News Today

…Thank you, Mr. President.

Some of us were beginning to think you had forgotten about the issue completely….

Somewhat appropriately, Obama’s harshest warning about the U.S. budget deficit came during his recent nine-day trip to Asia. In an interview with Fox News, Obama said his administration was facing a “delicate balance of trying to boost the economy and spur job creation while putting the economy on a path toward long-term deficit reduction.”

“It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession,” said Obama.

Obama also said he plans to hold a jobs forum with business leaders and financial experts in December to discuss ways to turn around the 10.2% unemployment. After taking office, Obama said, the focus of the administration was avoiding the Great Depression.

“Our first job was to get the economy to recover. And we’re now seeing that,” said Obama. “We’ve seen economic growth (in the third quarter). We anticipate economic growth next quarter as well. I always said the job growth would lag behind economic growth. The question now is how can we accelerate it.”

In an interview with NBC Obama said there was a whole “range of ideas” to give companies an incentive to start hiring again. Two ideas he did note were searching for more export opportunities and possible tax provisions that would encourage businesses to hire “sooner rather than sitting on the sidelines.”

I, like a lot of Americans, have been pretty discouraged by the amount of spending in the Obama administration so far. I don’t even blame Obama completely since it really does take over a thousand pages of legislation to get the Democrats in Congress to reach a consensus on big issues.

Plus, this guy went to Harvard. He’s a smart man. He knows that we can’t keep spending at these levels… right? Right???

Because we really can’t. For the United States to continue to keep borrowing more money at this point is downright irresponsible.

Put it like this, courtesy of China, Japan and a host of other countries, the United States was given an international credit card. A credit card with no spending limit. Then, with all of the excitement of a fifteen year old girl at the Mall of America, we went crazy with it. We racked up a lot of charges and… now we owe almost $12 trillon.

$12,000,000,000,000.

The forecast doesn’t get all that greater over the next few years either. According to the CBO, over half of the $9 trillion in debt that the U.S. is expected to build up over the next decade will be in interest rates alone (see chart).

States across the country are going bankrupt, California is looking at a $21 billion budget gap over the next year and a half. For a more comprehensive look at California’s situation visit NWunderlich, who has been documenting the state’s budget woes for a while now.

At some point our lawmakers need to come together and address this issue. It will take making some tough choices, unpopular choices like spending cuts and tax raises. Measures do need to be taken though.

If not, then President Obama is correct, we will experience a great deal of economic turmoil. The decades of borrowing are adding up, and if we don’t work to correct this soon it may be too late. It’s essential that we move forward with a streamlined and efficient government, one that is in control of its spending.

Sources:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/government/update–obama-debt-fuel-double-dip-recession/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g4:r4:c0.000000:b28934020:z10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_bi_ge/us_california_budget;_ylt=AjVjPu2jpQ9f4C16RAxoY239xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJuZ3QzZjFjBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE4L3VzX2NhbGlmb3JuaWFfYnVkZ2V0BGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2ZvcmVjYXN0Y2FsaQ–
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/

Responding rather angrily to questions about the recent Fort Hood shooting and the United States military in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made his feelings more than clear to reporters in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

“I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on,” said Gates, adding that it would likely cost someone at the Pentagon their career if he found out they had leaked anything.

“Everybody ought to shut up” said Gates.

You see to Gates, when journalists find out about what the country is doing, it “doesn’t serve the country” or the military’s interest.

I would beg to differ, Mr. Gates. I think it’s a good thing. It’s one of the reasons that I blog, and will continue to blog. So when government officials do stupid things, like tell everyone to shut up, I can make a post like this one and label it under “stupid politicians.”

I once had a chance to visit the Newseum in Washington D.C. and there was a quote I read on the wall that really hit home with me. Since I was pretty young at the time I don’t remember who the quote was from, but it also happens to be the motto of the Aspen Daily News.

“If You Don’t Want It Printed, Don’t Let It Happen”

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091112/pl_afp/usafghanistanmilitarycrimeshooting
http://www.hcn.org/issues/177/5757

One of my favorite quotes from George Washington was two little snippets of advice that he had for the young United States of America.

His first word of advice was that we should not form political parties (oops!) and the second had to do with the U.S. making alliances with foreign countries.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible… Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?… It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

– George Washington.

Well, for better or for worse, we didn’t listen to George on this one either. Would we have been wise to?

. . .

Today the United States holds alliances all across the world. We’re allied in one form or another with almost all of Europe, several countries in Asia, and with many countries in North, South and Central America. With these alliances come both assets and liabilities, but what real assets are we talking about here?

Let’s take a look at one alliance in particular, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

NATO was formed on April 4, 1949. Originally it was a pact between the United States and 11 other countries, but over the years NATO’s ranks have swelled to 28 countries. The point of NATO was to provide a military support between its members.

From the treaty:

“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

NATO member’s military spending accounts for about 70% of the military spending in the entire world. You can bet that’s not divided up evenly between all 28 members of NATO either. In fact, the United States military spending works out to about half of the military spending in the world.

To make a bad situation worse, we have treaties like the 2002 Berlin Plus Agreement. Signed between the European Union (EU) and NATO, the Berlin Plus Agreement gives the EU rights to the use of NATO assets should NATO decline to intervene in an international crisis. What was that whole bit about entangling our peace and prosperity with the toils of European ambitions again, George?

Six months into President Barack Obama’s administration Obama received a letter from several Central and Eastern European NATO members stating that the “ability to sustain public support at home for our contributions to Alliance missions abroad … depends on us being able to show that our own security concerns are being addressed in NATO and close cooperation with the United States.”

Here’s the thing, almost all of the countries that were demanding more resources from the United States spend less than 2% of their GDP on defense spending. The government puts defense spending at 20% of the United States GDP, but if you account for past military expenses such as veteran’s benefits and interest from debt that number jumps dramatically to about 54%.

“The primary purpose of our alliance from a military standpoint is to provide for the security of Japan.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on a recent visit with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. “It allows Japan to have a defense budget … of roughly 1 percent of GDP.”

These countries are able to spend virtually nothing on defense because the United States is doing it for them. What is it that the U.S. is getting in return though, other than an excuse to spend that much money on the military?

Justin Logan of the CATO Institute worded it best:

“America’s alliances are no longer considered responses to security challenges. Instead, they have become ends in themselves. In an era of record-breaking budget deficits and serious economic problems at home, the billions of dollars Uncle Sam pays each year to baby-sit Europe and East Asia ought to be coming in for scrutiny, not perpetual affirmation.”

Sources:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10954
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/George.Washington.Quote.2D30
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-C4B3E460-5AD5C2A3/natolive/index.htm
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

In a 100-page report titled “Troubled Waters: Palestinians Denied Fair Access to Water,” Amnesty International claims Israel is cutting off access to water for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

“This scarcity has affected every walk of life for Palestinians,” Amnesty’s researcher on Israel, Donatella Rovera, told The Associated Press in an interview Monday, ahead of the report’s release. “A greater amount of water has to be granted to them.”

According to the report, water consumption per capita for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is about 70 liters (18 gallons) per day, while Israeli per capita use is 300 liters (79 gallons). On average, Israelis use four times the amount of water per person on than Palestinians.

In the West Bank the Mountain Aquifer is the only source of water for Palestinians. Israel controls the aquifer and over 80 percent of water drawn goes to the Jewish state. As a result, the 450,000 Israelis who live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem use more water than the 2.3 million Palestinian residents.

Rovera said the water situation in Gaza, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, had reached a “crisis point.” He also estimated damage to Gaza’s sewer system from the Israeli offensive has left 90 to 95 percent of the water in the region contaminated and unfit for human consumption. To make matters worse, an ongoing Israeli blockade is stopping any supplies for repairs to come in.

Israeli officials denied many of the claims from the report, complaining that Amnesty had neglected to use transparent information provided by the Israeli government.

“Israel has fulfilled all its obligations under the water agreement regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.

“The Palestinians, on the other hand, have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement, specifically regarding important issues such as illegal drilling (they have drilled over 250 wells without the authorization of the Joint Water Commission) and handling of sewage.”

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NOfJfAnrmQ&feature=player_embedded
http://topics.cnn.com/topics/amnesty_international
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVkvzuni3YkNQU5PikPz4yiPs0GQD9BJA3KO0
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/27/israel.water/

One issue that I think will define the next generation, much like the civil rights era did for the baby-boomers, is gay marriage. This is an issue that runs deep in a lot of places across the United States, and even the world.

Gay marriage has actually been around for a lot longer than most people think. The first recorded mention of same-sex marriage occurred during the early Roman Empire where it was practiced both openly and commonly.

In fact, it wasn’t until 342 AD when the Theodosian Code was issued by the Christian emperor Constantius II that gay marriage became outlawed in Rome. Same-sex marriage didn’t just disappear though, there’s actually evidence that gay marriages were performed in medieval Europe as long as 600 years ago.

In 1989 Denmark became the first country to recognize same-sex unions in the form of “registered partnerships”, and in 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to grant same-sex marriages. Today, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden are the only countries to date that give equal marriage status for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

In the United States gay marriages are not recognized federally, however, same-sex couples can currently marry in six states and receive state level benefits. Several states also offer civil unions or domestic partnerships.

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he is opposed to same-sex marriage, but he does support “full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples”, and called Proposition 8 “unnecessary.”

If you asked 100 U.S. citizens if they supported the issue or not, you’d probably get about the same amount of people in support as you would people against it. If you asked me whether I’d support the issue, you’d get a resounding NO.

Now let me explain myself…

In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage solely as a union between a couple of the opposite sex for all federal purposes. This is often an argument you’ll hear from people who are against gay marriage, that marriage cannot be defined as anything but between a man and a woman.

This got me thinking… To me, that seems like something that individual churches could decide a lot better than the federal government. In fact it seems very out of place for our government to be as heavily involved in marriages as they are.

It was in thinking about this that I stumbled (somewhat accidentally) upon my position against gay marriage, or really against marriage itself. There is no reason why our government needs to be involved in the actual marriage process, that is a role much better suited for our church.

I believe the government should offer civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, registered partnerships — whatever you want to call it — to anyone and everyone. These partnerships should have equal protection and rights, regardless of the couple’s sexual preference. That’s only fair, and what we have right now is far from being fair.

In fact, a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions “in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving ‘benefits, rights, and privileges,’” including complete ineligibility for same-sex couples for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.

Besides, the other positive about this kind of a solution is that the actual “marriage” issue (whether marriage is a term that applies only to a man and a woman) would be left up to individual churches, where it belongs. This way if a church did not want to recognize/perform gay marriages, then they would not be forced to.

Thoughts?

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/21/readers-respond-to-obamas-complex-stance-on-gay-unions-.html

Today the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners for trials in the United States. The measure passed by a 79-19 vote after being tacked on as part of the $44.1 billion budget bill for the Homeland Security Department.

This marks a step forward on the issue for the President, who ordered the facility closed within a year in January. Obama will now be able to sign the measure that already passed the House.

Tuesday’s plan requires the administration to develop a plan before any more transfers can occur. It also requires at least 15 days’ notice before a transfer can occur and a “certification that the prisoner does not represent a security risk.”

Navy Rear Adm. Tom Copeman, the prison camp commander, told reporters that he could clear out the detention center within ten days.

“If they say on Jan. 12, ‘Move them out,’ we can meet the deadline,” said Copeman, “given the proper amount of logistical support.”

Copeman didn’t mention how much the logistical support would cost, although he did say that he would need the use of the C-17 Globemaster aircraft to move the detainees.

Interestingly enough, this all happened on the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case of men who have challenged the U.S. government’s right to hold them at the Guantanamo Bay detention center after it’s been determined they pose no threat to the USA.

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_guantanamo_prisoners
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/77476.html#
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/10/as_high_court_takes_new_case_n.html

U.N.-backed fraud investigators on Monday threw out almost one third of President Hamid Karzai’s votes from Afghanistan’s August election. Of the five million votes cast, over 1.3 million were found to be fraudulent.

The findings by the Electoral Complaints Commission dropped Karzai’s votes below the 50 percent threshold needed for him to avoid a runoff. The Afghan president has been under increasing pressure to accept a runoff election with former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah and is expected to announce his intentions on Tuesday.

After weeks of threatening to contest the panel’s findings and complaining about foreigners influencing the election too much, Karzai campaign spokesman Waheed Omar said yesterday that the Karzai camp was waiting for the election commission to formally certify the U.N.-backed panel’s findings before deciding what to do.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that she was “encouraged at the direction the situation is moving.”

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091019/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan

What a bizarre news day.

Most Americans woke up to hear the rather surprising announcement that Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee, who praised Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” his push for nuclear disarmament and his outreach to the Muslim world, selected Obama out of a pool of over 200 candidates. The President did his best to downplay the remarkable achievement.

“Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations,” said Obama at the White House. “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”

There is a $1.4 million cash award that comes with the prize which Obama says he will donate to charity.

Moving on, later on in the morning NASA reverted back to a classic American strategy — If you don’t understand something, shoot it. In an attempt to find water on the moon NASA scientists fired a 5,000-pound rocket into one of the moon’s craters. It will likely take days to analyze the data from the NASA mission, codenamed LCROSS.

“We’re going to take our time and build up a case for water in the ejecta, if it’s there, or a case against it if it’s not there,” said the project’s principal investigator Anthony Colaprete. “And then understand if we’re seeing variations, what do these variations mean? We’ve got to understand that before we say anything.”

In some other odds and ends, a Pakistani suicide bomber killed 49 people today after detonating his bomb next to a car in a crowded market. Pakistani officials are swearing revenge.

The stock market rallied on Friday, and the Dow Jones ended the week at its highest point so far this year.

And finally, the H1N1 world death toll has reached 4,500 casualties, according to a new report by the World Health Organization.

Sources:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10372298-239.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091009/ts_nm/us_nobel_peace_obama_17

Editors Note: Sometimes a picture can say so much more about a topic than any blog post or essay on the subject ever could. Consequently I’m going to keep this post kind of short.

This is four-year-old Paige Bennethum watching her father, Army Reservist Staff Sgt. Brett Bennethum, at his deployment to Iraq in July. Little Paige Bennethum was absolutely devestated to see her father leave.

So as Brett Bennethum lined up in formation not even the commanding officer had the heart to tell the little soldier girl to let go of her father’s hand.

“I just miss my dad right now,” said Paige Bennethum.

If all goes well, Brett Bennethum is expected home in July.

. . .

Well that didn’t work out so well…

Despite the best efforts of both the President and the First Lady of the United States, Chicago was unsuccessful in its olympic bid. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) instead picked the city of Rio De Janeiro, Brazil to host the olympics in 2016.

Rio De Janeiro’s 2016 olympics victory will mark the first time that a South American country hosts an olympics, a fact that brought Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva to tears.

Chicago was the first country to be eliminated by the IOC, even though the city had one of the best bids to offer. Chicago recieved just 18 of 94 votes, drawing sharp criticism from some as to why the President even bothered to go in the first place.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called it the “worst day of his presidency.”

“Obama demeaned the office of the presidency, going on this sales pitch,” Limbaugh said.

While disgruntled Republicans can let a sly grin out today, I’m not sure it’s in the best interest of the G.O.P. to celebrate this event as a victory.

“Taking any sort of glee in Chicago losing its bid for the 2016 Olympics is, in my view, an effort to overreach by criticizing the president,” former Bush White House aide Scott Stanzel told POLITICO. “It looks a bit petty and at times childish.”

Sources:
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212259813.shtml#
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27857.html#