Bernanke’s latest outlook on the economy is cause for hope for all Americans. Bernanke predicts that the Fed will actually start to make money on the billions of dollars that it has pumped into federal bailouts over the past years. It is important to note that this does not include the treasury TARP money. The TARP is actually expected to lose money. This is good news for the fed as many Americans have been doubting the effectiveness of the bailout plans. The article also discusses the debt owed from AIG and while the company has yet to start paying cash back for these debts the fed has obtained several assets from the company that they intend to hold to sell when the market price for the assets is better. Bernanke forecast for the coming year is that the economy will begin to pick up very slowly. However the country will still be rocked by unemployment as we still face some considerable challenges. Hopefully some of us can find the means to hang around the campus a little longer until Bernanke tells us its safe to come out and look for a job.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/07/news/economy/bernanke_speech/index.htm?cnn=yes
Monday, December 7, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Odinga, people versus environment-The case of Mau forest
The Prime Minister of Kenya is in trouble with a section of legislators in the parliament due to his efforts to conserve Mau forest. Prime Minister Raila Odinga argues that people who live in Mau forest should be evicted because the forest is a water tower which should be conserved. He accuse the people of engaging in illegal activities like logging.
On the other hand, legislators mainly from the Rift Valley province of Kenya where the forest is, led by Agriculture minister William Ruto, argues that the PM has turned against people who voted for him. The legilators argue that by evicting people and making them homeless in their own country, the PM is going against human rights. But the PM defends himself by saying that the eviction will be done in a "humane manner." That is where the main controversy comes in. The legislators opposed to the PM's move argue that their is nothing like a "human eveiction." They challenge the PM that if he thinks he is humane, then he should opt for compensation, or resettlement of people in Mau forest, and not eviction. They further argue that the PM is using the Mau forest case for political mileage, by painting a picture of himself to the international community as being environmental conscious. They accuse the PM of subjecting his fellow Kenyans to suffering by not providing them with alternative land, just because he wants to look good to the international community.
The PM on the other hand further defends himself that people who accuse him are the ones who are political opportunists out to misappropriate facts. He argues that the decision to evict people from the Mau forest was reached by the Kenyan government, which he and his critics serves. He wonders why his critics did not challenge the decision when it was agreed up on in the Parliament of Kenya. The PM vows to forge a head with the mission of conserving Mau forest, even if it means at the expense of his political career. He argues that if the initiative will make him to be unpopular to voters to the extent of not being voted in again, then he is ready to go home and bake and sell mandazi (be a pizza deliverer).
The PM engages a form of apologia called differentiation. He separates facts when he says that the decision to conserve Mau forest "was reached by the government of Kenya." It is also factual for him to wonder why his critics did not challenge the decision in the parliament of Kenya where it was discussed and agreed up on, and yet they were present.
But his critics argue that the method he is using is not what was agreed upon. They argue that it was resolved that the people be provided with alternative land, and not to be evicted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfGX--77JM
On the other hand, legislators mainly from the Rift Valley province of Kenya where the forest is, led by Agriculture minister William Ruto, argues that the PM has turned against people who voted for him. The legilators argue that by evicting people and making them homeless in their own country, the PM is going against human rights. But the PM defends himself by saying that the eviction will be done in a "humane manner." That is where the main controversy comes in. The legislators opposed to the PM's move argue that their is nothing like a "human eveiction." They challenge the PM that if he thinks he is humane, then he should opt for compensation, or resettlement of people in Mau forest, and not eviction. They further argue that the PM is using the Mau forest case for political mileage, by painting a picture of himself to the international community as being environmental conscious. They accuse the PM of subjecting his fellow Kenyans to suffering by not providing them with alternative land, just because he wants to look good to the international community.
The PM on the other hand further defends himself that people who accuse him are the ones who are political opportunists out to misappropriate facts. He argues that the decision to evict people from the Mau forest was reached by the Kenyan government, which he and his critics serves. He wonders why his critics did not challenge the decision when it was agreed up on in the Parliament of Kenya. The PM vows to forge a head with the mission of conserving Mau forest, even if it means at the expense of his political career. He argues that if the initiative will make him to be unpopular to voters to the extent of not being voted in again, then he is ready to go home and bake and sell mandazi (be a pizza deliverer).
The PM engages a form of apologia called differentiation. He separates facts when he says that the decision to conserve Mau forest "was reached by the government of Kenya." It is also factual for him to wonder why his critics did not challenge the decision in the parliament of Kenya where it was discussed and agreed up on, and yet they were present.
But his critics argue that the method he is using is not what was agreed upon. They argue that it was resolved that the people be provided with alternative land, and not to be evicted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfGX--77JM
Friday, December 4, 2009
Be aware-Angry Americans in the streets
Research confirms that there are angriest Americans out there that you need to watch out. A study conducted by the University of Toronto scholar Scott Schieman reveals that people with less education are easily upset than the more educated. Schieman also identifies two other groups you need to watch out because they can easily loose temper; the young, and those with kids at home. So next time you want to engage in an argument with someone, you may first of all need to know if the person has kids at home.:)
The study involved 1,800 Americans aged 18 and older. Schieman asked the participants how and when they feel pissed off. According to the researcher, people under age 30 are most likely to be angered than people above 30. He attributes the situation to time pressures, economic hardships, and interpersonal conflicts at the workplace. So next next time you want to rock a boat of an under 30, you may consider to wait until the economy gets better. :)
Schieman argues that people with less education are not out of the hook either. Such people have the highest per capita anger, which they can easily utilize to knock off your nose when you disrupt their emotional equilibrium. According to the researcher, self control is proportionally dependent on high education. However, before you feel guilty of your anger Schieman has good news for you. Anger is normal, and you can actually live longer if you express it. So don't hold onto it baby, just let it out. :)
The research is important because it relates to Lloyd F. Bitzer (1966) lecture, The Rhetorical Situation, which he gave at Cornell University and at the University of Washington, in the years 1966 and 1967 respectivelly. The exigence in Schieman's research is less education, kids, time pressures, and economic hardships. The audience are professors, students, and even all Americans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091203/sc_livescience/studyrevealstheangriestamericans
The study involved 1,800 Americans aged 18 and older. Schieman asked the participants how and when they feel pissed off. According to the researcher, people under age 30 are most likely to be angered than people above 30. He attributes the situation to time pressures, economic hardships, and interpersonal conflicts at the workplace. So next next time you want to rock a boat of an under 30, you may consider to wait until the economy gets better. :)
Schieman argues that people with less education are not out of the hook either. Such people have the highest per capita anger, which they can easily utilize to knock off your nose when you disrupt their emotional equilibrium. According to the researcher, self control is proportionally dependent on high education. However, before you feel guilty of your anger Schieman has good news for you. Anger is normal, and you can actually live longer if you express it. So don't hold onto it baby, just let it out. :)
The research is important because it relates to Lloyd F. Bitzer (1966) lecture, The Rhetorical Situation, which he gave at Cornell University and at the University of Washington, in the years 1966 and 1967 respectivelly. The exigence in Schieman's research is less education, kids, time pressures, and economic hardships. The audience are professors, students, and even all Americans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091203/sc_livescience/studyrevealstheangriestamericans
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Rhymes with - Shirty Shousand Sore Sroops
It’s December now and everyone is getting ready for the holiday season. We’re all stuffed with turkey and plotting how to study just enough to ride out that C for the final; we’re deploying 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and setting up the tree. What, you hadn’t heard about that? Yup, the plan is to have 30,000 more troops on the ground by the summer. First deployment have already been notified and will be leaving in just a couple weeks.
The article discusses Obama changes to the military plans in that we will be focusing more in the South of Afghanistan. We are reminded that this will be no easy task. Afghanistan is completely void of any sea ports and features very little credible infrastructure for which to transport Troops and supplies. One officer comments on the situations, “Logistically, we weren't prepared for this surge…..problem is it's getting there a little bit after the troop surge, when it should have been vice versa; should have been support first, or at the same time at least”. This officer is responding to the supplies lagging far behind the arrival of the troops as there are few paved roads to travel outside of the major cities.
Also posing problems is a bit of a housing issue. There is no room to put an additional 30k troops right now. Local contractors have been hired to start building more buildings but reliable work is harder to come by than most have anticipated. If getting the troops there is going to be this big of a problem then I can only wonder what hardships face us when we arrive. Hopefully this surge will bring about a “Mission Accomplished!!” speech from the heart of Kabul.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tiger Tiger Woods Ya'll!
To honor Ray and his recent interview with channel 19 I’ve decided to write about Tiger Woods and his recent incident. The story that I read came from CNN. It didn’t mention anything about the alleged adultery as I don’t think that is confirmed. Instead the story focused more on the trouble that Woods’ wife, Elin now faces. The author of the story had talked to wives of other pro athletes who discussed the difficulties of being thrust into a life of fame. The lens through which people judge starts to magnify when placed in the realm of celebrities. There can be many similarities in the lives of pro athlete spouses and spouses of famed politicians and congressman. The article discusses how these women are the main support net for their husbands and have to be willing to give up a lot, much like politicians. The lives of politicians and athletes mean having your every act accounted for and having personal matters be judged on a national scale. I wonder if this is the right thing to do with our politicians as well. While they do represent us in high office and are supposed to be members of the moral majority, does that still mean we should demand perfection of them?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/12/02/tiger.professional.athletes.wives/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/12/02/tiger.professional.athletes.wives/index.html
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Pardon Mike Huckabee
One of the major potential Republican presidential candidates in 2008 has made the news lately in a way that may dampen his hopes for 2012. Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, in 1990, granted clemency to Maurice Clemmons, who had been sentenced to 108 years in prison at the age of 17. By reducing his sentence to merely 47 years, Huckabee allowed Clemmons to qualify for parole, which he recieved in 2000. Recently, Clemmons was suspected of gunning down four police officers, and was later shot and killed by a Seattle police officer.
Depending on how Governor Huckabee reacts to this, and whether or not he is successful in not looking completely negligent in terms of granting this clemency, it may end up hurting his chances should he decide to run for President again. If he does, you can certainly expect this to be brought up by his opponents in the Republican primary in 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/maurice-clemmons-killed-s_n_374951.html
Depending on how Governor Huckabee reacts to this, and whether or not he is successful in not looking completely negligent in terms of granting this clemency, it may end up hurting his chances should he decide to run for President again. If he does, you can certainly expect this to be brought up by his opponents in the Republican primary in 2012.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/maurice-clemmons-killed-s_n_374951.html
Monday, November 30, 2009
Obama and Afghan
Once again there is a situation where the president is trying to walk the line between republicans and democrates. The president is expected to unveil his long awaited plan about the Afghan war. When he shows his plan it is expected that many people in his own party will object. It's speculated that Obama is going to increase the troops in Afghanistan. Something that many democrates are not happy about.
CNN's Ed Rollins said "Democrats have to be convinced. The president's party is certainly very divided on this issue. I think he'll have the Republican support he needs, but at the end of day, if this is not a bipartisan effort, long-term, they won't get the resources and the funding to make it work," he said.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned last week, "The cost of the war has been a sticking point for Democrats. , "There is serious unrest in our caucus about, 'Can we afford this war?' "
I think it is interesting to hear both sides. For months republicans have ripped the president and his decisions but now they are staying quiet. On the other hand democrates that approved the billion dollar stimulus packages think the war will cost to "much." It is funny to look at the two parties push their agendas depending on their beliefs in the subject. They will spend billions of dollars on stimulus bills but fear the war would cost to much. Yet republicans sit quiet about the costs. President Obama certainly has a tough sell.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/30/afghan.strategy.backlash/index.html
CNN's Ed Rollins said "Democrats have to be convinced. The president's party is certainly very divided on this issue. I think he'll have the Republican support he needs, but at the end of day, if this is not a bipartisan effort, long-term, they won't get the resources and the funding to make it work," he said.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi cautioned last week, "The cost of the war has been a sticking point for Democrats. , "There is serious unrest in our caucus about, 'Can we afford this war?' "
I think it is interesting to hear both sides. For months republicans have ripped the president and his decisions but now they are staying quiet. On the other hand democrates that approved the billion dollar stimulus packages think the war will cost to "much." It is funny to look at the two parties push their agendas depending on their beliefs in the subject. They will spend billions of dollars on stimulus bills but fear the war would cost to much. Yet republicans sit quiet about the costs. President Obama certainly has a tough sell.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/30/afghan.strategy.backlash/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)