Tailban leadway

Taliban militants have been making an unnerving amount of headway in the nuclear armed Pakistan; recently they have even engaged government troops near the capital of Islamabad. This has risen concerns among leaders in America on the effectiveness, strengthen and control the leader of Pakistan has over his own country. These concerns have lead the Americans to take a new approach in dealing with the area, they started to open up talks with the opposition leader of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif. Sharif is believed to have a considerate amount of influence over the countries Islamist and therefore he might be able to help fight the growing control that the Taliban has. Sharif and the president Zardari don’t have a very good history but many leaders hope that the two might make amends and work together to help their country. The biggest concern I see that comes from this crisis is that Pakistan is a nuclear country and it would be extremely bad if the Taliban was able to get their hands on any form of nuclear material or weapon.
Pakistan has been increasing its nuclear bomb making capabilities, and with all the violence and stress that the government is under due to Taliban insurgence the security of the nuclear facilities in in question and of great concern to the world leaders.

Albright warned that the continuing development of Pakistan's atomic weapons programme could trigger a renewed nuclear arms race with India. But he suggested a more immediate threat to nuclear security arose from recent territorial advances in north-west Pakistan by indigenous Taliban and foreign jihadi forces opposed to the Pakistani government and its American and British allies.

The leaders of Pakistan have underplayed the supposed threat to their nuclear faclities saying "The spectre of extremist Taliban taking over a nuclear-armed Pakistan is not only a gross exaggeration, it could also lead to misguided policy prescriptions from Pakistan's allies, including our friends in Washington."

Iraq says no

The Iraqi government has stood up for its self and denied the Americans and extensions on their June 30 deadline for removal of combat troops from Iraqi cities. According to the withdrawal agreement the US is to have all combat troops removed from cities by June 30 and all forces shall leave the country by the end of 2011. The extension request came about due to a recent recurrence of violence, specifically in the northern city of Mosul, and concern over whether the Iraqi security forces are ready to handle the security of these cities on their own. US combat troops were removed from cities back in 2005 and 2006 but returned during the troop surge of 2007 because the Iraqi security forces weren’t prepared to handle the violence, hopes are that they are better trained now. Only full combat troops will be removed, trainer and advisers will stay in the cities to help train security forces. The Iraqi prime minister decided that it would be best for both sides if they just stuck to the withdrawal plan because he needs to show that Iraq is headed towards stability and that his government is working and can protect its own people. In regards to the violence in northern Iraq, leaders believe that they will see a drop in violence once American troops withdrawal, since most of the violence it directed at US troops. This is a good call on the side of the Iraqi prime minister because it shows that he isn’t necessarily just a puppet for the Americans and its good for the Americans because most Americans have grown tired of the war and this is a good step towards ending their involvement.

The Cuba tight rope

Semi good news on the Cuba front, a US official has said that there are plans in place to hold some test meetings between the members of the State department and Cuban officials in Washington. These meetings will be informal water testing meetings, to see if it will be effective to purse official and open talks with the leaders of Cuba. These preliminary talks are to be kept hush-hush because the official policy of the Obama administration was to not make anymore moves until Cuba reciprocated President Obama’s lifting of restrictions on Cuban-Americans who wished to travel to Cuba or send money to relatives on the island. The Cuban situation is much more delicate then I previous thought. On the one hand you have Latin America and Cuban-Americans who have been pressuring the American government to ease its 47-year trade embargo. The leaders of Latin America also have been using the Cuban situation has a test to see how serious America is about dealing with and fixing there relations with Latin America. From there viewpoint it would make sense to go ahead with talks and start easing restrictions with Cuba, but on the other side you have anti-Castro conservative in office and a huge legislative plate to make it through. Obama has so many other legislative issues to deal with that he needs to tread softly with the Cuba talks, so that he doesn’t upset the anti-Castro politicians. It would be horrible if the president couldn’t get some of his most important legislature passed because of this relatively small issue, when compared to most of the other issues this is just a minor one. Good Luck Obama.

Not leaving, Just moving

Today, April 26, 2009, the New York Times reported on the progress of troop withdrawals from Iraqi cities. As everyone knows the US started to remove combat troops from major Iraqi cities back in January. The cities are turned over to the Iraqi security forces; the troops are not leaving Iraq just the cities. Back during the troop surge of 2007 the United States set up nearly 100 small bases in the center of major cities, so that the soldiers could get closer to the people of the city. These are the main bases that are going to be closed and turned over the Iraq security forces that will most likely not use the majority of them. Several larger bases will not close down, such as base camp victory which is on the edge of the city of Baghdad but has been decided that it lays outside the city limits. There will also be a small group of combat troops that will be stationed at the US embassy as security. This won’t violate the terms of the agreement as long as their vehicles stay on embassy grounds and they don’t interfere with the work of the Iraqi security forces. Right now the US is in talks with the Iraqi government to get extensions on troop withdrawal from some of the northern cities, specifically Mosul where there has been an increase in insurgent activity in recent days. They hope to have the decision of the Iraqi leaders by Monday. As in accordance with the agreement between the two countries the US will have to have all of its combat troops removed from within Iraqi cities by June 30, unless they receive any exceptions from the Iraqi government.

The son of START 1

Today I bring news of progress on the US/Russian nuclear talks. As I have stated in previous post the United States and Russia have been on shaky grounds in terms of political relations, but both sides have shown signs of wanted to reestablish good relations. A new nuclear treaty, to replace START 1 which expires in December, is a set forward in this regards. The two sides had stated early in April that they wanted to start talking on this issue and that has finally happen. Negotiators from both sides have begun preliminary talks in Rome on the new nuclear arms reduction treaty. In a joint statement given in front of the US embassy in Rome the representatives from both sides said that the talks had gotten off to a fast start. These are just preliminary talks; the real negations are scheduled to start in May when the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will come to Washington to meet with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. The biggest problem that will be faced during these negotiations is the planned missile defense system in Europe that the US has planned. Russia feels that these missiles need to be taking in to consideration when the time comes, since once the number of nuclear missiles are reduced it will return conventional missile back to their former glory in the power balance. Russia also wants a reduction in the delivery systems for the warheads too. Despite these issues both sides hope to have a new draft of the treaty by the end of this year, even though that might be kind of difficult. America hoping to use this new arms treaty as a way to bring back some of its creditability in the world that has be lost of the last few years; especially in the morality department. They also hope that it will strengthen their ability to pressure other countries with nuclear ambitions, like North Korea and Iran.

First travel, then cigars

The Obama administration has previously stated that they wished to improve relations with Cuba. Cuba is a communist island in the Caribbean that the US has a trade embargo with and has restricted US travel to. These policies have been in place for around 47 years and are just another remnant of the cold war that has become obsolete in its usefulness. The Obama administration has revealed that they wish to ease the travel restrictions that are currently in place and allow American citizens to travel to Cuba. As a first step a envoy of US congressman went to Cuba and met with both Raul Castro, who is the official president, and Fidel Castro, who isn’t dead yet. Fidel Castro was seen as healthy and active in his talks with the US congressman, he also spoke optimistically about the future state of the relations between our two countries. It would appear that Fidel wishes for improved relations within his lifetime and hopefully the American government will be able to fulfill his wish. However as of now there are only talks about lifting travel restrictions, the Obama administration has not said anything in regards to the trade embargo that is still going on. Like most changes in relation status between two nations it will be a slow process but at least there is talking going on between the two nations and hopefully before we know it all will be well because I believe that the trade embargo and travel restriction are just useless now because with the fall of the soviet union there really is no actual threat posed by being friends with an communist nation, not to mention the fact that we are already friends with China which is also operates a form of communism.

US/Iran talks

From the start of his presidency Obama has been talking about reestablishing relations, and good ones at that, which Iran, which is a power house in the Middle East. Improved relations with Iran could lead to a limiting of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, possible peace between Arabs and Israelis and most importantly help with the war on terror and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since Obama has started talking about improving relations the government of Iran has pretty much said that they would believe that when only when Obama stopped talking and started to act. Well it appears that that day may be near at hand as president Obama has stated that the US is ready to participate with other global powers, which is a first for the US, in negotiations which Iran and its government over their nuclear capabilities and the limiting of them. The leader of Iran seems to see this as a positive step forward too because he made some unusually conciliatory comment to the Obama administration. This is a giant leap forward in the relations between our two nations since they were ended in the 1979. The Bush administration usually stayed away from direct talks with the Iranian government. Hopefully this preliminary action will lead to improved relations with the Iranian because the world needs governments that are willing to talk and compromise, not ones that only care about one belief.

Suprise, its Obama

Over the past week president Obama has been traveling the world, attending economic summits and giving speech to world leaders about the goals that he wishes to pursue during his time in office. During the trip Obama decide to make and unannounced stop in Iraq, on April 7. Obama landed in Baghdad at around 4 Pm and left early the next morning. During the extent of his stay Obama did not leave the military compound that is located right next to the airport. Obama’s visit came at a time when it seemed like there might be a resurgence of violence in Iraq. One of the more noticeable parts of Obama’s visit was that he arrived to applause, cheers and overall good feelings from the Iraqi civilians, which is in stark contrast to the last time a US president visit Iraq, who got a shoe thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist. On his visit Obama reiterated his administration’s plan to withdrawal all US combat troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. Obama also told the leaders of Iraq that they need quickly start reconciling with and united the different factions within Iraq, in order to help curve the violence and stabilize Iraq before the US troops are removed. Presidents visit also served to give a boost to the morale of the US service men and women who are currently serving in Iraq, quite of few of which have had to deal with many redeployments.

Russia/US relatiosn

Relations between the US and Russia have been declining over the past few years due to several issues. These issues include the planned US missile defense system, NATO encroachment and disputes over Russia’s invasion of the Georgia. The Russians are fearful of US missiles being in the former soviet satellites and there closeness to the Russian borders. Russia also is opposed to the entrance of several former satellites into NATO. The thing that strained relations between Russia and the west the most is Russia’s invasion of Georgia a few years back, which most western powers condemned. The relations between Russia and the United States need to improve because Russia is a valuable ally in our war going on in Afghanistan and other areas. President Obama understands this and that is way he met face to face with Russian president Medvedev at the G20 economic summit in London. He also met with Queen Elizabeth II and Chinese president Hu Jintao. The Presidents of Russia and US talked about the US’s European missile defense plan, Afghanistan, Iran and human rights, which Russia has had problems with in recent years. After the meeting Presidents Obama and Medvedev presented and joint statement as a sign of their commitment to improved relations. The statement said

“We, the leaders of Russia and the United States, are ready to move beyond cold war mentalities,” the two men said in the statement. “In just a few months we have worked hard to establish a new tone in our relations. Now it is time to get down to business and translate our warm words into actual achievements of benefit to Russia, the United States and all those around the world interested in peace and prosperity.”

The two leaders also stated that they were going to continue work on a new nuclear arms treaty to replace the old one that will expire in December. The current treaty limits the number of ready to launch missiles to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads but says nothing about the warheads that aren’t ready to be launched, which means that neither side actually needs to destroy any of their warheads. The new treaty will try and limit the number of warheads to less than 1,700 with 1,500 between and most realistic number out there, also they will try for making it where they have to destroy the warheads and not just mothball them. This new treaty is supposed be the next step on their way to improving relations between the two countries. This relationship received a minor setback when accusations that the Russians were still operating spies in the west. This situation started when a senior Russian military attaché in Ottawa was asked to leave the country because of wrongdoings that were not made entirely clear. The Russians then tried to make that same man and attaché in Washington, but was denied because of the accusations in Canada. After that incident the senior military attaché in Moscow was asked to leave the country too. Now American has moved that person to a different post and both Russia and the US have decided to each nominate new attaché to each other’s embassies. The US is stilled irritated by the situations but is willing to move on in the name of good relations.

Iran and the Bomb

According to a report issued by the United Nations Iran has enriched enough uranium to possibly make a nuclear bomb out of. The Nuclear capabilities of Iran have be a major issue in Middle Eastern policies, especially since no one knows the location of all of the nuclear facilities in Iran since they hid their program for 18 years from the international communities. This new information concerning Iran’s nuclear capabilities has cause some tension to develop between the US and Israel over what to do about it. The Israelis feel that this is a huge threat and must be dealt with as swiftly as possible while the US feels like it has time to take it slow and establish good relations. The Israelis have always been kind of pushy on this subject, during the latter part of the Bush administration the Israeli government put in a request for “bunker-busting bombs, the right to fly over Iraq and the refueling capability that they would need to take out Iran’s main enrichment plant at Natanz.” Israel feels that Iran’s nuclear program could be pushed back by six years with a good bombing while American officials believe that that would by us about three months since we don’t know the location of all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Obama administration is playing it safe a waiting to see what they can achieve with the talks that they are going to open with Iran, after its elections, this is a good move because Americas relations with Israel has be source of conflict with other countries, who believe that America is too nice to Israel, this show that we aren’t afraid to go against them on some issues.

Plans to stay at top

For the past six years the United States has had its armed forces tied up in two wars, one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. These two wars have stretched man power, we currently have over 170,000 troops in both areas, and resources thin, leaving little to use in any other operations that might come up. The US has been using a strategy that is used for fighting two wars to deal with the operations that are occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq, but top military officials have decided that this strategy of two wars might not be relevant in the 21st century. The Pentagon is now rethinking and revising their strategy to make it more flexible for modern day operations.

Among other questions are the extent to which planning for conflicts should focus primarily on counterinsurgency wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what focus remains on well-equipped conventional adversaries like China and Iran…

The new plan for operations would also try and boost the involvement of other government agency and lower the amount that the DoD has to do. This revision of Americas war plans is much need because it hasn’t help us lately and is too set in conventional warfare, with the use of navies and heavy bombers. Nowadays there are so many international organizations, like the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that it would take a lot to cause a conventional war, as in two uniformed armies are fighting, to break out. The only operations that are prevalent today are anti-insurgence, anti-extremist and policing actions that are sanctioned by the UN or NATO. Of course the real reason that the Pentagon is revising the military plan is so that America can stay at the top of the world military echelon, go figure.

The Israel Influence

Obama’s choice for head of the National Intelligence Council or NIC, Charles W. Freeman Jr., has resigned for the appointment on Tuesday (3/10/09). Many believe that the politically strong pro-Israel lobby had a hand in his resignation; Mr. Freeman himself has said that libelous emails about his record were sent from the pro-Israel lobby. Mr. Freeman has some blemishes on his record from when he was ambassador to Saudi Arabia, including allegations of being lenient with leaders there and in China where his supposedly had commercial interests but the focus of the Israel lobby was on comments that he made that were critical of Israel.

But most of the online attention focused on Freeman's work for the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is funded in part by Saudi money, and his past critical statements about Israel. The latter included a 2005 speech he gave to the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, where he referred to Israel's "high-handed and self-defeating policies" stemming from the "occupation and settlement of Arab lands," which he called "inherently violent."

Many in Washington believe that the Israel lobby holds too much control over policy and needs to be controlled. This one side control can make making peace in the Middle East harder because the lobby will fight anything that isn’t in their best interests, this limits what policy makers can talk about when it comes to the Israel situations.

Syrian Effect

The Obama administration is looking to take a different route with their foreign policy concerning the Middle East. The new route will try to cover three major issues in that area, the nuclear threat from Iran, the bitter relations between Syria and Israel and the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. Starting with the nuclear threat that is emanating from Iran, the Obama administration in hoping to open direct negotiations with Tehran concerning their nuclear program, which has been reported to have enough enriched uranium to produce a bomb. However, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, doesn’t seem too optimistic about the Untied States chances of successfully opening these negotiations. Apparently madam secretary was heard express concern that Iran wouldn’t reacted positively to the negotiations during a trip to the Middle East this week.

American officials privately say an overture to Iran could pay off, no matter how it reacts. A positive response would be a breakthrough, while a rebuff could put Tehran on the defensive, potentially undermining the posturing of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at home and encouraging America’s allies to intensify sanctions against the government.

During her trip Mrs. Clinton has also stated that the US is ready to start improving its relations with Syria. The reasons behind the decision to reopen diplomatic ties, which had been severed when the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri occurred, believing the Syrians to be involved. However, the political field is ripe for a new round of diplomatic relations,

“We’ve got a Syrian government that wants to engage,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former ambassador to Israel and a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. “We’re likely to get an Israeli government that will find it easier to engage with Syria than with the Palestinians.”

America is not the only country seeking to mend ties with Syria; Israel has also announced that they are in negotiations for a comprehensive peace treaty using Turkish mediators; this peace treaty could lead to Israel returning the Golan Heights that they won in the 1967 war. If America can reestablish ties with Syria then they could control the situation in the Middle East by using the huge influence that Syria has over that area, especially in the situation with Iran, who has strong ties with Syria. The reason for Mrs. Clinton’s trip to the Middle East was to visit Israel and announce the Obama administration’s stance on the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Obama’s policy is that he supports the idea of building a separate state of Palestine right alongside the state of Israel. This view was expressed during Mrs. Clinton’s visit there, she also criticize Israel’s plans for demolishing Palestinian homes in eastern Jerusalem saying the orders were “unhelpful” in the peace process. She also fought for the Gaza border opening in order to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to the people of the war torn Gaza strip.

“We have obviously expressed concern about the border crossing,” Mrs. Clinton said after a meeting with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. “We want humanitarian aid to get into Gaza in sufficient amounts to help alleviate the suffering of the people in Gaza.”

Mercury, Lead and Arsenic Oh My

Score one for the Environment today, the Supreme Court has handed a ruling, of sorts, that would allow the EPA to to set up new tighter restrictions of emissions of mercury, lead, arsenic and other pollutants that are put out by our nations coal-burning power plants. The rule was actual a denial of an appeal of a lower courts decision on a case presented by Environmental groups, Indian tribes and several states that pretty much said that it wasn't right for the Bush administration to set up different regulations for Coal-burning power plants and that they should also be subject to the Clean Air Act. This is a huge win because the pollutants that are produced by these power plants can be quiet dangerous once they get into the environment.

Coal-fired plants produce about half the nation’s electricity, but they are a major source not just of heat-trapping gases but of pollution as well. Mercury is a particular concern. While airborne concentrations are usually low, when mercury falls to earth it enters streams, rivers and estuaries and can accumulate in the form of methyl mercury in the flesh of fish.

which means the plants will be in operation for a long time, on average some where between 30 and 50 years, and with out proper regulations that can account for a large amount of pollutants. Of course the Obama administration won't necessarily be able to any great changes because the environment is a tight rope issue which means that you can't go too far in any one direction cause you might fall but if you stay still too long you will still fall. SO you need to balance both sides while still making forward progression in order to succeed.

Why is happiness only for straight people

"I Do", a simple phrase that marks the beginning of the best years of ones life but now the phrase is also riddled with the bullet holes of controversy. This controversy is over whether people of the same sex should be allowed to say those two little words, I Do. For the past few years this debate has been going on all over the country, with only a few states allowing it, those being Massachusetts and Connecticut with Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont allowing same-sex civil unions. As even with the wins and half wins these states provide the cause has been dealt a huge defeat recently when the state of California decided to over turn its legalization of same sex marriage. This decision has sparked a country wide up roar and heated up the debate once again. A new battle ground has already been decided, the state legislature of Hawaii. Hawaii's House has passed a bill that would legalize same sex civil unions and the Senate is set to vote on it in the next few days.

Gay rights organizations argue that civil unions would promote basic equality in the nation’s most ethnically diverse state, but opponents fear the erosion of an island culture that values conventional family ties.

I don't see how same sex couples would erode the islands culture, just because a few people are gay and get a civil union doesn't mean that all of a sudden the entire island or even the majority of the island will turn gay. Being gay isn't a disease that can be transmitted from one person to another, it is just who people are. Religious groups in Hawaii have taken out newspaper ads and started websites to protest against this action. The religious people shouldn't be doing this because this type of action goes against the fundamental teachings of God, which was to love thy neighbor. Even if the bible has some passages that condemn gays those are less important than the ten commandments. Also I am pretty sure that even though the bible may condemn gays it doesn't say anything about not letting them marry. Also if you look at the Bible from a historical perspective you would realize why the Bible condemns gays; that would be because at the time the bible was written the Christians were a minority that was being randomly persecuted by the Romans, so they wanted to distance themselves from the Romans as much as possible and back during that time the Greeks and Romans tended to have homosexual relationships and didn't view it as wrong. So the writers of the Bible condemn it as a way of separating themselves from the Romans. Also the religious groups need to adapt to a changing time like they have do before. For example less than 500 years ago if you were considered a witch you would be executed because the Bible specifically states that you shall not condemn a witch to live, yet we don't do that today even though the Bible still says that a witch should die. witchcraft is actual a rising religion,in the form of Wicca, in some countries. Even Though it is only a civil union it counts as a win because once people start realizing that gays who are legally a married coupled aren't going around turning our children gay,they should loosen up and let gays have marriage, its all about just being patient. The best part about this argument is the fact that the federal government has pretty much stayed out of it. The last thing this country needs is for the federal government to tell us how to and who can be married. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to do that because the founding fathers knew that that would be interfering in peoples personal liberties, which they wanted to protect at all costs.
Good Luck to all Gays in Hawaii, hope it works out for yall.

Is pulling put the safest way?

In his campaign Obama said that he planed to pull troops out of Iraq over the course of 16 month,ending around mid-2010. The top two military officials in Iraq have expressed their displeasure towards Obama's timetable. They wish for a longer timetable to help solidify the transition of security control to the Iraqis, their desired timetable is around 23 months long. During the past few months Obama and Robert Gates have been discussing the three different lengths for the timetable to withdraw the troops, these three plans are 16,19 and 23 months, with the joint chiefs of staffs. It has been reported that Obama may reveal that he will go with the 19 month withdrawal timetable on Friday, when he visits military bases in North Carolina. His withdrawal plan will not remove all US troops from Iraq during that time, a small residual force will stay behind to train Iraqi troops and go on some military patrols with their Iraqi counterparts. The official size of the residual force has yet to be determined but early speculations put it between 30,000 and 55,000 troops. The withdrawal of troops from Iraq will finally end the war that has pissed of so the most people since Vietnam and will free up more men and materials for operations in Afghanistan, where Obama is sending 17,00 troops. It seems that Obama is just ending one war to escalate another one.Yet I still feel that this action will go over well with the American public since most hate the war in Iraq and don't even Know that we are still operating in Afghanistan.

new troop deployments

Obama has tried to show that he isn’t going to continue in the footsteps of his predecessor by putting a time table together for the shutdown of Gitmo and he has started to talk with top officials on a plan to start the removal US troops from Iraq. However that may be easier said than done since Obama has just recently authorized the deployment of an additional 17,000 troops to anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan. This is a nearly 50% increase in the number of troops already stationed there and bring the total number of US troops in Afghanistan to 55,000 by mid-summer. The troop deployments are part of a larger change in tactics which includes more regional counterinsurgency operations and increased aid to Pakistan. Opinion on the new troop deployment is split evenly into three groups (for increase, for decrease and for no change)in the US while it is more one sided in Afghanistan with only 18% of people polled wanted the increase in troops and nearly 44% wanted an reduction in foreign troops.

War-related civilian Afghan deaths -- most blamed on Taliban insurgents but many on U.S. airstrikes -- increased nearly 40 percent to 2,118 in 2008, according to a U.N. report released yesterday.

This increase in civilian deaths has weakened Afghan support for the military operations and makes them more hesitant to accept more troops.
The new troop deployments occurs right when Obama needs to find some price reductions in order to at least justify his nearly $800 billion stimulus plan. The area that is most likely to be hit by this budget cut is the pentagon where its budget has increased steadily since 9/11. The amount of spending we do on the military has be one of the biggest debates for the past few years and now it seems that the military’s budget may see a decrease finally. However the area that will see the most and biggest cuts will be weapons programs such as the tilt rotor osprey, the Navy’s littoral combat ship and the new fleet of presidential helicopters. Most of these programs have hugely out sized their own budgets and haven’t proven useful in the long run yet. The osprey definitely should be scraped because it doesn’t seem useful at all, especially for the cost of the program. In its development phase it has taken the lives of many pilots and other personal in accidents. The osprey has also failed to become what it originally was planned to become. In the original plan the osprey was to be a combat aircraft but it is too unstable to be a weapons platform, so now it has become a troop transport. The military has plenty of other troop transports that the osprey would be just a superfluous aircraft and a dangerous one at that. The area that will most likely not see and cuts in its budget is the personnel sections.

Personnel costs account for about two-thirds of all Pentagon and military spending, but there is little chance that money budgeted for salaries, training, health care and other benefits for military personnel and their families would be slashed while troops are fighting and dying in two wars.

Carbon Dioxide emission

It seems that America may actual decide to try and do something constructive when it comes to the environment. So far America has only really talked about ways to combat climate change and protect the environment, then takes actions that seem to contradict what they were saying. For example the government has been talking of looking for alternative fuels to use as a means of reducing our dependency on oil and helping the environment at the same time; however when oil prices sky rocket and supplies start to be less than demand one of the first options on the table is to drill in Alaskan wildlife reserves, which not only doesn’t help with our dependency on oil but would do drastic damage to a fragile ecosystem. The EPA now seems to be taking action, hopefully. The EPA has recently announced that they would look into putting regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, in an attempt to slow down climate change by reducing the introduction of new greenhouse gases. This plan will practically reverse a December memoranda on greenhouse gas regulations for new coal-fired power plants put in place by the Bush administration. The regulations on carbon dioxide emissions has be a hot debate between the energy community and environmentalist that has recently heated up “when the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.”
The industry has vigorously opposed efforts to regulate those emissions, asserting that the policy should be set by Congress. Moreover, technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions is expensive and virtually untested.
On the other hand environmental groups have stated that without these regulations any new power plants using conventional technologies would guarantee large production of greenhouse emissions for their entire life time, which is between 30-40 years. I hope the EPA goes through with its plan for carbon dioxide emission regulations because we need to do something about the changing climate and we need to set an example for other nations to do the same thing.

corruption ha ha ha

New signs of corruption on capital hill have risen to eye level with the public. It has come to light that lobbyist firm PMA Group was possibly providing fake campaign funds to Representative John P. Murtha, the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee and other lawmakers. The lawmakers than earmarked more than $100 million dollars to several clients of the PMA Group, who donated close to $100,000 to Murtha’s campaign funds during a last miniature fund raiser. To add more suspicion on PMA’s actions it turns out that the founder of PMA Group was a former top aide to Murtha. If the allegations are true then all illegal contribution will have to be returned and if it is found out that a blind eye was turned towards the fraud, then they could be in legal trouble. Sadly this incident is just another knot in the ever tangling rope that is the American Government’s credibility. Corruption in the Governmental system is a horrible problem that needs to be fixed as fast as possible because it not only destroys the peoples trust in the Government but also could interfere in the actual productivity of the government. If lobbyist can just give money to lawmakers to make them pass certain laws then the government could become an auction house where laws are decided based on who is the highest bidder. If we ever reach that point then the America we all know and love will cease to exist and will become the laughing stock of the world. In order to keep our pride as one of the most successful democracies in the world we must nip this problem in the bottom and do it quickly like a Blitzkrieg.

Stimulate this

The House and Senate leaders held negotiations to try and find a compromise between the two different versions of the stimulus package. The compromise that the negotiations produced provided for a $789 billion which is a lower price tag then either the House or Senate’s plan. To produce a price tag below $800 billion they had to make cuts to education, health care and funds for the states to the amount of $51 billion. The plan does call for money for infrastructure and tax relief in order to gain the support of the republicans for the stimulus package.

Ms. Collins also seemed to think that all of the wrinkles had been ironed out before they actually were. “This was a good-faith effort on both the House and the Senate’s part, and it shows that, working together, we can indeed accomplish great things,” she said.

The reduced price stimulus package could be the most expensive use of the government’s fiscal powers. The package is supposed to stimulate the economy by creating jobs by putting more money in the hands of companies and consumers. The package now needs a final congressional action and the signature of the president before it will become official. The stimulus package is full of too much pork to be a productive solution to the economic problems of the nation. My biggest problem with the plan is the reduction of money flowing into education and the states. The education system doesn’t really have an effect on the recovery of the economic issues; however I believe that the most effective way to improve the economic system will be to give more money to the states. Giving money to the states beats giving it to corporations because if we can stabilize the economies of the states they will be able to form a firm foundation to hold up the federal economy while it is being fixed.