China's PM addresses The National People's Congress
The US is not the only country hit hard in these tough economic times. Recently the NPC, the National People's Congress (a congregation of the one-party rule of China). PM Wen Jiabao has stated that the centrally controlled government will increase spending, although they claim their debt of 950 billion Yuan is only 3% of their GDP and have projected 8% economic growth. China plans on increasing spending on social programs, healthcare and a projected 15% increase in spending on military programs.
The PRC is able to immidiately initiate new policy due to democratic centralism that is a linchpin in one-party, authoritarian rule. However, many leaders within the party, including Jiabao, have no clear plan on how to utilize the new spending. Nonetheless, it seems the party predicts a dreary future and are preparing for it as quickly as possible.
A question that comes to mind: how will this effect US-Sino relations? More importantly, will China's new policies drastically effect the amount of US debt they buy up?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A step closer to the fairness doctrine?
Obama picks new head of FCC.
It pays off to go to Havard Law School. Julius Genachowski, a former classmate of Mr. Obama's at Harvard, has been named Julius Genachowski as the new head of the FCC. Previous to this move, he was a part of various venture capital groups and corporations around DC, most became an insider within those eight years. He had also previously worked for the FCC as well.
Ok, so he seems like a self-started, business oriented professional. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But as you read the article further, he was a campaign worker who openly expressed support for "net-neutrality" protections and media-ownership rules to promote diversity. First of all, I have no idea what net-neutrality could possibly mean. The internet is probably humanity's last bastion of true openness. No matter who you are: liberal, conservative, or pinko-communist, anyone has a free run to express themselves. Even scumbag neo-nazis have paypal accounts to sell copies of the "Turner Diaries".
What scares me more is that second part. "Media-ownership rules to promote diversity". This leads me to believe that Mr. Genachowski is none other than a full fledged supporter of the fairness doctrine, a policy that has floated around the liberal camp since the 1940s. Back then, congress believed that both sides of the political spectrum should have equal air time due to the limited amount of frequency that was available to fledgling radio technology. Now this policy is no longer needed due to the fact that the technology has expanded tenfold. No one company has to fight for airwave space because there is so much open space for everyone.
Now the fairness doctrine is a ploy to silence conservative talk, or at least, force conservative-leaning stations, by government mandate, to allow equal time for the other side their so-called "fair share". First of all, it is known that conservative talk rules the radio waves, with hosts such as Mark Levine and Sean Hannity, and this dominance is a threat to their liberal counter-parts, whose ratings, to say the least, are poor. In the liberal mindset, however, it is completely logical to force private communication companies to insert less popular hosts in their time slots to marginalize the time reserved for the more popular ones that, in essence, make them money through ratings and advertisments. Bottom line, the fairness doctrine eliminates private enterprise in favor of bigger government.
Last, and my other important point, is how this relates to the double-speak that Mr. Obama has used time and time again. In February, he vowed to never touch the subject of the fairness doctrine and if congress pushes any type of legislation pertaining to it, he will reject it. With this appointment, could this be a way to curtail the legislative process and delegate the power to a federal agency? We will have to wait and see.
It pays off to go to Havard Law School. Julius Genachowski, a former classmate of Mr. Obama's at Harvard, has been named Julius Genachowski as the new head of the FCC. Previous to this move, he was a part of various venture capital groups and corporations around DC, most became an insider within those eight years. He had also previously worked for the FCC as well.
Ok, so he seems like a self-started, business oriented professional. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But as you read the article further, he was a campaign worker who openly expressed support for "net-neutrality" protections and media-ownership rules to promote diversity. First of all, I have no idea what net-neutrality could possibly mean. The internet is probably humanity's last bastion of true openness. No matter who you are: liberal, conservative, or pinko-communist, anyone has a free run to express themselves. Even scumbag neo-nazis have paypal accounts to sell copies of the "Turner Diaries".
What scares me more is that second part. "Media-ownership rules to promote diversity". This leads me to believe that Mr. Genachowski is none other than a full fledged supporter of the fairness doctrine, a policy that has floated around the liberal camp since the 1940s. Back then, congress believed that both sides of the political spectrum should have equal air time due to the limited amount of frequency that was available to fledgling radio technology. Now this policy is no longer needed due to the fact that the technology has expanded tenfold. No one company has to fight for airwave space because there is so much open space for everyone.
Now the fairness doctrine is a ploy to silence conservative talk, or at least, force conservative-leaning stations, by government mandate, to allow equal time for the other side their so-called "fair share". First of all, it is known that conservative talk rules the radio waves, with hosts such as Mark Levine and Sean Hannity, and this dominance is a threat to their liberal counter-parts, whose ratings, to say the least, are poor. In the liberal mindset, however, it is completely logical to force private communication companies to insert less popular hosts in their time slots to marginalize the time reserved for the more popular ones that, in essence, make them money through ratings and advertisments. Bottom line, the fairness doctrine eliminates private enterprise in favor of bigger government.
Last, and my other important point, is how this relates to the double-speak that Mr. Obama has used time and time again. In February, he vowed to never touch the subject of the fairness doctrine and if congress pushes any type of legislation pertaining to it, he will reject it. With this appointment, could this be a way to curtail the legislative process and delegate the power to a federal agency? We will have to wait and see.
Mr. Brown goes to Washington.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown addressed both houses today, being the fifth PM in our history to do so.
Brown Speech.
Without making any suggestions or solutions to any problems, Brown talked of the special relationship the US and UK has which is pivotal in curing the global crisis. He claims what is needed is an initiative a "global new deal". Maybe Mr. Gordon should take a lesson in US history. It took a world war to mobilize the US economy out of its giant slump, not government intervention and massive spending.
Brown Speech.
Without making any suggestions or solutions to any problems, Brown talked of the special relationship the US and UK has which is pivotal in curing the global crisis. He claims what is needed is an initiative a "global new deal". Maybe Mr. Gordon should take a lesson in US history. It took a world war to mobilize the US economy out of its giant slump, not government intervention and massive spending.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
CIA used Nixon-esque tactics.
Bush CIA memos.
According to WSJ, the Justice Department is investigating 92 destroyed tapes that belonged to the CIA. It seems these tapes pertained to the Bush Administration's interrogation policies after the 9/11 attacks. Along with this investigation has been the disclosure of memos that concern ways in which to curtail civil liberties and ignore diplomatic agreements.
With Mr. Obama closing Gitmo within days of the beginning of his administration, it seems that his aim is to rid our nation with any remnant of the Bush Administration and create a new slate. By doing this however, he is edging away from his promise to look to the future and not dwell on the past.
I agree with anyone who thinks Bush's plans to limit civil liberities in the name of national security was completely and utterly unconstitutional. I don't see our bill of rights as a contract that can be "renegotiated". The government is there to ensure are rights are protected and are not there to protect us by eliminating our certain, unalienable rights.
But I digress. I feel this is the Obama administration's attempt at mini-witch hunts to purge DC of Bush-era bureaucrats. Disguising this move with groups like the ACLU as a righteous crusade to protect civil liberties does not do justice to those true liberty-loving Americans who fight for the preservation of our rights everyday. It begs the question, though, how far will Obama really go to persecute the intelligence community. Although they used unorthodox methods of imprisoning suspected terrorists, our nation has been kept reletively safe from attack since 9-11. Were their methods suspect to being unconstitutional? Most likely. Were they effective? Yes. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
According to WSJ, the Justice Department is investigating 92 destroyed tapes that belonged to the CIA. It seems these tapes pertained to the Bush Administration's interrogation policies after the 9/11 attacks. Along with this investigation has been the disclosure of memos that concern ways in which to curtail civil liberties and ignore diplomatic agreements.
With Mr. Obama closing Gitmo within days of the beginning of his administration, it seems that his aim is to rid our nation with any remnant of the Bush Administration and create a new slate. By doing this however, he is edging away from his promise to look to the future and not dwell on the past.
I agree with anyone who thinks Bush's plans to limit civil liberities in the name of national security was completely and utterly unconstitutional. I don't see our bill of rights as a contract that can be "renegotiated". The government is there to ensure are rights are protected and are not there to protect us by eliminating our certain, unalienable rights.
But I digress. I feel this is the Obama administration's attempt at mini-witch hunts to purge DC of Bush-era bureaucrats. Disguising this move with groups like the ACLU as a righteous crusade to protect civil liberties does not do justice to those true liberty-loving Americans who fight for the preservation of our rights everyday. It begs the question, though, how far will Obama really go to persecute the intelligence community. Although they used unorthodox methods of imprisoning suspected terrorists, our nation has been kept reletively safe from attack since 9-11. Were their methods suspect to being unconstitutional? Most likely. Were they effective? Yes. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
