Pork Anyone?

(Snip)
Even in minority, Republicans dish out the porkSenate's two biggest sponsors of this year's pet projects are Republicans

AP Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The demise of the bridge to nowhere notwithstanding, Sen. Ted Stevens and other Republicans remain the kings of pork-barrel spending, proving that GOP mastery of "earmarks" can withstand public scorn, a president's rebuke and even a Democratic takeover of Congress.

The Senate's two biggest sponsors of this year's pet spending projects are Republicans Stevens of Alaska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, according to preliminary reviews of fiscal 2008 spending bills by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group. Two of the House's three biggest claimants of earmarks also are Republicans: Bill Young of Florida and Jerry Lewis of California, the group found.

Their continued success at steering billions of taxpayer dollars to their constituents is all the more impressive— or arguably hypocritical —since President Bush and other prominent Republicans sharpened their criticisms of earmarks after Democrats took over the House and Senate majorities in January.

...

Democrats this year shed more light on the earmarking process and reduced its overall cost. Still, about 9,000 earmarks costing $7.4 billion found their way into the final spending measure.

Stevens and Cochran retain their earmarking clout even in the minority. Cochran sponsored $773 million in current earmarks, while Stevens claimed $502 million, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense unofficial tally. Both of them outdistanced Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., perhaps the Senate's most legendary master of pork-barrel politics.
(/Snip)

Now, first off, I'm going to make it clear that both Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of this equally, but the crap has got to stop. I also know that a lot of pork does go to good purposes such as health clinics, transportation projects, and things of that sort that is really good. However, it's just not spread equally across the country. These types of things should be put together is a separate bill. I know that'd never happen, but that's what should be done. I also realize that Democrats pledged to get rid of pork, and they've shown they're just as bad as the republicans, except that instead of having several huge donors like the republicans, they like to spread it out amongst more people more evenly. Not that it makes it any better.

The only way we're going to get rid of all this yummy pork, is for there to be a reform in the bill making process. I.E. Bills have to deal with one topic, or related topics. So, a farm bill can't contain $25 million dollar donation to AIDS charity. I realize that would mean that the House and Senate would need to pass thousands of bills each session, but oh well, that's what they're paid for. Not to sit around and not do nothing. What pisses me off is people like Obama, two years in the senate, and he's never there. He's too busy campaigning for President, when his current job is to be a Senator.

Anyways, that's an article rant for today, enjoy.

My Political Views: (Will be updated at anytime)

This is a conglomeration of my political views. This will be updated periodically, and it's not necessarily concrete.

1. The War in Iraq
   
   -I was totally against the War before it was cool to be against it. I believe that the War was never a necessity, simply something that sounded good on paper.
   
   -Saddam, an evil brutal dictator? Yes, there's no denying it. But there's something that a lot of people don't realize. Saddam was perfect for Iraq. As inhumane as that sounds, and it really is, it's true nonetheless. Saddam forced the different sects of the country to live in fear of Saddam's persecution. They were more worried about what Saddam might do to them, than they were about what the other sects were doing. Now that Saddam is gone, they actually are free to worry about the other sects and are fighting over the power of their sects' national interests. Also, people tend to not know that the U.S. (Through the CIA, under Bush Sr.) helped get Saddam into power in the first place. So now, 25 years later, we don't want him in control anymore?
   
   -A lot of people claim that the War was about oil, not just liberal conspiracy theorists, but ultra-conservative friends have told me such. To me this point doesn't necessarily show that Iraq was all that of a necessity. The argument goes that with China expanding astronomically, we took Iraq so that we would always have a source of oil on foreign soils. Which, strategically does make sense, hard and cruel that American and Iraqi lives would be wasted for this cause, but does make sense. Or, people argue that we invaded as to lower gas prices, which is outright laughable. Gas is as high as ever. It's increased higher than ever under the Clinton Administration, and is only comparable to the Carter Administration.
   
   -To me this is a waste of human life. There are many studies that state that the total amount of Iraqi loss in this war is around 500,000. That's around 166 times the amount of American lives lost September 11th, 2001. (In no way am I grouping 9/11 into the Iraq conversation, I'm merely just comparing the death toll) Can you imagine something like that happening in America? What would the American people be doing if it were in Iraq's situation. Well, I know what I would do. Let's say the situation was reversed. America is under an evil brutal dictator, we're being persecuted daily. Iraq, the lone super power in the nation, says it's going to come and liberate us from said dictator. That's all fine and dandy. But, on the first day of the liberation, a bomb hits my house, killing my mother and brother. Severely wounding my father, and myself. At this point, I don't care why someone invades my country and destroys my house. Whether it be a liberator, or an expansionist. From that point on, they are my enemy. I'll make sure that every single day for the rest of my life, that I'll make these "Liberators" lives a living hell. So I cannot hold Iraqi citizens attacking our troops in spite, simply because I know that I'd be doing the exact same thing.
   
   -There was no justification for America to go into Iraq in 2003. Under the argument of WMDs, America is in no way shape or form the moral authority on the issue. We are the only nation as of today, that has used Nuclear Weapons on our enemies. That right there should trump our moral high ground. Gas and biological weapons? We, the U.S. have the most plentiful and most deadly weapons in the world. How can we as a WMD wielding nation, tell another nation they can't have said weapons? It's a bit hypocritical in my opinion. And the argument that, "But we aren't crazy, we're responsible people"...I reiterate that we're the only people to have used nuclear weapons. Of course Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. You know why? The U.S. supplied these weapons so that the Iraqis could fight the Iranians back in the 1980's. I have no doubt in my mind that the weapons Saddam used on the Kurds, were supplied by the U.S.. Do I believe the U.S. to responsible for the deaths of the Kurds? No, that's like saying that Mossberg is responsible for someone using one of their guns to commit a murder. But don't attack the fact that Saddam has the weapons, attack the fact that he's a murderer. And, the fact that he's a murderer is in no way a legit reason to invade a country. There have been hundreds of brutal dictators that America turned it's head the other way when we dealt with these nations. Or we simply just ignored it. Hell, we were allies with Stalin at one point in time, who killed more of his own people that Hitler did. And, if you're willing to say that because he is a murderer we should've invaded, then why aren't we in the Sudan? (I do NOT believe that we should be in the Sudan, it's no different that what it's like in Iraq)
   
   -There was no connection found between Saddam, and September 11th, 2001. So there's no need to waste breath on that argument.
   
   
2. Lets see, Taxes.
   
   -I, like anyone else, don't like to pay them. The difference with me is that I don't whine and bitch about taxes. I understand that there is a reason for taxes, and that as long as there is air in my lungs, then I'll be paying them...even though I'll get taxed some more once I'm dead.
   
   -Since the history of civilization, there have been taxes in some shape or form. It originated for religious reasons, to sustain a full time priest for your religion, it meant that you had to donate so much of your crops to that person so that he may dedicate his life services to your Deity, instead of having to farm himself. (That's just a side note, since we went over that in my Geography class last semester)
   
   -I realize that our government is corrupt and spends money none stop, yes. But the majority of my taxes don't go towards pork. It does go to important and vital programs and necessities. Education, Defense, Health, Senior citizen aid? Yeah, that sounds pretty important and it all comes from taxes. Do I like to see said taxes be wasted on a bridge to nowhere? No, of course not, but there's always going to be corruption in the government no matter what.
   
   
3. Department of Defense
   
   -Even though I label myself more of a liberal, I'm a freaking war hawk. The difference between me and conservatives though, is that I don't think that we should use the army at every single bump in the road. (Yes, I realize that what I just stated was ironic, because true conservatives hold my belief that military interventionism is only a last resort, and only if attacked first, but not with today's neo-conservatives) There is a reason why we have a State Department, and that is for Diplomacy. We used to be good at that, not so much under Bush 43.
   
   -Anyway, I'm all for spending most of our taxes on Defensive spending, I've got no problem. I want us to have the best, most modern, most well equipped army on the face of the planet. But I don't believe in spending money on stuff that just isn't feasible. For instance, the Government is spending billions on the helicopter/airplane that just doesn't look like it would be something used in a war. Dunno, maybe I'm just too old fashioned but apparently they're running into all sorts of problems with it as well.
   
   
4. Torturing
   
   -It's funny how the only person running for President on the Republican side (obviously on the Democratic side as well, but it's more relevant to the Republican side) McCain believes that water-boarding is a form of torture and that it shouldn't be used. While, those who have not been tortured believe that it's not. I'd like to see anyone for the use of water-boarding do it for ten minutes, and tell me if they like it or not.
   
   -We, are above the people that we are fighting. Or, at least, we are supposed to be. We also have signed the Geneva Accords, which hold us to the same level as every other country, and every signee states that they will not torture, and that it is illegal. It's that simple. So why would we break a treaty? Doesn't that make us sink to their level?
   
   -If you think that you are going to die, you're going to say anything at all that you think will get you out of that situation. Even if it's lying. Hell, if I thought I was going to die, I'd make up something pretty damn convincing to get these people off of me. Not to mention, the people we're torturing are suicidal thus, THEY WANT TO DIE, So, what does it matter to them if you torture them? They aren't going to give up secrets when they're planning to meat Allah and 40 virgins.
   
   
5. Abortion
   
   -I'm a self proclaimed Baptist. Not that that necessarily means much, but I am someone who believes that there is a God, etc.
   
   -I believe that Abortion IS murder in some shape or form.
   
   HOWEVER
   
   -I believe that it should be legal. I cannot protect something that the mother should be protecting herself. Think about it for a second. If the mother was seriously contemplating having an abortion, and is willing to go do it...what kind of mother would that person be? Not a mother that I would want to have.
   
   -If anyone has read Freakonomics, it gives a real reason why abortion is some what okay. Crime rate as astronomically dropped compared to what it once was before Roe vs. Wade, and the reason is that the kids being aborted after Roe vs. Wade were kids that were ten times more likely to be criminals that kids that aren't aborted. Since abortion wasn't allowed, those kids were born and they were criminals. So, by having abortions legal, those most likely to produce a criminal are able to abort, which is good for all of us. I realize that this is a demonic way of looking at it, but it does make some sense.
   
   -As a Baptist, I believe that the second that baby is aborted, that it goes straight to heaven as the most innocent and purest thing possible. To a Baptist, that is the best thing anyone could ever ask for. A trip straight to 'home'. So, I'd be more concerned for the mother killing the baby that for the baby if you're a Christian.
   
   
6. Capital Punishment
   
   -Again, I'm a Baptist, so technically I don't believe in it. Even though most Christians believe it's a Saintly activity, it's not. Capitol Punishment is murder, just as abortion is. Thus, under the Ten Commandments, it's not allowed, so I have no idea why so many Christians champion it. Do we have the right to play God and take another person's life, because he took lives? Again, it's kind of sinking to their level. If I was on a life sentence with no parole, I'd probably would want to die. Sitting in a cell for 50 years is no way that I would want to live.
   
   -However, I understand why people want Capitol Punishment to exist. Especially people who were affected by the person on death row. Though, I have no regrets for seeing a murderer die, it's just that it is technically against my beliefs.
   
   
7. Electoral College
   
   -The reason such a system was put in place, is because the founding fathers didn't trust our Government directly in the hands of the people. Which yes, is a bit contradictory to the whole, "for the people, by the people", but anyways, not to mention in those days a majority of the people could not read or write, thus they sit up an elite well read system of people to select the choice of President based on the popular vote, though not necessarily concretely.
   
   -I believe the literacy rate of the U.S. is either upper 80% or lower 90%, either way, it's good enough that we don't have to worry about illiterates voting. Half of the people who can read and registered don't even vote, so I don't think we really have to worry about that.
   
   -The idea that a person can receive less votes nationally, but still win an election blows my mind. How the election of 2000 could happen is beyond me. Gore had I believe nearly 500,000 more votes than Bush, and only trailed by less than a thousand. Gore would've won Florida had it not been for the fucked up ballots, and the Supreme Court ruling.
   
   -So, I vote to abolish it.
   
   
8. No Child Left Behind
   
   -The basic principal of this legislation is that schools that do not have a certain pass rate gets sanctioned and loses money, while schools that do meat the required quota, get praise and more money. Isn't there a fundamental flaw to that argument? Why would the schools that are getting a long fine get more money while schools that NEED the money, don't get it and are sanctioned. You'd think that schools that are having problems would get the most help. Even if it's more staff training, educational aids such as books, computers, supplies, etc. It's utter rubbish to hinder a struggling school, what does that do? By giving the school less money it's not going to enable them to teach the students any better or get them up to that level.
   
   -And, I've not seen any exact details, but from what I've heard it's not working. For example, my High School is an accredited school, and it's one of the best in the area. My brother, an honor student, is in AP U.S. History, and at the end of the year they take an AP final exam that if they do well enough, can earn them college credits. Anyway, since they have to take the AP test, they technically do not have to take the U.S. History SOL(VA Standardized test). However, the school makes them take it anyway, because a class full of honor students is guaranteed passes, if not advanced and perfect schools, thus boosting their statistics. So basically the school is forced to work around the system to make sure that it gets the funding that it needs. That's not the way it should work.
   
   -So, therefore, get rid of it.
   
   
9. ...