What the President Should Do

Discussion in 'Politics' started by nattybumpo, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. nattybumpo

    nattybumpo Rookie

    Sep 19, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    What the president should do

    I believe the inevitable consequence of nuclear deterrence policy is the destruction of the United States of America and everything it stands for. Mutually assured destruction is inevitable, as competition for resources and the inevitable clash between the ideals of democratically elected societies and modern dictatorships will result in a nuclear confrontation. Given a long enough timeline, the percentage chance of us not using nuclear weapons drops to almost zero, so long as the risk remains that we might use them, we eventually WILL use them.
    To this end, I think our best strategy would be to simply remove all nuclear weapons in the United States from service. Given that it is difficult to adapt weapons grade uranium into usable fissile material by nuclear power plants, that plutonium has yet to be used in a nuclear power plants, and US law has mandated that no new nuclear power plants be generated in the US for the last several years, our best option is to simply detonate the nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles someplace where they can’t hurt anyone, preferably outside of earth’s orbit so as to minimize the effect of nuclear fallout. It would be prudent to make an announcement, (perhaps behind closed doors) prior to launch, and it would be best not to fire all of them at once, so as not to cause a panic or risk a nuclear incident with China or one of the other world powers. Still, to avoid the inevitable delays and stall tactics nuclear advocates use to prevent such a move, I would advise we simply fire them as fast as we can, one at a time, and take the world by surprise so as not to create the inevitable political backlash that comes when a president executes his executive authority, giving opponents of the measure no time to respond or maneuver their political agents into a position to stop the measure. (The backlash will come later) To create a sense of public appeal for the project, I suggest a helio-centric theme be concocted, as the sun has long been a symbol of life, hope, and god’s majesty.
    As reprehensible as I find chronic drug use to be in this country, it is clear that the American government has no moral right to dictate what an American can or cannot ingest, inhale, or otherwise consume. The technicality in which one is arrested for carrying “on one’s person” a “dangerous substance” is a paternalistic and condescending approach towards personal responsibility. While the influence of dangerous drugs such as heroin or cocaine can not be ignored, neither can the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows marijuana is not addictive, does not cause cancer, is not linked to violent behavior, and does not prevent a person from leading a successful, fulfilling life at work and at home. I believe the hate which is fostered upon people who use marijuana is a cruel and festering cancer gnawing away at the heart of America, it is a hatred for everything different and unique about an individual, a legalized persecution of a significant minority based not on their attitudes or beliefs, but their own personal choices and preferences, and is the inevitable political consequence of persecuting peace activists who object to America’s military policies.

    As such, I recommend that the president use his presidential authority to sign political pardons for every man, woman, and yes juveniles and children, who are behind bars solely for possession or distribution of marijuana. It is the president right, duty, and obligation to protect and preserve the freedom of ALL of its citizens, not just the majority, and that to not do so is a breach of the public’s trust, faith, and most importantly, the promise which the president makes to uphold the ideals of freedom, justice, and the pursuit of happiness, which we are all guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. We are waiting, Mister President.
    Though this may sound a radical suggestion to some, I think it is important that we consider the possibility that we have overextended our military might and authority, both in practical terms such as intelligence, logistics, and effectiveness, and in moral terms, such as the question raised by the Iraq war: Do we have the right to police the world?
    The Romans learned the hard way, that to overextend one’s empire is to invite corruption into one’s capital cities and to open your gates to the barbarians outside. We have embassies and military bases stationed throughout Western Europe. The European Union continues to rely on us to protect them from external threats. I think the next time the EU decides to criticize our country, they can do so without the support of the United States Military.
    We have spheres of influence all over the world, and we have fought wars throughout Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America, (though in the latter case we may not acknowledge them as such) and have become known as the face of Western Empiricism, creating a Hegemony that is criticized throughout the world as trying to force western ideals upon the world. We have a violent history in this country, we were birthed in violent times, and more than once we have been called upon to end the violence that has beleaguered the world in times where the whole world was seemingly at war.
    But the era of the gunslinger is over. The wild west has been settled, pacified, there is no call to arms, no more need for bloodshed. It is time to mount our rifles on the wall, to turn in our side arms. It is time to exchange our swords for plowshares, Mr. President. It is time to call our troops back home. Not just from Iraq, not just from Afghanistan, but from all over the world. We can no longer afford to police the world.
    There is a need for energy in this country which can’t be ignored. As our dependence on automation increases and skilled labor becomes more prevalent, so too does our need increase for clean, reliable, and most importantly, renewable energy. At the same time, our country is faced with another problem. Homelessness. We are one of the few countries with the wealth and capital needed to provide solutions to both of these problems. To that end, I suggest the following: a massive civil works project that would employ any and all homeless people who are willing and able-bodied, to create several wind tunnels in the western mountain ranges of the United States. One of the biggest problems facing our country today is what we are to do with unskilled labor, and how it affects our countries labor supply and immigration policies.
    In addition to providing much needed transportation infrastructure through and around mountainous regions, it would also create massive wind tunnels, as often seen in nature, illustrated in caves where the wind blows all year round, providing a consistent and constant supply of potential energy. We now have the wind turbines we need to harness this energy, (as evidenced by the spinning turbines we so often see in windy regions today) and once they are created, they will provide enough energy to justify the expense of feeding and housing the homeless laborers that created them. It would not be an easy life, but with food from the national surplus and tools, materials, and equipment from the Army and National Guard, these people would find their dignity once more, and through their own labors be provided with a camp that shelters them from the cruel winds of fate and circumstance. I think it would be only fitting that it be named in tribute to the Native Americans, though its name should also serve as a reminder for what awaits the cold and weary traveler should he stop amid the snowstorms, a reminder that listlessness and idleness make for a life of hardship and want.
    The Micro-Bill is a fascinated concept being debated over the internet right now. It is idea in which the president uses his authority to veto any bill coming out of the senate or House of Congress that is over a hundred pages long. Modern bills are nightmarish conglomerations of thousands of laws, most of which are about the creation and distribution of capital. Many bills are several thousand pages long, leaving an infinite amount of room for obfuscation and legerdemain. A bill that can be interpreted any number of ways does not serve to disambiguate simple and easy to understand concepts, in fact, it achieves the opposite. When we rely on page after page of legal codex to serve in place of human faculties, mistakes are made. Situations inevitably arise which result in the need for human intervention, and the greater the complexity of the law itself, the more need there is for human intervention and reinterpretation.
    I know there are those fans of our judiciary system which would appeal to rightness of law and the correctness of an ordered society. But to them I say this: all law is derived from natural law, the inherent right of man, and no parchment or piece of paper is going to change that fact. Our founding father knew it, and we know it today, it is an idea that transcends generations and still inspires the hearts of men today. And because there is no substitute for the sometimes fallible human mind, I suggest the president find a means to open several new seats on the supreme court. Our current system is woefully inadequate, our courts overstaffed and overburdened by the monumental caseload they are faced with everyday. We have nine seats on the supreme court. We need fifty, possibly even one-hundred or even more, to handle the nightmarish appeals system in this country. It was a mistake to concentrate so much power into the hands of so few individuals, we have in essence given these nine people a black pen and access to our entire legal system, and told them they are free to cross out whatever they like.
    The Chinese government, (and by that I mean mainland China, not Taiwan) is a one party system. I am not sure what this means, other than this: they do not hold elections in which the public is an active participant.
    Rest assured, there are enemies of this United States. Enemies, so often disguised, like China, as friends. We are indebted to this country, this country who does not hold elections, who does not trust its people to own and care for the land. We are indebted to this country, but we are also at war.
    It is not a war in which thousands of soldiers blood is spilled every day, it is a war of ideology, of technology, of military supremacy. For a while, it seemed as though the market based reforms of the 1990’s would revolutionize the political landscape of China, as the unheard of economic prosperity and growth lead to the creation of wealth, the elimination of poverty, and the revitalization of their industry and commercial empire. For around ten years, China’s Gross Domestic Product grew and average of 9.5% per year. During this time, we came to depend on China as one of our primary providers for many goods, so much so that our own economy is threatened by our reliance on their exports. But in 2004 the Chinese government decided it was tired of economic reforms, and since then, their growth has stagnated.
    Our own GDP’s growth is anemic, between 2-3% per year. The ugly realities of a service economy have created a hedonistic and undemocratic dependency on both government and the extremely wealthy. Some people say this is the result of the free market run rampant. I disagree. This is the result of government intervention and over-regulation, of tax and spend policies, and in extreme cases, laize’ faire environmental policies. It would be convenient to blame one party or the other, but the truth is, we have become so dependant on Chinese labor that we no longer have an industrial base with which to compete in the global market.
    Our reliance on what amounts to little more than slave labor in third world countries as well as the labor of the impoverished Chinese population has stymied all growth and progress in regard to automation and industry. We have the technology to automate many of the jobs we see today, and to remain competitive, we can and should automate these processes, so that unskilled laborers in this country cannot demand an unfair wage, and that unskilled laborers in other countries cannot be forced into economic slavery by the demands of American commerce.
    The Japanese have little in the way of military might, natural resources, or surplus labor. Yet the Japanese have a powerful industrial and commercial base, and are a force in world politics and the global economy. Why?
    One reason: automation.
    Those little robotic arms you see in car commercials might seem cute, but if you were to make your way to University of California in Irvine, you might just be invited to shake the hand of one of their robotic appendages, appendages which are being put to use in Japanese automobile manufacturing as we speak. I can no longer vouch for the quality of American cars, because I have seen how safe and efficient Japanese cars are. The truth is, we are selling an inferior product, appealing to Americans’ sense of patriotism so that automobile manufacturers like Ford and Chevy can sell us oversized, overpriced automobiles that are difficult to repair and expensive to maintain.
    “What about all those people working on American assembly lines?” you might ask. Well, that’s a good point. It is a sad fact of life that automation displaces people who are employed in industrial fields. But ask yourself this, would you want to work in a job that you knew, without a doubt, that a machine could do better, faster, and more efficiently than you? Would you want to go through the same repetitive motions, day after day, if you knew there was a better life waiting for you elsewhere?
    Education is the key. Without an education, without the skills and abilities it provides, we will always be at the mercy of a fickle market economy. Free trade is the price we pay for a wealthy and prosperous society, it is the price we pay for the high quality of life we enjoy here in America. Think about it. Most middle class American’s can afford a house or condo, a nice car, have two weeks paid vacation, and can afford to eat meat almost every day of the week. We have indoor plumbing, electricity, telephones, television, radio, and the internet all at our fingertips. The price we pay for having such luxuries is that we are free to work wherever we choose, and as such, our employers are obligated to terminate our employment when we are no longer making a meaningful contribution to society.
    Most of the countries in Northern Europe have embraced democracy, and they provide their citizens with a free college education. These people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, and are powerful and influential players in international politics. We would do well to emulate them, to look towards education not with the disdain of ignorance, but the spark of wonder. Knowledge is neither a sin nor a crime, it is the natural birthright of mankind, and to fall before the forces of ignorance is to invite another dark age upon us.
    Life in America can be unfair. It can be tough. It can be sad. It can be bitter and tragic. But to turn our backs on progress and embrace ignorance will merit us nothing. If we do not produce the machines that help make the goods and services on which we rely on, someone else will. If you do not seek an education, if you allow yourself to throw away the gift of learning, you will fall behind, and you will suffer the consequences. It is not an easy road. I struggle with it every day, as both a disabled person and a student, and as you might have guessed, my political beliefs do not make for the easiest time at what can be a highly charged and politicized environment. School is not just for the wealthy, the gifted, or the privileged. School is for everybody.
    There will always be a place for human ingenuity and creativity in the workplace. If you can no longer assemble cars, perhaps you can design them. If you can no longer assemble a pen, then perhaps you can be a writer. Machines were made to serve man, and serve they will, but we must always be reaching ever higher, ever onwards, to greater and greater heights. We must never forget the sacrifices of those who came before us, or underestimate the challenges that await us. Let us never forget the story of John Henry.

    Some might say that if you pay someone less than minimum wage, you are condemning them to a life of poverty. But the truth is, if you are working for minimum wage, you already ARE living a life of poverty. Wealth is relative. A pair of sunglasses doesn’t cost a dollar because that’s the price the manufacturer or distributer says it should be, it costs a dollar because that is what it is worth. If the price is too high, nobody will buy them, and the company won’t make a profit. If the price is too low, the cost to manufacture, distribute, and advertise the sunglasses will cost more than amount they make selling the product, and the company won’t make a profit doing that either.
    Likewise, if a company pays a man 5 dollars to dig a ditch, it pays 5 dollars because that is how much that service is worth. If the man demands more than 5 dollars, the company will simply find someone willing to do it for less. If the company pays less than 5 dollars, it won’t find anybody who is willing to dig the ditch for them, or if they do, the ditch will be of inferior quality. (Perhaps dug too deep, too shallow, or not in straight line) Don’t believe me? Try offering your neighbor kid to work in your garden for an hour and offer to pay him a quarter.
    Dictating that someone must be paid a minimum amount is a little like saying that we should just give everyone a million dollars, then everybody would be rich. It just doesn’t work that way, because there is still a finite amount of resources to work with. You would end up spending 10,000 dollars for a cookie, or a 100,000 dollars for a hamburger. Dictating a minimum wage will only create a labor shortage, and encourage people to work under the table and not to pay taxes.
    Some people might wonder how we will defend ourselves if we get rid of our nuclear weapons. I suggest we do it the same way we have always done it, by being smarter, faster, and stronger than those who would do us harm.
    The first question people might have is: what will we do if China, or perhaps some other major world power, decides to attack us?
    I say, let them come. If they launch nuclear weapons at us, they will earn the wrath of the United Nations and the condemnation of the entire world. They will be submerged in internal unrest, and their own people will lead a revolt against them. They will have nothing to show for their efforts but a blighted, irradiated landscape, and the wrath of god and the world upon them.
    We must be fearless. Even if they do not decide to launch a nuclear war, and they try to conquer us, there will be 300 million reasons why they will regret the instant they set their foot upon American soil. Those reasons will carry flags and sing songs, songs we have carried in our hearts for over two centuries. They will be beholden to a far flung empire, desperately trying to maintain their hold on a country half a world away, with one of the most spirited and determined people in the history of the world. We fought a war for independence once, and we will do so again, if necessary.
    Many people wonder at my critique of the modern military, they wonder how I can question the might of what they believe to be the most powerful military in the history of the world. The truth is, we are no longer the most powerful military, the Chinese have nearly three times the population that we do, meaning they have three times as much infantry, three times as much labor, and that many more desperate, frightened people willing to do anything to escape the wrath of a powerful and despotic government.
    We maintain the technological edge, for now, because of our free-market ideals and the free exchange of goods and information throughout the world. But we have so many weapons in development, so many plans and prototypes that have been finalized and produced in limited number throughout America’s and our NATO allies’ territories.
    The M-16 rifle is big, heavy, and expensive to produce and manufacture. By replacing many of the parts with plastic, shortening the barrel, and modifying the weapon to fire three bullets in rapid succession, we can improve the accuracy, as well as reduce the cost and weight of the weapon. We can also reduce its size and ease with which it can be assembled and reassembled, making it easier to transport and repair.
    There are many new innovations in small arms technology. Smaller ammunition results in higher penetration and lighter bullets, meaning the weapons can carry more ammunition that weighs less and is more accurate than its heavier counterparts. Also, case-less ammunition that removes the need for the heavy metal exterior of a bullet by replacing it with a plastic cap, creating ammunition that is smaller and more efficient, allowing small arms to carry more bullets that weigh considerably less, allowing firearms to sustain a higher rate of fire, shooting more bullets in a shorter amount of time. Cartridge magazines no longer have to be manufactured from metal, and can now be composed of high strength polymers.
    There are many high tech rifles in use by NATO right now that could easily be adapted for use by the American military. The FAMAS and Steyr-Aug assault rifles are suitable replacements for the M-16, and ideal for urban use, where infantry are most likely to see action. Some of these rifles have what is called a bullpup design, where the weight of the magazine is loaded behind the trigger, so that the weapon is more compact and weighs less while maintaining the same barrel length, making the weapon lighter and more compact.
    Hegemony is expensive, and coercing the world into following our ideologies may not be the best way to achieve a harmonious global community. We must be prepared for the eventuality of war, but as is suggested in the title of our war ministry, The Department of Defense, we should not be in the business of fighting offensive wars. I hope that we will one day have a president who is not afraid to engage in the process of this kind of reform, and a public capable of understanding what it represents and engaging in a reasonable discourse about such reform.

    (BTW, me and the redneck... same guy.)
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Lumpy 1

    Lumpy 1 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Jun 19, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Well.. you just might have the record for the longest post... Sheez
  3. Conspiracist

    Conspiracist Snuggle weather rocks!

    Jan 6, 2010
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Monkey Island

Share This Page