Is Bill helping or hurting?

Is Bill undermining Hillary?, posted Jan. 22 on "AMERICAblog," talks about how Bill Clinton has been involved with and helping Hilary with her campaign. The blogger then talks about how some people, especially women, seem to be starting to lean away from Hilary because they think this may be more like another term for Bill as president instead of it being Hilary as the first woman president. I find this to be an interesting predicament that Hilary is in. This is because there is no doubting that Bill has helped her along the campaign trail. I recall that at the beginning of the campaigning that Bill was vital in helping Hilary raise so much money for her campaign and he has been helping every bit of the way since then. Also, there is the fact that they are a married couple that should be considered, so it is understandable that Bill would close around Hilary as she campaigns much like any other family members of any of the other candidates. But, all this aside, the fact remains that, to some, Bill having some kind of control in office would be a negative thing and for this reason it may be negative for Bill to be so closely involved with Hilary and her campaign. I'm not sure what Hilary's best course of action would be, but I find myself thinking that it would probably be a good idea for Bill to go into the background a little more. This is not to say that he should stop helping completely, but just that it might be good to give Hilary a chance to show voters that she will be able to work and make decisions on her own just to put some of these worrying voters at ease.

Tough situation with tougher desicions

Vote "No" On This Potential Nomination, posted Jan. 21 on "A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days," talks about the possibility that General David Petraeus will be nominated to be the NATO supreme commander. The controversy that's being addressed is that right now things are far from settled in the Middle East and that Petraeus is a great military leader so they should keep him there for the time being. I agree 100% with this blog. Petraeus is the best military mind at hand and he is currently in the best place for his skill to be used to the max. It is also the most important place for him to be right now. If he was taken out of Iraq to become the commander of NATO, it may be something that he deserves, but it would be illogical knowingly take someone out of an important place when he is the best around to tackle the job. Petraeus is a great military leader and will definitely become the supreme commander of NATO eventually, but now is not the time to start switching up command which would only make things tougher. I think it is also important to make the point that the job Petraeus is doing he is doing extremely well on; whether or not you agree with the political issues surrounding the war in Iraq, on the military side of things, our military has done amazingly well in limiting casualties and in efficiently suppressing resistance without any significant losses in comparison to any war in all of history.

Yay for video games...

The Virtue of Video Games, posted Jan. 20 on "A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days," gives a link to an article on game.slashdot.org. The article says how video games may actually have a practical use after all. It then refers to an incident where a SUV flipped on a highway and a man came to help and provided medical assistance from things he had learned from playing America's Army, a popular video came. I for one am pumped about this article. I guess it comes from being a typical guy who likes to play video games and is sick of being told that I'm wasting my time. Sadly though, I find the point made in this article quite useless and the story it refers to seems to be an extremely isolated situation that I doubt would ever be the case again. This is because the fact of the matter is that most things one learns from video games are completely useless if not totally false. In fact, I find myself thinking that the man who applied medical help to the victims in the accident is probably lucky that he didn't cause more harm than good, if he was really just using knowledge he got from a video game. And, in this light, I believe it would be advisable that people who read said article don't go away from it thinking they should try an apply knowledge they gain from their video games to real life. But, it should be clear that I am in no way trying to bash video games and those who use them, especially since I am one of them, but I’m just saying that they don't give useful knowledge pertaining to real life and shouldn't be viewed as such.

Dangers in Russia

For Those Who Continue To Wonder Why We Should Worry About Vladimir Putin, posted Jan. 17 on "A Chequer-Board of Days and Nights," talks about some unsettling news from Russia. The post talks about Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, and about his current actions which seem dangerously close to him creating a dictatorship around himself. The post makes the point that Russia is not going to become a threat militarily because of these possible political changes; this is a point that I generally agree with. This is because now there are many powerful nations with nuclear power to go along with their militaries and it is pretty much safe to assume that no one, without monumental aggravation, will launch a nuclear war and Russia's current standard military is in no way the type of military that a nation would launch against the united front of any number of other nations. But, the problem remains that, if Putin does place himself in a dictatorship, one can never be absolutely sure what he'll do with that power because he is answerable to no one. Aside from the military threat, the blogger made a point that the real issues would come from problems by there being miscalculations in the US's Russo-American foreign policy; this is because of how hard it is to work with and understand absolute dictators. I find this to be a more realistic problem that would arise from Putin taking power. It's hard to say what real dangers and problems will come if Putin keeps gaining power, but I am sure that Russia possibly moving into having a dictatorship can have no good results.

Shooting ourselves in the foot

Former GOP congressman indicted on terrorism charges, posted Jan. 16 on "AMERICAblog," talks about the indictment of former congressman, Mark Deli Siljander, for fundraising for Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a supporter of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The blog is covering a story from CNN about this incident. Allegedly, Siljander helped raise over $130,000 for the Islamic American Relief Agency. This is a fundraiser in the US that has been long expected of supporting Islamic terrorists. In the indictment, the US government claims that a member working for this fundraiser was a fundraiser for Osama bin Laden at one point; this case being brought forth is part of a long investigation against the fundraiser that started back in 2004. The specific charges against Siljander are for money laundering, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. This is because he accepted money, about $50,000, from that fundraiser that he knew had been stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development, he lobbied for other senators to support the charity despite although authorities had warned that it was supporting terrorists, and for lying to government prosecutors when questioned for this case. I would think it would be clear what I think of this man, and what any up-right American should think of him, but my only question now is how could anyone, in all faithfulness, do this and still be able to live with himself? Yet, this story is only starting to come out and there are still a lot of unknowns that need to be answered before I can understand what this former congressman's motives were. But one thing is for sure, with important people who have lots of influence in our country doing things such as this, I can better understand how terrorist groups can still find ways to get money and function. My only hope is that this is a totally isolated matter and I definitely plan to follow this story to see the outcome and what happens to the former senator and the Islamic American Relief Agency.

Do religion and politics mix?

Huckabee, whose religion thinks Catholics aren't Christians, says we need to amend the Constitution to bring it more in line with God, posted Jan. 15 on "AMERICAblog," addresses comments from Huckabee concerning his beliefs and laws he wants to change. Specifically, he wants to change to Constitution to ban abortion and gay marriage. These are two things that I would love and support completely if said changes were ever attempted. But, his argument for these changes are that they conflict with the Word of God and we should change the way we live instead of trying to change God's standards. Being a Christian I, once again, totally agree with his reasoning and with what he wants to do. The problem that arises is that these are all good and true goals for Christians and the church to pursue, but I'm not positive that its sound reasoning in running for political office. I do believe in the importance of separation between church and state, this is for a number of reasons I'm not going to cover, and going with that line of thought I don't believe that a political candidate should base his campaign and claim that possible laws he'll set in place will be for the soul reason of religious beliefs. This is because this could be a dangerous step towards a theocracy. And once things go in this direction, religious views and doctrine will come up against and possibly be compromised with anti-Christian political issues (sorry, I know I said I wasn't going to try an touch on the huge topic of the importance of separation of church and state, but this is all I'll say). Before I finish, I would like it to be clear that I'm am not putting down the ideals or plans of Huckabee, in fact I fully hope that he would succeed in his plans if he is elected president, but I think it’s out of place to campaign for political office with religious reasoning as the only basis for argument and that there are plenty of other good reasons and general moral reasons to go against abortion and gay marriage.

Ethanol and food prices related to Congress?

On Food Inflation, posted Jan. 15 on "A Chequer-Board of Days and Nights," comments on the points made on "Cato-at-liberty" where it talks about ethanol issues. The story makes a point about food prices due to ethanol, "'Ethanol has increased the average American’s grocery bill $47 since July,' said Sen. Chuck Schumer, citing figures from Iowa State University." It goes on to point out that this problem is a result of taxes and tariffs set in place by Congress. To help along the ethanol industry, Congress put in place a 51-cent-per-gallon exemption from normal gas taxes and they put a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol from foreign nations. Although this is useful for the ethanol industry, specifically boosting American ethanol producers, the demand for corn is through the roof which drives up grain costs, this includes the feed grain. This in turn is affecting farmers’ ability to feed and work with cattle in general causing them to have to raise the price of products such as milk. I agree with the writer of the story in saying that the tariffs on the foreign ethanol should be dropped. This is because there would be no significant blow to American ethanol, but by allowing the cheaper ethanol into the market would bring the demand on corn down which could in turn allow farmers to drop the high prices on other dairy products such as milk. The economy is going through some tough times as work is done to reorganize towards the use of ethanol as a viable fuel source, a noble and good move (I admit that I was decidedly wrong in being so cynical concerning ethanol in my last post), and lowering tariffs on foreign ethanol would be a good way to help the farmers work their way through these changes without forcing prices up. This would also be beneficial to the rest of the economy by allowing people to pay less for foods.