|
|
Tuesday, March 1
A Blog for Iowa Reader’s ‘Call to Arms’
by
Linda Thieman
on Tue 01 Mar 2005 04:22 PM CST
 A Blog for Iowa Reader’s ‘Call to Arms’
by Sean Holzinger, Cedar Rapids
Recently,
I read an article from the New York Times that really got me. Do you
remember when President Ronald Reagan proposed the Strategic Defense
Initiative, otherwise known as “Star Wars?” Now it’s known as the
National Missile Defense Program. Despite the technological
advancements this program is fraught with failure - even under a
tightly-controlled environment based on the most ideal conditions. War
is anything but ideal and it’s anything but a tightly-controlled
environment. How can we trust such a system to protect our nation from
a full-scale nuclear assault?
I read a
book a long time ago entitled “Through The Eyes of The Enemy,” written
by GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) Col. Stanislav Lunev and another
book entitled “Biohazard,” written by Dr. Ken Alibek. Dr. Ken Alibek
was second in command over the Soviet Union’s biological weapons
program. It was known as Biopreparat.
In Col.
Lunev’s book, he spelled out the GRU’s capacity to build nuclear suit
case bombs. All the items needed to build such a bomb could easily be
brought into this country via diplomatic pouch. Diplomatic pouches are
not subject to customs inspections since they fall under the laws of
diplomatic immunity. In Dr. Alibek’s book he spelled out the success
that the Soviet Union had in regards to biological weapons, such as
weaponizing the Marburg virus. Marburg is a very close cousin to Ebola.
Within 14 days every major organ in your body is liquefied. They were
also successful in creating a biological cocktail weapon known as a
Chimera weapon. They would take a strand of DNA from two biological
pathogens and impregnate them into another, such as taking a strand of
DNA from anthrax and a strand of DNA from smallpox and injecting them
into something like Marburg.
This
leads me to this question. Would a National Missile Defense System
protect us from a chemical, biological, or radiological attack? If the
money ($50 billion) is to remain in the Defense Department, shouldn’t
it be put to solutions to more practical threats we face as a nation?
After September 11, 2001, Shrub and Rumsfeld said we are in a new kind
of war. I agree with them, we are. However, I have a question for Shrub
and Rumsfeld. If we are in a new kind of war, why are you stuck in the
past with a Cold War mentality? With their "misleadership" and apathy,
we face greater threats now than ever before. Syria and Iran now have a
mutual defense alliance agreement. Iran may now be a nuclear threat as
well as North Korea. And the Middle East is a more dangerous powder keg.
Thanks
to Shrub, the noose is tighter around our neck and we have very few, if
any, tools at our disposal to alleviate the situation that would make
us safer. This band of pitiful people that now occupy the White House
have proven themselves as diplomatic failures and our military is
stretched beyond all limits.
As a
Progressive, I’ve been told by the media and the talking head class on
the television talk shows, radio talk shows and the corporate-driven
printed press that I’m weak on national security and national defense.
In fact, I take a back seat to no one when it comes to the defense of
our great nation. The blood of the “Minute Men” runs through my veins
as my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War. I think it’s High Time
that we Progressives answer the Clarion Call of our Nation before it’s
too late. Let us be the “Minute Men/Women of our time. We should take a
back seat to no conservative.
We have
a proven track record in regards to the defense of our nation.
President Wilson was the one with the idea of the United Nations
[League of Nations]. It was FDR that saved the world from fascism. It
was Kennedy that saved the world from the brink of nuclear
annihilation. It was Carter that put human rights at the corner of our
foreign as well as defense policies. So say we all!!
It's All About Risk II - Bankruptcy "Reform"
by
Chad Thompson
on Tue 01 Mar 2005 12:37 PM CST
 It's All About Risk II - Bankruptcy "Reform"
There was an interesting editorial in the Washington Post today by E.J. Dionne dealing with this week's attempt to pass a bankruptcy "reform" bill:
There
is a great misunderstanding that the key fight in our politics is
between friends and foes of capitalism. In fact, the battle is among
supporters of capitalism who disagree over what rules should govern the
market. Should the rules favor the wealthy and the connected, or should
they give some protection to those who fall into distress and would
like nothing more than a chance to rejoin the ownership society? If
Democrats sell out on the bankruptcy bill, they will, alas, show which
side they're on.
(There is also a New York Times story about this week's Senate debate here.)
Following
on to the (seemingly endless) posts about Social Security, this debate
again focuses on who should bear economic risk in our society -
individuals or a larger entity?
Our
society seems completely awash in cheap credit. No matter your
income level, your past history or ability to repay debt, there is
always someone there willing to sign you up for a credit card.
Extending unsecured credit is fine and dandy, but there is risk in this
business arrangement. What happens if the debtor cannot repay?
In past
years, banks and lending agencies had to be somewhat careful with how
they extended credit - if the debtor could not repay, it often meant
the bank could not regain the losses they took from the loan.
(This happened in the 1980s with farm credit loans, and later on in the
"Savings and Loan" scandals and bankruptcies.)
With
unsecured credit, there is no 'foreclosure' - which means that the
lender is taking a fairly large risk that the lender is fully aware
of. With this attempt at 'reform', these lenders that make profit
on high interest risky unsecured loans are asking the government to
take away that risk and place it firmly on the shoulders of the
borrower.
(One
might ask in these cases why we as consumers don't pressure lenders to
make 'good' unsecured loans - thus shorting the whole argument about
costs being passed on.)
In
addition, we have to consider the effect on a family (or individual)
with good credit that has something horrible happen to them - in a
large percentage of cases, a health problem that drains the family
finances. Instead of being able to declare bankruptcy - with some
risk being shared by a creditor - that individual or family will be
shouldered for the rest of their life with debt they may never be able
to repay.
Again -
this debate is all about economic risk. Should a creditor bear
some of the risk of making a loan, or should the individual bear all of
the risk?
In addition, the Los Angeles Times did a series on economic risk that is freely available (without registration) here.
Blog for Iowa is 11 Months Old!
by
Linda Thieman
on Tue 01 Mar 2005 07:50 AM CST
 Blog for Iowa is 11 Months Old!
Well,
it’s time for an ol’ Blog for Iowa update. Why wait until April
1st, our one-year anniversary, when we just had our biggest month
ever? In February, we averaged 1200 distinct hosts served per day
– that means individual readers or, actually, individual computers
hitting our site. We also averaged 2050 page views per day in
February, for our biggest month ever in page views – 57,446!
Yes, dear readers, February 2005 is Blog for Iowa’s Babe Ruth!
Ever after, any other month that beats February will have an asterisk
behind its name, indicating that the record was broken in a month with EXTRA DAYS.
And
speaking of Roger Maris ;-) , if it is really necessary after all this time
to keep an asterisk after his name in the record books, then I would
like to suggest one other amendment to the record books. I’m
thinking that if a record such as Maris’ must carry an asterisk because
he broke the Babe’s 1927 homerun record in a season, 1961, that had three extra
playing days, then we should gladly add an ASS
behind the name of every homerun record breaker since (and including)
Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. The ASS, of course, would stand for
Anabolic Steroid Suspect. Hey, fair is fair. But I digress.
. . .
My thanks to the blog team, without whom this site would not be up and running for you to read.
Trish Nelson - Iowa City
John Drury - Swaledale
Molly Regan - Princeton
Chad Thompson - Johnston
Caroline Vernon - Davenport
Linda
|
|
