The FBI have received a tip that al Qaeda terrorists may be planning an attack on shopping malls in Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois, in the upcoming holiday season. In response to this tip, Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo created an ad depicting a terrorist deserting a backpack with a bomb inside a mall. This ad is also revealing Tancredo's stance on illegal immigration. However, this tip may not even be credible. Are we being exploited by the media? Was this ad created to prepare American citizens? Is Tancredo trying to instill fear to gain more votes?
To view the ad, go to: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/tancredo.ads/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Bush Vetoes a $600 Billion Spending Bill
Today, President Bush vetoed a $600 billion spending bill. In this spending bill, around $150 billion was to be used to run departments such as departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. But in this $150 billion, around $10 billion would have funded projects such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program to teach Portuguese. The other $450 billion was to be used specifically for Medicare and Medicaid. If you guys didn't know, Medicare and Medicaid are federal health care programs for the elderly and poor.
So, why did President Bush veto this bill which would ultimately help the much needed health care programs in the United States?
President Bush blames the Democratic leaders in Congress for attempting to waste money and to increase taxes. Bush made an analogy comparing the Democratic Congress to "a teenager with a new credit card." President Bush also called the $10 billion that would funded projects such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program to teach Portuguese as "pork." He told the Congress to cut the "pork," and reduce the spending if it wants the bill to get signed.
Did the President do the right thing to veto this spending bill? Was the Congress really trying to waste money and to increase taxes by adding the "pork?" What do you guys think the President/the Congress should have done?
So, why did President Bush veto this bill which would ultimately help the much needed health care programs in the United States?
President Bush blames the Democratic leaders in Congress for attempting to waste money and to increase taxes. Bush made an analogy comparing the Democratic Congress to "a teenager with a new credit card." President Bush also called the $10 billion that would funded projects such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program to teach Portuguese as "pork." He told the Congress to cut the "pork," and reduce the spending if it wants the bill to get signed.
Did the President do the right thing to veto this spending bill? Was the Congress really trying to waste money and to increase taxes by adding the "pork?" What do you guys think the President/the Congress should have done?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Overriding the Veto
President Bush vetoed the spending on some popular water projects. However, not only did the democrats vote to override his veto, but they were joined by 47 republicans. This may be the first time that Congress manages to override a veto by President Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/washington/07spend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Is this an affirmation of the anti-Bush sentiment?
What would a concrete affirmation be?
Is it just that so many elected republicans are voting against him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/washington/07spend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Is this an affirmation of the anti-Bush sentiment?
What would a concrete affirmation be?
Is it just that so many elected republicans are voting against him?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Proliferation? No! Retention!
The Army has been ordered to increase its size within the next five years. To do so, it has begun retaining troops.
In addition to the problem of fewer recruits, the new "Couch-potato" generation is posing a difficult challenge for the military to overcome.
Fewer and fewer people are potential recruits.
Promotion has increased due to the need for supervision for the troops, often resulting in incompetent leaders.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p02s04-usmi.html?page=1
What do you think about:
-incompetent leaders
-retention of troops for longer than originally agreed
-the "couch-potato" generation
-increasing the military's size
In addition to the problem of fewer recruits, the new "Couch-potato" generation is posing a difficult challenge for the military to overcome.
Fewer and fewer people are potential recruits.
Promotion has increased due to the need for supervision for the troops, often resulting in incompetent leaders.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p02s04-usmi.html?page=1
What do you think about:
-incompetent leaders
-retention of troops for longer than originally agreed
-the "couch-potato" generation
-increasing the military's size
Terrorists or Monkeys?
As the United States and Americans fear terrorists, other nations may have bigger fish to fry, or should I say "bigger monkeys to fry"?
It is not the first case authorities have seen: the urban monkeys living in New Delhi have killed. On October 21 of this year, an important political leader died after falling off his first-story balcony from a pack of monkeys. The deputy mayor was peacefully reading his paper when urban monkeys attacked.
The estimated 5,500 monkeys living in New Delhi reside in the temple of Hanuman, the Hindu monkey god. But these monkeys usually don't stay in the temple. The Indian Parliament is has made many attempts at relocated the monkeys, like placing them in monkey "prisons" but that made animal rights group angry, or sending the monkeys away to other states but the neighboring regions refuse, or hiring more monkey catchers but even with a 450 rupees ($10.50) reward per monkey the city only has a force of three monkey catchers.
The monkeys have not only been blamed for the death of public officials but they have also broken into the Ministry of Defence, destroyed secret documents, weaseled their way through airport security and almost caused a complete shut of the airport.
Death by monkeys would seen sad during any other point in time, but seeing that we have a "war on terror" to think about, death by monkey is more than ironic.
We expect to be attack. We watch what color our national security is today, yet we can die from monkeys or chock on a pretzel.
Are we so tight that it is hard for us to accept being killed by monkeys?
Are we so scared of another 9/11 that we can't imagine another way to die?
Can we realize that other nations sometimes have bigger problems than terrorism? (unless you consider the monkeys terrorist)
It is not the first case authorities have seen: the urban monkeys living in New Delhi have killed. On October 21 of this year, an important political leader died after falling off his first-story balcony from a pack of monkeys. The deputy mayor was peacefully reading his paper when urban monkeys attacked.
The estimated 5,500 monkeys living in New Delhi reside in the temple of Hanuman, the Hindu monkey god. But these monkeys usually don't stay in the temple. The Indian Parliament is has made many attempts at relocated the monkeys, like placing them in monkey "prisons" but that made animal rights group angry, or sending the monkeys away to other states but the neighboring regions refuse, or hiring more monkey catchers but even with a 450 rupees ($10.50) reward per monkey the city only has a force of three monkey catchers.
The monkeys have not only been blamed for the death of public officials but they have also broken into the Ministry of Defence, destroyed secret documents, weaseled their way through airport security and almost caused a complete shut of the airport.
Death by monkeys would seen sad during any other point in time, but seeing that we have a "war on terror" to think about, death by monkey is more than ironic.
We expect to be attack. We watch what color our national security is today, yet we can die from monkeys or chock on a pretzel.
Are we so tight that it is hard for us to accept being killed by monkeys?
Are we so scared of another 9/11 that we can't imagine another way to die?
Can we realize that other nations sometimes have bigger problems than terrorism? (unless you consider the monkeys terrorist)
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
World Police
Whilst looking up more sources relating to Jacquie's post on improved relations with France, I found this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/07/sarkozy.congress/index.html
Sarkozy insists that the USA and France work together, but remain on equal footing.
He called on the USA to acknowledge the international issues that threaten to effect every nation.
Musharraf called for a state of emergency, postponed elections and suspended constitutional rights in the name of the fight against terrorism.
Bush and Sarkozy have taken it upon themselves to threaten Musharraf into retreating.
They are demanding that Pakistan "'have the elections as scheduled, and [Bush wants] [Musharraf] to take the uniform off'".
The article focuses on the revived relationship between France and the USA, but will this relationship last?
Returning to the issue over America's self appointed state as "World Police", is it really our right to get involved?
Isn't it slightly hypocritical that Bush demands Musharraf "take the uniform off"?
While Musharraf might be using more drastic measures, isn't doing so under the same
reasoning as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/07/sarkozy.congress/index.html
Sarkozy insists that the USA and France work together, but remain on equal footing.
He called on the USA to acknowledge the international issues that threaten to effect every nation.
Musharraf called for a state of emergency, postponed elections and suspended constitutional rights in the name of the fight against terrorism.
Bush and Sarkozy have taken it upon themselves to threaten Musharraf into retreating.
They are demanding that Pakistan "'have the elections as scheduled, and [Bush wants] [Musharraf] to take the uniform off'".
The article focuses on the revived relationship between France and the USA, but will this relationship last?
Returning to the issue over America's self appointed state as "World Police", is it really our right to get involved?
Isn't it slightly hypocritical that Bush demands Musharraf "take the uniform off"?
While Musharraf might be using more drastic measures, isn't doing so under the same
reasoning as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act?
French President visits Washington DC
The French President Nicolas Sarkozy made his first visit to the United States since his election to the presidency in May of 2007.
President Sarkozy spoke to Congress today about France's support in Afghanistan, the drop of the US dollar to the Euro, and criticized the Bush administration on its weak platform on global warming. But Iran was the biggest subject President Sarkozy spoke about. President Bush said that they will "work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear ambitions for the sake of peace".
He said that his visit was to "reconquer American hearts". He did so by telling Congress that France is eternally in debt to America during WWII. Known in France as "L'Americain" for his love of the American workplace, culture, and core beliefs, President Sarkozy hopes to rebuilt the once great relation between the two nations.
Will this visit help heal the broken alliance left by Iraq and France's previous president Chirac?
Will it lead to better European relations with the United States?
Or was this only a publicity stunt?
Photo courtesy of http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)