WikiLeaks and secrets.

September 26

 In this world there are many secrets. The point of a secret is it is a fact that is hidden from others. Everyone has secrets, some of which no one wants let out. The governments of the world perhaps have the greatest secrets. How the military moves, who talks to who, how involved in an event were they really, those kinds of things. And for every government secret, there are people who want to know them. The website WikiLeaks, lead by Julian Assangue, is that kind of group. They recieve information from informants, then publish them for the world to see. These actions have drawn both praise and denouncments. The governments and banks are certainly NOT fans of the group.



 Those who support WikiLeaks claim that they have a right to know what is happening. Are governments really working in the best interest of the citizens? Are the banks cheating the customers? Is the military gunning down civilians as well as the enemy? and if so, is it intentional? Anyone would want to know that. It helps a person feel safer about who they work with. Such an action is also protected under the 1st Amendment of free speech. In the case of WikiLeaks, they never actually did anything illegal. They themselves never hacked servers or stole files, it is all sent to them by outside contributers. People have a right to know.



 On the opposite side is those who think WikiLeaks is dangerous. Releasing all that information puts a strain on alliances in the Middle East. A leader there who secretly opposes Iran suddenly has that fact put out in the open. Terrorist groups are also given a greater view of who their enemy is. Informants, spies, all of them are in danger if such information is posted where anyone can see it. Some people say these actions are attacks against the U.S and other nations. Governments and banks who may be involved in less then moral actions obviously dont want others to know about it. This can earn groups like WikiLeaks some powerful enemies, as well as being labelled spies or terrorists.


 Ideally, secrets should remain secrets only so long. After a set number of years after a war, for example, the information about that war should be made public. After a leader dies, release cables and other hidden details about him. Secrets only erode trust between a government and the people they are keeping secrets from. As useful as they are at the time, a secret can become a detriment in later years. An organization that refuses to reveal secrets only shows how untrustworthy they are.

Facts:
1. "Camouflage is a game we all like to play, but our secrets are as surely revealed by what we want to seem to be as by what we want to conceal."
2. WikiLeaks has published over 3,890 diplomatic documents.
3. A lack of trust in a goverment leads to lack of loyalty, which can lead to revolts.

The Role of Government

September 21, 2011

 The role of the government is simple. This is because a simple government works best, and that can only happen if it is small government. Its hard to argue that we need a strong, central government to watch over the States. The first model of American government, the Articles of Confederation, gave too much power to the states. The problems with the Articles started when each state began coining their own money and building their own militias. The United States Constitustion was adopted to provide a federal government that would settle this problem. It is also a model of what an ideal American government is.



 The federal government is to maintain the Congress that passes legislation that becomes the general law of the United States. These laws must be in line with the Constitution as not to violate individual rights. Congress sets the budget (or is supposed to) for the country, handles treaties with other nations, and authorizes war. Congress is made of politicians elected from the states. The Supreme Court judges a law constitutional or not, and handles cases on a national scale. The President is the leader of the U.S and appoints individuals to positions, as well as vetoing any law he does not agree with. The states themselves run on a scaled down version of this, with a Governor, lawmakers, and courts, and mayors. The federal government also maintains the national army, while cities and states maintian police departments and garbage clean up.

 When the government stays in these limits, the country can prosper. When the public sector begins over regulating the private industry and personal lives is there an issue. You cannot tell a person what they can and cannot buy, nor can you try to support a business that is failing. In a free market, people buy like they please, and so money is made. In a free market, if a business is not longer doing well, a new business comes to replace it. The Obama administration attempts to do these things, and the results are less then stellar. The national healthcare law not only forces people to buy healthcare, it also puts a strain on the industry to support an entire nation when there may not be enough doctors to do so. The taxes needed to pay for this is not what this country needs either. The stimulus did next to nothing, GM is limping along and the taxpayer dollars given to them was wasted. This is not to say the government shouldnt make sure a company is cheating its customers or food shouldnt be safe to eat. But to attempt to control everything means it grows, and when a government grows, taxes go up to help it go. The only way the U.S government can run effectivly is if it does what it was made to do. That is keep a central currency, army, and laws. Let people handle the rest. Such a small government also limits corrupt politicians, as they have little room to move in.

Facts:
The U.S government was made to avoid the all controlling model of the British monarchy
Private sector jobs require spending on a product, which leads to products people want. Government jobs require taxes, which hurts people.
Yes I may be a bit biased.

The Media Blackout of Ron Paul

September 10, 2011

Looking to unseat President Barack Obama, the GOP has several politicans running against eachother for the nomination. The main focus right now is on former Mass Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry. A candidate that is receiving little to no coverage by the mainstream media is Texas Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. In the Ames straw poll, Michelle Bachmann won with 4823 votes against Dr. Paul's 4671 votes. All of the coverage went to Bachmann and Ron Paul was barely mentioned for someone who lost so narrowly. He also recieved little to know mention in the day-after newspapers, according to Cutline. Before the GOP debate at the Reagan Library, Dr. Paul also recieved little coverage, many in the media shaped it up around Romney and Perry's records and how they would react against eachother.

When the lack attention was brought up on the Daily Show, Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune replied thus,

"In short, no, he will never be president of the United States and no, he is not a plausible contender for the GOP nomination, so those who are covering the campaign don't feel obliged to pretend otherwise."

Dr. Paul and his spokesperson, Jesse Benton, have shown their dissappointment over the lack of coverage, but claim that many voters are demanding the mainstream media cover Dr. Paul. Benton also claims this issue is easily fixed by bringing on Ron Paul more often, as Fox News and CNN often do.

The reason for this blackout? Many supporters say it is Dr. Paul's radical ideas within the Republican Party. Ron Paul has been in constant disapproval of operations in the Middle East, including the two wars in Afganistan and Iraq and the military intervention in Libya. In Dr. Paul's many years in politics, he has stayed on the beliefs he first came into politics with, and is not afraid to express them. The mainstream media would rather give all the coverage to far-right Republicans like Romney, who's univesal health care he insists is working better then Obamacare, or Perry, who conservative but has worked to extend in-state tuition to illegal aliens, that would make a more sensational election against President Obama.

Opponents of Dr. Paul would claim that his libertarian views are what makes his election so impossible. Ron Paul has expressed his desire to legalize several drugs. He also intents to dismantle several government jobs such as the Department of Education in order to bring spending down to near year 2000 levels. In hyper partisan Washington, these ideas can be very alarming.

It remains to be seen if the mainstream media will continue to try and block out Ron Paul in favor of other GOP candidates, or if that will even stop him in a country becoming extremely angry with 'business as usual' among the political elite.