http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/opinion/20tue3.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Editorials&oref=slogin

This author speaks about the injustices of jailing juveniles in adult facilities. This article states "The rush to criminalize children has set the country on a dangerous path". I feel the author is trying to let us know that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 was a law enacted with good intentions but resulted in the mass incarceration of children. I also feel that we should scrap current laws in favor of letting parents discipline their children without fear of going to jail. Too often parents are afraid to spank their own kids because the children are taught to tell some one or call the police if they become bruised in any manner. As a result, parents are very hesitant of punishing their children. Time outs are a joke and no television has zero effect as punishment. The end result is the children having no respect for authority or authority figures. And this lack of respect leads to out of control children that the parent can't reach and must rely on a crowded juvenile justice system for help. Let's give parents their authority back so they can control their children and raise them to be good law abiding citizens. Let the parents give them a home so they won't be under house arrest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/12mon1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

The author writes that despite this being an unpopular war, the troops fighting it is doing so with pride and honor. The author states that "The entire burden of the today's wars has been carried by a volunteer military force and its families". To use the words "and its families" takes on a whole new meaning in itself. Alot of people can't connect with that because the families don't make the nightly news too much. But I truly know and feel their pain. I am grateful for the author's acknowledgement of the families along with the soldiers because they suffer so often in silience. When the soldiers gets a medal the families deserves one also. The spouses, the children, the Moms, Dad, grandparents, inlaws, etc. On this Veterans Day we salute each of you also. Just like the author remembered you, so do I.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1622009,00.html

This article is about how former Vice President and Presidental Candidate in 2000, Al Gore has found his true calling. Not the as a politician but Mr. Al Gore the enviromentalist. I feel through this author's story a peaceful, laid back and self assured man. While Mr. Gore may indeed feel the itch to run for politics again, it is that alter ego that would ask him why? I have sensed the urgency is no longer there but should America need him he could and would serve on behalf of the American people. The author states that "He (Al Gore) dedicated himself to a larger cause, doing everything in his power to sound the alarm about the climate crisis". Personally I would like Mr Gore to keep the focus the evironment issues because now the movement has a face. With Mr. Gore's Oscar winning documentary and his slide show presentation, he is educating thousands causing a dramatic shift toward saving our planet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

This article is about the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)and it's acting chairwoman Nancy Nord. The author writes that there is a bill in the Senate that would gives the agency some legislative power but Ms. Nord is opposed to that bill. There have been too many products recalled especially toys that had toxic lead paint. The author states "She has argued that voluntary compliance by business is the only way to promote safety". This makes her sound as if she was lobbying for the manufacturers and not for the American people. Additionally she has accepted travel gifts from the manufacturers. I feel that the CPSC is a vital agency which vital mission and its needs to function at high capacity. If no one is there to police the businesses, it could lead to someone being severly harmed or even death. I hope that the CPSC come aboard and correct itself because it is needed for the public safety. No games should ever be played when it comes to regulating safety.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/opinion/28sun2.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Editorials&_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

The state of Missouri have found success in dealing with its juvenile criminal offenders. Now other states are looking at the Missouri model as a standard to base their juvenile treatment program. The author states "Missouri was working against its own nature when it embarked on this project about 25 years ago". To me that is saying quite a bit. States that employ this model are not going to achieve overnight success. That over time, they will start reaping the positive results of creating this type juvenile rehabilitation program. I feel there are three very important reasons why Missouri is so successful. First, they favor the small community based centers instead of mass kiddie prisons. Second, they keep the treatment close to the offender's home so the parents are involved in their treatment. And third, the case manager job does not end with the offenders release. The results have proven out and only about 10 percent are recommitted to the juvenile court system. To me this program show a positive commitment to solving a problem before it became a more serious issue. It is more effective to rehabitate a juvenile offender before they lead a life of adult crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/opinion/23tue3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

This article is about how a new law in California will require all semiautomatic weapons starting in 2010 to be equipped with new microstamping technology. I feel the writer is trying to say that any attempt to solve a crime is worth every effort. The author states "Like any other single attempt to get America's handgun crisis under control, is not a panacea." I agree with the author, that until lawmakers stand up and not be afraid to put teeth in Gun Enforcement Laws, I will settle for any temporary solution. I commend California's Governor for signing this microstamping bill. And I hope all legislators can learn from this courageous act.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15mon3.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Editorials

This article is about how Congress is taking a different approach to finding low income housing for the nation's neediest families. They will establish a National Housing Trust Fund. Developers that get their funding or grants from the government will be required to set aside a portionate number of units for low income families. What this program would do is help the needy families while they can help themselves. This program provides assistance before they become homeless and require even more public assistance such as Aid to Dependence Children, Welfare, or Medicare. The editorial states "This program would be a vibrant mixed income community," instead of just housing the poor among the poor. By housing the poor among other mixed income residents will demonstrate the difference of having an education, a skilled job or a real chance to excel. The continuation of mixing the poor with the poor have not been successful in the past because it did not provide the poor residents the kind of postive reenforcements they needed to make better lifestyle improvements and choices.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/nyregion/03boys.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Mayor Cory Booker is to be commended for being a Big Brother and father figure to three young delinquents. Even if they don't make changes in their character, the fact that the mayor cares enough to spend time with them is very commendable and courageous. The mayor is setting an excellent example for the community but still he has critics. Mrs. Johnson is quoted as saying "Our only concern was that he might be doing it for the publicity." This criticism is the exact reason why the majority of the concerned adults don't participate in programs like Big Brothers and Big Sisters. They are afraid of being labeled or having a hidden motive. I can feel the mayor's sincerity when he missed an opportunity to help the young man named Hassan, who was gunned down in his neighboorhood. After attending Hassan's funeral, Mayor Booker said "It was the first time I cried as mayor." When the mayor asked Anthony, "Where would he get $24,000 to move out on his own?" All the mayor got was a shoulder shrug from Anthony. For that moment the mayor made that young man think! Can you imagine how many lives could be influenced if everyone had a mentor that made a young person think first about life's consequences instead of reacting after a crime is commited?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

This article is about how America need to move on past the horrors and tragedy of September 11, 2001. The author is being very respectful of the deceased, but is telling politician to quit using 9/11 as a ploy to keep fear and terrorism on the front burner just to get elected. The writer is saying that the gloom and doom atmosphere has ran its course and the USA need to move on pass that awful day. I feel the author is making a very good point. Politicians should not score points over this hostile act. We need to learn from the mistakes we made that let 9/11 happen and for those that lived beyond that day need to make America a vibrant society again. I feel that our borders should be crossed at checkpoints and that if we erect walls around our borders that we would become a closet society. And we fought against such acts against our enemies in the past. Where as we were once a thriving open society respecting human rights, we are using 9/11 to crush those same principles. We (American) used to be able to take a punch and get up and continue fighting, but on 9/11 we took a punch, fell down and got up staggering and weak. What we need to do is get back in shape and recapture our glory and respect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/fashion/23whopays.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us

This article is about women that make more money than men. And how they both react because she earns more. The writer was stating that through research women would prefer a man who is sure about himself and treat her with respect over someone like a doctor that made eight times her salary, had a killer work schedule and unable to spend time with her. I felt this article was humorous and that I would not mind dating a woman that made more money than me. I am secure in myself and I could offer her support and conversation. What a person makes should not come into play as far as I am concerned. If she could accept me for me, I surely could accept her for her.

The Need for Regulation: For All of the Nation's Imports

Editorial New York Times Article
The Need for Regulation: For All of the Nation’s Imports
Published: September 16, 2007
To allay rising fears over imported products, the Bush administration has issued a “strategic framework” for improving import safety. The 22-page document contains some sensible ideas that could, if vigorously carried out, help provide better control over the flood of goods and foods that enter this country from abroad.
Editorial: The Need for Regulation: And Especially Our Children’s Toys (September 16, 2007)
Whether this is a genuine reform effort or mostly public relations will become clear in November when more detailed plans are released. The administration’s record provides grounds for skepticism.
The new plan, the product of an interagency working group, leaves little doubt that reforms are needed in the current haphazard, underfinanced and understaffed system for protecting the public. Officials are powerless to order retailers to stop selling a product that has been recalled by its manufacturer. Incompatible information systems prevent government agencies from readily sharing information.
The group’s most important proposal would shift the first line of defense from inspections at the border to broader surveillance along the supply chain: from the original grower or manufacturer to distributors abroad to American importers, manufacturers and retailers.
There is little doubt that it would be better to build safety into products before they reach our shores than to try to pick out unsafe products here. That will require a concerted effort to persuade foreign governments and companies to police themselves and provide access to American inspectors, buttressed by a willingness to reject goods from countries or companies that will not cooperate or cannot meet American standards. Under American pressure, China has belatedly signed an agreement to prohibit the use of lead paint on toys exported to this country and to inspect more of its exports.
The strategic plan is right to urge that the system be organized to identify products that pose the greatest risk, like those from a country with a record of exporting unsafe goods. It makes sound proposals for upgrading computers and devising new screening technologies.
What is worrisome is the administration’s reluctance to make any commitment to provide the additional money and staff that is needed. It has been cutting food inspection budgets and staff for many years, and it is fair to wonder how it will manage a far broader regime.
The new plan stresses the importance of cooperation with industry but leaves room to worry about officials’ willingness to get tough if voluntarism fails. Indeed, the document says the federal government lacks the resources to pursue legal action against all wrongdoers and will use targeted enforcement as a deterrent.
Congress will have to ensure that this needed reform gets enough money and clear authority. The strategic plan asserts that “it is impossible to inspect our way to safety,” which is right in the sense that inspections are not enough. That mantra must not be used as an excuse for doing less rather than more.

Dare to Give Washington A Vote

Editorial
Dare to Give Washington a Vote



Published: September 18, 2007
It’s time to end the embarrassing servitude of Washington, D.C., which is denied true democratic representation. The city of 550,000 taxpaying Americans currently elects a member to the House of Representatives who is allowed to debate each and every issue, yet is denied the right to vote on the fate of any of them. The House has approved a bill that would give the D.C. shadow delegate voting power, and it now faces a make-or-break decision in the Senate.
The bill — the product of classic political horse trading — would enlarge the House by two seats: one for D.C., a likely Democratic representative, the other for Utah, whose population growth justifies a seat that probably would go to the Republicans. Opponents continue to raise constitutional issues about the district’s not being a full-fledged state; proponents offer counterarguments about Congress’s long history of dominating, even dictating, the city’s precise political freedoms. This will likely end up in the courts, but what could be closer to the ideals of America’s democracy than giving D.C. taxpayers their long-denied representation?
The Senate will vote today on whether to clear the measure for debate by invoking cloture to block a filibuster by opponents. A minimum of 60 votes is required, and it would be a grim echo of segregationist history if the Senate denied this opportunity to advance the district’s voting rights. No less relevant is the current history of the Iraq war waged in the name of promoting democracy overseas. President Bush has threatened a veto of the measure, so a 60-plus vote would be a potent signal that Congress is determined to promote American ideals in America’s own front yard.

New York Times Hiding Behind The General

Hiding behind the General
Dated September 9, 2007

Derek Polk

English 1020-023


This article is about the military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus delivering a progress report to Congress about the United States military troop surge. The writer is saying that President Bush is calling on General Petraeus to restore some credibility to the American public about the unpopular war in Iraq. The writer also states that the president is calling the troop surge in Iraq General Petraeus’s strategy as if the General was elected president. I feel that President Bush should be delivering this message to Congress because he is the Commander in Chief. The General should be on the battlefield with his troop in the time of war and not be in front of Congress. The lines should not be blurred with a military tactician doing an elected politician’s job. President Bush feels as if he does not carry any credibility at this time with Unites States Congress and the American public. Even so, he was elected to the highest office possible in the United States to be upfront, honest and provide the bold leadership required for the office of the United States President.


Published: September 9, 2007 Published by The New York Times

The military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is to deliver a report to Congress on Monday that could be the most consequential testimony by a wartime commander in more than a generation. What the country desperately needs is an honest assessment of the war and a clear strategy for extricating American forces from the hopeless spiral of violence in Iraq.
President Bush, however, seems to be aiming for maximum political advantage — not maximum clarity on Iraq’s military and political crises, which cannot be separated from each other. Mr. Bush, we fear, isn’t looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public, scare Democrats into dropping their demands for a sound exit strategy, and prolong the war until he leaves office. At times, General Petraeus gives the disturbing impression that he, too, is more focused on the political game in Washington than the unfolding disaster in Iraq. That serves neither American nor Iraqi interests.
Mr. Bush, deeply unpopular with the American people, is counting on the general to restore credibility to his discredited Iraq policy. He frequently refers to the escalation of American forces last January as General Petraeus’s strategy — as if it were not his own creation. The situation echoes the way Mr. Bush made Colin Powell — another military man with an overly honed sense of a soldier’s duty — play frontman at the United Nations in 2003 to make the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war.
General Petraeus has his own credibility problems. He overstepped in 2004 when he published an op-ed article in The Washington Post six weeks before the election. The general — then in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces — rhapsodized about “tangible progress” and how the Iraqi forces were “developing steadily,” an assessment that may have swayed some voters but has long since proved to be untrue.
And just last week, senior military commanders in Baghdad who work for General Petraeus entered the political fray by taking issue — anonymously — with the grim assessment of Iraq’s politics and security by non-partisan Congressional investigators.
As Congress waited anxiously for General Petraeus’s testimony, a flurry of well-timed news reports said that he told the White House he could go along with the withdrawal of about 4,000 American troops beginning in January but wanted to maintain increased force levels well into next year — just like Mr. Bush. Democrats who once demanded a firm date for the start of a troop pullout immediately started backpedaling.
Withdrawing 4,000 troops and dangling the prospect of additional withdrawals is a token political gesture, not a new strategy. If it proves enough to cow Congress into halting its push for a more robust and concrete exit strategy, that would be political cowardice at its worst.
We hope that General Petraeus can resist the political pressure and provide an unvarnished assessment of the military situation in Iraq. He is an important source of information, of course, but he is only one source — and he is not the man who sets American policy. If Mr. Bush insists on listening only to those who agree with him, Congress and the public must weigh General Petraeus’s report against all data, including two new independent evaluations sharply at odds with the Pentagon’s claim that things in Iraq are substantially better.
The Government Accountability Office found that the Iraqi government has not met 11 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress and that violence remains high, despite the White House’s disingenuous claims of success. And a commission of retired senior military officers determined that Iraq’s army will be unable to take over responsibility for internal security in the next 12 to 18 months. That is four years beyond what the Pentagon predicted in 2004. It is too long.
Nothing has changed about Mr. Bush’s intentions. Waving off the independent reports, he plans to stay the course and make his successor fix his Iraq fiasco. Military progress without political progress is meaningless, and Mr. Bush no more has a plan for unifying Iraq now than when he started the war. The United States needs a prudent exit strategy that will withdraw American forces and try to stop Iraq’s chaos from spreading.
More Articles in Opinion »

New York Times Article Hiding Behind The General

Great Article in The New Times newspaper about Current Events that's happening now.

Opinion

Editorial
Hiding Behind the General
('Military progress without political progress is meaningless, and President Bush no more has a plan for unifying Iraq now than when he started the war.');
Published: September 9, 2007
The military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is to deliver a report to Congress on Monday that could be the most consequential testimony by a wartime commander in more than a generation. What the country desperately needs is an honest assessment of the war and a clear strategy for extricating American forces from the hopeless spiral of violence in Iraq.
President Bush, however, seems to be aiming for maximum political advantage — not maximum clarity on Iraq’s military and political crises, which cannot be separated from each other. Mr. Bush, we fear, isn’t looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the public, scare Democrats into dropping their demands for a sound exit strategy, and prolong the war until he leaves office. At times, General Petraeus gives the disturbing impression that he, too, is more focused on the political game in Washington than the unfolding disaster in Iraq. That serves neither American nor Iraqi interests.
Mr. Bush, deeply unpopular with the American people, is counting on the general to restore credibility to his discredited Iraq policy. He frequently refers to the escalation of American forces last January as General Petraeus’s strategy — as if it were not his own creation. The situation echoes the way Mr. Bush made Colin Powell — another military man with an overly honed sense of a soldier’s duty — play frontman at the United Nations in 2003 to make the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war.
General Petraeus has his own credibility problems. He overstepped in 2004 when he published an op-ed article in The Washington Post six weeks before the election. The general — then in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces — rhapsodized about “tangible progress” and how the Iraqi forces were “developing steadily,” an assessment that may have swayed some voters but has long since proved to be untrue.
And just last week, senior military commanders in Baghdad who work for General Petraeus entered the political fray by taking issue — anonymously — with the grim assessment of Iraq’s politics and security by non-partisan Congressional investigators.
As Congress waited anxiously for General Petraeus’s testimony, a flurry of well-timed news reports said that he told the White House he could go along with the withdrawal of about 4,000 American troops beginning in January but wanted to maintain increased force levels well into next year — just like Mr. Bush. Democrats who once demanded a firm date for the start of a troop pullout immediately started backpedaling.
Withdrawing 4,000 troops and dangling the prospect of additional withdrawals is a token political gesture, not a new strategy. If it proves enough to cow Congress into halting its push for a more robust and concrete exit strategy, that would be political cowardice at its worst.
We hope that General Petraeus can resist the political pressure and provide an unvarnished assessment of the military situation in Iraq. He is an important source of information, of course, but he is only one source — and he is not the man who sets American policy. If Mr. Bush insists on listening only to those who agree with him, Congress and the public must weigh General Petraeus’s report against all data, including two new independent evaluations sharply at odds with the Pentagon’s claim that things in Iraq are substantially better.
The Government Accountability Office found that the Iraqi government has not met 11 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress and that violence remains high, despite the White House’s disingenuous claims of success. And a commission of retired senior military officers determined that Iraq’s army will be unable to take over responsibility for internal security in the next 12 to 18 months. That is four years beyond what the Pentagon predicted in 2004. It is too long.
Nothing has changed about Mr. Bush’s intentions. Waving off the independent reports, he plans to stay the course and make his successor fix his Iraq fiasco. Military progress without political progress is meaningless, and Mr. Bush no more has a plan for unifying Iraq now than when he started the war. The United States needs a prudent exit strategy that will withdraw American forces and try to stop Iraq’s chaos from spreading.
More Articles in Opinion »