That Didn’t Take Long

North Korea's announcement that it had detonated a second nuclear weapon this morning was confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey who recorded a 4.7 magnitude seismic event at the same site that North Korea tested its first nuclear device in October of 2006. The immediate reaction from the international community was expected and consistent. All major players in the nuclear world came out and condemned the move, going as far as having President Obama say the test was "directly and recklessly challenging the international community." There was only one surprise in the reactions of the international community. China, who has been North Korea's strongest ally, "expresses firm opposition" which is in stark contrast to its previous support. Is this a sign that China now believes that Kim Jong Il has gone too far?

The real concern now is how to respond. The UN Security Council will meet this afternoon to discuss the test and most likely condemn the action with a strongly worded letter. Where the true concern should lie, is what will be the response of the individual counties in the world. Will the US feel the need to stop Kim Jong from developing weapons that can reach the United States? If the US does decide to take action, will China step in and provide them support, or will the alliance break under the strain of the North Korean determination to be a 1^st world country? We must wait and see, but most likely North Korea just upset that no one is paying them any attention.

Not So Fast

When President Obama took office last January, one of the very first promises that he made was to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before the end of January next year. This last Tuesday, under great pressure from the Republican Party, the democratically controlled Congress pulled funding for the closure of the base. The new "War Supplemental Bill," which provides funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was stripped of the $80 million to pay for the closing of the prison and was changed to include a ban on providing funding until the President provides Congress with a plan for closing the prison, and more importantly, what to do with the suspected terrorist that are now held there.

This move was a clear contrast with the near rubber stamping policy that the Congress has provided to the President since he has taken office, and may be a sign of the problems the Democratic Party has begun to face. From the recent backtracking of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Palosi, in regards to her being briefed about water boarding, to the slow decline of the President's approval ratings, there are signs that the Democrat controlled government may not have a free ride for the next 4 years. It is more likely that the American People have longer memories than some may have expected.

It is clear that the American People remember the last few years of having the government controlled by one party. Under the Bush Administration, law after law was passed that had no real input from the Democrats. While many viewed this as a productive government, others (usually democrats) felt that the very principle of democracy was in jeopardy. By not allowing both sides to have a say in the process, many felt that we were moving back to the Good ol' Boys system where only the elite had a say.

The American People changed their stance and shifted the power in Congress to the Democrats at election time. While this stopped the passage of many pieces of legislation, it also had the effect of slowing the government as a whole. Not only was the Republican agenda stopped, but any new legislation produced by the Democrats was vetoed by President Bush. This brought the process to almost a complete stop with the fight over the budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when the democrats fought with everything they had to force a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from the Middle East, while President Bush vowed to veto any budget that had a withdrawal requirement. The Democrats were eventually forced to give in and provide a withdrawal-free budget. Once the economy began to crash however, President Bush was left out in the wind as Republican Presidential hopefuls scrambled to distance themselves from the black hole that was President Bush. This ultimately played in Obama's favor as the country looked for someone to bring change.

The mistake that the Democrats have made is clear, they assume that because they now control both Congress and the Presidency, they can run the government the same way it was for the last eight years. Now, only a few months into the new administration, they are starting to see what will happen if they continue down this path. If they continue to do what they want simply because they can, the results will most definitely be as disastrous as it was for the Republican Party.

The American People remember what it was like to feel that the government did not care about them. As they begin to see past the excitement of "Yes We Can" and begin to see the "Because We Can" attitude of Congress, it will become much more difficult for Congress to do as they please. As Congress begins to tell the President "No", however, they are only strengthening their hold on the government for the next few years.

Politics of The Mouse

On a recent trip to southern California, I spent a few days at a not so specific amusement park with an adorable not so specific rodent as their spokesman. While the majority of the trip was all that it was expected to be, a unique interaction with the employees there taught me a few things about politics. It came of the second day that we were in the park, or should I say it came the second day before we were "supposed" to be in the park.

As is common in many parks, guests are allowed into the park up to a half hour early to shop and buy things so when the time comes around to open the park, a rope is dropped that allows everyone into the park at the same time and avoids congestion at the ticket gate. After being admitted through the ticket gate and into the shopping area, I will call it All-American Ave, we entered the shop at the end of the Ave and was promptly ushered through a door by an employee. This door led us out into the park behind the rope holding back the rest of the guest eager to enter the park. Amazed at our luck, we quickly walked to the ride we wanted to enjoy and were amazed that we were the only guest that were in the park, even stopping to take pictures of the completely empty park.

After passing several employees who said nothing to us, we arrived at a ride themed around a cute little fish that every child between the age of 2 and 20 knows by name. Seeing that the ride was not open yet, being that we are in the park about 10 minutes before it opened, we stopped and talk to the employee standing at the entrance of the ride. After talking to this very nice employee for a few minutes a second employee, who appeared much older and much more in charge, ran over to us and very curtly asked us how we got into the park. After telling her that we were not quite sure, and responding to some other not so kind questions, we were told that the park was not open and that we were not supposed to be in the park yet. We were then instructed to go sit down and wait for the park to open, which we did without question.

No more than two minutes later, we look across the park and see a uniformed security officer running towards us in an obvious hurry. Out of breath, the officer begins to ask us the very same questions that the last employee had asked us. After once again telling us in a rather unkind way that we were not supposed to be there, we were told that we needed to follow the officer back to the main gate to wait for the park to open. We did as we were asked and before we made it back to the front of the park, the park opened and we were allowed to go enjoy our day.

This interaction taught me a major lesson when it comes to politics. You must communicate, and if you don't, it will only cause problems. I was clear that the lack of communication between the employees in the park lead to us not only getting into the park unintentionally, but also a rather unkind interaction with several employees. This same principle should apply to government and politics. If the leaders of government communicate with the people, it will be easier for the people to understand what it is we need to do to make the world a happier place. If this simple communication takes place, a great number of problems can be avoided to begin with.

At times when problems with the people cannot be avoided, simply communicating with other departments within the government can help to create a clear front and avoid the simple battles that only lead to more problems. Let's work on cutting through the red tape that keeps us from talking with one another. If the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, they can work together and help in a world that is in desperate need of the very things the government was designed to do, rather than competing over the things that could do some real good.

To Spend or Not To Spend?

Photo:President Obama address the press at the White House.

As more and more people compare our current national economic state to that of the Great Depression, the response of the Democrat controlled congress is clear to see… throw money at it. A Trillion dollars later, there is no true sign that the economy is turning around. So what does the President do? He takes a hard stand against over-spendin….ehr… inefficiency.

Today President Obama recommended to congress that 121 federal programs be cut from next year's budget. These cuts are not necessarily a bad thing. Spending millions on a long range navigation system that was made obsolete years ago by GPS technology is absurd, as is paying for two separate programs that provide the same services to the same people. What should concern us is the reason that President Obama wants to make the cuts, so that he can pay for his own programs. In a statement made by the President he states, "To put this in perspective, this is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to protect the National Parks," both of these projects have been goals the President has been pushing for since the campaign.

I firmly believe that we need to control our spending. We must balance our budget and cut the programs that are a waste of money. The only way that we as a country can have a sound economy is to follow the same basic principles that ever fiscally secure person follows, make more than we spend and pay off our debt as soon as we can. We must not however, cut spending in one place so that we can simply spend it somewhere else. That would be like paying off some of our credit card, just so we can buy a new 57" flat screen TV. We still don't have the money to begin with, and when it comes time to pay, we are going to realize that maybe we could have gotten by with the 19" we had to begin with.

We need to focus on making do with what we have. Most new programs can wait. Sure, it's great to reduce our spending by $17 billion, but if we turn around and spend another $20 billion, was it really that great to begin with. Let's make cuts, but with the mindset that we are trying to live within our means and not that we simply are trying to free up some space on the MasterCard.

The Senate is not Parliament

There is a major difference between the US government and the Parliament in the United Kingdom. Both are two party systems with a conservative party and a liberal party. Both have different sides of the room to sit on, and the parties within each have very different ideas about how the government is supposed to run the country. Arguably the biggest difference between the US Senate and the UK Parliament is the power of the minority party. In the UK when one of the parties comes into power, all power is stripped from the opposing power. They are removed from any positions of power in the cabinet and are left to complain about how they would have done things differently if they were in power. The US is different, or at least it is supposed to be. In the US Senate, any decisions must be voted upon by the entire party and can only pass with a vote of at least 60, a clear majority over the 51 needed for a simple majority. While this measure may mean fewer things pass, it also provides for a certain amount of discussion that would not exist otherwise. Needing more votes means that there must be a level of compromise from both parties.

Well today that may have changed. In something as normal as passing the US Budget Outline, the Democrats in the Senate have managed to change some of the basic workings of our government. When the Democrats added a last minute change, they made it possible to pass the US Budget later in the year with a simple majority vote in the Senate. While some may think that is does not sound like a big deal, the truth is that there are some major repercussions that will follow. Part of the government process should always involve discussion. While I think that the use of filibusters on both sides of the isle are taken too far, it is far better to talk too long than not to talk at all. The ability for the Democrats to pass the Budget without having any input from the opposing party looks much more like the UK Parliament then the Founding Fathers had in mind.

We all want what is we feel is best for us. Some of us think that the answer lies in complete government control looking towards Canada and France as examples. Others believe that the less the government steps in, the more the economy will grow. The answer is clearly not to rely on one extreme or the other. Only through the compromise of both have we reached a system that, while it has its many problems, works for us here in the United States.
Why then are we allowing the system to be changed just because the President can say the word “antiquated”? We need to stop and take a step back, remembering that the only way we have survived this long as a country was on our ability to come together. We did it back in WWII, and again after the September 11th attacks. Why do we refuse to do such when it comes to the decisions that we really need to make together. If we allow for one party to take power with no control or restraint, we will undoubtedly follow in the path of so many others, complete socialism. This may be the goal of some, believing that the American people are so far gone that they cannot take care of themselves, but I have more faith than that. I believe that it is possible for the American People to take care of themselves. They simply need to be told that they can, and not told that the only way to overcome the problems that surround then is to let the government rule.

The System works because we have two parties, and they are always in competition, not just when elections role around. The answer to the problems lies in working together and taking the time to stop and consider what is going on in the world. It is simply wrong to make it possible to skip one of the most important steps and move on to simply getting whatever you want, regardless of what it may cost.

Is The US Prepared For An Attack

April 27, 2009: The temperatures of arriving passengers on a thermographic imaging device are checked at Narita international airport, east of Tokyo.

As the reported cases of the Swine Flu increase in both the United States and worldwide, concerns about the nation's ability to deal with a true viral pandemic has been called into question. This shows however, the American people's complete dependency on the government for the wellbeing. As a people, we no longer take responsibility for the preparations needed to care for ourselves in the event of a major disaster. We have several examples from our lifetimes that show us the consequences of our apathy.

The most remembered in the last few years would be the results of Hurricane Katrina. We all remember the videos of all the people that were stuck in the city at the few shelters, begging the media for food and water. I remember a story on the news about a man who when into diabetic shock and it took searching among the thousands of stranded civilians to find a single syringe of insulin. A week later, when help in the form of Army Reserve Units, Water Trucks, and celebrities arrived, all we heard was how long it took for help to show up and how the FEMA had failed the people.

Did we as a people not learn from the disaster that fell upon New Orleans? We know from our experiences that we cannot rely on the government to help us in the event of a disaster. This is not a bad thing. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide for those who can provide for themselves. We have the information to shield ourselves from the problems that face us. It is our responsibility to gather the things necessary to survive. The basics of food and water, clothing and warmth are all things every single American has the ability to provide for themselves. Why is it then that we expect the government to provide them for us?

We need to return to a time where each of us provides for our own needs. 72 hour kits filled with the most basic essentials can help us survive the most critical hours in a major disaster. We must also educate ourselves in the basic principles in preventing the major problems. I know it sounds basic, but we need to wash our hands on a regular basis. That simple action will prevent the spread of most major infections. We have been warned by the World Health Organization as well as the US Health Department that we need to avoid travel to Mexico. The government has done its part already. They are doing what they can to protect the public from the near pandemic we face today, but the only one we will be able to count on is ourselves. If we get the flu, go see a doctor. Don't think it can't happen, or that the FEMA will come to the rescue. That mind set will almost guarantee that you will have major problems in the future.

I can't force you to do anything. As always, it is your choice to prepare or not. What I can do is hope that you will take a page from the book of the past and give yourself a chance at protection. We all have the power to make the world a better place, and all it takes is the simple actions that prepare for and prevent the major crisis that may be just around the corner.

Even the Best Can Fall

April 8, 2009: Deputy U.S. Marshals and U.S. Postal Inspectors seize an automobile
from the home of Shawn R. Merriman in Aurora, Colo

Last Tuesday, the SEC filed a lawsuit against a former LDS bishop in an attempt to recover funds that had been embezzled in a ponzi scheme over the last 13 years. Shawn Merriman is accused of milking almost $20 million from investors as his scheme grew.

The real importance of this story is not that that there is another person that has been caught stealing money from others, rather who that person was, a religious leader. I have often come across those who feel there comes a time in life when a person becomes so righteous that they are no longer tempted to do things which may be unethical or even illegal. At a certain point, a righteous member of their religion is free from the trials that face the rest of us. That could not be any farther from the truth.

Each member of society is responsible for their actions. That does not change with age or position. The only thing that does change with age is our ability to make a bad decision. As we are given more responsibility in life, we are also given the change to succeed or fail. If we fail to act with a basic level of morality, then we are failing in our responsibility as members of our community. These decisions can be very small at first. They may come out of desperation. Merriman was at one time trying to do some legitimate investing, however, after losing $400,000 of his investors money, he turned to a dishonest practice to cover up the losses.

They may come from greed, but they well come given enough time.

What may be upsetting to many is that Merriman was a respected member of his community. He was not simply a "banker on Wall Street", but was a religious leader and respected by many of his neighbors.

We must remember that each one of us has the potential to be the next victim of a bad decision. The choices we make effect others in ways we may not be able to see, and the consequences of those decisions may last for years. While it may be easier to think that there is an easy way out, or that if I go to church, then it won't happen to me, we need to understand that it can and does happen to the best of us, bishop or CEO or member of the congregation.

If we truly want to live in a peaceful society, we must recognize that the problem exists, and that we will be forced to face it from time to time. When we are prepared for the challenge, regardless of who we are and what positions we may hold in our community, they we will be well on our way to living in our own personal Zion.