Tech: A Force for Good or Realism

American technology companies are herald by techies as global forces for good. While companies such as Google and Facebook has transformed our lives they are business and with a primary focus on one thing. Profit.

Google is one of the wealthiest companies in the world worth 364 Billion. And finally Facebook is a company that has yet to make a profit (though not from lack of effort) is worth some 212 Billion.

Google is a company whose motto is Do no evil. I actually admire such a noble goal and the will to publicly proclaim it. Yet through Google has such a motto its seem they have not been able to hold themselves to their high ideal. Google has been accused of violating anti trust laws both in the United States and the European Union. How you might ask?

Google’s search engine is not unbiased not by any means. Instead when someone is looking for a new shirt or a new computer the most trafficked links are not the first results shown. No instead of being a near perfect way of delivering search results Google allows companies to pay them so that those companies appear higher in search rankings.

The American government as well as the American people have accepted such violations. Anti-trust lawsuits in the US have resulted in little consequences for Google. In the Europeans Union things work a little differently. In 2014 the European Union voted to break up Google and also believes that Google may be forced to pay 6 Billion euros in fines.

It seems the motto Do no evil has become Do a little harm. Google is certainly not the only company to violate its so-called mission.

Facebook’s for example is all about connecting people who share interests and like-minded views. It allows for anyone to posts discussion on subjects ranging from pizza to the politicization of drugs. Anything as long as it is not overly violent or pornographic is allowed to be posted. Facebook has repeatedly said it is anti-censorship and believes in the freedom of information. Or at least it does until its economic interests are threatened.

China is one of the biggest tech markets in the world with an estimated six hundred million people connected to the web. Facebook has categorically removed posts that are pro-Tibetan or come from Tibetan activist group. Tibet of course seeks independence from the Chinese government. The Chinese government believes the Dali Lama to be an enemy and refuses to recognize Tibetan independence. These posts include monk self-immolation as well as pictures of anti-government protestors. Facebook is currently blocked by the Chinese government, however being a social network as well as one of the largest media hubs in the world Facebook wants access to Chinese consumers.

Rumors have persisted that Facebook has been working on a deal with the Chinese government in order to be allowed in China. And so Facebook has gone about censoring pro-Tibetan posts. It is believed that Facebook does so to gain favor with the Chinese government.

So it seems Facebook made a simple choice. If the rumors are true then Facebook made the correct business decision if a hypocritical moral one.

In the west we embrace values like democracy and freedom of expression. Our top companies claim to possess and act on such values. They usually do but when it comes down to it choices must be made. It is not entirely the fault of tech companies. They are simply idealistic well-intentioned companies that live in a hyper competitive and profit driven world.

Guns Don’t Solve Problems, People Solve Problems

The Charleston Church shooting was a terrible tragic one that the political and media elites think should never be repeated. And yet we have almost become chilling numb in the face of such violence. From the Charleston shootings to Aurora school shootings to this kind of evil senseless violence has almost become routine in the psyche of America. The question is why?

It starts with guns of course. Weapons or tools that can be used for combat or sport, to defend rights or take life. I am in firm defense of the 2^nd amendment yet the founding fathers under no circumstance intended the 2^nd amendment to be a cop out nor government nor the citizenship from acting responsibility.

Yes, yes I have heard it before. According to many conservatives “studies” show that takings guns away from law-abiding citizens will only empower criminals. While that would probably happen in some cases I doubt it would be the national trend. Indeed if one examines (almost) every developed democratic nation in the world besides the one will find that gun massacres so common stateside are non-existent.

Of course the argument swings back around. This is the United States of America we are not like those other countries they say. It is true we are not like them. We broke away from the most powerful nation in the world and then took on the tremendous task of restoring democracy to the world after it had been lost for thousands of years. And with the forming of our nation we created our Bill of Rights. One of the most powerful of these rights is the right to bear arms with the theory that should the need arise the average American would be able to defend against the federal government.

I agree that the average citizen should fight against a nation that had become tyrannical, uninhabitable for those who strive for freedom and equality. Yet what happens when the amendment designed to protect Americans ends up causing pain where men, women, and children of all colors and creeds are sacrificed in order to preserve tradition. I believe that Americans should always have the right to bear arms yet not a right to bear all types of arms. It must be reexamined that some states can allow all manner of firearms into the hands of their citizens. We often look outside our own nation to enemies whom would take our cherished rights away. But what happens when a fellow citizen deprives another of one of the most important rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Jeb & Mitt

The Republican Party has taken a turn to the right. Many moderate Republicans have had to turn to the right to survive politically. Those whom refused have been vanquished by ultra-conservative forces. Two men, whom may very well run for President of the United States, embody the moderate Republican agenda. These men are Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. While Romney swung to the right during the 2012 Presidential campaign and primaries while he was Governor of Massachusetts he was a moderate common sense Republican. Quite a rarity these days.

If the Republican Party attempts to run an ultra-conservative candidate (such as a tea party backed candidate), they will certainly lose the general election against the Democratic nominee. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are the best chance the Republican Party has of recapturing the White House in 2016.

Governor Bush and Governor Romney have served in the highest echelons of business and have held one of the highest political offices in the United States that of Governor.

However only one can run for either to be successful. Both of them appeal to big business, posses similar philosophies, and can draw in voters whom are tired of Tea Party obstructionists and anti-modern views on social issues. Both are simply logical moderates with years of executive and business experience.

I believe Governor Bush is the best chance for Republicans to pull in swing/moderate voters and defeat the presumed Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton. Governor Bush has proclaimed, bravely (at least politically) his view on controversial issues such as immigration and gay marriage While Governor Bush didn’t come out firmly in support of gay marriage he did say that same sex couples along with rule of law must be respected. On immigration, well, Governor Bush is married to a Hispanic women born in Mexico and has strongly supported immigration reform. I say that gives him the advantage over any Republican when it comes to garnering the Hispanic-American vote. Unlike Governor Romney who said in the nineties he is to the left of Senator Ted Kennedy on abortion, Bush has proclaimed his views just a few months before potential nominees will announce their candidacies and cannot as easily cop out of them by saying his views have changed. Governor Romney was attacked constantly for ( in the 2012 Presidential Election) changing his values and views on issues he supported as Massachusetts Governor and Senatorial Candidate. Voters like firm leaders whom profess their views clearly and do not hide from them.

Jeb Bush has the powerful Bush name behind him. Much like the Clinton name the name Bush can be helpful as well as a hindrance. It can invoke emotions ranging from awe to disgust. A famous name associated with two US Presidents and a governor polarizes and garners instant support. The name Romney is simply not as powerful nor as polarizing.

Finally Jeb Bush is associated with political success. While his father, President George H.W. Bush did lose his reelection campaign to Bill Clinton, his brother, President George W. Bush served two terms as President and he himself served two terms as Governor. On the other hand Governor Romney lost his parties nomination in 2008 and lost the 2012 Presidential election to President Barack Obama. Voters can at times forgive but party leadership will rarely forget about a candidate whom has lost a Presidential election, and so the Romney name carries with it a mark of defeat. Something Jeb Bush certainly does not.

I do believe Jeb Bush will run for President. If so he can capture swing voters, appeal to the Republican base (once ultra-conservative candidates our knocked out of the race), and out fund most competitors. Other competitors such as Chris Christie are just to polarizing or like Rand Paul too conservative to win in the general election. Romney is just a non-starter, he and Bush occupy the same sphere and the weight of Bush is just to great. I do believe Jeb Bush will seek the Republicans nomination for President of the United States and if so has the greatest chance of delivering the White House to the Republican Party. Nominating Governor Romney again will be a great mistake and a waste of a campaign.

 

A Conservative congress. Progress on legislation?

Speaker Boehner & Majority Leader McConnell

The 114th Congress has already begun, just yesterday Congressman John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, was reelected as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Speaker Boehner needed 205 votes to win the speakership and won with 216 votes. For the past years Speaker Boehner has had to hold a possible revolt from the more Conservative elements of the GOP, namely the Tea Party. This year only twenty-four conservative Republican representatives went against the party line and voted not to elect Congressman Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Luckily for Speaker Boehner, the Republican Party, and the rest of the country Tea Party influence has been waning the past few years. The Republican National Committee during the 2014 midterm election cycle heavily vetted its congressional candidates and poured massive amounts of money into congressional primary campaigns to squash Tea Party backed upstarts whom threaten to taint the Republican Party with insensitive, ridiculous rhetoric and policy.

With that said I fear that this division within the Republican caucus right at the beginning of the 114th Congress may be, as it has been in past years, a preview of things to come. The Republican mainstream has had to take a decidedly right turn as ultra conservatives have routinely attacked any GOP members (including the congressional Republican leadership) whom sought compromise with the Democrats and to a greater extent President Barack Obama’s agenda.

Although the fire of the Tea Party may be dying down, grassroots conservative groups are still a forced to be reckoned with for the GOP. Speaker Boehner, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, may reject compromise in order to whip up conservative support for Republican’s in 2016 and retain the loyalty of rank and file members.

Speaker Boehner

With the Republican’s controlling the House and the Senate by good majorities the burden of legislating now fall upon the shoulders of Republican representatives. There still exists ultra conservatives in both the House and the Senate whom will force party leaders such as Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McConnell to reject common sense legislation proposed by Democrats in order to whip up their conservative base. Though the threat of a loss to Democrats in the 2016 Presidential elections looms I fear that again the 114th Congress will be a do nothing Congress and that the Republican Party will remain the obstructionist party.

Is North Korea responsible?

It was not to along ago that the American company Sony Pictures Entertainment was cyber attacked by North Korea. Or so it seems. While the Obama Administration’s official stance and the stance of government cyber security experts is that North Korea was behind the cyber attack, independent cyber security experts have doubts and believe there is a possibility that the attack came from a third party hacking organization.

However for good or for ill the die has been cast, President Barack Obama this week announced that in light of the recent cyber attacks North Korea will face new United States sanctions.

In light of the discrepancies about who was behind the attack and North Korea’s subsequent actions I believe I was to hasty in deeming North Korea guilty in the Sony hack. While North Korea is certainly a rogue and tyrannical state its actions after news of the attack broke were not the actions of a guilty nation.

For one North Korea offered to help the US government find out whom was behind the hack and threatened the US if the US refused North Korea’s offer. I, and no doubt the US government, considered North Korea’s offer bizarre and ridiculous as I was certain they were behind the attack.

However in retrospect this offer makes sense especially if North Korea is not behind the attack after all. There is a political component of course, the Chinese government, which supports North Korea, does not approve when North Korea causes unnecessary trouble with the US. In fact the US asked China to help with preventing future attacks that come from North Korea.

The above factors combined with cyber security experts disagreeing on where the attack came from leads me to believe that North Korea was not behind the attack but was setups. This is a theory that cyber security experts have formulated as they believe that traces of North Korea’s code was planted to frame North Korea.

The Obama Administration immediately had a response by shutting down North Korea’s internet, which I believe was a correct move regardless if North Korea was behind the attacks as it disproportionally effects the North Korea elites and punishes them for their people suffering.

But now there are sanctions coming, which regardless of North Korea is guilty or not guilt of the cyber attacks, is the wrong move. Sanctions against North Korea will not effect Kim Jung-un or his inner circle, the sanctions will probably include North Koreas ability to export and prevent food aid from going into the country which will only effect the people of North Korea whom have no say in their government’s actions. Economic sanctions against North Korea will not work as their leaders stay fabulously wealthy by selling illegal arms to country’s such as Iran for hard currency. North Korean elites have little to no liquid assets that the US can freeze unlike sanctions passed against countries such as Russia.

In the end whether guilty or not sanctions, as they have been in the past, will be ineffective in harming Kim Jong-un’s regime. The United States sanctions will disproportionally harm the people of North Korea without harming its leadership. North Korea will become more hostile to aid organizations and it will become risky for aid organizations to bring food into the country. Sanctions that do little to weaken North Korea’ regime and harm its people should not be passed just so the US can appear to be retaliating against North Korea’s leadership.

Whom to Represent and Whom not to Represent?

The United States prides itself on local representatives, that is members US House of Representatives, colloquially known as congressmen ( and congresswomen), whom prioritize there local interests once elected into Washington DC.

There exists a tension between local representative and constituents in the United States; should Congressmen and Congresswomen prioritize their congressional districts even if that means harming the greater national interests?

Many of my fellow Americans, perhaps, do not phrase that question in such a way. I find that the question congressmen and congresswomen must ask is; what gets me reelected? Unfortunately for our political process and us, the citizens of this nation, congresswomen and congressmen must overwhelming side with local interest instead of the national good. We get the representation we deserve, we deserve whomever we vote for and whatever polices we vote for.

Why bring this up now? Well that’s simple, I have for several years read about the problem of the quantity of tanks in the United States Army. O but don’t mistake me, the problem isn’t that the US Army is undersupplied with tanks, in fact it is quite the opposite. Congress, in their annual approval of the national budget (with this year’s budget being no exception) consistently approves the manufacturing of new tanks. The reason tanks are continuously approved for manufacturing, though the US Army no longer needs them, is related to the issues I outlined above.

While the US Army no longer needs tanks, it just so happens that a certain congressmen with a tank producing factory in his district has a strong incentive to keep said factories open. And so to get the federal budget passed funding for said tank manufacturing plant is written into the federal budget every year. At a hundred or so million dollars the American taxpayer buys the US Army tanks it no longer need.

The problem is that the American people expect their representatives to put their interests above all, even above the national interest. The tale of the unneeded tanks is just one example of where congressmen and congresswomen must cave to local interests and demand.

Such behavior harkens back to out split with Great Britain in favor of local representation. With that said I do believe that the balancing act that Congress performs all to often lean heavily for local interest while collectively harming the national one. Such practices create a bloated, nationally unnecessary, budget all to often bills filed with obscure statues to help one congresspersons district, such is the evils of pork barreled spending.

Developing a conscience while in elected office is difficult especially when the American people expect congressmen and congresswomen to vote the way they would vote. However developing ones own conscience is necessary to effectively bring our nation into the future and restore the integrity of the political process. If we are not unified in mind, purpose or law ; how can we expect to endure in these troubled time?

The Jury is Out

The American legal system, it forms the backbone of our nation, protecting we the people from government abuse and our fellow citizens. It seems that the stalwarts of our legal system, the protectors of our legal system, the protectors of our civil liberties should be beholden to no outside interests.

I am of course referring to those black robe masters of the law, the American judge. Judges,should be clear to enact judicial proceedings in a courtroom without having to take account any factors besides the facts on hand. In the United States that is simply not the case, we have in our midst a phenomena that threatens the sanctity of the judgehood and our legal system, the phenomena of Judicial Elections.

Judges preside over court proceedings, they are often educated individuals whom possess a passion for the law and have the ability to preside over courtroom without biased concerning the case at hand. Judicial elections jeopardize this unbiased that I believe is the hallmark of a great judge, ruling on a legal matter using the facts at hand.

Elections, as is the purpose of elections, makes you beholden to those whom elect you, in the United States people who stand for office are elected not by those whom they represent but to those who donate to them, Judicial elections are no exception to this rule.

Companies have realized that judicial elections garner relatively little attention an is an extremely cost effective way to win legal cases or defeat legislation that could harms said companies commercial interests.

Judges must be appointed, the tenure of all judgeships should not be life long yet sufficiently long enough to outlast any elected official that could appoint them. Elections, force judges to make promises that they are expected to rule on, such promises and the rulings to follow could easily conflict with what a judge should do depending on the particularities of a case. While more democratic on the surface judicial elections harm the sanctity of our Republic and the liberties of its citizens.

Through common sense practices, we the people, could craft the American legal system into what it was intended to be, a shining beacon of law that relies on just defenders, just rulings, and the rigorous appreciation of facts.

A Weary Public and a Mission Creeping

The United States is, unofficially of course, waging war against ISIS ( Islamic state of Iraq and Syria). While I don’t like jumping into conflict, wars cannot be fought with drones and US forces posing as military “advisors”. Yet the US, particularly after what many considers failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, is war weary. Politicians, such as but not limited to President Barack Obama, are on the lookout for mission creep and the accompanying American investment (such as money, lives and prestige) that follows.

Mission creep. A term used to describe a foreign policy excursion that eventually becomes a long-term military occupation. We saw it in Vietnam, now we are seeing it in Syria and Iraq. I am referring to the US’ conduct against opposition to ISIS and how our role as military “advisors” can quickly transition to war fighting combatants.

Politicians and the public now prefer wars to be fought on the cheap with drones that strike strategic targets and high-level enemy personnel. Why send in tens of thousands of troops when you can send in a few hundred Special Operations Operators to fight America’s wars? While I am all for avoiding bloodshed, fighting wars cheaply and not showing massive force in the beginning of a conflict is why Iraq and even Afghanistan is considered the foreign policy failure that it is today.

While I understand Americans are frustrated with perpetual warfare, wars cannot be halfway affairs; they must be conducted with massive and overwhelming force to ensure a quick victory. The Powell doctrine must be invoked; if politics and public opinion cannot guarantee a quick American victory along with a massive show of force then the United States should take no overt action in that conflict.

Hagel Chucked Out

It seems President Obama is losing key members of his administration left and right. The latest loss from Obama’s Administration comes from Chuck Hagel, a former Republican Senator and the Secretary of Defense.

It was announced yesterday that within a few weeks Secretary Hagel will be stepping down as Secretary of Defense, one of the most powerful posts in the United States. While he has officially resigned he will still remain the acting Secretary of Defense until a replacement is found

While officially the White House sends Secretary Hagel out the door with praise there are “rumors” from administration insiders that Hagel is seen as a lackluster Secretary of Defense whom has done little to make good on President Obama’s agenda.

I for one find the announcement quite surprising. While Hagel is not particularly effective I did not find Hagel particularly ineffective. The question is, Was Hagel really looked down upon by administration insiders or did he just wish to leave what he may see as a sinking ship?

I hope that President Obama chooses a Secretary of Defense that can lead this nations vast military bureaucracy and just as importantly be confirmed by the United States Senate. We are transitioning to a new era of conflict and thus need someone in charge of the Pentagon whom can lead the US military through multiple crisis.

O Executive Action, How we need you

O executive action, that time honored pseudo legal power that modern Presidents possess, is coming under scrutiny as President Obama vows to act unilaterally on immigration reform.

Americans universally acknowledge that the United States’ immigration system is broken. While we may be divided on what to do about immigration we all know something must be done. Our political leaders, elected to lead us, have not been able to compromise on this important issue.

President Obama feels, as do I, that if Congress does not act he has the responsibility to enact immigration reform to benefit the nation. This has naturally lead to outrage from Republicans as an abuse of executive authority. I would rather Congress act on immigration but politicians from either party have shown a reluctance if not an inability to compromise

The political back drop, is of course, the shellacking Democrats took in the midterms elections earlier this month. With the lame duck congress gridlocked and the following Congress to likely follow suit; President Obama will most likely act on immigration if Congress cannot pass meaningful legislation.

The problem of President Obama acting unilaterally is dubious legal reasoning (which other presidents have exploited in the past), the weakening of Congress’ power (though they have weakened themselves), and overreach of the Executive Branch. While the claims may be valid President Obama cannot preside as a figurehead over a nationally debate that will effect the lives of millions and potentially the future of the United States.