Who here has heard of LeBron "King" James?
My guess is that anyone who knows someone who knows basketball has heard about the 20-something basketball sensation. The only reason why he has not captured space on the tabloids is because there has not been a marital scandal like Kobe's moment of infamy.
Yet he seems to have a mind-blowingly strong choke hold on the basketball world. This year, several A-list players became free-agents. For the layman, that means they are individual players who have completed their contracts with their previous team and are available to sign with another team. They announced that they might have a Summit of Stars, where, according to sources, they would discuss their professional goals and determine the future power balance of NBA teams. This apparently did not happen.
Sports fans have since waited on the edge of their seats to hear who the most highly-touted NBA player will choose to play for next season.
He will announce his decision Thursday.
It seems that LeBron and his entourage have been milking this opportunity for all it's worth. Almost the point of nausea, in my opinion. Granted he is a talented player. But he was extremely disappointing in the NBA playoffs. My bracket was ruined when he played poorly against Boston, who then went on to face-off against the Lakers in the 2010 Finals.
But every aspiring basketball franchise has been throwing ridiculous salary offers, business deals, and more at this one individual. Some even went to great lengths to clear space in their salary caps to afford this player.
LeBron is predicted to be one of the most successful players in NBA history. Akin to Michael Jordan or more. The difference, in my opinion, between James and Jordan is that Jordan didn't hog the spotlight. He allowed attention, but didn't work to hype himself. He let his skills speak for himself. That's why I think he remains as a legend.
Even though he has a ridiculous moustache right now.
As to where LeBron will end up, Cleveland seems to have the best chance. Money, plus he doesn't have to move. And we all know how inconvenient moves are.
But we'll see on Thursday if I am right.
Until next time...
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Arizona: Paving The Way For A Barbed Wire Fence
According to a recent Gallup poll, 88% of Americans have heard about Arizona's recent legislative action to allow law enforcement personnel to check suspected illegal aliens for proper documentation (USA Today article).
What is not touted in the media is that, according to the same Gallup poll, 59% of Americans who know about the bill support it. Only 39% do not. Interesting, considering how the media has effectively announced that Arizona is an un-American state with this bill and that no sane American is in support of it.
As usual, celebrities have jumped into the fray, denouncing Arizona lawmakers and lambasting the policies that it seeks to enact. But let's take a quick breath and think about the effects that this bill has. I am not an educated political scholar, but I think that the bill would be beneficial to America as a whole.
Arizona is a state where illegal immigrants are known to cross the border into the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. They bring hopes, dreams, ambition, hard work ethics, and, frequently, drugs and weapons. The first half of the list is what we want in future Americans. The latter two items, though, we could do without.
While it is in the the Second Amendment that we have a right to bear arms, and I am in full support of that policy, the guns brought in are not registered, nor are the bearers licensed. They can do whatever they want with them and law enforcement agents have no method of tracking down the actual owners in the event of a murder. How does that make America safer?
Financially-challenged immigrants have been the backbone of this nation's growth. The Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State building, the entire New York subway system, among other famous structures and systems, were all built with the blood and sweat of people trying to feed their families and make a life in the Land of Opportunity. I have immigrant ancestors who struggled and prevailed, and I am proud of that heritage. But the nation has shifted from the conditions under which the immigrants of the past earned their living.
These days, we have equal opportunity employment legislation. This is a very good thing. We have Worker's Compensation programs, another great measure designed to help those of the working class. We have unions, guilds, and other associations that ensure that exploitation in the workplace becomes a thing of the past. Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and other programs have helped keep the disadvantaged from slipping into complete destitution. America has realized that all citizens deserve fair and just treatment as well as a fair chance to succeed. Both are major strides in human and civil rights.
However, despite good intentions, illegal immigrants are straining the government programs. They do not mean to be a problem, but the government is spending a lot of money with little-to-no return, i.e.: taxes. I have many friends who are honest, hardworking people, but do not have a fully-legal status in this country, though many are working towards that. But they do not understand the concept of taxes, the importance of them, and therefore do not file them. Taxes are a source of income for the government, which is then channeled into various programs, initiatives, and other costs of running a country. The average tax-paying citizen, while their taxes may not be very substantial in the overall scheme of things, are at least some amount of help for the government to keep up with their expenses.
With no malice intended, these illegals immigrants are leeching off of the system. Sure, they take jobs doing tasks that are often undesirable, but legal citizens are still unemployed. If we were stricter on illegal immigration, those jobs would probably end up being filled by someone who has a social security number, official allegiance to the country, and is obligated by law to pay taxes on their income.
Also, recently, Congress passed the healthcare bill. This granted the millions of Americans who did not have health insurance the opportunity to sign up under a policy. How many of those who will be covered under this new bill are not legal citizens of the United States of America? Also, how many of those under Medicare and WIC programs are not documented citizens? How much money is the government spending on programs that are not required to differentiate between citizens and illegal aliens and therefore giving the latter parties the opportunity to continue taking advantage of our government?
Is it honestly wrong to say that suspected illegal immigrants should be checked for documentation? Is it wrong to be less welcoming to those who knowingly sidestep our laws to gain access into our country? I can understand that racial profiling is an inevitable side effect and that it is not fair for Americans of ethnic heritage. I am in full support of developing policies to prevent that. But in all reality, it is primarily those of ethnic heritage that are sneaking across the border. If we overlook that point, we are only kidding ourselves.
We have immigration procedures. They are there for a reason. We have a border patrol, both employed and volunteer. It is there for a reason. We spend billions of dollars on national defense. We do that fora reason. We have ICE. It is there for a reason.
Why is it that Arizona, under states' rights, establishing a harsher procedure for identifying illegal immigrants is a travesty? We cannot rely on federal agencies to micromanage the country. Allowing a state to delegate those responsibilities, albeit under strict enforcement policies, sounds like a good idea to me. It is not racist. It is not un-American. It is enforcing our established laws and legislation.
What is not touted in the media is that, according to the same Gallup poll, 59% of Americans who know about the bill support it. Only 39% do not. Interesting, considering how the media has effectively announced that Arizona is an un-American state with this bill and that no sane American is in support of it.
As usual, celebrities have jumped into the fray, denouncing Arizona lawmakers and lambasting the policies that it seeks to enact. But let's take a quick breath and think about the effects that this bill has. I am not an educated political scholar, but I think that the bill would be beneficial to America as a whole.
Arizona is a state where illegal immigrants are known to cross the border into the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. They bring hopes, dreams, ambition, hard work ethics, and, frequently, drugs and weapons. The first half of the list is what we want in future Americans. The latter two items, though, we could do without.
While it is in the the Second Amendment that we have a right to bear arms, and I am in full support of that policy, the guns brought in are not registered, nor are the bearers licensed. They can do whatever they want with them and law enforcement agents have no method of tracking down the actual owners in the event of a murder. How does that make America safer?
Financially-challenged immigrants have been the backbone of this nation's growth. The Brooklyn Bridge, Empire State building, the entire New York subway system, among other famous structures and systems, were all built with the blood and sweat of people trying to feed their families and make a life in the Land of Opportunity. I have immigrant ancestors who struggled and prevailed, and I am proud of that heritage. But the nation has shifted from the conditions under which the immigrants of the past earned their living.
These days, we have equal opportunity employment legislation. This is a very good thing. We have Worker's Compensation programs, another great measure designed to help those of the working class. We have unions, guilds, and other associations that ensure that exploitation in the workplace becomes a thing of the past. Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and other programs have helped keep the disadvantaged from slipping into complete destitution. America has realized that all citizens deserve fair and just treatment as well as a fair chance to succeed. Both are major strides in human and civil rights.
However, despite good intentions, illegal immigrants are straining the government programs. They do not mean to be a problem, but the government is spending a lot of money with little-to-no return, i.e.: taxes. I have many friends who are honest, hardworking people, but do not have a fully-legal status in this country, though many are working towards that. But they do not understand the concept of taxes, the importance of them, and therefore do not file them. Taxes are a source of income for the government, which is then channeled into various programs, initiatives, and other costs of running a country. The average tax-paying citizen, while their taxes may not be very substantial in the overall scheme of things, are at least some amount of help for the government to keep up with their expenses.
With no malice intended, these illegals immigrants are leeching off of the system. Sure, they take jobs doing tasks that are often undesirable, but legal citizens are still unemployed. If we were stricter on illegal immigration, those jobs would probably end up being filled by someone who has a social security number, official allegiance to the country, and is obligated by law to pay taxes on their income.
Also, recently, Congress passed the healthcare bill. This granted the millions of Americans who did not have health insurance the opportunity to sign up under a policy. How many of those who will be covered under this new bill are not legal citizens of the United States of America? Also, how many of those under Medicare and WIC programs are not documented citizens? How much money is the government spending on programs that are not required to differentiate between citizens and illegal aliens and therefore giving the latter parties the opportunity to continue taking advantage of our government?
Is it honestly wrong to say that suspected illegal immigrants should be checked for documentation? Is it wrong to be less welcoming to those who knowingly sidestep our laws to gain access into our country? I can understand that racial profiling is an inevitable side effect and that it is not fair for Americans of ethnic heritage. I am in full support of developing policies to prevent that. But in all reality, it is primarily those of ethnic heritage that are sneaking across the border. If we overlook that point, we are only kidding ourselves.
We have immigration procedures. They are there for a reason. We have a border patrol, both employed and volunteer. It is there for a reason. We spend billions of dollars on national defense. We do that fora reason. We have ICE. It is there for a reason.
Why is it that Arizona, under states' rights, establishing a harsher procedure for identifying illegal immigrants is a travesty? We cannot rely on federal agencies to micromanage the country. Allowing a state to delegate those responsibilities, albeit under strict enforcement policies, sounds like a good idea to me. It is not racist. It is not un-American. It is enforcing our established laws and legislation.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
No Way! Pres. Obama is Anti-Vegas?
Welcome, Dear Readers.
Now, I am sure you all, like me, were shocked-- just absolutely floored, when you heard about Pres. Barack Obama’s insulting reference to Las Vegas.
Wait, audience, what is that you’re saying? What do you mean you don’t watch the press conferences? Are you kidding me? I’m very disappointed in you.
Now, if we look at his remark in depth we can understand that the people who care most are the people affected least-- the nation’s growing political peanut gallery (I am not an official “peanut”) and representatives from both sides of the political spectrum (do I smell something “mavericky” in the air?) whose voters tend to reside in non-Nevada states.
Here are Obama’s precise words, “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay a mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.” (Full Story)
Well I am flabbergasted! How dare he suggest to us how to spend our money! I say we cash in our college savings and run to Vegas, just to spite him! However, since I have a brain and am capable of rational thinking, and also since I try to be a champion of the misunderstood and misrepresented, I would like to point out a few elements within the speech that were ignored.
First, where are all the boat manufacturers in this debacle, huh? Pres. Obama slighted boat-makers just as much as Vegas! Apparently they don’t hang on every word that comes forth from the president’s mouth. And if they did, they must not care that much. Unlike some, apparently…
Second, it is a known fact that the odds are against you when you gamble in a casino. I was once given wise counsel to this effect: set fire to your money instead, at least you can sit and watch the flames. Las Vegas knows that it thrives on tourism, popularly interpreted as gambling.
However, they cannot accuse Pres. Obama’s admonition for people not to spend extravagantly in a city that, by the way, is infamous for overindulgence, during tough times as being anti-Vegas. That’s a bit of an overreaction. He correctly used it as an example of tourism that should take a backseat to a college education. I think it would be a lot less effective of an example to say, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Legoland when you’re trying to save for college.” It is sound advice for the financially un-savvy. Everyone’s thinking it; he’s just saying it.
His comment last year that bailout money should not be used for corporate trips to Vegas is also under fire. Why? The president gave them the money. He is not enforcing his words with Gestapo. He is like a father telling his son not to spend his entire allowance on gumballs and jawbreakers.
And to be perfectly frank, how is traveling to Vegas going to help a company reorganize and streamline, not to mention cut costs and spending, when they’re paying $1600-a-night for a penthouse suite on the Strip? That doesn’t sound very thrifty to me. Pres. Obama is merely trying to steer the country, as a whole, where it needs to be going.
And as for the reaction of Las Vegas, where Mayor Oscar Goodman announced that Pres. Obama is no longer a welcome guest to Las Vegas, and that, “I will do everything I can to give him the boot.” He added, “The president is a real slow learner.” That is a bold statement, Mayor Goodman. Maybe even borderline unwise.
Somehow, to me, in my little politically-ignorant mind, shunning the President of the United States of America from your city over a poorly-chosen statement does not sound like a smart idea. Especially since Pres. Obama has previously remarked that he enjoys visiting Las Vegas.
Additionally, Pres. Obama's remarks included, “You prioritize. You make tough decisions.” That sounds like a hidden complement to me. He is implying that a Las Vegas trip is a great experience, but one that must be postponed in order to achieve goals of greater significance.
Sorry, Mayor Goodman, but your knee-jerk reaction will keep Las Vegas from not only not getting corporate bailout money flowing through Las Vegas casinos, but the city will not be getting the president’s personal income, also known as “our tax dollars at play,” either.
In summary, what is the ultimate impact of Pres. Obama’s allegedly anti-Las Vegas statement? I think the ultimate outcome will be negligible. Those that want to go to Vegas will still find a way to go. Those that were not planning on visiting will not. Those on the fence needed the financial advice anyway, and what Pres. Obama gave was solid.
On the other hand, this event might actually help Sin City-- Pres. Obama is suffering in the popularity polls, so the public might deliberately do the opposite of his suggestions.
It would be an ironic twist, to be sure.
Well, until next time…
Now, I am sure you all, like me, were shocked-- just absolutely floored, when you heard about Pres. Barack Obama’s insulting reference to Las Vegas.
Wait, audience, what is that you’re saying? What do you mean you don’t watch the press conferences? Are you kidding me? I’m very disappointed in you.
Now, if we look at his remark in depth we can understand that the people who care most are the people affected least-- the nation’s growing political peanut gallery (I am not an official “peanut”) and representatives from both sides of the political spectrum (do I smell something “mavericky” in the air?) whose voters tend to reside in non-Nevada states.
Here are Obama’s precise words, “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay a mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.” (Full Story)
Well I am flabbergasted! How dare he suggest to us how to spend our money! I say we cash in our college savings and run to Vegas, just to spite him! However, since I have a brain and am capable of rational thinking, and also since I try to be a champion of the misunderstood and misrepresented, I would like to point out a few elements within the speech that were ignored.
First, where are all the boat manufacturers in this debacle, huh? Pres. Obama slighted boat-makers just as much as Vegas! Apparently they don’t hang on every word that comes forth from the president’s mouth. And if they did, they must not care that much. Unlike some, apparently…
Second, it is a known fact that the odds are against you when you gamble in a casino. I was once given wise counsel to this effect: set fire to your money instead, at least you can sit and watch the flames. Las Vegas knows that it thrives on tourism, popularly interpreted as gambling.
However, they cannot accuse Pres. Obama’s admonition for people not to spend extravagantly in a city that, by the way, is infamous for overindulgence, during tough times as being anti-Vegas. That’s a bit of an overreaction. He correctly used it as an example of tourism that should take a backseat to a college education. I think it would be a lot less effective of an example to say, “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Legoland when you’re trying to save for college.” It is sound advice for the financially un-savvy. Everyone’s thinking it; he’s just saying it.
His comment last year that bailout money should not be used for corporate trips to Vegas is also under fire. Why? The president gave them the money. He is not enforcing his words with Gestapo. He is like a father telling his son not to spend his entire allowance on gumballs and jawbreakers.
And to be perfectly frank, how is traveling to Vegas going to help a company reorganize and streamline, not to mention cut costs and spending, when they’re paying $1600-a-night for a penthouse suite on the Strip? That doesn’t sound very thrifty to me. Pres. Obama is merely trying to steer the country, as a whole, where it needs to be going.
And as for the reaction of Las Vegas, where Mayor Oscar Goodman announced that Pres. Obama is no longer a welcome guest to Las Vegas, and that, “I will do everything I can to give him the boot.” He added, “The president is a real slow learner.” That is a bold statement, Mayor Goodman. Maybe even borderline unwise.
Somehow, to me, in my little politically-ignorant mind, shunning the President of the United States of America from your city over a poorly-chosen statement does not sound like a smart idea. Especially since Pres. Obama has previously remarked that he enjoys visiting Las Vegas.
Additionally, Pres. Obama's remarks included, “You prioritize. You make tough decisions.” That sounds like a hidden complement to me. He is implying that a Las Vegas trip is a great experience, but one that must be postponed in order to achieve goals of greater significance.
Sorry, Mayor Goodman, but your knee-jerk reaction will keep Las Vegas from not only not getting corporate bailout money flowing through Las Vegas casinos, but the city will not be getting the president’s personal income, also known as “our tax dollars at play,” either.
In summary, what is the ultimate impact of Pres. Obama’s allegedly anti-Las Vegas statement? I think the ultimate outcome will be negligible. Those that want to go to Vegas will still find a way to go. Those that were not planning on visiting will not. Those on the fence needed the financial advice anyway, and what Pres. Obama gave was solid.
On the other hand, this event might actually help Sin City-- Pres. Obama is suffering in the popularity polls, so the public might deliberately do the opposite of his suggestions.
It would be an ironic twist, to be sure.
Well, until next time…
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Weir-ing Fur Was Apparently a Bad Decision
This afternoon, while trolling Yahoo!News, I came across an article about U.S. figure skater Johnny Weir's decision to include tufts of fox fur on his costume and animal right organizations' vehement opposition and condemnation of the action. What follows is my response to the article (Full story here).
"I think, frankly, it's none of our business what he wears. This country was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom. We should all be allowed to live (and wear) according to the dictates of our own conscience without fear of reprisal. If we are not, we are no better than the stifling governments that immigrants to this great nation were fleeing from. He made a decision regarding his design. He's not a villain.
"And anyway, why is he on the chopping block? He did not order the fox killed. He does not run a fox-slaughtering company. He is not blatantly mocking animals. Rather, he recognizes the beauty of the animal and has selected his own way of honoring it. Let's keep the accusations focused on the proper culprits- poachers of the animals and the groups that brutalize the animals.
"His mention of Haiti was a simple example of a situation in which hundreds of thousands deserve our immediate attention more than a fox, at least at this current time. When foxes become a higher priority than our fellow men, and countrymen, in need, society has indeed lost its perspective.
"I do not condone animal cruelty, but I feel like this situation has gotten out of control. Let's save the animals. But, personally, I choose to focus my energy on rehabilitating the infirm and the addicted, providing homes for the homeless men, women, and children of the world, creating jobs for the unemployed, educating the illiterate, and mentoring the disadvantaged and orphaned.
"These causes, in my opinion are the real first steps to be taken if we are to curb the abuse of the planet."
"I think, frankly, it's none of our business what he wears. This country was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom. We should all be allowed to live (and wear) according to the dictates of our own conscience without fear of reprisal. If we are not, we are no better than the stifling governments that immigrants to this great nation were fleeing from. He made a decision regarding his design. He's not a villain.
"And anyway, why is he on the chopping block? He did not order the fox killed. He does not run a fox-slaughtering company. He is not blatantly mocking animals. Rather, he recognizes the beauty of the animal and has selected his own way of honoring it. Let's keep the accusations focused on the proper culprits- poachers of the animals and the groups that brutalize the animals.
"His mention of Haiti was a simple example of a situation in which hundreds of thousands deserve our immediate attention more than a fox, at least at this current time. When foxes become a higher priority than our fellow men, and countrymen, in need, society has indeed lost its perspective.
"I do not condone animal cruelty, but I feel like this situation has gotten out of control. Let's save the animals. But, personally, I choose to focus my energy on rehabilitating the infirm and the addicted, providing homes for the homeless men, women, and children of the world, creating jobs for the unemployed, educating the illiterate, and mentoring the disadvantaged and orphaned.
"These causes, in my opinion are the real first steps to be taken if we are to curb the abuse of the planet."
Friday, October 2, 2009
Main Event: White House vs. Fox News
Today I came across an interesting article on Yahoo!News (Full story). It outlines how the White House is standing up against erroneous allegations and disregard for "facts" by news networks, particularly Fox News.
I give kudos to the president for doing this. It is his right to defend his honor, as it were. It also was a wise political decision, seeing as how Fox News claims to be the only non-left/non-liberal news network out there, with an audience whom Obama is currently trying to win over.
Can you feel the sarcasm oozing out of that last sentence?
Another interesting move: single out individual journalists within the network. Poor Glenn Beck. The president has called him out. I think it is an unwise move, in the world of journalism, is to get the president angry at you personally. Heck, I think it is an unwise move in any world to have the president identify you as a propagator or falsehoods. Even though the president technically does not have power to destroy you, you can still probably kiss your career, in most circles, goodbye.
Not only has Fox News, with such famous/infamous figures as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, been labeled as an anti-Obama network, but it is the only network with whom the president will not appear on air with. Pres. Obama has appeared on every other news network except Fox News. Not even Bill O'Reilly's show, The O'Reilly Factor.
I think that despite the polarized mentalities of the public, in regards to Mr. O'Reilly, one must admit that Bill O'Reilly is still a credible journalist. He has his preferences, granted, but so does every other journalist. The difference is that he is open about them. While he can get fairly impassioned (remember the Barney Frank appearance after Fannie and Freddie?), he still has logical reasoning, sound arguments, guest from both parties, and refrains from comparing Pres. Obama to Hitler, among other things. I personally admire Mr. O'Reilly's courage and "bold, freshness" in speaking out against issues he feels are harming America. Okay, that's it for my O'Reilly endorsement.
That said, I have seen on Fox News, at times, reporters with excessive skepticism in the president's ability to lead the country effectively. Not on the O'Reilly Factor, though he does lambaste some of the more controversial policy decisions, but he never personally attacks Pres. Obama. When you resort to smear tactics, you lose a lot of credibility as a fair-minded journalist, as well as integrity.
I support the president in his efforts to ensure that the truth of what he says is reported to the public, but I do not think it is fair to single out Fox News alone. Other networks are guilty of misrepresenting him just as much, though they do it through servile obeisance and sycophancy, instead of criticism. I find it rather amusing how the president does not appear to be worried about how people revere him like a demigod or how they worship the ground he walks on.
It is my personal belief that allowing such behavior to continue is inappropriate for an elected public servant of the United States of America. He is the president. He is but a man. He is elected by the people, and he is to serve their interests. Many politicians seem to have forgotten that and the president is the last person who should ever be victim of such a shortcoming. I encourage Pres. Obama to speak out against those worshipping him as someone greater than they. He is mortal, he is one of us, and if he is to lead this country, he must develop humility.
I give kudos to the president for doing this. It is his right to defend his honor, as it were. It also was a wise political decision, seeing as how Fox News claims to be the only non-left/non-liberal news network out there, with an audience whom Obama is currently trying to win over.
Can you feel the sarcasm oozing out of that last sentence?
Another interesting move: single out individual journalists within the network. Poor Glenn Beck. The president has called him out. I think it is an unwise move, in the world of journalism, is to get the president angry at you personally. Heck, I think it is an unwise move in any world to have the president identify you as a propagator or falsehoods. Even though the president technically does not have power to destroy you, you can still probably kiss your career, in most circles, goodbye.
Not only has Fox News, with such famous/infamous figures as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, been labeled as an anti-Obama network, but it is the only network with whom the president will not appear on air with. Pres. Obama has appeared on every other news network except Fox News. Not even Bill O'Reilly's show, The O'Reilly Factor.
I think that despite the polarized mentalities of the public, in regards to Mr. O'Reilly, one must admit that Bill O'Reilly is still a credible journalist. He has his preferences, granted, but so does every other journalist. The difference is that he is open about them. While he can get fairly impassioned (remember the Barney Frank appearance after Fannie and Freddie?), he still has logical reasoning, sound arguments, guest from both parties, and refrains from comparing Pres. Obama to Hitler, among other things. I personally admire Mr. O'Reilly's courage and "bold, freshness" in speaking out against issues he feels are harming America. Okay, that's it for my O'Reilly endorsement.
That said, I have seen on Fox News, at times, reporters with excessive skepticism in the president's ability to lead the country effectively. Not on the O'Reilly Factor, though he does lambaste some of the more controversial policy decisions, but he never personally attacks Pres. Obama. When you resort to smear tactics, you lose a lot of credibility as a fair-minded journalist, as well as integrity.
I support the president in his efforts to ensure that the truth of what he says is reported to the public, but I do not think it is fair to single out Fox News alone. Other networks are guilty of misrepresenting him just as much, though they do it through servile obeisance and sycophancy, instead of criticism. I find it rather amusing how the president does not appear to be worried about how people revere him like a demigod or how they worship the ground he walks on.
It is my personal belief that allowing such behavior to continue is inappropriate for an elected public servant of the United States of America. He is the president. He is but a man. He is elected by the people, and he is to serve their interests. Many politicians seem to have forgotten that and the president is the last person who should ever be victim of such a shortcoming. I encourage Pres. Obama to speak out against those worshipping him as someone greater than they. He is mortal, he is one of us, and if he is to lead this country, he must develop humility.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Goldman Sachs: Building China's Economy with US Funds
So, folks, I was surprised to read yesterday on BBC News (full article) that Goldman Sachs has invested $334m in the Chinese automobile company Geely. While I am all for increasing competition in various markets, I am a free-market proponent, I must admit that a company that we, or I should say, "the government," gave $12b in bailout money (a) paid out big bonuses and (b) is now moving funds into the Chinese economy. Not only do the Chinese own a huge percentage of our debt, various industrial locations, including the Geneva steel mill in Utah, but now they have our bailout funds as well.
I understand that this is probably a wise move by GS, investing in a company that has a bright future, especially because it is tied to the quickly-growing Chinese economy. Also, according to the article, what they have invested can later be turned into shares in the company, so if Geely goes big, and it certainly has plans to do so, GS can make some serious money from their investment, which in turn will hopefully put them back in the black. This will then allow them to pay us all back for the milk money we gave them to make sure they are getting their calcium, so to speak.
I guess my only real problem with this story is that Goldman Sachs, not only famous, but infamous!- decided to move our money outside of the States. I would have loved to hear that GS has invested $433m in a US corporation or company, something which would help build America's sagging economy and contribute to our climb out of the recession. I guess that's all I'm trying to say.
See you next time!
I understand that this is probably a wise move by GS, investing in a company that has a bright future, especially because it is tied to the quickly-growing Chinese economy. Also, according to the article, what they have invested can later be turned into shares in the company, so if Geely goes big, and it certainly has plans to do so, GS can make some serious money from their investment, which in turn will hopefully put them back in the black. This will then allow them to pay us all back for the milk money we gave them to make sure they are getting their calcium, so to speak.
I guess my only real problem with this story is that Goldman Sachs, not only famous, but infamous!- decided to move our money outside of the States. I would have loved to hear that GS has invested $433m in a US corporation or company, something which would help build America's sagging economy and contribute to our climb out of the recession. I guess that's all I'm trying to say.
See you next time!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Congressman Mike Rogers: "Boldly Saying What No Man Has Said Before"
Recently, in a congressional hearing, Congressman Mike Rogers (Michigan), spoke up boldly against Pres. Obama's infamous Healthcare Reform Bill. He essentially said that the bill is destroying what makes America great. More specifically, by giving the government "unprecedented power" to "rip you off your own individual [insurance/healthcare] plan." (click to view the video)
He cited statistics from the National Cancer Intelligence Center of the UK and the Canadian Cancer Registry, which conclude that those who were diagnosed with cancer, under government-run healthcare, have a lower chance of survival than if they were on private healthcare plans.
While I personally think that some of this feels a bit dramatic and fatalistic, I am still not a major proponent of a government-run healthcare system. In America, we are constantly bellyaching about how inefficient it is to do taxes and other bureacratic processes, yet many of us are actively promoting the idea of that same government running our healthcare, or in another sense, our physical well-being. I am not saying we will be owned by the government- no, I am more moderate than that- but I am saying that we will be subjected to the irksome processes that the government excels at creating. Am I right in thinking that this suggests that we may, as a public body, have some masochistic tendencies?
One point that Congressman Rogers brought up that sounds very logical to me was the percentages of the population affected. According to Rogers, and this is paraphrased, 15% will benefit from this plan, while 85% of Americans will be the ones taking the hit. I agree with his logic, and that of Abraham Lincoln, whom Rogers quoted in saying, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak."
Do we know that the 15% that do not have healthcare even want it? I recall a news story I saw a while back where they interviewed a number of young adults who did not have healthcare. They expressed that they did not because they were young and were not planning on having significant healthcare concerns, ergo they chose not to pay premiums for a plan they felt they would not need. How many of the 46 million Americans, a number declared by Rogers, are of a similar sentiment?
Another point that Rogers brought up that I am beginning to agree with regards the underlying message that this bill suggests; that we, the American public and its government, no longer have faith in the private sector. We have given up on private companies and decided that it would just be easier to have the government deal with everything. How have we come to this point?
I feel that this has become the situation because we are losing the desire to take the initiative. Why are people dissatisfied with private healthcare plans? Probably because of the financial demands they make, the fine print, and the fickle nature of their customer service. But how can this be changed, one might ask. In a true free market, the public's boycott, or at least significantly decreased patronage, would force companies to be more competitive and offer better plans. But it seems that we have grown too tired to fight for what we want. We are willing to relinquish our freedoms, albeit gradually, and push the problem to someone else.
Imagine for a moment, what life would be like if our Founding Fathers had this same attitude. Something I admire about Pres. Obama is his ability to stir within us a sense of patriotism, of pride. While I may disagree with policies that he makes, he is still the president, and as a US citizen, it is my duty to support what I agree with. I support his efforts to make us proud to be Americans, to be the kind of people that we ought to be- better, to build our communities, and to strive to make America great. Those are ideals that our Founding Fathers desired us to carry on. Had we kept this in mind, perhaps many of our current problems would have been mitigated.
Congressman Mike Rogers was not afraid to speak his feelings about the healthcare bill, but he did so in a respectful, rational (though admittedly impassioned), non-aggressive manner. I think we can learn from his example how we ought to try to improve legislation. Let us all do so through proper channels, and refrain from attacking individuals. That only creates civil strife, and as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hope that we all find within ourselves the will to improve the country around us and take responsibility for our actions.
He cited statistics from the National Cancer Intelligence Center of the UK and the Canadian Cancer Registry, which conclude that those who were diagnosed with cancer, under government-run healthcare, have a lower chance of survival than if they were on private healthcare plans.
While I personally think that some of this feels a bit dramatic and fatalistic, I am still not a major proponent of a government-run healthcare system. In America, we are constantly bellyaching about how inefficient it is to do taxes and other bureacratic processes, yet many of us are actively promoting the idea of that same government running our healthcare, or in another sense, our physical well-being. I am not saying we will be owned by the government- no, I am more moderate than that- but I am saying that we will be subjected to the irksome processes that the government excels at creating. Am I right in thinking that this suggests that we may, as a public body, have some masochistic tendencies?
One point that Congressman Rogers brought up that sounds very logical to me was the percentages of the population affected. According to Rogers, and this is paraphrased, 15% will benefit from this plan, while 85% of Americans will be the ones taking the hit. I agree with his logic, and that of Abraham Lincoln, whom Rogers quoted in saying, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak."
Do we know that the 15% that do not have healthcare even want it? I recall a news story I saw a while back where they interviewed a number of young adults who did not have healthcare. They expressed that they did not because they were young and were not planning on having significant healthcare concerns, ergo they chose not to pay premiums for a plan they felt they would not need. How many of the 46 million Americans, a number declared by Rogers, are of a similar sentiment?
Another point that Rogers brought up that I am beginning to agree with regards the underlying message that this bill suggests; that we, the American public and its government, no longer have faith in the private sector. We have given up on private companies and decided that it would just be easier to have the government deal with everything. How have we come to this point?
I feel that this has become the situation because we are losing the desire to take the initiative. Why are people dissatisfied with private healthcare plans? Probably because of the financial demands they make, the fine print, and the fickle nature of their customer service. But how can this be changed, one might ask. In a true free market, the public's boycott, or at least significantly decreased patronage, would force companies to be more competitive and offer better plans. But it seems that we have grown too tired to fight for what we want. We are willing to relinquish our freedoms, albeit gradually, and push the problem to someone else.
Imagine for a moment, what life would be like if our Founding Fathers had this same attitude. Something I admire about Pres. Obama is his ability to stir within us a sense of patriotism, of pride. While I may disagree with policies that he makes, he is still the president, and as a US citizen, it is my duty to support what I agree with. I support his efforts to make us proud to be Americans, to be the kind of people that we ought to be- better, to build our communities, and to strive to make America great. Those are ideals that our Founding Fathers desired us to carry on. Had we kept this in mind, perhaps many of our current problems would have been mitigated.
Congressman Mike Rogers was not afraid to speak his feelings about the healthcare bill, but he did so in a respectful, rational (though admittedly impassioned), non-aggressive manner. I think we can learn from his example how we ought to try to improve legislation. Let us all do so through proper channels, and refrain from attacking individuals. That only creates civil strife, and as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hope that we all find within ourselves the will to improve the country around us and take responsibility for our actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)