wrote the entire thing for him.  It's called cheating. 

Secondly, the "reconciliation rule" was never intended to be used for items as huge as the Affordable Care Act.  It's meant for quick, minor changes to taxes, spending, or debt. 

And finally, our system of government is specifically designed to force compromise.  It is supposed to be impossible to get bills to pass without some level of bipartisanship.  If all else fails, the traditional filibuster can be used to not allow a bill to even be voted on.  The Democrats did what they had to do to get this unpopular bill to pass, and no one seems to care that they just made the rules up as they went along.  Is anyone surprised?

Go check out the collection of polls at Real Clear Politics to see just how unpopular this bill is. 

Voting is Broken

Let me start by saying that we should all vote.  Voting is important.  There, I said it.

Voting is broken.  In our system, we are allowed to select a single candidate for each elected position.  This inevitably leads to voting for the "lesser of two evils."  How many times have you heard this?  You don't really like either candidate, but you'd rather have X than Y.


Our voting method also discourages third party candidates from running.  Lets pretend that last year the Republican beat the Democrat candidate 52% to 48%.  This year, a third party candidate appears, taking 6% of the Republican's voters.  That would put the new totals at 48%, 46% and 6% where the Democrat wins.  So having more options for representation caused the 48% minority vote to win, because 6% of voters voted for a candidate that didn't really have a chance.

All of this has lead to the two major political parties in America having way too much power.  The people who control the party's agenda are essentially forcing any potential candidates to adopt that agenda or they don't have the support of the party.  It's a bad situation for new, evolving ideas.  It's a good situation if you want the same old, broken policies to keep driving our country.

Can you imagine a world where there is a Pro-Choice Republican?  What about a Pro-Life Democrat?  How about a Democrat who supports lowering taxes and is against amnesty?  Or maybe a Republican that supports raising the minimum wage and is pro gay marriage?  None of these things are possible because we have a two-party system that forces candidates to support the party's platform. 


Please watch the following video to get a better understanding of why our voting system is terrible.

Now watch the video below to see a much better method of voting!

We are Millennials and We've Had Enough

Born in the 80's or 90's, we are the generation of the selfish and entitled.  We are lazy and uneducated.  We don't know the meaning of hard work, and we definitely don't have it as bad as our parents did.  Have you heard this before?

We are Millennials and we've had enough.  

We've had enough of endless wars that our government always seems to get us involved in.  Who decided America is the world's police anyway?  Do you think that terrorists hate us so much because we are constantly fighting wars in their home land?  

We've had enough of the brutal job market.  We don't want to work as a bartender forever, but when no one is hiring, what do you expect us to do?

We've had enough of the ever expanding police state.  Why are militarized vehicles and full riot gear needed in suburban America?

We've had enough of police brutality.  We expect the police to be held to the same standards and accountability as the rest of us, and stop living above the law.

We've had enough of the polarizing, biased media.  It's no secret that the media has become more and more of a propaganda machine and less of a means of providing accountability in government.  

We've had enough of the runaway national debt.  Who do you think is going to be responsible for paying back 18 trillion dollars (and counting)? 

We've had enough of the rising costs of college education and the endless amount of student loan debt.  You told us we can't get a job without a college degree, but getting a college degree requires decades of debt.

We've had enough of intolerance and racism.  We just want everyone to be treated equally despite one's race, gender, sexual preferences, religion, or nationality.  Intolerance isn't something that we're born with -- it's something we learn from those who raise us.  

We've had enough of government spying.  You can have all our texts, emails, and Facebook messages if we can read all your government emails.  Deal?

We've had enough of career politicians.  Congress maintains a terrible approval rating, but somehow incumbents almost always win re-election.  Perhaps it's time for a new voice.

We've had enough of money in politics.  Millions of dollars are spent campaigning for a job that pays around $170k.  Our "representation" consists of about five hundred rich and powerful politicians that claim they want to help the middle and lower classes but nothing ever seems to improve.  

We've had enough of our opinions being ignored.  Who do you think is responsible for all the problems we experience today?  The older generations own the current state of America whether they want to admit it or not.  Now we are the ones paying for their mistakes.  We are the ones trying to build a life during a recession.  We are the ones who will be responsible for fixing the problems caused after forty years of bad decisions.  And anytime we try to speak up and make our voices heard, we are ignored because we're younger than the people with all the money and power.