nattybumpo
New member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.