Thursday, June 14, 2012

President Obama's Ohio speech was thorough.

What you see is what you get. He did what he always does, he puts forward the facts, sets priorities based in reality and maps out the path forward. 

I thought it was a great speech. It was not a stump speech if that was what everyone was looking for, and it may be there was so much enthusiasm at the rally he believed they deserved to hear it like it is and how it is going to be.

I liked it, enjoyed it and I believe in him. No doubt, no worry, we have a clear path forward to bring continued change to this country in education, energy, employment opportunity and economic growth. What does anyone want? 

Nothing new in Romney's Ohio Speech.

Same old rhetoric with no ideas. He is relying on exploitation of the USA's natural resources without regulation. 

The facts are plain, President Obama was able to place priorities on the coal industry and mountain top mining is prohibited where mine shafts can serve the same purpose. Regulating the coal industry to stop the raping of our forests, pollution of our air and water has put miners back to work. It isn't possible to remove coal with environmental responsible methods with earth movers, large backhoes and trucks the size of buildings. But, coal extraction is possible with skilled labor, safe conditions and good pay. President Obama did that. He put miners back to work, saved the air and water from pollution and safeguarded forests important to the people of West Virginia and the Appalachians. Romney will again remove the regulations, cause layoffs and again provide profiteering as the real way to make a living in the coal industry.

There is nothing new. Romney has no ideas. He has rhetoric and the exploitation of natural resources already depleted for future generations. We have alternatives and we need to be vigilant to moving those priorities forward. Romney will move them backward.

I believe the military is losing its perspective.

The USA military stated the national debt of this country was a problem for the them. The country is reducing that national debt and the military has had plenty of time to prepare for it. 

Now, I don't know why the military seems so upset about all this when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can't be specific about the outcome of the budget cuts to the military. I believe working on 'theory' is unbecoming the USA military. I am quite confident this can occur without severe disruption of our readiness.

Perhaps the military leaders need to remind themselves about how the USA participated in WW II. They might begin to appreciate readiness can happen FIRST within the infrastructure of our country and not just at our military bases.

In actuality, the USA military budget is greater than the sum of all other military spending on a global basis. I would think that was shameful, especially given the fact the country is still rebounding from the 2008 depression which was encouraged by the huge spending of military prowess in the eight years before.

When the USA says in diplomatic circles we advocate peace and democracy and doesn't reflect that in our overwhelming readiness then it doesn't carry much validity. I would hope standing down from overwhelming force enough to PROVE the USA is serious about peace and nuclear non-proliferation is far overdue!

And to the US Army that believes full page ads are necessary to thank the people of the USA, "You are welcome." But, in all honesty, the thanks is from the nation to those that pay the highest price to their country when and only when the time comes to defend this country's borders. Perhaps some of the Public Relations budgets need to be cut first, after all other departments of the government can't really afford NASCAR participation.

I appreciate the fact the USA military is a global enterprise that fights wars on foreign soil for whatever reasons politicians find handy, but, in all honesty we need to curtail that mess. And when it comes to drones patrolling within the USA borders that has to stop. If pictures of landscapes are necessary for the departments of the government it can be done from planes like it always has before. I don't consider domestic use of drones a prudent expense and quite frankly it is as hostile toward citizens as the size of the military budget is to the rest of the world. 

..."We can't yet (click here) say precisely how bad the damage would be, but it is clear that sequestration would risk hollowing out our force and reducing its military options available to the nation," Dempsey told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. "We would go from being unquestionably powerful everywhere to being less visibly globally and presenting less of an overmatch to our adversaries, and that would translate into a different deterrent calculus and potentially, therefore, increase the likelihood of conflict."...