Right and Wrong

When some one does something wrong, you'd say that he deserves a punishment for this bad behavior. What this punishment may be varies; if he killed someone, the punishment would be more severe than if he stole (but nonetheless, there would still be a punishment). So, if you agree that the above can be a loose definition of justice, why is it that you might not want those involved in the CIA interrogations to be prosecuted? Some claim that these men may have done wrong, but it was there actions that helped prevent another attack on our own soil. Others claim that they did nothing wrong whatsoever, and those prosecuting them have no grounds for doing so. Both claims are unbelievably stupid, and extremely narrow minded. Consider the first argument (in which one insists that their actions helped save our nation, and therefore what they did was justifiable). Those who argue such a point can agree with this statement: This nation has a set of principles, that are outlined in the Constitution. They would also agree that the men involved in the torture techniques compromised some of these principles. Yet, they claim that lives were at stake, and therefore one SHOULD compromise these principles in order to save lives. What they don't realize, is that the thousands of lives (that could have been saved without compromising these principles) that may have perished are far less valuable (and I'm sorry to use that word but it's true) than the Constitution. To destroy this nation's core principles, for which hundreds of thousands sacrificed their lives in order to protect, for a certain amount of deaths is utterly ridiculous. And trust me, this nation's reputation will not go down the gutter for prosecuting these men. Justice is justice, and this is what they deserve. And to those who claim that what they did was not wrong: Take a look at the due process amendments, the 8th amendment, the Geneva conventions, and the U.S. Army Field Manuals. Those involved violated statutory, fundemental, and international law. So, yet again, I say that the inly just thing to do is to put these men on trial (and if they are again, found not guilty, than so be it).

I Was WAY Off

Before tonight, I thought that the people in town hall meetings who depicted President Obama as Hitler (and his policies as Nazi-like) only represented a minority of the people at these meetings. My thoughts were basically such: Like it or hate it, the President's desire for health care reform stems from a desire to preserve American lives, and increase the standard of living for many more. Now let us assume that this desire to save lives also compromises the American idea of a capitalist society (or in layman's terms, makes us socialists), thus making his agenda, while having good intentions, a statist one. Even with such an assumption established, how (and why) does one compare this desire, to save lives, to another's statist agenda to destroy lives? To say that Hitler was a socialist is somewhat debatable; but to say that his agendas, statist-like or not, bear a striking resemblance to health care reform is absolutely absurd! It is clear, that when people compare the President to such an evil, fascist man, they are doing so only for political gains. If one wishes to compare President Obama to a socialist, they could easily find many others who did not embody such evil. By comparing him to Hitler, they wish to associate the President with a person that people want no association with, and essentially isolate him from the American public. I believed, however, that such an association (that does not connect whatsoever) would not penetrate the American public's train of thought. Call it naivete, but my hope in the average American citizen caused me to misjudge reality for what it really was. I arrived at Red Bank earlier this night at about 6:30 p.m., with a line a bit over 1,500 citizens eager to have their opinions heard. After waiting until about 9:00, I got a pretty good sense of how successful the association was. Sign after sign, chant after chant, minute after minute, I started to think that this town hall meeting was actually about the resemblance (or lack there of, if you will) between my current President, and a man who wished to wipe out my very existence. I was surprised, for far more people than I ever believed were holding up signs that compared President Obama to the most evil man that ever lived, and far more people chanted statements that projected him as a Nazi than I ever thought would. Coming out of this town hall meeting, it was clear that the majority, rather than minority, actually believed that this President's actions resembled that of Adolf Hitler's doings. This, of course, does not prove that the majority of Americans share this belief, but considering that the state of New Jersey in a democratic one, it does not speak well for the sane man's case either. Where have we gone wrong, as a society, in which people can act so insensitive, solely for the purpose of political gain? How has one man's goal, to wipe a people of the face of this Earth, become associated (by so many) with another's hope to save the lives of many?

Realism

President Obama is, yet again, distancing himself from the policies that the former President set in place. Without going into too much detail, the President is creating a team of people to enforce interrogation techniques (that abide by the law). What this is doing is basically taking away power from the CIA, which leads me into this question: Does the CIA, along with its policies, help or hurt this country? While some may say that the CIA helps this country's 'dirty work' and keep its power in place, others might add that by doing so, it compromises this country's core principles, and sinks the country down to the level of its enemies. Instead of arguing both of these points I'd rather look at the realistic point of view. One of the biggest "stations" of the CIA is in the middle east. Its huge influence in this area helps shapes the politics of the region. But how helpful have they been in this area? Look at the biggest problems the United States has encountered in this region in the past couple of years: The war in Afghanistan, the taking down of Saddam Hussein, and tension with Iran. When looking back further in history, one can see that all of these problems were caused by the CIA. In order to take down a regime, the CIA helped Saddam Hussein rise to power, which created the first problem. By teaming up with terrorist organizations to help kick the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, the CIA empowered our current enemy in that country. And last, but definitely not least, is their involvement in Iran. The U.S. over the past couple of years, has supplied two terrorist organizations (the MEK, and Jundallah) in order to topple to current Iranian government. While this is more recent than the other two actions, it is already causing tensions with Iran. It's just interesting to note that the CIA's actions sometimes look like they are beneficial, but actually come back to haunt this country with a bigger problem. Just something to think about....

Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Republicans today face a huge problem. It lies within a growing population and a government spending boom. What's the issue? Two conservative principles (the first being less government spending/involvement is better, and the second being the sanctity/importance of life) seem to be clashing as the baby boomers reach old age. With more and more adults qualifying for Medicare and Social Security, the spending required to keep these programs afloat is going to consume the budget. In a matter of years, the U.S.A's budget will be taken over by Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Tax increases, massive tax increases, soon after become inevitable (which go against another Republican principle). So, as the years pass by, and the amount of government involvement/growth reaches historic levels, conservatives will be forced to choose between abandoning the senior population, or compromising their belief of less taxes and less government spending. I'm not saying that this contradiction shows a weakness in their beliefs, nor am I saying that I think that doing either or is better. I actually support less government involvement and less government spending. It's just going to be interesting to see what prominent Republican's suggest we do in the coming years (since Democrats are more than fine with increasing taxes and inflating the federal budget).

Obama's a Fascist Leader who Hates the Consitution!

Just a question...Why do people go to town hall meetings with guns? Is it necessary? Maybe, if President Obama was planning on taking away some of their 2nd amendment rights I would understand, but since the meetings are about health care reform (It makes no sense whatsoever). It would be like drinking alcohol at a demonstration about taxes, the two just don't mix. I'm not saying that it's just the people on the right (even though it is), I'm just saying that the idiots that do this should just think about how stupid they look on television (with a loaded automatic weapon). And I know that this doesn't represent the majority of demonstrators either, it's just that the level of hilarity in the situation almost tops that of the "Tea Parties". Remember those? With the people that equated their demonstrations to that of the Boston Tea Party (even though those at the original Tea Party were fighting for taxation with representation, and those demanding for it now already have it). Or how about the signs that they held up, demanding for no tax increases, because that would be 'tyranny' (even though most-to say the least- of the people there were making well under $250,000 a year). And I'm not writing about the Tea Parties as a cheap shot, I'm writing about them because there is going to be a second wave of this 'grassroots' movement soon. So wait a little bit, and hopefully we can catch another glimpse of the Texan Governor threatening secesion.

Suprise, Suprise; He's not Perfect

There are a lot of things that get on my nerves in politics, but one thing just really kills me: Republicans. Day after day, those who lead the party seem to defy logic yet again, and stoop to levels that are so low that they're in uncharted territory. This leads me into my topic for today: How Barack Obama is ignoring the constitution, and getting education totally wrong. I bet you're very surprised right now. First of all, you're probably wondering why the hell I started out by bashing Republicans yet again. Its simple; wanted to screw with you for a little bit. Secondly, you're probably wondering if a liberal is capable of bashing Obama. To that I answer: I am not a liberal you douchebag, nor was I ever. I am perfectly capable of pointing out the flaws in our President's agenda. So here we go...As per his campaign promise, Barack Obama is starting to reform No Child Left Behind, one of Dubya's executive branch-expanding projects. NCLB gave the executive branch the power to decide a core curriculum in every state's education. It also made federal funding (which isn't that big to start with) completely dependant on the progress states show in reading and math skills. After the project got started, President Bush proved to be a failure in yet another area of his presidency, which is where Obama comes in. Many were expecting the current President to end NCLB, but instead he expanded it. He is placing harder restrictions on unattainable goals, and is withholding even more federal funding. The program to start with in unconstitutional, as any power not given to the federal government and not restricted from state governments is given to the state governments (and only them). The President has no jurisdiction over our education whatsoever, and he should realize this. Another mistake of his, is expanding a program that is a proven failure. What he might be doing right is demanding more charter schools. On a small scale, these types of schools have been proven to work. But after all of this, the ironic part is that the states, the only ones with a rightful jurisdiction in this matter, are seeing themselves playing a smaller role in education by the day. Let's just hope the President realizes that he's somewhere he doesn't belong before its too late.

The One Thing: Preventative Care

Amidst all the arguments and fights being made in defense (and in opposition) of health care today, there is one topic that seems to be agreed by all: the need for preventative care. The President called for it over and over again during his campaign, and Congress is writing legislation about this topic in some of its bills. As part of preventative care, many would catch serious diseases, that cost health insurance companies a lot of money to treat later on, earlier on, and save lives along with money. What they're not doing, however, is going far enough. The government, and private companies, should make treatment on certain diseases dependent on how much you worked to prevent it. I know this sounds stupid at first but let me explain. Obviously, if you are 30 years old and have a type of cancer that is common only for older men, you shouldn't be punished for not trying to detect the disease earlier on. If, however, you are in your 50s, yet refuse to go to a checkup and see if you are developing a common cancer at your age (and years later you find out that this cancer has spread throughout your body), you should be to blame, and the burden of paying for this treatment should be placed upon you. Forcing some one to go to cancer screenings or other checkups is impossible, but using money as leverage would drastically reduce the cost of health care, and create a much healthier nation.