For the greater good

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/us/politics/26wind.html?ref=politics

Now, I was a little upset when reading this article considering our location. New England is home to four seasons, lush forests, skiing, mountains, rivers, lakes and the ocean. In order to protect this from climate change, the United States needs to reduce our need on foreign oil considering we use somewhere in the ballpark of 20 percent of the total world oil usage, while producing around 2%. In the works for the past nine years has been a plan to add a wind farm to the east coast, to be specific, off the coast of Cape Cod. This wind farm would produce 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound around 5 miles from the coast and would be around 24 square miles total. This farm goes right along with President Obama's plans to create cleaner energy, will create jobs and reduce our need for foreign only, if only a little at first.
My issue after reading this article is with the selfish individuals who oppose this plan for their own personal reasons. Many argue that it would hurt the view from historic sites. If that is their argument, then that rules out any wind farms along the East Coast considering our long history. My other issue with this argument is that historic sites are important because of what happened there, not what happened 5 miles out to sea. If they want to use the sea argument, say it will hurt the view, but they did not say that.
I was also a bit disappointed when I learned that Senator Ted Kennedy opposed this plan. For those of you who may not know, the Kennedy family has a home in Hyannis, Cape Cod. I feel that for the greater good of not only the economy, but the environment as well, people should give up their personal preferences of having a nice view from their beach front home. To be honest, I just don't get it because we do not complain about seeing tankers at sea from the coast even though they look ugly and dark, while polluting the oceans. So I guess that since I don't like the sound of airplanes, I am going to fight against airports across the United States even though it helps and services millions of people across the globe daily.
It is about time that people in the United States put aside their personal preferences for the greater good of the world and the economy. We are talking about a view here, a view! Come on. It is not like we are opening a military base out of US territory so that we can bypass any Constitutional protection for individuals or to blatantly disregard human rights. Just saying. I hope that on Friday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar makes the decision to push this further.

Climate Change and Immigration Reform, Which Road To Take?

Senator Lindsey Graham has just stepped out of talks on climate change legislation, according to a new CNN article. This article shows how quickly immigration reform has become a huge hot button issue against the backdrop of the Governor of Arizona signing a bill that allows police officers to in essence racially profile, but according to the article "will allow local police to stop individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants". What exactly this means is still being hashed out as media pundits, police, governors, senators, and more from both sides have started clashing. One thing this does mean is that climate change legislation which was presumably next on the agenda after bank reform, is now going to be a little less pressing. After all, global warming is will still be there to tackle after all the protesters are removed and anyone "who might be an illegal immigrant" has been accosted. It is most unfortunate that this issue tops the agenda right now just because it has become a lightning rod nationally. Climate change can be dealt with concurrently with immigration reform, or perhaps we could simply wait until entire regions are under water before we start truly getting on board with the rest of the world in their efforts to halt globally significant changes in our environment. It is time that we start thinking globally and stop allowing ourselves to be brought into the "us against them" argument. We need to find global solutions to global problems, and cooperation and diplomacy will help us in this endeavor. Perhaps if illegal aliens had better living conditions, education, and opportunities in general, they would not be entering the United States in the first place? I am not saying that it is our obligation to provide these things to other nations, however if it is in our own interests to improve conditions elsewhere and it helps a neighbor, why not look at cost effective ways we can do so? The last time I checked, there was not an overabundant threat of immigrants flooding in from Canada, but then again they have excellent public education, healthcare, economic stability, and infrastructure. This may be a coincidence, but at least it warrants further review.

Don't Ask

President Obama has been under heavy fire as of recent for not stepping up to the plate and changing the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy that is currently instilled as our nation's military protocol with homosexuals; a change that he vowed to make during his campaign and then reiterated in his State of the Union Address earlier this year.
I'm very split on this issue. As a member of the New Hampshire Army National Guard, and a future member of the U.S. Army, I've spoken with several NCOs and other members who feel that changing the policy will have great affect to the chemistry of the military.
Repealing the policy will inevitably result in hundreds of soldiers, both male and female, coming out into the open. This doesn't worry me. As someone who serves, I don't care whether the soldier next to me is gay, straight, male, female, black, white, purple, it doesn't matter. What does worry me is how they will be treated by other soldiers and the possible fall out that could ensue. You get all of these non-military gays and lesbians crying for the change in policy, when maybe those who are in the military don't want the change. Maybe they don't want to be looked at as being gay, but just as being a soldier. The military isn't stopping the enlistment of gays or lesbians, more than it is just turning the cheek.
There may come a time when our country will clear itself of its ignorance, and a man will be able to serve next to a man regardless of sexual orientation. But I don't think that that time is upon us, and forcing this rule change will only hurt those who currently serve or are trying to serve.


http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/dpgonc-obama-committed-to-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell-mh-20100421_7175819

Patriots' Day 2010

On April 19th, 2010 Second Amendment protesters hit the streets to advocate their right to bear arms. Though some accuse that the day is in honor of the anniversary Oklahoma City bombing, the advocates argue strongly that statements like that are an insult. The protesters are in fact rallying in celebration of Patriots' Day. The protests are not party fueled, however there tended to be much more conservative and Tea Party support.

The mostly male protesters were advocating firearm freedom, but made clear that they were not in support of armed violence. Their real message was to get real "fighters" into office this November. The target of the protesters was to not only to get rid of Democrats but also of what they call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) However, many groups held "open carry rallies" where they openly displayed their firearms. Many of these people were not happy with the current government and were mainly afraid that their Second Amendment rights were in jeopardy.

With every rally, you cannot forget the radical ideas that are also being conveyed. Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America quotes that,

"They are coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They are coming for everything because they are a bunch of socialists."

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Georgia, quotes,

"we must declare war against oppression and against socialism, and you are the people to do that."

These views however, cannot be attributed to the entire Second Amendment rally. Many people simply fear that with the powerful institute of government growing every year (IE health care, bailouts, etc.) they don't want it to interfere with an industry that they feel protects their general well-being.


This story was originally from:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/19/second.amendment.rally/index.html?npt=NP1

Obama or Palin in 2012?

In a recent poll conducted by CNN President Obama would beat Sarah Palin if the presidential election were held today. Not only would President Obama defeat Sarah Palin but he has an 8 to 12 point edge on any of the three other possible candidates for the GOP which includes Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich. These results cannot be taken too seriously however because the poll at this point reflects more name recognition than anything else. Many of you may be thinking that Sarah Palin is out there in the media and might be just as well known as Obama so is it really name recognition or is it that many Americans just don’t agree with her on issues. In that very same poll of 1,008 adult Americans, 61 percent of them voted that Palin was unlike most other politicians, 54 percent say they don’t agree with her on the issues, and 56 percent say she is not a strong and decisive leader. With all these statistics swirling around and working against the former Alaskan governor it is strange to consider that she is the most well known republican considering a run for the presidency and taking back the oval office from Obama and the democrats in 2012. With this information out there, 69 percent still believe she is not qualified to be president and have her losing to Mitt, Mike, and Newt in the next quest for the GOP presidential nomination. I personally think anyone who would even consider voting for Sarah Palin for president of the United States is not an educated voter. She barely has the competency to run for the PTA at a school never mind be the leader of the free world. Her lack of knowledge and experience especially in the area of foreign policy makes you wonder how so many Americans would even consider her to be vice president or president ever. She quit her job as Alaskan governor during the middle of her term, a job which she wasn’t even qualified for to begin with. This is the woman who didn’t know the difference between North and South Korea, and the very same women who repeatedly blamed Saddam Hussein for 9/11. Her lack of knowledge in foreign affairs shows that she cannot handle being the leader of a superpower such as the US. She can’t just expect that her patriotic and “down home gal” attitude is enough to run this country. It is a problem when a person like her is establishing a niche of followers like with the Tea Party. Her lack of foreign policy experience is scary. She doesn’t even care what other countries are doing. She just hopes for the best. It is a problem when I feel that I can do a better job as president then she can. The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is an extremely misinformed individual and if anyone is even considering voting for her if she does run in 2012 they should consider themselves an ignorant voter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfEnyru9m98------Sarah Palin caught writing on hand

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/14/cnn-poll-who-wins-an-obama-vs-palin-matchup-2/?fbid=4sLqhr3QR_e -------CNN Poll

Democratic lead Congress may fail to produce a budget for the following fiscal year.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35647.html

This link goes to an article about the very real possibility that Congress will fail to produce a budget for the following fiscal year by memorial day when their session ends. I believe this is not a responsible act by congress because of the track record our government has had recently. A track record, which consists of huge spending measures and bailouts that have further expanded our growing national debt. Though a passed budget by congress is essentially non-binding the article bring up a good comparison about a family that doesn't review their financial situation for the following year. Problems can arise if an idea about how much money is available and how much should be spent is not discussed because then overspending can occur. The Democrats are not exactly in any rush to push for a passed budget because of the republicans anxiousness to call out democrats if the budget involves increased spending or increased taxes. I think that congress needs to pass a budget and that they should feel that it is their responsibility to pass a budget that will help decrease our national debt. Congress in general whether they are republicans or democrats have helped over the past ten years increase our debt to soaring hights and now for only the fourth time in history Congress will most likely not pass a budget. Whether or not it is binding I would feel better about my government if they can at least attempt to be fiscally responsible.

Confederate Confusion

I’ve really thought about how to get into this piece, and I’ve decided that I’m just going to put it right out there! Could someone please tell that jerk McDonnell that the Republican Party WON the Civil War! I’m sorry, but what the hell is going on here?!?! Okay okay, before you start screaming, true the GOP is quite clearly no longer the same animal of Lincoln’s Republican Party. However given the underlying theme of this blog being party politics, I just couldn’t resist making that point. While the GOP is sniveling over how they can’t get any support from the African American and Latin American voters in this country, maybe they should be vetting out party members like good old Bob here, who apparently has had to be forced and pressured into admitting (and amending his proclamation) that slavery is both a bad thing and a significant part of Virginia’s Civil War history.

Okay, lets play a little game. I will make a statement and you tell me which party’s battle cry this sounds like.

1. What do you mean you’re against the war in Iraq? That’s un-American!
2. You don’t agree with the Patriot Act? Your Unpatriotic!
3. Gay Marriage? Un-American!
4. Health care for everyone?!?! What are you, a communist? That’s not the American way!

It seems like it is the Republican way, to resort to calling even slightly liberal positions and policies as un-American and unpatriotic. So it is in THAT vein I that would like to call attention to this notion of harking back to, honoring, and celebrating Confederate History. Because it seems to me that there couldn’t possibly be ANYTHING less American or less Patriotic than celebrating the Confederacy – an armed and violent insurrection aimed at dividing the nation. So Bob, are you a bad Republican… or just a rogue? …or maybe a maverick?!

And another thing. – Bob McDonnell, even though your party has fallen from grace since its formidable days of Abraham Lincoln, is it really your goal to be espousing the doctrine of states rights to the extreme degree of succession? Incase you have forgotten, the Civil War was the bloodiest most tragic event in domestic American History… the Confederacy STARTED it, and the Confederacy LOST! Now ask yourself honestly – should the government of Virginia be celebrating this particular legacy? Or would it be more appropriate for it to be offering a public apology? How about a public apology to the descendants of those who were formerly held in bonded servitude, or the descendants of those soldiers who died in an ill fated and ill guided war (I mean of course from the Confederate perspective!). Or maybe the new Republican way is akin to living in some delusional bubble apart from reality. Well Bob, I sure am glad that you’re in Virginia making an ass of yourself and your state and not in Texas writing textbooks that will make asses of our children!

One more comment I’d like to make that the Texas textbook debacle brings to mind. Which is that clearly, by and large, history is written by the winners. I can think of examples where I think this tendency is to the detriment of the common body of knowledge that is shared by all of mankind. Often times, the losers of a conflict have been dominated over and taken advantage of by a stronger and self-serving opponent. We see this in oppressive governments subjugating their citizens, and in expanding governments that have decimated native populations. In these instances the winners writing history get to paint themselves in a noble light, and to characterize the losers as brutal, uncivilized, or somehow inferior by nature. I understand how this happens – that the winners write the story – but I have to say that I see it as a loss to the truth of history and a loss to the common body of knowledge that we share. The most useful thing about history is the use of it as a tool to predict the future, understand the present and make decisions today. It is hard to do that well with such a warped and distorted story to go on. In this vein I do support the idea that multiple sides of story can and should be told and recorded in the annals of history. In McDonnell’s case though, I’m afraid it is not his goal to record the plight and story of the Confederacy as the losers to some oppressive and brutal enemy. If that be the case – then I say – let the story be told, the whole un-American story, and I’m fine with that being part of the Republican ethos. I’m afraid his efforts only lead to more distortion and delusion, and the worst thing of all is that it breeds and feeds stupidity and hatred. This kind of ignorance mongering is about as unpatriotic as the Confederacy!

Is the Rise of the Tea Party dangerous?

It had often been speculated before his inauguration that there may be movements born out of racism towards our new black president. Since his inauguration no one could have possibly guessed how these movements would come to fruition. It took some time to come, but the absence of new Republican leaders left a power vacuum that was filled by tea party leaders. It began with the Tea Parties on April 15th, 2009. Tea Party protests were held across the country against the countries new budget. The largest one was held in the Boston Commons. A majority of the parties advertising came from Fox News who tried to say that they were just giving the cause a voice, yet happened to have hosts from many of their shows making speeches or hosting these parties.
Since then the party has been gaining traction in Republican, and even certain radical Democratic circles. It has radicalized much of the right, and has gotten to the point where not being in support of the Tea Parties can endanger a Republicans campaign. The party really grew around protests against Health Care Reform. Most of their incendiary protest signs mimicking comments made by radical right wingers such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.
So, is the Tea Party dangerous? It is not uncommon to find a sign at one of their protests that threatens "We didn't come with weapons, this time!" and much of their beliefs seem to be built around fake facts. The Birther movement thrived in the Tea Parties, as did the idea of death panels, and the belief that Obama is a Communist. Putting aside how terrible this is for legislation, and how impossible it will make it to find our way out of this recession. The anger and threats of violence toward senator Stupak and others could easily be a sign of things to come. When you convince the people that the government is out to take away your freedoms, and it comes down to cries of revolution, what's to stop this from coming to violence. It is one thing to build protests against a current administration/congress, it's another to rally that base around false "Facts" and give the protest historical precedence as a fight against tyranny. Questioning your government is very American, but with lack of responsibility can is dangerous.

Obama, Russian president sign arms treaty

On Thursday President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a nuclear arms control treaty which will result in the downsizing of both nations stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The agreement will reduce each nations stockpile by one third. This is a huge deal in leading by example of global leadership seeing as Russia and the United States of America own over ninety percent of nuclear weapons on this planet. This treaty is huge in also dealing boosting cooperation between both superpowers. Both presidents discussed the issue of Iran and their nuclear weapons program. With rumors about Russia selling nuclear fuel and supplies to Iran hopefully both the U.S and Russia can work together to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear cappability. This treaty is huge for the U.S because over the past twenty or so years our Govermental leaders have always spoke of stoping other countries from obtaining nuclear capability or having nuclear stockpiles. The U.S can not try to monitor nuclear threats because other countries look at the U.S and say how come they can have them. President Obama is doing a good job in demonstrating some responsibility and using actions to lead by example. lately the headlines have been overshadowed with the healthcare bill and the NCAA tournament, but this is a huge deal for everyone. This agreement will not make the world a whole lot safer but if cooperation amonst super powers continues then the international community can move foward one step at a time.

Take Action Soon to Shape Fiscal Future

This article talks about the changing of the American population and how it will create much fiscal challenges. Right now that baby boomers are starting to get older and fade out. This whole situation is not making it easy on the situation of the American government. This puts alot of strain on the American public. At this point there is no proposed action that anyone wants to hear to keep this issue from becoming too large in the future years to come.

Ben S. Bernanke, the federal reserve chairman talks a lot about how we need to change things early on to help for the future. He thinks that if we have a good amount of time to plan things out then we the American population and government will not be caught off guard as much when it comes time for these challenges.

Much of these for seen challenges for the government are the budget pressuers that are put on my the social security and the medicare expenses. At this point there will soon not be enough money around to keep this program running effectively for many years to come. The baby boomers also do not help much in this issue. Bernanke basicly said that there are only a few options to fix this problem, without completly getting rid of the systems. The options to make up for this are for the people to chose between raising taxes, modifications to the programs, less spending on everything else (such as education, etc.), or a combinaion of all of this. If we start to take action now then maybe the later on in the future the challenges wont be "as challenging". It maybe easier to put things off but in the end it might just be harder.

I can see how people want to put this subject off where this really is so many other things going on in politics right now and taxes are high enough as they are. However, we really do need to do something about this soon. Otherwise when my generation goes to collect medicare and social security we will be having some serious issues. I will be so much better to start now. However, this probably wont be the case because many Americans are too stingy on money, even if it will benefit the future generations of this country. I guess we will just have to see what comes of all of this.






Much of the information that was gathered for this blog is from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/business/economy/08fed.html?ref=politics

Drilling is for the better

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy.html?ref=science

On March 31, 2010 at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, President Obama discussed his plan to potentially open up the shores of the United States to oil drilling. Many people, including Obama supporters were taken aback with this decision but overall, I support the plan. The idea behind the plan is not to take us off of foreign reliance on oil, simply because there would not be enough new oil to do that. But it is to help ease the burden, explore new energy (clean) technologies, drill safely while protecting our natural resources, improve security and to help the economy. The plan would open up parts of the Atlantic Ocean below the tip of Delaware for an exploration phase because many of the geological maps are upwards of 30 years old. If oil was found, it would be up to the government to determine if they want to open the land up for lease or not. If they choose to do so, the government would get some much needed income to further their environmental plans among other things. At the same time, the new areas for drilling would open up jobs in the oil industry to get people back to work. Under this plan, no drilling would be allowed on the Pacific Coast and Alaska's Bristol Bay, famous for its billion dollar fishing industry and wildlife, would be protected. This plan is a middle of the road approach which appeases some in favor of drilling and does not necessarily hurt those who are looking to protect the environment. This decision may also enable President Obama to gain some allies when he pushes to further his environmental initiatives.

The Godfather of Earmarks RIP

Earmarks or the more infamous political jargon “pork barrel” spending has made for grandiose news stories about the failure of government and ardent speeches from lackluster candidates. Last month the godfather of earmarks passed away and “with him may have passed the Golden Age of the Earmark.” (Elving, March 16,2010) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) slated Congressman John Murtha as one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington. Here’s a link to that listhttp://www.citizensforethics.org/files/Beyond%20Delay%20Full%20Report_0.pdf Murtha a democrat from Pennsylvania who has been accused of various sketchy earmarking such as various connections too defense contracting groups and promotions of self interests. Some giveMurtha credit for getting money to places that needed it like a failing airport but in reality if one looks at the long list of lets say interesting funding it causes one to think how is this good governance.

Murtha was called out on the floor by Rep. Jeff Flake for some of his intersting earmarks.

His death has posed a question how did earmarks come to be? Despite Harry Reid's claim that “"The FoundingFathers would be cringing to hear people talking about eliminating earmarks”. (Elving, March 16,2010) Earmarks while having some historically revelance have never been prominent like they are modernly. In 1817 President Madison rejected Bonus Bill by wisely saying "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section ofthe first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised

by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the

power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers

vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States," (Pye, on March 28, 2008)

Earmarks have seen a significant rise over the years in 1970 the Defense Apporations Bill had a dozen earmarks by 2005 it had 2,671. Is it a clever means of legislation or just another benefit of the job of politician. Earmarks are about the only bipartisian thing in congress because members from both sides actively engage in the practice. Earmarks currently cost the tax payer $29 billion dollars. While things like Bridge to No Where are considred politically humourosus this is a significant amount of money that is being spent.

There are of course the absurd earmarks like

$50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.

$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.

While there is cultural and historical relevance to these kind of projects perhaps why am I going into so much debt to get an education and working 4 days a week, while someone get 2 million dollars to build a canoe. It doesn’t seem fair.

Even Obama is not blameless in this he earmarked money for University of Chicago Medical Center

where his wife is employed.

The Seattle Times released an interesting list of $ 3.5 billion in mystery earmarks. Like $147.2 Million for ArmyJunior Reserve Officers' Training Corps these mystery earmarks have no viable programs that they are realted too. They are truly a mystery as to where the money is going.

Earmarks need reform and as it stands there doesn’t seem to be any real change that’s occurring.