Has any American president ever killed anybody?

Sure, most of them have. Many American presidents served in active duty military prior to becoming president, some heroically. Presumably they killed the enemy themselves or the people in their command killed the enemy. The president is commander-in-chief of the United States military so war time presidents were ultimately responsible for many deaths both American and enemy.

Several presidents served as state governors prior to becoming president. Capital punishment has been the rule rather than the exception in most states for most of American history. The governor signs the death warrant allowing prisoners convicted of capital crimes to be executed.

However, I'll bet the spirit of this question has to do with a more personal type of killing. Two presidents fit this bill. Andrew Jackson challenged a man who had insulted Jackson's wife to a duel and killed him. Grover Cleveland, while serving as sheriff of Erie County New York personally hanged two condemned criminals. He refused to delegate the distasteful task to a subordinate.

What else is wrong with privatization of government functions?

Nibble on this: Take this to its logical conclusion – every dollar spent by the federal government for every one of its functions goes to private sector contractors that provide the actual service. The cabinet, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and all of the rest would be paid consultants rather than government employees answering to the president. Air traffic control, Homeland Security, Medicare, et cetera would be provided by contractors working under agreements crafted by attorneys at law firms under retainer by the president. If one, or all, of them cut corners or provides poor service the president would have to sue them. The American people would have to wait for and depend on the courts for any remedy. And if the private companies refuse to acquiesce to judgments against them no one could do anything about it.

If that isn’t scary enough consider privatization of the armed forces. Mercenary armies from America and maybe elsewhere would protect the American people in exchange for money from the American treasury (which would be administered by certified public accountant firms). Such armies would have no accountability to the American people. Higher bidders competing for their business would be a constant threat to the security and independence of the American people.

The neoconservative ideal of privatizing all government functions is parasitic, short-sighted, and anti-American. It would amount to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. That goose being the American economy, American society, and the American people.

What’s wrong with privatization of government functions?

In some instances maybe little or nothing is wrong with privatization of government functions. But the neoconservative aim is to privatize nearly all government functions including military functions even including in the field soldiering.

The Libertarians also want to privatize nearly everything the government does. However, the motivation is different for each group. The Libertarians actually believe that the federal government should function only as described originally in the Constitution of the United States. They hold individual liberty as the highest ideal and view any expansion of government beyond the original conception to be an infringement on individual liberty. I can respect their point of view and their consistency.

The neoconservatives, on the other hand, want to privatize everything just so private sector companies can make profit off of providing the same functions that the federal government does now. They don’t want the government to shrink. Instead they want to transfer government functions to the private sector. Their rationale is that the private sector would be more efficient than the government. But there is a major flaw in this way of thinking.

Take soldiering for example. When Paul Bremer went to Iraq to oversee the beginning of reconstruction and nation building activities his security detail was not made up of members of the United States military. The same is also true for every ambassador to Iraq since then. They were mercenaries from a company called Blackwater with which the State Department made a lucrative contract (see Jeremy Scahill’s book “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army-his picture accompanies this post). The members of that security detail were paid on the order of $600.00 per day to protect the ambassador. Even elite members of the U.S. military do not get paid nearly that much. Thus privatization of that function cost American taxpayers far more than if uniformed service members performed it.

The neoconservatives want privatization of most government functions to happen in one of two ways. One, the U. S. government could pay out the same amount of money as it does now for all the functions it needs but some not small portion of it would go to profit for private companies providing the services thus reducing the level of services the government receives for that money. This would clearly be far less bang for the buck for American taxpayers. Two, the government could pay far more than it does now to receive the same level of services in order to cover the profit to private providers of the services. Either way American taxpayers get screwed while a handful of private companies leech billions from the U. S. treasury. The opportunistic neoconservatives see a ripe plum in federal spending and want to pluck it instead of being creative and thinking of better mousetraps as a way to make more profit. All of this is not to mention the accountability and control issues that I’ll discuss in a later post.

Who was the worst president of the Unitied States?

Nibble on this: One way to decide this question is to ask who walked into a good situation and screwed things all up (see the previous post). When George W. Bush took office the economy was good and growing, the budget was balanced, the United States was at peace, and it was "a sunny afternoon in America" (re: Ronald Reagan's quotation about "morning in America"). The only spot on the picture was the lingering question about the legitimacy of the election that the Supreme Court of the United States,without precedent, ultimately awarded to Bush.

Despite the good situation they inherited the Bush administration began in their first weeks planning the war on Iraq. The planning began a full 8 months before the 9/11 attacks, which we now know had nothing to do with Iraq.

Why did they want to take the U.S. into war? Not for any noble reason. The Bush administration made a major change in policy, the Bush Doctrine, which said that the U.S. would now begin preemptive wars, purely offensive wars, against countries that may pose a threat to us. But Iraq never posed any credible threat to the United States. And, the purpose for the war was not strictly to gain control of Iraq's oil, though that was surely part of it. It was much more prosaic and ignoble than that. A major reason the Bush administration wanted a war from before day one of the first Bush term was to rapidly install and entrench the neoconservative agenda. That agenda, pioneered in the first Bush administration, was partly, to privatize as many defense and military functions as possible.

What this means is that private corporations, big business and well connected others, would have a much bigger money pie to divide at the same time having little or no accountability to the American people. In short, the Bush administration is allowing their big business and other rich friends to use the U. S. treasury as a personal, limitless ATM while weakening our military. In the process they have sent thousands of volunteer armed forces personnel to their deaths; people who had families that loved them and depended on them. Tens of thousands have been wounded.

After the 9/11 attacks the world was behind us. We had support from not only our traditional allies, we had unprecedented support from countries who are usually our adversaries. All of this support was foolishly squandered by the Bush administration in pursuit of principles and ideas that, ironically, George H. W. Bush once called "voodoo economics."

The rationalization for the Iraq war was clearly wrong indicating either dishonesty or incompetence on the part of the Bush adminstration. The economy has steadily eroded hurting everyone except the wealthy. By one account we are spending 4 million dollars an hour in Iraq, much of which is unnacounted for (remember the 1 billion dollars in cash that was supposed to be for "reconstruction" projects that simply disappeared?). The budget is in shambles. Our allies are disgusted with us, our enemies are growing in number and hate us more than ever. We fought a war that did not need to be fought and continue to fight it because it continues to be a cash cow for Bush administration rich friends and supporters. The middle class, working class, and poor in America, many of whom are (or were) Bush supporters at the polls are suffering economically, personally, and philosophically. All of this has been done by the Bush administration in only 6 years with 2 more left to screw things up even more. My goodness, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Who was the best president of the United States?

Nibble on this: I think the best way to judge a president is to see who walked into the worst situation, did something about it and ended up making things much better. Several presidents began their terms facing big problems but none worse than Abraham Lincoln. Between Lincoln’s election in November of 1860 and his inauguration in March of 1861 seven states seceded from the union and more were threatening to do the same. Furthermore, states in rebellion were threatening to seize federal government property, such as forts and armories. So on day one Abraham Lincoln faced the worst constitutional crisis in American history up to that time or since.

Lincoln intended to preserve the Union above all. Most of his actions as president were in the service of that cause. The Constitution of the United States prohibits states from seceding from the Union. Lincoln’s position, therefore, was that the southern states did not leave the Union, as by definition they could not, but that they were in rebellion. When rebellious military units attacked Fort Sumter in April, 1961 and forced a surrender and evacuation of the fort the civil war begun in earnest.

Lincoln used some pretty innovative tactics to raise an army. An income tax was instituted for the first time in America as was the first military draft. He used strong arm tactics to ensure Maryland stayed loyal to the Union. He blockaded southern port cities. He suspended some civil rights such as the writ of habeas corpus. The western counties of Virginia were against secession and formed the new State of West Virginia. Lincoln accepted their request to be admitted to the Union. Ironically, the Constitution of the United States also prohibits parts of states from seceding from states, but there you have it.

Lincoln hated slavery but he was of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, as it stood at that time, did not prohibit it. He felt he had no authority to end slavery in peacetime. The war gave him special powers, he felt, and so he issued the most famous executive order in American history. It became known as the Emancipation Proclamation. It freed slaves in rebellious states that did not return to federal control by January 1, 1863. None did, so the slaves in those states were freed in the eyes of the federal government. In another bit of irony the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the states and areas remaining loyal to the Union; Kentucky, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. After the end of the Civil War the 13^th amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery everywhere in America and its possessions.

Before the end of his first term Lincoln saw the successful end to the civil war. He had preserved the Union and ended slavery. Sadly, his second term did not last long but Abraham Lincoln most assuredly left us a more perfect union.

What does “Ithaca is Ganja” mean?

Ithaca is a small city isolated in Central New York’s Finger Lakes region. Ithaca is the home to Cornell University and Ithaca College. Cornell is the Land Grant college in New York. As such, agriculture is a major focus of instruction at Cornell. Additionally, Cornell, Ithaca College and Ithaca in general are proud of their efforts to promote ecologically friendly agendas. For example, Cornell recently pledged to drastically reduce their “carbon footprint” over the coming decades. Ithaca College as a matter of policy strongly promotes sustainability. Ithaca, once named “the most enlightened city in America” by the Utne Reader magazine, is populated largely by “green” people who behave largely according to how the environment will be affected. One example is a community nearby that lives “off the grid.” Country Home magazine recently named Ithaca the second greenest city in America.

Ganja is a green plant that grows wild and weed-like in many parts of the world. It has been known since prehistory and probably originated in Central Asia. Like all green plants ganja uses photosynthesis to take carbon dioxide from the air and water from its roots to produce energy to live and in the process give off oxygen. Carbon dioxide is the major “greenhouse gas.” Though CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere too much of it is being added by human activities contributing to global warming.

The ecologically-minded people of Ithaca know that more photosynthesis by green plants means more oxygen in the atmosphere and more carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere. Thus, the people of Ithaca respect ganja for doing its part to help the world sustain…mon.

Review of the movie 300

This movie is based on a graphic novel (uptown comic book) of the same name. The story, however, is based on real events that occurred about 480 B. C. The battle of Thermopylae, though the Spartans were defeated, ultimately inspired the Greek city states to unite and stop the Persian Empire from conquering Europe. The major facts of the real event are preserved in this movie though some characters and plot are added to personalize the already abundant drama.

The look of this movie preserves the feel of a graphic novel without actually being fully animated. The special effects involved are not ground-breaking but well chosen. Most of the acting was done in front of blue screens and the sets were computer generated. If this movie had been fully animated it would have had far less emotional impact. If it had been portrayed realistically on film it would have been as corny as the gladiator films of the fifties now seem.

None of the actors in this movie are stars yet the quality of the acting is perfect for the concept of a graphic novel brought to the screen. Everyone is over the top without appearing silly. The characters are larger than life but not so much that you have to consider this a fantasy rather than a story based on a real historical event.

The purpose of art is to cause an emotional reaction. This movie does that in a big way. The target audience for this movie is probably teenagers, even though it is R rated, yet people of all ages are sure to be moved by the bravery and integrity of King Leonidas and the 300. It’s a good idea to show teens, and everyone else, that sometimes people have to do what is right because it is right in the face of impossible odds as well as opposition and intrigue from your friends. Super heroes are fantasy and so movies about them are entertaining but ultimately forgettable. Movies about real heroes who give what Abe Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion change young lives, form character, and inspire respect and admiration for those who serve and protect their countries.