According to FOXNews.com, Barack Obama has officially begun to openly attack Hilary Clinton. He was quoted recently explicitly saying that he did not believe Clinton was being truthful about what she would do as President. Specifically, he feels that Clinton will not live up to her own expectations on Social Security. He also feels that she has been "going back and forth" on the Iraq and Iran issues. Obama also says that he does not want to attack Clinton on a personal level. In fact, he feels that these recent criticisms are only a way of distinguishing himself from her.
Obama may be trying to distinguish himself from the current democratic front runner, but I think its just another attempt to discredit Clinton. We've recently seen the entire Republican field attack Hilary Clinton in a debate, and now we've got the democratic candidate who is currently in second in most national poles attacking Clinton. Is this really the way to get elected in America? Does this really appeal to voters? Personally, I'm not a big fan of Clinton, but all of these attacks have me sympathizing for her. In the end, that could be what the Republicans want.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Debate Anyone?
I don't have an article to reference for this one, but I was watching the most recent Republican debate and I was immediately struck by a few things. First of all, I find it amazing that people actually watch these things and even take stock in what is going on. All of these debates (both Democratic and Republican) have been completely pointless. The moderator literally hand feeds the candidates questions and tries his best to give them an answer before finishing said question. At one point, the moderator even started bashing on President Bush. He was practically queuing the candidates to start their own debasements on the Prez. Just another example of how the party is abandoning Dubya.
Another thing I find amazing about this particular debate was the main focus of the debate itself. Basically, it seemed as if the entire debate was simply a tool to attack Hilary Clinton. Every chance the candidates got they talked about Mrs. Clinton's stance on any issue and how terrible it would be for America. At the end of the debate, FOXNEWS even asked a focus which candidate they thought would be more likely to beat Clinton in a national election after watching that night's debate. I may be a little romantic, but I want to see a debate with substance. I want to see moderators ask difficult questions and to keep the candidates focused on the issue at hand. I want to see candidates stumble in their speech and not dance around tough issues. But I'll probably never see...not as long as we live in the age of the horse race.
Another thing I find amazing about this particular debate was the main focus of the debate itself. Basically, it seemed as if the entire debate was simply a tool to attack Hilary Clinton. Every chance the candidates got they talked about Mrs. Clinton's stance on any issue and how terrible it would be for America. At the end of the debate, FOXNEWS even asked a focus which candidate they thought would be more likely to beat Clinton in a national election after watching that night's debate. I may be a little romantic, but I want to see a debate with substance. I want to see moderators ask difficult questions and to keep the candidates focused on the issue at hand. I want to see candidates stumble in their speech and not dance around tough issues. But I'll probably never see...not as long as we live in the age of the horse race.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Open the Gates!
The first of the baby boomers has finally reached the promised land! Thats right, according to Foxnews.com the first baby boomer has officially filed for social security. That for which we have feared has finally come. The flood has officially begun that will allegedly run Social Security dry. In fact, by 2017 we will be paying out more than we are bringing in. Interestingly enough, a major problem resides in other areas of government. One reason that Social Security could run dry is that other government entities have been borrowing from the Social Security surplus for years. So, when Social Security needs this money back, will they get it? NO!
It seems to me that this is one more problem with the bureaucratic chain. In many cases, when one department shows a substantial surplus, other departments will ask for a piece of it. Mostly because they are under the belief that it's government money, so we should all get a piece of it. This idea is prevalent in most bureaucracies. In fact, you can find the same thing being done all around you. But I digress. The New Deal was a catalyst for our current state of the over-abundance of red tape. Ever since this point we have seen an exponential increase in our government bureaucracy. I've never been one to criticize big government, but I think I've officially had enough. I believe in a strong central government, but I can't advocate our current state of bureaucracy. It is a stale system designed to promote accountability and ease of communication, but, in actuality, it only promotes mediocrity and inhibits communication when it has grown too large.
It seems to me that this is one more problem with the bureaucratic chain. In many cases, when one department shows a substantial surplus, other departments will ask for a piece of it. Mostly because they are under the belief that it's government money, so we should all get a piece of it. This idea is prevalent in most bureaucracies. In fact, you can find the same thing being done all around you. But I digress. The New Deal was a catalyst for our current state of the over-abundance of red tape. Ever since this point we have seen an exponential increase in our government bureaucracy. I've never been one to criticize big government, but I think I've officially had enough. I believe in a strong central government, but I can't advocate our current state of bureaucracy. It is a stale system designed to promote accountability and ease of communication, but, in actuality, it only promotes mediocrity and inhibits communication when it has grown too large.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Alterior Motives
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a federal judge in San Francisco has rule to keep the feds from prosecuting businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. However, they would only be prosecuting those businesses that did not immediately fire an employees that did not have social security numbers that match numbers in the federal database. The judge has placed an injunction on the current "no-match law" so that a suit filed by labor unions will have time to be heard. Apparently the judge feels that this "no-match law" will have severe consequences on many legitimate California employees.
The reasoning of this judge seems to be flawed, because legitimate workers should have nothing to fear from a governmental background check. It seems to me that the real motive of this judge is to protect the California economy. It is a well known fact a crackdown on illegal immigration will have serious effects on industries like the agriculture. We're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry that could hardly function without illegal immigration. I may be being a little cynical, but it seems to be that this judge has more on his mind than the protection of "legitimate" California workers.
The reasoning of this judge seems to be flawed, because legitimate workers should have nothing to fear from a governmental background check. It seems to me that the real motive of this judge is to protect the California economy. It is a well known fact a crackdown on illegal immigration will have serious effects on industries like the agriculture. We're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry that could hardly function without illegal immigration. I may be being a little cynical, but it seems to be that this judge has more on his mind than the protection of "legitimate" California workers.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Both Sides
MSNBC.com recently reported that Barack Obama spoke on the issue of emission control regarding climate change. His plan calls for several billion dollars to investigate alternative forms of energy and reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. This is a very pro-active plan, and Obama makes sure that his audience realizes that Hilary is not backing a similar plan.
It is very obvious that Obama is trying anything at this point to make up the 32 percentage point gap between him and Hilary in the latest polls. However, it is very interesting that he keeps calling Hilary out on her voting record in the Senate, when he has several past discrepancies also. In fact, he backed Bush's 2005 energy that was not popular among conservation groups. It should be noted that this bill did bring $40 million to Illinois. However, Obama is now criticizing the current administration on this very same bill. That totally makes sense! We've seen several cases of mud-slinging against Hilary for her voting record, but maybe the "pots" behind her in the polls should be careful when calling-out the "kettle."
It is very obvious that Obama is trying anything at this point to make up the 32 percentage point gap between him and Hilary in the latest polls. However, it is very interesting that he keeps calling Hilary out on her voting record in the Senate, when he has several past discrepancies also. In fact, he backed Bush's 2005 energy that was not popular among conservation groups. It should be noted that this bill did bring $40 million to Illinois. However, Obama is now criticizing the current administration on this very same bill. That totally makes sense! We've seen several cases of mud-slinging against Hilary for her voting record, but maybe the "pots" behind her in the polls should be careful when calling-out the "kettle."
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Feel the Power!
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that President Bush has vetoed a bill that would give over 600,000 children from low-income families health insurance. The article goes on to say that Bush has used his veto power sparingly, but this is probably the most controversial veto during his administration. The bill did pass the senate with 68 votes (enough to override a veto), so it will be interesting to see what happens.
This situation is especially surprising considering this bill is endorsed by 63 Republicans in Congress and 43 governors. Bush claims that he vetoed this bill because it brings us one step closer to government controlled health care, but more than a few Republican leaders have put support behind this bill. The timing of this veto is also interesting considering the fact that President Bush just sent a proposal to Congress asking for $160 billion for the war in Iraq and this bill will only cost about $60 billion. It seems very strange that he would veto a bill that would have extremely beneficial and long-lasting results so late in this presidency. It is hard saying what is going through Dubya's head, but this could have serious implications on this "legacy" that he has been so concerned with lately.
This situation is especially surprising considering this bill is endorsed by 63 Republicans in Congress and 43 governors. Bush claims that he vetoed this bill because it brings us one step closer to government controlled health care, but more than a few Republican leaders have put support behind this bill. The timing of this veto is also interesting considering the fact that President Bush just sent a proposal to Congress asking for $160 billion for the war in Iraq and this bill will only cost about $60 billion. It seems very strange that he would veto a bill that would have extremely beneficial and long-lasting results so late in this presidency. It is hard saying what is going through Dubya's head, but this could have serious implications on this "legacy" that he has been so concerned with lately.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
How Free is Your Speech?
The New York Times reports that editor-in-chief of the Colorado State campus newspaper is being asked to resign for referring to President Bush with a certain four-letter word. The editor wrote this opinion article in support of the young man that was tasered at the University of Florida. The main concern in this case is what constitutes vulgarity, and what is free.
So, you need to ask yourself; is vulgarity protected under freedom of speech and press? In this case the editor will probably be fired because there is a policy that campus publication can not use vulgarity in their opinion columns. But how do you define vulgarity, and is this really that bad? You may argue that a college campus should be mature enough to handle this kind of language. This may be true, but children would probably have access to this paper also. Even so, you could argue that this isn't anything worse than what these kids could see in movie or on television. Obvious, this is a very complex subject, and certain one that I am not equipped to answer. However, I see this as a potential rallying point of a new generation. It will, no doubt, take more than one four-letter word in a college newspaper to bring about social change, but everything has to start somewhere, right?
So, you need to ask yourself; is vulgarity protected under freedom of speech and press? In this case the editor will probably be fired because there is a policy that campus publication can not use vulgarity in their opinion columns. But how do you define vulgarity, and is this really that bad? You may argue that a college campus should be mature enough to handle this kind of language. This may be true, but children would probably have access to this paper also. Even so, you could argue that this isn't anything worse than what these kids could see in movie or on television. Obvious, this is a very complex subject, and certain one that I am not equipped to answer. However, I see this as a potential rallying point of a new generation. It will, no doubt, take more than one four-letter word in a college newspaper to bring about social change, but everything has to start somewhere, right?
More Trouble in the GOP
ABCnews.com reports that several Christian-conservative leaders met over the weekend in Salt Lake City to discuss the upcoming presidential race. Apparently these leaders are extremely nervous because Giuliani may win the Republican nomination for President. The main concern with Giuliani is his apparent pro-abortion stances. During the course of the weekend, it was decided that if Giuliani is nominated for President, the Christian-right would back a third party candidate.
This decision could have many implications. First of all, it could ruin the primary for Guiliani. The Christian-right has played a major role in GOP politics since the Reagan administration. If the Christian-right backs a different candidate, it could sway many voters against Guiliani. Also, if Guiliani does win the nomination, and the Christian-right puts its support behind a third-party candidate, it could spell disaster for the GOP. It is starting to look as if the cards are stacked against the GOP in the 2008 Presidential race.
This decision could have many implications. First of all, it could ruin the primary for Guiliani. The Christian-right has played a major role in GOP politics since the Reagan administration. If the Christian-right backs a different candidate, it could sway many voters against Guiliani. Also, if Guiliani does win the nomination, and the Christian-right puts its support behind a third-party candidate, it could spell disaster for the GOP. It is starting to look as if the cards are stacked against the GOP in the 2008 Presidential race.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Cocktail Party!
The AP recently reported that the state of Tennessee decided that the classic "three drug cocktail" used for lethal injection actually caused unnecessary pain to the person being executed. So far, this is the third such ruling, and all three rulings have come from entirely different regions in America. The basic idea is that if the inmate is not given enough anesthesia (one of the three drugs in the cocktail) they will fell pain caused by the other two drugs (one to paralyze the muscles and one to stop the heart).
Some critics do not feel that this ruling will not change the death penalty; only delay current death sentences. However, this ruling could lead to many states conducting their own investigations in the area of lethal injections. Since lethal injection is the most common form of execution, a change in the system could put a huge damper on death-row. This might be an indirect route, but it could lead to reform in the legal system that many death sentence opponents have been looking for.
Some critics do not feel that this ruling will not change the death penalty; only delay current death sentences. However, this ruling could lead to many states conducting their own investigations in the area of lethal injections. Since lethal injection is the most common form of execution, a change in the system could put a huge damper on death-row. This might be an indirect route, but it could lead to reform in the legal system that many death sentence opponents have been looking for.
GOP in Trouble
A recent report from CNN states that the GOP's bid to take back the Senate could be over before it even begins. Next year there will be 34 seats being contested, and 22 of these seats are currently held by a Republican. Also, four Republicans are considered to be in "difficult" races next year, and three other Republican Senators will be retiring.
Obviously, the future of the GOP in Congress does not look to great, and it appears as if the backlash of the 2006 mid-term elections could be long-felt. There was talk after the 2004 election that the Democratic Party was in major decline, but the Democrats were bailed-out of trouble in 2006 when the American people showed their distaste for the Republicans (not necessarily their liking of the Democrats). It appears, however, that the Republicans never fully rebounded like many predicted they would, and the very thin margin the Dems hold in the Senate could become a substantial majority after the next election.
Obviously, the future of the GOP in Congress does not look to great, and it appears as if the backlash of the 2006 mid-term elections could be long-felt. There was talk after the 2004 election that the Democratic Party was in major decline, but the Democrats were bailed-out of trouble in 2006 when the American people showed their distaste for the Republicans (not necessarily their liking of the Democrats). It appears, however, that the Republicans never fully rebounded like many predicted they would, and the very thin margin the Dems hold in the Senate could become a substantial majority after the next election.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Clearing A Name
A recent report from ajc.com reports that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is currently trying to clear his name by attempting to reverse the his guilty plea in a Minnesota court. Senator Craig is adamant that his plea will be reserved, but the police remain skeptical. Craig maintains that he only entered a guilty plea because he was in a "state of fear" that resulted from his anxiety he felt because he was worried the story would become public. It was the Senator's understanding that if he entered into a plea bargain the case would remain private. This, however, was obviously false. It is also important to note that Craig has said he will resign on Sept. 30 which leaves a very small window of opportunity for the court to hear the case.
Since Craig has already said he is going to resign, it begs the question of which name people are trying to clear: Larry Craig or the GOP? Many experts have said that this incident could be a repeat of the scandals that helped Democrats gain a Congressional majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. If this is true, it may be extremely important for the Republican Party to have Craig cleared. Obviously, this scandal happened early enough that it will have little effect on the 2008 election, but the GOP may be learning from past mistakes by trying to stop snowball before it truly starts rolling downhill.
Since Craig has already said he is going to resign, it begs the question of which name people are trying to clear: Larry Craig or the GOP? Many experts have said that this incident could be a repeat of the scandals that helped Democrats gain a Congressional majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. If this is true, it may be extremely important for the Republican Party to have Craig cleared. Obviously, this scandal happened early enough that it will have little effect on the 2008 election, but the GOP may be learning from past mistakes by trying to stop snowball before it truly starts rolling downhill.
Friday, September 7, 2007
He Said, He Said
A few days ago North Korea publicly said that America had taken North Korea off of its international terrorism list. Yay! Obviously those American swine have come to their senses and can now see that Kim Jong-Il is actually a pretty cool guy. Not exactly. Shortly after a North Korean official said that they were off the list, it was reported by Reuters that North Korea was, in fact, still on America's terrorist list. It would appear, however, that the latest shennanegans from North Korea could put them higher on America's "S" list.
I can't even begin to understand why a North Korean official would say this when it wasn't true. Did they honestly think the White House wouldn't find out? Or maybe they thought they could break the story during the lunch hour, and no one would ever know. This whole ordeal actually reminds me grade school social interaction. Maybe North Korea will apologize by sending America a note a recess....
I can't even begin to understand why a North Korean official would say this when it wasn't true. Did they honestly think the White House wouldn't find out? Or maybe they thought they could break the story during the lunch hour, and no one would ever know. This whole ordeal actually reminds me grade school social interaction. Maybe North Korea will apologize by sending America a note a recess....
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Uh.......One Year....Yeah, That Sounds Good.
According to a Sept. 5th article in The New York Times, an independent commission has said that a realistic timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq would be roughly 12 to 18 months. This article comes just one day after another Times article reported President Bush saying a troop reduction was possible. This news might seem reassuring to those who oppose the war in Iraq, but it also gives the American people the image that US armed forces are making substantial progress in Iraq. I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but we need to remember that another independent commission said the same exact thing back in February.
With all the talk lately concerning Bush's "legacy in history," it's a little hard to take reports like this too seriously. We've been hearing reports concerning a timetable withdrawal from Iraq for over a year now, and so far none of the estimates seem to be correct. It's also probably no coincidence that these reports are coming out just weeks before the big Patreaus report is due. Personally, I won't be taking these reports seriously until I can decide that it isn't all conjecture and hearsay. It's one thing to say you can do something, but it's another to actually back up those claims. Lately it seems that our government hasn't been doing a great job of following up on its preliminary "estimates."
With all the talk lately concerning Bush's "legacy in history," it's a little hard to take reports like this too seriously. We've been hearing reports concerning a timetable withdrawal from Iraq for over a year now, and so far none of the estimates seem to be correct. It's also probably no coincidence that these reports are coming out just weeks before the big Patreaus report is due. Personally, I won't be taking these reports seriously until I can decide that it isn't all conjecture and hearsay. It's one thing to say you can do something, but it's another to actually back up those claims. Lately it seems that our government hasn't been doing a great job of following up on its preliminary "estimates."
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Burn?
Anyone remember hearing the phrase, "only the little people pay taxes"? Well, that phrase was uttered by none other than Leona Helmsley just before she was carried off to prison for tax evasion, and according to a recent article in The Scotsman, Helmsley passed away a few days ago at the age of 87. The interesting part of the story is that this article does not center around her death, but, rather, on her will. In her will she gave her dog, Trouble, $10 million and left 2 of her grandchildren out entirely for, "reasons known to them."
The first thing that popped into my mind was, "how the hell is a dog going to spend that much money?" Yeah, thats the first place my mind went. I didn't even bother to think about the fact that a dog can't spend money. Or can it? Anyway, upon further reflection, my new question was, "how much does she really hate these two kids?" While this will could simply be the result of a billionaire's undecipherable psyche, it could also be one giant "burn" on these two grandchildren on hers. How would you feel if your rich relative basically said "I have so much money to leave my family that I'm even giving my dog some. So everyone gather 'round and sign your name.....except you two.....you suck." This is either an absurd woman's final gesture of love to a small canine, or one absolutely brilliant way to show your spoiled offspring who's really in control.
The first thing that popped into my mind was, "how the hell is a dog going to spend that much money?" Yeah, thats the first place my mind went. I didn't even bother to think about the fact that a dog can't spend money. Or can it? Anyway, upon further reflection, my new question was, "how much does she really hate these two kids?" While this will could simply be the result of a billionaire's undecipherable psyche, it could also be one giant "burn" on these two grandchildren on hers. How would you feel if your rich relative basically said "I have so much money to leave my family that I'm even giving my dog some. So everyone gather 'round and sign your name.....except you two.....you suck." This is either an absurd woman's final gesture of love to a small canine, or one absolutely brilliant way to show your spoiled offspring who's really in control.
Monday, August 27, 2007
China's Crumpling Olympics
More than a few people were skeptical in 2001 when Beijing, China, won the bid to host the 2008 Olympic Games, but this mere skepticism is quickly turning into a growing feeling of remorse. According to a recent article in US News & World Report, there is growing doubt regarding safety at most of the proposed venues for the 2008 Olympics. The doubt arose shortly after a subway tunnel collapsed during a renovation project. The state blamed this collapse on the engineer's failure to spot sub-standard soil deposits, but workers have been telling reporters a different story. These workers have been speaking to foreign reporters and telling them that the safety failures are a result of increasing corruption among the contractors working on the building sights who are "skimming off the top." One worker even pointed out where freshly made cement was already cracked and appeared to be "very aged." One reason for this is because contractors have been adding chemicals to cement vats so that the cement will dry quickly, but these chemicals cause the cement to become very brittle.
The Olympics are no stranger to corruption whether it be steroid use or the bribing of Olympic officials. However, China's form of corporate corruption may go farther than simply compromising sportsmanship; this corruption could endanger thousands of spectators and athletes. Also keep in mind that many believe the fuel to China's recent economic boom has been corruption. US News goes as far as to say that "no deal can be done in China unless money is exchanged under the table." You don't even have to look farther than the recent recall of Chinese made Mattel toys to see that the Chinese are not afraid to compromise quality to save a little cash.
The 2008 Olympics were bound to have a little excitement and anxiety, but now it looks as if you can definitely add concern to the mix. The idea of a Beijing Olympics was supposed to foster outside connections to a once very isolated and xenophobic culture. However, if these safety reports are true, it looks as if these Olympics could be closing just as many doors as they were supposed to be opening.
The Olympics are no stranger to corruption whether it be steroid use or the bribing of Olympic officials. However, China's form of corporate corruption may go farther than simply compromising sportsmanship; this corruption could endanger thousands of spectators and athletes. Also keep in mind that many believe the fuel to China's recent economic boom has been corruption. US News goes as far as to say that "no deal can be done in China unless money is exchanged under the table." You don't even have to look farther than the recent recall of Chinese made Mattel toys to see that the Chinese are not afraid to compromise quality to save a little cash.
The 2008 Olympics were bound to have a little excitement and anxiety, but now it looks as if you can definitely add concern to the mix. The idea of a Beijing Olympics was supposed to foster outside connections to a once very isolated and xenophobic culture. However, if these safety reports are true, it looks as if these Olympics could be closing just as many doors as they were supposed to be opening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)