4 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/12/05 12:00pm)
Perhaps no issue has polarized our country throughout the past decades as much as a woman's right to perform an abortion.
Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down on January 22, 1973, conservatives and religious activists have been strategizing on how to have the decision reversed, and liberals and pro-choice advocates have been fighting to protect it. Considering, however, that it has been more than 30 years since the ruling was decided, perhaps it is time to accept the decision as precedent and move on to subjects more relevant to the times.
The issue of doctor-assisted suicide is currently on the dockets and is providing a glimpse into the future of Chief Justice John Roberts' court. At stake in this issue is more than simply an individual's right to die in New Jersey, but whether the current court will be more in favor of the states or federal governments' rights to govern the decision.
Expect to see other relevant issues in the years to come. Will the Fed's usurp the numerous states that have allowed the use of medicinal marijuana? What limitations may be placed upon the United States' right to torture prisoners? What, if any, rights do those whom we capture and suspect of terrorism involvement have?
All of these issues have a fundamental impact on the lives we as Americans live every day. While the issue of abortion certainly impassions those on both sides, it could well be considered a dead topic.
(04/13/05 12:00pm)
The United Nations needs help - badly. It needs some tough love and serious reform. John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to the post of United States Ambassador to the United Nations, is just the man to deliver that message.
The United Nations has been plagued with troubles. There is the Oil for Food scandal where it is alleged that upward of $20 billon was siphoned off the program set up to aid the people of Iraq during Saddam's brutal rule. The money was used to bribe U.N. officials, people in high posts of foreign governments, including that of France, and even Kofi Annan's son, Kojo. There is the legacy of inaction during the genocide in Rwanda and the ongoing genocide in Darfur. And, without American action in Bosnia and Kosovo, it is likely that the United Nations would have done nothing but deliberated and issued condemnations while genocides occurred there.
John Bolton has been blunt and harsh in his criticism of the United Nations. He has said that, "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a difference" and that, "The U.N. should be used when and where we choose to use it to advance American national interests, not to validate academic theories and abstract models. But the U.N. is only a tool, not a theology. It is one of several options we have, and it is certainly not invariably the most important one."
In addressing the many faults of the United Nations, Bolton will seek not to destroy the organization, but to strengthen it. America has for some time sought to reform the Security Council, which reflects the balance of power circa 1945. Germany, India, Japan, and Brazil all deserve permanent membership. The United Nations should also end the obscene practice of having such countries as Libya chair the human rights commission. At the secretariat level, Kofi Annan should hire staffers based on merit, not nationality. There are undoubtedly other initiatives that Bolton will likely seek, but the end goal of reforming the United Nations should be that if the secretary building lost 10 stories, it would make a difference.
Appointing Bolton is a reflection of Bush's belief that the United Nations is ineffective and needs change. Although he has been confirmed for high government positions four times before and served in those posts with distinction during three administrations untainted by scandal, he faces serious resistance from Senate democrats and liberal Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee.
The Senate should confirm Bolton quickly so he can get to work on the daunting task of reforming the United Nations. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
(03/16/05 12:00pm)
In the wake of President Bush's re-election last November, the Republicans have been gathering forces, preparing Supreme Court nominations, Social Security reform and a potential move to reshape the tax code. During this time, the Democrats have seemed like a ship without a captain. They have initially promoted reconciliation and compromise with the Republican congressional majority ... and then threatened to habitually use the filibuster rule to block countless bills and higher court nominees. Amid this muddle and indirection, it was only inevitable that one member of the party leadership would crack and do something incredibly foolish.
Senator Harry Reid did such a deed last week, when he took aim at an improbable target-outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. On CNN's "Inside Politics," Reid called the Chairman "one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington." Reid went on to cite his historical opposition to the Chairman.
What spurred this somewhat strange ad hominem? Last week, Greenspan testified that Congress should deal with the problems facing Medicare and Social Security. Greenspan did not give a ringing endorsement of administration proposals-in fact, he cautiously supported private Social Security accounts while warning the government not to finance them through massive borrowing, the exact same type of guarded support that some moderate Democrats have given to the Bush plan. Greenspan has made similar statements in the past, most notably in testimony he made during the Clinton administration supporting various Clinton fiscal policies. This time, however, he chose to encourage movement on these sensitive issues at the very same time that Democratic congressmen seek to slow the lawmaking process and prevent the Republican majority from accomplishing much of anything. Greenspan's true sin was exposing a desire for inaction-for a maintaining of the status quo, on the part of the Democratic leadership, who seek to grind Congress to a halt until mid-term elections. Ever since the younger Bush's election, the "Maestro" image of Greenspan has become pass?, and revisionist bashing has become all the rage. With Greenspan serving a lame-duck term as he plans his retirement, he is an easy target for the frustrations of the left, as his position prevents him from defending himself.
There is not enough room here to debate Greenspan's performance as Fed chairman, but one thing is clear-over his five terms, he has received nearly universal praise for acting as the face of American economic policy as the U.S. economy enjoyed record economic and productivity growth amid extremely low inflation. The credit for these accomplishments should not fall entirely on Greenspan, but one should not fail to acknowledge his work. Given his performance in this critical role, and his salary (approximately $172,000 per year, comparable to that of a minor television performer), one could easily say that he is the most underpaid working actor in the country. Give the man a break.
Steve Viola
(03/02/05 12:00pm)
Many successful politicians possess the oratorical skill and charismatic presence to convince the citizenry that up is down, down is up, light is darkness and darkness light.
The skilled politico makes the electorate always believe he is their chum, even when they are being played for chumps
Bush's proposal to divert some Social Security funding into private accounts will mean the program's inevitable financial drain will be speeded up, not reversed.
Even as our president organizes rallies across the United States to urge privatization, Bush refuses to raise wage caps on the payroll tax or regulate pharmaceutical-industry prices, two methods of strengthening Social Security.
President Bush's tax-cut-and-spend philosophy is significantly lowering our economic status. The euro is rapidly replacing the dollar as the international currency of choice.
We have been blessed that Europe (yes, "Old" Europe), Japan and China continue to purchase billions of dollars of U.S. Treasury bonds and notes. The sale of this U.S. Treasury debt has kept the federal government solvent during Bush's presidency. If or when foreign nations stop buying the bonds, the United States will be in critical fiscal trouble.
Through his mammoth deficit spending and the giant behemoth of national debt that he is creating, Bush is directly causing a much bigger financial debacle for the United States in a far shorter time than Social Security will experience.
Bush and his Capitol cadres are running - ruining - our nation into cataclysmic debt. We are in a devastatingly expensive war launched by the United States against Iraq, yet where are the tax increases needed to pay for the military and infrastructure costs of this war?
Bush keeps borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to operate the federal government while simultaneously boasting about cutting taxes.
But it's we citizens who must pay back every dollar owed in the national debt, including trillions of dollars worth of interest payments - trillions of dollars that otherwise could have been kept in our wallets, and in the wallets of generations of Americans not yet born.
Earnest and endearingly sincere, the president warns the nation of Social Security's eventual shortfall. Yet Bush's privatization plan does nothing to add revenues into Social Security. While his supporters praise Bush for his single-mindedness, this president is blindingly incapable of recognizing his own failed fiscal policy.
The president's economic perception is akin to a credit-card user who spends far beyond what he could ever possibly pay back, and yet keeps buying more and more with plastic cards, oblivious to the consequences.
These powerful elected officials must recognize when up is up, and down is down. If Bush has his way, then we collectively will experience a long fall down.