Courage Campaign Crossed the Line

So I receive emails from the Courage Campaign which fights for equal rights for minorities.

Today I got an email from them about Obama and how terrible it is that he is proposing more cuts to the budget than what was already agreed and that he "already gave the republicans what they wanted" so he should be focusing on creating jobs instead of cutting spending.

I replied to the email and here is what I wrote:

you better stick to full equality issues... providing jobs is NOT the government's purpose

this isn't about "giving republicans what they wanted", this is about a serious and grave challenge to our entire country. 

don't you understand? even with a balanced budget  (which 1.5 trillion doesn't do) we won't be rid of the national debt, because to get rid of it we need to have a NET GAIN every year... for many, many years.   

in order to have a net gain we would have to cut so many programs and eliminate so many tax shelters for the mega-rich that practically everyone in the country would be angry at the government. 

it would require an American toughness at least the magnitude that was suffered during the world wars.  to do it willingly before we are forced to, now THAT requires courage.

people naturally get more conservative during tough times.  if Americans suffer because we've reached the end of the rope, instead of voluntarily taking responsible action, then we will lose a lot of ground in the fight for personal freedoms.  but if we convince people to willingly sacrifice their favorite programs by eliminating or greatly reducing them, or by paying more taxes (those of us with money to speak of) then we can have economic recovery without the rash changes in attitude.

that's what the courage campaign should be advocating... hey all, let's put our war face on and figure out how to get by without social security, without welfare, without tax shelters, without pork barrel projects, without paying for senators traveling internationally, and without literally a million other things that sound great on paper but that all together are bringing our country to its knees. 

The Police Shot A Man In San Francisco

The story I read about this said that the man was hanging around in the subway, drunk, who threw his liquor bottle at the cops who were called to reign him in and then pulled a knife to attack the cops.  They shot him, and he died.

If that's the way it happened, it's unfortunate that he died but it's not the cop's fault that he chose to get drunk in a public place and chose to assault the cops. It could have ended differently for him had he made different choices.

Why are did people riot against the police? And why did they choose to do it in the subway where they interfere with the travel of people who had nothing to do with it?  That certainly wouldn't win my support if my travel plans were interrupted because some people are angry.

If the public judges that the police are being too aggressive perhaps it would be better to stage a demonstration in front of the police station or town hall, or talk to their city council.

Destabilizing the Security Situation

I get annoyed when I read news like "the bomb may have been intended to destabilize the security situation". If one bomb can do that, it must have already been unstable.

The detonation of a bomb, the assassination of a leader, the murder of innocent people, these are not things that reflect the security situation. It is the way the government responds to them that reflects the security situation. If the government has the means to bring the criminals to justice, there is potential for security... If the government pursues the criminals and brings them to justice, then it is working. There is nothing unstable about that. If the government, because of corruption or lack of means, is not able to pursue the criminals, then the more people know this and take advantage, the worse the security situation becomes.

Ultimately, the security situation is each citizen's perception about their ability to live in peace, about the government's ability to deal justice. The security situation is the deterrent to crime and the actual capacity for enforcement.

Some people's perceptions may be swayed by one attack but the actual capacity for enforcement cannot be significantly degraded by just one attack. Therefore the security situation cannot be destabilized by just one attack. That's why I get really annoyed when I see someone writing such drivel - because the writer is typically speculating about the attacker's motive, and I think in most cases writers give attackers too much credit. Most of the attackers, whether it's in the USA or in one of our "war" zones, are just unstable paranoid delusional misguided immoral self-righteous fearful violent scum. They try to justify their crimes in any way they can and writers just do them a favor by publishing their bullshit.

I would prefer for the serious news publishers to abstain from propagating analysis until after the facts are actually available, because often people read the first version of the story and then aren't interested in the updates... not to mention that most of the time the updates don't get the same level of placement as the original story, as if they are less important.

And now, in mocking fashion, I present you other news: An ignorant blog writer attacked a common news publishing practice today, in a possible attempt to destabilize the already deteriorating journalism situation...

Crying for America: In The Valley of the Shadow of Debt

So Congress finally passed a budget bill... but it's terrible.

First, they raised the debt ceiling, which is practically a guarantee that our national debt will increase by the allowable amount.

Second, they committed to spending cuts but didn't specify what they will be. They are just pushing the tough decisions to someone else... or until after they get re-elected. That's cowardly. Any proposal for cuts is sure to be met with strong opposition... either by the other party who hates the proposal or by the leader's own party who hates the sacrifice. They got elected to be leaders not to campaign for their next election. I don't care if they get re-elected, I just want the country's problems solved!

Third, they require a vote next year on measures to cut the budget... but they can just vote against the cuts and still meet the requirement!

Fourth, they only require 2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years... but we have almost 15 trillion dollars of debt. So that's not nearly fast enough. We need to cut spending NOW to levels that will reduce our deficit by about 1 trillion a year... so that we have a hope of getting out of this mess in 15-20 years and not saddle our children with this problem.  By the way, this means that we can't just balance the budget... we have to tilt it in the other direction.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have what it takes to solve the nation's economic trouble. Only Libertarians have what it takes to cut the government's spending to sustainable levels.