EDITORAL ARCHIVES: Your reference and information library on previously posted editorials.
Editoral 7/7/06 by Alan
"THE PRICE OF WAR"
Congress will begin another debate this week on the IRAQ War. You wonder sometimes if during all the debates and discussions on the war if the true cost of the effort is lost by all the politicians and political pundits. Every day more soldiers are lost doing their duty. Most are not heroes or martyrs--just dedicated young men and women serving their country with pride and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice if necessary.
The death and wounding of soldiers is always part of any conflict. It is a "cost" which is unavoidable. It is so easy for us on the sidelines to say that he or she was a hero and their sacrifices will never be forgotten. However, other than friends and family, do we not all forget rather quickly? If the young soldier's sacrifice will never be forgotten, then let us not forget what was so important to those soldiers--their families! What happens to the spouses and children left behind without a husband and father or wife and mother? A widow suddenly becomes a single mother with several young children not only dealing with the sudden death of her husband but the future of her children. A husband is left grieving for his deceased wife and hoping to find a way to tell the children why mommy is not coming home. What is next for the family left behind? Rhetoric and kind wishes will not pay for housing, healthcare, education, and other necessities for a decent life. So when one soldier dies alone on the battlefield, it is not one life but many which are effected forever--husbands, wives, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers.
Let us not forget the sacrifice of the soldier by not forgetting the family he or she left behind! If we are to truly honor the sacrifice of our troops, is there any better way of showing it than by honoring the families they so loved? I often wonder if the last thought of the dying soldier is simply "what about my family"?
Is there any room in the budget plan for programs and benefits which will insure that the left behind families will have a decent shot at reconstructing their lives in the future? I am not talking about charities and other fund raising projects to fill the void for these families. I am talking about military veteran family entitlement programs designed to help the families readjust to the loss and rebuild their lives. Adequately funded and operated programs by the Veteran's Administration. Programs that the surviving family has earned and is entitled to based on the honorable service of the deceased spouse. Charities and other volunteer efforts to help are always a good thing, but these families have earned benefits not charity. There seems to be plenty of room in the budget for highways to nowhere, unnecessary bridges, boondoggle fact finding trips, and other fattening projects in the government. I would like to hear the U.S. Senator or Representative who voices opposition to the veteran family. When we say "support the troops", I hope that we also mean his or her surviving family. Not just in our prayers and sympathy, but in our wallets. I cannot think of a better way for my tax dollars to be spent! If not, maybe we should think about taking the yellow ribbons off our cars as we drive down the road on our next vacation trip. Maybe we really don't mean it. I hope not!
Many families of deceased veterans this year will not be worried about what color Volvo to buy or should we take that vacation to Hawaii or Europe or what are we going to do over the Memorial Day three day weekend? Instead, they will be worried about surviving without their husband and father or wife and mother. Will we?
Let's wake up America and at least think about it.
Editorial 7/7/06 by Kevin
"MISSING SOLDIERS"
I was deeply saddened to learn once again that soon the bodies of our two missing service members would be arriving at Dover, Delaware for DNA verification. These two soldiers were brutally murdered by the insurgents after capture just a couple days ago. "Brutally" appears to be the most spoken word on the news today about this matter. Well folks, armed conflict usually is brutal for both sides, and we should not forget the innocent civilians who get caught in the melee, such as it is. "Brutal" is a word that can be applied across the board. It is extremely unfortunate that these young lives came to such a terrible ending. Now their friends and relatives must cling to the belief that their lives were given for a "good and just" cause. If I were the parent, spouse, brother or sister of one of the 2,500 men and women who have died as a result of this conflict, I would cling to that belief as well. It would be too sickening to think that this war was a mistake, a conclusion that only history will write years from now. Let's pray for these men and their families as we get ready to pray again for those who will die tomorrow and the next day, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When will we be able to get off our knees and put the ribbons away?
Editorial 7/21/06 by Alan
"IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY?"
There has been a continued debate in this country over embryonic stem cell research. The debate came to a head this week when President Bush vetoed the bipartisan sponsored and supported congressional bill known as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bill would have approved, significantly funded and regulated stem cell research in this country. The Presidential veto did not concern whether such research was worthwhile and valuable to future healthcare, but centered on the issue of the right to life. The right to life? Whose life?
Who needs embryonic stem cell research anyways? Well, according to the world scientific community and every competent healthcare organization, you do! Embryonic stem cell research my be the biggest breakthrough in the healthcare field since the discovery of vaccines to treat, prevent and cure diseases. It has already been approved and ongoing in Britain, Germany, France, Canada, Russia, Israel and China to name a few of the countries recognizing it's importance. It holds the potential to prevent and cure cancer, diabetes, parkinson disease, heart disease and strokes, paralysis and birth defects.
How exactly does the research program work? Stem cells are extracted from human embryos, which destroys the embryo. The stem cells are then used to study and develop potential cures for diseases effecting millions of Americans every year. The embryos used are less than a week old after fertiliztion of the egg and essentially consist of a mass of molecules not yet recognizable by the human eye. The controversy is focused on the belief by some that life begins at conception, and therefore, embryonic stem cell research requires the taking of human life and is immoral. It is the same moral argument used in the debate over abortion between the pro-life and pro-choice activists. Now this argument has been used by the President to defeat a major healthcare research and treatment program which could benefit millions of Americans suffering from major diseases and injuries now and in the future.
The right to life? In my opinion, you can take whatever position you feel is right, but at least be consistent in your belief and principles to maintain credibility. According to President Bush, "It (the proposed bill) crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I am not going to allow it." Was that actually the President talking or could it have been the Reverend Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority?
Could the President be wrong and using faulty logic based on bad intelligence? Was the President more interested in pleasing the religious conservative idealogues for future votes and support or doing what was best for the country and it's citizens? Was he truly voting his conscience? I personally don't know. However, I do know that sometimes the self-appointed morality police seem to be more interested in unborn life than existing life! This latest veto is a good example and a sad day for this country. But I guess Karl Rowe, the well known presidential consultant and advisor, knows more about political strategy than I do. I am just not sure how much he knows about healthcare research? I just cannot figure out why such well known Republican conservatives like John McCain, Orin Hatch, Trent Lott, and Strom Thurmond could be so supportive of a bill so wrong for America? How a bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and House Majority Leader, Republican Bill Frist of Tennessee, could just be another secular liberal attempt to undermine the moral fabric of our society? President Bush must have missed the latest polls where 75% of Americans favor the use of embryonic stem cell research to improve the potential of medical cures. The President must have also forgot to read the pleas from the former first lady, Nancy Reagan, and notables like Christopher Reeves, who struggled for his own life, to support this important research.
Now for the facts! There are currently an estimated 400,000 human embryos frozen in private fertility clinics throughout the United States. These embryos were created by infertile couples hoping to have a baby through in-vitro fertilization. As part of the process, the couples provide an average of 16 embryos each for use in the artificial insemmination process. When successful , the couples must decide what to do with the remaining embryos. Most couples will not decide to donate the embryos to other couples known as "embryo adoption" due to obvious emotional reasons and thus, the remaining embryos are destroyed. It is these embryos which would be used in the scientific research rather than being destroyed and discarded. But I guess that is ok with the President. No one was proposing the commercial development of embryos solely for research purposes. No one was proposing the cloning of human beings to be used as guinea pigs. It is already legal for individual states or private organizations to fund and conduct embryonic stem cell research as is currently ongoing in California. This bill would have simply created the necessary federal funding to enhance the research on a national basis, and more importantly, to regulate who and how it would be done to preclude abuses and misuses of the reserach programs. Oh well! We should never let ourselves be confused by the facts or detered by inconsistent principles especially when dealing with important decisions.
Hopefully, our greatest medical minds will not relocate to England or Germany so they can contribute to the latest breakthroughs in medical research and development. And a flight to Europe may be worth the cost if you or a loved one suffer from a major disease, injury or birth defect. But don't worry, we will be able to use the medical treatments developed by embryonic stem cell research in this country as long as we just don't do the research in this country. Makes sense doesn't it?
So let's wakeup America or at least think about it!
Editorial 7/21/06 by Kevin
"YOU GOT A FREE RIDE HOME...SO PLEASE JUST SHUTUP!"
Did you hear the voices of the American and Lebanese-American citizens being evacuated from Lebanon today? Their voices sounded something like this.."why did it take so long"...."that ship was like a floating refugee camp"..."it was hot and there were lots of flies..". Are you kidding me? Please just shutup...please I beg of you! I am tired of hearing the whine and whimppers of soft Americans and naturalized dual citizens complaining about their free trips out of the conflict (thanks to Dr. Condie Rice - our Secretary of State - wow..thats another story for another day). Apparently, Dr. Rice waived all expenses incurred as a result of the "evac."
Listen, I am all for getting innocent American citizens out of harm's way, including all civilians, not withstanding Israeli and Lebanese. However, when you get a free 8 hour ride on a cruise liner to the island of Cyprus, please be grateful and keep your complaints to yourself, inside of airing them on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. If your complaints were justified, I want you to air them on the media, and I will do my best to assist. I know that you are frustrated because this conflict interrupted your summer vacation or the remodeling of your Lebanese summer condo, which is likely tax-free and exempt from U.S. taxes. By the way, what about the smart Americans that left days before the "storm" hit Lebanon...can they get reimbursement for their flights and hotels, and yes..the rental car charges! Maybe they will be grandfathered into the "no pay" policy. Instead of complaining about the heat and flies on your cruise ship, say a prayer for the American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If it were up to me, they would pay a fair amount for the "evac", unless they filed for financial assistance/exemption for the crisis. Your financial status would be scrutinized and verified. Enough details, you get the point. It is not the federal government's job to pay for your safe survival home. it is the government's job to get you safely out of the crisis zone, but nothing else.
You complaining Americans know who you are and you should be ashamed. I know that you are the same ones that complain on the airplane when the young mother of 2 little ones sits down next to you. I can see your face now. Hey, do me and yourself a favor...get a life!
Editorial 7/28/06 by Alan
"WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!"
Recently we have all listen to the conservatives, the liberals, and others tell us their plan for peace in the world beginning with the Iraq War to combat terrorism. The Republicans say "stay the course", which I have never quite figured out what that means? Maybe, it is a top secret plan that they cannot tell the public because it would violate national security? Or maybe they are just saying wow did we create a mess and we are not sure what to do next; so we will just have to play it day by day and hope for the best! Trust us and "stay the course"!
The Democrats, on the other hand, constantly argue that President Bush is wrong and his plan is not working and changes must be made immediately. However, the Democrats always forget to mention what changes need to be made to the plan which nobody knows anything about! I don't know about you, but I am really confused. I don't know what the Republican plan for peace is and I don't know what part of the plan the Democrats want to change?
Finally, there is someone who has come forth with a simple, clear and concise plan for peace and security for America. I received this plan unexpectedly this week in an email originally sent out by Jane Lemoine of Boynton Beach, Florida. I figured that everyone had listened to the Republican and Democrat plans, so why not pass a new plan on to my readers and let them decide who has the best plan.
Robin Williams, a well known and loved comedian by many in this country, presented his simple plan while dressed in a t-shirt "I Love New York" written in Arabic:
"I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:
The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good 'ole' boys", we will never "interfere" again.
We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany , South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.
All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.
All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.
No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.
The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while
Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)
If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.
Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.
All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH..learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?
The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, you want a piece of me?"
It may sound silly, but I am not sure if it isn't any sillier than the apparent lack of any well thought out strategy by our leaders today to deal with this nation's domestic and foreign policy issues. Sometimes any plan is better than no plan. And if there are plans, please tell us what they are! Stop boring us with endless rhetoric and one minute sound bites.
Americans should not be confused over what the plans are to fight terrorism; win in Iraq; combat illegal immigration; provide healthcare; create jobs; and other major issues effecting every day life. If our elected politicians cannot make it clear what they are doing--then maybe it is time to elect politicians who will! I don't think that is asking too much? Do you?
Let's wakeup America and at least think about it.
Editorial 7/28/06 by Kevin
"WELCOME TO OUR TOWN....IF YOU'RE LEGAL!"
Congratulations to Riverside, New Jersey for upholding the laws of the land in a responsible manner. This town just voted to legally punish employers who hire illegal, repeat illegal, immigrants and landlords who rent to illegals in the town limits. Remember, Hazleton, Pennsylvania, also a small town, passed a similar ordinance just a couple months ago. One Riverside resident said "if you're not in this country legally, you are not in this town legally." I could not agree more with the ordinances passed by both towns. I am surprised that more towns have not followed their lead at this point. Maybe others have and I am not aware of their actions. Riverside has discovered that the influx of some 1,500 to 3,500 undocumented workers from Brazil has placed a significant strain on the town's limited resources. The normal population is about 8,000. The opponents of this policy say that "immigration" is important to the town and to the country. It is always interesting when the opponents speak out and they mention "immigration". These opponents almost always speak of "immigrants" but never say "illegal immigrants". It is interesting to watch this, as it appears almost planned. Yes, this great country of ours was based on immigrants coming from abroad, but let's remember that they came here LEGALLY!
Illegal immigrants are law breakers and should be pursued as such. Yes, there are millions here in the country. However, you just cannot throw up your arms and walk away from that point. We are a country based upon the rule of law. We have fair immigration laws and we must enforce them. We need to petition our senators and representatives to see exactly what they plan to do about this very serious issue. America is being transformed right before our own eyes, however, we are all asleep. I hope that we all wake up before it is too late. My fear is that we will not and that it is already to late.
Editorial 8/4/06 by Alan
"Crime and Punishment"
The United States created and has maintained the best judicial system ever to exist in the world. It’s basic principles that the person accused of a crime is "innocent until proven guilty" and that the accused person will be "judged by a jury of his or her peers" has always laid a foundation essential to fair and impartial justice for all. It protects it’s citizens from oppressive and intimidating tactics by government authorities, which is always important to any free and democratic society. However, as with any system, our justice system too has it’s flaws. One major flaw is the current practice that for all felony crimes there seems to be a "one size fits all solution": more and longer imprisonment. This will be the focus of today's editorial opinion.
The justice system in this country or any other nation is designed to punish those who violate the law and protect society from those who pose a threat to it. It also has the obligation to attempt to rehabilitate criminals so that they may return to society as functional, law abiding citizens. Otherwise, you have a constant "revolving door" which never gets any better.
The United States now leads the world, yes the world, as the nation with the highest per capita rate of imprisonment of it’s residents! The United States prison population has now reached 2.3 million people, not including 4.7 million people on probation or parole programs, for a grand total of almost 7 million residents involved in the justice system. That means that 1 out of every 138 residents are confined to prison. As a comparison, the United States has a rate of 714 inmates per 100,000 residents, while England has a rate of 142 inmates per 100,000. Big difference!
Crimes against our society can range from the most violent, like murder, rape and assault, to a wide variety of nonviolent acts like burglary, theft, embezzlement, fraud, and drug possession. Crime is not just committed by the poor and uneducated, but occurs just as frequently by the "white collar" professionals working as doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives. It is often said, and very true, that a professional crook can create more damage and destroy more lives with the stroke of a pen than the little guy stealing a car or robbing the local convenience store. All criminal actions, regardless of who the offender is or what the crime is, are wrong and need to be punished to protect our society and hopefully send a message to anyone else considering such acts.
The big question is how do we as a country handle those who chose to violate the rules? Are we doing the best we can to not only punish offenders but also reduce future criminal acts? This is obviously a topic which volumes of study and research have been devoted to by criminologists and government officials for decades. First, individuals were confined to prison solely for punishment. Then came the philosophy that prisons also needed to provide rehabilitation for the inmates. Whatever we are doing does not seem to be getting any better as crime rates rise and law enforcement agencies and our court systems seem to be overwhelmed! The answer may not be more and bigger jails and prisons. The beginnings of an answer may be more creative and possibly more effective alternative sentencing methods for criminal offenses.
Not all felony crimes are equal. There are the violent criminals (murder, rape, assault) and the nonviolent criminals (fraud, theft, burglary, and drug users). There are criminals who cannot be rehabilitated no matter what you do and there are those who given the chance can again lead lawful, productive lives. Society needs to be protected from our violent criminals; and the best place to do that is prison. Society needs to also punish those committing nonviolent crimes, but the best place to do that may not be prison. Our prisons, at the federal and state level, are bursting at the seams with overcrowded conditions. The 50 states, not including the federal government expenditure of approximately $4.5 Billion, spend an average $40 Billion per year to operate it’s prison systems. It cost an average of $30,000 per year to house a prisoner, which is equivalent to the cost of one year of higher education at any major university. Federal prisons are at an average of 31% over intended capacity; while most state prisons average 16% over intended capacity. Because of the overload, it is estimated that over $10 Billion in new prison construction will be needed in this country. Prisons are expensive and costly to maintain and operate. There is no question that prisons are necessary and that we need to build as many as required. The question is whether there are alternatives which would be less costly and more beneficial? After all, it is our tax dollars that pay for it and we who become the victims of crime! Whatever may be done to reduce crime in the future is definitely worth exploring.
According to the Department of Justice, about 33% of the overall prison population in this country consists of nonviolent convicts, many being low level drug offenders. In federal prisons, 55% of the nonviolent inmates are there for drug offenses; and in state prisons, about 22% of the nonviolent inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses. It costs an average $3 Billion per year to incarcerate just the drug offenders.
The obvious question is do all criminals need to be imprisoned or is there better ways to handle certain offenders? Do drug users (not drug pushers) need to be imprisoned or better sentenced to quality rehabilitation programs to cure their disease and addictions? Do doctors committing Medicare fraud need to go to jail or would it be more harsh to sentence them to full-time work providing free care to the poor and disadvantaged while living in the same neighborhood? Would corporate executives, like Ken Lay of Enron, feel worse in prison, or working full-time for the Salvation Army cooking and serving meals to the poor after being forced to forfeit his personal assets? How about Martha Steward working and living as a full-time laborer in the orange groves for minimum wage rather than sitting around a federal prison writing her memoirs? Would the victims of theft feel more satisfied with full restitution for their losses by seeing the criminal required to maintain a "government work program job" cleaning up the streets and parks for minimum wages or seeing the person go to jail lifting weights all day? Should the father who refuses to pay child support go to prison where the child and mother will definitely get nothing or is there a better way to punish and humiliate the offender and insure he fulfills his responsibility? I remember one case where a local judge sentenced a drunk driver to stand out on the street for weeks wearing a large sign "I am an irresponsible drunk who doesn’t deserve to drive–honk if you agree" in conjunction with hefty fines and loss of license. I think I would have rather gone to jail for 60 days or so than to be subjected to that humiliation! There are many ways to truly punish offenders for their crimes and at the same time benefit society. Prison should definitely be one, but not the only one!
This is an oversimplified analysis to a complex problem, and obviously does not provide the answers to all or any of the issues. It is not meant to do so. Either is it meant to be a "bleeding heart--soft on crime" attack on our current system. However, it is meant to start people thinking that maybe the old ways are not the best ways. That maybe by reducing our prisons to those who really need to be kept away from the rest of us, the money saved could best be used for other purposes. Sentencing laws and philosophies like "zero tolerance", "mandatory sentencing", "truth in sentencing" and "three strikes and you are out" had good intentions to reduce crime and strengthen mandatory sentencing; but such laws have cast wide nets, often over people not meant to be, and leave no leeway to judges to determine fair and appropriate punishments based on individual circumstances in each case. If you cannot trust the judges to do their jobs, then elect or appoint new ones. I guess we either start thinking of new approaches or continue building more prisons?
Let’s wakeup America and at least think about it!
Editorial 8/4/06 by Bruce
"No Citizenship -- No Medical Benefits"
In July, a new Medicaid rule took effect that requires more than an estimated 50 million poor Americans to prove their citizenship or lose their medical benefits and/or long term care. Under this new legislative ruling from the U.S. Congress, designated Americans, must prove their official citizenship by presenting a passport or birth certificate at the time the person applies for Medicaid benefits or during an annual reenrollment in state/federal programs designed to assist poor and disabled Americans. This rule was created to stem the tide of benefits being used by illegal immigrants. However, critics fear that this new rule will have unintended consequences for several million Americans who are official citizens but cannot produce the required documents. Some of these people might include mentally ill, mentally retarded and a variety of homeless people. Critics are also worried about a large group of elderly men and women, especially poor whites and African-Americans, whom might have never been issued official birth certificates or have lost them over the years.
This law makes good sense. It's primary target is the illegal immigrant, which is well over due in America. We must start somewhere. We have to start a system of accountability in this country to ensure that legal citizens are cared for, not illegals. Paying medical expenses for illegals from my taxpayer money, is totally unacceptable. I want to help support the poor and needy who live here legally, not criminals.
Okay, i dare you to play the race card! Sure, everyone who speaks out against illegal immigrants, or foreign criminals, is a racist...right? Don't even go there! If that is your only argument, don't even get involved in this discussion. You know what, I also strongly support strict border control to prevent illegals coming to America. Yes, America was built by the hands of immigrants, legal ones! I am proud of that fact. How come politicians only use the term "immigrants" in their speeches, never designating the groups into legal and criminal. That's very interesting. Maybe they are just concerned about keeping their jobs in the U.S. Congress. America is a country of laws. Laws keep us from turning into a land of chaos. Each of us needs to contact our senators and representatives to find out where they stand on this critical issue for the country - our great country that we proudly call AMERICA!