RE: Commentary on Sending More Troops to Afganistan

I also want to see an end to this war, and it would be great if that end was a peaceful one. However it seems that the Taliban are not ready to end the war and from my understanding that is a definate factor in why President Obama is sending in more troops. But doing so is making a big sacrife on behalf of our country. From an economic viewpoint this war has already left our economy struggling, additional war funding is only going to dig us deeper into an economic hole. Also there is the border issue. When we have illegal immigrants who come to the United States willing to work for practically nothing, citizens lose jobs. And there are already so many layoffs that we need as many job opportunities available for our citizens as we can get right now. The war is mostly to blame for this. We are spending too much money on a war that has in my belief lost its point. Its really not fair to send more troops oversees when we are not really sure what it is that we are fighting for anymore.

Before being elected president, Obama promised to get our country out of this war, but by the way things look we will still be in war by the end of his first administration.

You also mentioned that other countries should join the US in a war against the Taliban. However that would turn this war into a world war. I do not want to see it go that far. The Taliban is one group of people and to let that one group affect a numerous amount of countries seems ridiculous. I do agree that we need peace to be made but I dont see how continueing the war is making peace. Its just doing the same thing that we have been doing for the past decade. We need to try something new. I think that at this point the best thing for the United States is to pull out.

Commentary #2

In a speech delivered Tuesday night, President Barrack Obama announced that he has issued 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The date of withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East has now been postponed to July 2011. However that is not a promise. As Columnist David Corn put it, “Obama has now made the Afghanistan war his own. This speech was just an opening shot in what will be a never-ending campaign to explain and justify a war that itself may be never-ending.” I agree with Mr. Corn; this war seems to be never ending and the longer we stay in it the more it is costing us. In the next year an estimated $30 billion will be spent to keep the war going. Why are we paying to go to war? We already have a sinking economy. How can our economy get better if we are shoveling out money to fight a war that most Americans do not want to be in? I understand that the withdrawal of troops is a slow process; anything to drastic could potentially be dangerous. But why are we sending more troops in? We have better security now, so shouldn’t we at least start the process of pulling out troops?


Apparently the 2011 “deadline” was set to appease Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai. It seems to be some sort of peace making strategy. What angers me is that the deadline is not officially set, meaning that the war could continue to drag on and in a year and half we may still be sending over more troops. According to a CNN/Research Poll 61% of Americans do not believe conditions in Afghanistan will be appropriate for troop withdrawal in 2011.


But if conditions in the Middle East have not improved by then will they ever? In my opinion the war is just a way of beating around the bush for our government. It is easier to keep the war going than to stop it. Withdrawing troops would be the first step in stopping the war and it seems unlikely that that will happen soon. We have yet to make a treaty; we still have no signs of peace. Maybe we have no way of ending the war right now but we need to figure something out. We need to get to the root of the problem and figure out a way to solve it otherwise this war really might go on forever.


http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/02/obamas-afghanistan-speech-sending-more-troops-and-mixed-messag/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_karzai

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/04/obama-gets-support-for-afghan-plan-but-his-overall-approval-rat/

Commentary on a Commentary

I recently read Ricky's commentary on corporate law
Here is the comment I wrote:
I found the topic of your post to be very interesting.
Personally I would agree with Judge Sotomayor. I dont think that corporations should have the same legal rights as people in part because they are not people. They are merely interest groups that lobby in favor of their own interests. I dont believe that anyone who is not tied up a particular corporation themselves can really support that corporation. Although corporations are bigger and represent large sums of people and consumers, I dont think they should be given more legal power in the courts. Our economy is supposed to be symbolic of a free market economy which means that government and corporations co exisist seperately. If we want corporations to have more power in the courts than we should have more government regulation over corporations.
However, I would like to hear your opinion on this. I didnt sense that you were taking a side in your post. Although I appreciate the information you gave I would really like to get a better feel on where you stand on the issue. Overall good post, it was easy for me to read and i found it well written.

Commentary

Former Vice President Al Gore recently wrote a new book titled Our Choice: A plan to solve the Climate Crisis which is now available at Costco. In an article in The Costco Connection he gives his opinion on our nation’s economy and our environmental issue as well as what the United States can do to solve these problems. He stresses that the main problem is our reliance on foreign oil as a source for fuel. If we give up our reliance on oil it will solve much of the problems with our economy as well as taking a giant leap in saving the planet. The topic of US reliance on foreign oil as a basis to our economic problem as a nation is something that I completely agree with Mr. Gore on. I believe that, although people do not like to admit it the primary reason for the Iraqi war is our reliance on Middle Eastern Oil. Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer is what keeps our automobile industry afloat. With the tension in the Middle East we don’t know how much longer we can continue to get this supply of oil. So we send US troops to conserve our oil rights. Meanwhile we find ourselves in the midst of terrorist attacks and war between ourselves and Iraq. The war has drained the United States of its finances and we still have the problem of whether or not we will continue to receive enough oil to satisfy our demand. Simultaneously cars are destroying our environment and although we are in a “go green” phase right now hybrid cars are still not popular. Mr. Gore offers some solutions that I would like to see implemented. First we need to find an alternative fuel. This will decrease our reliance on oil from the Middle East and sub sequentially the need for war will be far less. Also since we have cut down so many trees, we need to compensate for this by planting trees. However, in Austin it’s hard to come across a field that isn’t getting ready to be used for the building of houses, highways, or the building of an HEB or Wal-Mart. I don’t think that we are in desperate need for more Wal-Mart’s and HEBs. I think we could live without more toll roads and our population is not that big that we need to build more houses and apartment complexes or business buildings that will still be available for rent a decade from now. If we are unable to go without destroying a field, how do we plan on planting trees without cutting more down? I think that our economy and our environment are falling apart as a result of our greed. Our greed for oil and our greed to get more of what we already have.

According to an article by Tom Stacy published in the Austin American Statesman: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/25/0925stacy_edit.html, we will see little improvement in bus service in the upcoming year even though capitol metro received funds specifically for improvements needed to be made.
What first interested me about this article is that it is about Austin’s most popular public transportation system capitol metro which in my personal experience has been pretty bad and in dire need of improvement. I feel that the author agrees with me. He jumps right in to it: apparently Capitol Metro was given $26.1 million in federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the purchase of new buses, ect. However Capitol Metro’s budget plan plans to redistribute some of that money to balance out their budget. The original plan was to raise bus fares which would take effect January of 2010; however the board was asked to formulate a new plan which may still cause a raise in fares. The new plan is that Capitol Metro will use 2.6 million of the allotted money to balance its budget instead of using it to make repairs. This will likely cause the money to run out faster which could in turn lead to a raise in bus fares. As of now the bus charges 50 cents for a one way and $1.00 for a day pass. This amount is likely to increase under the new plan and we will see little improvement in the Capitol Metro transportation system. Here are my complaints with Capitol Metro: 1) there are not benches at every bus stop. This is a problem because the bus is never on time; it is either early or too late. To ensure catching the bus you must reach the stop at least 20 minutes in advance, if you’ve missed the bus you have to wait another hour usually until the next one comes. Just because one bus is early doesn’t mean the next one will be. If the bus is late than you’ve reached the stop too early and still have to wait the 20 minutes or longer depending on if the bus is on time. There should at least be a bench to sit on while you wait. 2) Not all benches are covered. Sitting out in the sun for a good amount of time spent waiting on the bus increases the risk for sun damage. 3) The bus is always late! People have jobs to get to and no one can afford to be late in this economy. 4) The buses stop running at 10 pm. If you happen to be out past that time and don’t have enough money for a cab or a reliable friend to give you a ride, you’re stranded. I would have liked to have heard the author’s opinion on the actual transportation that Capitol Metro provides but he focused mainly on the issue of how capitol metro plans to spend the money given from the ARRA. Although did get a feel from the title, Capitol Metro Runs Over Stimulus Cash, that he was angry about how Capitol Metro plans to spend this money, he did not directly voice how he felt in the article itself; this is a commentary. The article was mostly informational. The target audience would be people that ride the bus as they are the ones who will be directly affected. As someone who has ridden Capitol Metro buses I agree with the author’s general claim that Capitol Metro should spend its money on improving its transportation what the money was originally for and not on balancing their budget. I’d be willing to pay a little more for better service.

critique-The Young and the Jobless- The Wall Street Journal

The Young and the Jobless
The author’s claim is that raising minimum wage is preventing teenagers from finding jobs. The author presents a great number of statistics mostly from the findings of economists David Neumark and William Wascher as support for his claim. According to the article since Congress began raising minimum wage in July 2007 there are now 691,000 fewer teenagers working. I can understand his side of the story. If a company is being forced to pay a worker a higher hourly wage than why would they choose to hire an unskilled worker than a skilled worker. Teens do not have much working experience so the decrease in working teens makes sense. The author argues that the white house and the Obama administration are doing nothing to solve this problem, they are clearly ignoring it since they have recently raised minimum wage this past August. The author proposes that Congress create a teenage wage of $4 to $5 an hour to make employers more likely to hire teens. This idea has been previously endorsed by chief economic advisor Larry Summers. Although I can see the author’s credibility and I agree that the solution may be necessary to keep teenagers employed in today’s bad economy, I do not see this as a long term solution. I don’t believe that teenagers should be paid less for doing the same amount of work. I am also a strong proponent of raising the minimum wage. Most of the jobs that pay minimum wage are customer service jobs and having been employed in that industry I can say that people put in more time and effort than what they are paid for. Teenagers are generally paid less than adult workers anyway so why lower teenage wages anymore. Considering that the target audience is teens, I think the author should take in to account what teenagers would propose as a solution to teenage unemployment.

CORPORATIONS or CITIZENS?

The supreme court is debating whether or not to expand the powers guaranteed to citizens by the constitution to acomodate corporations. This is creating alot of controversy in the political world. Some debators argue that the framers of the constitiution did not intend for corporations to be given the same rights as citizens. Many people believe that the government should not interfere with corporations. Proponents argue that corporations should be protected by the government. We all live under one nation. In my opinion I dont think that corporations should be accomodated by the constitution. Our economy was set up so that corporations could run on their own with little government intervention. If the government guarantees these rights to corporations then it could take away the rights of citizens.
Read more about this hot issue at firedoglake. The article is called On Constitution Day, Celebrate the Rights of People (Not Corporations).