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.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
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)
