Sunday, November 29, 2009
Why is this ok?
I was reading this blog talking about how much time and money is tossed away for these dinner party’s at the white house and I totally agree with my classmate on this one. I do not understand why this is ok when people are going hungry with a crashing economy on the up rise. The blog had good information about how the president throws 30-50 of these dinner party’s in his 4-year term as president. These parties’ run an average of 5 hours of the president’s busy time. Again, I agree with the writer, is there not something better for the president to do or plan for. I know it is not that much time but just like the writer says it adds up to be around 250 hours. Therefore, instead of entertaining 60 people for that time couldn’t the president be figure out what to do with Afghanistan or maybe how to approach Iran. So in conclusion I totally agree with the writer in this blog and think if we truly want to get past this depression we are going to have to look deep within are selves and get rid of these costly unnecessary events and put the time and money into something else.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
“Where does it stop?”
I saw this editorial and thought it would be good for everyone to read about.
“A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments last week about whether police should have to get a warrant before putting a GPS device on a suspect’s car. It is a cutting-edge civil liberties question that has divided the courts that have considered it. GPS devices give the government extraordinary power to monitor people’s movements. The Washington court should rule that a warrant is required.”
This article has good details and information about this topic. Have not heard anything on this issue so was very happy to see this information. I just cannot believe this is something being talked about. I agree with this person on needing some sort of warrant to put a GPS device on a suspects POV.
“Lower courts have reached different conclusions. A panel of the Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in 2007 that a warrant is not required for remote surveillance by a GPS device, although it said that if the police began to use the technique on a large scale it might violate the Fourth Amendment.”
I cannot believe this was allowed by a Court of Appeals based in Chicago. How does this not violate peoples Fourth Amendment? You give the police force this kind of power they will push it as far as they can, testing on how far they can go. It is just like the old saying you give a kid a cookie they are going to want some milk. So I think this should be shut down right now before more of are Amendments are broken.
“The highest courts of three states — New York, Oregon and Washington — ruled the opposite way, that their state constitutions prohibit the police from installing GPS devices without a warrant. The New York Court of Appeals, the highest New York court, got it exactly right earlier this year, insisting that permitting police to install GPS devices without judicial oversight would be an enormous unsupervised intrusion by the police agencies of government upon personal privacy.”
Well at least there are still some states that get it. Without some kind of limit’s the police will do everything they can to make there job easy. What happen to good old clue finding and putting it all together to reveal the victim and the criminal. The ending is a somewhat good feeling hoping that people make sure are rights are safe.
“As technology advances, government will continue to acquire new and more efficient ways of monitoring people. It is critical that the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment keep up with those advances.”
New inventions are made all the time and with that, we have to make sure they are being used the right way, without taking away are freedom. Therefore, I agree with this article and think if we allow this right now, there could be no end to this so it is important for us as free people to shut this down before it gets out of hand.
“A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments last week about whether police should have to get a warrant before putting a GPS device on a suspect’s car. It is a cutting-edge civil liberties question that has divided the courts that have considered it. GPS devices give the government extraordinary power to monitor people’s movements. The Washington court should rule that a warrant is required.”
This article has good details and information about this topic. Have not heard anything on this issue so was very happy to see this information. I just cannot believe this is something being talked about. I agree with this person on needing some sort of warrant to put a GPS device on a suspects POV.
“Lower courts have reached different conclusions. A panel of the Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in 2007 that a warrant is not required for remote surveillance by a GPS device, although it said that if the police began to use the technique on a large scale it might violate the Fourth Amendment.”
I cannot believe this was allowed by a Court of Appeals based in Chicago. How does this not violate peoples Fourth Amendment? You give the police force this kind of power they will push it as far as they can, testing on how far they can go. It is just like the old saying you give a kid a cookie they are going to want some milk. So I think this should be shut down right now before more of are Amendments are broken.
“The highest courts of three states — New York, Oregon and Washington — ruled the opposite way, that their state constitutions prohibit the police from installing GPS devices without a warrant. The New York Court of Appeals, the highest New York court, got it exactly right earlier this year, insisting that permitting police to install GPS devices without judicial oversight would be an enormous unsupervised intrusion by the police agencies of government upon personal privacy.”
Well at least there are still some states that get it. Without some kind of limit’s the police will do everything they can to make there job easy. What happen to good old clue finding and putting it all together to reveal the victim and the criminal. The ending is a somewhat good feeling hoping that people make sure are rights are safe.
“As technology advances, government will continue to acquire new and more efficient ways of monitoring people. It is critical that the privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment keep up with those advances.”
New inventions are made all the time and with that, we have to make sure they are being used the right way, without taking away are freedom. Therefore, I agree with this article and think if we allow this right now, there could be no end to this so it is important for us as free people to shut this down before it gets out of hand.
Monday, November 9, 2009
“The future is startling”
I first want to say is I agree with this argument for the most part. The things I agree with is the part about how people are allowed to have their own opinion, but I feel like some should just keep it to themselves. I agree that it would be nice to have more then two parties to choice from. The thing that I do not agree with and am very concern about is the quick to protect those politicians when not really knowing if they are doing what is best for our country. Not sure what this writers background is but I remember a year or two ago when the house of Texas got together to make their votes on bills and other issues, but for some members they felt like they did not need to go. Therefore, they have their key to their desk which controls there votes. So for those that where there voting they would vote the way they wanted to, so how is that doing everything to make the country better. What a great example to those under them which is pretty much everyone in the country. I mean how can you sit there and stick up for them. I do believe a lot of them go it with good intensions but you get sucked in the evil just overwhelms those good and descent beliefs but they soon fade away. Just like those good old boys that join the military. First you good and have your morals but then you rise up in the ranks and fine ways to find the easy way out and the fastest way to make a buck. Therefore, I would have to disagree when you say for people not to give these politicians crap because truthfully, they cannot satisfy everyone but they will make sure they are and that is just the way it goes.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Executives get paid to much so stop crying
This article was very well written with lots of good information and stats on what the government wants to do. It talks about “Kenneth Feinberg being the master of compensation, (yes, that’s his title). He is trying to control the over pay to these executives with company’s that owe are government so much money. It makes no since why these executives need so much salary and expect the company to pay all personal expenses. “This is the first step that our government has taken in trying to transition from principles of compensation to actual dollars to be paid to these executives.”
I totally agree with him when it comes to pay and how much more these Wall Street dealers compared to the rest of the economy.
“Huge divide between Wall Street pay and that in the rest of the economy.”
Yet after these cuts there are still a lot of extremely high paid executives out there that slip threw the cracks.
"Even after the cuts, eight of Bank of America's 12 top executives will get more than 5 million each in 2009."
So I agree with the writer when they say the cuts are still not enough. The next part of the article talks about how this might scare off employees and executives. I don’t know about you but I believe there is not going to be a problem to fill the job with someone less greedy. So if they try and make a fight because of this I don’t see it holding up.
“The companies that are talking the cuts and their employees are likely to be ticked off as well, to put it mildly. Restricting the pay of top performers is going to start a brain drain, they warn, of the very talent they need to rebuild their business.”
The article continues with good information on how the government is planning to get there money back that these huge companies owe the government. I agree with the bonus cuts and how the government is trying to encourage, “long term performance with long-term pay.” I agree with most of these ideas from this article and believe we most take action because these huge companies do not care about anything but themselves. They will pay back the government until you give them a reason to do so, like taking the bonuses away or taking these huge perks away.
“AIG asked Feinberg to approve perks, including private-jet airfares, that topped more than $1 million extra for more than one of the insurance company’s executives.”
I totally agree with him when it comes to pay and how much more these Wall Street dealers compared to the rest of the economy.
“Huge divide between Wall Street pay and that in the rest of the economy.”
Yet after these cuts there are still a lot of extremely high paid executives out there that slip threw the cracks.
"Even after the cuts, eight of Bank of America's 12 top executives will get more than 5 million each in 2009."
So I agree with the writer when they say the cuts are still not enough. The next part of the article talks about how this might scare off employees and executives. I don’t know about you but I believe there is not going to be a problem to fill the job with someone less greedy. So if they try and make a fight because of this I don’t see it holding up.
“The companies that are talking the cuts and their employees are likely to be ticked off as well, to put it mildly. Restricting the pay of top performers is going to start a brain drain, they warn, of the very talent they need to rebuild their business.”
The article continues with good information on how the government is planning to get there money back that these huge companies owe the government. I agree with the bonus cuts and how the government is trying to encourage, “long term performance with long-term pay.” I agree with most of these ideas from this article and believe we most take action because these huge companies do not care about anything but themselves. They will pay back the government until you give them a reason to do so, like taking the bonuses away or taking these huge perks away.
“AIG asked Feinberg to approve perks, including private-jet airfares, that topped more than $1 million extra for more than one of the insurance company’s executives.”
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
When does the death toll stop?
In the columnist of the Washington Post an article was written by Fareed Zakaria titled “What Failure in Afghanistan?” It is a good article with good information that’s easy to understand. I will have to agree with the writer, how is being there going to help if the top of the power chain is so corrupted.
“Why has security gotten worse? Largely because Hamid Karzai's government is ineffective and corrupt and has alienated large numbers of Pashtuns, who have migrated to the Taliban. It is not clear that this problem can be solved by force, even using a smart counterinsurgency strategy. In fact, more troops injected into the current climate could provoke an anti-government or nationalist backlash.”
Then when you think there is nothing else to add to the argument here more wood added to the fire of the love ones that have to say good bye to there soldier once every two years, well that’s what the military says but it’s more like 6-12 months.
“Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged what U.S. intelligence and all independent observers have long said: Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, as is the leadership of the hard-core Afghan Taliban. (That's why it's called the Quetta Shura, Quetta being a Pakistani city.) All attacks against Western targets that have emanated from the region in the past eight years have come from Pakistan, not from Afghanistan. Even the most recently foiled plot in the United States, which involved the first Afghan that I know of to be implicated in global terrorism, originated in Pakistan. Yet we spend $30 in Afghanistan for every dollar in Pakistan.”
So much confusion in are reasoning of being there when there are other threats that need to dealt with, for example are crashing economy. So again I agree 100 percent with the writing. Its times like these we need to look at what we are doing and where we are at to make sure we are doing the right thing for are future and are children’s future.
The only thing I some what disagree is the ending. Was a little confused because for the most part the writing was making me feel they where more on the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. So nice spin on the ending just do not agree with it, if leaning the whole time on one side but end up on the other end, just do not get that.
“What about the argument that Osama bin Laden and his minions will simply shift back across the border if the Taliban is allowed free rein? Well, they haven't done so yet, despite the pockets of turf the insurgents control. And it is easier for us to deny them territory than to insist that we control it all ourselves -- we can fight like guerrillas, too. Remember that the United States and its allies have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan now. Keeping them there is the right commitment, one that keeps in mind the stakes, but also the costs, and most important, the other vital interests around the world to which U.S. foreign policy must also be attentive.”
“Why has security gotten worse? Largely because Hamid Karzai's government is ineffective and corrupt and has alienated large numbers of Pashtuns, who have migrated to the Taliban. It is not clear that this problem can be solved by force, even using a smart counterinsurgency strategy. In fact, more troops injected into the current climate could provoke an anti-government or nationalist backlash.”
Then when you think there is nothing else to add to the argument here more wood added to the fire of the love ones that have to say good bye to there soldier once every two years, well that’s what the military says but it’s more like 6-12 months.
“Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged what U.S. intelligence and all independent observers have long said: Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, as is the leadership of the hard-core Afghan Taliban. (That's why it's called the Quetta Shura, Quetta being a Pakistani city.) All attacks against Western targets that have emanated from the region in the past eight years have come from Pakistan, not from Afghanistan. Even the most recently foiled plot in the United States, which involved the first Afghan that I know of to be implicated in global terrorism, originated in Pakistan. Yet we spend $30 in Afghanistan for every dollar in Pakistan.”
So much confusion in are reasoning of being there when there are other threats that need to dealt with, for example are crashing economy. So again I agree 100 percent with the writing. Its times like these we need to look at what we are doing and where we are at to make sure we are doing the right thing for are future and are children’s future.
The only thing I some what disagree is the ending. Was a little confused because for the most part the writing was making me feel they where more on the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. So nice spin on the ending just do not agree with it, if leaning the whole time on one side but end up on the other end, just do not get that.
“What about the argument that Osama bin Laden and his minions will simply shift back across the border if the Taliban is allowed free rein? Well, they haven't done so yet, despite the pockets of turf the insurgents control. And it is easier for us to deny them territory than to insist that we control it all ourselves -- we can fight like guerrillas, too. Remember that the United States and its allies have close to 100,000 troops in Afghanistan now. Keeping them there is the right commitment, one that keeps in mind the stakes, but also the costs, and most important, the other vital interests around the world to which U.S. foreign policy must also be attentive.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)