by Audrey
This is a follow up to yesterday's blog. I received an email that reprimanded me and has prompted me to defend my words.
The ultimate point of the blog yesterday was: "DO NOT BE GULLIBLE AND BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU READ OR HEAR."
Yesterday's blog was not primarily about McChrystal and his resignation. It was about the credibility of a writer, Michael Hastinhgs, who admits to devious methods of obtaining stories, being biased in his journalism, and has questionable moral values in life. It has blown my mind that a "writer" such as Hastings could bring down a man who graduated from West Point in 1976 and has spent his entire life in service to our country, fighting for our freedom. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.
When I was growing up and I questioned something I heard or read, my mother would always respond, "Consider the source."
The email that prompted this blog was from a friend who holds a pretty high office in the government. Does she have bosses over her that are perfect? Is it a perfectly managed department? As I said, we are friends. What if I attempted to get closer to her, to the point that she might share some intimate details about her job because she thought she could trust me. What if I questioned some of the people that work with her and their feelings about the department? What if I deviously made it my business to solicit complaints from her and her peers about their superiors, thinking she/they were just "talking off the cuff" about some imperfections in the department.
What if I wrote a magazine article, naming her and her department, and slammed her with what I had learned. What if I creatively "spun" the information to make her and the others look as bad as possible. What if I wrote a letter to her immediate superior and related all of the information that I had gathered about her and her coharts? What if she were asked to resign based on what I had wrote about her? Would this be the proper way to handle the situation?
In such a situation, wouldn't an inquiry to ascertain the truth be in order? What if everything turned out to be the truth? Wouldn't a reprimand be in order instead of the resignation of such a valuable employee?
I repeat...maybe McChrystal needed to go...but I question how it came about. Apparently, the "pen is mightier than the sword" and that scares the heck out of me. While I am a blogger myself, the Internet is full of bloggers who deliberately lie and/or twist the truth and gullible people are drawn in by their rheortic.
Advice for the gullible: Writers are creative. Writers are capable of twisting the truth. Writers can be biased and slant the truth. Writers can outright lie about a person or a subject.
Please don't misunderstand me! I am not saying that all writers are capable of high jinks in journalism. Where would we be without writers? We would not know what was going on in the world. I am still niave enough to believe that most writers stick to the code of ethics of "truth in journalism" but I agree with my mother, "consider the source" when you are forming an opinion about something. In other words, use your brain/head for more than a "hat rack" which is another famous saying by my mother.
Michael Hastings may have cut his own throat in obtaining future interviews. If anyone is stupid enough to allow him to follow them around for an interview, they may get what they deserve.
This email friend suggested that I stay out of the workings of the government and contain my writings to the oil spill, which is practically at my front door since I live on Dauphin Island, Alabama. She will probably not like what I am about to say in the next blog concerning the oil spill.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
ABOUT MICHAEL HASTINGS - ROLLING STONE WRITER
by Audrey Phillips
Before I start this blog...I wonder how many people have actually read the article in Rolling Stone magazine about General McChrystal. That's one of the problems in our country today, starting with our Congressional and Senate leaders, everybody has an opinion but very few people read things for themselves.
I have read the article and have to admit that Michael Hastings is an exceptional writer. BUT...if Michael Hastings can write an article that costs a general his position, without a trial, then what high-profile person might be next? Think about it! Maybe McChrystal deserved to lose his job but he should have been allowed a congressional interview to decide the matter and not leave it up to Michael Hastings.
I am not sure if Hastings was out to get McChrystal or not, maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. What I do know is that writers can paint/draw mental profiles of people and make them believable to the reader. Whatever! The article pictured McChrystal as a "cocky" general who was definitely not a "yes man" to anyone. His biggest fault was to be in favor of the counterinsurgency. He thought the way to win the war was to try and win the hearts of the people. His controversial command to the troops to hold fire until they absolutely had to fire was due to one of his beliefs, "Kill one civilian and you create 10 enemies."
I think the real reason that he lost his job was the quote by someone at Rolling Stone (maybe Hastings?) who summarized the article in one sentence. Check it out in the heading of the article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
"Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."
Some people might think that I have become obsessed with the Michael Hastings article in Rolling Stone that cost McChrystal his job. Maybe I am. Maybe it is because I am a writer. My obsession with truthful writing started many years ago when the "rag" magazines began to write obvious lies to sell their product. I think it is absolutely ludicrous that they can sell that trash.
I don't think Hastings outright lied in his article but he has been quoted as saying that "unbiased journalistic reporting is a fallacy." Hasting's values are questionable. He admits to booking all of his hotels according to the quality of the pornographic material that is offered on their television service.
What I can't get through my thick head is why his article is taken by everyone as being 100% true, as if it was written by the apostle Paul who wrote most of the New Testament in the bible.
Michael Hastings did an interview with GQ magazine and stated how he obtains his stories. I searched the Internet and came up with some interesting information on Hastings. I now have mixed feelings about him.
This is only one excerpt/statement from that GQ interview by Hastings:
The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You’re probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you “build trust,” which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you’re supposed to fuck them over; and they’ll throw you under a bus without much thought, too. (I should say that personal friendships can actually develop, despite the odds.) For the top campaign officials and operatives, seduction and punishment of reporters is an art. Write this fluff piece now; we’ll give you something good later. No, don’t write it this way, write it that way. We’ll give you something good later.
For more regarding Michael Hastings, the Internet is full of articles. I found the following one to be an interesting critique of Hastings and written by Paul Wells:
http//www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/22/gen-mcchrystal-gets-hacked
This is the first URL that I have run across the has www2. (without a period between the w's and the 2) so it is not a mistake in my typing.
I feel as if the modern media journalists/commentators, whichever way they lean...either liberal or conservative, constantly attempt to brainwash (my words, not theirs) us into viewing people and situations from the same perspective as they view the world. We must be on guard for this manipulation and "keep an open mind" about things that dramatically affect us now and that will also have an impact on future generations. We are living in perilous times.
Before I start this blog...I wonder how many people have actually read the article in Rolling Stone magazine about General McChrystal. That's one of the problems in our country today, starting with our Congressional and Senate leaders, everybody has an opinion but very few people read things for themselves.
I have read the article and have to admit that Michael Hastings is an exceptional writer. BUT...if Michael Hastings can write an article that costs a general his position, without a trial, then what high-profile person might be next? Think about it! Maybe McChrystal deserved to lose his job but he should have been allowed a congressional interview to decide the matter and not leave it up to Michael Hastings.
I am not sure if Hastings was out to get McChrystal or not, maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. What I do know is that writers can paint/draw mental profiles of people and make them believable to the reader. Whatever! The article pictured McChrystal as a "cocky" general who was definitely not a "yes man" to anyone. His biggest fault was to be in favor of the counterinsurgency. He thought the way to win the war was to try and win the hearts of the people. His controversial command to the troops to hold fire until they absolutely had to fire was due to one of his beliefs, "Kill one civilian and you create 10 enemies."
I think the real reason that he lost his job was the quote by someone at Rolling Stone (maybe Hastings?) who summarized the article in one sentence. Check it out in the heading of the article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
"Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House."
Some people might think that I have become obsessed with the Michael Hastings article in Rolling Stone that cost McChrystal his job. Maybe I am. Maybe it is because I am a writer. My obsession with truthful writing started many years ago when the "rag" magazines began to write obvious lies to sell their product. I think it is absolutely ludicrous that they can sell that trash.
I don't think Hastings outright lied in his article but he has been quoted as saying that "unbiased journalistic reporting is a fallacy." Hasting's values are questionable. He admits to booking all of his hotels according to the quality of the pornographic material that is offered on their television service.
What I can't get through my thick head is why his article is taken by everyone as being 100% true, as if it was written by the apostle Paul who wrote most of the New Testament in the bible.
Michael Hastings did an interview with GQ magazine and stated how he obtains his stories. I searched the Internet and came up with some interesting information on Hastings. I now have mixed feelings about him.
This is only one excerpt/statement from that GQ interview by Hastings:
The dance with staffers is a perilous one. You’re probably not going to get much, if any, one-on-one time with the candidate, which means your sources of information are the people who work for him. So you pretend to be friendly and nonthreatening, and over time you “build trust,” which everybody involved knows is an illusion. If the time comes, if your editor calls for it, you’re supposed to fuck them over; and they’ll throw you under a bus without much thought, too. (I should say that personal friendships can actually develop, despite the odds.) For the top campaign officials and operatives, seduction and punishment of reporters is an art. Write this fluff piece now; we’ll give you something good later. No, don’t write it this way, write it that way. We’ll give you something good later.
For more regarding Michael Hastings, the Internet is full of articles. I found the following one to be an interesting critique of Hastings and written by Paul Wells:
http//www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/22/gen-mcchrystal-gets-hacked
This is the first URL that I have run across the has www2. (without a period between the w's and the 2) so it is not a mistake in my typing.
I feel as if the modern media journalists/commentators, whichever way they lean...either liberal or conservative, constantly attempt to brainwash (my words, not theirs) us into viewing people and situations from the same perspective as they view the world. We must be on guard for this manipulation and "keep an open mind" about things that dramatically affect us now and that will also have an impact on future generations. We are living in perilous times.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
MCCHRYSTAL RESIGNS
I find it very interesting that General McChrystal has lost his job over a magazine article written about him...especially when written by a Rolling Stone journalist.
I also find it interesting that he did not try to defend himself. Maybe he was just ready to "get the heck out of Dodge." Surely, sometime in the future, he will make some attempt to defend himself and his staff. People who know him well have a hard time believing all that is written in the article.
Bill O'Reilly commented on the subject. He said that Rolling Stone interviewed him one time and did a "hatchet job" on him. He is like me...he cannot believe that someone as high-ranking and powerful as General McChrystal could be brought down by a magazine article.
Shouldn't there have been a congressional investigation into the matter?
I also find it interesting that he did not try to defend himself. Maybe he was just ready to "get the heck out of Dodge." Surely, sometime in the future, he will make some attempt to defend himself and his staff. People who know him well have a hard time believing all that is written in the article.
Bill O'Reilly commented on the subject. He said that Rolling Stone interviewed him one time and did a "hatchet job" on him. He is like me...he cannot believe that someone as high-ranking and powerful as General McChrystal could be brought down by a magazine article.
Shouldn't there have been a congressional investigation into the matter?
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN TO MCCHRYSTAL?
by Audrey Phillips
My first thoughts when I heard about the problem with General McChrystal: Since he is actually in the "heat of battle" in the war, I am sure he has developed some very firm thoughts about how the war in Afghanistan should be run. His thoughts are apparently in direct conflict with Obama's ideas. Obama has never been actively involved in a war. My experience is that nobody truly understands a problem unless they are right in the middle of it or has had some experience in that area. Could this have any bearing on the problem?
After reading the Rolling Stone article: I am currently leaving my mind "open" for clarification regarding the outcome of this dilemma. Apparently McChrystal is a brilliant general but it is apparent that he used very poor judgment when he allowed Rolling Stone Magazine to interview him. In these current media times, I am a little paranoid about "truth in journalism" being strictly adhered to when writing articles about personal people, especially high-profile people. Maybe this article is 100% true and then again...maybe not.
Since America's basic foundation includes the right to "freedom of speech," does McChrystal have the same right while serving in the military? Is is all right to dis the administration in such a public manner? Another question to consider is whether the Rolling Stone journalist slanted the story somewhat, or a lot, to put McChrystal in a bad light? We have heard nothing from McChrystal that he denies anything in the story. Will he eventually deny some or all of the story?
If interested, the whole article can be found on URL:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
An excerpt that I "copied and pasted" from the Rolling Stone article:
The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority.
Is this a true portrait of the General McChrystal and his aides? Is this simply the journalist's creative attention-getting description of the general's staff? Would the general use the same words to describe his staff? Should McChrystal resign, be fired or should he continue to lead as a general?
My first thoughts when I heard about the problem with General McChrystal: Since he is actually in the "heat of battle" in the war, I am sure he has developed some very firm thoughts about how the war in Afghanistan should be run. His thoughts are apparently in direct conflict with Obama's ideas. Obama has never been actively involved in a war. My experience is that nobody truly understands a problem unless they are right in the middle of it or has had some experience in that area. Could this have any bearing on the problem?
After reading the Rolling Stone article: I am currently leaving my mind "open" for clarification regarding the outcome of this dilemma. Apparently McChrystal is a brilliant general but it is apparent that he used very poor judgment when he allowed Rolling Stone Magazine to interview him. In these current media times, I am a little paranoid about "truth in journalism" being strictly adhered to when writing articles about personal people, especially high-profile people. Maybe this article is 100% true and then again...maybe not.
Since America's basic foundation includes the right to "freedom of speech," does McChrystal have the same right while serving in the military? Is is all right to dis the administration in such a public manner? Another question to consider is whether the Rolling Stone journalist slanted the story somewhat, or a lot, to put McChrystal in a bad light? We have heard nothing from McChrystal that he denies anything in the story. Will he eventually deny some or all of the story?
If interested, the whole article can be found on URL:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0
An excerpt that I "copied and pasted" from the Rolling Stone article:
The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs. There's a former head of British Special Forces, two Navy Seals, an Afghan Special Forces commando, a lawyer, two fighter pilots and at least two dozen combat veterans and counterinsurgency experts. They jokingly refer to themselves as Team America, taking the name from the South Park-esque sendup of military cluelessness, and they pride themselves on their can-do attitude and their disdain for authority.
Is this a true portrait of the General McChrystal and his aides? Is this simply the journalist's creative attention-getting description of the general's staff? Would the general use the same words to describe his staff? Should McChrystal resign, be fired or should he continue to lead as a general?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A MUST READ FOR ALL AMERICANS!
The following was passed along to me by an email from a friend:
First...read the email and then check out the following URL's for more information regarding Dhimmitude:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp web posted June 4, 2010
Email reads:
Had never heard the word Dhimmitude, until now---Type it into Google and start reading…Pretty interesting. Note that Muslims and certain other religions are exempt from the Obamacare penalties and it is supported by law. We are surrendering from within! The boy is leading us right down the path to total control!
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam.
The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I John Smith, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"
I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it - quickly.
PS Have you heard about the summit Obama is holding this month in DC for the future Muslim business leaders in the US ? He wants to increase their ability to begin business opportunities in the US for the Muslim community!
First...read the email and then check out the following URL's for more information regarding Dhimmitude:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp web posted June 4, 2010
Email reads:
Had never heard the word Dhimmitude, until now---Type it into Google and start reading…Pretty interesting. Note that Muslims and certain other religions are exempt from the Obamacare penalties and it is supported by law. We are surrendering from within! The boy is leading us right down the path to total control!
Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to islam.
The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking" and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I John Smith, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude.
Dhimmitude serves two purposes: it enriches the muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?"
I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it - quickly.
PS Have you heard about the summit Obama is holding this month in DC for the future Muslim business leaders in the US ? He wants to increase their ability to begin business opportunities in the US for the Muslim community!
WHEN IS ILLEGAL REALLY ILLEGAL?
by Audrey Phillips
Note: Please read all the way to the bottom of this article before passing judgment on this subject.
The word illegal has taken on new meaning in recent years and the word is becoming rather ambiguous. When someone walks into a retail store and walks out with an item without paying for it, it is still clearly considered to be an illegal act. If you enter the United States illegally from Iran, it is considered to be an illegal act. BUT...when someone crosses the border from Mexico into the United States illegally, they are declared to be illegal aliens...but...is it really an illegal problem? Why isn't this illegal act considered to be a serious violation of our constitutional laws?
BECAUSE...there is too much emphasis placed on the good Mexicans who cross the border looking for work to support themselves and their families. They deserve our sympathy but nevertheless they are still illegal. Mexican criminals also cross the border and have invaded Arizona. The criminal aspect to the problem has been dramatically unreported/minimized by the national media.
The do gooders of the world say, "They just want to work." They ask, "Who else is going to do some of our lowly jobs? We need them to do the work that the lazy Americans will not undertake." How do they know this? In this depressed economy, there might be a lot of legal Americans willing to do these jobs and the unemployment rate might drop.
What do I mean by the term do gooders of the world? This is a group of people who do not "logically" analyze a given situation but "blindly" wants to help someone in need. I commend them for their misplaced compassionate concern...but is this a good thing or not? How can helping someone EVER be a bad thing? If helping someone in need creates a serious problem for someone else, then it might not be such a good thing.
The people of Arizona and other Americans are not against the Mexicans who work in the fields or the meat packing plants. The people of Arizona simply want to be able to gain some control over the CRIMINALS and other "bad guys" who are crossing the border, jeopardizing their safety and peaceful way of life.
It is said that more illegal aliens cross the border in Arizona than any other state. We have federal laws prohibiting their illegal entry. Why are the illegal aliens from Mexico given such a wide berth? Why is the Obama administration suing Arizona for the recent bill that was passed regarding this matter? This is a ludicrous action on the part of our government.
Eric Holder and others have screamed about the unfairness of the bill. When pinned down, he was forced to admit that he had not read the bill. What is it with the people who hold high offices in our government? They all have mega-degrees but it seems that nobody can read. That was the main reason for the outcry about the health care bill...it was almost impossible to find someone who had read it but yet they were hell bent on passing the bill.
What is this Arizona outcry really about? It is about the political elections coming up in November. The democrats do not want to alienate the Mexicans who are allowed to vote, knowing that most of them will vote for the democrats. That is it...plain and simple. There will be someone reading this who will immediately react in anger to this statement but I say that if people don't start using their "common sense" and the brains that the good Lord has given them...our country is headed for a meltdown.
I want to end this article by stating that a lot of my fellow Americans and myself feel sorry for the Mexican people and want to help them just as much as the do gooders of the world. We just think they need to come into our country legally. If all the money that is being spent on keeping them out of our country was spent on helping them get in here legally, this would be the "ultimate compassionate act of kindness."
Feel free to comment...whether positive or negative...
Note: Please read all the way to the bottom of this article before passing judgment on this subject.
The word illegal has taken on new meaning in recent years and the word is becoming rather ambiguous. When someone walks into a retail store and walks out with an item without paying for it, it is still clearly considered to be an illegal act. If you enter the United States illegally from Iran, it is considered to be an illegal act. BUT...when someone crosses the border from Mexico into the United States illegally, they are declared to be illegal aliens...but...is it really an illegal problem? Why isn't this illegal act considered to be a serious violation of our constitutional laws?
BECAUSE...there is too much emphasis placed on the good Mexicans who cross the border looking for work to support themselves and their families. They deserve our sympathy but nevertheless they are still illegal. Mexican criminals also cross the border and have invaded Arizona. The criminal aspect to the problem has been dramatically unreported/minimized by the national media.
The do gooders of the world say, "They just want to work." They ask, "Who else is going to do some of our lowly jobs? We need them to do the work that the lazy Americans will not undertake." How do they know this? In this depressed economy, there might be a lot of legal Americans willing to do these jobs and the unemployment rate might drop.
What do I mean by the term do gooders of the world? This is a group of people who do not "logically" analyze a given situation but "blindly" wants to help someone in need. I commend them for their misplaced compassionate concern...but is this a good thing or not? How can helping someone EVER be a bad thing? If helping someone in need creates a serious problem for someone else, then it might not be such a good thing.
The people of Arizona and other Americans are not against the Mexicans who work in the fields or the meat packing plants. The people of Arizona simply want to be able to gain some control over the CRIMINALS and other "bad guys" who are crossing the border, jeopardizing their safety and peaceful way of life.
It is said that more illegal aliens cross the border in Arizona than any other state. We have federal laws prohibiting their illegal entry. Why are the illegal aliens from Mexico given such a wide berth? Why is the Obama administration suing Arizona for the recent bill that was passed regarding this matter? This is a ludicrous action on the part of our government.
Eric Holder and others have screamed about the unfairness of the bill. When pinned down, he was forced to admit that he had not read the bill. What is it with the people who hold high offices in our government? They all have mega-degrees but it seems that nobody can read. That was the main reason for the outcry about the health care bill...it was almost impossible to find someone who had read it but yet they were hell bent on passing the bill.
What is this Arizona outcry really about? It is about the political elections coming up in November. The democrats do not want to alienate the Mexicans who are allowed to vote, knowing that most of them will vote for the democrats. That is it...plain and simple. There will be someone reading this who will immediately react in anger to this statement but I say that if people don't start using their "common sense" and the brains that the good Lord has given them...our country is headed for a meltdown.
I want to end this article by stating that a lot of my fellow Americans and myself feel sorry for the Mexican people and want to help them just as much as the do gooders of the world. We just think they need to come into our country legally. If all the money that is being spent on keeping them out of our country was spent on helping them get in here legally, this would be the "ultimate compassionate act of kindness."
Feel free to comment...whether positive or negative...
Sunday, June 20, 2010
WHAT SHOULD OBAMA DO ABOUT THE OIL SPILL?
Everyone knows that BP should be responsible for the oil spill. Anyone with a grain of sense would know that! But since they are not doing a good job, it seems to me that our president, Obama, should take the "action" necessary to minimize the damage to our beaches. His "pretty words" and promises "without action" are getting us nowhere.
He makes light of the disaster by saying that he cannot dive down and fix the hole and that he can't take a straw and suck up the oil. However, he travels to the gulf coast frequently, costing the taxpayers a load of cash for Airforce One and the Secret Service, and really accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done in his oval office. He thinks we are fooled into believing that he is really doing something.
What should he do? From the very beginning, he should have appointed someone in the administration to head up this disaster. All of our disasters have been management disasters in themselves! Katrina was a management disaster. We need a "disaster" plan, not only for this tragedy but for all the ones we are bound to have in the future. Someone in leadership, if not Obama himself, should have immediately met with British Petroleum and worked out a game plan as to who would be responsible for doing what in plugging the hole and cleaning up the mess. It should have been a "team effort" from the start in order to minimize the damage done to the Gulf Coast. Obama should have learned this in Leadership 101.
This leader should have been appointed to be ultimately responsible for everything and everyone involved in the disaster and not left in the hands of the Coast Guard. There are so many divisions of the government at work on the coast, with no definitive leader to guide them, they are bumping into each other's policies and procedures, causing unnecessary delays in getting necessary equipment and employees in place to do the clean up work. It is a beaurecratic mess!
Okay...so Obama did get 20 billion dollars set aside. That's fine and dandy but is that all he is going to actually do? He has a phone on his desk. He has access to the best minds in the world. From the beginning, within hours or days, he could have summoned up a multitude of people around the world that are experienced in oil disasters to come to our aid. Why hasn't he done that?
He keeps saying that he has done a lot. If he has, then shame on his public relations person and the media for withholding this information from the rest of us. We have only been presented with smoke and mirrors, as usual.
He makes light of the disaster by saying that he cannot dive down and fix the hole and that he can't take a straw and suck up the oil. However, he travels to the gulf coast frequently, costing the taxpayers a load of cash for Airforce One and the Secret Service, and really accomplishes nothing that couldn't be done in his oval office. He thinks we are fooled into believing that he is really doing something.
What should he do? From the very beginning, he should have appointed someone in the administration to head up this disaster. All of our disasters have been management disasters in themselves! Katrina was a management disaster. We need a "disaster" plan, not only for this tragedy but for all the ones we are bound to have in the future. Someone in leadership, if not Obama himself, should have immediately met with British Petroleum and worked out a game plan as to who would be responsible for doing what in plugging the hole and cleaning up the mess. It should have been a "team effort" from the start in order to minimize the damage done to the Gulf Coast. Obama should have learned this in Leadership 101.
This leader should have been appointed to be ultimately responsible for everything and everyone involved in the disaster and not left in the hands of the Coast Guard. There are so many divisions of the government at work on the coast, with no definitive leader to guide them, they are bumping into each other's policies and procedures, causing unnecessary delays in getting necessary equipment and employees in place to do the clean up work. It is a beaurecratic mess!
Okay...so Obama did get 20 billion dollars set aside. That's fine and dandy but is that all he is going to actually do? He has a phone on his desk. He has access to the best minds in the world. From the beginning, within hours or days, he could have summoned up a multitude of people around the world that are experienced in oil disasters to come to our aid. Why hasn't he done that?
He keeps saying that he has done a lot. If he has, then shame on his public relations person and the media for withholding this information from the rest of us. We have only been presented with smoke and mirrors, as usual.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
THE OIL SPILL
I live on Dauphin Island, Alabama. This tiny little island and surrounding areas have been greatly affected by the oil spill out in the gulf.
British Petroleum claims that they are doing everything they can to prevent the oil from coming ashore but we cannot see any evidence of that happening. The oil is coming ashore in sheets and in black, small rocks. I don't know who should get the credit but there are plenty of workers on the beach cleaning up the oil and placing it in white bags. This is better than nothing but we would prefer that it stays offshore.
Our local newpaper states today that another rig in the gulf is leaking oil, which was supposedly reported in April. Has anyone heard of this leak? This is a rig that is still standing in place. This leak is not supposed to be as bad as this latest one but it is adding to the problem of oil being dumped into the gulf.
Some people are still swimming in the contaminated gulf waters, even though tar balls are coming ashore. What I can't understand is why someone in the government does not test all of the gulf waters affected by the oil to see if it is safe for swimming. Surely, it is toxic and has the potential for making people sick, especially children.
Our little island has practically come to a standstill. Houses and condos are sitting empty from cancellations or lack of bookings. Businesses are suffering from lack of customers. All of us are worried and wonder when it will all end?
British Petroleum claims that they are doing everything they can to prevent the oil from coming ashore but we cannot see any evidence of that happening. The oil is coming ashore in sheets and in black, small rocks. I don't know who should get the credit but there are plenty of workers on the beach cleaning up the oil and placing it in white bags. This is better than nothing but we would prefer that it stays offshore.
Our local newpaper states today that another rig in the gulf is leaking oil, which was supposedly reported in April. Has anyone heard of this leak? This is a rig that is still standing in place. This leak is not supposed to be as bad as this latest one but it is adding to the problem of oil being dumped into the gulf.
Some people are still swimming in the contaminated gulf waters, even though tar balls are coming ashore. What I can't understand is why someone in the government does not test all of the gulf waters affected by the oil to see if it is safe for swimming. Surely, it is toxic and has the potential for making people sick, especially children.
Our little island has practically come to a standstill. Houses and condos are sitting empty from cancellations or lack of bookings. Businesses are suffering from lack of customers. All of us are worried and wonder when it will all end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)