Below is a letter I wrote to Time Magazine-
In this day and age of high conflict surrounding immigration, what purpose does it serve to continuously point out that the shooter in the Virginia Tech Massacre was an immigrant? These inflammatory comments aimed at attracting an audience neither add nor detract from the facts of the case.
Cho Seung-hui, as has been reported by multiple media outlets, immigrated to this country at the age of 7. At the time of his death, he had spent more than a third of his life in America and had been raised and educated in the American system for the whole of his life. His national origin plays absolutely no part in his decision to commit this hideous act. From the limited information released thus far, one can deduct that this individual was severely depressed and troubled, that many people around him noticed this and that none of them took action to help him.
His English professor, who has so valiantly come on television to describe her interaction with this person, did nothing to get him to help. She stated that, through his writings, she believed him to be a dangerous person and that it was her duty as the Department Chair to take him aside and speak to him. She feels sorry that he did not take her advice and sought help. During the interview, the reporter mentioned that “no one could force him” to seek aid. This is untrue. Every state has laws aimed at protecting their citizens from those who will cause harm, even to themselves. In most cases, contacting Law Enforcement and providing evidence that this individual poses a risk, in this case the very violent writings and his demeanor could have prompted a court order for a psychiatric evaluation.
Rather than focusing on his nationality, why not focus on the multitude of individuals who failed him and ultimately caused him to feel that life was not just unworthy of living, but it was so lacking in value that he would take so many. What about focusing on his life and what brought him to this point? We have seen numerous reports on the lives of the victims, yet, we know very little about the life of the shooter or what may have prompted him to do this. All we know is that he was a Korean immigrant. He may have been an inhabitant of the planet Zork and come to live here illegally at the bottom of the ocean; however that was not the reason for his actions.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Friday, March 9, 2007
Republican Memory Loss
I was browsing through the WWW today looking for funny quotes. This has been a hobby of mine for several year now and has always kept me entertained during the slow times at work. Oddly enough, I decided to search for "political contradictions" and came across these.
I found it striking how impressively hypocritical these statements are. Especially since the present administration has been facing the same questions they posed some years ago and, as one would imagine, been just as bad at providing answers. These quotes relate to President Clinton's decision to send troops to Bosnia in the 1990's. Pay close attention to the very last quote, that's my favorite. Enjoy!
"You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Quotes coutesy of:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
I found it striking how impressively hypocritical these statements are. Especially since the present administration has been facing the same questions they posed some years ago and, as one would imagine, been just as bad at providing answers. These quotes relate to President Clinton's decision to send troops to Bosnia in the 1990's. Pay close attention to the very last quote, that's my favorite. Enjoy!
"You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Quotes coutesy of:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The Pro-Life Hypocrisy
I was driving behind a car the other day when I noticed something very peculiar about it. It had a bumper sticker that said "Smile, Your mother chose life". Generally I would not pay much attention to this, but the hypocrisy of the statement just struck a chord. In order for my mother to chose life, she had to be able to make a choice, something the Pro-Life movement seems to forget.
When people ask me which side of this debate I'm on, I always give the same answer; "it depends". As I see it, when you are talking about something so loaded as abortion, being over simplistic as to think that one answer fits all situations is idiotic and irresponsible. I will explain my answer.
- I do not agree with abortion as a form of birth control whereby the pregnancy came about through the parents irresponsibility. If you got drunk, forgot the condom and got pregnant, deal with it. You knew this was a possibility before you had sex.
- Along the same line, I disagree with abortion when the reason for it is "it will interfere with my career/school/life/plans". Again, you should have take this into account before having sex.
Now, before my conservative friends start cheering, there are situations when I do agree with abortion:
- When a woman has been raped. The last thing she needs is to spend the rest of her life being reminded of it and the child does not need to grow up being resented by his mother and without a father. It's funny that the same people that want a single woman to raise the child of a rapist on their own are the ones that are against gay adoption because "a child needs parents from both sexes" which implies having both parents present (more on this later).
- When there are SEVERE medical complications that threaten the life of the mother, the child or both. I am not including Down Syndrome or CF in this category. These conditions are compatible with life and are not a health risk for the mother.
There may be other situations where I may be in favor or against abortion, depending on what the case is. The most important thing here is this. It is about a choice.
Pro-Choice, as I understand it, is not in favor or against abortion. It is about HAVING THE CHOICE. I do agree that the choice must be limited, but this has to be taken on a case by case basis. Morality aside, there are the physical and medical aspects to be considered.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the 14 year old daughter of a pro-lifer would get pregnant. Would this make them think differently? And what if that same child was told by the doctor that carrying the pregnancy to term would result in the death of both mother and child? Would her mother still be as passionately against abortion?
I guess you could say I am Pro-Choice. I believe that life is precious and worth living. I don't know when life begins or ends. Being a man, I will never go through this impossible situation.
I do know that our country is great because we have the ability to chose. Take that away and you might as well bow to a king. Yes, my mother chose life, but that's because she was able to chose.
When people ask me which side of this debate I'm on, I always give the same answer; "it depends". As I see it, when you are talking about something so loaded as abortion, being over simplistic as to think that one answer fits all situations is idiotic and irresponsible. I will explain my answer.
- I do not agree with abortion as a form of birth control whereby the pregnancy came about through the parents irresponsibility. If you got drunk, forgot the condom and got pregnant, deal with it. You knew this was a possibility before you had sex.
- Along the same line, I disagree with abortion when the reason for it is "it will interfere with my career/school/life/plans". Again, you should have take this into account before having sex.
Now, before my conservative friends start cheering, there are situations when I do agree with abortion:
- When a woman has been raped. The last thing she needs is to spend the rest of her life being reminded of it and the child does not need to grow up being resented by his mother and without a father. It's funny that the same people that want a single woman to raise the child of a rapist on their own are the ones that are against gay adoption because "a child needs parents from both sexes" which implies having both parents present (more on this later).
- When there are SEVERE medical complications that threaten the life of the mother, the child or both. I am not including Down Syndrome or CF in this category. These conditions are compatible with life and are not a health risk for the mother.
There may be other situations where I may be in favor or against abortion, depending on what the case is. The most important thing here is this. It is about a choice.
Pro-Choice, as I understand it, is not in favor or against abortion. It is about HAVING THE CHOICE. I do agree that the choice must be limited, but this has to be taken on a case by case basis. Morality aside, there are the physical and medical aspects to be considered.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the 14 year old daughter of a pro-lifer would get pregnant. Would this make them think differently? And what if that same child was told by the doctor that carrying the pregnancy to term would result in the death of both mother and child? Would her mother still be as passionately against abortion?
I guess you could say I am Pro-Choice. I believe that life is precious and worth living. I don't know when life begins or ends. Being a man, I will never go through this impossible situation.
I do know that our country is great because we have the ability to chose. Take that away and you might as well bow to a king. Yes, my mother chose life, but that's because she was able to chose.
Monday, February 5, 2007
HPV Vaccine
I was watching a news piece this morning where two Texas legislators were debating the Governors decision to make HPV Vaccination mandatory for school age girls in the State of Texas. Personally, I applaud Governor Rick Perry for this effort and agree that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
When it comes to Cervical Cancer, the type which the HPV Vaccine aims at reducing, the cost of diagnosis and treatment are, by far, higher than the estimated $360.00 price tag on the vaccination series. According to a 2005 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, nearly 4,000 women would die from Cervical Cancer and another 10,000 would be diagnosed in that year alone, resulting in an estimated $2 Billion cost.
As with Polio and Malaria before it, we are now equipped with a vaccine that has the potential to severely impact these numbers. Granted, the vaccine is not 100% effective in treating all sources of Cervical Cancer, it only deals with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which has been identified as one of the leading causes. So, why so much controversy over a potentially life saving vaccine?
The biggest issue at hand is the idea that vaccinating young girls (the recommended age is 5 years old) will be sort of permission for them to become sexually active. The thought process is somewhat like this:
1. HPV is generally a sexually transmitted virus.
2. Vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted illness opens the door to "no consequence" sexual activity.
3. We, as adults, cannot allow this.
This is a quasi good point, except that those who follow it forget one important point. The same was said about sex education classes in school. I trully believe that parents need to think abut their kids more than about what may be difficult for them to discuss with them. It falls on the parent to teach their children the values necessary to resist the temptation to get involved in sex before they are mature enough to deal with the consequenses.
Up to now, there has been no such vaccine, however, teenagers continue to engage in sexual activity. Recent studies have shown that teen pregnancy has declined in the US. However, concurrent studies point to increased sexual activity in the teen age population. How do these studies reconcile?
We as a society have done an exellent job of scaring our kids away from preganancy. By showing them the financial responsibility involved and how having a child too early can affect them for the rest of their life, we have been able to get the message across to them. However, we have not taught them about sexuality. Our kids are now more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases because they no longer "get involved" with a single partner, rather they "hook up" with multiple ones. This new trend comes as a result of our own teachings. The "don't limit your choices" lessons we give our children. They are now taking this to heart and applying it to their sexual exploration.
Teenage girls will no longer give up their much prized (according to parents) virginity. Instead, they are involved in other types of sexual activities, some which not even their parents would take part in themselves. We have made the protection of the hymen the ultimate goal, and our kids are doing it well. Is it any surprise that teen pregnancy has gone down? Not to me. So, how does this relate to the HPV vaccine?
It is obvoius, at least in my opinion, that a vaccine does not make the difference whether your child decides to have sex. This comes from your ability as a parent to instill in them a sense of what sex means and why it is to their advantage to wait. Even so, there is as much guarantee they will listen to you as there was for your parents. What did you do?
With this in mind, it would be irresponsible to withold this valuable vaccine based on poorly documented morality. Should the vaccine be kept from our kids, any death from Carvical Cancer that can be linked to HPV must be treated as negligent homicide. Let's stop debating about morality, after all, everyone has their own. Let's think about our children and their future. Let's wake up to the reality that WE are the parents, that it falls to US to teach and protect our kids and, most importantly, let's stop trying to block a good thing beacause of our own ineptitude in discussing sexuality with our children.
When it comes to Cervical Cancer, the type which the HPV Vaccine aims at reducing, the cost of diagnosis and treatment are, by far, higher than the estimated $360.00 price tag on the vaccination series. According to a 2005 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, nearly 4,000 women would die from Cervical Cancer and another 10,000 would be diagnosed in that year alone, resulting in an estimated $2 Billion cost.
As with Polio and Malaria before it, we are now equipped with a vaccine that has the potential to severely impact these numbers. Granted, the vaccine is not 100% effective in treating all sources of Cervical Cancer, it only deals with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which has been identified as one of the leading causes. So, why so much controversy over a potentially life saving vaccine?
The biggest issue at hand is the idea that vaccinating young girls (the recommended age is 5 years old) will be sort of permission for them to become sexually active. The thought process is somewhat like this:
1. HPV is generally a sexually transmitted virus.
2. Vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted illness opens the door to "no consequence" sexual activity.
3. We, as adults, cannot allow this.
This is a quasi good point, except that those who follow it forget one important point. The same was said about sex education classes in school. I trully believe that parents need to think abut their kids more than about what may be difficult for them to discuss with them. It falls on the parent to teach their children the values necessary to resist the temptation to get involved in sex before they are mature enough to deal with the consequenses.
Up to now, there has been no such vaccine, however, teenagers continue to engage in sexual activity. Recent studies have shown that teen pregnancy has declined in the US. However, concurrent studies point to increased sexual activity in the teen age population. How do these studies reconcile?
We as a society have done an exellent job of scaring our kids away from preganancy. By showing them the financial responsibility involved and how having a child too early can affect them for the rest of their life, we have been able to get the message across to them. However, we have not taught them about sexuality. Our kids are now more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases because they no longer "get involved" with a single partner, rather they "hook up" with multiple ones. This new trend comes as a result of our own teachings. The "don't limit your choices" lessons we give our children. They are now taking this to heart and applying it to their sexual exploration.
Teenage girls will no longer give up their much prized (according to parents) virginity. Instead, they are involved in other types of sexual activities, some which not even their parents would take part in themselves. We have made the protection of the hymen the ultimate goal, and our kids are doing it well. Is it any surprise that teen pregnancy has gone down? Not to me. So, how does this relate to the HPV vaccine?
It is obvoius, at least in my opinion, that a vaccine does not make the difference whether your child decides to have sex. This comes from your ability as a parent to instill in them a sense of what sex means and why it is to their advantage to wait. Even so, there is as much guarantee they will listen to you as there was for your parents. What did you do?
With this in mind, it would be irresponsible to withold this valuable vaccine based on poorly documented morality. Should the vaccine be kept from our kids, any death from Carvical Cancer that can be linked to HPV must be treated as negligent homicide. Let's stop debating about morality, after all, everyone has their own. Let's think about our children and their future. Let's wake up to the reality that WE are the parents, that it falls to US to teach and protect our kids and, most importantly, let's stop trying to block a good thing beacause of our own ineptitude in discussing sexuality with our children.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
The Issue With The Budget
Returning to my post-State of the Union topics, I'll discuss my thoughts on the President's statement on balancing the budget. As I mentioned before, I believe that any time the government takes on this task, social services are hampered. They talk about reducing government spending, but truly, what does this translate to? Is this the best option?
Reducing social services in order to balance the budget is not the answer. What results is a multitude of people devoid of programs which are vital to their sustenance. However, managing these programs to reduce overspending and mishandling of funds may be the answer. I briefly touched on the fact that many people in our country abuse the federal assistance programs. For instance, the Welfare Program was established as a means to temporarily assist citizens who, due to the remnants of The Depression, needed monetary aid while they were able to get back on their feet. The program was never intended as a substitute for education and work. However, we are now raising the 3rd generation of Welfare dependants in this country. These same individuals also take advantage of programs like WIC, Food Stamps, etc. All meant to be used on a temporary basis. Auditing these programs is imperative to ensure proper compliance and control the associated costs.
Another area our government should be able to tap for funds are those individuals in the top 2% of the income bracket. These individuals should be taxed on their gross income and not on an adjusted, taxable income. This may sound like discrimination but is not. Consider all the tax shelter options available to these individuals. From multimillion dollar home tax deductions to overseas investment and accounts, they are able to keep a lot of money away from the government. Unfortunately, for most of us in the other 98%, our ability to safeguard our money is quite limited.
By increasing taxes on the "Super Rich" the government would be able to apply more funds to the task of balancing the budget. I will include our own politicians in this group. In 2001, the median household income in the US was $46,326 (See Chart). According to the University of Michigan Library, that same year, the President's salary was raised from $250,000 to $400,000.
If we consider the total salaries for The Congress and the Supreme Court, our politicians make more money per-capita than any average citizen ever will. Now, consider that most politicians live in a double income household, and that some of these households contain two such politicians, you can see that their household income is, by far, beyond what you or I will ever make. Because of this, I would suggest that our brave leaders and take one for the team and cut their salaries to match whatever the average household income is. The savings can be applied to the task of balancing the budget.
In summary, in order to effectively balance the US Budget, our government needs to properly manage the programs that are already in existence, tax those who have the means to provide more funds and, above all, stop talking out of the side of their mouths and look at themselves as a source of needed money for this task. Maybe then we can look at them and see a reflection of us, the average, hard working, not so well paid American.
Reducing social services in order to balance the budget is not the answer. What results is a multitude of people devoid of programs which are vital to their sustenance. However, managing these programs to reduce overspending and mishandling of funds may be the answer. I briefly touched on the fact that many people in our country abuse the federal assistance programs. For instance, the Welfare Program was established as a means to temporarily assist citizens who, due to the remnants of The Depression, needed monetary aid while they were able to get back on their feet. The program was never intended as a substitute for education and work. However, we are now raising the 3rd generation of Welfare dependants in this country. These same individuals also take advantage of programs like WIC, Food Stamps, etc. All meant to be used on a temporary basis. Auditing these programs is imperative to ensure proper compliance and control the associated costs.
Another area our government should be able to tap for funds are those individuals in the top 2% of the income bracket. These individuals should be taxed on their gross income and not on an adjusted, taxable income. This may sound like discrimination but is not. Consider all the tax shelter options available to these individuals. From multimillion dollar home tax deductions to overseas investment and accounts, they are able to keep a lot of money away from the government. Unfortunately, for most of us in the other 98%, our ability to safeguard our money is quite limited.
By increasing taxes on the "Super Rich" the government would be able to apply more funds to the task of balancing the budget. I will include our own politicians in this group. In 2001, the median household income in the US was $46,326 (See Chart). According to the University of Michigan Library, that same year, the President's salary was raised from $250,000 to $400,000.
If we consider the total salaries for The Congress and the Supreme Court, our politicians make more money per-capita than any average citizen ever will. Now, consider that most politicians live in a double income household, and that some of these households contain two such politicians, you can see that their household income is, by far, beyond what you or I will ever make. Because of this, I would suggest that our brave leaders and take one for the team and cut their salaries to match whatever the average household income is. The savings can be applied to the task of balancing the budget.
In summary, in order to effectively balance the US Budget, our government needs to properly manage the programs that are already in existence, tax those who have the means to provide more funds and, above all, stop talking out of the side of their mouths and look at themselves as a source of needed money for this task. Maybe then we can look at them and see a reflection of us, the average, hard working, not so well paid American.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
It's The Parent's Responsibility
Who's the parent anyway? This is the question we need to ask when we see these news casts about how McDonald's is making our children fat. I was about to write about the tax code when I saw a piece on the news talking about parents complaining about fast food restaurants latest marketing tactic...video games. We've all seen them. BK had a series of them featuring The King. Now, many cereal and "kid food" manufacturers are joining in with free, online games.
Is this really the cause of childhood obesity? Hardly. Parents need to get their heads out of their rears and realize that they are the decision makers in the house. If a 5 year old kid is eating a Happy Meal every day, it's not because he drove himself to the restaurant, pulled out his bank card and bought himself a meal. It is YOU who is taking your child there. It is YOU who is buying the food. And it is YOU who refuses to say no to your child so she won't throw a tantrum. With this in mind, the only one to blame for your 100 lb 5 year old is YOU. Compounding this problem it the fact that parents have removed physical activity from their kids' life. They refuse to support Physical Education programs in schools because they don't want their kids to suffer a little rejection. What is so wrong with a child learning to accept that he's not the fastest runner, or the most flexible gymnast or the best linebacker?
Honestly, it has nothing to do with the kids. The problem is that parenting has gone out the window. It's all about giving kids everything without teaching them about what really matters; responsibility, working toward a reward, earning what you get and, most importantly, dealing with disappointment when you just don't get your way. These are important lessons. The real world does not shield you from these frustrations and it is up to us as parents to teach our children how to deal with it.
Thinking back to my own childhood, I was lucky enough to be raised by a set of parents who had their priorities straight. My parents were not raised with money and, although they have done well for themselves, they didn't feel the need to spoil their children as a way to live life vicariously. They could have had the big house with the expensive cars and given us the latest and greatest. Instead, we would get what was fair and their money was invested in our education, not toys. We had the opportunity to travel and see how people lived in less privilege parts of the world and the country. Of course, growing up we didn't quite get this and would occasionally ask for an Atari or Nintendo- it was the 80's OK? I never did get a video console until I was able to buy my own. What I did get were plenty of books, building models and other toys that required using your brain.
I am not saying that parents shouldn't give things to their kids. However, no parent should give in to every little whim. There is no need for a child in grade school to have a cell phone. There is no need for a 12 year old to have the most expensive digital camera available. There is no need for a 16 year old to die, and kill a friend, by crashing a $38,000 sports car they are not experienced enough to drive. Common sense, as with most other things, is imperative in parenting. The most important thing we can teach our kids if common sense. It will keep them out of trouble, help them cope with disappointment and give them a way to analyze the situation they are in, good or bad, in order to make the best decisions.
Being a parent is not about blaming the television, fast food, sports, teachers, friends, society, the neighbors or anyone else for what happens in our kids' life. It is about living up to the responsibility we accepted by bringing this little life into this world.
Is this really the cause of childhood obesity? Hardly. Parents need to get their heads out of their rears and realize that they are the decision makers in the house. If a 5 year old kid is eating a Happy Meal every day, it's not because he drove himself to the restaurant, pulled out his bank card and bought himself a meal. It is YOU who is taking your child there. It is YOU who is buying the food. And it is YOU who refuses to say no to your child so she won't throw a tantrum. With this in mind, the only one to blame for your 100 lb 5 year old is YOU. Compounding this problem it the fact that parents have removed physical activity from their kids' life. They refuse to support Physical Education programs in schools because they don't want their kids to suffer a little rejection. What is so wrong with a child learning to accept that he's not the fastest runner, or the most flexible gymnast or the best linebacker?
Honestly, it has nothing to do with the kids. The problem is that parenting has gone out the window. It's all about giving kids everything without teaching them about what really matters; responsibility, working toward a reward, earning what you get and, most importantly, dealing with disappointment when you just don't get your way. These are important lessons. The real world does not shield you from these frustrations and it is up to us as parents to teach our children how to deal with it.
Thinking back to my own childhood, I was lucky enough to be raised by a set of parents who had their priorities straight. My parents were not raised with money and, although they have done well for themselves, they didn't feel the need to spoil their children as a way to live life vicariously. They could have had the big house with the expensive cars and given us the latest and greatest. Instead, we would get what was fair and their money was invested in our education, not toys. We had the opportunity to travel and see how people lived in less privilege parts of the world and the country. Of course, growing up we didn't quite get this and would occasionally ask for an Atari or Nintendo- it was the 80's OK? I never did get a video console until I was able to buy my own. What I did get were plenty of books, building models and other toys that required using your brain.
I am not saying that parents shouldn't give things to their kids. However, no parent should give in to every little whim. There is no need for a child in grade school to have a cell phone. There is no need for a 12 year old to have the most expensive digital camera available. There is no need for a 16 year old to die, and kill a friend, by crashing a $38,000 sports car they are not experienced enough to drive. Common sense, as with most other things, is imperative in parenting. The most important thing we can teach our kids if common sense. It will keep them out of trouble, help them cope with disappointment and give them a way to analyze the situation they are in, good or bad, in order to make the best decisions.
Being a parent is not about blaming the television, fast food, sports, teachers, friends, society, the neighbors or anyone else for what happens in our kids' life. It is about living up to the responsibility we accepted by bringing this little life into this world.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Health Insurance for All!!
As mentioned before, I have some ideas on how we can make health insurance more affordable and accessible to everyone. Before I go into this, I'll give you a little background information. If you read my profile, you know I am a Paramedic and have seen the problems with health insurance, first hand, for the last 10 years.
With that said, I believe that health care should be available to all. Whether everyone takes advantage of it or not, is part of our free society. Making health care compulsory, as has been suggested, will only create havoc in the medical and hospital community and does not guarantee that people will sign up for it. If you have any doubts about this, look at car insurance. All states have laws requiring, at the least, liability insurance before someone can purchase a car. I can tell you first hand, that this does NOT mean that every driver out there has coverage. How can this be? Lack of enforcement.
Now, some states are better at this than others. When I lived in Nevada, if your insurance lapsed, DMV would be notified and your licence and registration would be suspended. Should you be pulled over for anything, you would be taking a little ride to jail. This is very efficient and not at all time consuming.
On the other hand, Texas- where I now live- makes a joke of their own laws. I was rear ended by a driver that not only had no insurance coverage, he was carrying a false insurance card. I contacted the Highway Patrol and was told there was nothing they could do. Huh?! I thought they were supposed to enforce the law. Here I am reporting a crime and nothing is done. SUPER!
What does this have to do with health care? The same would happen with compulsory health coverage. Say you make it mandatory for people to get health insurance. How would you verify this? You wouldn't know until the person gets to the hospital at which point, they must receive medical care sufficient to stabilize their condition, whether they can pay for it or not. It's the law. This has caused our emergency rooms to get over crowded with people who do not have insurance and use these facilities as a primary care clinic.
The proposed plan, as I understand it, would provide a tax break for individuals and families who have coverage whereby you can claim up to a certain amount of what you pay for insurance on your tax return. It also provides the same for non-covered individuals with the expectation that they use the money for a basic health insurance policy. Again, how exactly would you verify this? One way is to have the person send in evidence of coverage in order to receive the tax break. Immediately after which the person could cancel the policy and no one would be the wiser... until they need care.
A better option, as I mentioned before, would be for the Federal Government to give these tax incentives to the State and let the state provide several "free" options designed for individuals and families. For example, lets assume that the tax incentive is for $5000 for a family. The Federal Government would need to take this amount from the taxes collected and send it to the State. This guarantees the money is used for what it is intended for. Remember, I am not an economist and there may be logistical obstacles to a program like this. However, I am certain that it can be developed into something workable if the right people work on it.
Once these programs are established, the law needs to change to allow hospitals to deny care for the uninsured unless there is a life threatening situation. This will force people to get insured. There are plenty of programs out there. Medicaid is one example. Unfortunately, to qualify for this program you must have 6 kids and make about $.10 a year. The government needs to revise these outrageous requirements so that people can take advantage of these programs. They also need to be more stringent on the follow-up of people who are already on them.
I know plenty of people who are on Medicaid, Food Stamps, subsidized utility programs, etc., yet they drive around in brand new, top model vehicles, have a dish on their roof, a pool in the backyard and many other luxuries that the tax payers can't afford. I am not against these programs; however, if I am funding them through my taxes, I want accountability and the ability to use them if I'm ever in a bad situation. Unfortunately, I make too much money to qualify for any federal program although I can't afford a new car, or a new house or a pool. I'm sure many people out there understand this. Why don't we open our mouths and demand accountability?
A new program may or not work. As with any other federal program, it comes down to how it is administered. Unfortunately for us, our government- all of it- is too busy covering their own hides and policing the world to give a damn about us.
With that said, I believe that health care should be available to all. Whether everyone takes advantage of it or not, is part of our free society. Making health care compulsory, as has been suggested, will only create havoc in the medical and hospital community and does not guarantee that people will sign up for it. If you have any doubts about this, look at car insurance. All states have laws requiring, at the least, liability insurance before someone can purchase a car. I can tell you first hand, that this does NOT mean that every driver out there has coverage. How can this be? Lack of enforcement.
Now, some states are better at this than others. When I lived in Nevada, if your insurance lapsed, DMV would be notified and your licence and registration would be suspended. Should you be pulled over for anything, you would be taking a little ride to jail. This is very efficient and not at all time consuming.
On the other hand, Texas- where I now live- makes a joke of their own laws. I was rear ended by a driver that not only had no insurance coverage, he was carrying a false insurance card. I contacted the Highway Patrol and was told there was nothing they could do. Huh?! I thought they were supposed to enforce the law. Here I am reporting a crime and nothing is done. SUPER!
What does this have to do with health care? The same would happen with compulsory health coverage. Say you make it mandatory for people to get health insurance. How would you verify this? You wouldn't know until the person gets to the hospital at which point, they must receive medical care sufficient to stabilize their condition, whether they can pay for it or not. It's the law. This has caused our emergency rooms to get over crowded with people who do not have insurance and use these facilities as a primary care clinic.
The proposed plan, as I understand it, would provide a tax break for individuals and families who have coverage whereby you can claim up to a certain amount of what you pay for insurance on your tax return. It also provides the same for non-covered individuals with the expectation that they use the money for a basic health insurance policy. Again, how exactly would you verify this? One way is to have the person send in evidence of coverage in order to receive the tax break. Immediately after which the person could cancel the policy and no one would be the wiser... until they need care.
A better option, as I mentioned before, would be for the Federal Government to give these tax incentives to the State and let the state provide several "free" options designed for individuals and families. For example, lets assume that the tax incentive is for $5000 for a family. The Federal Government would need to take this amount from the taxes collected and send it to the State. This guarantees the money is used for what it is intended for. Remember, I am not an economist and there may be logistical obstacles to a program like this. However, I am certain that it can be developed into something workable if the right people work on it.
Once these programs are established, the law needs to change to allow hospitals to deny care for the uninsured unless there is a life threatening situation. This will force people to get insured. There are plenty of programs out there. Medicaid is one example. Unfortunately, to qualify for this program you must have 6 kids and make about $.10 a year. The government needs to revise these outrageous requirements so that people can take advantage of these programs. They also need to be more stringent on the follow-up of people who are already on them.
I know plenty of people who are on Medicaid, Food Stamps, subsidized utility programs, etc., yet they drive around in brand new, top model vehicles, have a dish on their roof, a pool in the backyard and many other luxuries that the tax payers can't afford. I am not against these programs; however, if I am funding them through my taxes, I want accountability and the ability to use them if I'm ever in a bad situation. Unfortunately, I make too much money to qualify for any federal program although I can't afford a new car, or a new house or a pool. I'm sure many people out there understand this. Why don't we open our mouths and demand accountability?
A new program may or not work. As with any other federal program, it comes down to how it is administered. Unfortunately for us, our government- all of it- is too busy covering their own hides and policing the world to give a damn about us.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Immigration Reform...How To Make It Work
As mentioned in my previous post, I have some ideas regarding how we can work toward reducing illegal immigration into our country. The first item is to stop lying and come out with the real reasons for the reform. No, we are not building a wall on our southern border because of the terrorist threat. We are building the wall for a much less PC reason; we just don't like Mexicans in this country because they don't like to integrate into our society. I know what you're saying...this can't possibly be true. Well, how come we're not building a fence on the Canadian border? After all, the only 2 terrorist attempts caught coming across any land border were caught on the Canadian border, not the Mexican one, right? Not to mention that some of the 9/11 hijackers came to the US via Canada.
Once we accept that this is the one true reason, we can examine the root causes of the problem. The reason immigrants come to this country is work. As I mentioned before, most of them don't care about becoming citizens. This is a new issue in our immigration history. European and Asian immigrants, being so far away from their countries of origin, had no other option than to integrate into the American melting pot. Latin American immigrants; however, are able to move back and forth from their country with relative ease, rendering the need for citizenship null.
I say null because, although the law in our country states that no EMPLOYER can hire illegal workers, many do. We argue that immigrants should be sent back because they broke the law. This is true. But the only reason for them to undertake this illegal action, is the fact that American companies will break the law to hire them. Can you blame then immigrant for taking advantage of the situation? I can't.
This leads me to the first suggestion. Instead of targeting the individual, go after the company that hires them. "We already do this" you say. Well, not really. When INS raids a factory, they arrest the workers. I have yet to see the owner of the company being handcuffed and taken away with the rest of them. This is one option on the enforcement side. Make company CEO's and other top executives criminally liable for the company's hiring practices. If they weren't aware of it, they should have and I can guarantee you, from that point on, they will be.
But, how to prevent it in the first place? Simple. Say you're an employer that hires illegal workers. Now, let's say the Government finds out and fines you $1000 per illegal worker. If you have 100 worker, you just got hit for $100k dollars.
Now, let's say that you save $10/week on payroll over what you would pay a citizen worker and they have been working for you for an average of 3 years. This means you saved a total of $156000 on payroll. Considering you spent no money on benefits, your savings can be considerably higher. So, even after the fine, you still saved, at a minimum, $56K. See where this is going?
To make a real impact, our government needs to get serious about these fines. This doesn't only apply to illegal immigration. How about EPA standards and OSHA regulations, etc.? If companies don't feel the pain of breaking the law, why would they stop?
The other side of the coin is over the border itself. Be honest now, if you were in Mexico and had an opportunity to come to this country and make a better living for your family, you would do it too. So, instead of spending billions of dollars on war, how about we spend millions on peace? Injecting some funds into the Mexican economy would help. This could be done as an international loan through World Bank. Another option is for Mexico to mandate that foreign companies looking to do business in their country pay wages and offer benefits equivalent to those in the country of origin. To keep investment from leaving due to the higher payroll, Mexico could offer some tax incentives to the corporation.
The point is simple. Capitalism runs on buying power. The more people make, the more they spend. We now this to be true in our country. Rather than "Spreading Democracy", why don't we focus on "Spreading Capitalism and Education". After all, the more educated people are, the less they will tolerate corruption (a real problem in most of Latin America). The less corruption, the more chances for Capitalism to grow.
Mexico is a great and beautiful country that, if properly governed and managed, would certainly give the US a run for its money with the sheer number of natural and human resources they possess. Hummmm...come to think of it, maybe that's another reason we'd rather they not progress.
Once we accept that this is the one true reason, we can examine the root causes of the problem. The reason immigrants come to this country is work. As I mentioned before, most of them don't care about becoming citizens. This is a new issue in our immigration history. European and Asian immigrants, being so far away from their countries of origin, had no other option than to integrate into the American melting pot. Latin American immigrants; however, are able to move back and forth from their country with relative ease, rendering the need for citizenship null.
I say null because, although the law in our country states that no EMPLOYER can hire illegal workers, many do. We argue that immigrants should be sent back because they broke the law. This is true. But the only reason for them to undertake this illegal action, is the fact that American companies will break the law to hire them. Can you blame then immigrant for taking advantage of the situation? I can't.
This leads me to the first suggestion. Instead of targeting the individual, go after the company that hires them. "We already do this" you say. Well, not really. When INS raids a factory, they arrest the workers. I have yet to see the owner of the company being handcuffed and taken away with the rest of them. This is one option on the enforcement side. Make company CEO's and other top executives criminally liable for the company's hiring practices. If they weren't aware of it, they should have and I can guarantee you, from that point on, they will be.
But, how to prevent it in the first place? Simple. Say you're an employer that hires illegal workers. Now, let's say the Government finds out and fines you $1000 per illegal worker. If you have 100 worker, you just got hit for $100k dollars.
Now, let's say that you save $10/week on payroll over what you would pay a citizen worker and they have been working for you for an average of 3 years. This means you saved a total of $156000 on payroll. Considering you spent no money on benefits, your savings can be considerably higher. So, even after the fine, you still saved, at a minimum, $56K. See where this is going?
To make a real impact, our government needs to get serious about these fines. This doesn't only apply to illegal immigration. How about EPA standards and OSHA regulations, etc.? If companies don't feel the pain of breaking the law, why would they stop?
The other side of the coin is over the border itself. Be honest now, if you were in Mexico and had an opportunity to come to this country and make a better living for your family, you would do it too. So, instead of spending billions of dollars on war, how about we spend millions on peace? Injecting some funds into the Mexican economy would help. This could be done as an international loan through World Bank. Another option is for Mexico to mandate that foreign companies looking to do business in their country pay wages and offer benefits equivalent to those in the country of origin. To keep investment from leaving due to the higher payroll, Mexico could offer some tax incentives to the corporation.
The point is simple. Capitalism runs on buying power. The more people make, the more they spend. We now this to be true in our country. Rather than "Spreading Democracy", why don't we focus on "Spreading Capitalism and Education". After all, the more educated people are, the less they will tolerate corruption (a real problem in most of Latin America). The less corruption, the more chances for Capitalism to grow.
Mexico is a great and beautiful country that, if properly governed and managed, would certainly give the US a run for its money with the sheer number of natural and human resources they possess. Hummmm...come to think of it, maybe that's another reason we'd rather they not progress.
Bush sticks to his guns... kind of
Well, the President spoke last night in what seemed like a much subdued tone from his previous State of the Union Addresses. Although he did not change his mind on Iraq, the way he put it was almost implorative. No longer is he "Staying the course". It was strange to hear the President ask for his plan to be given an opportunity to work. Like a misbehaved teenager pleading with his parents for one more chance.
The problem here is that he will have a very hard time selling this plan to just about anyone. Not that he has to since he is, after all, the Commander in Chief. So, why does he feel the need to plead his case? The American political system is great because it is based on consensus. Just as with Veto, having the authority and/or power to do something doesn't mean you have the backing to do it. Not only does the President benefit from finding support for this plan, so does the Republican Party of which he is the top representative at the moment.
Unfortunately, historical actions play a large part in future forgiveness. Had the President been more open to listening to the concerns of the people when they (we) were asking about progress in the war and getting lies for responses, the people might be more open to support this new venture.
It is also unfortunate that our government system only allows for a token resolution to go through Congress. Something must be said of the inability of our representatives to block an action seen by most as incorrect. To play devil's advocate, if Congress is unable to stop the Commander in Chief from taking military actions regardless of their consequence, what would happen if the he decided to turn the military against our own people? This is completely hypothetical and most likely impossible since he would not have the support of the troops, but...what if? You get the idea.
What is needed in Iraq are non-military measures to support the military mission. It is impossible for a small force of soldiers and marines to run a country. There needs to be support from the State, Agriculture, Energy, and other infrastructure departments to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq. Is it dangerous for these civilians to go there and help? Certainly. But our government created this and they must solve it. Perhaps once these desk jockeys have a little time in the field, they will better understand why we need to get out in a hurry.
What about the rest of the speech? As predicted, Mr. Bush spoke about social programs and immigration reform. There were some ideas I had to agree with while others just seemed like a last ditch effort to do nothing. Below are some good and bad ideas, summarized:
1. Reform Immigration- I have to agree. The system is broken. The problem here is that they are taking the wrong approach. Think about root causes. Why are immigrants coming to this country? For about 99% of them the answer is work, plain and simple. They are not here to become citizens nor do they want to learn the language and become activists. How to address the problem? Simple common sense- eliminate the jobs available to them. I will expand on this and other ways to solve the problem in a separate post.
2. Reform Health Insurance- Being involved in heath care, I can see the benefits. However, the plan proposed, although better than most others, has one fatal flaw. The idea is that if you receive a tax break, you will use the money to purchase health insurance. Think about this. How many of us say we are going to pay off the credit cards, or student loans, or reduce our debt with the refund money? How many of us actually do this instead of spending it on something new? Like I said, think about it. In my opinion, a better way would be to offer 1-2 state plans. Instead of a tax break, the Federal Government can then take a percentage off the taxes we pay now and pass it on to the states to fund these programs. More on this on a different post.
3. Balance the budget without increasing taxes- Great idea! Now how can this be done? Many-a-president has taken this approach without success. They have all talked about reducing government spending, which only ends up translating to cutting back on social services. The only time in recent years when the budget was balanced and our national debt was almost at a negative, the Democrats increased taxes in several programs to achieve this. As I recall, my paycheck and standard of living didn't really change for the better or worse. The point is, a small increase in taxes to offset the cost of social programs is not a bad trade off. Don't take me wrong, I do have some issues with our tax code and will discuss these further on a different post.
There were many other issues mentioned last night. Of course every analyst has their own opinion on what each means and whether the proposals are possible or not. The only thing that can really help our country is for our government to stop worrying so much about ratings and start worrying about what is best for OUR country. Until this happens, we will continue to "police" the world only to come up with excuses, apologies and half truths to justify our endeavours.
The problem here is that he will have a very hard time selling this plan to just about anyone. Not that he has to since he is, after all, the Commander in Chief. So, why does he feel the need to plead his case? The American political system is great because it is based on consensus. Just as with Veto, having the authority and/or power to do something doesn't mean you have the backing to do it. Not only does the President benefit from finding support for this plan, so does the Republican Party of which he is the top representative at the moment.
Unfortunately, historical actions play a large part in future forgiveness. Had the President been more open to listening to the concerns of the people when they (we) were asking about progress in the war and getting lies for responses, the people might be more open to support this new venture.
It is also unfortunate that our government system only allows for a token resolution to go through Congress. Something must be said of the inability of our representatives to block an action seen by most as incorrect. To play devil's advocate, if Congress is unable to stop the Commander in Chief from taking military actions regardless of their consequence, what would happen if the he decided to turn the military against our own people? This is completely hypothetical and most likely impossible since he would not have the support of the troops, but...what if? You get the idea.
What is needed in Iraq are non-military measures to support the military mission. It is impossible for a small force of soldiers and marines to run a country. There needs to be support from the State, Agriculture, Energy, and other infrastructure departments to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq. Is it dangerous for these civilians to go there and help? Certainly. But our government created this and they must solve it. Perhaps once these desk jockeys have a little time in the field, they will better understand why we need to get out in a hurry.
What about the rest of the speech? As predicted, Mr. Bush spoke about social programs and immigration reform. There were some ideas I had to agree with while others just seemed like a last ditch effort to do nothing. Below are some good and bad ideas, summarized:
1. Reform Immigration- I have to agree. The system is broken. The problem here is that they are taking the wrong approach. Think about root causes. Why are immigrants coming to this country? For about 99% of them the answer is work, plain and simple. They are not here to become citizens nor do they want to learn the language and become activists. How to address the problem? Simple common sense- eliminate the jobs available to them. I will expand on this and other ways to solve the problem in a separate post.
2. Reform Health Insurance- Being involved in heath care, I can see the benefits. However, the plan proposed, although better than most others, has one fatal flaw. The idea is that if you receive a tax break, you will use the money to purchase health insurance. Think about this. How many of us say we are going to pay off the credit cards, or student loans, or reduce our debt with the refund money? How many of us actually do this instead of spending it on something new? Like I said, think about it. In my opinion, a better way would be to offer 1-2 state plans. Instead of a tax break, the Federal Government can then take a percentage off the taxes we pay now and pass it on to the states to fund these programs. More on this on a different post.
3. Balance the budget without increasing taxes- Great idea! Now how can this be done? Many-a-president has taken this approach without success. They have all talked about reducing government spending, which only ends up translating to cutting back on social services. The only time in recent years when the budget was balanced and our national debt was almost at a negative, the Democrats increased taxes in several programs to achieve this. As I recall, my paycheck and standard of living didn't really change for the better or worse. The point is, a small increase in taxes to offset the cost of social programs is not a bad trade off. Don't take me wrong, I do have some issues with our tax code and will discuss these further on a different post.
There were many other issues mentioned last night. Of course every analyst has their own opinion on what each means and whether the proposals are possible or not. The only thing that can really help our country is for our government to stop worrying so much about ratings and start worrying about what is best for OUR country. Until this happens, we will continue to "police" the world only to come up with excuses, apologies and half truths to justify our endeavours.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Greatest 360 Of All Time...
There is one thing that has been nagging at my brain for several weeks now. Do you remember how John Kerry was bashed for being "wishy-washy" because he "voted for it before I voted against it"? Isn't it funny how most (not to say all) current candidates are in the same boat? It seems they forget that they ALL voted for the war in Iraq. However, now that the war is as unpopular as dog poop ice-cream, they all want to distance themselves from it as much and as fast as possible.
Take Hillary Clinton. She was on the Today show this morning and was asked, quite directly, if she thought that her vote for the war had been a mistake. I have never seen someone dance so beautifully around a question. Now, before my Republican buddies start the "see, she can't be President" rant, remember that no GOP candidate in the Mid-Term Fiasco wanted to be seen anywhere near President Bush and most of them were doing the Iraq Dance themselves.
Why is it that we need to get to this point to realize what at f'd up situation WE have created? I say we, because, as I remember, we all got together after 9/11 and DEMANDED someone's head on a platter. I don't think there is anyone in this country (me included) that could honestly say they weren't enjoying the military advance in Afgahnistan and, even though many went, HUH?! when Iraq was invaded, I don't recall anyone crying foul either.
If we were so estatic with the whole situation then, what happened to chage it? The answer to this is pretty simple. The Administration's lack of common sense in the face of mounting evidence against the war and the tendency they showed to ignore the facts and listen to their own advisors, Generals and experts.
Let's look at it one piece at a time:
1. Iraq has WMD's- really? Then how come the UN was unable to find any, our troops were never attacked with them nor have any been discovered in the 4 years we've been there? Did these FACTS stop the power that be from going there...NO!
2. Iraq is a nest for terrorist- Maybe. But no one can argue that it is any better now, in fact, we probably made it worse. Besides, there are numerous other nests all around the world. What are we to do, fight every country? Hell, there are terrorist groups in OUR country. Are we going to start another Civil War?
3. Iraq helped finance the 9/11 attacks- Hummm...no. There has been no evidence found anywhere to support this. Even after all the country's assets were forzen and examined by numerous organizations.
4. Saddam was a dictator and threatened peace in the Middle East- True. So is Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and we're not going after them. Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Maybe, if they can survive the civil war and whoever comes out on top isn't as crazy as he was. Is the World better off without Saddam? Same answer.
Another contributing factor here is the incredible discrepancy in advice and opinions, even within the Administration. Political advisors were as hessitant as a teenage boy having his first sexual experience: "Stay in-Pull out-Stay in-Pull out". Every action has a timing after which there is no sense in undertaking it. Like wearing a condom after sex.
Should we stay in Iraq and increase the military? Not now. We should've done this 2 years ago, when it would have made a difference.
Should we leave? Maybe, but we need to establish benchmarks for the Iraquis (as suggested by the Baker Commission) and hold them to it. Simply packing it up and leaving now would create more problems than it would solve and we would need to go back to finish it.
As President Bush gets ready to address the Congress tonight in the State of the Union Address; he, like so many other politicians, is expected to turn the focus away from Iraq and talk about the social, economical and environmental issues that have been avoided in this country until now. Will he stick to his guns or will he make the greatest 360 turn of all times?
Take Hillary Clinton. She was on the Today show this morning and was asked, quite directly, if she thought that her vote for the war had been a mistake. I have never seen someone dance so beautifully around a question. Now, before my Republican buddies start the "see, she can't be President" rant, remember that no GOP candidate in the Mid-Term Fiasco wanted to be seen anywhere near President Bush and most of them were doing the Iraq Dance themselves.
Why is it that we need to get to this point to realize what at f'd up situation WE have created? I say we, because, as I remember, we all got together after 9/11 and DEMANDED someone's head on a platter. I don't think there is anyone in this country (me included) that could honestly say they weren't enjoying the military advance in Afgahnistan and, even though many went, HUH?! when Iraq was invaded, I don't recall anyone crying foul either.
If we were so estatic with the whole situation then, what happened to chage it? The answer to this is pretty simple. The Administration's lack of common sense in the face of mounting evidence against the war and the tendency they showed to ignore the facts and listen to their own advisors, Generals and experts.
Let's look at it one piece at a time:
1. Iraq has WMD's- really? Then how come the UN was unable to find any, our troops were never attacked with them nor have any been discovered in the 4 years we've been there? Did these FACTS stop the power that be from going there...NO!
2. Iraq is a nest for terrorist- Maybe. But no one can argue that it is any better now, in fact, we probably made it worse. Besides, there are numerous other nests all around the world. What are we to do, fight every country? Hell, there are terrorist groups in OUR country. Are we going to start another Civil War?
3. Iraq helped finance the 9/11 attacks- Hummm...no. There has been no evidence found anywhere to support this. Even after all the country's assets were forzen and examined by numerous organizations.
4. Saddam was a dictator and threatened peace in the Middle East- True. So is Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and we're not going after them. Is Iraq better off without Saddam? Maybe, if they can survive the civil war and whoever comes out on top isn't as crazy as he was. Is the World better off without Saddam? Same answer.
Another contributing factor here is the incredible discrepancy in advice and opinions, even within the Administration. Political advisors were as hessitant as a teenage boy having his first sexual experience: "Stay in-Pull out-Stay in-Pull out". Every action has a timing after which there is no sense in undertaking it. Like wearing a condom after sex.
Should we stay in Iraq and increase the military? Not now. We should've done this 2 years ago, when it would have made a difference.
Should we leave? Maybe, but we need to establish benchmarks for the Iraquis (as suggested by the Baker Commission) and hold them to it. Simply packing it up and leaving now would create more problems than it would solve and we would need to go back to finish it.
As President Bush gets ready to address the Congress tonight in the State of the Union Address; he, like so many other politicians, is expected to turn the focus away from Iraq and talk about the social, economical and environmental issues that have been avoided in this country until now. Will he stick to his guns or will he make the greatest 360 turn of all times?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
