The World According To Alan

If I Were President: Iraq

;The War in Iraq - '''Oppose''' {nid 2E}: I will start off by saying I don't ''totally'' oppose the war in Iraq, just they way it was handled: the way it was done was basically a demonstration to the world that what the US stands for is "Might Makes Right" rather than Rule of Law and order. I do think the UN needs a backbone, but it's probably good that it doesn't have one until there are tighter controls on civil rights (and by that I mean freedom from Socialism). {nid 2G} ; {nid 2L}: The main thing though is that by rushing into Iraq, we blew the best opportunity we had to demonstrate to the Middle East what are stated values can mean: if we'd spent ''half'' what we're spending in Iraq to instead rebuild Afghanistan faster and help get their economy going again so farmers wouldn't have to turn to opium to make a living, we could have created a model society right in the middle of the part of the world that needs it the most. Instead, we've given most of the world all too many reasons to hate us. Thank You Very Much George. {nid 2H} ;Turning Over More Political Authority to U.N. - '''Support''' {nid 2I}: As I said above, this has be handled cautiously. For starters, I think that only democratically elected representatives to the UN should have voting rights. Or at least the "Permanent Members" with veto power. Dictators obviously should have no control over democracies, so this is a prerequisite to actually giving the UN any power. But even as it is today, it's inexcusable for them to sit on their duffs, for example when Saddam was threatening Kuwait, or even after he invaded, and call for sanctions. People ''died'' while they were debating. They need a standing policy: if you invade, you will be removed from power. Period. {nid 2C} ; {nid 2M}: At the same time, activities like reconstruction should be joint efforts, both from simple economics, and because then there's not even the appearance of the favoritism and corruption that dogs the work in Iraq with Bush's ties to Halliburton. That's not to say it wouldn't happen, but with joint efforts and proper oversight, it should be minimized. {nid 2J} ;Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops - '''Strongly Oppose''' {nid 2K}: Now that we're there, the worst possible thing we could do would be to just up and leave. The place would be total anarchy and chaos, and you'd probably have an even worse regime in place by the time the dust settled. But not before thousands, if not millions, died in the fighting. We went there, and now 0we've got to clean up the mess we made. If we can talk others into helping us, so much the better, but we can't just walk away. {nid 2D}

Purple Numbers

At the suggestion of a reader, I've added "Purple Numbers" to the blog. Let's see if they work... {nid 5} Paragraph 2 {nid 6} Paragraph 3... there should be links after each paragraph that you can link to... {nid 7} Well, that seems to work... Cool... {nid 8}

Next target: the food industry

First it was Tobacco, with a new and innovative concept: they sold us stuff we knew was bad for us, so we should sue them for letting us kill ourselves! Amazingly, juries agreed. After all, they're big faceless companies with deep pockets and these are poor people suffering misfortune. The next obvious target was gun manufacturers. That movement has only just barely begun, but apparently it's moving too slow, or not large enough to provide enough of a jackpot for the legal beagles eying the gold pot. So let's take on a huge industry with tons of opportunity: Food. {nid 9} Yes, it's all the fault of Fast Food and Snack manufacturers that we can't stop eating all that yummy stuff while sitting in front of the boob tube (which has taken on a whole new meaning lately, but that's another fiasco) and now we're so fat we can only send out the lawyers to save us. I'm as guilty as the rest --- between the computer and Tivo, it's hard to find time to get out of the house, but unlike many others, I realize it's my own damn fault. If my heart says "Enough already!", so be it. I don't blame Burger King (love whoppers) or KFC (yummy boneless bbq "wings") or Sunshine (I've actually cut back on the Cheezits!). Much as I hate to think what such a bill would look like by the time it gets through the sausage mill in Washington, it really is time to come up with generic tort reform that says you can't sue someone just because they have deep pockets and happened to be in the vicinity. If it's reasonably well known that something might be bad for you and you do it anyhow, then you've no one to blame but yourself. {nid A}

If I Were President: Homeland Security

The very name "Homeland Security" brings up images of Orwell and Hitler in my mind. Unfortunately, it turns out those images aren't very far off base: we've moved farther into a police state with the un-Patriot-ic Act than I ever thought possible before 9/11. Unfortunately, it was pretty much exactly what I predicted would happen right after it.

The Patriot Act

The un-Patriot-ic Act in its own right does very little to actually improve security, while giving the police unprecedented powers. But what's worse is that now, as expected, anything the police can spin even slightly as a "terrorist" act, is being done so in order to abuse the law yet further. Even the mainstream media is is reporting it. If I were President, the first thing I would do would be to work to get as much of this repealed as possible. Then I would direct the Justice Department to look into Constitutional means to achieve *real* security without abandoning civil rights. If the terrorists (or even just the politicians) succeed in turning America into a police state, they've destoryed us as much as a bomb would.

Tighter Immigration Controls

This county is a nation of immigrants. We should be proud of that fact and welcome more. At the same time, we do have a responsibility to screen immigrants for those who would try to damage or destroy us, or to take advantage of our generosity. What I would propose is:

1. I am lightly opposed to giving amnesty to illegal immigrants: they clearly broke the law to get here, and that's not the sort of behavior we want to reward. On the other hand, I understand the desparation that may lead otherwise law-abiding people to do so, and could be talked into an amnesty for those who can demonstrate that they've become productive, law-abiding, citizens otherwise.
2. Strengthen border patrols. People living along the border should not have to worry about protecting their property, or even themselves, from illegal border crossers.
3. Order a review of immigration policy. The only reason a request to immigrate should be denied is either because of a disreputable past or to protect an area from being overburdened with more newcomers than it can handle.
4. Those claiming Political Asylum, upon favorable review, would get priority.
5. The ability to speak and understand written and verbal English would be a requirement for citizenship. If people want to come here and become Americans, they shouldn't expect us to change our ways to theirs. We're not the ones moving to their country.
6. Family members would have second priority, with "family" defined inclusively. In particular, same-sex couples would qualify if they're willing to commit to the same degree as opposite sex married couples. Ideally, they *would* be able to be married and the distinction would not be necessary, but that's a separate issue.
7. Visitors would have to provide contact info and keep it current. There's no excuse for losing track of visitors who've exceeded their stay. They should be tracked down immediately if they haven't left by the time they're supposed to. On the other hand, people's plans do change, and it should not be difficult to get reasonable extensions either.

Oregonian Wants Open Season on Gun Dealers/Manufacturers

On March 1, the Oregonian complains that "all Congress seems prepared
to do is protect gun dealers". Like it or not, gun manufacturers are
facing an imminent threat that Congress does need to deal with: the
same lottery-seeking lawsuit mania that recently ran roughshod over the
tobacco industry. While the tobacco industry may have tried to hide the
dangers of smoking, it's absolutely ludicrous to believe that smokers
didn't realize the danger. I've been listening to warnings about it
for my entire 45 years! And now that the anti-tobacco crowd was successful
there, those opposed to guns want to extort the gun industry in the same
way.

Gun manufacturers are not even trying to hide the dangers of guns. They are simply making a legal product that people legitimately want to buy. It's the owners responsibility to make sure they handle them properly. Gun manufacturers should no more be sued because a gun was mishandled and someone got shot than a car maker should be sued because a driver stepped on the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal and ran over someone.

Clearly, this is merely stopgap --- our country desparately needs some
sanity brought back to the lawsuit industry so that the only people who need to fear lawsuits are those who actually cause damage, not those with deep
pockets who happen to be nearby. Unfortunately, this specific threat is imminent and needs attention now.

Irresponsible gun dealers may be a problem that needs dealt with, but
making it open season for anyone who wants to lash out at everyone in
the vicinity is not the right answer. Even in the case of the DC snipers,
Bull's Eye didn't shoot anyone, the snipers did. If they hadn't gotten
the gun from there, the snipers would have gotten one somewhere else.
While Bull's Eye doesn't appear to be a sterling example of a dealer,
they aren't responsible for the sniper attacks and should be answerable
to the ATF, not lottery-seekers.

In the same editorial, the Oregonian wants to "renew the assault weapons
ban, which has been the law for 10 years." And in that 10 years, it has
done not a thing to reduce crime. They claim the "guns that have no
sporting use will again be widely available in this country". I'm sorry,
but anything that can be used with varying skill levels has a sporting
use, and in any case, the 2nd amendment isn't about either "sporting"
or hunting. These weapons aren't even used very often in crimes.

Gun control isn't about public safety, it's about nipping at the edges
to take away yet another freedom in the name of easy "feel good" politics
instead of dealing with the real issues.