http://www.kyle-brady.com coherent thoughts on diverse topics Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:47:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/18/the-death-of-television-journalism-has-arrived/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/18/the-death-of-television-journalism-has-arrived/#comments Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:18:08 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5503 CNN, a once respectable television news station, has been chasing the revenue-rich/value-poor niche of infotainment for at least the last two years, and they’ve finally placed the nail in their own journalistic coffin by hiring their version of right-wing commentator that spews conspiracy theories, racism, misogyny, and general hatred on a regular basis.  His name is Erick Erickson, and he is the harbinger of death for television journalism.

In the era of FOX “News”, celebrity obsessions, false controversies, partisan politics, and many more problematic issues, the death of CNN is a truly sad moment.  It is, however, not a great surprise, as the actual delivery of journalistic content via television has been in great decline for the last decade, attacked by both budgetary and editorial concerns – there’s greater revenue in pursuing popular topics, such as celebrity nonsense or endless coverage of meaningless events, than there is in investigation, so there remains a disturbing kernel of logic to these actions.

Regardless of whether CNN’s decisions are simply good business, they have placed the majority of the American people in a position that leaves them absolutely without any dependable and legitimate news source.  ABC, CBS, and NBC have long written themselves out of the picture, for both morning and nightly news, and FOX “News” is a scary farce – this leaves only MSNBC and PBS standing.  PBS, although a producer of great journalistic content, has never achieved mainstream popularity, possibly due to their dedication to actual news, and it remains unlikely to become suddenly popular with a younger generation that has short attention spans and a disinterest for most of life.

Besides the sometimes-valuable news programs like 60 Minutes, which is also not watched by the most important demographics, MSNBC is the only major news network that can be counted on to deliver actual reporting – and even it has a bias.  Unlike FOX “News”, MSNBC’s liberal slant does not go so far as to intentionally misinterpret news, events, and raw data, much less produce offensive tirades, but it does exert itself in the issues covered and in the commentators, such as the wonderful Keith Olbermann.  There is a substantial difference between having a bias and letting that bias overrun reason.

Unless a greater number of Americans begin listening to the venerable NPR, a source of unbiased, intelligent news and commentary, the nation is on the brink of an awareness decline:  when news programs no longer deliver news, and newspapers are not read, the populace becomes more partisan, less informed, and, above all, less willing to act as a nation.

Welcome to the era of individualism and ignorance.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/18/the-death-of-television-journalism-has-arrived/feed/ 4 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/14/political-change-may-be-coming/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/14/political-change-may-be-coming/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:34:46 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5500
After almost a year and a half of political wrangling, fake debates, fingerpointing, namecalling, and almost no obvious or momentous progress, President Obama’s campaign slogan appears to have taken Washington D.C. by storm in just a few short days.  With a final vote looming on healthcare reform, despite its status as actual reform now being questionable, some members of Congress have taken advantage of the Democratic momentum to propose, or put the finishing touches, on other legislation necessary for not only progress, but also stability, within America.

Depending on the individual, agency, or group counting, the Great Recession began somewhere around two years ago, and, until recently, regulation to address the very problems that caused the financial and economic crash has been sorely lacking.  Senator Dodd had expressed interest in passing legislation through the Senate Banking Committee, but his dedication came into question when he announced not running for reelection – it is, therefore, surprising that Dodd announced an upcoming regulatory bill.  Some of the details are still murky, but it has intentions to revitalize banking regulation, provide greater watchdog capabilities to both bank shareholders and government, create a “Consumer Financial Protection Agency”, and more.  This bill has not yet been introduced, much less voted on, but if even half of it is passed into law, the battle will be well fought.

In addition to the political surprise by Senator Dodd, the FCC has revealed that they are highly interested in regulating the telecommunication industry, with a great focus on the Internet, as well as opening it up to true competition – Net Neutrality would inevitably be a part of such regulation.  This action isn’t a surprise to those that have been paying attention to the political climate surrounding ISPs since President Obama entered Office, but it will no doubt surprise, frustrate, and anger Republicans that devoutly oppose what they perceive as unnecessary intervention in the private sector, such as John McCain, despite the multitude of failures by the market to regulate itself.

From Congress itself comes an interest in reforming tax regulation to simplify the tax code to close loopholes, remove deductions, and make understanding it easier – potentially reducing taxes for certain income brackets while increasing tax income from those that weasel out of paying what is simply due to the Federal Government.  This move, while potentially politically painful, would satisfy both Republican interests in cutting taxes and the Democratic wish to have corporations play fairly with others, bringing about a rare moment for bipartisan legislation in an era of extreme partisanship.  Ironically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just produced stern words for the selfsame Republicans that have been stalling any and all attempts at forward progress, a well-timed jab likely intended to scare up legislative support.

What does this signify as a whole?  The underlying message of this may be that the Democratic majority have grown tired of the obstructionist tactics of the minority party full of bravado, not brains, and is preparing to move forward with or without them.  An important part of this decision may include not only the abject legislative failure of 2009, but also the upcoming midterm elections in November:  if Democrats can show that they passed significant and meaningful legislation almost entirely on their own, they have a greater political advantage than if they were to lay claim to thin bipartisanship.  The central strategy of Republicans has been to “break” both President Obama and his Congress by preventing progress, in order to retake the majority come election time – a prospect that seems bleaker for them by the day.

Whether or not these specific instances of Democratic showmanship turn into actual legislation is an entirely different matter, but the words themselves have signified a change from even just a few weeks ago – a change that is more than welcome.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/03/14/political-change-may-be-coming/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/11/guest-a-response-to-big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/11/guest-a-response-to-big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/#comments Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:46:38 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5446 The following comes from Gibbs Burke, a friend and former coworker, who lives in Maryland and is an Engineer.  He took the time to email me a well thought-out response to "Big Government Is Absolutely Necessary" (2/8/2010), and while I don't agree completely with his points, I consider them all to be valid and thought it only appropriate to give it some public attention.

--- --- ---


Kyle,

In knowing you for many years, I am glad to see that you have matured into a well rounded intellectual young man, and although I do not agree completely with you in regards to your political points I find them well researched and educated. I greatly enjoy reading your insights.

I am responding to your piece, Big Government is Absolutely Necessary. I believe that government should play a key role in providing for its citizens the requirements that are needed to carry on basic functions of living. We take for granted the infrastructure that any form of government has provided for us within our daily lives. The roads that we drive on to go to work, the water we drink from our faucet, or management of our waste, are perfect examples of what government should be burdened with doing. However, it continues to be more and more apparent that government itself is not responsible for such things, but rather just provides the funding for such operations and contracts said jobs out to sub-entities. Instead of my property taxes going to pay for the cost of providing me water or disposing of my waste, or even providing me electricity, it in turns goes to pay some cheating politicians pension fund, or paying their 2.5% increase in salary that they themselves vote on.

I am on your side when it comes to smart spending I think that is the key to the turn around. Obama talks about giving students rebates for student loans, or possibly lowering interest rates. But yet there is no evidence of factoring this in with the recent Health Care Reform. People believe that doctors get paid too much, but with the average doctor coming out of medical school with over 500,000 dollars in debt, and over millions of dollars in malpractice cost it becomes more apparent that to reform the healthcare system you need to start from the bottom up. You need to provide reimbursement for individuals who provide medical care to people, and you need to make it harder for individuals to sue doctors over minor implications. I am always boggled to find out that an 80 year old man is suing a doctor over such minor things, and asking for exuberate amounts of money. Its funny you don’t sue your mechanic when he fixes something in your car and then 1000 miles later something breaks down again. Above all we need the tough American attitude that was present in our past. We need the die hard live to be free, and not expect everything to be given to us attitude. We need to understand that life is a gift not a right. If a doctor messed up, one must understand that he is human too. I myself am all too familiar with this, being run over by a lawn mower when I was 5 and having multiple surgeries throughout my life to fix such complications. Do you think I sued the doctors when I didn’t get full feeling back in my right foot? No I took in the satisfaction that I was alive and kicking as the only reassuring factor that they had done their job.

We don’t need more government spending we have enough money to spend we just need to do it smartly. We need smart people in key positions to make the bull-headed decision, and say, “That’s stupid were not spending money on that, now sit down and STFU.” If you want perfect examples just look at projects that are funded by the Federal Government to the States, under the Obama relief at home efforts. Such states as Illinois, putting a bypass in a local town for the train crossing, 1.5 million in spending to do jack crap, or Milwaukee were they repaved tennis courts that get iced over for 9 months out of the year. There are no gray areas for such matters. If they can spend, they will, and they will do it without provocation. So the simple answer is to not allow them to spend. Cut all ability for the government to allocate money.

You in no way can compare the government spending process of today and relate it to World War I and World War II. The government spending during these times was to create new industries and job opportunities that developed into long-term positions. Were as in today’s government spending is in place to save dying industries or provide simple economic blips to give the illusion of growth. The famous Cash for Clunkers for which spent how many millions or billions of dollars to help individuals buy cars to save gasoline, while in doing so saved someone where near a mere 500,000 dollars in gasoline over the next 5 years. This program nether provided no jobs, nor opened any new industry, but rather allowed the American car companies to gather a little more cash to pay off creditors before declaring bankruptcy.

If we must spend we must spend on things that benefit the greatest number of people. I hope to see healthcare reform, because I believe that it is a moral issue not an economic one. I hope to see gay unions be given the same tax rights and legal laws as married couples (just don’t call it marriage). And I hate to see the same people who protested for the freedoms, protest against other people hindering their freedoms.

I vote republican, but as I have communicated with you before it is becoming more and more apparent that the republican point of view is growing tiresomely old along with its main members. I don’t want to have a retired person speaking on behave of my political views. I hope that there is a turnover into a new wave of leadership that sees bipartisanship as the best way to do legislature, instead of this bull-headed “cock block.”

For New Republicans,

Gibbs Burke]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/11/guest-a-response-to-big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/08/big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/08/big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/#comments Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:05:36 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5440 was no exception to such cries of foul against the spending of money by the federal government; however, those who proclaim government spending to have such attributes have missed the central point that such spending is not only not evil, but necessary.

While it may be understandable that significant protests will rise out of announcing a federal budget for a year that numbers in the trillions of dollars in the midst of the Great Recession and record deficit spending, those with complaints should not only remember that President Obama inherited many of the reasons to spend such exorbitant amounts, but that federal spending is the tool that has kept America moving forward.  More importantly, federal financial support is the sword that many Republicans/conservatives have fallen upon by proclaiming its evil and then accepting, or even demanding, kickbacks as motivation to pass legislation – Senator Ben Nelson’s recent healthcare reform behavior is a prime example.

Federal spending is what launched American astronauts to the Moon, saw the success of World Wars I and II, built the national highway/interstate system, partially funds the ever-popular Medicare and Social Security programs, subsidizes public education, defends the nation, finances longterm scientific research programs, and considerably more – the federal government is arguably responsible for America being one of the leaders of the world in technology and innovation, as well as allowing the nation to remain a singular entity.  For those that believe the intervention, or simple existence, of the federal government is intrusive and unnecessary, a question looms large:  would America still be an independent entity encompassing the majority of a continent as a federation of states into a large nation?  Or would states have long ago imposed their own border restrictions, broken from the union, or been conquered by other nations?  The latter is the likely answer, especially during the earlier years of republic.

NASA has received a budget expansion, so long as the Constellation and its associated endeavors program is terminated, and this has caused an outcry from Congress on both sides of the ideological dividing line – especially from those representing states with substantial interest in the funding of space, irrespective of the definition of “expansion”.  Many of these selfsame Congressmen are those that eschew government spending and federal involvement in a state’s business, in which there is substantial irony, or, perhaps, a revelation of corruption and two-faced behavior.

It is absolutely necessary for the federal government to spend money on a large scale, lest they lose control and let the United States degenerate into a chaotic mishmash of nation-states that have no interest in each other.  In an era where states are essentially broke and choose to cut funding to education and other important programs, rather than pet projects or their own salaries, federal intervention is more important than ever, and the Obama Administration realizes this.

The most important point, however, is that federal spending is managed intelligently and delivered on an as-needed basis – there is no room, both now or in the future, for wasteful spending and pet projects that should be funded by other means, including the military industrial complex.  For the nation to climb out of the massive hole of debt, taxes must be raised on those that can afford it, such as investment bankers, and spending must be trimmed to the minimum amount necessary to continue to exist as a nation and advance its interests.  The cycle of tax cuts, corporate loopholes, and increasing debt must be stopped before it’s too late, but not at the expense of the people, their health, their livelihood, or their safety – Big Government is absolutely necessary, but it must be guided by individuals with the requisite knowledge to steer it in the proper direction.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/08/big-government-is-absolutely-necessary/feed/ 2 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/01/an-open-letter-to-president-obama/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/01/an-open-letter-to-president-obama/#comments Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:05:47 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5420
I’m writing to you as a 22-yr. old Democrat that not only helped vote you into the Presidency, but as an individual politically changed by your campaign and ascendancy.  I’m writing to you as a so-called young adult that’s heavily interested in politics, thanks in no small part to you, and is concerned about the current political climate.  I’m writing to you because your State of the Union, in combination with your Address to the GOP, gave me hope – one of your overriding political principles.

I was impressed with your campaign because you seemed interested in returning intelligence, self-respect, and poise to American politics, all of which were sorely diminished after your predecessor’s disastrous Terms of Office.  And, to be fair, you have done all you can to return these values to our way of life, most especially with respect to the foreign view of our nation.  The actions you have taken to give science, math, and education their rightful places in American society are extremely respectable, as are many of the other changes you have wrought either via Executive Order or a forceful wrangling of Congress.

While I don’t support your decisions unilaterally, such as the various bailouts of corrupt and broken institutions, I do support your overall message of change.  Healthcare reform, in its truest sense, is widely recognized by the American people, in an overwhelming majority, as necessary to both our continued healthy and profitable existence, just as are the reforms of financial institutions and legitimately addressing climate change.  However, your supporters are beginning to lose faith because of your insistence on fair politics.

Your interest in bipartisan politics is highly respectable, especially given that you’ve chosen to tackle a historically disastrous issue in a political climate that is far less than favorable, and no-one will ever deny you this fact.  But the attempts over the last year to have bipartisan involvement in federal-level politics have proven to be mostly fruitless, exempting the few special cases such as Defense spending – why should this offer of cooperation continue to be extended?  The GOP’s response to the State of the Union, and the not-so-subtle hostility that you received when addressing them at their own invitation, should be evidence enough that not only do they not wish to cooperate, on any level, but that they will also take great steps to slight you in any manner possible.

What you likely already realize, but bears repeating regardless, is that the Congressional Republicans unequivocally do not represent the American people, just as the Teabagger movement does not represent the majority of the Republicans within the United States of America.  Healthcare reform, even if a public option must be temporarily forgotten, is too important to relinquish due to a subset of the population that is either completely corrupt or do not fully understand what they are protesting.  Even if the result is a Republican rancor like never before seen, this legislation must be pushed through.

The myriad other issues at hand must also be quickly addressed, possibly at the expense of your own political career, because I have no great faith that your successor will have the same strength of will or interest in carrying out necessary reforms that are not politically favorable.  You have the chance to be the modern generation’s FDR, and I hope you take that chance – even if you only have a single Term of Office, instead of three.  The nation’s infrastructure began crumbling long before the banks or the people did, and ensuring their survival is every bit as important as healthcare reform, alongside other longview policy decisions that will ultimately not produce a visible result for years into the future.

I believe that you realize the hostile political climate may very well mean you won’t be re-elected in 2012, but this does not seem to matter greatly to you, as some of your more recent comments have indicated.  It is for this reason that I, on behalf of Democrats, Republicans, and thinking persons throughout the country, beg you to make good on your intentions to be a great one-term President instead of simply a mediocre two-term one:  finish healthcare reform, and move on to the other issues – there is a long list, and it is only getting longer.

We are a year into your Presidency, and you have accomplished much – but you have three years and far to go.  Don’t let a wish for bipartisanship, or a fear of misperception, tarnish your good intentions and strong ideals, as the nation will ultimately suffer for those actions.  It’s important that you continue to make the well informed, careful decisions that you have been, but with a more apolitical eye towards popularity and likability in the future; history smiles on those who affect great change and produce significant contributions, not those who wish to be liked and popular.

The American people are behind you, even if the media often states otherwise, and we will likely continue to support you through the bitter end, barring some inconceivable political change of course.  As a young, intelligent, and possibly idealistic citizen of the United States, I’m proud to say that you’re my President and that you have given me hope for the future of our political system, even as Congress appears to be more and more broken by the day.

Here’s hoping you choose the path of FDR over that of Coolidge.

Sincerely,

Kyle Brady]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/02/01/an-open-letter-to-president-obama/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/25/destroying-america-with-corporate-funds/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/25/destroying-america-with-corporate-funds/#comments Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:05:20 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5363 United States Supreme Court made a decision, on a 5-4 vote, that corporations are entities with corporate personhood, and, as such, are allowed the rights of Free Speech.  This essentially reverses decades, if not a century, of precedence that understood fictional creations do not have even a close resemblance to people, and do not deserve the same freedoms, rights, and considerations.  However, the ideological, and tangentially financial, interests of a bitterly divided Court are apparently more important than the structure and sanity of the nation or its people.  Corporations are now permitted to essentially spend their funds, in a political context, as they see fit – inevitably leading to even greater corruption than already exists within the American government.

It should come as no surprise that the current Court, a body of nine individuals, holds six members that were appointed by a Republican President, and all but one of them voted in favor of this decision.  Republicans have, in the last three decades, lauded the ideals of Big Business, the free market, and deregulation, and this ruling is nothing less than a major victory for their party’s ideology and financial backers.  As evidenced by the last year of political nonsense, the process of passing legislation within America is nothing less than selling out to the highest bidder, and, since Republicans consider Big Business to be their greatest supporter, they have sold out at an even greater cost than ever before:  the ultimate vitality and stability of the nation.

Much has been said about how this is going to destroy American politics, especially by President Obama and the ever-bold Representative Alan Grayson, as nearly every thinking citizen realizes that allowing oil companies, Wall Street, the insurance cartel, and other corporate interests with large bank accounts the ability to influence politicians, or those voting politicians into office, will lead to nothing but utter disaster – there was a reason why corporate interests were divested from the political process in the first place.  Even those Republicans/conservatives without a political career understand what a terrible moment for Democracy this decision is.  Healthcare legislation has been difficult enough to pass without the direct intervention of the very industry that wants so desperately for it fail, but what will happen when they are allowed an even greater influence?

It is sad, disappointing, and, above all, embarrassing that the Republicans of the Supreme Court would place party interests over intelligent decisions on cases, essentially eschewing the very job they are paid to do.  Even more worrisome, however, is that these Justices are of the very same party that shouted in self-righteous anger, during the Justice Sotomayor confirmation process, about using the Court to make policy and allowing personal politics to become embroiled in the judicial process – a deeply ironic moment for the Republican party.  One of the prevailing rules of the American judicial system is that precedent counts heavily in case decisions, with the weight increasing relative to its age and strength, but this no longer seems to matter.  The case that resulted in the outrageous decision to allow corporate personhood was not one that was brought to the Supreme Court for this purpose, but rather was reformed for this purpose to allow a bully pulpit for the conservative Justices to shape American politics through their substantial influence that is entirely independent of an election process or term limits.  If ever there was an example of using the Court to make policy, placing personal politics before the judicial process, and abusing power, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is it.

If Congress has become so corrupt and politically divided as to become almost impotent, and the Supreme Court is willing to overturn laws, regulation, and precedent at ideological whims, who is left to defend the people of the United States of America?  In a three-tiered government meant to produce the best possible outcome, not the worst, only the President is left to stand up for what is right, ethical, and noble.  But while the Office of the President has gained power since the foundation of the nation, President Obama can only produce so much either by himself or through sheer political strength of will.  He has many grand ideas based on what has historically produced the best results, such as industry regulation, and the successful policy decisions of other nations, such as a progressive overhaul of healthcare; however, none of this can be accomplished on his own, or by any lone President, because of the very structure of America’s government.

This dire political state will only further collapse if corporate interests and personal greed are continued to allow free reign within the political system of the United States.  For a great nation that has accomplished so much and influenced the world in such a large and beneficial fashion, the devolution into a non-functioning Democratic Republic that does not represent its people has apparently arrived to the great sadness of thinking persons worldwide.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/25/destroying-america-with-corporate-funds/feed/ 2 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/18/america-is-not-the-worlds-savior/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/18/america-is-not-the-worlds-savior/#comments Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:05:54 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5352 a 7.0 earthquake last week that resulted in massive devastation and death on an order that is not only incomprehensible, but improbable, from within the Western World, most especially America.  As could have been easily predicted, the United States federal government, along with a large number of rich corporations, ran to the aid of the collapsed country within mere hours of the onset of the disaster, while millions of individuals from within the country donated a substantial sum when considered in total – all in the midst of the Great Recession.  There is, however, a major problem with this situation:  the federal government seems entirely willing to move millions of dollars in aid and resources at a moment’s notice to a foreign country with virtually no prior ties, but will not, or cannot, solve domestic problems a noticeable degree of magnitude smaller.

Haiti was a nation that did not particularly like the Western World, and contained millions of citizens that reached far beyond the upper limits of the poverty line.  Entire cities were only slightly better than shantytowns, there were only the most limited of public services, and extreme corruption existed within almost all levels of its government.  This was a country that existed on a major tectonic fault line, but ignored the danger implicit in such a position – as a result, the government has both physically and metaphorically collapsed, hundreds of thousands of people within its borders are now dead or injured, and anarchy is beginning to rise out of the ashes.  As sad as the situation may be, this is not a natural disaster – it is a crime of supreme and willful negligence that substantially exacerbated a foreseeable situation.

If Haiti had prepared, in any fashion, for an earthquake, the situation would not be so dire – even if the only preparation was to sequester food and water for emergencies, or to have a contingency plan in place for such an occasion.  This, quite obviously, did not happen and has brought the country and its people to the ruinous point at which they currently stand.  The fact that the United States came running so quickly to its aid is questionable at best, despicable at worst:  for the last few decades, the federal government has operated on the policy that any and all disasters could, and should, be solved by intervention.  The majority of Africa, a portion of the Middle East, parts of Asia, countless South American countries, and now Haiti can all lay claim to “big brother America” riding in on a white horse to save the day with money, food, water, and manpower, but New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina cannot.

What is wrong with this picture?  The answer should be immediately obvious to any and all observers of the ongoing situation, no matter how impassioned or emotional they may be.  When somewhere close to half of the world does not want the assistance, or even presence, of America during the course of normal operations, why, then, should they be aided in times of distress?  There are no ethical qualms about aiding allies when necessary, and if England were to be attacked by a fast-moving and unnoticed glacier from farther north, there should be no doubt that the United States would rightly rally to assist.  However, the government has no business spending the nation’s money on foreign affairs that do not effect its people’s future in any fashion, as a poor nation with no interest in its benefactors does not advance the cause of anyone but those who receive said aid.

America is in the midst of several crises, none of which have been solved or even adequately addressed:  the Great Recession still continues, no matter what Ben Bernanke wishes to claim; the institutions that were largely behind the collapse, and subsequent job losses, still run free and rampant; healthcare reform remains unimplemented, with its best hope being a questionable reform status; the military engagement in Afghanistan continues, along with the cleanup of Iraq; the nation’s infrastructure is crumbling around the feet of its people; the number of unemployed, impoverished, underfed, underprivileged, and uneducated continues to rise beyond tolerable limits; secularist society appears threatened by a resurgence of religious dependence; highly polarized and vitriolic politics continue to rend the nation into distinct factions and pieces – the list continues at great length.  With all of these issues unsolved, why should money that is, in tandem, both funded by taxes and deficit spending be expended to solve someone else’s problems that have nothing to do with the country, not even tangentially?

Suggesting to ignore the plight of those around the world is not a popular position to take, especially in the midst of an ongoing disaster, but it is an important one to be taken, so long as there are valid reasons.  The United States has a famously short-term and selective memory, where Haiti has become all-important, while so many other crises exist, and have for years, around the world – this is merely the latest headline-grabbing tearjearker to grab the nation’s wallets.  It is important to note that criticizing America’s aid to Haiti is not political:  President Obama is not acting out of self-serving reasons, there is no great conspiracy, and God/Allah/Shiva had nothing to do with the earthquake.  This is simply the understandably reasonable plea for the allocation of funds, effort, political will, and, most of all, attention to issues at home before issues abroad.

The United States will not be able to prop up nations or people, when such disasters occur in the future, if it does not continue to exist as it has over the last century.  Comparative prosperity notwithstanding, America is a nation in significant trouble that can simply not afford to invest resources, of any kind, in arenas that will never reciprocate or even result in mutually beneficial arrangements.  Had the last two decades proceeded differently - with respect to deregulation, federal spending, and generally addressing domestic issues -  such assistance would not be so crucial an issue.

History, however, is as it is, and America is not the world’s savior – it’s time to spread the message.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/18/america-is-not-the-worlds-savior/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/14/how-to-end-a-fake-political-career/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/14/how-to-end-a-fake-political-career/#comments Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:05:53 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5346 Sarah Palin has joined FOX “News” as a commentator, not the host of a show, but there is a point of interest being widely ignored within the opinions on this not-so-unexpected issue:  any hopes that Palin had of a future political career are now dead.

Sarah Palin is best known for being the Vice Presidential running-mate of John McCain in 2008 that very likely destroyed the campaign, and went on to quit her job as Alaskan Governor, long before her Term of Office was up, in order to pursue a career of media attention, Facebook blogging, and fake book writing.  The most shocking part of her entire situation, however, is that she seemed to believe that, between her blogging, carefully prepared soundbites, and book/booktour, she was laying the groundwork for a run at the Presidency in 2012 – one that she assumed she would win without much effort.

Despite Palin’s criticism of Barack Obama for supposedly having “no real experience” in either governing or politics, it’s worth remembering that the position of U.S. Senator is a higher office than that of State Governor, not to mention that Palin’s only legitimate political position was given up because it no longer interested her – a far cry from disappearing from the Senate to campaign for a very timely Presidential run.  But the war of words from this Alaskan blogger has only strengthened over the last year, after discovering that she has a small but faithful audience among the fringe-party teabagger nutjobs, and she seems to relish this power.  Ever since Sarah Palin began speaking of her own accord on political topics, the Republican Party has accelerated its devolution into a party run by the tenet of lunacy, an “in the bag” election was lost because of intra-party division, and 2010 midterm elections are not likely to be as profitable for her favorite side of the political divide as she’d hoped.

Do these decisions seem like those of an individual that wishes to be President?  Perhaps she would be amenable to people demanding that she take an IQ test before being sworn in as President – that would be an ironic allegory to her support of the birthers.

She has, however, ruined any remote chance she had at taking a national political office, even if she hasn’t realized it yet:  joining FOX “News” does not make a politician appear more likable, sane, rational, or even believable.  Whether or not her commentary role involves live or carefully pre-recorded and edited pieces is irrelevant, because she has decided to be under the direct employ of a “news” network that dedicates itself to promoting conspiracy theories, outright lies, opinion as fact, and de facto opposition of anyone that’s not, in their minds, “conservative enough”.  This move may benefit Sarah Palin in the short term, through an increase in book sales and a greater fervor among the small minority that finds her favorable, but, ultimately, this ruins any and all credibility.

The extreme wings of both sides of the political divide tend to stalwartly vote for their own candidates, so FOX “News” will not effect the future voting behaviors of the teabaggers – the important change is within the moderates and the mainstream swing votes.  American people, while not necessarily the smartest group of people at every turn, tend to have an innate ability to sense the viability and sincerity of both individuals and institutions, so when the then-former commentator from FOX “News” decides to campaign, it seems highly unlikely that anyone but the most irrational voters would decide such an unrepentantly biased person even deserves a chance at a national office.

When the time comes, this moment may be remembered as a day that Democrats, Progressives, and rational Republicans will celebrate for the rest of time:  it was the watershed event that returned American politics to rationality and responsibility through a rather insane, twisted, and unintelligent career choice by a woman who had created a fake political career around her consistent failures.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/14/how-to-end-a-fake-political-career/feed/ 0 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/11/peace-at-home-comes-before-peace-abroad/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/11/peace-at-home-comes-before-peace-abroad/#comments Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:05:53 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5335 the “Yemen situation”, it’s sometimes difficult to take American politicians at face-value, or even seriously – there may have been an attempted terrorist attack within United States’ territory, but the political infighting, deceit, lies, and general democratic failure continue without abatement.  How can the values and ideals of democracy be promoted throughout the world as the solution to unwelcome regimes when it has proven itself so inept during the course of recent history?

Unbridled racism, childlike behavior within Congress, fingerpointing, a year-long debacle to better citizens’ health – these are only the issues that come quickest to mind when pondering the state of American politics within the last year, and there are many more on the list of embarrassments, difficulties, and outright failures.  At a time when Americans needed their government the most, in the midst of the Great Recession, billions were handed out to the very financial institutions that are at the heart of the economic collapse, only to have these funds repaid so that outrageous compensation can be given as rewards to the employees that failed to do their job.  Even more worrisome, Congress does not wish to spend exorbitant sums on the health and stability of the people they represent, but are willing to finance corporations, line their own pockets, and bicker over unintelligent legislative minutiae that is ultimately of no consequence.

Does this sound like a government that works?  Would a nation that is struggling to stay on its feet look to the United States as a shining example of a beautiful democracy that is their single light in the darkness?  Even with a highly capable, charismatic, and intelligent President, it would seem that the principles on which a democratic republic were founded - intelligence, integrity, freedom, and rationality - can no longer be expected to apply.

In the case of almost all legislation since President Obama’s Inauguration, the House of Representatives has successfully proposed, debated, and voted on legislation many times over, while the Senate becomes mired in neverending debate in all but a few, rare cases – the simple reason for this is that the House has different procedural regulations than the Senate, wherein the Senate follows a higher level of decorum and allows endless speeches.  More importantly, these procedural differences are exacerbated by the most rancorous and vitriolic partisanship, not to mention systemic corruption, that the nation has seen since its birth.

Perhaps before America decides to preach the values of democracy or push for the ideals of peace, the United States should first address these issues at home.  Whether the answer lies in reforming some of the rules of Congress, the entire political system, or simply forcing out those representatives that refuse to abide by principles of intelligence and rationality, it would seem that America needs to quickly solve its own political and domestic problems, lest the entire system become a parody of democracy – only then can failed states and hopeful peoples look to the American example of democracy in action.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/11/peace-at-home-comes-before-peace-abroad/feed/ 1 http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/04/smarter-military-engagements-of-terrorist-cells/ http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/04/smarter-military-engagements-of-terrorist-cells/#comments Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:05:48 +0000 Kyle Brady http://www.kyle-brady.com/?p=5324 will not be going to war in Yemen because of the new relevance of its terrorist organizations.  While it’s true that Yemen houses a branch of Al-Qaeda that was behind the attempted underpantsbomber attack on Christmas, America, and its allies, simply cannot, and will not, have a full-scale military engagement with every large terrorist organization that makes itself relevant to national security, nor can the nation in need be provided financing and/or weapons for their own survival.

The reasons for entering Afghanistan were more legitimate than those for Yemen, but the operation was botched as the focus was shifted to Iraq – liberating a people from a dictator is a grand idea; however, the Iraqi mess has distracted the United States from the original goal.  Modern terrorism, by definition, exists as a series of cells that vary in size and geographic distribution, making traditional war impossible and large-scale assaults difficult.  If the guiding idea behind Afghanistan and future engagements is to address terrorism before a devastating attack can be executed or, perhaps more intelligently, to prevent the organization from flourishing in the first place, a better strategy is required.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq – the list of nation-states that are home to terrorist organizations and their training camps is a long one that does not stop where the mainstream loses the ability to recognize names.  How is a country supposed to battle terrorism in a large number of locations worldwide, even if it is the largest and greatest military strength?  The logistics, and cost, of such actions far outweigh whatever benefit may be achieved – it is for this very reason that the military, most especially its leaders, should draw inspiration from operations more common during the Cold War than during Vietnam.

The current military process in Afghanistan, and formerly in Iraq, is to allow small units of ground forces to move freely and pseudo-independently, with air support called in as needed.  Why can this strategy not be taken to the obvious next step?  Rather than move a significant number of resources to support such large operations, consideration should be given to a more covert and swift attack methodology that would use wholly independent ops units to achieve goals such as the assassination or capture of terrorist leaders.  This sort of activity has been the cornerstone of much of America’s strength in the last few decades and still continues today – it needs only be expanded.

Since the rogue groups that wish harm to the Western World do not announce their intentions prior to their actions or “play fair”, there is no need for counterterrorist operations to follow the normal rules or procedures of warfare.  Such operations would not target nations, but rather cells or groups within nations and therefore do not pose any threat to sovereign rule – operations could be planned, conducted, and recouped in a matter of days by a few small units of highly trained and specialized individuals, without the targets ever being aware of a Western military presence.  The nation that was host to such operations would be briefed afterwards.

This does admittedly sound like something out of Jason Bourne, but Hollywood is often based on fact – there would be no James Bond lone wolf carrying out such missions, but, in any case, this scenario is far from fiction.  In fact, there is no reason why such a strategy should not be carried out, as the military, financial, geopolitical, and national security benefits would be far greater than current multi-tier deployment.  Striking fear into the hearts of organizations that claim this as their singular goal would go a long way to appease those consciences that do not appreciate the West’s overwhelming presence in certain modern arenas.

Other than a loss of income to the military industrial complex, there is no reason not to deploy smarter military engagements of terrorist cells to benefit citizens and nations worldwide – President Obama and the rest of the Western World’s leaders with vested interests should choose brains over brawn in the ever-more-worrisome terrorist situation.]]> http://www.kyle-brady.com/2010/01/04/smarter-military-engagements-of-terrorist-cells/feed/ 1