Sacre Boom!

All I have for today are some brief musings about Libya. I'm also open to any other opinions, as I seem to have run rather low on give-a-damn these days.

I was at Starbucks this past weekend and I heard people talking about the U.S. joining in to help establish a no-fly zone in Libya. I was shocked (for reals this time) and all I wanted to do was to point out to these people that we are already involved in two other wars that no one ever talks about! They were acting as if our military's presence is not already being felt in two Muslim sand lands and has been for the past ten years. But no, I just let them talk. I think I was too stunned to even pipe up, anyway.

Speaking of the no-fly zone, why are we participating in the bombing of things? There have been buildings bombed and trucks bombed and all sort of stuff bombed. Last time I checked, none of those things flew. How is this a no-fly zone and not just a bunch of planes and subs bombing stuff? Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily against it (though I don't think that I can necessarily be for it), I'm just pointing out that those things don't fly.

I'm tired of the U.S. being the world's policeman. There is absolutely no reason for us to be involved in the Libya thing. The U.S. has no vested interest in Libya one way or the other. I'd also like to know who is in charge of picking and choosing which atrocities we get involved in. OK, so the Libyan forces were killing the rebels. (Are we all really so surprised that Gaddafi isn't going quietly into the sand dunes like Mubarak did over yonder in Egypt? I'm more surprised that Mubarak didn't do the same thing that Gaddafi is doing.) There is constant rape going on in the Congo. Or is it just Congo? Whatever it is, it's very rape-y over there. That's not important to stop? What about Kim Jung Il? He's a lunatic in platform shoes and ladies eyewear and likely has nuclear weaponry. Why don't we take him out while we're at it? No, instead we're all focused on Libya for some reason.

I know this is very surface stuff here. Some might even call it trite. Hell, I might call it trite. But I just cannot stomach the thought of the U.S. being the face of aggression in another Muslim dominant sand land and for who knows for how long?! Don't even get me started on what this is going to end up costing us. I can't even stomach adding a couple of pictures to this. I'm just so done with this country putting our soldiers in harms way for no reason. I think I'm also done talking about this unless something overly asinine develops. I'm open to any other opinions, by the way. Feel free to leave them in the comments section.

Sphere: Related Content

Julian Assange's Double Talk

Up until now, I've kept myself out of this whole WikiLeaks thing. Mainly because I don't like saying WikiLeaks. I think it sounds ridiculous. But I do have an opinion on this whole thing and I also have a point to make. Shocking, I know. But bear with me.

So, this Julian Assange character likes to obtain classified or secret documents from various governments or institutions and then publish said information online. His most recent target has been the United States. It's not really all that clear to me what his goal is, as he is an Australian and doesn't seem to have any direct dealings with the United States. He is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that has a lot to do with it. I also think that he's delusional if he thinks that he's going to be able to put a stop to these wars with his reckless release of information. Extremely delusional.

Just the other day, The Australian ran a piece by Mr. Assange entitled "Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths". It is within this piece that Mr. Assange rambles on about how people need to know the truth. In some ways, he is correct. The people of a country should not be lied to by their government. That doesn't mean that the people need to know every bit of information that goes on behind the scenes. It's not something that is unique to America. Every country has information that is classified. I don't get what he doesn't understand about that.

But it's in this piece that Mr. Assange proclaims his "innocence". According to him, it's not like these releases of classified information are hurting anyone. He's just putting the truth out there. In fact, he states "WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed." Not so fast WikiWeenie.

Back in August, Mr. Assange was the subject of a piece by a one Carole Cadwalladr over at The Guardian. In that piece, Mr. Assange talks about "...the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election"." Really? According to him, yes. Really. The document of which he speaks "...exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country." Huh. Anything else? Glad you asked! He then claimed "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak." Ohhhh. So close!

Look, I don't know what document he's talking about and I'm not interested in looking into it. But I absolutely believe him that people lost their lives because of his leak. He knows what he's doing and it isn't to promote "open government". If anything, other than being a pain in the ass, he's promoting anarchy. And while I'm really unhappy with the way that this guy has chosen to go about things, I'm even more unhappy with the fact that classified documents were so easily accessible in the United States that it was possible for a lowly Private First Class to download them all onto CDs and hand them over to Assange. I do agree with him that he's the "messenger", but give me a break, that doesn't mean that he's blameless in all of this.

Sphere: Related Content

$100 Million Little Cuts

I wouldn't normally think that a headline in The Wall Street Journal would be so snippy that it would make me laugh, but that's exactly what happened when I read: "In a Savings Shocker, the Government Discovers The Paper Has Two Sides". The subtitle was equally as amusing, as it read: "Front-and-Back Copies, Other Wonders Help Agencies Save $102 Million". Of course, I was enjoying myself far too much, which is why I suspect that they threw in this last part of the subtitle in order to jolt me back into my usual surly state: ".006% of Deficit". And it was going so well, too. Morons. But more on that later.

Here's the scoop: According to CBS News, back in April, President Barry "...challenged his Cabinet to find ways to trim the budget." And perhaps coincidentally, he did so on the 20th, which happens to be Adolf Hitler's birthday. (Hey, I'm just sayin' is all. You do the math.) He was asking for the departments to find ways to cut a total of at least $100 million from the budget. In a rare show of efficiency, they were actually able to find those $100 million in cuts AND managed to find another "$243 million through 2010 and even more in years after that." Well that didn't seem so hard, did it?! All you had to do was ASK! Sheesh! Come on, do you really think it was THAT easy for the government, THE GOVERNMENT, to find ways to cut $100 million from their spending? It must have been grueling! Because as we all know, the government tries to run its operations at the most efficient spending level possible with a minimal amount of waste and redundancy, right? Why are you laughing? (Hey! Did that guy faint when I said that?! Crap, I was hoping to be up to 10 readers by now. SO close! Way to go, dude.)

Over on the White House website, they have the list of all of the cuts that were found to be possible to make. Let's take a look at some of the areas which were discovered to not have been functioning at the most fiscally sound levels, shall we? Here we go....

- The Department of Justice will save an estimated $4 million in FY 2010 by requiring personnel to make their travel arrangements online, rather than relying on travel agents. ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Travel agents? They were using travel agents? To book their flights on zeppelins? Tell me, when they went to book their itineraries with said travel agents, did they get in touch with them via two cans and a string? Who uses travel agents? Oh, that's right. Organizations such as the state of California still use travel agents. How's their fiscal situation looking? That's right, about as good as the moral situation of their state legislature - damn near bankrupt.

- The Forest Service will no longer repaint its new, white vehicles green immediately upon purchase. They're going to wait awhile instead. Um, couldn't they just BUY green ones to begin with? Is there a shortage of green vehicles in the automotive industry? Given their dire straits, you wouldn't think there would be. That's odd.

- The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is, among other things, going to "establish moratoria on unnecessary office renovations and office supply purchases". And while I commend them for identifying both of these as areas where waste can be reduced, I'm curious as to what SORT of office renovations will be deemed "unnecessary". I'd also like to know why "office supplies" that were unnecessary were being purchased in the first place. (I'd really like to know the KIND of unnecessary office supplies that were being purchased. I mean, if you don't need it in your office, why order it? My guess? Printer ink cartridges, which conveniently fit the home printers of several office employees as well. Allegedly.)

- They apparently weren't able to make much of a difference in the Redundant Department of Redundancy Division, as the Renovations Department "will save $131,000 by placing a moratorium on unnecessary office renovations in FY 2009." So the Renovations Department will be cutting back on renovations. Clever.

- Along those same lines, Over there in the Department of Homeland Security, the Equipment and Maintenance Department is planning to realize efficiencies and savings related to equipment and maintenance. Brilliant. They're BRILLIANT!

- FEMA's innovative, cost cutting measures? Instead of just THROWING AWAY 120,000 temporary housing units (ie, Katrina trailers), they're going to find other uses for them OR sell them. And again I say, BRILLIANT!

- HUD is going to (wait for it) "reduce HUD's energy consumption by turning off lights during non-working hours, and centralizing the power management of personal computers (PCs)." ::: sigh ::: God, we're a dumb, dumb nation.

- Taking a cue from HUD is the Department of Justice. "Many DOJ computers remain on when not in use for prolonged periods. DOJ is configuring these computers to automatically shut-down, which will reduce power consumption and costs." The DOJ is also "streamlining its process for paying credit card bills, saving an estimated $2 million annually." Wait. Does that mean we've been paying LATE FEES for the DOJ credit card bills?? DO you KNOW what the interest rate is on those things?! What is WRONG with you people? Late credit card payments! Lights on! Computers on! Office supplies up the wazoo!

- They also discovered that "A large number of DOJ copiers and printers can be configured to automatically print double-sided. Increasing the frequency of double-sided printing will reduce paper consumption and lower costs." And thus, the Wall Street Journal's headline was born!

- The Treasury Department will be shutting off computers when they're not being used and they will also not be running the air conditioning during the evening and on weekends. You know, when there's NO ONE THERE! (See? I learn stuff like that and that is why every time I hear some politician talking about the damned ozone layer and global warming I want to hang myself. They can't even turn off the freaking lights when they go home for the weekend, but I'M supposed to be composting my own feces in order to save the planet?! I don't think so.)

- I also learned about some seemingly antiquated ways that our government has of performing certain tasks. Take over there at the Treasury Department again. "Treasury has implemented an initiative to recycle used material...Treasury will shred classified materials into blocks to be used for recycling in lieu of burning." What now?

What was that last part? After recycling? In lieu of BURNING?!?! What the hell?! Burning?! Are you telling me that all of this time, as I picture folks standing around a big mound of papers with the office pages squirting starter fluid all over the piles, and someone (probably wearing a jungle mask, grass skirt and waving a couple of chicken bones around) strikes that match to throw it on the mound and ignite the documents (probably to protect national security and other, um, stuff), no one EVER thought, "Does this seem right? Couldn't we be doing something other than BURNING all of this crap?" No? Not until now, eh? Just kept right on keeping on with all of the burning, did ya? Interesting. Please see my earlier comments about how I twist off whenever I hear the words "global warming" uttered.

I kept waiting to read that they were going to dismantle ICE, being as how it doesn't do much in the first place, but I never did. It was odd. (Oh, but I kid! Relax! They do a fine job! Of welcoming people from other lands into our country.)

Granted, when I read about some of the cuts, I couldn't help but wonder if they could have cut just a BIT further. Take for example, the training that goes on within Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. They found that they can cut back on face-to-face trainings and instead use conference calls to save money. They says that they've used this method "to train new staff in Asia on its Offshore Pest Information program." And my question is "Do we NEED an Offshore Pest Information Program? They're offshore! It's right there in the name! Why do I care about the pest's information? Let 'em keep it and let me keep my money!" (There was a question in there somewhere, right? Oh, sure! There it is. Whew! Sometimes I get a bit caught up in the moment, I forget what I had originally intended.)

And then there's NOAA. Man, they cleaned house over there. The summary of their cuts is: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposes to save $1.5 million over FY 2009-10 by reducing conferences and other non-critical travel, revising existing training programs to focus on in-house seminars and virtual programs, consolidating purchases of office supplies and minor equipment purchases, terminating non-safety renovations at NOAA headquarters, reviewing program administration and information technology support contracts for efficiencies, setting paperwork usage standards, and converting to electronic signatures." (I have an inside source over there at NOAA and from what I can tell, all of these things are a pretty good place to start.)

But that part about the cuts being only ".006% of the deficit"? That makes me insane. And it is a perfect example of why I suspect that the government, at all levels, has a difficult time with the concept of things like "budgetary means" and "savings" and "cost cutting". For some reason, unless the cuts and the savings are monumental (you know, like their spending plans) then they are somehow less meaningful than if they did wipe out the national debt in the blink of an eye. (Just the one eye though. The other one was lost during one of those "eye for an eye" fiascoes.) I don't care if it was .001% of the deficit. It's something!

And you could tell that they weren't even trying very hard to come up with those cost cutting measures. Those seemed to be pretty obvious to me. (Come on! Printing on BOTH sides of the paper?! How long did it take them to noodle that one through and come up with a solution?) Imagine how much of OUR money could be saved if they actually tried to find ways to really cut down on costs?

Sphere: Related Content