"This indictment was not the most powerful work of the most intelligent people"
-Rick Koerber
While the fancy conference room may not have been the most appropriate place to explain to people that you didn't defraud them out of money, Rick Koerber's message was clear. He will be pleading "Not Guilty" to Federal charges.
Mr Koerber accused several Government officials of misconduct and "conducting a personal vendetta" against him. Mr Koerber appears to believe that government investigators need to have proof of malfeasance before conducting an investigation. Mr Koerber has recorded or is in the possesion of several recordings of officials stating to him or others that the government did not have proof of wrong doing, but didn't like what he was doing.
According to Mr Koerber Government officials communicated suspicion of a Pyramid/Ponzi schemes, before the indictment. This helped cause FranklinSquires collapse in addition to the melting real estate market.
He dismisses the media's obsession with Mark Shurtleff's supposed breakfast meeting stating, "Why a private citizen, asking to meet with an elected representative is ever, in any circumstance, innappropriate is a mystery to me."
Mr Koerber states he is ready to meet the accusations in court, and only time will tell how this will play out.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Government in action (inaction)
It is fascinating to me that severely important topics seem to be shelved until they become a crisis. Healthcare and Social Security are good examples of this. We have been hearing that the healthcare and Social Security costs for quite some time now, but still have yet to see any major changes. The problem with the Congress is that it rewards inaction. It is a very plush and privileged existence to be a Congress person. It's not something that people are willing to risk losing. Congress has an amazing reelection rate. This is much more amazing when you consider its approval rating sunk below 20% within the last year. Congress has an amzing 20% approval and and a 94% re-election rate. To me these numbers are saying, "I hate the job that Congress is doing, but they are there until they die or are arrested." If a congress person wants to advance politically then all of their previous legislation will be brought up against them (this is also why Governers tend to do well. They don't have a voting record). One politician who tried to put through legislation to help prevent child molestation was accused of teaching kindergardners about sex etc. It can become truly nasty. Therefore there is very sstrong incentive to keep your head down, and do as little as possible.
So passing a controversial bill, no matter how beneficial, seems to be an almost impossibility. It is amusing to me that how much people are concerned with one party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency with a large majority. It amuses me because even though people think that the majority will march us as far to the left as they can, the reality is quite different. We can be petty and ignorant and whine that the difference between a free capitalist society, and a dreadful Stalinist Socialist Regime is a 3% income tax hike. People will and are doing that now. In reality, the Democratic Congress and Senate aren't very willing to make themselves future targets, and while things indeed will change it will be far less dramatic than people who thrive on fear for ratings will have you believe.
So passing a controversial bill, no matter how beneficial, seems to be an almost impossibility. It is amusing to me that how much people are concerned with one party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency with a large majority. It amuses me because even though people think that the majority will march us as far to the left as they can, the reality is quite different. We can be petty and ignorant and whine that the difference between a free capitalist society, and a dreadful Stalinist Socialist Regime is a 3% income tax hike. People will and are doing that now. In reality, the Democratic Congress and Senate aren't very willing to make themselves future targets, and while things indeed will change it will be far less dramatic than people who thrive on fear for ratings will have you believe.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Torture
There has been a lot in the news lately about torture. It appears that everyone has split themselves into one of two groups.
1. Torture in ANY form is NEVER acceptable.
2. It is acceptable to water board terrorists.
While most people will just go with their gut reaction on this. I like to think things through. There are two major things to deliberate over here.
1. What is torture?
2. Is torture effective?
If water boarding is torture and it is not effective the easy answer is "don't do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is effect the easy answer is "do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is not effective. "probably shouldn't do it"
If water boarding is torture and is effective "we have a conundrum."
1. People have been saying that water boarding is not torture. I have never experienced it so I am not able to make a personal judgment. When we think about torture the more graphic methods come to mind, someone being cut or physically damaged. I always think of the James Bond movie where they cut out the seat and hit his testicles with a rope. Water boarding is not as physical, per se, so the confusion is understandable. My first inclination was that it is torture. The reason for this is you are doing it, because you trying to extract information. It must be very unpleasant if you believe it will "crack" or "break" someone who is very set in their beliefs. Not willing to go on pure speculation I looked around and researched past occurrences, and water boarding has happened a lot more than I thought. In World War II Japanese soldiers water boarded American soldiers. They were convicted of torture. In the Vietnam War soldiers water boarded North Vietnamese soldiers. They were court-martialed. It seems that all precedence points to water boarding being torture.
2. Is torture effective? This is going to be debated a lot over the next little bit. This question makes me think of Jack Bauer yelling, "Where's the bomb!!??" When is it morally okay to torture? Is it ok to save 1,000,000 lives? 1,000? 10? 1? This, however, IS NOT THE ISSUE. Remember we need to know if it is effective before we BEGIN to be concerned by this. Most evidence points towards torture not being effective. People will lie or give false information to make the pain go away. The question "Should we torture to save X lives?" is irrelevant until we have definitive proof that torture is effective.
So currently I am sitting on some viewpoints.
1. Water boarding is torture. I believe that it causes sufficient mental duress to be defined as torture, and in the past, the United States has agreed with me.
2. Torture is not the most effective questioning method. Torture is not guaranteed to provide useful information, and I believe that if everyone knows that America tortures, it will cause more harm than good. I believe that torturing someone to prevent a nuclear attack is more the subject of Fiction than Non.
1. Torture in ANY form is NEVER acceptable.
2. It is acceptable to water board terrorists.
While most people will just go with their gut reaction on this. I like to think things through. There are two major things to deliberate over here.
1. What is torture?
2. Is torture effective?
If water boarding is torture and it is not effective the easy answer is "don't do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is effect the easy answer is "do it"
If water boarding is not torture and is not effective. "probably shouldn't do it"
If water boarding is torture and is effective "we have a conundrum."
1. People have been saying that water boarding is not torture. I have never experienced it so I am not able to make a personal judgment. When we think about torture the more graphic methods come to mind, someone being cut or physically damaged. I always think of the James Bond movie where they cut out the seat and hit his testicles with a rope. Water boarding is not as physical, per se, so the confusion is understandable. My first inclination was that it is torture. The reason for this is you are doing it, because you trying to extract information. It must be very unpleasant if you believe it will "crack" or "break" someone who is very set in their beliefs. Not willing to go on pure speculation I looked around and researched past occurrences, and water boarding has happened a lot more than I thought. In World War II Japanese soldiers water boarded American soldiers. They were convicted of torture. In the Vietnam War soldiers water boarded North Vietnamese soldiers. They were court-martialed. It seems that all precedence points to water boarding being torture.
2. Is torture effective? This is going to be debated a lot over the next little bit. This question makes me think of Jack Bauer yelling, "Where's the bomb!!??" When is it morally okay to torture? Is it ok to save 1,000,000 lives? 1,000? 10? 1? This, however, IS NOT THE ISSUE. Remember we need to know if it is effective before we BEGIN to be concerned by this. Most evidence points towards torture not being effective. People will lie or give false information to make the pain go away. The question "Should we torture to save X lives?" is irrelevant until we have definitive proof that torture is effective.
So currently I am sitting on some viewpoints.
1. Water boarding is torture. I believe that it causes sufficient mental duress to be defined as torture, and in the past, the United States has agreed with me.
2. Torture is not the most effective questioning method. Torture is not guaranteed to provide useful information, and I believe that if everyone knows that America tortures, it will cause more harm than good. I believe that torturing someone to prevent a nuclear attack is more the subject of Fiction than Non.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)