Whenever there is a disaster, natural or otherwise, the American people look to its leader and rightfully so. Domestic oil production and energy security is not the same as worrying about profit. Importing any product into the United States takes profits away from the American pocketbook. Obviously, the company cannot go into an area that is leaking that amount of crude oil and attempt to set up offshore drills. The president is saying even though now is not the time, the time is still now. If the president had not gone into the disaster area for a firsthand look, that decision would undoubtedly have been criticized and seen as uncaring.
President Obama does not have to do damage control for a situation that he did not personally cause. BP owns the equipment, safety should have been their top priority. However, when safety becomes an issue, the nation screams for more government oversight and the blame blasts through the media. I cannot ascertain you are blaming president or not. The blog says they should have been more careful. I can only assume they represent BP and not the president. I do not believe how the president deals with this natural disaster will make him or break him. It was also said that the health care reform would make him or break him and yet he garnered the support he needed. Every major event can be said to make or break a president.
I am glad you agree with the president's Time and CNN statements indicating BP is responsible. But then there appears to be a switch again and the blame is back on the president's shoulders. It is not the president's fault, however it is his job to hold those who are at fault accountable and to ensure to the best of his administration's ability that it does not happen again. This story is not just about profits or fault, it is ultimately about safety because someone's father, brother, husband, friend, did not return home from an already hazardous day at work.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
UNITED WE STAND
When I look at the new immigration law in Arizona, I cannot help but wonder if America is headed forward or backward. It must be frightening indeed to move about a city that has been called home, not knowing if a simple mistake will result in a person's life being altered forever. I am not referring to illegal immigrants, but to legitimate, law-abiding citizens. It is amazing that this law was written with such defective wording. An individual could not be stopped "solely " based on race but apparently race could play a factor. After all, they are looking for a specific type of person. The language of the law raised suspicions of not only the population it targeted but also any American who felt compelled to give a voice to those who may have been afraid to speak out.
Police already have the authority to stop anybody exhibiting suspicious behavior. However, to suggest stopping an individual based on what he or she looks like screams racism. Racial profiling is such a mild term when compared to what is going on with the Hispanic population of Arizona. It appears America has sunken to a new low of "let's get rid of them anyway we can" politics. It was not that long ago that African Americans suffered the same embarrassing scrutiny. The major difference was the African Americans could not be sent back.
I am sure no one denies illegal immigration is a huge problem but the approach of openly attacking an entire race of people is just gravitating backward toward the Civil Rights movement. The language was sweetened to eliminate the appearance of racial profiling but the damage is already done. The authority for a law enforcement official or agency to act on reasonable suspicion does not have to be placed in a law. The authors of the law were trapped, now being accused of clandestine intentions of using legal methods for illegal access to unsuspecting citizens caught in the political crossfire. The very idea that a person could have his privacy violated, his job destroyed and livelihood trashed because of a police officer's suspicious laden personal agenda, is more than the America is willing to lie down for.
If social injustice is not called out for an ethnicity not our own, civil rights is powerless, just a shell of the past.
Police already have the authority to stop anybody exhibiting suspicious behavior. However, to suggest stopping an individual based on what he or she looks like screams racism. Racial profiling is such a mild term when compared to what is going on with the Hispanic population of Arizona. It appears America has sunken to a new low of "let's get rid of them anyway we can" politics. It was not that long ago that African Americans suffered the same embarrassing scrutiny. The major difference was the African Americans could not be sent back.
I am sure no one denies illegal immigration is a huge problem but the approach of openly attacking an entire race of people is just gravitating backward toward the Civil Rights movement. The language was sweetened to eliminate the appearance of racial profiling but the damage is already done. The authority for a law enforcement official or agency to act on reasonable suspicion does not have to be placed in a law. The authors of the law were trapped, now being accused of clandestine intentions of using legal methods for illegal access to unsuspecting citizens caught in the political crossfire. The very idea that a person could have his privacy violated, his job destroyed and livelihood trashed because of a police officer's suspicious laden personal agenda, is more than the America is willing to lie down for.
If social injustice is not called out for an ethnicity not our own, civil rights is powerless, just a shell of the past.
Monday, April 19, 2010
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
I want to begin by addressing the statement that "we have women, men, and children over there fighting for our freedom". Suffice it to say, the U.S. military does not employ children to fight or serve otherwise. So I am not sure if the post is addressing the freedom of the Afghan people and their use of children to fight, it is not clear.
War by its very nature is cruel and there is always collateral damage and loss of innocent life. Our leaders do not have the power to control who lives and who dies. Entering a war zone and certainly firing missiles into an area is only done with intelligence data. As human nature is flawed that data can be flawed, as we see by the loss of civilian life in Kabul at this celebration. Proclaiming to honor the men and women in the military while accusing them of using civilians as target practice may appear contradictory. The leaders are men and women of the United Armed Services also, they too risk their lives for the freedom of the American as well as Afghan people. I have read through the reference blog associated with this post and found that the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are concerned about why the facts given by the U.S. and Afghans differ so greatly.
ISAF officials were not trying to cover for themselves, they were stating facts as presented to them. When it became apparent these facts were erroneous, NATO retracted the information on "honor killings" and issued statements with new information uncovered by additional investigation. Ironically, the account in the article comes from a member of the family of the victims. This family member fails to denounce NATO's actions but instead indicates he and local officials believed the killings were an act of tribal rivalry and that the international forces were fed false information.
It is because of these mixed accounts that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who oversees all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, has ordered a second investigation into the deaths of the civilians killed during this nighttime raid.
The U.S. military will prosecute when wrongdoing is proven. However, they also stand by the men and women of the U.S. military as well. As part of the International Security Assistance Force, they stand by the entire team. The morale of our fighting forces depend on it. The death of these civilians is not an embarrassment, it is heartbreaking. The military should know that what they are doing is valuable and right and just but never an embarrassment.
War by its very nature is cruel and there is always collateral damage and loss of innocent life. Our leaders do not have the power to control who lives and who dies. Entering a war zone and certainly firing missiles into an area is only done with intelligence data. As human nature is flawed that data can be flawed, as we see by the loss of civilian life in Kabul at this celebration. Proclaiming to honor the men and women in the military while accusing them of using civilians as target practice may appear contradictory. The leaders are men and women of the United Armed Services also, they too risk their lives for the freedom of the American as well as Afghan people. I have read through the reference blog associated with this post and found that the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are concerned about why the facts given by the U.S. and Afghans differ so greatly.
ISAF officials were not trying to cover for themselves, they were stating facts as presented to them. When it became apparent these facts were erroneous, NATO retracted the information on "honor killings" and issued statements with new information uncovered by additional investigation. Ironically, the account in the article comes from a member of the family of the victims. This family member fails to denounce NATO's actions but instead indicates he and local officials believed the killings were an act of tribal rivalry and that the international forces were fed false information.
It is because of these mixed accounts that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who oversees all U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, has ordered a second investigation into the deaths of the civilians killed during this nighttime raid.
The U.S. military will prosecute when wrongdoing is proven. However, they also stand by the men and women of the U.S. military as well. As part of the International Security Assistance Force, they stand by the entire team. The morale of our fighting forces depend on it. The death of these civilians is not an embarrassment, it is heartbreaking. The military should know that what they are doing is valuable and right and just but never an embarrassment.
Monday, April 5, 2010
PREVENTING POOR HEALTH HELPS KEEP COST DOWN
PREVENTING POOR HEALTH HELPS KEEP COST DOWN
Now that the infighting is over, the American public who declined to bore themselves with the task of reading the fine print of a massive document may decide that the health care bill is about the people after all. It is still true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Talk to anyone who has tried to lose weight and he may say the pounds were easier to put it on than to take it off. There is ample documentation that support the fact that obesity causes health issues. As I was perusing the article on the new health initiatives for prevention in the New York Times, I found myself hopeful about health care, not about health care reform but health care for the people. We should not be surprised that Congress would make more fuss over abortion and taxes than they would initiatives to prevent disease and encourage healthy behavior.
We easily take our vehicles in for preventative maintenance to maintain the warranty if nothing else. We upkeep our hair, nails, yards, spring clean our homes and we even take our pets to the veterinarian. It is beyond me that it would take nine months after President Obama signs a bill into law to regulate tobacco products that we finally see a spotlight "shined" on prevention.
With all the advertising about early screenings for prevention of cancer and other diseases, even Congress knows which battles to choose. It is one thing for constituents to think a politician is callous, it is quite another for the Congressman to put his mouth and vote in action to prove it.
All the hoopla about the health care reform caused nothing but fear in the minds and hearts of otherwise sensible voters. However, there was little mention of all the prevention measures included in the bill to help ensure long term health care is not needed.
Insurance by its very nature is designed to provide care for the beneficiary. It appears however, health insurance has more loop holes than fish net stockings. If diseases and illnesses are prevented in the first place, it would no doubt alleviate some financial burden for the insurance companies. However, the insurance companies would rather beneficiaries stay healthy. The government is ensuring the insurance companies and those earning more in dollars and cents will share perhaps more in the burden of a healthier society. Congress would rather receive their health benefits at no cost to themselves. The American public is asked to stand behind lawmakers and believe any change is detrimental to all people. It is a known fact that someone will bear the brunt of the cost and it will be those who make the most money. There will always be poor among us but at the very least, we can try to give everyone an opportunity to see how sick or how well he or she really is.
Now that the infighting is over, the American public who declined to bore themselves with the task of reading the fine print of a massive document may decide that the health care bill is about the people after all. It is still true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Talk to anyone who has tried to lose weight and he may say the pounds were easier to put it on than to take it off. There is ample documentation that support the fact that obesity causes health issues. As I was perusing the article on the new health initiatives for prevention in the New York Times, I found myself hopeful about health care, not about health care reform but health care for the people. We should not be surprised that Congress would make more fuss over abortion and taxes than they would initiatives to prevent disease and encourage healthy behavior.
We easily take our vehicles in for preventative maintenance to maintain the warranty if nothing else. We upkeep our hair, nails, yards, spring clean our homes and we even take our pets to the veterinarian. It is beyond me that it would take nine months after President Obama signs a bill into law to regulate tobacco products that we finally see a spotlight "shined" on prevention.
With all the advertising about early screenings for prevention of cancer and other diseases, even Congress knows which battles to choose. It is one thing for constituents to think a politician is callous, it is quite another for the Congressman to put his mouth and vote in action to prove it.
All the hoopla about the health care reform caused nothing but fear in the minds and hearts of otherwise sensible voters. However, there was little mention of all the prevention measures included in the bill to help ensure long term health care is not needed.
Insurance by its very nature is designed to provide care for the beneficiary. It appears however, health insurance has more loop holes than fish net stockings. If diseases and illnesses are prevented in the first place, it would no doubt alleviate some financial burden for the insurance companies. However, the insurance companies would rather beneficiaries stay healthy. The government is ensuring the insurance companies and those earning more in dollars and cents will share perhaps more in the burden of a healthier society. Congress would rather receive their health benefits at no cost to themselves. The American public is asked to stand behind lawmakers and believe any change is detrimental to all people. It is a known fact that someone will bear the brunt of the cost and it will be those who make the most money. There will always be poor among us but at the very least, we can try to give everyone an opportunity to see how sick or how well he or she really is.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Failing Schools - Do Not Blame the Recession
Undoubtedly, the education of our children is a priority. Anyone who suggests otherwise is probably looking for a debate. Whenever the government prepares to dole out cash, many hands are extended. To help one agency over another sometimes may appear bias but Reich takes it up a notch. Yes, I agree the recession has wrecked havoc not only on state and local budgets but also on every facet of the lives of the American people. However, to suggest such a dire lack in future education may be pushing the envelope.
From an economic standpoint, the limits are stretching all around but teachers teach , money does not. If an educator has less money tomorrow, it should not mean the knowledge he or she has obtained has diminished, therefore the students should not immediately suffer. Many teachers make personal financial sacrifices for their students because they love what they do.
The school money crunch is nothing new but perhaps it is magnified by the recession. As an educator, this author’s viewpoint is understandable. However, with homeschooling and other avenues, education will prevail despite a tightening of the belt on public resources.
If the administration is giving $4.35 billion in funds, it sounds like a bailout of sorts to me. It may not compare to the banks if the comparison is dollar for dollar but why the comparison. Bailing out the schools and not bailing out the banks is like putting the oxygen on a child before securing your mask on an airplane. Directing anger at the banks will not solve the public school issue. That money is spent; it is time to move forward. Take the $4.35 billion and do better.
I just don't get the concept of human capital being uniquely American. Perhaps the public university in which he teaches only has American students. I am sure the extra federal funds from the Obama administration is for all public school students.
In reviewing an Issue Brief (Nov 2001) from the Economic Policy Institute, it is stated that more money is not the complete solution to whatever may ail local public education. There were critical shortfalls before the recession. These shortfalls are even more critical now.
From an economic standpoint, the limits are stretching all around but teachers teach , money does not. If an educator has less money tomorrow, it should not mean the knowledge he or she has obtained has diminished, therefore the students should not immediately suffer. Many teachers make personal financial sacrifices for their students because they love what they do.
The school money crunch is nothing new but perhaps it is magnified by the recession. As an educator, this author’s viewpoint is understandable. However, with homeschooling and other avenues, education will prevail despite a tightening of the belt on public resources.
If the administration is giving $4.35 billion in funds, it sounds like a bailout of sorts to me. It may not compare to the banks if the comparison is dollar for dollar but why the comparison. Bailing out the schools and not bailing out the banks is like putting the oxygen on a child before securing your mask on an airplane. Directing anger at the banks will not solve the public school issue. That money is spent; it is time to move forward. Take the $4.35 billion and do better.
I just don't get the concept of human capital being uniquely American. Perhaps the public university in which he teaches only has American students. I am sure the extra federal funds from the Obama administration is for all public school students.
In reviewing an Issue Brief (Nov 2001) from the Economic Policy Institute, it is stated that more money is not the complete solution to whatever may ail local public education. There were critical shortfalls before the recession. These shortfalls are even more critical now.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Foreclosures Editorial
As I began reading the editorial, with all openness of mind, I was instantly struck with the author's bias concerning the President's visit to Nevada. He did not imply but said the President went to show the American people what he was doing. The author did not mention if President Obama signed any documents during his visit therefore, he did not have to show up, he could have just signed documents from the Oval office. Of course he could not resist the jab of mentioning the President was there coincidentally to support Senator Reid. I believe the people of Nevada are worth a visit unto themselves but apparently this author is convinced otherwise. He is attempting to convince the citizens of Henderson, Nevada not only are they not worthy of a sole visit of the President of the United States but also that the President is posturing and has no intentions of carrying out all the promises he has laid out. I sense some see-sawing in this author's logic and believe he wants to believe this foreclosure plan will work but is afraid to voice it. Therefore, he toggle back and forth between the good in President Obama going into the area with the most needs then laces it with the hint of a public relations ploy. If there is no foreseeable end to the foreclosure downturn, why is he asking for a timetable for a plan that has yet to begin. The audacity to suggest the administration is not aware of the importance of this first step is pure political banter. If it works for this handful of states, it may very well work for the nation. I look at comments about the big disappointment of the antiforeclosure program and expect a list of reasons but he only gives one reason, surely he could come up with a longer list for voicing such a big disappointment. With the banks given so much in bailout money and not yielding the results expected by many, the President has already voiced his concerns. Why would the author assume Mr. Obama has not considered a national program based on this five-state effort. After all, he is nation's President. Just because it is unclear how the new fund will help underwater borrowers, it does not mean it will not help. Perhaps the states may be more successful in negotiating on their own. Don't rain on Henderson, Nevada's parade of hope. No plan is too small if it prevents one family from being homeless and out on the streets. A dent is better than no dent any day. To suggest that the President went to the people of Henderson, NV for political reasons, knowing that their state is one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis is political grandstanding. We need government with a heart.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Childhood Obesity - A Bipartisan Problem
Although the Republicans and Democrats are preparing to duel, yet again, over health care reform, I have decided to focus this posting on something even closer to my heart, the health of our children. It was disheartening to hear that the Republicans were more jubilant about adding to their number in order to "filibuster" any Democratic agenda than they were to push forward a workable solution for "the people." On the bright side, Michelle Obama has chosen to focus on childhood obesity. I am sure there are many platforms she could have chosen for her legacy but, children are our future. I am excited about the childhood obesity battle that appears to have begun in earnest. This is not a new battle but a new attack. A four-part initiative that was signed by executive order is hope for our youth and the future of this nation. With one out of three children obese or overweight, time for intervention is NOW and well overdue. Some school districts may feel it is too costly to implement healthier choices. However, this initiative is about healthier choices for our children, not just about food. Our government has a heartbeat in this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)