No, Shogun did not eat my soul
Sep. 25th, 2003 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sethrakIgnore any comments to the contrary that you may have heard from my mate. :b It's a great book, an engrossing book, and yes, I did spend inordinate portions of my free time the last two days diving into it. But his allegations that it's posessed me and that "Nothing's been cleaned or cooked since you started it" are base falsehoods. We ate Chinese takeout the first night - his idea. Last night was officially "scrounge for food" night because he had stuff to do and there's little point in making a full dinner if we're not both there to share it. The leftover dishes took me less than half an hour to do - and I still had time to bake him cookies. :b
I'll dive back in later. Once I'm done I intend to seek out his VHS set of the miniseries based off of it. Should be damned good.
Definition of irony: The U.N. is constantly bitching about how the U.S. needs to give them a bigger role in Iraq's post-Saddam rebuilding - and at the same time they're downsizing the staff they already have in place. Getting their Iraqi headquarters bombed twice in a month's time would naturally make them nervous. But damn. What kind of message do they think it sends to do that?
Screw 'em. I'm a natural pacifist, and I did not entirely back the beginning of this war. But any political body that refuses to enforce its own mandates, then bitches about a member nation enforcing it for them, then bitches further about how that nation handles the aftermath, while removing its own personnel from the situation, is not doing its' job.
Then there's the scandal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two U.S. military personnel so far are accused of espionage and two more are being monitored for possible suspicious activities. I'm a big believer in innocent until proven guilty. However, if these allegations are true, it's appalling. Either these men deliberately joined the military with the intention of sying on us - which means they gave false oaths during their induction, or they chose to break their oaths - honestly made and freely given, and turn against their country. That.... that just appalls me. And grieves me. Don't people believe in their own honor anymore, even if they sneer at the idea of governments having it?
However, hearing that we've had spy infiltrations there also doesn't surprise me. It's been a relative backwater when it comes to media attention lately. But any site with that many enemy prisoners is bound to be a target for espionage. If this were a camp with our prisoners, that for some reason we couldn't attack and rescue our men from, we'd probably have done our best to infiltrate the place. With an enemy that virulently anti-U.S., based on infiltration and secrecy and grandiose acts of terror, I'm just surprised nobody's tried to attack Gitmo yet.
I'm still irked about the sheer bulk of the national debt. I'm not trying to say I expect the federal government to have no debt at all. Most citizens have some debt, for mortgage payments, car payments, etc. The government probably needs to borrow money for long-term payments of major expenses too. I'm not trying to say that we should always keep the budget 100% balanced at all times. That's just not possible for a budget that large, a budget that can have sudden expenses crop up, like wars and famines and hurricanes off the Atlantic Coast.
I'm just saying that close to 7 trillion is excessive. Even for a nation this large. How can we justify tax reductions when with current revenues we can't even pay off current debts, or afford the money needed to rebuild Iraq? Or continue to pay Iraqi-based troops the extra bonuses they've been getting, and deserve to keep on getting?
Somebody tell me that.
The debt's been steadily increasing over the past few years judging by that website. Not hovering around a steady, if still appallingly high, number. Not going up and down with the economy. Not going up or down with mismanagement by one party versus 'good' management by another. So neither party can point fingers.
Let's start with the beginning of Reagan's first term. Dec. 31, 1980, the debt's 930 billion. December of election year 1984 it's gone up to 1 trillion, 662 billion. In 1986 they switch to counting it in September.
Fall of 1988, when Bush Sr. is elected, it's 2 trill, 602 bill. At the end of his sole term, it's leaped up to *4* trill, 64 bill.
Poor poor Billy-Jeff, stuck with such a burden to start his eight years in office.... ::mock tsk:: Let's see what he did to help us.
5 trill, 224 bill by the end of his first term, and 5 trill, 674 bill when he leaves. An increase of 1 trill, 160 bill in the first term. An increase of over 400 billion in the second term. He did manage a smaller increase in his second term, but it's still not something to brag about.
What did Bush Jr. do with that debt left to him by Clinton? Thus far he has increased it by 1 trillion, 128 billion, etc. Might he have been able to keep that increase lower if he hadn't passed those tax reductions that were so controversial? Don't know; I'm not an accountant. But it's not what I call good fiscal conservatism. He's a Republican. He's supposed to be the head of the party thatr espouses fiscal restraint.
I'm not sure who I am going to vote for, but this is among the reasons I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Bush this fall. I just hope the Dems can give us someone who's a little sounder than that financially. I don't think I can expect the party to produce a truly sound fiscal candidate; one of our tenets is spending money, not saving it, even if we do maintain it's done for the greater good. ::wry grin:: Just someone who can begin to reverse this trend. That's all I ask.
I'll dive back in later. Once I'm done I intend to seek out his VHS set of the miniseries based off of it. Should be damned good.
Definition of irony: The U.N. is constantly bitching about how the U.S. needs to give them a bigger role in Iraq's post-Saddam rebuilding - and at the same time they're downsizing the staff they already have in place. Getting their Iraqi headquarters bombed twice in a month's time would naturally make them nervous. But damn. What kind of message do they think it sends to do that?
Screw 'em. I'm a natural pacifist, and I did not entirely back the beginning of this war. But any political body that refuses to enforce its own mandates, then bitches about a member nation enforcing it for them, then bitches further about how that nation handles the aftermath, while removing its own personnel from the situation, is not doing its' job.
Then there's the scandal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two U.S. military personnel so far are accused of espionage and two more are being monitored for possible suspicious activities. I'm a big believer in innocent until proven guilty. However, if these allegations are true, it's appalling. Either these men deliberately joined the military with the intention of sying on us - which means they gave false oaths during their induction, or they chose to break their oaths - honestly made and freely given, and turn against their country. That.... that just appalls me. And grieves me. Don't people believe in their own honor anymore, even if they sneer at the idea of governments having it?
However, hearing that we've had spy infiltrations there also doesn't surprise me. It's been a relative backwater when it comes to media attention lately. But any site with that many enemy prisoners is bound to be a target for espionage. If this were a camp with our prisoners, that for some reason we couldn't attack and rescue our men from, we'd probably have done our best to infiltrate the place. With an enemy that virulently anti-U.S., based on infiltration and secrecy and grandiose acts of terror, I'm just surprised nobody's tried to attack Gitmo yet.
I'm still irked about the sheer bulk of the national debt. I'm not trying to say I expect the federal government to have no debt at all. Most citizens have some debt, for mortgage payments, car payments, etc. The government probably needs to borrow money for long-term payments of major expenses too. I'm not trying to say that we should always keep the budget 100% balanced at all times. That's just not possible for a budget that large, a budget that can have sudden expenses crop up, like wars and famines and hurricanes off the Atlantic Coast.
I'm just saying that close to 7 trillion is excessive. Even for a nation this large. How can we justify tax reductions when with current revenues we can't even pay off current debts, or afford the money needed to rebuild Iraq? Or continue to pay Iraqi-based troops the extra bonuses they've been getting, and deserve to keep on getting?
Somebody tell me that.
The debt's been steadily increasing over the past few years judging by that website. Not hovering around a steady, if still appallingly high, number. Not going up and down with the economy. Not going up or down with mismanagement by one party versus 'good' management by another. So neither party can point fingers.
Let's start with the beginning of Reagan's first term. Dec. 31, 1980, the debt's 930 billion. December of election year 1984 it's gone up to 1 trillion, 662 billion. In 1986 they switch to counting it in September.
Fall of 1988, when Bush Sr. is elected, it's 2 trill, 602 bill. At the end of his sole term, it's leaped up to *4* trill, 64 bill.
Poor poor Billy-Jeff, stuck with such a burden to start his eight years in office.... ::mock tsk:: Let's see what he did to help us.
5 trill, 224 bill by the end of his first term, and 5 trill, 674 bill when he leaves. An increase of 1 trill, 160 bill in the first term. An increase of over 400 billion in the second term. He did manage a smaller increase in his second term, but it's still not something to brag about.
What did Bush Jr. do with that debt left to him by Clinton? Thus far he has increased it by 1 trillion, 128 billion, etc. Might he have been able to keep that increase lower if he hadn't passed those tax reductions that were so controversial? Don't know; I'm not an accountant. But it's not what I call good fiscal conservatism. He's a Republican. He's supposed to be the head of the party thatr espouses fiscal restraint.
I'm not sure who I am going to vote for, but this is among the reasons I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Bush this fall. I just hope the Dems can give us someone who's a little sounder than that financially. I don't think I can expect the party to produce a truly sound fiscal candidate; one of our tenets is spending money, not saving it, even if we do maintain it's done for the greater good. ::wry grin:: Just someone who can begin to reverse this trend. That's all I ask.
