The Evil Dick Cheney

Click here for the article

Mr. Dick Cheney believes that the executive branch’s expanded powers are absolutely necessary to protect the nation from terrorists. During wartime, he thinks that the president “doesn’t have to check with anybody.” He uses the role of Commander-in-Chief to justify President Bush’s actions. Guantanamo Bay and The Patriot Act, in his eyes, may violate our rights to a fair trial and our rights to privacy, but they are needed to protect the American citizens from evil terrorists.

A CNN poll suggests that 23% of Americans believe that Dick Cheney is the worst vice president ever in U.S. history. That’s a heavy blow for him, but it’s understandable. The other night, the CNN anchors received emails from citizens who believed that Cheney is an evil, malicious man who deserves to be punished for all the terrible things he did during his time in office. Obviously, the American public doesn’t agree that the executive branch should ignore the system of checks and balances.



Mr. Joe Biden states, “[Cheney’s] notion of a unitary executive, meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power…goes to the executive, I think is dead wrong.”

Mr. Cheney strongly disapproves of a smaller vice presidential role. He criticizes Biden for suggesting that there needs to be a stronger balance between the president and the vice president. No one can deny that Mr. Cheney is one of the most powerful vice presidents in history, but does his power ultimately help or hurt America? I agree with Joe Biden when he said that Cheney was “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had in American history.” The vice president’s role should be to help the president—not to take control and supervise unwarranted wiretapping. I hope Mr. Biden brings sanity [and a legit interpretation of the Constitution] back to the office.

Why we should bail out automakers.

With the fate of the big three being left in the hands of the Bush administration, Scot Lehigh of The Boston Globe asks why more people haven't heeded the words of Dick Cheney. Last week Dick Cheney urged the Senate Republicans to support a bridge loan for the big three. It has become more important to support this bailout with the crisis causing the loss of jobs across the country. Lehigh believes that the problems the big three are facing are not of their own doing, but are caused by the financial crisis on Wall Street. Automakers took a huge hit with the financial crisis and their sales have plunged. Although it is not the American automakers alone who are suffering. While Chrysler, GM and Ford have suffered declines of 47%,41%, and 31%; Nissan,Toyota, and Honda have suffered declines of 42%,34% and 32%.
The fact that the big three need to do more to refocus, restructure and reduce costs is obvious, but they are in need of a bailout. Much of the arguments against the bailout are the big three's inability to compete in modern times. The reputation of American cars has lowered significantly recently and new innovations are a necessity to compete. Not only will domestic industry take a hit if these companies go under, but millions of jobs will be lost and the amount of those who become unemployed will skyrocket. The higher employment alone will end up costing the government $240 billion.
In the end it is a question of whether or not taking a risk in bailing out the big three. Yes it is a gamble, but one worth taking. The effects of these companies going under can potentially cause more problems than the bailout is worth. There is no doubt that with this bailout, a complete reform of their companies is needed. These companies need to adapt to the times and create new cars to satisfy the changing wants of the consumers. With increasing competition from foreign companies and their hybrid cars, the big three are going to need to build a fuel efficient car that will last as long as their competition's cars (Toyota and Honda for example).

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/17/why_we_should_bail_out_automakers/

Our Federal Reserve System at Work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business/economy/17fed.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
Our Federal Reserve Board (Chaired by Ben Bernanke) has entered a new era. The "Fed" as of today cut the benchmark rate to anywhere between 0 and .25%. This rate is a record low for the United States and it is the same as when Japan was trying to decrease deflation. The Fed will start to purchase securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac later this month.
"The central bank acknowledged that recession is more severe than officials had thought at their last meeting in October. “The committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time,” it said."
As was reported today, our Consumer Price Index has fallen 1.7%, which is the steepest drop since the government began tracking the consumer price index. The issues with this low index is evident in many of the large brand stores, many such as DKNY, Banana Republic and Saks are dropping their prices dramatically and offering many different discounts to try and encourage consumers to shop at their store and purchase their clothing.
"“At some point, and without knowing the timing, the Fed is going to have to destroy all that money it is creating,” said Alan Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, said the central bank. “Right now, the crisis is created by the huge demand by banks for hoarding cash. The Fed is providing cash, and the banks want to hoard it. When things start returning to normal, the banks will want to start lending it out. If that much money is left in the monetary base, it would be extremely inflationary.”"

This article, while it is really scary to think of our economy in such a state, was really interesting because I felt it really demonstrates how our monetary policy works. The Federal Reserve Board is stepping in as necessary and they are using all of their powers to try and stimulate our economy the best that they can.

Open Senate seat in New York.

After Hillary Clinton's leave, the new opening for New York's Senate seat has been pursued by Caroline Kennedy. Her decision was made after long debating with herself about whether she could handle both the pressure and the attention. Kennedy made calls to other political figures and Governor Paterson on NY confirmed her definite interest in pursuing the position.

She would like to talk about her interests and goals if she were chosen for the position to Gov. Paterson and Senator Charles Schumer.

Many Democrats have already questioned whether she is qualified enough for the job. Gov. Paterson declared that his conversation with Ms. Kennedy was simply informational. Since the conversation, Kennedy has reached out to other political figures.

Hillary Clinton stated that she will not leave her seat until she is definitely confirmed to be President-Elect Obama's Secretary of State. This won't be determined until January or February. Others to be considered for the position are Kirsten Gillibrand, the upstate district, Thomas R. Suozzi, the Nassau County chief executive, and Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York State attorney general.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/us/politics/16caroline.html?_r=1

Taking Blago Out

Source:
nytimes.com
cnn.com

Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested a few days ago based on a (dirty) laundry list of corruption charges such as conspiracy, soliciting bribes and even an attempt to "auction off" President-elect Obama's former Senate seat. (And we thought Spitzer was bad...)

However, Blagojevich can still theoretically appoint someone to that seat at this point in time. To some people that is a frightening notion. That may be why Illinois State Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, is petitioning the Illinois state Supreme Court to remove Blagojevich from power temporarily on the basis that he is unfit for office. This would allow Lieutenant Governor, Pat Quinn, to step in as acting governor.

Madigan is also urging the State Legislature to hold impeachment proceedings when they meet on Monday to discuss a possible special election for the former Obama seat. Illinois Democrats in the State Legislature seem to be on board with Madigan's actions and have begun to circulate a letter that calls for an impeachment process by the Illinois House and Senate. President-elect Obama, who has remained relatively low key during this process has called for Blagojevich to step down, voluntarily.

I think most would agree that whichever method of taking Blagojevich from power is irrelevant. If he is allowed to appoint an unqualified person to the vacant Senate seat out of spite, Springfield's troubles could become Washington's troubles. There are too many important things for Congress to be worrying about right now for the Senate to be distracted by a bad Blagojevich pick. Although, Congress doesn't seem to be making much progress anyway with things like the bailout for Detroit.

I think the best possible course of action would be the fastest. The state Supreme Court should strip Blagojevich's powers immediately, giving the State Legislature time to prepare an impeachment process. Hopefully this process will result in Blagojevich being removed from office. Then Illinois should hold a special election allowing the people to decide who will be Obama's successor. I do not think many people in Illinois have faith in their leaders to make this decision for them. I know I wouldn't.

The strangest aspect of this entire scandal to me is the fact that it does not look like anyone went out of their way to keep this hidden. That makes me wonder if the people behind this scheme were really that arrogant in thinking they would not be caught or whether they simply did not believe their actions were illegal. Either way this scandal will probably not affect the incoming administration all that much, but it will give the pundits and late night talk hosts something to chew on until the Inauguration.

North-South Divide Over Auto Aid

The big three auto industries are relying on the bailout plan to help their current economic crisis. Meanwhile there are many arguments over who should receive bailout money and how much money a company should receive. Many larger auto plants are in the south, such as Nissan, Honda, and Toyota. These are foreign auto companies, yet the workers are Americans, so how do they receive aid? Auto plant jobs in the South often hold prestige, many people gave up their jobs to work in the auto plant where they would make more money than many other jobs offered. Recently though, Americas economic downfall has affected many other nations as well. The foreign auto industries are being affected because new cars are not being sold, therefore they have to cut hours and jobs. many people are losing jobs and life careers, but there is nothing the US government can do to help these individuals. In the south many workers never joined unions because they felt that only people from the north had unions and they did not want to waste their money to pay someone to voice their opinions. Now that the economy is failing many southerners still oppose forming unions, but they hope that the government will pass a bailout plan that will help other auto industries, and that in turn will end the economic crisis. 

Even if somehow America manages to recover from the recession what makes Southern auto workers think that they will receive more jobs and higher pay? America is better off trying to rebuild its infrastructure, or work on technological advances. If the bailout plan is not passed soon, the big three will fail anyway. Just because the government is willing to pour millions of dollars into the auto industries how can we be sure this money will not go to waste? the government should try to aid the auto industry like they tried to help the banks, but we should also begin to focus our attention on widening the spectrum of output goods in America or all our money will continue to go to foreign countries.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302207_2.html?hpid=topnews

Switching Bailout Votes

^^these are the two doofuses who don't think that bailing out the automotive industry is a good idea. boohoo cry about it while your wiping your tears off on your Armani suits.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28162008/

Oh the lovely bailout system, it's so great to see the way the government handles crisis'. So it seems like the automotive industry screwed up so now were gonna give them a bunch of money again to not file bankruptcy so we don't go more down the toilet than we already are. Makes you feel really safe to live in the stable America doesn't it. Although i don't like the idea of a bailout very much, I know it is needed. Even though automotive industries aren't as important as say the banks were, if they fail it will be very disastrous for us.

As if we weren't playing with the American economy like it was a game of monopoly already, we have the Repubs and Dems not being able to decide which way they want to vote. Great. Republicans think that its completely ok to give a shitload of money to the banks to save them but when it comes to workers of a business its just a disguised cash subsidy. Give me a break, seriously the Republicans are complaining about there being no chance the money will be paid back, what makes them think that the 700 gajillion trillion dollars we gave to the banks will ever be paid back. Hence the term, bailout. It is not a called a bailoanout..your bailing someone out, nothing returned just helping someone else. It doesn't seem like the republicans are too used to the idea of helping people out.

The CEO's of these industries did claim that they would lower there salary if the bailout was given. Workers also said they would eliminate certain things out of their union's budget to help towards the bailout. Hmm..i wonder what the banks did to get the bailout? Absolutely nothing at all.

Were just scared of setting a precedent that if you screw up we'll give you money. What they do not realize is that, that precedent was already set with the first bailout and now you have to finish what you started. You give one bailout be prepared for another industry to file bankruptcy. LOVE our systems stability right now.

Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy

(click picture for link to article)
I was very happy to see this cover while working my 2-6 shift at MCPL today and knowing I had to blog was excited to race home to see what this article was about. It did not disappoint.
First off, how can you NOT love an argument that uses the evidence of the other side against them.
Example: "Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister...'The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition.'"
Newsweek says: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.
Other intriguing points brought up by Newsweek. Technically there are two kinds of marriages that can occur, civil and religious. Since our government is suppose to be separate from the church so there's no logical reason why homosexual couples should not be able to get married civilly and obtain the rights of a straight couple. Also, Newsweek mentions that over-zealous religion-oides (yes i just made that up) use the argument that God says "Be fruitful and multiply", which homosexuals couples don't do, however you don't see these religion-oides petition for a referendum to stop 65 year olds from getting married!

Another logical reasoning, there are things in the Bible that we condem today, so why is this issue of gay marriage still hanging on?
"The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric... The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

Overall, I just don't understand the argument. What happened to miniority rights? Why do people care if a man and another man love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Sure it's against their beliefs, but turn your head. Homosexuals aren't forcing you to join the club. Continue on your day and mind your own business.

Montana: Assisted Suicide Ruled Legal

In the United States, the idea of physician assisted suicide is almost as controversial, if not just as controversial as abortion. Some people will argue that it is murder, while others will say that it allows a person to die with dignity, on their own terms. Doctors might argue that it violates the hypocratic oath, which is a pledge to do everything and anything possible to keep a patient alive.

In Montana a judge declared that physician assisted suicide is legal within the state. However, this decision is probably going to get appealed on the basis that the Legislature should decide whether or not terminally ill patients have to right to end their life, or suffer through a miserable death.

After a man with terminal cancer sued the state with four physicians and a non-profit organization for patients' rights, Judge Dorothy McCarter issued the ruling yesterday. McCarter justified her ruling on the ground that the constitutional rights of Montana guarantees individual privacy and human dignity, thus, a competent terminally ill patient can choose to end their life. This allowed physicians to prescribe medications that will yield death without suffering, free from prosecution of the law. Attorney General Mike McGrath, who will be sworn into the Montana Supreme Court in January, said that the Supreme Court should rule on it, and this issue will be appealed next week.

The man who sued the state, Robert Baxter, felt comforted by the ruling, knowing that if his condition worsens, he will be able to end his life on his terms. The government should not decide whether or not a person can end their life, it should be a personal decision left between the patient and their family and friends. However, Assisent Attorney General Jennifer Anders argued that the state has no evaluation process to see if the patient truly is terminal, and no guidelines set in stone that decipher if the patient is "competent".

After Oregon and Washington, Montana is now the third state to legalize physician assisted suicide. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court said that physician assisted suicide was illegal, but never prevented states from legalizing it. I think that too many people view physician assisted as right or wrong, just as people do with abortion. But what is overlooked is that fact that both of these issues are privacy issues. Whether or not you support or oppose either issue is based on your personal beliefs, but you must also respect the privacy of others. People try to justify being opposed to physician assisted suicide by calling it murder, but they are just trying to coerse others into thinking the way they do. The bottom line is that this is a privacy issue, and what other people decide to do will have no impact on anyone but themselves.

I think that the slant of this article is slightly liberal. It provided quotes from both sides of the argument, but the undertone of the article suggests that the writer was liberal. I feel that the article provided a stronger argument for supporting physician assisted suicide.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/06/montana-assisted-suicide_n_148994.html

Where is the equality for all?

America is known as the country who represents equality for all. although it took us eons to get there we still have a long way to go. the biggest controversy to hit this county is gay marriage /rights also know as as gay unions. this issue blown way out of proportion is now shreading this country apart and what is stands for. Gays have been discriminated against and it is now a war,( rather a culture war.) Who are we to tell someone they can not marry because of WHO they marry? This matter conflicts mainly with religion(despite the fact we attempt to keep religion separate from state.) society has run a mock twisting the words of the bible to suit their own needs. California was one of the few states who legalized gay marriage or unions. However after its been voted against in several states it has been banned . what is to come of those who are already married? As i said before who are we to judge people from marrying who they want to? In the words of Thomas Jefferson (the inalienable rights) " man is entitled to the pursuit of happiness" meaning a man has the right in my opinion to do what ever it is that makes him happy. who are we to take that away ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html?scp=10&sq=gay%20rights&st=cse

Our Other Option

Within the next few weeks Americans may witness the demise of two of the three prolific American auto manufacturers, General Motors and Chrysler. Our market may be based on free market principles, where the dying are left to die and the strong go on to survive, but if this country were two lose either, or in an armegeddon like prophecy both, a true downward spiral would be upon us. More than just a name and a legacy will be lost, and in another place and time that alone would bring with it grief, but in these abysmal times it will be the job losses and loss in gross domestic product that would bring with it not only grief but a fatal dose of hunger and extreme poverty. And so, with the respective clocks ticking on both companies the government has come to a crossroades, to write a check or let them declare bankruptcy.

The first option is the better short term fix, but it faces a host of questions. For instance, this would be the second major bailout in a span of months, not only would this set a precident it would be an entirely new principle. Only once has the government ever gone so far into the unknown in all of U.S. history and the boat they were in was the Tennesse Valley Authority.
However that boat was slightly different than the bail out currently proposed. The T.V.A. was owned and controled only by the government, not to mention that it was successfully solf off into the free market. By granting this bailout the government would set the country down a long road, where bailouts would be granted to all those who could make a sufficient case, or get legislatures elected. If we the people were to buy stock in a company, who would represent the government in the stock holder's meetings and what if the government was unable to gets its way in these meetings? If matters couldn't be controlled civilly, a trait uncommon for humans when in such economic distress, would the government roll tanks into the streets to force the other stock holder's hands? It is the fact that we have no answers, and no historical refernce to seek the answers to these questions that makes this choice so dangerous.

In response to the previous solution, and imminent possibility, fiscal conservative Larry Kudlow has proposed an alternate plan: cut taxes, and allow the companies to file bankruptcy and rebuild themselves. The second proposal has both pros, bankruptcy can be studied throughout history, which means there is surely an archetype of a successful bankruptcy claim, and cons, such as minimal short term improvements and little to no guarauntee that after the bankruptcies either company will be as strong or even still there. But, beware the supply side policies of the first provision. The tax cuts coupled with the extremely low interest rates being imposed by the Federal Reserve Board will add money to the economy, effectively increasing demand by increasing American income. This will increase the value of goods, which is at the moment good, but if the extra money were left in the economy too long we would see pricing bubbles, reminicent of those witnessed before the current debacle, and run the risk of the those bubbles bursting again.

Through weighing both of these options I believe that Kudlow has proposed a better plan. This plan is historically based, solid economic theory, that will encourage long term growth and stabilization of the economy. However, the last statement will only be true if upon stabilization of the market, monetary policy be changed to take money out of the market and ensure such drastic price bubbles may not form.



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTVmZjgyOWJiNzNiNTBlMWZhODIxZmYyMmM3ODgwMjk=

Terror in Mumbai: Is it Only a Matter of Time Before Another U.S "9/11"?

[ One Day Late.... Sorry :( ]

It has been a little more than seven years since the terrorist attacks in NYC on September 11th, 2001. Since that fatal morning, one that will be remembered forever in the hearts and minds of all Americans, the U.S government has taken strict measures to make sure that nothing like 9/11 would ever happen again under it's watchful eye. In seven years the daunting task has been fulfilled. Though Osama Bin Laden has not been captured (though some believe he is already dead) and Al-Queda, though weakened, is still operating in the bowels of the Middle East we have been fortunate enough to have not witnessed another "9/11" in this country since that fateful day in 2001.
On November 26th, 2008, one week ago today, Muslim militants believed to be from Pakistan caused terror in Mumbai, India where they attacked seven populated locations including taking hostages and killing over 100 people in the Taj Mahal Hotel (Some of which were Americans). The Mumbai terrorist attacks in Mumbai darkly parallel that of the September 11 attacks here in the U.S. which bears the question: Is it only a matter of time before another "9/11" like attack here in America?
The Pakistani militants known formally as "Lashkar-i-Taiba" stormed Mumbai targeting three luxury hotels, a Jewish cultural center and a railway station. Like 9/11, the Mumbai attacks were widespread. Most people in the U.S, especially those who live in and around NYC remember the World Trade Center when they think of September 11th. In fact sights such as the Pentagon were also afflicted. When one thinks about the Mumbai attacks they probably will remember the 100 + killed in the Taj Hotel when in actuality 2 other hotels and as before mentioned a railway station were also attacked. Another frightening comparison is that the city of Mumbai was supposedly forewarned of an attack and was reluctant to act upon the warning. Some people have provided evidence that the United States was also warned of a possible attack and like Mumbai it occurred in the form of September 11th. Acts of violence such as the Virginia Tech shootings is also an example of an attack like Mumbai, a violent attack in a widely populated area (Virginia Tech being a college is widely populated and Luxury Hotels and Railway stations are also populated areas as well).
With these distinct similarities one could definitely say after seeing the Mumbai attacks that it is very possible that a terrorist attack in the U.S in the near future is likely or at least a frightening possibility. Especially since some of the victims in Mumbai were of American decent one must wonder if the attacks could have indirectly been related to the United States. One can only wonder and draw his own conclusions but in the end the question remains: Is it only a matter of time?

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2008/12/the_next_mumbai_on_us_soil.html

Reaching Across the Aisle

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/gates.defense/index.html

I think its safe to say that Barack Obama will be reaching across the aisle with his reappointing Robert M. Gates as Defense Secretary. Gates not only took the job but he said he was impressed with the President elect and thankful for Obama's confidence in him.

Gates has not registered himself with a party, however, he does consider himself a republican. In light of this Gates has stated that he doesn't necessarrily disagree on Obama's military policy making. Obama proposes that the troops be removed from Iraq within the next 16 months. Obama according to gates is prepared to take on a responsible draw down and listen to his military commanders.

Overall Gates was impressed with Obama's ability to be down to earth with Adm. Micheal Mullen, our nations chairman of the JCS (first Admiral to be named to that position by the way). Obama makes it clear that he wants a regular dialogue with his commanders. To Gates and to me as well that is what our men and women in uniform need. A commander-in-chief that they can look at as a person who is for them.

If a "republican" can see our president as a man for the people, a man for the greater good of the country I believe that the President -elect has already accomplished his goal,his goal of reaching accross the aisle, and making a new cabinet of people that are truly bipartisan. I am confident to see what the future brings.