The headline that President Barack Obama should intervene in the Martin shooting case in Florida, did not hold water; and it did not make a low profile incident, though nationally condemned, a priority for the White House.
At present, the economy, the gruesome unemployment figures and the high cost of gasoline would preoccupy the the president more than any other matters; and he was dealing with them step by step, as the nation expected.
To go out of that mode and to dabble in a racially motivated case would be a big distraction for him and for so many people, and that would not give credence to his political campaign for a second term. In other words, stepping out that (mode) would not be advisable.
He was presently in a groove or a tight corner, with his opponents on the Republican side using political rhetoric to blame him on all kinds of issues, from the Keystone XL pipeline to his Low Cost Healthcare Act.
In fact, all the jurisprudence was there for the law enforcement authorities in the state of Florida to take the necessary action to handle the case in the way it should be. That a homicide has taken place, and the accused perpetrator should be behind bars, while the initial investigation was in progress.
For Zimmerman, the shooter, to be walking free was obnoxious, and many Americans have expressed in mainstream media as well as the social ones, like facebook.com and twitter.com; showing how preposterous it was that an arrest has still not taken place.
That was a routine that the police officers on the scene in the complex, where Trayvon Martin was shot, should have done; to put the handcuffs on Zimmerman for being the gunman, and then an investigation would follow in due course.
Martin was already dead, and the procedure was to send his body to the nearest hospital, and then Zimmerman would be questioned for using a gun on an unarmed person. There and then, there was the probable cause for the police officers to arrest the shooter.
In other words, the initial legal procedures were not followed by the police; and if so, why not? It might have been that Zimmerman has claimed that "the shooting was in self defense." as they, the police, might have identified him as a neighborhood watchman, and so he was protected by a local "stand your ground" law.
"Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee is temporarily stepping down amid accusations that his department bungled the investigation into the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin." (ABC news, 03/23/12).
That was a good sign for Martin's family that the death of their son was being seriously handled; and now that Federal law enforcement has become involved, the course of the case would not be misdirected as they feared would happen.
The NAACP was there, and so was Rev. Sharpton; and they were present to rally behind the grieving family for legal advice and to give Martin's parents the moral support they so much needed.
They, the parents, should rest assured that President Obama had their sympathy in mind, as White House staff members have already briefed him on the case; and that he would be following it, just as much as he went about his normal presidential duties
Given the nature of the incident, he should be very cautious in making any remark, as that would affect the ongoing investigation; and particularly as the case has racial connotations, it would be improper for him to directly comment on it, as Martin was an African American as he. At least, "no comment" would be the best thing to do at the present moment.
Having the report of the case was enough; and so they, parents, should not worry about the president's reaction, as he was with them in spirit.
That could be the guess of the writer of this blog, but it was possible.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
TRAYVON MARTIN & HIS KILLING.
The shooting death of Trayvon Martin has caused a great deal of uproar in the country, especially in the news and the social media, with tweets on Twitter.com and postings at You-tube by famous and important citizens, to demonstrate their horror, not only of the incident itself, but also of the fact that law enforcement in Florida was conducting a racially biased investigation.
The shooter, a night watchman by the name of Zimmerman has not been even interviewed by police authorities and he was walking free, solely because of a law that protected people like him to use deadly force if threatened.
Trayvon Martin was walking in a strange neighborhood after shopping for some ice tea and skittles, and looking around just for curiosity sake before he went back to his father's house.
The complex of houses was gated and had a watch group in routine surveillance to keep people, who were thought to be mischievous or prone to cause any type of crime out of the place.
A confrontation occurred between the young boy, Trayvon, who was 17 years of age and Zimmerman, a grown man, on watch that day; and according to 911 calls and eyewitness accounts a fight followed from the altercation.
Within minutes, Trayvon was shot dead with a gun wound in his chest by Zimmerman.
Trayvon was unarmed and did not pose a serious threat to his assailant, and therefore using a gun on him was completely unnecessary. He was not a suspect of any kind. That, under any circumstance, was a cold blooded murder.
He, Trayvon, was just walking around and saw a man following him, and when the man, Zimmerman, approached him, he responded as anyone would do with a little bit of apprehension, which could naturally lead to a scuffle of some sorts, if a strange person laid his hands on another person.
That was what happened, and whatever the gunman was, whether a watchman or a futuristic police officer and therefore under training, he should have been arrested forthwith.
Local police did nothing to safeguard the interest of Trayvon Martin in the process of officers being called on a case of that nature. They would immediately put the handcuffs on Trayvon, and he would be arrested, if he was the perpetrator.
Now, the investigation of the case was not going the way it should, and the United States Attorney's office and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division officials have been called in to see whether Trayvon's rights were violated.
The investigation was continuing, but so far the incident seemed to be racially motivated. Too many African American young people were being gunned down by others in the law enforcement community, and that should warrant a grand inquiry by the government into whether some officers were racists.
Rev. Al Sharpton was getting involved, and the NAACP was playing a vital role in the case. Many were hoping that Zimmerman would be placed under arrest as the proceedings to really know what took place unfolded.
In this day and age, anyone should not be restricted in any way from walking freely in any neighborhood, gated or not.
Zimmerman, whatever his reason for gunning down Trayvon Martin, must be dealt with according to the law of the nation.
Others in other countries were watching to see, if America would live up to its creed of freedom for everyone, no matter what their racial background was.
The shooter, a night watchman by the name of Zimmerman has not been even interviewed by police authorities and he was walking free, solely because of a law that protected people like him to use deadly force if threatened.
Trayvon Martin was walking in a strange neighborhood after shopping for some ice tea and skittles, and looking around just for curiosity sake before he went back to his father's house.
The complex of houses was gated and had a watch group in routine surveillance to keep people, who were thought to be mischievous or prone to cause any type of crime out of the place.
A confrontation occurred between the young boy, Trayvon, who was 17 years of age and Zimmerman, a grown man, on watch that day; and according to 911 calls and eyewitness accounts a fight followed from the altercation.
Within minutes, Trayvon was shot dead with a gun wound in his chest by Zimmerman.
Trayvon was unarmed and did not pose a serious threat to his assailant, and therefore using a gun on him was completely unnecessary. He was not a suspect of any kind. That, under any circumstance, was a cold blooded murder.
He, Trayvon, was just walking around and saw a man following him, and when the man, Zimmerman, approached him, he responded as anyone would do with a little bit of apprehension, which could naturally lead to a scuffle of some sorts, if a strange person laid his hands on another person.
That was what happened, and whatever the gunman was, whether a watchman or a futuristic police officer and therefore under training, he should have been arrested forthwith.
Local police did nothing to safeguard the interest of Trayvon Martin in the process of officers being called on a case of that nature. They would immediately put the handcuffs on Trayvon, and he would be arrested, if he was the perpetrator.
Now, the investigation of the case was not going the way it should, and the United States Attorney's office and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division officials have been called in to see whether Trayvon's rights were violated.
The investigation was continuing, but so far the incident seemed to be racially motivated. Too many African American young people were being gunned down by others in the law enforcement community, and that should warrant a grand inquiry by the government into whether some officers were racists.
Rev. Al Sharpton was getting involved, and the NAACP was playing a vital role in the case. Many were hoping that Zimmerman would be placed under arrest as the proceedings to really know what took place unfolded.
In this day and age, anyone should not be restricted in any way from walking freely in any neighborhood, gated or not.
Zimmerman, whatever his reason for gunning down Trayvon Martin, must be dealt with according to the law of the nation.
Others in other countries were watching to see, if America would live up to its creed of freedom for everyone, no matter what their racial background was.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
OBAMA & GAS PRICES.
The southern part of the Keystone XL pipeline will begin, to deal with the oil crisis, and also to handle the oil glut in Cushing "where oil from the Midwest hits a bottleneck as it is transported to the Gulf of Mexico." (CNN, 03/21/12).
Though, the idea may to sit well with environmentalists that have protested the construction of the pipeline in its entirety, from Canada to the Gulf Coast; yet, due to Iran cutting back on its oil production to penalize particularly the West, the high of crude oil and subsequent gas jacked up prices will continue.
The punitive sanctions by the United States and other members of the United Nations, which are designed to stop Iran from carrying out its nuclear program, are crippling that country's economy.
The reversal is also true that with Iran reducing oil production and creating uncertainty in the Arabian Gulf region, many nations will feel the pressure with high oil prices, and so relent on getting Iran to come out clean of the charges being leveled against it by the rest of the world. They, world countries, will have their own economies disturbed, and thus creating a stalemate, whether the world will continue with sanctions on Iran or not.
For example, the high price of gas in the U.S. has a bad effect on all kinds of businesses, large and small; and with the slow rate of its economic recovery, that is not something to be taken for granted by the Obama administration.
The Republican opposition is pushing for oil prices to rise, and then assign blame of that to President Barack Obama, and so ravage his reelection bid.
It is a fact that as gas prices keep going up, consumers will turn against the government in power, Democrat or Republican, for its bad policies and the mishandling of the economy in general.
This time around, it is the turn of the Republican Party to initiate the political "dog fight" that comes about in an election year, to discredit the other party; and now, the Democratic Party is the one to find itself at the end of the stick.
To say that the big oil companies are manipulating the situation in the background will be an understatement, as they will only prefer to have the public (to) become dissatisfied with Obama, as they seem to be on the side of the opposition. The political contributions by the executives in the oil industry make that quite clear.
With the price of gas going up, the only beneficiaries are the oil producing companies, and the real losers will be those, who have to fill up the gas tank of their vehicles to take their children to school and/or go to and from work. Small businesses his will be running high expenditures too, based on the rising cost of oil.
Obama has to find a way to alleviate their burden, so that he may not lose their support, which he needs to carry him to victory in the 2012 presidential election; and also to bolster his efforts to grow the economy that his adversaries are so critical of.
He has been able to turn it (economy) around, but there are those, who will do anything in their power to undermine the hard work that he has been engaged in to make that turn around a permanent experience for the country.
Why? Because it will prove him right to have used stern measures to achieve his goal of getting the economy on the right track after a Republican administration. It will help his reelection bid.
Americans have to see the whole political atmosphere in that light, that he has diligently got the economy to revive, and that his policies will produce good results in the long run.
Though, the idea may to sit well with environmentalists that have protested the construction of the pipeline in its entirety, from Canada to the Gulf Coast; yet, due to Iran cutting back on its oil production to penalize particularly the West, the high of crude oil and subsequent gas jacked up prices will continue.
The punitive sanctions by the United States and other members of the United Nations, which are designed to stop Iran from carrying out its nuclear program, are crippling that country's economy.
The reversal is also true that with Iran reducing oil production and creating uncertainty in the Arabian Gulf region, many nations will feel the pressure with high oil prices, and so relent on getting Iran to come out clean of the charges being leveled against it by the rest of the world. They, world countries, will have their own economies disturbed, and thus creating a stalemate, whether the world will continue with sanctions on Iran or not.
For example, the high price of gas in the U.S. has a bad effect on all kinds of businesses, large and small; and with the slow rate of its economic recovery, that is not something to be taken for granted by the Obama administration.
The Republican opposition is pushing for oil prices to rise, and then assign blame of that to President Barack Obama, and so ravage his reelection bid.
It is a fact that as gas prices keep going up, consumers will turn against the government in power, Democrat or Republican, for its bad policies and the mishandling of the economy in general.
This time around, it is the turn of the Republican Party to initiate the political "dog fight" that comes about in an election year, to discredit the other party; and now, the Democratic Party is the one to find itself at the end of the stick.
To say that the big oil companies are manipulating the situation in the background will be an understatement, as they will only prefer to have the public (to) become dissatisfied with Obama, as they seem to be on the side of the opposition. The political contributions by the executives in the oil industry make that quite clear.
With the price of gas going up, the only beneficiaries are the oil producing companies, and the real losers will be those, who have to fill up the gas tank of their vehicles to take their children to school and/or go to and from work. Small businesses his will be running high expenditures too, based on the rising cost of oil.
Obama has to find a way to alleviate their burden, so that he may not lose their support, which he needs to carry him to victory in the 2012 presidential election; and also to bolster his efforts to grow the economy that his adversaries are so critical of.
He has been able to turn it (economy) around, but there are those, who will do anything in their power to undermine the hard work that he has been engaged in to make that turn around a permanent experience for the country.
Why? Because it will prove him right to have used stern measures to achieve his goal of getting the economy on the right track after a Republican administration. It will help his reelection bid.
Americans have to see the whole political atmosphere in that light, that he has diligently got the economy to revive, and that his policies will produce good results in the long run.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
AMERICAN ENGLISH & PUERTO RICO.
It is ridiculous to say that Puerto Rico is ready for statehood, but to confuse the issue with the idea that the new state must be bi-lingual.
In every nation, language forms the background of the identity of its people. It is the basic need to differentiate one nation from another; and if any group of people have the desire to be part of any nation then they must have the obligation or to be ready to conform to the norms that exist in that nation.
What most people in Puerto Rico are confused about are two things, allegiance and cultural identity; and so, when it comes to choosing a language, if the Island becomes a state, they are disproportionately split between the English and Spanish languages.
The percentage for a statehood stands at about 80% to 20% in favor; however, when it comes to languages, the situation is reversed, making the majority of them to prefer Spanish to be their "official" medium of expression.
Yet, they fail to realise that the United States is an English speaking country, and therefore all citizens must be inclined to use it in dealing with the laws stemming from the U.S. Constitution, which is written in English.
If the Island wants to be part of the U.S. then the people must be willing to accept its language as being paramount.
That does not mean that they have to discard their heritage or cultural leanings, which have their roots in Spanish traditions. The Islanders must be proud to embrace those traditions, but they cannot own allegiance to them than the language of the nation that they wish to join.
In U.S. courts, one cannot interpret the laws in any other way, but in English; unless a translation is needed occasionally in any other language for clarifying situations involving cases that must be dealt with in that manner.
Otherwise, by using English and other languages simultaneously, they will cause so much confusion for judges; and not to mention the conundrum for lawyers and their clients in any such case.
So it is in the U.S. military, that all commissioned officers must be fluent in the English language, as a requirement. It is in their best interest for them to give orders and to be understood instantly. It also makes their work a little easy too.
Nobody is asking the Islanders to relinquish the Spanish language; and everybody agrees that it is their birthright to keep it; however, the English language must come first in all deliberations, if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico becomes the 51st State of the U.S.
The governor there wants to have his cake and eat it too, but that will be a wrong approach for the Island to be any different in regards to the English language. He has even chosen a candidate for the Island, by backing Romney.
However, he is forgetting that the real reason for Romney to be on the Island is to get the votes he needs in the primary, which he hopes will lead to his clinching the Republican Party nomination, and so he (Romney) will do and say anything to tantalize the voters there.
The real truth is that the people must adopt the English language, in order to be able to call themselves as Americans; as it is the language that the founding fathers, and their ancestry after them, have been using, culminating in the U.S Constitution, for the purpose of uniting the nation.
Learning the English language will not happen overnight, but it must start with the desire of the people to vote in a referendum leading to statehood for the Island. They will succeed, by dint of hard work, and a change of attitude toward the American English.
That is the only way; and that will definitely conclude the Island being part of the U.S. in the future.
In every nation, language forms the background of the identity of its people. It is the basic need to differentiate one nation from another; and if any group of people have the desire to be part of any nation then they must have the obligation or to be ready to conform to the norms that exist in that nation.
What most people in Puerto Rico are confused about are two things, allegiance and cultural identity; and so, when it comes to choosing a language, if the Island becomes a state, they are disproportionately split between the English and Spanish languages.
The percentage for a statehood stands at about 80% to 20% in favor; however, when it comes to languages, the situation is reversed, making the majority of them to prefer Spanish to be their "official" medium of expression.
Yet, they fail to realise that the United States is an English speaking country, and therefore all citizens must be inclined to use it in dealing with the laws stemming from the U.S. Constitution, which is written in English.
If the Island wants to be part of the U.S. then the people must be willing to accept its language as being paramount.
That does not mean that they have to discard their heritage or cultural leanings, which have their roots in Spanish traditions. The Islanders must be proud to embrace those traditions, but they cannot own allegiance to them than the language of the nation that they wish to join.
In U.S. courts, one cannot interpret the laws in any other way, but in English; unless a translation is needed occasionally in any other language for clarifying situations involving cases that must be dealt with in that manner.
Otherwise, by using English and other languages simultaneously, they will cause so much confusion for judges; and not to mention the conundrum for lawyers and their clients in any such case.
So it is in the U.S. military, that all commissioned officers must be fluent in the English language, as a requirement. It is in their best interest for them to give orders and to be understood instantly. It also makes their work a little easy too.
Nobody is asking the Islanders to relinquish the Spanish language; and everybody agrees that it is their birthright to keep it; however, the English language must come first in all deliberations, if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico becomes the 51st State of the U.S.
The governor there wants to have his cake and eat it too, but that will be a wrong approach for the Island to be any different in regards to the English language. He has even chosen a candidate for the Island, by backing Romney.
However, he is forgetting that the real reason for Romney to be on the Island is to get the votes he needs in the primary, which he hopes will lead to his clinching the Republican Party nomination, and so he (Romney) will do and say anything to tantalize the voters there.
The real truth is that the people must adopt the English language, in order to be able to call themselves as Americans; as it is the language that the founding fathers, and their ancestry after them, have been using, culminating in the U.S Constitution, for the purpose of uniting the nation.
Learning the English language will not happen overnight, but it must start with the desire of the people to vote in a referendum leading to statehood for the Island. They will succeed, by dint of hard work, and a change of attitude toward the American English.
That is the only way; and that will definitely conclude the Island being part of the U.S. in the future.
Monday, March 19, 2012
ROMNEY'S INTERVIEW ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY 1.
Why does not Mitt Romney trust Americans? Or, does he think that they, Americans, do not respect his right to privacy, and so he will do anything and everything to conceal his true identity from them.
His appearance on one of Sunday TV programs; and it is the one, which many think is the most popular, that happens to be the venue, where he is given the chance to tell viewers who he is and what he stands for, politically, socially and, of course, economically.
On the first and second categories, he chose to say nothing or answered the questions that were put to him, each in a sporadic manner or not in satisfactory detail; and he seemed confused at times.
In other words, he was not very clear with his responses on conservative principles; whereas on the third one, he condemned the other candidates, who were running in the Republican Party race with him as mediocre or low level economic candidates.
"They have spent their lives in Washington politics, and they have no experience, when it comes to a strong economic policy." he said. "I have spent my life in the corporate world, and so I have what it takes," he added. (Paraphrasing Romney).
He happened to be the "giant" economic strategists among his colleagues, and therefore the nomination was just some sort of a formality, as he would get it anyway.
"I intend to win; I intend to be the nominee," he said that repeatedly.
Apart from that, the segment was bland, lifeless to a point and uneventful, as he kept being as repetitive as he has been on the campaign trail and saying nothing to sway one opinion or another to specifically indicate where he stood on it or the other. He did the same on issue after issue.
He was almost caught flip-flopping on Education, when the interviewer, Bret Baier of Fox News Special Report, asked that his rival Nick Santorum was critical of his philosophy on a Bush law known as "No child left behind". "What is your response?" Baier asked.
"I support that program; and I have supported it from its inception; but what I am concerned about is how the program is being manipulated. Teachers' unions are using their power to undermine the authority of parents in the educational system, and that is what I disagree with, regarding the program" he answered among others things.
Baier, however, was not as aggressive as Chris Wallace, the usual Fox News Sunday talk show host, and he missed several opportunities to question Romney about Usama Bin Laden, and how President Barack Obama has commanded the operations of the Navy Seal Unit, "Seal Team 6", which was responsible for locating him, and his eventual demise in a compound in Pakistan near a military base.
Could the president's handling of the situation from the White House be described as impressive?
Or, the contribution of the president to the Libyan insurgency and the final ouster of Gadhafi by the United States and its NATO allies, in which there was not a single American military casualty. What was his (Romney's) comment on that?
Those were the type of questions that would have set Romney thinking.
Back at home, he was hitting on Obama's energy policy; and said that the price of gas was going up, showing that such a policy, if there was any, was almost non-existent.
"People, especially women, driving their children to school, and others going to and from work were feeling the pinch of gasoline prices; and that is unacceptable," he emphasized.
He, Romney, might have hinted or given the impression that he had an energy plan; and there too, he avoided elaborating on it.
Like his political party cohorts, such as Gingrich, who has been harping on gas prices, and would bring the price of unleaded gas down to $2.50 a gallon, he (Romney) would not suggest any such ideas, but he hardly mentioned or blamed any of the big oil companies, but "OBAMA".
He always brought the name Obama in to check his own presence of mind. One could not start to think on a television studio set; but that was what Romney was doing all the time, or so it seemed.
What he specifically failed to do, as he has refused in all his campaign speeches, was to be open about himself as a person. Many knew about his business connections, even more so than about his family; and how its members took patriotism, either seriously or as a matter of course. For none of his three sons has done any stretch of military service; and he himself has not boasted of any such experience. Incredible.
He had the chance to make known what he could do as president, instead of just being critical of Obama. On the whole, he did not go over as a person, who though leading in the delegation count in his party's nomination race, could be a viable and as knowledgeable a candidate as his campaign was portraying him to be.
To topple Obama, he needed more than his own personal fortune to back him up, or the PACs (Political Action Committees) that were supporting his candidacy and spending millions of dollars on media advertisement to push him to be the Republican Party nominee for the 2012 presidential election. He has to present himself as someone, who could really connect with people, both emotionally and physically.
He could be that person, but somehow, he did not appear to do so on the screen.
As such, his opponent, president Obama, if he Romney should win his party's nomination, would be farther away in the polls for him (Romney) to be any real threat to his (Obama's) presidency.
At the present moment the national poll figures stood at 50% to 44%, in favor of Obama; and that went to show that Romney has a lesser chance in November, if that trend continued. He would not be able to cause any kind of upset in the general election, as that could not occur in the slightest possible way, if he should trail behind that much.
To unseat the present occupant of the Oval Office would take a great deal of effort. However, no; not with his (Romney's) low key performance on the media yesterday; Sunday, March 18, 2021.
Perhaps, it was prudent of him to be cagey, as party echelon and establishment were looking in to make sure that he was not cocky or impatient to pour on his accomplishments as a Wall Street executive, and also flaunting his 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics role.
They have heard him repeat that ever so often; and so has the whole country, and people were becoming immune to those statements.
He would have sounded too monotonous, and they (party chiefs) would have hated that; and so would potential voters and sympathizers, who have heard him tout those achievements too many times on every occasion the opportunity offered itself.
His rivals in the party's nomination race would change their statements from time to time, and why did he not do just that as well.
In a nutshell, Romney was not all that impressive; at least, not as far as many viewers were concerned. They visualized that a president, or even an aspiring one, should speak with much conviction; and he should resemble a president always, and not even just for most of the time.
That was not what they saw happening yesterday, Sunday, on Fox News channel.
His appearance on one of Sunday TV programs; and it is the one, which many think is the most popular, that happens to be the venue, where he is given the chance to tell viewers who he is and what he stands for, politically, socially and, of course, economically.
On the first and second categories, he chose to say nothing or answered the questions that were put to him, each in a sporadic manner or not in satisfactory detail; and he seemed confused at times.
In other words, he was not very clear with his responses on conservative principles; whereas on the third one, he condemned the other candidates, who were running in the Republican Party race with him as mediocre or low level economic candidates.
"They have spent their lives in Washington politics, and they have no experience, when it comes to a strong economic policy." he said. "I have spent my life in the corporate world, and so I have what it takes," he added. (Paraphrasing Romney).
He happened to be the "giant" economic strategists among his colleagues, and therefore the nomination was just some sort of a formality, as he would get it anyway.
"I intend to win; I intend to be the nominee," he said that repeatedly.
Apart from that, the segment was bland, lifeless to a point and uneventful, as he kept being as repetitive as he has been on the campaign trail and saying nothing to sway one opinion or another to specifically indicate where he stood on it or the other. He did the same on issue after issue.
He was almost caught flip-flopping on Education, when the interviewer, Bret Baier of Fox News Special Report, asked that his rival Nick Santorum was critical of his philosophy on a Bush law known as "No child left behind". "What is your response?" Baier asked.
"I support that program; and I have supported it from its inception; but what I am concerned about is how the program is being manipulated. Teachers' unions are using their power to undermine the authority of parents in the educational system, and that is what I disagree with, regarding the program" he answered among others things.
Baier, however, was not as aggressive as Chris Wallace, the usual Fox News Sunday talk show host, and he missed several opportunities to question Romney about Usama Bin Laden, and how President Barack Obama has commanded the operations of the Navy Seal Unit, "Seal Team 6", which was responsible for locating him, and his eventual demise in a compound in Pakistan near a military base.
Could the president's handling of the situation from the White House be described as impressive?
Or, the contribution of the president to the Libyan insurgency and the final ouster of Gadhafi by the United States and its NATO allies, in which there was not a single American military casualty. What was his (Romney's) comment on that?
Those were the type of questions that would have set Romney thinking.
Back at home, he was hitting on Obama's energy policy; and said that the price of gas was going up, showing that such a policy, if there was any, was almost non-existent.
"People, especially women, driving their children to school, and others going to and from work were feeling the pinch of gasoline prices; and that is unacceptable," he emphasized.
He, Romney, might have hinted or given the impression that he had an energy plan; and there too, he avoided elaborating on it.
Like his political party cohorts, such as Gingrich, who has been harping on gas prices, and would bring the price of unleaded gas down to $2.50 a gallon, he (Romney) would not suggest any such ideas, but he hardly mentioned or blamed any of the big oil companies, but "OBAMA".
He always brought the name Obama in to check his own presence of mind. One could not start to think on a television studio set; but that was what Romney was doing all the time, or so it seemed.
What he specifically failed to do, as he has refused in all his campaign speeches, was to be open about himself as a person. Many knew about his business connections, even more so than about his family; and how its members took patriotism, either seriously or as a matter of course. For none of his three sons has done any stretch of military service; and he himself has not boasted of any such experience. Incredible.
He had the chance to make known what he could do as president, instead of just being critical of Obama. On the whole, he did not go over as a person, who though leading in the delegation count in his party's nomination race, could be a viable and as knowledgeable a candidate as his campaign was portraying him to be.
To topple Obama, he needed more than his own personal fortune to back him up, or the PACs (Political Action Committees) that were supporting his candidacy and spending millions of dollars on media advertisement to push him to be the Republican Party nominee for the 2012 presidential election. He has to present himself as someone, who could really connect with people, both emotionally and physically.
He could be that person, but somehow, he did not appear to do so on the screen.
As such, his opponent, president Obama, if he Romney should win his party's nomination, would be farther away in the polls for him (Romney) to be any real threat to his (Obama's) presidency.
At the present moment the national poll figures stood at 50% to 44%, in favor of Obama; and that went to show that Romney has a lesser chance in November, if that trend continued. He would not be able to cause any kind of upset in the general election, as that could not occur in the slightest possible way, if he should trail behind that much.
To unseat the present occupant of the Oval Office would take a great deal of effort. However, no; not with his (Romney's) low key performance on the media yesterday; Sunday, March 18, 2021.
Perhaps, it was prudent of him to be cagey, as party echelon and establishment were looking in to make sure that he was not cocky or impatient to pour on his accomplishments as a Wall Street executive, and also flaunting his 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics role.
They have heard him repeat that ever so often; and so has the whole country, and people were becoming immune to those statements.
He would have sounded too monotonous, and they (party chiefs) would have hated that; and so would potential voters and sympathizers, who have heard him tout those achievements too many times on every occasion the opportunity offered itself.
His rivals in the party's nomination race would change their statements from time to time, and why did he not do just that as well.
In a nutshell, Romney was not all that impressive; at least, not as far as many viewers were concerned. They visualized that a president, or even an aspiring one, should speak with much conviction; and he should resemble a president always, and not even just for most of the time.
That was not what they saw happening yesterday, Sunday, on Fox News channel.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
OBAMA AND GAS PRICES.
As President Obama looks to the future, with respect to the versatility of energy types, namely, gas, solar, wind, renewable energy sources, including natural gas and even hydro electric, his opponents, especially those in the Republican Party nomination race, are concentrating on the present.
He uses the innovation of the telephone and the television, that people without foresight have made fun of them initially, but now their use have benefited the advancement of human progress.
So will future generations adhere to new energy sources, rather than depending solely on crude oil to run industries and transportation systems. What oil can do, other sources can do too.
That will cause high oil and therefore gas prices, that go simultaneously with each other, to go down for motorists of all kinds, such as mothers driving their children to school and those going to and from work.
The United States will become free from foreign oil producers in the Middle East and other such places, where prices can be jacked up overnight to disturb the budgets of individuals and companies, and also to have sudden, unexpected and unwanted impact on the economy.
At present, 40% of the U.S. economy depends on oil from other countries, while domestic production makes up for the rest; however, the consumption is always high for the 60% to catch up with that kind of enormous capacity.
In other words, no matter how much drilling takes place, in national parks and offshore platforms, oil production at home cannot match the use of oil by the American consumer.
In fact, the U.S. alone uses one third of the world's oil production; and as there cannot be "baby drill, baby drill" all over the country, the dependence of oil from overseas will continue.
That will always be to the disadvantage of America, because countries like China and India are exploring the world market for oil, and they will buy it at prices determined by the producing countries and organizations like OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), over which no body or any outside government has any control.
"You want the oil, you have to buy it at our price," the producers will say. Competition between buyer countries becomes stiff, and that will make matters even worse for the price to go nowhere else but up.
Speculators and oil profiteers will add their share to the price on the world market, and with that the ordinary motorist will be left to bear the brunt of the whole process.
In energy crisis like the one the U.S. is facing now, consumers tend to kneel on the government; however, what makes that inconceivable is that the oil companies are hardly mentioned in the media.
Though, everybody knows that they (oil companies) are playing a large role in all that is going on, but they hardly get mentioned; or are they ever asked to reduce prices at the pump? Hmm! One tends to wonder why?
Can it be that the media and the oil companies are hand-in-glove and working against the consumer? These are harrowing questions, but who is to answer them?
On the other hand, alternate energy sources will solve the problem of gas prices, as nothing else can do so.
Obama's opponents are using them (gas prices) to beat him on the head, when they even know that he is doing the right thing, by looking down into the future and telling consumers that there is a way out of the whole mess. They are only interested in making the blame to be on him. Yet, is that fair?
You be the judge.
He uses the innovation of the telephone and the television, that people without foresight have made fun of them initially, but now their use have benefited the advancement of human progress.
So will future generations adhere to new energy sources, rather than depending solely on crude oil to run industries and transportation systems. What oil can do, other sources can do too.
That will cause high oil and therefore gas prices, that go simultaneously with each other, to go down for motorists of all kinds, such as mothers driving their children to school and those going to and from work.
The United States will become free from foreign oil producers in the Middle East and other such places, where prices can be jacked up overnight to disturb the budgets of individuals and companies, and also to have sudden, unexpected and unwanted impact on the economy.
At present, 40% of the U.S. economy depends on oil from other countries, while domestic production makes up for the rest; however, the consumption is always high for the 60% to catch up with that kind of enormous capacity.
In other words, no matter how much drilling takes place, in national parks and offshore platforms, oil production at home cannot match the use of oil by the American consumer.
In fact, the U.S. alone uses one third of the world's oil production; and as there cannot be "baby drill, baby drill" all over the country, the dependence of oil from overseas will continue.
That will always be to the disadvantage of America, because countries like China and India are exploring the world market for oil, and they will buy it at prices determined by the producing countries and organizations like OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), over which no body or any outside government has any control.
"You want the oil, you have to buy it at our price," the producers will say. Competition between buyer countries becomes stiff, and that will make matters even worse for the price to go nowhere else but up.
Speculators and oil profiteers will add their share to the price on the world market, and with that the ordinary motorist will be left to bear the brunt of the whole process.
In energy crisis like the one the U.S. is facing now, consumers tend to kneel on the government; however, what makes that inconceivable is that the oil companies are hardly mentioned in the media.
Though, everybody knows that they (oil companies) are playing a large role in all that is going on, but they hardly get mentioned; or are they ever asked to reduce prices at the pump? Hmm! One tends to wonder why?
Can it be that the media and the oil companies are hand-in-glove and working against the consumer? These are harrowing questions, but who is to answer them?
On the other hand, alternate energy sources will solve the problem of gas prices, as nothing else can do so.
Obama's opponents are using them (gas prices) to beat him on the head, when they even know that he is doing the right thing, by looking down into the future and telling consumers that there is a way out of the whole mess. They are only interested in making the blame to be on him. Yet, is that fair?
You be the judge.
Friday, March 16, 2012
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE & THE STATES.
Statehood must have its rules, and one of them should be that a state must conform to using the English language as its main official dialect.
There would be other languages that could be used to interpret the English language, but that would be as far as they could go; otherwise doing business or dealing with legal procedures would not only be difficult, but far too expensive to the detriment of the state.
I of all people digress to encourage former Senator Santorum to continue with his campaign strategy that, if Puerto Rico would become a part of the United States, as a state, then the English language must be adopted as a qualifying requisition or requirement.
It was like having to undertake or go through any kind of transaction in Mexico, one was liable to use the local language of that state, which should be Spanish. There would be no way that one could go around that, or it would create problems for one.
The U.S. has been an English speaking country for more that 200 years, and it should have made that language mandatory or even compulsory in all 50 states.
However, as the states were not totally dependent on federal law, in terms of using a particular language, it (English) has not been classified as "official" by the Federal government.
Yet, not most, but all the states conduct any type of business using the English language; the reason being that, though there were definite boundaries of each state, they were united as one single nation.
It would also be stupid for the states to make a choice of their own in languages; then what would be the use and meaning of the term "The United States"? In what manner would they (states) be united, if they were speaking or using different languages to port or import official deliberations? The confusion of such a situation would be phenomenal, and the cost of it would be too high, if not unreasonably staggering, for translation from one state to another.
The other candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race, like Romney, would want to make the issue a "hot potato", for political reasons; though they knew that the most sensible thing to do was to support the Island of Puerto Rico to embrace the English language, if it really wanted to be a U.S. entity.
For having a language that was contrary to the one used by all the other states would be unimaginable on several fronts. For example, would the governor there be speaking a different language at the Conference of U.S. governors? Or would he need a translator when visiting the other states?
The U.S. would be proud to have the Island joining the union, and so it must adapt its (union's) practices, and not the other way around. It could keep its culture to differentiate itself from other states, but the people there must realize that to be a true American, one must be able to speak and understand the English language.
For convenience sake, the people there could use their own native dialect, as in Hawaii, under or in social circumstances; but for them to be part of the U.S. they must learn to do what all the other states were doing; and that should be familiarizing themselves with or to formally making "English" their main language.
It (English language) symbolized unity for all Americans.
There would be other languages that could be used to interpret the English language, but that would be as far as they could go; otherwise doing business or dealing with legal procedures would not only be difficult, but far too expensive to the detriment of the state.
I of all people digress to encourage former Senator Santorum to continue with his campaign strategy that, if Puerto Rico would become a part of the United States, as a state, then the English language must be adopted as a qualifying requisition or requirement.
It was like having to undertake or go through any kind of transaction in Mexico, one was liable to use the local language of that state, which should be Spanish. There would be no way that one could go around that, or it would create problems for one.
The U.S. has been an English speaking country for more that 200 years, and it should have made that language mandatory or even compulsory in all 50 states.
However, as the states were not totally dependent on federal law, in terms of using a particular language, it (English) has not been classified as "official" by the Federal government.
Yet, not most, but all the states conduct any type of business using the English language; the reason being that, though there were definite boundaries of each state, they were united as one single nation.
It would also be stupid for the states to make a choice of their own in languages; then what would be the use and meaning of the term "The United States"? In what manner would they (states) be united, if they were speaking or using different languages to port or import official deliberations? The confusion of such a situation would be phenomenal, and the cost of it would be too high, if not unreasonably staggering, for translation from one state to another.
The other candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race, like Romney, would want to make the issue a "hot potato", for political reasons; though they knew that the most sensible thing to do was to support the Island of Puerto Rico to embrace the English language, if it really wanted to be a U.S. entity.
For having a language that was contrary to the one used by all the other states would be unimaginable on several fronts. For example, would the governor there be speaking a different language at the Conference of U.S. governors? Or would he need a translator when visiting the other states?
The U.S. would be proud to have the Island joining the union, and so it must adapt its (union's) practices, and not the other way around. It could keep its culture to differentiate itself from other states, but the people there must realize that to be a true American, one must be able to speak and understand the English language.
For convenience sake, the people there could use their own native dialect, as in Hawaii, under or in social circumstances; but for them to be part of the U.S. they must learn to do what all the other states were doing; and that should be familiarizing themselves with or to formally making "English" their main language.
It (English language) symbolized unity for all Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)