Response to 'Are You Kidding Me?'

I agree with the article 'Disaffected by Politics', in her article, Are You Kidding Me?
How can a man, who has committed such violence receive so many concessions? While victims, their friends and family await a trial, Major Nadal Hassan refuses to make a plea, and refuses to shave. His tactics can only be viewed as an avoidance of judgement, which will be the death penalty.

It is said he committed the murder of innocent people to avoid deployment to the Mid-East. He planned this crime and committed it in the name of 'Allah Akbar'. He should be tried as a terrorist but, because he acted alone, his crimes are considered 'work place violence'. So, if he committed crimes to avoid the possibility of death fighting a war, isn't it reasonable to say he is manipulating the system to avoid the death penalty. It is just so ironic that he would choose to murder, to avoid  death, only to be sentenced to death.

Meanwhile, there are court hearings, delays, people jumping through hoops, and three years later, no verdict and no justice. He might be abiding by his religion, but he appears to be a coward. As for others on 'Death Row', a state ought bring about justice swiftly. Criminals continuing appeal after appeal makes no sense, except to prolong the process. Our legal system no longer functions in the manner in which was intended. A 'fair and speedy trial' is now what the victims and their families hope for.

Compromise

The Democratic and Republican Parties have always been distinguished by there beliefs. One party may dominate for a time, and then the other. That seems to be the natural order in our political system - and its good. But, something is fundamentally changing the effectiveness of the political system - the ability to negotiate and compromise. Our politicians have replaced negotiating with lists and demands, and compromise with stonewalling and name calling. If this behaviour is inappropriate for preschoolers, how do politicians get away with it?
    Reading and listening to the tone of how opposing congressmen regard each other it becomes clear why no one can agree, there is no respect for one another. If there is no mutual respect, a person won't be receptive to an other's ideas, or trust that facts have been fully disclosed, or have the ability to communicated positively. Integrity also seems to be a thing of the past. Who will compromise with someone they don't trust.
     Our government is drowning in unresolved issues - from raising revenue to immigration reform. Economic and social issues which go on, unresolved, don't help anyone. The point of compromise is to make sure everyone benefits in some way, which means every one might need to give in a little. I know, 'giving in' sounds like a weakness and is unpopular, but it is a part of negotiation. I believe, our nation will become more divided, if our leaders continue to publicly scoff at colleagues who believe differently than they, and regard each other as enemies.

Response to Jen Rachiele's blog on Immigration Reform

My wheels started turning, when I read Jen Rachiele's blog about immigration reform. In her article, The True Cost of Illegal Immigration , she has thoughtfully detailed several problems associated with illegal immigration. It is doubly frustrating to know that as the federal government fails to enforce laws regarding illegal immigrants, it is also impeding a state's attempt to enforce them.   Many countries require their citizens to carry their documents, and as an American traveling overseas, you could be in big trouble if your not carrying yours. Perhaps some people feel like targets when asked for identification. What would happen to me if an officer asked for  my i.d. and I didn't have it? I have never considered this, but then again why would I not have one?

My father's grandparents immigrated here, one hundred years ago. His grandfather worked and saved his money for four years, to go home and get his wife and son, and bring them here to the United States.  They were proud to become citizens.  I know many people here in Texas have similar stories. Presently, many illegal immigrants flood our southern border come to the U.S. for work and to raise families, and many come here and take advantage of our welfare.We are a compassionate nation, but we are stretched to our limits. The government must enforce immigration laws and resolve what to do with those here illegally.  I agree with Jen when she says, "I look forward to a day when diversity can emerge from a fair and balanced process that we can all agree on".  I would settle for, 'most agree on'.

To Tax, To Cut, or To Do Nothing

     For the last two years, probably longer, the congressional budget committee has been at a stand-off.  Maybe, just maybe, an end is insight to this stale mate and it doesn't sound pretty. Lori Montgomery describes the culmination of our budget problems in a fairly simple way, in her Washington Times article Obama Ready to Veto a Bill Blocking 'fiscal cliff' Without Tax Hike. Since 2008, Lori has followed closely U.S. economic policy and the federal budget. Her articles center around the healthcare overhaul and other legislation which effect the federal budget. I like this article, because its one I actually understood.
     It doesn't take a scholar to understand, the country is facing serious problems with our deficit, and we know congress can not agree on plan to address this problem, and at sometime in the near future something has to be done. But what? Isn't this the place where everyone stops thinking and starts arguing the talking points of the day? And if you want to keep up with the conversation, know the new vocabulary, like 'taxmagedon' and 'fiscal cliff'. What does it all mean? Change. One way or another, by the end of this year, there are going to be big changes to U.S. fiscal policy.
      'Fiscal Cliff' is at the end of this year, when the Bush tax cuts end, temporary payroll tax cuts end, and budget cuts begin. According to this article Obama will veto legislation to block the end of the Bush tax cuts, if republicans don't include a measure to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  To balance the budge,t democrats want to raise the taxes on the wealthiest three percent. The republicans, on the other hand, want to keep tax rates the same for all, but cap the amount of deductions, the 'Buffet Rule'. What it will eventually come down to, is the election. It is unbelievable to me that our 'lame duck' congress is holding us all hostage, until we vote. Then, depending on who is President, they will scramble to pass some legislation, and call it bipartisan.
     After reading this article I appreciate Lori Montgomery's ability to stick to the point. No matter your point of view, the facts or possibilities of what is likely to happen to over the next few months, (as everyone panics to solve the problem of the U.S. budget) are a little clearer. And no matter your point of  view, I hope you feel a little compempt for our congress.
   
 

     For the last two years, probably longer, the congressional budget committee has been at a stand-off.  Maybe, just maybe, an end is insight to this stale mate and it doesn't sound pretty. Lori Montgomery describes the culmination of our budget problems in a fairly simple way, in her Washington Times article Obama Ready to Veto a Bill Blocking 'fiscal cliff' Without Tax Hike. Since 2008, Lori has followed closely U.S. economic policy and the federal budget. Her articles center around the healthcare overhaul and other legislation which effect the federal budget. I like this article, because its one I actually understood.
     It doesn't take a scholar to understand, the country is facing serious problems with our deficit, and we know congress can not agree on plan to address this problem, and at sometime in the near future something has to be done. But what? Isn't this the place where everyone stops thinking and starts arguing the talking points of the day? And if you want to keep up with the conversation, know the new vocabulary, like 'taxmagedon' and 'fiscal cliff'. What does it all mean? Change. One way or another, by the end of this year, there are going to be big changes to U.S. fiscal policy.
      'Fiscal Cliff' is at the end of this year, when the Bush tax cuts end, temporary payroll tax cuts end, and budget cuts begin. According to this article Obama will veto legislation to block the end of the Bush tax cuts, if republicans don't include a measure to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  To balance the budget, democrats want to raise the taxes on the wealthiest three percent. The republicans, on the other hand, want to keep tax rates the same for all, but cap the amount of deductions, the 'Buffet Rule'. What it will eventually come down to, is the election. It is unbelievable to me that our 'lame duck' congress is holding us all hostage, until we vote. Then, depending on who is President, they will scramble to pass some legislation, and call it bipartisan.
     After reading this article I appreciate Lori Montgomery's ability to stick to the point. No matter your point of view, the facts or possibilities of what is likely to happen to over the next few months, (as everyone panics to solve the problem of the U.S. budget) are a little clearer. And no matter your point of  view, I hope you feel a little contempt for our congress.
   
   

An Effective Foreign Policy?

I really wanted to write on how President Obama and Mitt Romney differ in their foreign policies, but the more I read, listen and watch, I wonder how either policy could really change anything. The differences in their policies are clear, in simple terms, Obama's is more passive and Romney's is more aggressive. What gets mind boggling is that any action our nation makes toward the middle east, nothing seems effective. The hostility towards America is rampant. Riots are spreading throughout the middle east and other parts of the globe, and the United States has no response.

For the past twenty years, I have seen the 'Gulf War', the growth of many terrorist groups, the 'Iraq War', the 'War on Terror' and many other notable conflicts. In response, the United States has sent troops, money, and a promise to help the citizens of these nations. In counties like Egypt, Syria, Libya, Afganistan, and many others, the people still live in poverty, their governments are democratic only in name and are unstable, and terror groups are still spreading hate for America. If there is 'good' that has resulted from this time period, I can't think of it. I would say, American has failed. So the question is, how does the United States develop an effective Foreign Policy regarding the middle east?