I reviewed an article from one of my fellow students regarding the 911 trials to be held in New York. They had some very emotional comments regarding the trials to be held in American and just yards from where the towers fell. I believe a good point was made that allowing more media coverage for these confessed terrorist is ridiculous and expensive. I also agree that they should have been tried at Guatanamo Bay and pulling them out of there to face trial in the US has major political ramifications.
The point of these confessed terrorist potentially being acquitted because of torture, and by the way lack of Miranda rights and appropriate representation, is a distinct possibility. Again, on an emotional side I completely agree with my fellow student that they do not deserve a trial, their pride for this crime is disgusting and disappearing would be ideal.
However, laws, trials, and appropriate convictions of malicious and ruthless individuals is not emotional it is a legal process that must be followed to be part of the developed and civilized world that we have been lucky enough to be born into and be a part of.
I believe they should have been processed according to their admitted crimes in Guatanamo and not brought to American soil again to open up a devastating wound. I am appalled to think about the amount of money it is going to suck from our wallets to put these people on trial, including the security that will be necessary for the people involved in this trial for the trail and potentially the rest of their lives. I only hope that sanity prevails and these people are found guilty and have the most stiff penalties allowed by law imposed upon them WITH AS LITTLE MEDIA COVERAGE AS POSSIBLE. Lets hope they get at least part of their 6th Amendment rights to a speedy trial and our wound can continue to heal from the pain that this tragedy has caused.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Continue the War!!!
After months of requests, meetings and planning there is finally a strategy from this administration regarding Afghanistan. The plan will probably be announced next week. So what we have is an announcement from the president that there will be a public announcement of this plan next week.
PLEASE!!! Nothing like seeing yourself on television AGAIN!
A comprehensive strategy was announced back in March that we would send more troops, but concentrate on training their military and police while throwing $1.5 billion a year for FIVE YEARS to support their infrastructure: roads, education, schools. This funding would be shared between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There would also be a new position in place, an inspector general, to make sure these funds were used appropriately and not abused. There was a second bill to support “Opportunity zones” where it would be determined if those fighting were truly Al Queda supporters or if they were coerced somehow.
Maybe I missed something, but I believe this is a strategy this administration has supported.
Now with McChrystal’s request for more troops another debate rages on of how many, if any, troops to give him. Oh wait, maybe no debate rages on, but the announcement needs to wait until next week even though the impression given is that the BIG decision has been made.
The president insinuated that more muscle would be sent and the job would be finished this time. There is talk of including other countries in this movement, as always. There is also talk that Afghanistan needs to be involved in their own security. DUH!! The president said that this region has not had the necessary funding for the war there because the money has been diverted to Iraq, another theme started at the September announcement.
President Obama joked as he said he had given the press a sufficient preview to last until after Thanksgiving. I do not believe this is a joking matter and this was not an appropriate off the cuff response.
He is to said to believe that a decision of this importance should be a full length speech that might take place next Tuesday on his regularly scheduled weekly address. He said he has a pretty good idea where he wants to go with the war. I would hope so with all of the experts and time he has spent on this matter. I guess it easier to point fingers at the previous administration than come up with a solution yourself.
General McChrystal, U.S. and Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, are expected in DC next week to rally the troops to open up Washington’s pocketbook to support this new plan.
How disappointing is this. First there was the Obama campaign which wanted to pull out from the war. Then there was give him 100 days to get something to happen. Then there was 100 days is not enough to really get anything done. Then in March there was the band aid giving more troops and billions of dollars of infrastructure funding. Now there is the “I know what I want to do, but I’m not going to tell you exactly what that is.”
Well, I really liked the campaign plan of lets get our troops out of there and bring them home, but the matter is obviously much more complicated then President Obama originally thought. I hope there is a true exit strategy announced and not just a request for more troops and more money this time, but I am not holding my breath this time.
I guess we will, make that might, know next week.
PLEASE!!! Nothing like seeing yourself on television AGAIN!
A comprehensive strategy was announced back in March that we would send more troops, but concentrate on training their military and police while throwing $1.5 billion a year for FIVE YEARS to support their infrastructure: roads, education, schools. This funding would be shared between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There would also be a new position in place, an inspector general, to make sure these funds were used appropriately and not abused. There was a second bill to support “Opportunity zones” where it would be determined if those fighting were truly Al Queda supporters or if they were coerced somehow.
Maybe I missed something, but I believe this is a strategy this administration has supported.
Now with McChrystal’s request for more troops another debate rages on of how many, if any, troops to give him. Oh wait, maybe no debate rages on, but the announcement needs to wait until next week even though the impression given is that the BIG decision has been made.
The president insinuated that more muscle would be sent and the job would be finished this time. There is talk of including other countries in this movement, as always. There is also talk that Afghanistan needs to be involved in their own security. DUH!! The president said that this region has not had the necessary funding for the war there because the money has been diverted to Iraq, another theme started at the September announcement.
President Obama joked as he said he had given the press a sufficient preview to last until after Thanksgiving. I do not believe this is a joking matter and this was not an appropriate off the cuff response.
He is to said to believe that a decision of this importance should be a full length speech that might take place next Tuesday on his regularly scheduled weekly address. He said he has a pretty good idea where he wants to go with the war. I would hope so with all of the experts and time he has spent on this matter. I guess it easier to point fingers at the previous administration than come up with a solution yourself.
General McChrystal, U.S. and Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, are expected in DC next week to rally the troops to open up Washington’s pocketbook to support this new plan.
How disappointing is this. First there was the Obama campaign which wanted to pull out from the war. Then there was give him 100 days to get something to happen. Then there was 100 days is not enough to really get anything done. Then in March there was the band aid giving more troops and billions of dollars of infrastructure funding. Now there is the “I know what I want to do, but I’m not going to tell you exactly what that is.”
Well, I really liked the campaign plan of lets get our troops out of there and bring them home, but the matter is obviously much more complicated then President Obama originally thought. I hope there is a true exit strategy announced and not just a request for more troops and more money this time, but I am not holding my breath this time.
I guess we will, make that might, know next week.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Who Needs Health Care
I reviewed the blog by Steel Talking. My fellow student points out how many people need to choose if they have money for basic necessities or for needed health care. This is a very real situation that some American’s have to face on a daily basis. Another good point they make is that preexisting conditions should not be able to be ridered out of a health care plan for a person or that the allowed health care should not be so ridiculous to exclude glaucoma treatment or needed surgery after an automobile accident.
Again a good point is made to eliminate triggers and op-out options for the bill which the House Bill summary says that those who opt-out at this point pay a penalty of 2.5% of their gross annual salary. An easy solution to this would be to offer some sort of coverage at 2.5% so opting out would be a wash for the American public.
The last point of supporting Jacob Hacker’s statements of a health care plan modeled after Medicare is valid in many areas on the surface. Yes the public is familiar with Medicare. Yes health care for those who don’t have any coverage or lack good coverage should be covered. Yes, the option of private or a new public plan sounds reasonable and should give individuals a broader choice of doctors and bring down costs over time.
I do completely agree with my colleague that it is ridiculous to live in the United States of America and be an American citizen and not have access to reasonable health care. I know there is not an easy answer in which our fairy godmothers and godfathers in DC can wave their magic wands and create equalized health care for all.
However, if a solution was that simple, the insurance companies and medical professionals did not have enough lobbyists to fill Washington D.C., and the bill SAVED US MONEY it would have been done long ago.
After having worked for insurance companies, a state medical regulatory agency and accepted jobs only after having known their benefits package I know this is a very complicated web to negotiate through.
I had an experience in which a document accepted into rule by a regulatory commission that unjustly limited reimbursement to a medical community. A lawsuit was filed by a medical association, which caused the OAG (Office of the Attorney General) to become involved resulting in “clerical changes” to the document. This was a small document with a team of researchers and developers that had limited political fingers messing with the final document and still the urge to improperly regulate those that might abuse the system crept its way into the final document. This is just one small example of what WILL happen to this bill as it is now pushed through the Senate.
With so many agencies and people wanting a piece of this insurance, medical care, and regulatory agency pie many compromises will be made. In the end hopefully a document will be passed that will be life changing for those that are underinsured or uninsured at this time will be the end result.
So in the end I completely agree that something needs to be done, however many fingers are in this pie and many compromises will be made in which those in most need will probably not be take care of as well as they should if at all.
Again a good point is made to eliminate triggers and op-out options for the bill which the House Bill summary says that those who opt-out at this point pay a penalty of 2.5% of their gross annual salary. An easy solution to this would be to offer some sort of coverage at 2.5% so opting out would be a wash for the American public.
The last point of supporting Jacob Hacker’s statements of a health care plan modeled after Medicare is valid in many areas on the surface. Yes the public is familiar with Medicare. Yes health care for those who don’t have any coverage or lack good coverage should be covered. Yes, the option of private or a new public plan sounds reasonable and should give individuals a broader choice of doctors and bring down costs over time.
I do completely agree with my colleague that it is ridiculous to live in the United States of America and be an American citizen and not have access to reasonable health care. I know there is not an easy answer in which our fairy godmothers and godfathers in DC can wave their magic wands and create equalized health care for all.
However, if a solution was that simple, the insurance companies and medical professionals did not have enough lobbyists to fill Washington D.C., and the bill SAVED US MONEY it would have been done long ago.
After having worked for insurance companies, a state medical regulatory agency and accepted jobs only after having known their benefits package I know this is a very complicated web to negotiate through.
I had an experience in which a document accepted into rule by a regulatory commission that unjustly limited reimbursement to a medical community. A lawsuit was filed by a medical association, which caused the OAG (Office of the Attorney General) to become involved resulting in “clerical changes” to the document. This was a small document with a team of researchers and developers that had limited political fingers messing with the final document and still the urge to improperly regulate those that might abuse the system crept its way into the final document. This is just one small example of what WILL happen to this bill as it is now pushed through the Senate.
With so many agencies and people wanting a piece of this insurance, medical care, and regulatory agency pie many compromises will be made. In the end hopefully a document will be passed that will be life changing for those that are underinsured or uninsured at this time will be the end result.
So in the end I completely agree that something needs to be done, however many fingers are in this pie and many compromises will be made in which those in most need will probably not be take care of as well as they should if at all.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The BAILOUT!
The BAILOUT!!
What should we do with these yahoos who are running all the companies that the government has bailed out?
How about Fannie & Freddie’s separate bailout?
Should they be allowed to do business as usual with our taxpayer’s money? Given huge signing bonuses, incentive packages and private perks that are just part of the status quo with these high power jobs.
I say NO WAY. The government is on the right track by limiting pay and incentives for the highest executives, but I contend they do not take it far enough. The executives running all of the companies, from AIG that received $69.8 billion to Citizens First Wholesale Mortgage Company that received $20,000, receiving any amount of the bailout should be subject to stringent spending regulations.
The executives are the obvious ones to start with, but this should trickle down through the whole company. Give the executives great pensions tied to the success of the company. Stock options equal to the pay they think they deserve that must be held for 5 years after they leave the company. No company jets and spa days allowed. Maybe true team building retreats where the whole company is invested in its’ success and all can benefit with stock options if the company benefits. Even the file clerk could have a great idea that may make copiers almost obsolete for the company and result in thousands saved!!
If end of fiscal year is coming and there is money left in the budget, it should be rolled into next year, not spent on a bigger and better unneeded Widget! Or useless conferences.
These companies need their feet held to the fire. Even if they are under new management they need to be held accountable and penalized if appropriate. Their incentives need to be tied to their success rather than given money for just saying yes to the job!
I say go government and reduce their pay, be a watchdog, attempt to regulate them and make them accountable for one of the biggest financial wrecks in modern times.
Maybe this won’t happen again. Who am I kidding, it may not be today or tomorrow, but some oafs are out there with money, power, connections and the knowledge already planning how they can scam a greater amount of people and profit while watching the mess implode on itself.
BUT for now, lets play smart and realize this is real money and not monopoly money and make those who borrowed it accountable by not allowing them to be given any more significant financial incentives unless we see results!
What should we do with these yahoos who are running all the companies that the government has bailed out?
How about Fannie & Freddie’s separate bailout?
Should they be allowed to do business as usual with our taxpayer’s money? Given huge signing bonuses, incentive packages and private perks that are just part of the status quo with these high power jobs.
I say NO WAY. The government is on the right track by limiting pay and incentives for the highest executives, but I contend they do not take it far enough. The executives running all of the companies, from AIG that received $69.8 billion to Citizens First Wholesale Mortgage Company that received $20,000, receiving any amount of the bailout should be subject to stringent spending regulations.
The executives are the obvious ones to start with, but this should trickle down through the whole company. Give the executives great pensions tied to the success of the company. Stock options equal to the pay they think they deserve that must be held for 5 years after they leave the company. No company jets and spa days allowed. Maybe true team building retreats where the whole company is invested in its’ success and all can benefit with stock options if the company benefits. Even the file clerk could have a great idea that may make copiers almost obsolete for the company and result in thousands saved!!
If end of fiscal year is coming and there is money left in the budget, it should be rolled into next year, not spent on a bigger and better unneeded Widget! Or useless conferences.
These companies need their feet held to the fire. Even if they are under new management they need to be held accountable and penalized if appropriate. Their incentives need to be tied to their success rather than given money for just saying yes to the job!
I say go government and reduce their pay, be a watchdog, attempt to regulate them and make them accountable for one of the biggest financial wrecks in modern times.
Maybe this won’t happen again. Who am I kidding, it may not be today or tomorrow, but some oafs are out there with money, power, connections and the knowledge already planning how they can scam a greater amount of people and profit while watching the mess implode on itself.
BUT for now, lets play smart and realize this is real money and not monopoly money and make those who borrowed it accountable by not allowing them to be given any more significant financial incentives unless we see results!
Monday, October 12, 2009
Rush Speaks for All Republicans…Really??
I reviewed a blog by Mary Shaw posted on The Smirking Chimp sparked by President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The author goes on to point out some of the more absurd comments made by “hysterical right-wing” supporters. Some of the more absurd quotes note the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for affirmative action, or should have gone to the tea party goers of the 9-12 Project. The final straw is when Rush Limbaugh states that he and the Taliban agree that Obama does not deserve the prize.
The blogger goes on to support that Republicans and the Taliban are similar because they believe women “should be kept in their place,” giving examples from Glenn Beck who compares Hilary Clinton to a naggin’ wife and Ann Coulter saying women should not be given the right to vote. It goes on to put Rush Limbaugh in an unfavorable light pulling sexist comments he has made about women.
The final points refer to theocracy being similar in Republicans and the Taliban as well as a bonding tie of wanting President Obama to fail.
Where to start... What a wealth of points to be able to poke holes through!! Let’s just go to the all the people chosen to quote, THEY GO FOR THE BIG REACTION. When the sound bites, the analogy or the ideas are more absurd - the public response is more enthusiastic. This equals more followers. Which eventually means more money, and the cycle continues. Maybe some of these people who are delegated large amount of airtime really believe the swill they spew, but I believe most of it is to reinforce the ranks.
Who really believes the Nobel Peace Prize is for affirmative action, should go to the 9-12 Project, women should not vote, that Hilary Clinton comes off as a nagging wife or that Republicans and the Taliban go together on their views. Really this is attention getting at its best or slandering the “competition” at its worst.
I am a conservative who realizes that when the "sides" are taken, whoever can make the other side look more ridiculous, unintelligent, unpatriotic, too patriotic, sexist, racist, or socially unacceptable WINS.
While I do not believe President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize at this point in his presidency - I believe that his words calling for delaying military strikes without support of outcomes, increasing hospitable democratic policies in the world, and not pushing democracy down everyone’s throat points in the direction that he may be deserving of such an award in the future.
Too bad the committee chose to not wait to see if his actions can match his speeches.
The blogger goes on to support that Republicans and the Taliban are similar because they believe women “should be kept in their place,” giving examples from Glenn Beck who compares Hilary Clinton to a naggin’ wife and Ann Coulter saying women should not be given the right to vote. It goes on to put Rush Limbaugh in an unfavorable light pulling sexist comments he has made about women.
The final points refer to theocracy being similar in Republicans and the Taliban as well as a bonding tie of wanting President Obama to fail.
Where to start... What a wealth of points to be able to poke holes through!! Let’s just go to the all the people chosen to quote, THEY GO FOR THE BIG REACTION. When the sound bites, the analogy or the ideas are more absurd - the public response is more enthusiastic. This equals more followers. Which eventually means more money, and the cycle continues. Maybe some of these people who are delegated large amount of airtime really believe the swill they spew, but I believe most of it is to reinforce the ranks.
Who really believes the Nobel Peace Prize is for affirmative action, should go to the 9-12 Project, women should not vote, that Hilary Clinton comes off as a nagging wife or that Republicans and the Taliban go together on their views. Really this is attention getting at its best or slandering the “competition” at its worst.
I am a conservative who realizes that when the "sides" are taken, whoever can make the other side look more ridiculous, unintelligent, unpatriotic, too patriotic, sexist, racist, or socially unacceptable WINS.
While I do not believe President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize at this point in his presidency - I believe that his words calling for delaying military strikes without support of outcomes, increasing hospitable democratic policies in the world, and not pushing democracy down everyone’s throat points in the direction that he may be deserving of such an award in the future.
Too bad the committee chose to not wait to see if his actions can match his speeches.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Was Roe vs. Wade the Start?
This is an editorial on September 28, 2009 by David Gushee, a professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, and president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, published by USA Today. Mr. Gushee presents the argument that the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade started the downward spiral of political debate that allows people to demonize the opposing side.
Mr. Gushee observes that post Roe vs. Wade a person with an opposing view is now considered the embodiment of evil. He also contends that factors such as redistricting and a 24 hour news cycle boost this mentality. The most recent public symptom that continues to receive mass media play is Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the presidential address. He ends with a call to people to consider open debate on the issues instead of attacking the person. The debate should center on the issues.
Mr. Gushee lists many other times in recent history that support his argument that the public and representatives are encouraged to demonize those who oppose have a opposing views by listing the examples of Roe vs. Wade, gay rights and the past presidents views on the death penalty and abortion. However, he neglects to point out on these issues one side believes there is a human life being debated, not just who might get more tax dollars. When a life or a person’s religions belief is at the center of the debate people become less objective and less willing to be open to debate.
However, he has created a supportable link between this heated debate between life and death bleeding over into policy issues that are more economic and diplomatic in nature. The willingness of people to contend people of the opposing view are the devil incarnate, or some semblance of an evil entity, not deserving of standard human courtesies has become way to easy of a leap for many during the present day. Whether the Roe vs. Wade decision was the turning point is debatable.
While points of his logic are fallible, his conclusion that encourages the reader to have open and honest debates without demonizing the people with opposing ideas is worthy of support. The other option will only continue to tear at the fibers of our nation. Hopefully the public as a whole will take his overall theme to heart and realize that we need to treat each other with standard human respect no matter what opinion another individual may have.
Mr. Gushee observes that post Roe vs. Wade a person with an opposing view is now considered the embodiment of evil. He also contends that factors such as redistricting and a 24 hour news cycle boost this mentality. The most recent public symptom that continues to receive mass media play is Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during the presidential address. He ends with a call to people to consider open debate on the issues instead of attacking the person. The debate should center on the issues.
Mr. Gushee lists many other times in recent history that support his argument that the public and representatives are encouraged to demonize those who oppose have a opposing views by listing the examples of Roe vs. Wade, gay rights and the past presidents views on the death penalty and abortion. However, he neglects to point out on these issues one side believes there is a human life being debated, not just who might get more tax dollars. When a life or a person’s religions belief is at the center of the debate people become less objective and less willing to be open to debate.
However, he has created a supportable link between this heated debate between life and death bleeding over into policy issues that are more economic and diplomatic in nature. The willingness of people to contend people of the opposing view are the devil incarnate, or some semblance of an evil entity, not deserving of standard human courtesies has become way to easy of a leap for many during the present day. Whether the Roe vs. Wade decision was the turning point is debatable.
While points of his logic are fallible, his conclusion that encourages the reader to have open and honest debates without demonizing the people with opposing ideas is worthy of support. The other option will only continue to tear at the fibers of our nation. Hopefully the public as a whole will take his overall theme to heart and realize that we need to treat each other with standard human respect no matter what opinion another individual may have.
Monday, September 14, 2009
To Trade or Not to Trade?
This article in the New York Times gives a brief overview of the new tariffs on tire imports imposed by the United States on China. The Chinese reaction was quick and direct in political speak. The Chinese threaten to increase tariffs on chicken meat and automotive parts.
The dollar amounts of the exports are similar, $1.3 billion for tires from China to the United States, and a total of $1.176 billion for automotive parts and chicken meat from the United States to China.
The Obama administration is selling this as more strictly enforcing trade laws. China is using a similar political move by threatening to investigate possible subsidies of tires and chicken meat which would open the door for higher tariffs.
These two economic giants rely on each other for exports. Their economies are also intertwined. China buys up Treasury bonds and other dollar assets causing the Yen to be able to be held down allowing the Chinese goods to be inexpensive in foreign markets.
The impact this could have on our economy could be far reaching if China decides to start enforce all trade laws or slow down their investment in our economy, causing our already slowly recovering economy to stall or even back slide. This will definitely be a talking point during the president's visit to Beijing in November.
The dollar amounts of the exports are similar, $1.3 billion for tires from China to the United States, and a total of $1.176 billion for automotive parts and chicken meat from the United States to China.
The Obama administration is selling this as more strictly enforcing trade laws. China is using a similar political move by threatening to investigate possible subsidies of tires and chicken meat which would open the door for higher tariffs.
These two economic giants rely on each other for exports. Their economies are also intertwined. China buys up Treasury bonds and other dollar assets causing the Yen to be able to be held down allowing the Chinese goods to be inexpensive in foreign markets.
The impact this could have on our economy could be far reaching if China decides to start enforce all trade laws or slow down their investment in our economy, causing our already slowly recovering economy to stall or even back slide. This will definitely be a talking point during the president's visit to Beijing in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)