Jan 7, 2009 | 3:36 PM
Category:
Political
There is a lot of debate these days regarding the use of the Constitution for governing our country. Some people suggest that the Constitution should only be used as a "guide" and that it should be regarded as an "evolving" or "living" document subject to elaborate interpretation.
Other people have suggested that the Constitution should be taken literally without deviations and/or variations. Only the electorate should have the power to amend or change the Constitution.
When variations or interpretation of the Constitution is allowed, political maneuvering is almost a given. Politicians love to be able to point the finger at someone else when things go wrong and are subsequently reluctant to "take a stand" on anything.
We saw a lot of this in the case of the current wars as well as in prior conflicts, even though the Constitution is quite clear regarding the responsibility of Congress to declare war against another country. The issue of courts "legislating" is another topic that is hotly debated.
If left unchecked, the powers and balance of the three branches of government will become increasingly unclear and federal accountability will be something of the past.
Should our elected leaders be forced to follow the Constitution literally without variations or exceptions?
Jan 7, 2009 | 8:11 AM
Category:
News
It seems like everyone is getting taxpayer money these days. Between the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Congress, trillions of dollars have quietly been spent, loaned, or committed to solve the economic problems of our economy. The amount far exceeds the $750 billion that most people are aware of. And very little of it requires any accounting by the people who are receiving it.
The latest group of people mentioned to possibly receive "bail-out" money is the group of wealthy investors who were duped out of $50 billion by Bernard Madoff in a Ponzi scheme.
Should taxpayer money be used to protect and/or reimburse these wealthy investors for their losses?
How can individual taxpayers prevent such abuses of the governments ability to print more money and give it away?
Jan 3, 2009 | 6:13 AM
Category:
News
The recent auto company bail-out debacle, and criticisms of the UAW may have provided a much needed impetus for a review of the American work force and the need to make it more competitive with the rest of the world. The objective of any review should be to determine which benefits if eliminated could be the most cost effective.
To expect UAW workers to give up benefits that workers elsewhere continue to have is a bit unrealistic. But if our government and its work force would take a leadership role and provide the example for reform, other parts of the American labor force might be more willing to change.
The major criticism of the UAW is similar to past criticisms of workers in other jobs, and that is paying workers for not working.
Many industries have their own unique programs, but one that is share by most is the benefit of paid holidays, sick days and vacations. These benefits, if eliminated could provide enormous savings for all employers.
With our government being the largest employer, there could be a significant and much needed savings at the national level. It might even be a good idea to eliminate all Federal holidays, since there are so many of them.
Would you be willing to give up the benefit of paid holidays, paid sick days, and paid vacations in the national interest of making our work force more competitive with the rest of the world?
Dec 25, 2008 | 4:53 PM
Category:
News
There have been a number of factors cited as causes of the present world-wide economic crisis. Such things as deficit spending, trade imbalances, and the inconsistencies of governments in regulating their monetary systems have been cited as reasons for the crisis. Presently many countries are able to simply print more money when their leadership thinks that they need it.
One of the proposals for minimizing or eliminating many problems in the future is to establish a world-wide currency that would be centrally regulated.
Would you favor getting rid of the U.S. dollar and adopting a centrally regulated world currency that would eliminate fluctuating currency exchange rates and individual country manipulations for the purposes of trade advantages, etc.?
Dec 24, 2008 | 7:28 AM
Category:
Faith
He has gone so far as to pay tribute to the astronomer Galileo, a victim of the inquisitions.According to an Associated Press article by Nicole
Winfield, Pope Benedict XIV believes that science and religion are
compatible and congruent. He has even gone so far as to pay tribute to the Astronomer Galileo, a former victim of the Inquisitions.
The Catholic church has not been the only religion that has insisted that science and religion conflict and are not compatible. Many fundamentalist Christians of many denominations have long insisted that such theories as the theory of evolution is not compatible with the creationist theory of the Bible.
However, neither of the theories specifically denounce or dismiss the other. So why is the dispute kept alive by so many church leaders?
Is it due to the overwhelming ignorance of either science or theology?
Or could it for the sake of keeping the controversy alive in order to have a cause against secular society?
Why continue the conflict?
What good will it do anyone?
Dec 22, 2008 | 6:49 AM
Category:
News
The Associated Press and Yahoo are reporting that Toyota is predicting a loss of $1.66 billion for the fiscal year ending in March 2009.
After all of the recent suggestions that the UAW has been the cause of losses in the American auto industry, it may be difficult to understand how Toyota without the "burden" of the UAW could also be facing hard times. Never mind that Toyota offers lifetime employment for its full-time employees a group which is getting older, something not contained in any UAW contract.
But this continuing debate brings us to another issue and that is the status of the US as a world leader with high standards. Other countries such as Japan, always offered goods at lower prices, however American products met higher standards and lasted longer.
We have seen what happens in our schools when we have lowered academic standards in order to accommodate the lower achieving students. Are we doing the same thing in our industrial sector?
Has American industry been willing to lower their product and service standards in order to make a few more dollars?
Could unchecked greed lead to the lowering of the US standard of living and world leadership position?
Dec 19, 2008 | 9:28 AM
Category:
News
With the tremendous publicity that has surrounded the American auto industry and its problems, comes a realization that manufacturing may soon be taking a back seat to other sectors in our economy. As illustrated by the familiar criticisms of the UAW, labor in our country has become quite expensive compared to the cost of labor in many developing countries.
Labor intensive manufacturing industries may no longer provide the best return on investments for the very wealthy as they have in the past . The shrinking of the American auto industry and events surrounding the requested bail-outs are symptomatic of changing priorities in our economy.
So where is the smart money going? Where are the very wealthy people in our country investing their money?
It might be easiest to examine recent events and what seem to be the priorities in our government. It is clear that the bail-out of the financial services and insurance industry was given top priority, while the significantly smaller bail-out and/or loans to the auto industry was opposed by many members of Congress. Even the White House seemed very reluctant to honor the requests of the auto industry.
So what does this mean for the future of average American? Well, the first glaring fact seems to be that high paying labor intensive jobs are quickly disappearing.
But for the country in general, it means that investments will shift from the manufacturing sector to the financial services sector.
In short it translates into "it will take money to make money." And if you don't already have it, good luck trying to earn it in the future!!
Dec 17, 2008 | 1:15 PM
Category:
News
According to USA Today, "allegations of Bernard Madoff's (Ponzi)
scheme went unheeded since 1999." I'm not sure what happened after
1999, but it appears as though the SEC dropped the ball.
Madoff
allegedly bilked investors out of billions of dollars over that period
of time (1999-2008) during which at least two investigations into his activities
were supposedly conducted.
During that same period of time Martha Stewart was placed under a
microscope for insider trading and ultimately was convicted of charges
related to the investigation of that transaction/activity.
The Martha Stewart allegations involved thousands of dollars, while Madoff's involved billions of dollars.
Why were Martha Stewart and Bernard Madoff treated so differently?
Dec 15, 2008 | 11:13 AM
Category:
Political
There seems to be a strong anti-union sentiment in the Republican party which has been explained in various ways, both favorable and unfavorable, but that is not the topic of this blog.
However, it has been suggested that reaching a "centrist" position on the matter might be in the best interest of all concerned.
On one side, there is the claim that unions such as the UAW result in high labor costs that make American companies unable to compete successful in the Global Market Place. On the other side is the need for labor unions such as the UAW to provide representation for a large number of employees.
Obviously, getting rid of labor unions is a bit extreme and flies in the face of the struggles chronicled in the labor movement history. So what would be a good "centrist" position that would allow unions to continue to exist?
One suggestion has been to make it unlawful for labor to "strike." Public employees such as school teachers are already prohibited from doing so in many states.
Another suggestion has been to make it unlawful for unions to attempt to negotiate issues or make demands that management views as possibly being detrimental to competing in the Global Market Place.
Unions could also be prohibited from negotiating wages and economic benefits, thereby limiting them to negotiating "working conditions."
What do you think would be the best solution to the problem?
Dec 7, 2008 | 7:16 AM
Category:
Political
I just saw an "alert" that is being disseminated by the "Public Citizen" organization that says:
"....the White House is working around the clock to write new federal regulations to weaken protections for consumers, undermine civil liberties and roll back environmental protections."
.................."More than 90 regulations are in the works..."
Considering that we are engaged in two wars, our economy is in shambles, unemployment is rising at record rates, and a new administration is preparing to take over in about a month, shouldn't the administration be focusing on other things such as the auto industry failure, financial industry abuses, etc?
Dec 6, 2008 | 9:37 AM
Category:
News
If you have had the misfortune of having to wait in a doctor's waiting room for any length of time you have probably noticed the pharmaceutical company representatives or drug salespeople as they are often called. They are usually well dressed young men or women carrying a nice brief case. And they are most often admitted immediately into the office by the doctor's staff.
Did you ever wonder why they usually get such good treatment?
Well, it turns out that drug companies are pretty generous to health care providers.
Drug companies not only give money to physicians, but they provide such things as lunch for the staff, and even money for the continuing education of doctors.
The totals spent are in the millions and possibly billions of dollars each year. For those things the reps usually receive both access and influence.
Should medical doctors be required to disclose payments and benefits/gifts from drug companies to their patients in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety?
Dec 4, 2008 | 6:42 AM
Category:
News
What has long made America the envy of the rest of the world? Has it been our military strength, money, individual freedoms, politics, democracy, or some other characteristics?
Which of those characteristics do we most emphasize and display in our dealings with the rest of the world?
Dec 2, 2008 | 7:16 AM
Category:
Political
Now that Senator Hillary Clinton has been officially selected to be the next Secretary of State by President-elect Obama, there is a lot of speculation and opinions about what to do with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Some have suggested that he should take her place in the Senate. Others have suggested that he should be appointed to a diplomatic position or designated as a special adviser to the President.
Of course the former President has a number of possibilities in the private sector and there have even been suggestions that he become a TV evangelist. Undoubtedly he has the skills and personality to assume many different roles.
What do you think would be the most appropriate role or position for the former President?
Nov 27, 2008 | 6:48 PM
Category:
News
I find it ironic that the "hot shots" on Wall Street seem to be able bring a powerful nation like the U.S. practically to its knees, but would probably be helpless during a terrorist attack in New York City like the one in Mumbai, India.
Which group should be judged as being the most powerful?
Which group poses the most danger to the American public?
Which group should our government be most concerned about?
Nov 27, 2008 | 10:46 AM
Category:
News
Every time that there is a terror attack any place in
the world, it gets the attention of most Americans as a result of the
9/11 attacks. The most recent attacks in Mumbai, India that claimed
over 100 lives has been a reminder of the dangers that lurk in this
world of ours.
But the Mumbai attacks were different from 9/11. They were not planes flying into buildings, but rather gunmen in hotels and other places. This made them distinctly different.
Airplanes flying into buildings are out of any possible control by the
average citizen, but gunmen are a different matter. In the U.S. we
often hear of robberies and other crimes being thwarted by citizens who
are armed.
Gun ownership in India is very small considering its large population. Although gun ownership in India is legal, the curbing of imported firearms has caused prices to rise out of the reach of many citizens.
Do you think that if more of the Indian population had been legally armed, the situation and outcome would have been different?
Does this provide any lessons for politicians in some of the major American cities that make owning or carrying a gun almost impossible?
