I read an article today in the New York Times regarding food aid to Third World countries and the revision of the current farm bill, Kenyan Farmers' Fate Caught Up in U.S. Aid Rules.
The Bush administration is trying to change the current aid program, which only allows for the U.S. to buy domestic crops to distribute to needy countries. By removing this provision, the government would be able to buy foreign crops (like in Kenya) to distribute to those who need it locally. The Bush administration is trying to change the law so that $300 million in crop aid could be bought locally in cases of emergencies. Even though the "case of emergencies" stipulation makes this proposed law a small concession, it is surprising to see the President advocate for more spending on what seems to be a very effective plan.
Tom Harkin (D-IA), the chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, is proposing a $25 million test program to see if the administration idea will work. This proposal, even though it is a small earmark, is being met with resistance from both the House and the Senate. Because US tax dollars would go towards other countries' products, and then those products would go to people with the same nationality of the purchase, Congressmen are not willing to make these changes proposed.
On a basic level, the US shipping food over to needy countries is ridiculous. By buying food abroad to distribute locally, the US will increase growth for those countries and help poor farmers increase their income. Shipping aid crops to foreign countries is costly and ineffective. Policymakers' stubbornness on this issue just shows how reluctant the US is to effectively help those who need it.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Expensive Trade
As a student of economics, I've learned that free trade is beneficial to all participants. As a member in the activist community, I've learned that the free trade movement is sucking the ever-dwindling life out of Third World nations. Through my own experience, I've learned that free trade does not exsist.
Today the New York Times reported on the WTO's Doha Rounds. These international talks started in 2001 to promote global trade and the elimination of tarriffs. The NYT's article reports that a overhaul of the current trade system could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the world's income. I think it would also ignite cultural synergy like never before.
The Doha Rounds have not produced much of anything. Many people blame First World nations for rigity with their policies, especially the US's argicultural subsides, which inflate domestic prices and leave many Third World nations unable to compete in the global market. The activist community has called for the elimination of these subsidies, claiming that they only support large agribusinesses while stagnating Third World economies. I agree with the elimination of these subsides, as do most involved with global politics, activist or otherwise.
What many activists organizations, especially the famous "One" campaign, ignore is the complexities behind these trade talks. Many would like to frame this trade battle as a First versus Third World, a poor versus rich, corrupt versus innocent. However, it is not as simple as that. Peter Mandelson, the top European trade negotiator, said in the NYT's article:
"This is not a classic North-South conflict. It is also South-South. The developed countries and the emerging economies have a responsibility to help the poorer countries."
The "emerging" economies that Mandelson refers to are countries like China, India and Brazil (commonly called "BRIC", with the R being Russia). China and Brazil are wary to lower their tariffs, as they are afraid of cheap Chinese imports flooding their markets. China has also refused to unfix the Yen, which artifically lowers their exports even more.
Many Thrid World countries feel that they should not be all grouped together, as is common. China, India and Brazil have the post power in the Third World, and many other, slower growing nations don't think they are accuratley respresented by the concerns of BRIC and similar countries.
The NYT's article gives a comprehensive layout of trade complexities. It reports that 70% of traiffs paid by poor countires goes to poor countries, giving a new perspective on assumed exploitation of the Third World by the First. (This statistic was reported by a US trade representative, so it could be exploitative on its own.) Also, the US has said it will losen some of its trade restrictions if India and Brazil do the same.
I am not saying, contrary to popular belief, that these trade talks are successfull. I think they are crippingly breaucratic and a waste of time. Poor countries are being ignored by most of these trade talks (especially when it comes to agricultural subsidies), but not in a good-versus-evil way that most groups working on the Doha Rounds would like us to think. Trade is a complex topic, and free trade is even more complex. There is no one right way to create a universially benificial trade deal, but it can be done and must be done.
Today the New York Times reported on the WTO's Doha Rounds. These international talks started in 2001 to promote global trade and the elimination of tarriffs. The NYT's article reports that a overhaul of the current trade system could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the world's income. I think it would also ignite cultural synergy like never before.
The Doha Rounds have not produced much of anything. Many people blame First World nations for rigity with their policies, especially the US's argicultural subsides, which inflate domestic prices and leave many Third World nations unable to compete in the global market. The activist community has called for the elimination of these subsidies, claiming that they only support large agribusinesses while stagnating Third World economies. I agree with the elimination of these subsides, as do most involved with global politics, activist or otherwise.
What many activists organizations, especially the famous "One" campaign, ignore is the complexities behind these trade talks. Many would like to frame this trade battle as a First versus Third World, a poor versus rich, corrupt versus innocent. However, it is not as simple as that. Peter Mandelson, the top European trade negotiator, said in the NYT's article:
"This is not a classic North-South conflict. It is also South-South. The developed countries and the emerging economies have a responsibility to help the poorer countries."
The "emerging" economies that Mandelson refers to are countries like China, India and Brazil (commonly called "BRIC", with the R being Russia). China and Brazil are wary to lower their tariffs, as they are afraid of cheap Chinese imports flooding their markets. China has also refused to unfix the Yen, which artifically lowers their exports even more.
Many Thrid World countries feel that they should not be all grouped together, as is common. China, India and Brazil have the post power in the Third World, and many other, slower growing nations don't think they are accuratley respresented by the concerns of BRIC and similar countries.
The NYT's article gives a comprehensive layout of trade complexities. It reports that 70% of traiffs paid by poor countires goes to poor countries, giving a new perspective on assumed exploitation of the Third World by the First. (This statistic was reported by a US trade representative, so it could be exploitative on its own.) Also, the US has said it will losen some of its trade restrictions if India and Brazil do the same.
I am not saying, contrary to popular belief, that these trade talks are successfull. I think they are crippingly breaucratic and a waste of time. Poor countries are being ignored by most of these trade talks (especially when it comes to agricultural subsidies), but not in a good-versus-evil way that most groups working on the Doha Rounds would like us to think. Trade is a complex topic, and free trade is even more complex. There is no one right way to create a universially benificial trade deal, but it can be done and must be done.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Things Getting Done
Today was a big day for the Pentagon. So much seemed to happen, but again, nothing seemed to get done. The Senate had an all night session, but still failed to pass any regulation to bring the troops home. White House aides told press that the anti-terrorism strategy in Pakistan had failed, and it was president Gen. Pervez Musharraf's fault. Scott Shane of the New York Times wrote a news analysis about how we aren't safer now than we were six year's ago, in response to a report published by the National Intelligence Estimate saying the same thing. The military released today that they had captured Khalid al-Mashadani, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
I could talk a lot about this, but other people do it better. I would recommend the always-amusing-and-sometimes-annoying Maureen Dowd's "Hey, W! Bin Laden (Still) Determined to Strike the US."
There was something in the news today that made me think that maybe things are getting done in this country. The article "Limiting Ads of Junk Food to Children" described how 11 big food companies, like General Mills, Pepsi and McDonalds, will no longer advertise non-nutritional food to children under 12.
The Senate also passed a bill a few weeks ago increasing the required mileage of cars, light trucks, and S.U.V.s to 35 m.p.h., instead of 25.
Although it seems like corporate America might be shifting, forced or voluntarily, into better practices, I think that many of these policy changes fall short of what actually could be done. The Senate bill, if it becomes law, will only require stricter automobile mileage and not fiscally promote alternative energy sources. I think that this bill is actually a victory for the automobile industry, as they could have lost a lot more if alternative fuel advocates got their way.
The new junk-food industry has set their own standards for what is "nutritional", which sets the cutoff at 12 grams of sugar, with some other stipulations. For example, Coco Puffs are considered nutritional, but Trix aren't.
Even though these two announcements, the Senate bill and the change of corporate food advertising policy, are important because of public acknowledgment of issues, they still aren't big enough changes. It seems like corporations are just responding to public protest and trying to take the heat off themselves, for a little while at least. They will concede small victories to different interest groups to improve their public image. And it's worked, so far.
I could talk a lot about this, but other people do it better. I would recommend the always-amusing-and-sometimes-annoying Maureen Dowd's "Hey, W! Bin Laden (Still) Determined to Strike the US."
There was something in the news today that made me think that maybe things are getting done in this country. The article "Limiting Ads of Junk Food to Children" described how 11 big food companies, like General Mills, Pepsi and McDonalds, will no longer advertise non-nutritional food to children under 12.
The Senate also passed a bill a few weeks ago increasing the required mileage of cars, light trucks, and S.U.V.s to 35 m.p.h., instead of 25.
Although it seems like corporate America might be shifting, forced or voluntarily, into better practices, I think that many of these policy changes fall short of what actually could be done. The Senate bill, if it becomes law, will only require stricter automobile mileage and not fiscally promote alternative energy sources. I think that this bill is actually a victory for the automobile industry, as they could have lost a lot more if alternative fuel advocates got their way.
The new junk-food industry has set their own standards for what is "nutritional", which sets the cutoff at 12 grams of sugar, with some other stipulations. For example, Coco Puffs are considered nutritional, but Trix aren't.
Even though these two announcements, the Senate bill and the change of corporate food advertising policy, are important because of public acknowledgment of issues, they still aren't big enough changes. It seems like corporations are just responding to public protest and trying to take the heat off themselves, for a little while at least. They will concede small victories to different interest groups to improve their public image. And it's worked, so far.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
The Next War
Yesterday, I didn't feel engaged by the Sunday New York Times. This happens occasionally, due to a combination of a laziness and the fact that most stories in the Sunday paper are published a day or so early, making most of it not that timely.
So, after browsing through the New York Times headlines, I decided to move onto England's the Guardian Unlimited, the online version of the Guardian, which could be described as England's New York Times.
Anyways, I didn't expect to find anything there all that interesting. What I did fine, for lack of a better metaphor, sent shivers down my spine.
There was a boldfaced headline, complete with a color picture, reading: Cheney pushes Bush to Act on Iran.
I quickly read the story.
Then I quickly searched the New York Times for any verification of this story. Nothing. I waited a day, knowing England is about eight hours ahead of us, assuming the Guardian published this story before the US papers went to print.
Today, still nothing. The Guardian article had moved to the "More News" section, second from the top.
The story discussed how President Bush has been influenced by Vice President Cheney to resort to military action in Iran. At previous discussions on Iran, Bush has sided with Secretary Rice and Gates, both which discourage military intervention. Now, apparently, Bush is listening to Cheney's advice and looking for a military solution.
The Guardian's anonymous source said that "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," and that "Mr Bush and Mr Cheney [do] not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively." The White house claims Iran is building a nuclear weapon and is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The claims of the White House may be true. Iran may be supplying terrorists, or developing a nuclear weapon. One of the most recent articles from the Associated Press on Iran, Iran Reversing Ban, Will Open Reactor to U.N. Inspectors , published on the 14th, is about how it will open their country up to UN nuclear inspectors. If Iran follows through, this will greatly weaken the White House's argument that it is building nuclear weapons.
Whatever the truth may be for the Iran situation, it is dangerous to think of it as an "Iran situation." This type of thinking got the US into Iraq. The President had an "Iraq situation" that he thought he needed to deal with. He saw military action as the most suitable solution, and evidence to justify this military action seemed to conveniently exist.
While reading this Guardian article, it seems the same thing is beginning to happen with Iran. Cheney is pressuring Bush into a military solution, regardless of Iran's practices. Military action might be the best solution for Iran, I don't know, I'm not an administrative official. But if a war is started because of an "Iran situation", instead of what Iran does, the Iran war will be as unfounded as the Iraq war.
What disturbed me the most about this Iran situation, is that people in England know more about it than people in the US. There is now evidence that the administration was pushing for a Iraq war long before the public knew about it, and it seems like the same thing might be happening again. I respect the New York Times as a publication, but I am disappointed that they did not cover this story, or even reprint the Guardian article. The American people need to know what their government is planning, and the press is the only thing that can provide them with this information.
So, after browsing through the New York Times headlines, I decided to move onto England's the Guardian Unlimited, the online version of the Guardian, which could be described as England's New York Times.
Anyways, I didn't expect to find anything there all that interesting. What I did fine, for lack of a better metaphor, sent shivers down my spine.
There was a boldfaced headline, complete with a color picture, reading: Cheney pushes Bush to Act on Iran.
I quickly read the story.
Then I quickly searched the New York Times for any verification of this story. Nothing. I waited a day, knowing England is about eight hours ahead of us, assuming the Guardian published this story before the US papers went to print.
Today, still nothing. The Guardian article had moved to the "More News" section, second from the top.
The story discussed how President Bush has been influenced by Vice President Cheney to resort to military action in Iran. At previous discussions on Iran, Bush has sided with Secretary Rice and Gates, both which discourage military intervention. Now, apparently, Bush is listening to Cheney's advice and looking for a military solution.
The Guardian's anonymous source said that "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," and that "Mr Bush and Mr Cheney [do] not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively." The White house claims Iran is building a nuclear weapon and is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The claims of the White House may be true. Iran may be supplying terrorists, or developing a nuclear weapon. One of the most recent articles from the Associated Press on Iran, Iran Reversing Ban, Will Open Reactor to U.N. Inspectors , published on the 14th, is about how it will open their country up to UN nuclear inspectors. If Iran follows through, this will greatly weaken the White House's argument that it is building nuclear weapons.
Whatever the truth may be for the Iran situation, it is dangerous to think of it as an "Iran situation." This type of thinking got the US into Iraq. The President had an "Iraq situation" that he thought he needed to deal with. He saw military action as the most suitable solution, and evidence to justify this military action seemed to conveniently exist.
While reading this Guardian article, it seems the same thing is beginning to happen with Iran. Cheney is pressuring Bush into a military solution, regardless of Iran's practices. Military action might be the best solution for Iran, I don't know, I'm not an administrative official. But if a war is started because of an "Iran situation", instead of what Iran does, the Iran war will be as unfounded as the Iraq war.
What disturbed me the most about this Iran situation, is that people in England know more about it than people in the US. There is now evidence that the administration was pushing for a Iraq war long before the public knew about it, and it seems like the same thing might be happening again. I respect the New York Times as a publication, but I am disappointed that they did not cover this story, or even reprint the Guardian article. The American people need to know what their government is planning, and the press is the only thing that can provide them with this information.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Not-So-Other Half
I just recently received a column from the Austin Chronicle from a friend here in Boulder, titled "Heartland" from the columnist Michael Ventura. I don't know much about Ventura's work, but he's been writing "Letters @ 3AM", where this column is taken from, for the LA Weekly and the Austin Chronicle for quite some time.
Anyways, I thought that this "Heartland" column was particularly insightful and I would suggest reading it if you have the time. It discusses Ventura's travels and his interactions with lower class people of the Southwest, people who haven't gotten out much or seen much. He profiles his interactions well, and is able to illustrate how even these lower class, non-educated workers are still people too. The one part I wanted to point out is the following, describing someone he met on a bus:
"A crusty old farmer – work boots, creased and bony hands, sunburned neck and face – was reading a pamphlet titled 'Government and God.' Somebody was speaking to him, and it wasn't me, and it wasn't anyone I knew or valued. How do you expect people to go your way if you don't even deign to notice them? That farmer was interested. He was reading a pamphlet. If I'd written a pamphlet directed to him, in terms he could understand, chances are he might be interested and read it. If we ignore him, why shouldn't he ignore us?"
I've always been disillusioned about something in America (or maybe the world) more than just politics, and I think this last quote describes my disillusionment well. Not only does our political system leave out a significant majority of people, but our culture as well. Most of the work I've come across, either academic or entertainment, has been created for the upper class, or at least the middle class on up.
I don't know who this "we" is that Ventura referred to, but I took it to mean America, at least main-stream America, the America we think of when we think of "America". The "we" of popular America has left those behind who have not kept up.
While reading this column, I was reminded of a quote from comedian and personal hero, Jon Stewart. In an interview (I think it was with Senator John McCain, but I can't remember), Stewart said that 80% of this country could get along if we just sat down and talked things out. And the other 20% run it.
And that is true, as illustrated by the people Ventura met in "Heartland". He was able to carry on conversations and form connections with the people he met, even though they were working class or lower class, and he is an author. Everyone really can relate to each other, but it takes effort. People continue to be generalized and pigeon-holded with the increasing polarization of this country (and this world), and it is a shame. Everyone has something to offer another, even if it is just a pamphlet. Or a blog.
Anyways, I thought that this "Heartland" column was particularly insightful and I would suggest reading it if you have the time. It discusses Ventura's travels and his interactions with lower class people of the Southwest, people who haven't gotten out much or seen much. He profiles his interactions well, and is able to illustrate how even these lower class, non-educated workers are still people too. The one part I wanted to point out is the following, describing someone he met on a bus:
"A crusty old farmer – work boots, creased and bony hands, sunburned neck and face – was reading a pamphlet titled 'Government and God.' Somebody was speaking to him, and it wasn't me, and it wasn't anyone I knew or valued. How do you expect people to go your way if you don't even deign to notice them? That farmer was interested. He was reading a pamphlet. If I'd written a pamphlet directed to him, in terms he could understand, chances are he might be interested and read it. If we ignore him, why shouldn't he ignore us?"
I've always been disillusioned about something in America (or maybe the world) more than just politics, and I think this last quote describes my disillusionment well. Not only does our political system leave out a significant majority of people, but our culture as well. Most of the work I've come across, either academic or entertainment, has been created for the upper class, or at least the middle class on up.
I don't know who this "we" is that Ventura referred to, but I took it to mean America, at least main-stream America, the America we think of when we think of "America". The "we" of popular America has left those behind who have not kept up.
While reading this column, I was reminded of a quote from comedian and personal hero, Jon Stewart. In an interview (I think it was with Senator John McCain, but I can't remember), Stewart said that 80% of this country could get along if we just sat down and talked things out. And the other 20% run it.
And that is true, as illustrated by the people Ventura met in "Heartland". He was able to carry on conversations and form connections with the people he met, even though they were working class or lower class, and he is an author. Everyone really can relate to each other, but it takes effort. People continue to be generalized and pigeon-holded with the increasing polarization of this country (and this world), and it is a shame. Everyone has something to offer another, even if it is just a pamphlet. Or a blog.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The New Surgeon General
Today in the New York Times there was an editorial about President Bush's appointee for the surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger (A Nominee’s Abnormal Views).
I first learned about this man from The Colbert Report, which I don't usually watch for informational purposes. Stephen Colbert made a joke about his paper "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality", saying how it was written for the United Methodist Church, the "most respected medical institution". Then Colbert told everyone that Bush had just appointed this man to be surgeon general. The audience groaned.
I don't think I need to qualify the groans for you, especially if you read his paper. (My favorite part, which basically sums up his whole argument is: "When the
complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and
diseases may occur.")
What bothers me beyond Bush's initial appointment, is what the New York Times editorial staff suggested to Congress:
"The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The [Senate Health Committee] should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively."
The editorial goes on to say that if Holsinger has bigoted views towards gays, he shouldn't get the appointment (Really?).
What I find disturbing is that the editorial actually sets up a defense for Holsinger by saying that he could have just been writing in line with the general consensus of the time (1991). That is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous because first, it wasn't the general consensus of the time; and second, even if it was, the consensus was wrong. Would someone who wrote "The Pathophysiology of Blacks" be able to become surgeon general, even if it were written in 1891?
By acknowledging Holsinger as a medical expert who could have been just writing in the popular zeitgiest, the New York Times gives legitimacy to Bush's appointment, which is inherently wrong and should be thrown out. Bush needs to make an appointment with respect for all American citizens.
I first learned about this man from The Colbert Report, which I don't usually watch for informational purposes. Stephen Colbert made a joke about his paper "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality", saying how it was written for the United Methodist Church, the "most respected medical institution". Then Colbert told everyone that Bush had just appointed this man to be surgeon general. The audience groaned.
I don't think I need to qualify the groans for you, especially if you read his paper. (My favorite part, which basically sums up his whole argument is: "When the
complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and
diseases may occur.")
What bothers me beyond Bush's initial appointment, is what the New York Times editorial staff suggested to Congress:
"The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The [Senate Health Committee] should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively."
The editorial goes on to say that if Holsinger has bigoted views towards gays, he shouldn't get the appointment (Really?).
What I find disturbing is that the editorial actually sets up a defense for Holsinger by saying that he could have just been writing in line with the general consensus of the time (1991). That is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous because first, it wasn't the general consensus of the time; and second, even if it was, the consensus was wrong. Would someone who wrote "The Pathophysiology of Blacks" be able to become surgeon general, even if it were written in 1891?
By acknowledging Holsinger as a medical expert who could have been just writing in the popular zeitgiest, the New York Times gives legitimacy to Bush's appointment, which is inherently wrong and should be thrown out. Bush needs to make an appointment with respect for all American citizens.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
My first blogging experience
Well, I've decided to get a blog. It seems like everyone is doing it. I've never really gotten it, but I figured; why not? I guess this will just be an experiment. I don't know how often I will post, or how much, or if anyone will read it. But I enjoy writing.
I've decided that since I pretty much read the newspaper everyday, and I usually have something to say about what I've read, I'm going to pick out a story (or a few) that particularly interests me and write about it. I do this on my plan already, so I figured I'd make it more official and more accessible. The problem is that I only have time to read the New York Times and the Onion, so my news sources are a little slanted. Maybe this blog will force me to open up to other media. Anyways here goes:
The story that caught my eye today wasn't actually a story, but a quote:
“The Democratic Congress has lower ratings than President Bush,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. “You have to try hard to do that.” (From Nytimes article: Sensing a Shift, Reid Will Press for an Iraq Exit )
Now, the first thing I did was laugh. It seemed like Senator Brownback didn't know he was insulting Bush along with Congress. This guy is one of the most conservative people in the nation. He was referring to the public's lack of confidence with Congress after the failure to do anything about the war, along with other issues like immigration.
As I read the article further, I became frustrated at all the political jargon and mishaps that was being discussed. The democrats can't do anything about this war because Senator Lieberman sides with the Republicans when voting on the war and they don't want to draft bills cutting funding to the troops because they don't want to be seen as not supportive of our troops and people are now frustrated with Congress because they can't compromise on an immigration bill and... it seems to go on like that.
The article below this on the NYTimes daily headline mailing was; Bomb Levels Section of Iraqi Village, Killing 105 . Before even reading this article, which I couldn't finish because it was too horrible, I stopped and went back over in my mind what I had just read in the Reid article.
This people in Washington have so much power, yet they can't do anything to make real change. I don't agree with the war the US is fighting, but the US is still fighting it. Congress can't get bogged down in all these political battle while an average of 40.9 Iraqi civilians are dying each day, and that's an average from June, after the "number of civilians killed fell sharply" from May, where an average of 53.8 Iraqis died each day.
I don't know what I'm trying to say with all this. The US is in a huge mess, and I know we could be doing more than we are. That's all I'm trying to say.
I think I like blogs.
I've decided that since I pretty much read the newspaper everyday, and I usually have something to say about what I've read, I'm going to pick out a story (or a few) that particularly interests me and write about it. I do this on my plan already, so I figured I'd make it more official and more accessible. The problem is that I only have time to read the New York Times and the Onion, so my news sources are a little slanted. Maybe this blog will force me to open up to other media. Anyways here goes:
The story that caught my eye today wasn't actually a story, but a quote:
“The Democratic Congress has lower ratings than President Bush,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. “You have to try hard to do that.” (From Nytimes article: Sensing a Shift, Reid Will Press for an Iraq Exit )
Now, the first thing I did was laugh. It seemed like Senator Brownback didn't know he was insulting Bush along with Congress. This guy is one of the most conservative people in the nation. He was referring to the public's lack of confidence with Congress after the failure to do anything about the war, along with other issues like immigration.
As I read the article further, I became frustrated at all the political jargon and mishaps that was being discussed. The democrats can't do anything about this war because Senator Lieberman sides with the Republicans when voting on the war and they don't want to draft bills cutting funding to the troops because they don't want to be seen as not supportive of our troops and people are now frustrated with Congress because they can't compromise on an immigration bill and... it seems to go on like that.
The article below this on the NYTimes daily headline mailing was; Bomb Levels Section of Iraqi Village, Killing 105 . Before even reading this article, which I couldn't finish because it was too horrible, I stopped and went back over in my mind what I had just read in the Reid article.
This people in Washington have so much power, yet they can't do anything to make real change. I don't agree with the war the US is fighting, but the US is still fighting it. Congress can't get bogged down in all these political battle while an average of 40.9 Iraqi civilians are dying each day, and that's an average from June, after the "number of civilians killed fell sharply" from May, where an average of 53.8 Iraqis died each day.
I don't know what I'm trying to say with all this. The US is in a huge mess, and I know we could be doing more than we are. That's all I'm trying to say.
I think I like blogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)