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?

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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: