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
Thursday, February 12, 2009
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!
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
MTV
I was watching tv the other night and saw McCain on there talking himself up, i like how the candidates are now going on "kid" stations so we notice when they are on. sometimes it is hard to tell when they are on CNN or something because we never look at those stations enough to realize when they are on....i leanred alot about mccain and what he had to offer through SNHU holding him in a room for a press conference....He just answered the questions and i listened to what he had to say....i remember a month ago whne Brack was on there but i missed it but i wish i saw what he had to say to compare the two.....i like that MTV got invovled and it helepd me get into the race more.....
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Giuliani
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The New York city comptroller's office in 2002 raised red flags about former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's $34,000 in security and travel spending on trips to the Hamptons.
Former New York Mayor and current presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani says he has no direct knowledge of how the spending records were handled.
The charges were spread among departments under his control, city records show.
The comptroller's office questioned the expenses after Giuliani -- now a Republican presidential candidate -- left office.
Asked about the controversy during Wednesday night's Republican debate, sponsored by CNN, Giuliani said he was not responsible for how the expenses were reported.
"They took care of me, and they took care of their records, and they handled them in the way they handled them," he said "I had nothing to do with the handling of their records. They were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately."
Giuliani said he had a 24-hour security detail for the entirety of his two four-year terms as mayor.
Earlier Wednesday, a Giuliani adviser told CNN the mayor was constantly accompanied by bodyguards, whether at work or on vacation.
"These were all legitimate expenses incurred while protecting the mayor, which is a 24/7 enterprise," said Tony Carbonetti, who was deputy chief of staff and chief of staff during Giuliani's tenure as mayor. He said he did not know why the costs were allocated to agencies within the mayor's office and not the New York Police Department, which provided officers to protect Giuliani, but said the Giuliani campaign would look into the issue.
Don't Miss
Election Center 2008
But the comptroller's office questioned why the expenses were charged to offices such as the city's Loft Board, which regulates the conversion of industrial buildings into housing. During a 2002 audit, the agency's director denied the board incurred $34,000 in travel costs on its books, City Comptroller William Thompson wrote in a letter to Giuliani's successor, Michael Bloomberg.
Giuliani's office had refused to provide details of the expenses when questioned, the auditors said Wednesday.
"The comptroller's office made repeated requests for the information in 2001 and 2002, but was informed that due to security concerns the information could not be provided," spokesman Jeff Simmons said in a written statement to CNN.
In their 2002 letter, Thompson's auditors also raised questions about more than $500,000 in non-local travel expenses billed to other arms of the mayor's office in the 2000 and 2001 budget years, urging Bloomberg to investigate further. They included the Office of Emergency Management and the Office for People with Disabilities.
Bloomberg's office did not respond to inquiries from CNN about the matter.
The issue was first reported by the Washington Web site Politico.com, which said it obtained the comptroller's records under New York's freedom of information laws. CNN obtained the same documents
Former New York Mayor and current presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani says he has no direct knowledge of how the spending records were handled.
The charges were spread among departments under his control, city records show.
The comptroller's office questioned the expenses after Giuliani -- now a Republican presidential candidate -- left office.
Asked about the controversy during Wednesday night's Republican debate, sponsored by CNN, Giuliani said he was not responsible for how the expenses were reported.
"They took care of me, and they took care of their records, and they handled them in the way they handled them," he said "I had nothing to do with the handling of their records. They were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately."
Giuliani said he had a 24-hour security detail for the entirety of his two four-year terms as mayor.
Earlier Wednesday, a Giuliani adviser told CNN the mayor was constantly accompanied by bodyguards, whether at work or on vacation.
"These were all legitimate expenses incurred while protecting the mayor, which is a 24/7 enterprise," said Tony Carbonetti, who was deputy chief of staff and chief of staff during Giuliani's tenure as mayor. He said he did not know why the costs were allocated to agencies within the mayor's office and not the New York Police Department, which provided officers to protect Giuliani, but said the Giuliani campaign would look into the issue.
Don't Miss
Election Center 2008
But the comptroller's office questioned why the expenses were charged to offices such as the city's Loft Board, which regulates the conversion of industrial buildings into housing. During a 2002 audit, the agency's director denied the board incurred $34,000 in travel costs on its books, City Comptroller William Thompson wrote in a letter to Giuliani's successor, Michael Bloomberg.
Giuliani's office had refused to provide details of the expenses when questioned, the auditors said Wednesday.
"The comptroller's office made repeated requests for the information in 2001 and 2002, but was informed that due to security concerns the information could not be provided," spokesman Jeff Simmons said in a written statement to CNN.
In their 2002 letter, Thompson's auditors also raised questions about more than $500,000 in non-local travel expenses billed to other arms of the mayor's office in the 2000 and 2001 budget years, urging Bloomberg to investigate further. They included the Office of Emergency Management and the Office for People with Disabilities.
Bloomberg's office did not respond to inquiries from CNN about the matter.
The issue was first reported by the Washington Web site Politico.com, which said it obtained the comptroller's records under New York's freedom of information laws. CNN obtained the same documents
Monday, November 26, 2007
New Hampshire Primary Date Set
The residents of New Hampshire can finally sleep easy knowing that we still have the first presidential primary election. We decided on January 8th, the earliest date ever for a primary. For a while, people thought that we were going to have to move the date to sometime in December, which would have been unheard of.
While this is the first primary, Iowa has set the date of their causus to January 3rd, five days before New Hampshire votes. The decision was made by New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who had been waiting to hear what the state of Michigan was going to decide on for a primary date. This past Wednesday, November 21, Michigan decided on the date of January 15th to vote, opening the door for New Hampshire to set their date to remain the first presidential primary for the 2008 election.
Information from MSNBC.COM
While this is the first primary, Iowa has set the date of their causus to January 3rd, five days before New Hampshire votes. The decision was made by New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who had been waiting to hear what the state of Michigan was going to decide on for a primary date. This past Wednesday, November 21, Michigan decided on the date of January 15th to vote, opening the door for New Hampshire to set their date to remain the first presidential primary for the 2008 election.
Information from MSNBC.COM
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Are they serious?
This week Rudy and Mitt got into it. Rudy accused Mitt of appointing a judge who is soft on hard crimes. Judge Tuttman recently released a convicted murder, who killed two of his neighbors. In response Mitt gave a statement about how he, "...can't believe that Rudy would say something like that...". Mitt's people also released a statement that the Judge was well qualified, and released the convict on the basis of bail policy, etc. Mitt's people further responded with bringing forth the police chief Rudy put into place who is now being indicted on tax fraud.
Talk about fighting fire with crap. A few things: First of all, what does it say about Mitt, that he is doing the same thing that he "couldn't believe" Rudy was doing. It says that he is just a politician. A "do whatever-it-takes" politician. It reflects poorly on him that he came back with the exact same type of dig that Rudy made on him.
Second, Mitt and Rudy are both humans. How would they know every aspect of everything going on in the heads of the people they appoint. More often than not, people in their positions don't even do the research on the appointees themselves. It isn't Rudy's fault that his police chief MAY have committed tax fraud, and Mitt probably had no idea that Judge Tuttman planned on releasing that particular convict. It is something that she has in her power to do, and she was put into that position with the understanding that she would be making decisions on her own.
Why can't we all get along.
This information was taken from New Channel 7.
Talk about fighting fire with crap. A few things: First of all, what does it say about Mitt, that he is doing the same thing that he "couldn't believe" Rudy was doing. It says that he is just a politician. A "do whatever-it-takes" politician. It reflects poorly on him that he came back with the exact same type of dig that Rudy made on him.
Second, Mitt and Rudy are both humans. How would they know every aspect of everything going on in the heads of the people they appoint. More often than not, people in their positions don't even do the research on the appointees themselves. It isn't Rudy's fault that his police chief MAY have committed tax fraud, and Mitt probably had no idea that Judge Tuttman planned on releasing that particular convict. It is something that she has in her power to do, and she was put into that position with the understanding that she would be making decisions on her own.
Why can't we all get along.
This information was taken from New Channel 7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)