Mountaintop Removal

The article on AlterNet entitled,” Americans in Appalachia are living in a State of Terror,” really was upsetting to me. It was a letter addressed to the President, begging for implementation of greater restrictions on mountaintop-removal permits- if not downright cessation of the practice. I must say, I too share a deep concern for Appalachian people who have had to sit back and watch the land disappear right before their very eyes.

My grandparent’s farm, which I remember as a bucolic paradise, was all but destroyed when a rock quarry opened up at the “head of the holler.” Fertile benches (the mountaineer’s word for flat ground partway up the hillside, but below the cliff line) that sustained my family for generations were rendered useless, as falling rock and debris rained down upon them. My uncle even had a large rock blown through the windshield of his new 4-wheel drive SUV- the result of a dynamite blast gone awry. As bad as this scenario is, imagine the added specter of toxic-waste sludge ponds literally “hanging over your head” (as the article pointed out is the case in West Virginia) that, if past history is any indicator, are capable of giving way at any time, with great loss of life from the resulting tide.

For President Obama, who campaigned against mountaintop removal as a method of coal extraction, to sit back and do nothing, now that he is in a position of power, is the absolute height of hypocrisy- especially given the fact that the very coal that fuels the White House is mined in this fashion. What utter inconsistency for both houses of Congress to argue over preserving the pristine beauty of the North Slope of Alaska (which admittedly has merit), while a whole region of this country-central Appalachia-is entirely written off and ruled unworthy of even a modicum of environmental protection! Furthermore, America has absolutely no credibility in preaching to other countries (especially third world) the merits of protecting the natural environment while this type of devastation is allowed to continue within our own borders.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/127877/americans_in_appalachia_are_living_in_a_st...

Investigating Bush's Crimes?

In an article that appeared in The Nation entitled Investigating Bush’s Crimes, the author reflected on the question of whether or not a special prosecutor would be appointed to investigate the “gravest crimes” of the Bush administration. Those who believe so were not satisfied when Obama said he was more interested in looking forward than looking back. As the article stated further, it’s not that Obama takes the issue lightly, but he puts more important issues first- like bailing out the American people. The author affirms that an increasing number of American people are concerned about what the Bush administration did, and they can’t wait to press charges. I personally think that President Bush did the best he could have, considering the various, complicated circumstances with which he was confronted. I’m sure that every decision he made weighed heavily on him as the leader of this country, because the United States of America depended on him to stop terrorism in its tracks.

The article also talked about Susan Crawford, a Bush Administration official responsible for the military commissions in Guantanamo, telling the Washington Post that she refused to approve the charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani because he had been tortured. What about the many people that boarded those planes that awful morning in 2001 and never made it home to their families? I doubt very much that their survivors would be as concerned as Ms. Crawford is for this alleged terrorist’s welfare. The only thing on the American people’s mind is who is responsible for this terrible loss and how they can be made to pay. Speaking of torture, does being trapped in a burning building, knowing that you’re never going to see your husband, wife or kids again qualify? I believe the documentary said the north tower alone burned for 59 minutes before it collapsed.

Finally, I agree with President Obama, that looking toward the future, not looking back, is what the country needs. I think that Mr. Bush, though he did make mistakes, meant well for this country. In his zeal to protect the American people & to assure that 9/11 would not be repeated, he may have crossed the line in certain areas- but I doubt there was any criminal intent. I think President Obama will do everything in his power for the betterment of the American people, and he does not need to be encumbered with endless hearings as he attempts to solve the economic mess America finds itself in. We can learn from the mistakes of the Bush Administration, but it is time to pick up the pieces and go on. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/horton?rel=hp_currently

Government Deception

An article that appeared in the February 11, 2009 edition of The Nation, entitled “Looting Social Security” sheds light on how deceptive our government can be when trying to hide from the public’s eye their true intentions. The so called governing elites in Washington and Wall Street are trying to persuade President Obama to recover the bail out costs by looting Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. These propagandists intend to use America’s social security taxes illegally for their own purposes, but they don’t want the American People to know about it-so they are using what the author calls “bait-and-switch fraud.” In other words, millions of dollars accumulated since FICA was substantially raised under the Reagan administration in 1983 will be misappropriated, behind closed doors, so the public cannot discern the full extent of what is happening, or even which politicians they should hold accountable. Never mind that trust will be broken with the millions of working Americans who thought that by contributing a portion of each paycheck, they were accumulating a nest egg that would provide a measure of economic security in their retirement years.
As pathetic as this prospect seems, it is actually business as usual for the federal government. Every year the Treasury borrows surplus money from Social Security & spends it according to the whims of the president or Congress-even allowing for tax cuts for favored special interests. The formula is simple- just juggle a few numbers & “Presto!”…. the federal deficit appears 200 billion dollars less. The problem is that Uncle Sam is legally obligated to pay back this money, with interest, whenever Social Security needs it to pay benefits. With baby boomers retiring in droves, the time is fast approaching that trillions owed must be paid back or the United States government risks losing all credibility- and millions of retirees, as a consequence, will have to be paid through borrowed money.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author of this article, but I have an idea of my own. Why not require honesty on the part of the federal government in all fiscal matters? The American people are not stupid; we can see through the yearly charade put on by the Treasury. Continued attempts to mislead us only make a mockery of our democratic system, & imply that the checks & balances established by our founding fathers are inadequate. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/greider?rel=hp_currently

SCHIP for Working Adults?

An article entitled;”President Obama Signs SCHIP Reauthorization and Expansion” appeared in the February 5, 2009 edition of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s US Daily News Wire. In this Article we learn that the SCHIP program, which currently provides health insurance for more than 7 million children, with the stroke of President Obama’s pen, was expanded to cover an additional 4 million children. We are also provided with the somewhat troubling information that President Bush twice vetoed similar legislation.

Before signing the bill, Mr. Obama stated, “In a decent society, there are certain obligations that are not subject to tradeoffs or negotiations, and health care for our children is one of those obligations…” I must say that I agree wholeheartedly, but it bothers me to know that President Bush twice vetoed legislation that would have expanded SCHIP. Did he not, as a purportedly decent man, also see the need-indeed the necessity-of providing quality health care for millions of indigent children, including legal immigrants, who lacked coverage?

But I would carry this a step further. If a “decent” society feels the obligation to care for millions of children whose parents work full time, but cannot afford health insurance, what about these working parents? If it is “decent” to provide health care for these needy children, isn’t it “indecent” to deny it to the parents of those same children who (to quote the article) “through no fault of their own don’t have-and can’t afford- private insurance?”