Bin Laden's Choice?

It seems that bin Laden's TV message today is aimed at one goal: ousting President Bush. By extension, I think this means UBL's preferred candidate is John Kerry. I don't need to go over policy positions or anything like that — all of you are smart enough to know that stuff already. The point one should consider is what scares UBL about four more years of Bush (and conversely what does he feel he would gain with four years of Kerry)? Considering that this follows on the heels of another threat against voting for President Bush from al-Qaeda… let's just say we can be confident they don't want four more years.

They do not want four more years because President Bush is firm and aggressive in the war on terror. President Bush has the will and resolve to seek out the terrorists and get them — the war on terror may not ever be “won,” but so long as the terrorists know that we will strike back, it limits the gains they can make. A President Kerry, by all indications, would leave rooting out terror to the UN, a body that is rarely able to accomplish anything terribly useful. I hope those still on the fence will think about this seriously. When the top enemy of the state comes out of hiding to talk about your leader's allegedly poor handling of that enemy's attack on your country — should you heed that enemy's advice?

Make a Difference

With just a week to go in the 2004 Election, here is one of your last chances to make a real difference. Let your blogging audience know (and encourage them to spread the word) that the missing munitions in Iraq were noted as missing by NBC News on the day that the coalition forces arrived at the site eighteen months ago. As such, there was nothing the Bush administration could have done to protect the site… it had already been emptied out.

Moreover, Kerry should be required to answer why he is attacking the President on something that only happened, the way he talked about it, in the New York Times/CBS News universe. Finally, the world should hear about Drudge Report findings that indicate CBS News appears to have been planning to use 60 Minutes this Sunday to reveal this twisted piece of news in hopes of damaging the President's campaign. If anyone doubts CBS's bias, this should make it even clearer exactly where they stand.

Just Exactly What Happened

Laugh, it is funny: Did you miss the debates? Then check out this very serious column that sums the whole thing up in just a few short paragraphs.

The American Conservative Endorses… Bush. Pat Buchanan writes an interesting piece which I will — for the record — note that I do not entirely agree with. On the issues of today, I am generally well into the Right, but the far Right that waxes about “neo-cons” and the evils of supporting our ally Israel just makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Then again, they endorse… Kerry. Scott McConnell, editor of the American Conservative, decided that the President will damage the conservative movement for decades by giving it a bad name. Moreover, he manages to compare the President to the trio of Leon Trotsky, Leonid Brezhnev and Czar Nicholas II in the same article. Overall, it has the uncomfortable bits that existed in Buchanan's endorsement of the president and none of the more sensible parts of the same. Given that both candidates supported the war in Iraq, Kerry most certainly does not deserve the vote as some kind of punishment against Bush for the war. Scott even drinks the radical left's Kool-Aid that suggests that the U.S. manufactured the evidence against Iraq, despite the existing of overwhelming corroboration of that evidence from the intelligence agencies of the U.K., France, Germany, Russia and others. President Vladmir Putin even warned out president about a believed threat to U.S. soil from Iraq.

Why not endorse everyone? That's what the American Conservative does in other articles. Follow either link I gave above to find a box that provides links to other editorials that manage to endorse every major third party candidate to go along with Bush and Kerry. Who says you can't have it every way?

My Domestic Spending Agenda

NASA — many people on both sides of the fence simply do not understand the critical importance of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I guess liberals find it too close to the military and conservatives can't necessarily justify it as a necessary part of the military. Yet, in my opinion, NASA is one of the most important parts of the Federal government. Let's face it — yes, NASA is inefficient, bloated and has been thoroughly shamed by the St. Louis's own Ansari X-Prize, but private companies will never be able to accomplish what NASA can under proper direction.

Take Mars, for example. To reach Mars will require new technologies and massive projects beyond anything the agency has ever done before. While Scaled Composites was able to reach space for a relatively meager sum, they were doing so with the benefit of thousands of technologies that were driven ahead through NASA's early, innovative days. The technology to reach Mars with humans does not exist yet, meaning that only an entity with the funding power of the world's lone superpower can likely reach the goal of the first interplanetary human mission.

NASA has probably done more to advance technology than any other government agency and our world is better for it. President Bush's 2030 goal for a Mars mission deserves respect as a plan to re-ignite our imaginations and our common goals so that the stodgy modern NASA can again become the lean, mean organization that can revolutionize technology for us. We should take technologies that come out of NASA and pass them out through an effective technology licensing program that would encourage private sector companies to use and improve what the government created. This would pay back the costs of R&D and drive the push into the final frontier to new heights.

United States Postal Service — Many conservatives I know loathe a public entity dedicated to mail delivery. The privatization call has come for a long time and sounds good on the surface. The idea of privatization of USPS, in my opinion, is a flawed and dangerous plan. USPS does not turn a profit, like it would be required to do if it were in the private sector, but personally I care much more about seeing my mail come and go without a hitch than if USPS is bringing in cash (so long as it is not a complete money black hole). UPS, FedEx, DHL and others can and do accomplish amazing logistical service feats with a profit for a reason: it costs more to use them.

Take, for example, a 6 oz envelope to Paraguay. The cheapest way to get it there using any of the major private sector delivery companies will set you back nearly fifty bucks. For just seven bucks, I can upgrade to service that should get that letter there in less than a week via USPS. Now, I hear you screaming over there: “raise the rates! raise the rates!” Hold on a second. Is not the main goal here to facilitate communication? If USPS charged the same rate as UPS, it would be very impractical to send that envelope even though I would hate not to send it. Could it perhaps be that it is worth a few of my tax dollars each year to facilitate affordable, fast, reliable postal service for the dozens of letters, bills, rebates, CD's and other things I mail out? E-mail must become far more secure, reliable and just plain better before I would consider cutting loose our core way of distributing documents and packages.

There are lots of issues that come up if USPS was privatized. Daily deliveries to rural areas would become likely targets of cuts. Even first class letters would likely skyrocket in price to achieve pricing parity with UPS, et. al. I betcha the amount of money you would spend sending out your bills each month would go up enough that the meager tax savings would soon seem less than attractive.

I would add that I believe with a relatively meager investment in more efficient delivery solutions, including some of those used by UPS and FedEx, we could dramatically improve USPS's performance. We ought to look into solutions such as outsourcing certain extra deliveries to other carriers and promoting and improving high tech solutions (which USPS already offers) such as e-mail to mail gateways.

Amtrak — This is, by far, the most controversial of my three pet government projects. I believe it is in this nation's interest to not only keep Amtrak going, but also to start a one-time revitalization program that would upgrade the tracks across the nation to support bullet train capabilities. Amtrak, in its current state, could not survive as a private company. If Amtrak shutdown, the rails that made this country great would grow rusty and disappear into the murky fog of the past.

In a time of heightened security, we should have a strong transportation infrastructure beyond just air traffic. A healthy, revitalized Amtrak could, I believe, turn a profit eventually and would allow us to have a redundant high-speed transportation network. Think about the days after 9/11 when we were forced to shut down air traffic — such a high speed train system would have allowed for far more efficient traveling. We have no reason to believe 9/11 was the last time this could happen, and next time we could be ready (and that is just one of the many advantages to having more than one long distance mass transit system).

Moreover, if we implemented the improved Amtrak using electric trains, we would insure that no matter what future fuel technology eventually allows us to eliminate dependence on the Middle East, we would be able to convert it to work with trains. I don't think you can necessarily say that about our existing planes.

Each of these agencies needs major reform, I agree. I do not agree however that they should be ended or privatized. In the long run, I think everyone would benefit from improving these agencies and it is reasonable to expect that a serious upfront investment could yield a rosy financial situation for these agencies in the future.