Thursday, May 7, 2009
there has been talk about using nuclear power as another source of energy. some people feel that it is a safe effecient energy source, because of the improvements that has been made. It has been 30 years since the accident at unit 2 of three mile island nuclear generating plant. one of the questions that it mentioned in an article, should we consider using facilities that generate electricity from unranium or some other radioactive fuel. When the chernobly plant in ukraniun had a near meltdown on march 28 1979 along with the explosion, it halted the move toward generated elctricity in the united states. There was only a handfull that allready were under construction 30 years ago. In the united states 104 nuclear reactors generated only one fith of the electricity produced, while other countries are using this technology. They are able to produce three quarters of electricity that they consume. The problem is that some states will see an increase in electrical bills because restrictions are due to expire. People do want to find some long term investment in low cost power. There are arguments on both sides whether we should try it again. People who favor it point to the fact that there are nuclear plants operate safely around the world with no lives lost. people believe that we have created better technology because of the lessons we learned from the accidents and point out that it doesnt pollute the air. The other side of it is there is a potential environment issue. They feel that another accident has the potential to release radiation into the atmosphere. The other problem is long term storage of waste material. There is also a problem with nuclear power because it isnt a renewable source of energy like oil, coil, and it is expensive to build nuclear reactors. so far the federal government has stayed out of it. I think there is always a serious risk when dealing with nuclear power, because it does pose a potential risk to the environment and people. I think one of the things we have to think about is if something seriously happened we cant just go back and fix the damage. i think it would solve are energy problems but i guess we have to decide is it worth the risk getting involved with nuclear energy. I think if we did try it we should try to eliminate as many risks as possible. I think that fear will always be on the back of peoples minds. i think people need to ask themselves would they be comfortable with a nuclear plant next to them. I wouldnt mind trying it if you could eliminate the risk of nuclear power.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Pakistan: Our Next Big Problem
We often hear about the United States efforts to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but we're only hearing about half the problem. The other half of the issue lies just miles across the Pakistani border. There are more Taliban and al-Qaeda groups living in Pakistan than there are in Afghanistan. If our true intention in Afghanistan is to weed out these groups, aren't we fighting in the wrong country?
President Obama will meet with President Asif al-Zardari of Pakistan and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan Wednesday morning at the White House. On the top of the agenda- a collaborative military effort in the border region of the NorthWest Frontier Territory against insurgent forces.
“The possibility is now real that we will see a jihadist state emerge in Pakistan — not an inevitable outcome, not even the most likely, but a real possibility,” said Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution scholar.
With a larger population of insurgent forces in a country with nuclear capabilities, it is only a matter of time before this ticking time bomb of a situation explodes.
Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday, “this isn’t about ‘can do’ any more; this is about ‘must do.’ ”
As David E. Sanger of The New York Times sees it President Obama has three objectives to keep in mind: we must work with the Pakistani and Afghani governments to support a cooperative military effort in the tumultuous border region, we must increase covert ground actions, and finally, we must keep the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal as our number one priority.
Monday, May 4, 2009
SCOTUS Nomination for POTUS
Perfectly set as the cherry on top of President Obama's first one hundred days, Associate Justice Souter announced he was resigning from the high court in order to pursue a more simplistic life in his NH home where he apparently does not use electricity, or even a typewriter for that matter. I am personally pleased with many of the decisions Souter has made, except for one or two such as Kelo v. New London where he sided with the majority in a gross expansion of the government's power of eminent domain.
After perusing the political media it appears that they have already settled upon a favorite of Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeals. She is obviously viewed as a triple threat by Democrats as she is a woman, hispanic, and liberal leaning in her decisions. In addition to those aspects she also has a life story that could be appealing to Obama, who said during the campaign he wants not only a legal scholar but some with real life experiences and "empathy" for regular folks. Sotomayor is a single divorcee who grew up in a working class neighborhood and lost her father at a young age. This as well as other aspects which will fill in the blanks could bode well for her.
An interesting article with a more critical look at Ms. Sotomayor, where I obtained some of my information Sotomayor can be found here:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
Mainly, the article questions her temperament and intellectual prowess when it comes to interpreting the law and handing down opinions, overall a good read.
As this first appointment saga goes on I will be interested in who Obama pays homage to by leaking his short list. This is a common way of flattering and thanking someone for their support even if you have no intention of choosing them. Being mentioned as a possible candidate for the SCOTUS can be more valuable to someone than any position awarded by the President. If all goes as planned though it appears Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Justice (though that in itself is debateable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo ) And Obama will solidify the Hispanic bloc behind him as the precursor to the immigration debate, forcing the Republicans to capitulate in at least some way during that debate so they do not lose the Hispanic vote permanently.
Good times.
After perusing the political media it appears that they have already settled upon a favorite of Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the Second Circuit of the Court of Appeals. She is obviously viewed as a triple threat by Democrats as she is a woman, hispanic, and liberal leaning in her decisions. In addition to those aspects she also has a life story that could be appealing to Obama, who said during the campaign he wants not only a legal scholar but some with real life experiences and "empathy" for regular folks. Sotomayor is a single divorcee who grew up in a working class neighborhood and lost her father at a young age. This as well as other aspects which will fill in the blanks could bode well for her.
An interesting article with a more critical look at Ms. Sotomayor, where I obtained some of my information Sotomayor can be found here:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
Mainly, the article questions her temperament and intellectual prowess when it comes to interpreting the law and handing down opinions, overall a good read.
As this first appointment saga goes on I will be interested in who Obama pays homage to by leaking his short list. This is a common way of flattering and thanking someone for their support even if you have no intention of choosing them. Being mentioned as a possible candidate for the SCOTUS can be more valuable to someone than any position awarded by the President. If all goes as planned though it appears Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Justice (though that in itself is debateable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo ) And Obama will solidify the Hispanic bloc behind him as the precursor to the immigration debate, forcing the Republicans to capitulate in at least some way during that debate so they do not lose the Hispanic vote permanently.
Good times.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Money isn't Clean: Swine Flu
Well here we are again.
We were all little once and we all had piggy banks, too. For those of us Jewish boys and girls that were unable to have pigs in the house due to religion, we used tootsie roll cartons. Regardless, I remember when I would come home and dump my change into the banks. Of course, when you're little, you run all over the house looking for loose change to put in the bank - not just your own money.
Then, when its heavy enough, you tell mom that you're going to count all of the money that you had collected. And mom knew where all that money came from - especially when you're seven and you have over twenty dollars after just an hour.
After we're all done counting our money - and before mom takes it to the bank - we are told right away to wash our hands because we don't know where the money has been.
So here's my thinking: has globalization made us more prone to illness? According to Andrew Marshall of Reuters - Yes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/has-globalisation-made-us-more-catastropheprone-1674848.html
Mr. Marshall works with the concept of what globalization has done to world traveling and how the global economy is so entwined with everything else that its considered capable of withholding the effects or small ripples. But in actuality its a stand together or fall together system.
With airplanes flying out of every region of the world every minute it takes only hours or a day to spread a disease from one corner of the world to the next. In the past, it would have taken diseases weeks, months or even years to get across the globe.
I caught word of the Swine Flu a few days ago and watched as there were reports of it all across the globe. First was Mexico, then a few border states in the United States, then a school in NYC. Hours later it was popping up in Europe. This morning, I read that there was a suspected case in Israel - that's not kosher.
Perhaps it is true - globalization is a double edged sword and we are most definitely feeling the blade.
So where does this put Obama?
Rather, what can a President really do?
Diseases are the biggest enemy to the United States. Bigger then terrorists, rogue states, and pirates combined. Why? Because for all of our successes in mankind's history, we can't cure the common cold - let alone a rogue flu.
Rhetoric alone is not going to help President Obama. The government is going to have to fund drastic research into the CDC and other disease prevention institutions. I'm not a fan of big government, but its not like we're bailing out anything and placing it under government control.
If that doesn't work, President Obama could always follow in the footsteps of Bush-43: With a new type of enemy comes a new type of war.
"The War on Terror-ble Diseases"
We were all little once and we all had piggy banks, too. For those of us Jewish boys and girls that were unable to have pigs in the house due to religion, we used tootsie roll cartons. Regardless, I remember when I would come home and dump my change into the banks. Of course, when you're little, you run all over the house looking for loose change to put in the bank - not just your own money.
Then, when its heavy enough, you tell mom that you're going to count all of the money that you had collected. And mom knew where all that money came from - especially when you're seven and you have over twenty dollars after just an hour.
After we're all done counting our money - and before mom takes it to the bank - we are told right away to wash our hands because we don't know where the money has been.
So here's my thinking: has globalization made us more prone to illness? According to Andrew Marshall of Reuters - Yes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/has-globalisation-made-us-more-catastropheprone-1674848.html
Mr. Marshall works with the concept of what globalization has done to world traveling and how the global economy is so entwined with everything else that its considered capable of withholding the effects or small ripples. But in actuality its a stand together or fall together system.
With airplanes flying out of every region of the world every minute it takes only hours or a day to spread a disease from one corner of the world to the next. In the past, it would have taken diseases weeks, months or even years to get across the globe.
I caught word of the Swine Flu a few days ago and watched as there were reports of it all across the globe. First was Mexico, then a few border states in the United States, then a school in NYC. Hours later it was popping up in Europe. This morning, I read that there was a suspected case in Israel - that's not kosher.
Perhaps it is true - globalization is a double edged sword and we are most definitely feeling the blade.
So where does this put Obama?
Rather, what can a President really do?
Diseases are the biggest enemy to the United States. Bigger then terrorists, rogue states, and pirates combined. Why? Because for all of our successes in mankind's history, we can't cure the common cold - let alone a rogue flu.
Rhetoric alone is not going to help President Obama. The government is going to have to fund drastic research into the CDC and other disease prevention institutions. I'm not a fan of big government, but its not like we're bailing out anything and placing it under government control.
If that doesn't work, President Obama could always follow in the footsteps of Bush-43: With a new type of enemy comes a new type of war.
"The War on Terror-ble Diseases"
Obama: Expanding Government by Preventing TARP Re-Payment
Wow. Just wow.
Words cannot describe the utter disappointment in the American people for not being able to see the blatant attempt at expanding government far beyond its necessary reach. While most of America blindly supports President Obama, I worry about how he is shaping the Presidency.
My biggest fear during any tough economic time is the ability of the masses to rally behind someone who makes promises to them. Why? Because it is the same way that Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many other dictators came to power. No, I'm not saying Obama is going to mass-murder millions, I'm simply stating the point that the American people, when in times of uncertainty, will openly give up their rights for a sense of security (Remember the atrocity called The Patriot Act?).
When FDR and his government loaned billions of tax payer money to major industries to help them afford the conversion from civilian to military production, there was a plan in his notes to return the industries to their pre-war sovereignty.
So here I am reading about the Obama Administration not willing to accept re-payment of the TARP funds. Why? Because if a bank is being supported by tax-payer money, then that bank is no longer sovereign over itself. Instead, its controlled by the government - expanded government.
I see the point in the counter-argument made by the Administration: TARP money comes with a stipulation on limits of payments and bonuses to executives. In these trying times the American people do get frustrated and angry when we hear about executives and CEOs receiving the "Golden Parachute."
Its not the greatest of things but its really only noted now because the blue-collars are in tough economic times. It is the ugly side of capitalism - but you wouldn't move away from capitalism because of one bad thing.
It would be like the human population not having sex anymore because they couldn't guarantee that both parties would be sufficiently satisfied each time. We know thats not going to happen because despite the less joyful parts of sex, the pros far outweigh the cons.
As is the case with free capitalism...
Words cannot describe the utter disappointment in the American people for not being able to see the blatant attempt at expanding government far beyond its necessary reach. While most of America blindly supports President Obama, I worry about how he is shaping the Presidency.
My biggest fear during any tough economic time is the ability of the masses to rally behind someone who makes promises to them. Why? Because it is the same way that Hitler, Stalin, Castro, and many other dictators came to power. No, I'm not saying Obama is going to mass-murder millions, I'm simply stating the point that the American people, when in times of uncertainty, will openly give up their rights for a sense of security (Remember the atrocity called The Patriot Act?).
When FDR and his government loaned billions of tax payer money to major industries to help them afford the conversion from civilian to military production, there was a plan in his notes to return the industries to their pre-war sovereignty.
So here I am reading about the Obama Administration not willing to accept re-payment of the TARP funds. Why? Because if a bank is being supported by tax-payer money, then that bank is no longer sovereign over itself. Instead, its controlled by the government - expanded government.
I see the point in the counter-argument made by the Administration: TARP money comes with a stipulation on limits of payments and bonuses to executives. In these trying times the American people do get frustrated and angry when we hear about executives and CEOs receiving the "Golden Parachute."
Its not the greatest of things but its really only noted now because the blue-collars are in tough economic times. It is the ugly side of capitalism - but you wouldn't move away from capitalism because of one bad thing.
It would be like the human population not having sex anymore because they couldn't guarantee that both parties would be sufficiently satisfied each time. We know thats not going to happen because despite the less joyful parts of sex, the pros far outweigh the cons.
As is the case with free capitalism...
Monday, April 13, 2009
Center for American Progress and Green Energy
As our country moves ahead with new technologies leading the way for a more profitable and habitat able place we ask our selves the question of whether or not we are ready to make such a transition. In an article titled, “ENERGY: The Green Energy Revolution May Already be Underway,” states that we have the possibilities and infrastructure to install such green energy plans that will profit the country.
Of course, many people cannot afford such new technologies because of the high cost and low demand but the (CAP) Center for American Progress assures that there will be a great influx of jobs that would power this market of solar and wind energy, as well many cash incentives for those who dive into the green revolution.
The CAP was founded in 2003 by former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, John D. Podesta. This website is dedicated to revolutionizing new policies and plans in convergence with media to provide a useful avenue of new information. Now back to the issue. This new energy plan would cost an initial 100 billion dollar input (1/7 of the financial bailout), but would create an upwards of 2 million jobs. The interesting thing about these 2 million jobs is the diversity. People would be providing weatherization of new homes and schools, construction of solar and wind power, and lastly water infrastructure.
In addition to the construction of new energies this potential plan would authorize a cash refund for old used cars so that we could reduce pollution. Similarly, the new push for “cap and trade” to reduce carbon admissions is on its way. This nationwide carbon reduction ideal would take some time as does anything being pushed with legislature but the benefits would be greatly appreciated for those with open minds and a will improve our economy and environment.
Of course, many people cannot afford such new technologies because of the high cost and low demand but the (CAP) Center for American Progress assures that there will be a great influx of jobs that would power this market of solar and wind energy, as well many cash incentives for those who dive into the green revolution.
The CAP was founded in 2003 by former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, John D. Podesta. This website is dedicated to revolutionizing new policies and plans in convergence with media to provide a useful avenue of new information. Now back to the issue. This new energy plan would cost an initial 100 billion dollar input (1/7 of the financial bailout), but would create an upwards of 2 million jobs. The interesting thing about these 2 million jobs is the diversity. People would be providing weatherization of new homes and schools, construction of solar and wind power, and lastly water infrastructure.
In addition to the construction of new energies this potential plan would authorize a cash refund for old used cars so that we could reduce pollution. Similarly, the new push for “cap and trade” to reduce carbon admissions is on its way. This nationwide carbon reduction ideal would take some time as does anything being pushed with legislature but the benefits would be greatly appreciated for those with open minds and a will improve our economy and environment.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Global Update
In response to the anti-missiles put into Poland last year, Russia has invaded Georgia, a close US ally. After the Cold War had ended finally in the 1990s, the world was beginning to see present Russia in a new way. However, now they seem to be falling back into their old ways, into their old political way of handling things. According to the US Department of Defense, U.S. and Russia relations went on hold and was described as, "Business as Usual," (US Dept. of Defense). What will come from this dispute between one major world player and one wannabe major world player?
First, one first must delve into why Russia was insulted in the first place. To introduce my reasoning would to explain past relations with Poland. Poland was the second country in the world to draft a Constitution. However, being surrounded by repressing political societies Poland had to give up this dream. Poland in turn invaded Moscow and stripped them of their identity, which left Russia is dismantle. Second, there are past relations between Russia and the U.S. Russia seemingly will always be perpetually tied to their past. After the end result of the Cuban Missile Crisis and now the retaliation of putting anti-missiles in Russia, it's easy to see why Russia would be insulted. Russia seemingly cannot change the view that the world has attached to them. Russia's ultimate goal is to try to become a major world player and even more so to join the EU but with transaction, they were forced into retaliation and now with NATO being disconnected on the next step, could Russia being even further now from reaching these goals?
What are other global networks saying? According to ABC News, "it could be about oil." This would make sense, however, it would not align itself with the political agenda of Russia. Russia wants to expand energy conservation and development, which is a huge part of their public policies in their national interest. Although, the evidence could be moving towards that direction, I do think it would be out of character.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ceellleeebratee good Obama come on!! (South Park, 2008)
Obama and His Bracket:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney09/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3991859
Time to get away from all that political stuff and take it easy. First off, screw the republicans who had nothing else better to do than to b-t-h about the President filling out brackets on ESPN for the March Madness Tourny. Maybe they are a little jealous because they weren't invited to fill out their own bracket on Sportscenter....maybe ESPN was afraid that the republicans would ruin them like they did to our country for 8 years.
Anyways, enough of my rant. I was pumped that I had the same teams in the final 4 as the President. Mine was out of luck though since I know nothing of college basketball. Both the expert and the rookie (me) did awful with our brackets this year though. So I am down 10 bucks to my friends because of it, I wonder if he put money down?
We did agree on the winner as well. We predicted UNC taking it all. I say this like I know the guy and we're friends, but I am not trying to sound like that...just saying that we have the same picks thats all.
One political aspect other than my rant earlier that I would like to mention. I think it is a great thing that Obama went and did this. I say this because when was the last time we had a president who tried and succeeded to reach out and get the attention of a different source of people? Like me for example. Yeah I saw Bush at a few games over the years...but doing what? sitting there looking stupid right? of course, might as well of stuck a duck-billed platypus up there. Obama took 10 minutes of his time to show the younger crowd that he is human, that he likes sports and likes to partake in things that normal guys who like sports do. Like the Bracket for example. Now this isnt the only reason why I like the guy, but it is definitely a big one. Not that he did the bracket, but the fact that he's reaching out to a younger crowd without being fake about it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney09/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3991859
Time to get away from all that political stuff and take it easy. First off, screw the republicans who had nothing else better to do than to b-t-h about the President filling out brackets on ESPN for the March Madness Tourny. Maybe they are a little jealous because they weren't invited to fill out their own bracket on Sportscenter....maybe ESPN was afraid that the republicans would ruin them like they did to our country for 8 years.
Anyways, enough of my rant. I was pumped that I had the same teams in the final 4 as the President. Mine was out of luck though since I know nothing of college basketball. Both the expert and the rookie (me) did awful with our brackets this year though. So I am down 10 bucks to my friends because of it, I wonder if he put money down?
We did agree on the winner as well. We predicted UNC taking it all. I say this like I know the guy and we're friends, but I am not trying to sound like that...just saying that we have the same picks thats all.
One political aspect other than my rant earlier that I would like to mention. I think it is a great thing that Obama went and did this. I say this because when was the last time we had a president who tried and succeeded to reach out and get the attention of a different source of people? Like me for example. Yeah I saw Bush at a few games over the years...but doing what? sitting there looking stupid right? of course, might as well of stuck a duck-billed platypus up there. Obama took 10 minutes of his time to show the younger crowd that he is human, that he likes sports and likes to partake in things that normal guys who like sports do. Like the Bracket for example. Now this isnt the only reason why I like the guy, but it is definitely a big one. Not that he did the bracket, but the fact that he's reaching out to a younger crowd without being fake about it.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Bill to protect land
This article has to do with Obama signing a bill protecting wilderness acreage with 2 million acres protected in nine states. The President feels that this is one of the most important laws in decades. He says "to protect, preserve and pass down our nation's most treasured landscapes to future generations." In society today and the rate of pollution that is created by man setting aside land I think is a great idea. This law will guarantee that Americans "will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parts, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted, but rather we will set them aside and guard their sanctity for everyone to share. That's something all Americans can support." Says President Obama. This law is composed of 170 separate measures in tact within it. This land ranges from California's Sierra Nevada and Oregon's Mount Hood to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. The law expands wilderness designation — which blocks nearly all development — into areas that previously were not protected. Because of this law I think that it will help to improve the national park system and also help in restoring forests and preserving wild life. It is a large amount of land but with a growing country it seems to be a well needed thing to keep special places of this country protected.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
clean air act
In the 70s the government created the clean air act to regulate the pollutants that could cause damage to human health. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a list of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses and adding to the Clean Air Act. The EPA is afraid that impacts would cause serious health problems and increase the risk of more natural disasters. The EPA feel s if they declare global warming a health threat they could make better use of the Clean Air Act. There are other supporters and also those that criticize the plan.
Barrack Obama wants the EPA to review what Bush did when he denied California and other states from the right to control auto emissions along with other pollutants that are a major source of greenhouses gases. The Supreme Court supported the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act which Bush administration didn’t want to regulate. The Obama administration wanted to put mandatory limits on heat trapping emissions which he addressed to congress. There are critics out there that say that if smaller sources from gas station to power plants with a lot of federal rules. The supporters believe that the clean air act could be changed to exclude smaller ones and concentrate on larger facilities like power plants.
I agree it will require a lot of new permits and it might slow the economic recovery but if they try to work on the large plants that throw out a lot of pollutants. At least it will be a start to control the problem. How do we regulate the small places like gas stations that throw out pollutants without putting them under heavy restrictions? I think it is important to keep the green house gas under the control and keep our air clean. If don’t put restrictions on companies they will continue to throw out pollutants.
Barrack Obama wants the EPA to review what Bush did when he denied California and other states from the right to control auto emissions along with other pollutants that are a major source of greenhouses gases. The Supreme Court supported the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act which Bush administration didn’t want to regulate. The Obama administration wanted to put mandatory limits on heat trapping emissions which he addressed to congress. There are critics out there that say that if smaller sources from gas station to power plants with a lot of federal rules. The supporters believe that the clean air act could be changed to exclude smaller ones and concentrate on larger facilities like power plants.
I agree it will require a lot of new permits and it might slow the economic recovery but if they try to work on the large plants that throw out a lot of pollutants. At least it will be a start to control the problem. How do we regulate the small places like gas stations that throw out pollutants without putting them under heavy restrictions? I think it is important to keep the green house gas under the control and keep our air clean. If don’t put restrictions on companies they will continue to throw out pollutants.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama's Plan for the Mexican Border
This article is discussing Obama's consideration to deploy troops to the U.S./ Mexican border. President Obama stated this past Sunday, “Obviously there have been calls to increase National Guard troops on the borders”. The troops may in fact be National Guard troops that Obama will be deploying. President Obama believes the U.S. should continue consulting with the Mexican government as much as possible. Obama believes the U.S. should work on reducing the demand for drug and reducing the cash flow and gun distribution and he voiced that the violence along the Mexican American border is creating a serious threat to any communities that reside along the border; Obama said this problem has “gotten out of hand.” Obama also believes we should increase our personnel, surveillance equipment in order to help Mexico in their assistance to us.
I'm glad that the President is working on fixing this issue, however I feel like there are more pressing issues, such as with our current economic status, that he personally (along with several other expects) should be working on. obama even stated that he does not feel there is a threat with this issue so I am wondering why he himself is dealing with this issue and not with more pressing issues that do in fact cause a threat to the American people. Regardless, of the so-called pressing importance of this issue, I am pleased to see that he is trying to carry out such a cooperative relationship with our neighbor, Mexico.
I have not been following this particular subject, but it would be interesting to see how long it took President Obama to react to the issue and how long it will take for him to stop considering his options and to react to the issue at hand.
I'm glad that the President is working on fixing this issue, however I feel like there are more pressing issues, such as with our current economic status, that he personally (along with several other expects) should be working on. obama even stated that he does not feel there is a threat with this issue so I am wondering why he himself is dealing with this issue and not with more pressing issues that do in fact cause a threat to the American people. Regardless, of the so-called pressing importance of this issue, I am pleased to see that he is trying to carry out such a cooperative relationship with our neighbor, Mexico.
I have not been following this particular subject, but it would be interesting to see how long it took President Obama to react to the issue and how long it will take for him to stop considering his options and to react to the issue at hand.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Obama 'to increase Afghan force'
US President Barack Obama plans to send an extra 4,000 US troops to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan security forces, US officials say.
The war continues to go on. Iraq is still doing it's thing, rebuilding and so forth. The surge seemingly worked the country is making some serious progress, depending on your definition of progress. Afghan, which has been on the back burner in some people's minds, continues to wage forward with the "War on Terror" still rolling. Obama seems to believe that more forces are needed there:
"US President Barack Obama plans to send an extra 4,000 US troops to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan security forces, US officials say."
To me, this doesn't seem to make much sense. This country is currently stuck in an economic disaster because of the wars we are waging over seas. The money we are pumping "to spread democracy around the world" is over done and pointless. This country needs to get itself straight at home and realize that being an empire would eventually lead to failure as we are facing now and countless other countries have faced before us. We need that money to fuel our own economy instead of trying to stablize an area that will never be stable, no matte how much we want it to be.
The middle east, for thousands of years, has been a hotbed of conflict. Again, America needs to get off of its high horse and settle itself at home. "Eventually, the US hopes Afghan security forces will take over security operations and allow foreign forces to draw down". Eventually? What does that even mean? This war has continued far too long for reasons that can't justifiably be explained. My friend will be sent out to Afghanistan shortly after summer. Needless to say, he's excited to get his chance to go fight for this country. However, I'm scared that he will die for a cause that can't be justified. He would argue with me all day about this and he certainly has the right to, but as of now my personal belief is to come home and let's figure our own problems first.
It's up to Obama to end this War on a better lexicon than the "War on Terror". That could be the difference between liking his decision and dismissing it.
The war continues to go on. Iraq is still doing it's thing, rebuilding and so forth. The surge seemingly worked the country is making some serious progress, depending on your definition of progress. Afghan, which has been on the back burner in some people's minds, continues to wage forward with the "War on Terror" still rolling. Obama seems to believe that more forces are needed there:
"US President Barack Obama plans to send an extra 4,000 US troops to Afghanistan to help train the Afghan security forces, US officials say."
To me, this doesn't seem to make much sense. This country is currently stuck in an economic disaster because of the wars we are waging over seas. The money we are pumping "to spread democracy around the world" is over done and pointless. This country needs to get itself straight at home and realize that being an empire would eventually lead to failure as we are facing now and countless other countries have faced before us. We need that money to fuel our own economy instead of trying to stablize an area that will never be stable, no matte how much we want it to be.
The middle east, for thousands of years, has been a hotbed of conflict. Again, America needs to get off of its high horse and settle itself at home. "Eventually, the US hopes Afghan security forces will take over security operations and allow foreign forces to draw down". Eventually? What does that even mean? This war has continued far too long for reasons that can't justifiably be explained. My friend will be sent out to Afghanistan shortly after summer. Needless to say, he's excited to get his chance to go fight for this country. However, I'm scared that he will die for a cause that can't be justified. He would argue with me all day about this and he certainly has the right to, but as of now my personal belief is to come home and let's figure our own problems first.
It's up to Obama to end this War on a better lexicon than the "War on Terror". That could be the difference between liking his decision and dismissing it.
U.S. Economy
The effects of our economy have caused businesses and people to act in ways they might not have years ago. Through the ups and downs of the market, it has been difficult to determine exactly where the safest place is to invest, now in late March of 2009. Just from reading the USA Today daily, one can see the difficult times people are feeling in the majority of industries. An article written by Bruce Horovitz, from the USA Today money section brought an eye to chain restaurants forced to restructure their menus to keep up with demand. Comparable to fast foods, one can get an entrée for fewer than ten dollars; a price for dinner not even 1992 could handle. As restaurants struggle for business, as does the dairy industry, with their price dropping below four dollars for a gallon of milk. A barrel of crude oil, once going for the high $140’s and better was once down in the low $40 not two months ago, and now climbing to the low $50 range at the close of yesterday’s market. With such an unsteady oil market, businesses that truly depend on such a resource seem to be questionable at this point in time.
Being a young investor in the market, I try to read and re-read what people across the board have to say about our economy. There are those outlooks from billionaires who differ greatly from the perspectives of middle class workers losing their 401K packages; all of which are valid impute to the progress of the market. There are other markets that have caused their very own downfall. For example the airline industries, which have given out far too many “frequent-flier miles” and has become difficult to generate profits which has forced them to reorganize. I have gained a sense of “spring cleaning” going on in the market over the last couple of months, yet I don’t feel as if it is such a bad thing. In times like these, organizations truly see who, what, and where money is being lost, giving them the opportunities to fix them if they would like to compete in this competitive capitalistic market.
I feel as if our President of the United States has still, a lot on his plate to handle. No matter Republican or Democrat, we are giving our trust to President Obama. We now need a commanding leader who can remove the once dominate superpower from a time of recession and become a commodity to the rest of the world yet again. As the President has stated, the push for alternative energies will be a part of the future that cannot be overlooked. Just from driving down I95, from the visible eye, one can tell there are far too many smoke stacks emitting who knows what, and many 300,000sq feet manufacturing buildings vacant looking for tenants. Haven outsourced all of our manufacturing across seas to receive cheaper labor costs, we as American’s must not forget our patriotic pride.
With over a trillion dollar budget projected for the next year, the need for such an investment to prosper is crucial for our country as a whole. As seen in the 1930’s, governmental spending can stimulate the economy and especially lower the unemployment rate. What was also learned from that governmental spending in the 30’s was that once it was cut the worst times ever seen was witnessed do to the unexpected blowbacks. President Obama obviously has the approval or our county, and we are all hoping that his actions will speak loader that his words.
Being a young investor in the market, I try to read and re-read what people across the board have to say about our economy. There are those outlooks from billionaires who differ greatly from the perspectives of middle class workers losing their 401K packages; all of which are valid impute to the progress of the market. There are other markets that have caused their very own downfall. For example the airline industries, which have given out far too many “frequent-flier miles” and has become difficult to generate profits which has forced them to reorganize. I have gained a sense of “spring cleaning” going on in the market over the last couple of months, yet I don’t feel as if it is such a bad thing. In times like these, organizations truly see who, what, and where money is being lost, giving them the opportunities to fix them if they would like to compete in this competitive capitalistic market.
I feel as if our President of the United States has still, a lot on his plate to handle. No matter Republican or Democrat, we are giving our trust to President Obama. We now need a commanding leader who can remove the once dominate superpower from a time of recession and become a commodity to the rest of the world yet again. As the President has stated, the push for alternative energies will be a part of the future that cannot be overlooked. Just from driving down I95, from the visible eye, one can tell there are far too many smoke stacks emitting who knows what, and many 300,000sq feet manufacturing buildings vacant looking for tenants. Haven outsourced all of our manufacturing across seas to receive cheaper labor costs, we as American’s must not forget our patriotic pride.
With over a trillion dollar budget projected for the next year, the need for such an investment to prosper is crucial for our country as a whole. As seen in the 1930’s, governmental spending can stimulate the economy and especially lower the unemployment rate. What was also learned from that governmental spending in the 30’s was that once it was cut the worst times ever seen was witnessed do to the unexpected blowbacks. President Obama obviously has the approval or our county, and we are all hoping that his actions will speak loader that his words.
Friday, March 20, 2009
"Government in the Sunshine Week?" What about our Media?
This might be a little off-topic, but I think that in tough economic times all is fair. First off, let me direct you to this interview with Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart. Now, now, I know Jon Stewart hosts a show that is notorious for having viewers who are pot heads and liberals (or worse....both!), but I think Stewart is probably one of the most level-headed political analysts out there, with a hilarious wit to boot (if you thought Colbert was funny, just pick up some literature by Stewart). So, please, sit down and watch the interview, as I really, really enjoyed what the two tackled in their conversation.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
But let's put things in perspective here: we all know that the government should have transparency to its citizens, because after all, people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people (hey, thanks, V for Vendetta!). But people like Cramer leave a lot of room for criticism, which of course goes without mentioning those lovely folks at AIG, Bernie Madoff and oh the list just goes on. When is it time for citizens of America to start taking control of their own economy? It seems so much like we're sitting back and going for the ride as government and the economic giants get to take action themselves. Additionally, Barack Obama is here to save us, right? Now I'm not going to be one to say that government needs to control the media. But why is it that we allow economics to become entertainment? I don't think it's ironic to think that C-SPAN is boring as hell. There are always political shows out there to voice opinions on political issues, which is fine. But when it comes to economics, you'd think things might be a bit more black and white. And, finally, the lack of oversight on the bailout money should enrage us as a nation.
What Stewart has to say about the media making bucks off of economics as entertainment reciprocates just as much to the people who watch these shows. What can the citizens of America do to these media giants to demand that they not toy with our money, and quite frankly, our livelihood? There are plenty of ways to do your own research to find who owns what company and what their political views are (there's a whole fiasco concerning a guitar company called Danelectro, for instance, and many people are boycotting their products indefinately because the owner is donating so much money to support California's Proposition 8). Perhaps there should be a "media in the sunshine week," because I think it's very obvious how much impact the media has on each and every one of us, despite how we like to point fingers at it, as well as the government.
I'm not going to sit here and say that I have the answer of how to fix media irresponsibility, especially considering their apathy for the well-being of their viewers. Nor do I really have the exact means of how to fix problems regarding the bailout, government oversight, and so on. But I think that it's really time more Americans had a voice, and I think Stewart's words in the interview have the capability of being that spark that us Americans need.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
But let's put things in perspective here: we all know that the government should have transparency to its citizens, because after all, people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people (hey, thanks, V for Vendetta!). But people like Cramer leave a lot of room for criticism, which of course goes without mentioning those lovely folks at AIG, Bernie Madoff and oh the list just goes on. When is it time for citizens of America to start taking control of their own economy? It seems so much like we're sitting back and going for the ride as government and the economic giants get to take action themselves. Additionally, Barack Obama is here to save us, right? Now I'm not going to be one to say that government needs to control the media. But why is it that we allow economics to become entertainment? I don't think it's ironic to think that C-SPAN is boring as hell. There are always political shows out there to voice opinions on political issues, which is fine. But when it comes to economics, you'd think things might be a bit more black and white. And, finally, the lack of oversight on the bailout money should enrage us as a nation.
What Stewart has to say about the media making bucks off of economics as entertainment reciprocates just as much to the people who watch these shows. What can the citizens of America do to these media giants to demand that they not toy with our money, and quite frankly, our livelihood? There are plenty of ways to do your own research to find who owns what company and what their political views are (there's a whole fiasco concerning a guitar company called Danelectro, for instance, and many people are boycotting their products indefinately because the owner is donating so much money to support California's Proposition 8). Perhaps there should be a "media in the sunshine week," because I think it's very obvious how much impact the media has on each and every one of us, despite how we like to point fingers at it, as well as the government.
I'm not going to sit here and say that I have the answer of how to fix media irresponsibility, especially considering their apathy for the well-being of their viewers. Nor do I really have the exact means of how to fix problems regarding the bailout, government oversight, and so on. But I think that it's really time more Americans had a voice, and I think Stewart's words in the interview have the capability of being that spark that us Americans need.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Confidence in a Tough Economy
Over this nation's history great leaders have stepped up to motivate and calm this nation when things seemed to be getting out of hand or we just needed to hear a clear voice. We look to our president for advice and encouragement, kind of like what a son or daughter asks from their parents. At this moment in time the American people are also asking this of Obama. He is responding back. In an article written by the AP and posted on www.foxnews.com, things are"not as bad as we think". This comes as unemployment rises and the economy steadily declines.
However, that's not really the point. We need people to calm down to start making smart, worth while decisions. That is the point that Obama is trying to make.
Again, we beg the question of how many roles does the president really have to fill? Is his job really doable? On top of the economic crisis, he's been having to fight hard for Gay's Rights as well as fighting for Embryo Research. These are just a couple of the many issues that the president faces. At times, it seems that we are asking too much from the president or maybe that we are ready to put the blame all on him if things fail, even though its the congress and his committees that are doing a lot of the work. The nation is not in a complete craze yet but things could start turning that way if people don't start seeing some improvements. Obama, then, has the job of pleasing the people and saving what seems to be a spiraling nation from economic disaster. Is that really in the job description or just another one of those implied powers?
Building confidence is also a double edged sword. This nation doesn't need anymore "false" hope. It's tough for the people to hear promises but see none of them really work out. Or to promise one thing but do another. We've somewhat already had that with the past president. Obama also knows he is walking a fine line. Sometimes all the people want to hear is that everything is going to be alright. Other times, they want to know they will be alright. He has to be careful in his wording and decision making to accomplish both.
However, that's not really the point. We need people to calm down to start making smart, worth while decisions. That is the point that Obama is trying to make.
"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and 'Ooohh, we're down on the dumps,"' he said. "And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment."
Again, we beg the question of how many roles does the president really have to fill? Is his job really doable? On top of the economic crisis, he's been having to fight hard for Gay's Rights as well as fighting for Embryo Research. These are just a couple of the many issues that the president faces. At times, it seems that we are asking too much from the president or maybe that we are ready to put the blame all on him if things fail, even though its the congress and his committees that are doing a lot of the work. The nation is not in a complete craze yet but things could start turning that way if people don't start seeing some improvements. Obama, then, has the job of pleasing the people and saving what seems to be a spiraling nation from economic disaster. Is that really in the job description or just another one of those implied powers?
Building confidence is also a double edged sword. This nation doesn't need anymore "false" hope. It's tough for the people to hear promises but see none of them really work out. Or to promise one thing but do another. We've somewhat already had that with the past president. Obama also knows he is walking a fine line. Sometimes all the people want to hear is that everything is going to be alright. Other times, they want to know they will be alright. He has to be careful in his wording and decision making to accomplish both.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama takes a stand in the right direction: stem cell research advances
Recently on March 9, 2009, the NY Times printed an article about President Obama and the new direction his administration is going in regards to stem cell research. This has been over the latest years a very controversial topic. In the Bush Administration stem cell research was not given any recognition nor profits to advance their research and now presently, Obama is lifting those strict limitations and giving researchers more room to explore. Part of the controversy is cloning, but President Obama is quoted by saying, "It's dangerous, and profoundly wrong and has no place in our society or any society," (Obama, 09). However, like the dangerous drawbacks to stem-cell research, there are also several positive ideas that could come of it including, reintegrating science into public policy and also by possibly helping to cure diseases.
In an article released by CBS on their website they discuss the possible positive effects of stem cell research. Scientists have recently discovered a way to produce stem-cells without killing embryos. By doing so they're able to replace organs that may be infected with a disease to cure diseases including Parkinson's and Diabetes. The fear at first was that the body would reject the stem cells but because they're made with one's own skin, the body is able to recognize the new cells and adapt them into the body. This could be a great step for scientific research nation-wide, however the fear of cloning may always link in the back of our minds.
What are other countries doing and thinking internationally? Well according to the Herald Tribune in Vatican city they're doing the opposite of praising the advancement of science, and instead are slamming it due to its immoral stature. The Vatican thinks it's a step in the wrong direction. He is quoted by saying in conclusion, 'there will be "no stopping point" if humans are treated as mere objects of research,' (Vatican, 09).
In the past year Europe has advanced as far as doing stem cell surgery. In the BBC News they released a story about Surgeon's in Spain that performed a surgery on a woman's windpipe. They implanted an entirely new organ made with the woman's own stem cells. The woman had had a disease and thus had to replace it, thus they took a deceased trachea from a donor patient and combined it with chemicals that could clean it completely before transplanting it. Than applied the new stem cells onto the tissues and placed it into her body. As previously stated, by doing so the surgeon is able to trick your body to think that the new organ is a part of your body so that the body does not reject it.
It's in these ways that in our lifetime we will be able to see the advancement of stem cell research work in ways as to help cure diseases and create a new direction for science involvement in public policies. The more it is accepted internationally, I feel the more it will be accepted here in the U.S.
Drug Czar being Demoted
President Obama is removing the position of Drug Czar from a cabinet ranking office. The position of Drug Czar was first a cabinet member in 1988, because of Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Vice President Joe Biden first coined the title in 1982; he was somewhat of a zealot in his campaign against drugs. Biden said of medical marijuana “We have not devoted nearly enough science or time to deal with the pain management and chronic pain management that exists. There’s got to be a better answer than marijuana.” Ironically in 1989 Biden criticized then President Bush’s downgrade of the position of Drug Czar from cabinet level position. George W. Bush again made Drug Czar a cabinet position in 2001, now in 2008 drugs are seemingly less of an issue than they have ever been. The vice president announced the nomination of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the new Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; his position will no longer be a cabinet level one. Of this downgrade the administration says that it is “is fortunate to have a vice president with an unrivaled breadth of knowledge about federal drug policy," says an administration official. "Never before has there been someone with this level of knowledge who is as close to the president as Vice President Biden”. Is the downgrade of the position of drug czar a sign of changing perceptions about drug use and the best ways to deal with it? Many illegal drugs such as Marijuana could and do have medical uses, maybe the administration is taking step to a more tolerant policy on drugs in general. President Obama himself has admitted he tried cocaine and marijuana. Another reason possibly for the change in position is that there is just too much else to worry about. The war in Iraq, a failing economy etc... Etc... Is a War on Drugs really that important anymore? With so much brutality in the drug trade i.e. the Mexican Border, legalization could possibly stop much of that violence. In the end a person’s body is their own and should the government really be allowed to tell one what to put in it?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Highways and Byways
Today’s new stimulus package with regards to new construction and infrastructure sparks an interest in my mind. Such projects are designed to create new jobs, strengthen highways and byways, as well as create long-term structures that are built to last. Having spent summers laying driveways, sidewalks, and other similar projects, a few things in terms of “long-run improvements” become questionable with the methods we use here in the United States. Our opinion of long-term investment, for roads anyways, here in the U.S. is a stretch to say they will last ten or more years. Whereas places such as France and England; an investment in such a project that will last sometimes three times as long.
My argument begins with the research of England’s department of works and engineering. Such methods of construction used in England are designed and actually hold their value for thirty or more years from the time of completion. Roads, bridges, and walkways are only as good as the ground they are built on. From the persons I have spoken with as well as the readings that coincide, England in particular, are far more advanced in terms of spending more initially for construction and far less often. With the extra monies spent on materials and labor up front, it allows for a lot less spending overall, and specifically far less frequently on reoccurring issues. Complex methods of compacting sub grades and base prep such as coarse gravels and crushed stone allows for the implantation of an asphalt road way that does not need to be replaced every ten years; a true long-term investment.
We in the United States travel on roads that are far from comfortable each day. Whether it is frost heaves, washouts, pot holes, or deteriorating road conditions, we as American’s pay top dollar for such roads, as well as top dollar to get out automobiles fixed when the shocks, struts, or breaks go. If billions of dollars from this stimulus package will be dispersed throughout the country for road improvements and new infrastructure, shouldn’t these projects last? I find myself asking questions as to why we invest in such projects that are anything but long-term. Although initial cost for a place like England are far more alarming, have we ever stopped to look at how much money is lost due to poor construction and poor planning?
If companies need funding and bailout plans, it simply means what they we offering prior did not fully meet the needs our structure. Construction follows along the same line. Roads that cost millions and billions of dollars each year should probably be reassessed. There are other countries out there, such as England, who realized what is needed to be done in order to not spend outstanding amounts of money every ten years. Monies allocated for roadways and similar construction project are suppose to be considered long-term investments, not something that needs to be addressed only ten years after the fact. We as the United States have the capability and influence to create a more permanent method of travel that can endure the tough weather and ware from constant travel and salt applications. The one question I ask is, why haven’t we?
My argument begins with the research of England’s department of works and engineering. Such methods of construction used in England are designed and actually hold their value for thirty or more years from the time of completion. Roads, bridges, and walkways are only as good as the ground they are built on. From the persons I have spoken with as well as the readings that coincide, England in particular, are far more advanced in terms of spending more initially for construction and far less often. With the extra monies spent on materials and labor up front, it allows for a lot less spending overall, and specifically far less frequently on reoccurring issues. Complex methods of compacting sub grades and base prep such as coarse gravels and crushed stone allows for the implantation of an asphalt road way that does not need to be replaced every ten years; a true long-term investment.
We in the United States travel on roads that are far from comfortable each day. Whether it is frost heaves, washouts, pot holes, or deteriorating road conditions, we as American’s pay top dollar for such roads, as well as top dollar to get out automobiles fixed when the shocks, struts, or breaks go. If billions of dollars from this stimulus package will be dispersed throughout the country for road improvements and new infrastructure, shouldn’t these projects last? I find myself asking questions as to why we invest in such projects that are anything but long-term. Although initial cost for a place like England are far more alarming, have we ever stopped to look at how much money is lost due to poor construction and poor planning?
If companies need funding and bailout plans, it simply means what they we offering prior did not fully meet the needs our structure. Construction follows along the same line. Roads that cost millions and billions of dollars each year should probably be reassessed. There are other countries out there, such as England, who realized what is needed to be done in order to not spend outstanding amounts of money every ten years. Monies allocated for roadways and similar construction project are suppose to be considered long-term investments, not something that needs to be addressed only ten years after the fact. We as the United States have the capability and influence to create a more permanent method of travel that can endure the tough weather and ware from constant travel and salt applications. The one question I ask is, why haven’t we?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Abe Lincoln Number 1
It has been 200 hundred years since the birth of our beloved Abraham Lincoln. In February 65 historians ranked Lincoln as the number one US President. The Presidents in this article were ranked in 10catergoires and Lincoln was able to the top three in each of the 10 categories. Another study of this type was done in 2000 by CPSAN. Edna Medford points out that “presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns” Under Lincoln, Gorge Washington, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman reached top ranking spots.
It is interesting to see that Lincoln takes the top spot out of all the presidents. One must ask the question if Abraham Lincoln would not have died would he still be ranked number one? As the years continue to progress and technology excels historians are able to discover new things that can unleash new theories. Who knows maybe one day Gorge W Bush will rank higher than 36.
Check the article out at
http://wcbstv.com/politics/us.president.rankings.2.935860.html
It is interesting to see that Lincoln takes the top spot out of all the presidents. One must ask the question if Abraham Lincoln would not have died would he still be ranked number one? As the years continue to progress and technology excels historians are able to discover new things that can unleash new theories. Who knows maybe one day Gorge W Bush will rank higher than 36.
Check the article out at
http://wcbstv.com/politics/us.president.rankings.2.935860.html
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Troops out by August 2010?
Obama has a plan of leaving behind about 50,000 troops in Iraq and pulling out about 90,000 to start coming home by August of 2010. This seems promising and necessary but something doesn't make sense to me.
I am part of the US Coast Guard Reserves in a deployable unit that will be working security in the Middle East with the Army. During one of my training sessions with the Army (this was well before the election), an Army Staff Sergeant was telling us that even if we were to just stop the war all together it would take at least three years to get everyone out. Reason being is because we would have to bring home everything that we brought there. This isn't just troops, it's the tanks, weapons, tents, gymnasiums, and whatever else we brought over there when we started this "war on terrorism." A little off topic with this, but you can't just declare a war on a criminal act. Haven't we learned from the war on drugs?
There is a lot of criticism with the 50,000 troops Obama wants to leave there but to me it is justified. They have to leave people there to man the bases there and provide security on all of their equipment. Not to mention that we have to train the Iraqi forces as well. I like the ideas Obama is coming up with, I am just hoping that it all works out.
The NY Times reported that the leftover 50,000 troops would focus on training Iraqi security forces, hunting down terrorists, and protecting American institutions. I agree with the 1st and 3rd missions but hunting down terrorists is ridiculous. If we can find the big guys in the terrorist organizations, so be it. But what happens when we knock out a leader? The guy under him gets an immediate promotion! When will we learn?? It's a waste of money. Remember Pablo Escobar? When he was shot and killed? Did it stop cocaine from coming into America?? Hell no. We can only take up measures to prevent it from coming into our shores. So I agree with the Homeland Security idea but going out fishing for terrorists is a waste of our troops' lives, our Country's money, and simply a waste of time.
I am part of the US Coast Guard Reserves in a deployable unit that will be working security in the Middle East with the Army. During one of my training sessions with the Army (this was well before the election), an Army Staff Sergeant was telling us that even if we were to just stop the war all together it would take at least three years to get everyone out. Reason being is because we would have to bring home everything that we brought there. This isn't just troops, it's the tanks, weapons, tents, gymnasiums, and whatever else we brought over there when we started this "war on terrorism." A little off topic with this, but you can't just declare a war on a criminal act. Haven't we learned from the war on drugs?
There is a lot of criticism with the 50,000 troops Obama wants to leave there but to me it is justified. They have to leave people there to man the bases there and provide security on all of their equipment. Not to mention that we have to train the Iraqi forces as well. I like the ideas Obama is coming up with, I am just hoping that it all works out.
The NY Times reported that the leftover 50,000 troops would focus on training Iraqi security forces, hunting down terrorists, and protecting American institutions. I agree with the 1st and 3rd missions but hunting down terrorists is ridiculous. If we can find the big guys in the terrorist organizations, so be it. But what happens when we knock out a leader? The guy under him gets an immediate promotion! When will we learn?? It's a waste of money. Remember Pablo Escobar? When he was shot and killed? Did it stop cocaine from coming into America?? Hell no. We can only take up measures to prevent it from coming into our shores. So I agree with the Homeland Security idea but going out fishing for terrorists is a waste of our troops' lives, our Country's money, and simply a waste of time.
Environmental Policy
With the coming of a new age guided by President Obama’s tutelage, the country has been left in the dust concerning green technology and environmental sensitivity. President Bush had no time or concern for environmental policy or research which many attribute this to his special interest groups that so graciously funded his campaign. President Obama and Vice President Biden have implemented a new strategy for the future of America, it is called, “New Energy for America”.
In this doctrine it spells out the future goals that they have for the American people. The largest and most important on the list are creating jobs, reducing carbon production, decreasing oil dependency, short term relief funds, initiation of hybrid cars, and the use of electricity from renewable sources. Obviously these issues are nothing new, and how can we believe that Obama will help push these initiatives into action? Well, no one can say for sure that all of his top priorities will be carried out, but he does have long term plans that may help the Country.
Interestingly, Obama is trying to lead by example, and in doing so he has asked that the White House Fleet be converted to plug in hybrid vehicles, (Security Permitting). I feel personally that a personal stance such is this is a great message to send to the United States and the rest of the world. Obama does on the other hand have some tall orders in which he would like to take care of. One item that may be tough is ensuring that in 2012 10% of the US’s electricity is provided by renewable sources.
Lastly, our dependence for oil is in any case outrageous, but Obama is trying to bring that dependence to the home front. By harnessing oil reserves in Montana, Texas, and Alaska, Obama plans to reduce the cost at the pump. This however, has caused much controversy among environmental activists. Do we save the caribou, grizzly bears, and snowshoe hare, or do we drill and help out with our economic crisis. A highly debated issue with no compromise is something that I understand is very difficult for a President to encounter. As in any situation when dealing with economic stability, the mighty dollar speaks the truth, whether it is right or wrong.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for American
In this doctrine it spells out the future goals that they have for the American people. The largest and most important on the list are creating jobs, reducing carbon production, decreasing oil dependency, short term relief funds, initiation of hybrid cars, and the use of electricity from renewable sources. Obviously these issues are nothing new, and how can we believe that Obama will help push these initiatives into action? Well, no one can say for sure that all of his top priorities will be carried out, but he does have long term plans that may help the Country.
Interestingly, Obama is trying to lead by example, and in doing so he has asked that the White House Fleet be converted to plug in hybrid vehicles, (Security Permitting). I feel personally that a personal stance such is this is a great message to send to the United States and the rest of the world. Obama does on the other hand have some tall orders in which he would like to take care of. One item that may be tough is ensuring that in 2012 10% of the US’s electricity is provided by renewable sources.
Lastly, our dependence for oil is in any case outrageous, but Obama is trying to bring that dependence to the home front. By harnessing oil reserves in Montana, Texas, and Alaska, Obama plans to reduce the cost at the pump. This however, has caused much controversy among environmental activists. Do we save the caribou, grizzly bears, and snowshoe hare, or do we drill and help out with our economic crisis. A highly debated issue with no compromise is something that I understand is very difficult for a President to encounter. As in any situation when dealing with economic stability, the mighty dollar speaks the truth, whether it is right or wrong.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for American
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Let's Talk Sports
Seriously. Considering Mr. Obama's made a point about doing something for college sports, namely football, while in office, I'd say it's pretty appropriate.
The 'Bowl Champion Series' is pretty much college football's championship series, with the BCS Bowl being the biggest championship to win. Since these teams are selected to compete in the deisgnated bowl games, there is no playoff season, causing some obvious room for disagreement. Some people believe that the system needs to be reworked, as it does not always honor the best teams of the nation. In fact, some division I schools are not even part of the BCS, which really means to them, since the BCS is the biggest series, that they do not really get a true championship game. So many believe that there should be a playoff series within college football to decide this.
During a Monday Night Football game, the day before the election, the commentators had a brief interview with Senator McCain and President Obama during half-time. When asked what kind of changes Mr. Obama would like to see with sports programs, he expressed that he would like to see some sort of playoff system for college football.
According to this article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18226.html, Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) agrees with Obama. However unlikely the two are as a team, I think it's symbolic of politicians coming together in a bipartisan manner to solve real issues that some people can relate to. On the other hand, I wonder what kind of obstacles government might face if some sort of bill enforced a playoff system if it were passed into law.
Regardless, many desire for a better system to see their favorite team or their school get the ability to win a national title. And, in my view, I think that the wolrd of sports and the world of politics are a little distant, and it's nice to see sports fans are having a voice in politics concerning something they find similar to their interests.
The 'Bowl Champion Series' is pretty much college football's championship series, with the BCS Bowl being the biggest championship to win. Since these teams are selected to compete in the deisgnated bowl games, there is no playoff season, causing some obvious room for disagreement. Some people believe that the system needs to be reworked, as it does not always honor the best teams of the nation. In fact, some division I schools are not even part of the BCS, which really means to them, since the BCS is the biggest series, that they do not really get a true championship game. So many believe that there should be a playoff series within college football to decide this.
During a Monday Night Football game, the day before the election, the commentators had a brief interview with Senator McCain and President Obama during half-time. When asked what kind of changes Mr. Obama would like to see with sports programs, he expressed that he would like to see some sort of playoff system for college football.
According to this article, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18226.html, Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas) agrees with Obama. However unlikely the two are as a team, I think it's symbolic of politicians coming together in a bipartisan manner to solve real issues that some people can relate to. On the other hand, I wonder what kind of obstacles government might face if some sort of bill enforced a playoff system if it were passed into law.
Regardless, many desire for a better system to see their favorite team or their school get the ability to win a national title. And, in my view, I think that the wolrd of sports and the world of politics are a little distant, and it's nice to see sports fans are having a voice in politics concerning something they find similar to their interests.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Obama Shifts Focus to Afghanistan
This article is talking about Obama's plan to withdraw 17,000 troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. Currently, Iraq is "peaceful" and Afghanistan is becoming a threat to America. Obama stated during his campaign that he would shift America’s military effort away from Iraq. Obama is following through with his promise. Obama is shifting his attention from Iraq to Afghanistan: the greater of the two evils.
There seems to be unsettling feeling dealing with Obama's plan. The article states that this plan by Obama could leave Iraq in a state of instability. This would be caused by the troops being withdrawn within the next sixteen months which is deemed to be too soon. Commanders in Iraq are worried that Iraqi insurgents will attack due to the security gap that was caused from the quick withdrawal.
Obama believes that withdrawing from Iraq will "responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq" allowing "us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan." The troops that are going to Afghanistan are not being deployed from Iraq. These troops were Iraq-bounded but have changed course to go to Afghanistan. The Afghani bound troops are going to southern-Afghanistan due to the worsen security situation that has developed over the course of the last year.
Obama is excising his right as Commander-in-Chief because Obama stated that there was a direct threat from Al Qaeda to America and this was a major factor in his decision making. Obama was quoted saying “The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action” and that “The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.” Obama's orders for the troop switch appears to be for the greater good of his fellow Americans thus Obama is doing his job as Commander-in-Chief which is too command American militia.
My article was Obama Shifts Focus to Afghanistan:
There seems to be unsettling feeling dealing with Obama's plan. The article states that this plan by Obama could leave Iraq in a state of instability. This would be caused by the troops being withdrawn within the next sixteen months which is deemed to be too soon. Commanders in Iraq are worried that Iraqi insurgents will attack due to the security gap that was caused from the quick withdrawal.
Obama believes that withdrawing from Iraq will "responsibly drawdown our forces in Iraq" allowing "us the flexibility to increase our presence in Afghanistan." The troops that are going to Afghanistan are not being deployed from Iraq. These troops were Iraq-bounded but have changed course to go to Afghanistan. The Afghani bound troops are going to southern-Afghanistan due to the worsen security situation that has developed over the course of the last year.
Obama is excising his right as Commander-in-Chief because Obama stated that there was a direct threat from Al Qaeda to America and this was a major factor in his decision making. Obama was quoted saying “The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action” and that “The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border.” Obama's orders for the troop switch appears to be for the greater good of his fellow Americans thus Obama is doing his job as Commander-in-Chief which is too command American militia.
My article was Obama Shifts Focus to Afghanistan:
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Blog Schedule
Your post should be up by Thursday of the week you are schedules for.
2/16--------- 3/30
Trevor------- Zach
Zach--------- Melissa
Melissa -------Lacey
2/23 --------- 4/6
Trevor-------- Chris L
Jim ------------Jim
TJ -------------Tracie
3/2------------ 4/13
Chris L. ------- Greg
Chris B-------- Lindsay
Greg ----------Seth
TJ ------------4/20
3/9 -----------Andrew
Lacey--------- Seth
Lindsay -------Jane
Tracie--------- 4/27
3/23 ----------Andrew
Chris B
Jane
2/16--------- 3/30
Trevor------- Zach
Zach--------- Melissa
Melissa -------Lacey
2/23 --------- 4/6
Trevor-------- Chris L
Jim ------------Jim
TJ -------------Tracie
3/2------------ 4/13
Chris L. ------- Greg
Chris B-------- Lindsay
Greg ----------Seth
TJ ------------4/20
3/9 -----------Andrew
Lacey--------- Seth
Lindsay -------Jane
Tracie--------- 4/27
3/23 ----------Andrew
Chris B
Jane
Sunday, February 8, 2009
A first test in foreign policy for the President?
Now that I've finally figured out how to contribute rather than just look at the blog...
On my way home Friday NPR was running a story about how the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan) is likely going to evict the US from a base it uses to supply our efforts in Afghanistan. (http://www.manas.afcent.af.mil/) While many pundits feel it's a money issue since the Kyrgyzstan government stated that they wanted more money for us to rent the base, other pundits feel it's an issue of the Russians trying to eek us out of a role of influence in its back yard. The Central Asian Republics WERE part of the Soviet Union, after all.
It sort of reminds me of how the US was evicted from the base at Kharsi-Khanabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshi-Khanabad) a few years ago, which I covered in breif in my term paper on US relations with Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) for Dr. Shirley's American Foreign Policy class last year. Basically, the Uzbekistan government gave us the boot, saying they didn't like us getting involved in their domestic affairs, after we protested the government's actions in suppressing a demonstration using deadly force. Again, many pundits saw it as the Russians reasserting influence in the region.
President Obama has an opportunity to gain a critical win here, both in the war on terrorism in support of our efforts in Afghanistan, and as a way to foil the Russians. In my view, the Obama administration should call the government of Kyrgyzstan on the rent issue, offering more money in return for a renewal of the lease. The current amount was cited by NPR on Friday at, I believe, $120 or so million a year. So, let me get this straight, we have $800 BILLION to toss about for a stimulus bill that's highly divisive, but not a few million more to help us win in Afghanistan, which the President has already stated he'd like to make a priority???
If we offer the kind of money the Kyrgyzstan government is saying they want, and they still refuse, there isn't really a whole lot we can do about that. The Russians probably offered something better. But if they take our offer, it could be seen as two important early wins for the Obama administration in the very first weeks of his Presidency. The first is we get to keep the base in Kyrgyzstan, which NPR reported sees about 15,000 troops move through it every month, as well as plenty of supplies, thus helping us regain control over Afghanistan. And let's face it, Pakistani land routes keep looking less and less of a sure thing, as the recent bombing of a bridge through the Khyber Pass demonstrates (though I think it was on the Afghan side). Secondly, it shows the Russians that Obama's not afraid to take them on, even in something seemingly so trivial as this.
On my way home Friday NPR was running a story about how the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan) is likely going to evict the US from a base it uses to supply our efforts in Afghanistan. (http://www.manas.afcent.af.mil/) While many pundits feel it's a money issue since the Kyrgyzstan government stated that they wanted more money for us to rent the base, other pundits feel it's an issue of the Russians trying to eek us out of a role of influence in its back yard. The Central Asian Republics WERE part of the Soviet Union, after all.
It sort of reminds me of how the US was evicted from the base at Kharsi-Khanabad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karshi-Khanabad) a few years ago, which I covered in breif in my term paper on US relations with Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan) for Dr. Shirley's American Foreign Policy class last year. Basically, the Uzbekistan government gave us the boot, saying they didn't like us getting involved in their domestic affairs, after we protested the government's actions in suppressing a demonstration using deadly force. Again, many pundits saw it as the Russians reasserting influence in the region.
President Obama has an opportunity to gain a critical win here, both in the war on terrorism in support of our efforts in Afghanistan, and as a way to foil the Russians. In my view, the Obama administration should call the government of Kyrgyzstan on the rent issue, offering more money in return for a renewal of the lease. The current amount was cited by NPR on Friday at, I believe, $120 or so million a year. So, let me get this straight, we have $800 BILLION to toss about for a stimulus bill that's highly divisive, but not a few million more to help us win in Afghanistan, which the President has already stated he'd like to make a priority???
If we offer the kind of money the Kyrgyzstan government is saying they want, and they still refuse, there isn't really a whole lot we can do about that. The Russians probably offered something better. But if they take our offer, it could be seen as two important early wins for the Obama administration in the very first weeks of his Presidency. The first is we get to keep the base in Kyrgyzstan, which NPR reported sees about 15,000 troops move through it every month, as well as plenty of supplies, thus helping us regain control over Afghanistan. And let's face it, Pakistani land routes keep looking less and less of a sure thing, as the recent bombing of a bridge through the Khyber Pass demonstrates (though I think it was on the Afghan side). Secondly, it shows the Russians that Obama's not afraid to take them on, even in something seemingly so trivial as this.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Welcome to our Spring 2009 Blog!
The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting!
A few rules to follow:
1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!
2. No jerks.
3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.
4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.
5. You are expected to post a story on or before Thursday of the week assigned below.
Now--get blogging!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)