Daily Worldwide News: 'Keith Olbermann Fired by CurrentTV'

Source:Daily Worldwide News- Keith Olbermann, time to go.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Keith Olbermann who was brought in to raise Current TV's ratings has done just the opposite and was fired today." 

From Daily Worldwide News 

To be honest you, I wasn’t shocked to hear that Keith Olbermann was fired by MSNBC a year ago. Even though they want to have a leftist prime time lineup. Giving voice to so-called American Progressives and looking at the news from a so-called progressive slant. 

MSNBC wants to be for so-called Progressives what FNC is for the right-wing. The rest of the NBC News operation I believe is fairly objective. And their reporting is solid. NBC Nightly News and NBC Meet the Press are excellent examples of this. 

But MSNBC Talk is clearly slanted towards so-calledProgressives. And Keith Olbermann is so far to the left, at least with his political commentary and anti-corporate if not private enterprise and so unafraid of offending anyone, including the people he works for (CurrentTV, owned by Al Gore) that he’ll say whatever he wants as long as he believes in it strong enough.

As much as Current my not want to be part of the corporate media and be part of the private sector version of PBS or something, they are part of corporate media. They are a business and have to turn a profit to be successful. 

CurrentTV has proven to not be the right format for Keith Olbermann. I’m not sure there is one, other than maybe HBO, Showtime or maybe PBS, where he could say whatever he wants to, swear as often as he likes. This is a format that’s served Bill Maher very well and if Keith can avoid offending one of these networks, maybe HBO, or Showtime, would be a place for him.

Keith, may fit in well there or going on talk radio. Starting his own website or news organization that reflects the views of so-called Progressives, (Democratic Socialists, really) because being the lead anchor on a cable network, which is what Current is and saying things that can offend corporate media, just doesn’t work, it doesn’t fit. 

Keith Olbermann needs to be on a format where he can be Keith and do his thing. And not have to worry about who he’s offending. Similar to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly, but for leftists. And there may not be a big enough outlet out there that’s also willing to put up with Keith, that can make that happen for him. 

Associated Press: Mark Sherman- 'Justices Vote Friday on Health Care Law'

Source:Associated Press- SCOTS corespondent Mark Sherman talking about the process that the Supreme Court uses to decide cases.

"While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend." 

From the Associated Press

Based on the arguments and the questioning that came from the Justices on Tuesday and Wednesday, I expect the individual mandate to go down and be ruled unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy didn't sound like a swing vote to me any point this week. And actually Chief Justice Roberts sound the most open minded of any of the Conservatives on the Supreme Court this week. But I wouldn't expect him to vote for the individual mandate. 

So assuming the individual mandate goes down (and I'm not ready to call it dead until its dead because I support it) the next Congress and perhaps next President (depending on who wins in 2012) will have to look at health care reform part 2 in the next Congress and what cab be done without an individual mandate.

So the question is without the individual mandate or the Medicaid prevision without the individual mandate, the rest of the Affordable Care Act doesn't mean much as far as controlling our health care costs. Because with the individual mandate, we are all forced as a country to cover our own share of our health care costs. And we can end a lot of uncompensated health care in America. And end up forcing people to cover others health care. Which will bring down the health care costs of everyone. 

So another question is with the ACA as it stands now but without the individual mandate, can the rest of the ACA stay in place and is it workable and is it even worth having. And I'm leaning towards no but without the ACA, we go back to square one with people being denied health insurance, just because they actually need it. And we go back to lifetime caps and we continue uncompensated health care in America. 

So I'm expecting a Black Friday tomorrow for the Affordable Care Act. I'm leaning towards the whole thing getting thrown out back to square one. Leaving it up to the next Congress to do deal with it, if anything. But of course I hope I'm wrong and we'll wait and see and I expect to be blogging about whatever the Supreme Court says tomorrow.

Senate Democrats: 'React to Supreme Court Arguments on ACA'

Source:Senate Democrats- From left to right: U.S. Senator's Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) and Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vermont)

"Democratic senators Chuck Schumer (NY), Tom Harkin (IA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and Jack Reed (RI) weigh on Supreme Court arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act." 

From the Senate Democrats

If this post sounds familiar, it's because I originally wrote it at FRS FreeState. 

I don't mean to sound like a washed up rock singer who only has one line left, but I'm not a lawyer. But looking at this from a non-lawyer, I think the only constitutional questions about the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare, before it was RomneyCare) is whether the Federal Government has the constitutional right to require Americans to buy a product over the private market, which is what health insurance is, or sign up for Medicaid, if they're eligible for Medicaid. T

The other constitutional question in the ACA being about the Medicaid expansion: can the Feds force the states to expand their Medicaid program to cover low-income, working adults and penalize them if they refuse to do so. 

There really are no other constitutional questions for the Affordable Care Act. Under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce in America. Health care and health insurance are both products in America. And under the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has to right to raise or cut taxes. And under the ACA, Americans who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford private health insurance, are eligible for a tax subsidy to pay for private health insurance. 

I'm not a Conservative, not a Constitutional Conservative. I'm a constitutionalist though in the liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) sense and if you are looking at the Affordable Care Act in a constitutional conservative sense, I think it's easy to rule that the ACA is constitutional, except for perhaps the health care mandate and the Medicaid portion of the bill. Even if you don't like the law and Congress and the President to repeal the law. 

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide on the merits of a law, just the constitutionality of it. So throwing out the whole ACA by the Supreme Court simply because you don't like it, or because you are throwing out the mandate and the Medicaid prevision, wouldn't be constitutionally conservative.

New America Foundation: Emily Bazelon & Garrett Epps- 'Health Care & The Supreme Court: What Will The Decision Say About Constitutional Resilience?'

Source:New America Foundation- Emily Bazelon moderating this event.

"Health Care and the Supreme Court: 

What will the decision say about constitutional resilience?

This is an excerpt from the Future Tense "Resilience" event.  In it, Emily Bazelon asks Professor Garrett Epps to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on Health Care.

The ability to bounce back, to absorb shocks, to persevere, to retain functionality over time, to endure, to adapt, to succeed, to survive, to sustain... so many verbs are conjured up by the term "resilience." Whether we're talking about our bodies, our minds, our communities, our institutions or our natural environment, the R-word provides a conceptual framework for designing a better tomorrow. Please join us for a wide-ranging inquiry on what it means to be resilient and what a resilient future could look like.

Garrett Epps -- @profepps

Professor of Law, University of Baltimore

Legal Affairs Editor, The American Prospect

Moderator

Emily Bazelon-- @emilybazelon

Senior Editor, Slate" 

From the New America Foundation

I don't mean to sound like a washed up rock singer who only has one line left, but I'm not a lawyer. But looking at this from a non-lawyer, I think the only constitutional questions about the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare, before it was RomneyCare) is whether the Federal Government has the constitutional right to require Americans to buy a product over the private market, which is what health insurance is, or sign up for Medicaid, if they're eligible for Medicaid. T

The other constitutional question in the ACA being about the Medicaid expansion: can the Feds force the states to expand their Medicaid program to cover low-income, working adults and penalize them if they refuse to do so. 

There really are no other constitutional questions for the Affordable Care Act. Under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce in America. Health care and health insurance are both products in America. And under the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has to right to raise or cut taxes. And under the ACA, Americans who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford private health insurance, are eligible for a tax subsidy to pay for private health insurance. 

I'm not a Conservative, not a Constitutional Conservative. I'm a constitutionalist though in the liberal (or classical liberal, if you prefer) sense and if you are looking at the Affordable Care Act in a constitutional conservative sense, I think it's easy to rule that the ACA is constitutional, except for perhaps the health care mandate and the Medicaid portion of the bill. Even if you don't like the law and Congress and the President to repeal the law. 

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to decide on the merits of a law, just the constitutionality of it. So throwing out the whole ACA by the Supreme Court simply because you don't like it, or because you are throwing out the mandate and the Medicaid prevision, wouldn't be constitutionally conservative.

The Young Turks: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur- 'HBO's Game Change Preview'

Source:The Young Turks- actress Julianne Moore as Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in HBO's Game Change.

Source:The Daily Press 

“A trailer of HBO’s ‘Game Change’ is reviewed by Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Tell us in the comment section below if you will be watching the movie?” 

From The Young Turks

I saw the movie last night about an hour of it actually. I think Ed Harris did a good job of playing Senator John McCain and Woody Harrelson did a good job of playing Steve Schmidt and Sarah Palin was clearly not up to the job of Vice President, or President right now.

We knew that Sarah Palin was not up from prime-time four years ago, so even the facts that were in the movie were not new. We knew that the McCain Campaign didn’t do a very good job of vetting Sarah Palin. Basically a little known Governor of Alaska, who may feel she lives in a foreign nation, because of how isolated Alaska is with the Continental United States.

I do have a hard time believing that Steve Schmidt and company would only spend 72 hours researching someone they barely knew if at all, because these people are way too smart for that. And that Senator McCain wouldn’t know how little research they did on his vice presidential nominee. The most important decision that a Presidential Nominee will make.

To take this movie at face value, you have to assume that the McCain Campaign was throwing a Hail Mary. Expecting to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama and that they needed someone who the Republican base would like personally, someone who could match Barack Obama when it comes to personality. Someone that would be seen as a political celebrity. If that’s what their goal, then they’ve more than succeeded. Because Sarah Palin is a political celebrity today, thanks to Senator John McCain. She has 100% name ID and is probably the most liked Republican in the party personally.

The McCain Campaign paid a heavy price for picking Sarah Palin politically with Governor Palin not being able to answer questions that a high school or college student could answer. Like what is the Federal Reserve and making statements that a high school or college student know aren’t true. Like the Vice President being the Leader of the Senate.

Julianne Moore is a fine actress, but way too upscale to not sound like an elitist not intentionally to play Sarah Palin. They would’ve been better off using Julia Dryfuss or even Tina Fey to play Palin. Not a very good movie and definitely a movie not a documentary. And probably light on facts as well.  

NORML: Keith Stroup- '40 Years of Ignorance: Conclusion'

Source:NORML- founder and legal counsel Keith Stroup.

"The conclusion of "40 Years of Ignorance" featuring NORML Founder and Legal Counsel, Keith Stroup discussing the 40th anniversary of the Shafer Commission and its implications for the marijuana movement and NORML iteslf." 

From NORML

This is just a theory, but I believe a big reason why supporters of marijuana legalization with regulation and taxation supporters (and I'm one of them) are winning the political battles now and why there's a good shot that marijuana will be legalized in at least two states this year, has to do with the economy. 

When the economy is slow and there's a lot of high unemployment, like now, people who are taxpayers pay more attention to where their tax dollars are going. I believe we now have a lot of taxpayers who see so much of their hard-earned, tax dollars going to prisons, instead of infrastructure, education, tax relief, and are wondering why that is. 

The War On Drugs is a major reason for that country where we might have 3-10, 4-10 Americans who are currently in jail or prison today because of some involvement in illegal narcotics, including marijuana, which is no more dangerous for people than alcohol. 

Me personally, I'm in favor of marijuana legalization with regulation and taxation, because I don't believe the government should be locking people up for what they do to themselves. Only when people hurt innocent people, but not because they get high or drunk. And I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars to go to more jails and prisons, because we're arresting more free adults for marijuana possession or personal usage. But that's me on ideological grounds. 

For most American taxpayers, I think they're more practical and the people who now support marijuana legalization, are thinking the War On Drugs is now a bad taxpayer investment.

Brookings Video: Russell Wheeler- 'Supreme Court Hears Health Care Challenge'

Source:Brookings Institution- talking to lawyer Russell Wheeler.

"Russell Wheeler: This case is about more than just who gets health care coverage; the high court's decision could have a profound impact on American constitutional policy and Congress' authority to regulate commerce." 

From the Brookings Institution

I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but I think the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is obvious. This is a Federal/state health insurance program for low-income, as well as disabled Americans. Congress and the Obama Administration expanded it in 2010 under the Affordable Care Act to cover low-income workers and not just unemployed workers or people who are at home collecting Welfare Insurance. 

Medicare was expanded in 2003 to cover prescription drugs, by a Republican Administration and Congress. (By the way) There's no infringement on individual or states rights here, other than perhaps whether the Federal Government can take Medicaid money away from the states, if they don't expand their Medicaid programs to cover low-income workers, as well as non-workers. That might be the question there. 

As far as the individual mandate, if it's ruled by the Supreme Court as a tax, then it becomes constitutional just from that alone, because the Federal Government obviously has taxing authority. But, if the mandate is just ruled as a regulation, then the question will be does the Federal Government have the authority to require Americans to buy something over the private market or not. And again, I'm not a lawyer.

Liberty Pen: Professor Milton Friedman- 'Health Care in a Free Market (1978)'

Source:Liberty Pen- Professor Milton Friedman speaking to the Mayo Clinic about health care, in 1978.

"Milton Friedman fields questions from medical professionals at the Mayo Clinic regarding his advocacy of a free market in health care. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

To be frank and to simply just cut through the bullshit: if this was really a discussion about health care and health insurance in free market, the people, not government or the private health care industry, would decide for themselves where and how they get their health care. Not government or the private, for-profit, health care industry. 

I believe and at risk of playing mindreader, but we saw this in the health care debate of 2009-10 when people who were arguing against what became the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) were saying what we really need is a free market in health care, not more government control or subsidies. But that's not really what they're arguing for. What they want is an unregulated, private, for-profit, health care and insurance industry, where insurance companies get to decide how much everyone has to pay for their health care and insurance and what health care everyone should be allowed to get. 

I'm not in favor of rationing when it comes to health care when it comes from government. But pre-2010, it was the private, for-profit, health insurance industry that was rationing health care in this country, by saying they won't cover this, that, the other thing, and perhaps something else. And once a person reaches some financial cap as far as how much health care they've gotten because of their health insurance, those folks would lose their health insurance all together. 

What the Affordable Care Act does at the dismay of Socialists who want a socialized, government-run, health care system in America, is leave the private, for-profit, health care industry in place. But lays out a set of rules that this industry has to operate under, to protect health care consumers in this country. So you could argue that the proponents of the old health care system in America were making a conservative argument in 2009-10, because they were arguing in favor of the status-quo and conserving the old system. 

T.R. Reid: Health Care in America & The Rest of The World

"Author and journalist T.R. Reid talked about his book A Fine Mess: A Global Quest for a Simpler, Fairer, and More Efficient Tax System, in which he compares tax systems around the world." 

From CSPAN 

"Frontline Correspondent T. R. Reid examines health care around the world in the documentary, "Sick Around the World." 

From Charlie Rose 

"Globe-trotting reporter, T. R. Reid, sits down with witf's Smart Talk host Nell McCormack-Abom to discuss the state of the US healthcare system and how it compares to systems around the world. He's the author of New York Times bet-seller, "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care" and he has a new documentary out about better, cheaper health care in America." 

From Transforming Health 

"In his new book, The Healing of America, global quest for better, cheaper and fairer healthcare",  longtime Washington Post correspondent and bestselling author T.R. Reid took up that question as he recently traveled around the world to examine the health care systems and reforms in other countries. Reid joined us to shed some light on what Americans can learn by looking beyond our borders." 

From PBS 

The question is not should everyone in America has affordable health care or not (at least not for me) but the question is how should it be paid for and who should run it? Which is the post ObamaCare debate at least: how do we get the best and most affordable health care system. 

Leftists obviously want government running at least the health insurance system, if not entire health care system. Hyper-partisan Republicans, (at least when they're being honest) as well as Libertarians, want to go back to the old system pre-2010, where the private health insurance industry, essentially runs the entire health care system. 

And most Americans are somewhere in-between where we like our private hospitals and choice as far as where we get our health care and health insurance, but we want it to be affordable for everyone. And the real debate with perhaps 3-5 Americans is how best to make our private health care system affordable for everyone. 

NORML: 'This Week in Weed: March 7th-11th (New Hampshire Moves Towards Decriminalizing Marijuana)'

Source:NORML- New Hampshire is supposed to be the live free or die state.

"This week in weed: new research looks into how availability and legality of alcohol effects cannabis use and New Hampshire is on its way to decriminalizing marijuana possession." 

From NORML 

"Denver, CO: Many adolescent consumers of cannabis increase their use of alcohol and decrease their use of marijuana shortly after turning 21 years of age, according to data published in the Journal of Health Economics.

A team of international investigators from the United States and Mexico estimated the causal effect of legal access to alcohol on marijuana consumption.

They reported: "Our results show that alcohol and marijuana are substitutes. At age 21, we observe a sharp increase in alcohol consumption but a decrease in marijuana consumption. … Our estimates suggest that the MLDA (minimum legal drinking age) at age 21 decreases the probability of having consumed alcohol in the past 30 days by 16 percent and increases the probability of having consumed marijuana by 10 percent. … This suggests that policies that restrict access to alcohol cause an increase in marijuana consumption."

Authors stated that this purported substitution effect "is substantially stronger for women than men."

They concluded, "Our results show that legal access to alcohol causes a significant decrease in marijuana use among young adults close to the age of 21."

Separate studies of older cannabis consumers in states with limited legal access to both marijuana and alcohol yield a less consistent trend, with data indicating that many subjects that consume cannabis use reduced levels of alcohol or other intoxicating substances. For example, a 2011 study of qualified medicinal cannabis consumers in California found that respondents’ "prevalence of alcohol use was significantly lower" than that of the general population.

Most recently, authors of November 2011 Institute for the Study of Labor paper, "Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption," determined: "[The] legalization [of cannabis] is associated with a nearly nine percent decrease in traffic fatalities, most likely due to its impact on [reduced] alcohol consumption."

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, "The effect of alcohol availability on marijuana use: Evidence from the minimum legal drinking age," appears online in the Journal of Health Economics." 

Source:Toronto Star- with a report about marijuana.

From NORML

If it wasn't for the frigid winters in New Hampshire where you can get 6 months of winter there, I would consider living in New Hampshire, assuming I'd consider ideology when deciding where I should live. Because of New Hampshire's live free or die motto, I'd fit in very well there ideologically as a Classical Liberal (or real Liberal) where it's if anything it's considered to be cool to be a Constitutional Conservative, Classical Liberal, Libertarian even, instead of feeling like you were looked at like you're from Planet Mars, if you were in Greenwich, New York or San Francisco, just because of your constitutional beliefs. 

Decriminalization of marijuana in any state is a good first step, especially considering the alternative would be arrest, jail, conviction, prison, and perhaps leaving prison being addicted to other drugs or getting an extended sentence because you commit further felonies that are probably drug related as well. 

The first step is never a completion or the end of the story. It means you've taken the first step in the right direction. We should be treating marijuana like alcohol, tobacco, and other narcotics that are currently legal in America, simply because all these narcotics have similar consequences. Actually, tobacco might be the worst of them. But also because we shouldn't as a country arrest people for what they do to themselves, or what they might do in the future. We should only be arresting people when they hurt innocent people. 

Associated Press: '2nd Woman in NYC Madam Case Pleads Not Guilty'

Source:Associated Press- Jaynie Baker's attorney speaking to the press.

"A matchmaking recruiter charged with helping to run a brothel in a high-profile NYC prostitution case has been on vacation, not the lam, her lawyer said Tuesday.   Jaynie Baker returned to New York and pleaded not guilty at her arraignment." 

From the Associated Press 

You would think with all the other issues that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's New York City has to do with, like with their education system, poverty, and their economy, they would have better things to do than to arrest free adults for consensual sex. Or at least arresting people who run prostitution rings where consensual sex is sold. 

But I don't live in New York City (and proud of that) and I'm not picking on them either, this story just happens to take place there. Prostitution is still illegal everywhere in America, outside of the Free State of Nevada. 

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. 'Abortion Laws: Pro and Con'

Source:Firing Line With William B. Buckley- discussing abortion in 1972.

"July 25, 1972 

The most visible abortion battleground was New York State, where the legislature had voted to repeal the extremely permissive law it had passed two years before, and Governor Rockefeller had vetoed the repeal. But the case challenging that veto would probably never make it to the Supreme Court, Mr. Lucas explains, for there were others ahead of it in line; in retrospect, we know that one of those, Roe v. Wade, was decided in January of 1973. This show covers familiar ground, but often from angles that are still fresh thirty years later. RL: "Would you favor legislation requiring a woman to submit to strong medical treatment to stop spontaneous abortion and penalizing her accordingly if she didn't? ..." JTN: "No, I think you're again committing what I would say was a fault in moral reasoning. Because you're bound to avoid doing some injury to a person does not mean that you're bound to do everything possible in the world to help him." 

From the Hoover Institution 

"Guests: John Thomas Noonan, Roy Lucas

For more information about this program, see:Hoover Institution." 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"Taped on July 25, 1972 The most visible abortion battleground was New York State, where the legislature had voted to repeal the extremely permissive law it had passed two years before and where Governor Nelson Rockefeller had vetoed the repeal. But the case challenging that veto would probably never make it to the Supreme Court, Lucas explains, for there were others ahead of it in line; in retrospect, we know that one of those, Roe v. Wade, was decided in January 1973. This show covers familiar ground but often from angles that are still fresh thirty years later. Lucas: "Would you favor legislation requiring a woman to submit to strong medical treatment to stop spontaneous abortion and penalizing her accordingly if she didn't?" Noonan: "No, I think you're again committing what I would say was a fault in moral reasoning. Because you're bound to avoid doing some injury to a person does not mean that you're bound to do everything possible in the world to help him." Summary by Firing Line staff." 

From Amazon

I'm not sure: "Abortion: Pro and Con" is the right question. I think the real questions here should be who gets to decide when a woman has to have a baby or not and what she can do with her own body. The other question being when does a fetus become a baby with the same constitutional and United States individual rights as Americans who are already born. 

For me depending on how you answer the first two questions that I pose, will determine on whether you believe in Rose V. Wade the U.S. Supreme Court case that made abortion legal everywhere in America, should remain the law of the land where every women has the right to make this choice herself on whether to carry a pregnancy to it's full-term, or not. 

Roe V. Wade which was decided about a year after this Firing Line episode first went on the air, gives American women the right to make their own choice on whether they can abort their fetuses or not. But it doesn't say that abortion can't be regulated. We don't have absolute rights in America, including the right to life. If you put someone's else life in danger, especially if you do that intentionally, you are also putting your own life in danger as well. And American women do have the right to decide whether to can get an abortion or not, but that right is not absolute. States do have some leeway and are able to regulate abortion themselves. 

As I said, no individual right in America is absolute. I believe life starts at the late term of all pregnancies, which is why I'm not in favor of late term abortions, other than to save the life or health of the mother. And I do believe in freedom of choice, just as long the choices that individuals make don't hurt innocent people. But freedom of choice becomes too expensive when it doesn't come with personal responsibility. So I'm not in favor of taxpayer funding of abortions, other than to save the life and health of the mother, or when the pregnancy was conceived because of rape or incest. 

Now, if you believe that life starts at conception, which is the position of the Christian-Right in America (Protestants and Catholics) then of course you are going to take the opposite position that I've taken and perhaps even see abortion as murder. And this is where the debate on abortion starts in America: when does life start and who gets to decide, the government or the individual.

Associated Press: Warren Levinson- 'Economy Adds 227K Jobs, Rate Unchanged at 8.3%'

Source:Associated Press- Vanessa Bartram talking about the jobs report.

"U.S. employers added 227,000 jobs in February to complete three of the best months of hiring since the recession began. (March 9)" 

From the Associated Press 

At risk of repeating myself and sound like a politician whose speaking from a broken teleprompter and keeps repeating himself as a result: we're off to a good start in 2012 as far as jobs and growth, even wages. But there's still a lot of work to be done with 12 million people still out-of-work. 

The Great Recession ended during the summer of 2009 and we've been growing ever since and have been adding jobs every month since early 2010. These are good signs but when you are in the economic hole that we've been in since late 2008, it takes a long time to completely dig your way out of that hole. 

CBS News: Jack Otter & Jill Schlesinger- 'MoneyWatch: February 2012 Jobs Numbers'

Source:CBS News- I'm assuming this is Jack Otter (even though I don't know the man personally) just because I think Jill is a strange name for a man.

"Jack Otter and Jill Schlesinger of CBS MoneyWatch discuss the new jobs numbers reported by the labor department for February 2012." 

From CBS News 

I may have already said this for the last 4-5 jobs reports that I've been talking about, but of course American economy is not in perfect shape and there are still real problems dealing with the lack of strong economic growth, even though we've been growing consistently for 3 years now, as well as long-term unemployment, but the tend line is good right now. 

Americans are going back to work, wages are even rising, employers are looking for new workers, thanks to the Budget Control Act of 2011, our deficits are actually coming down now. So yes, we haven't fully recovered from the Great Depression that started in late 2008, but we're recovering, we're growing, and Americans are going back to work. 

The Film Archives: John Kerry- ‘How do You Ask The Last Man to Die For a Mistake’

Source:The Film Archives- U.S. Naval Lieutenant John F. Kerry, testifying in front of Congress in 1971, about the Vietnam War.

“John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician who is the 68th and current United States Secretary of State. More on this topic.

He served as a United States Senator from Massachusetts from 1985 to 2013, and was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in the 2004 Presidential Election but lost to incumbent George W. Bush.

The son of an Army Air Corps veteran, Kerry was born in Aurora, Colorado. He attended boarding school in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and went on to graduate from Yale University class of 1966, where he majored in political science and became a member of the influential Skull and Bones secret society. He enlisted in the Naval Reserve in 1966, and during 1968–1969 served an abbreviated four-month tour of duty in South Vietnam as officer-in-charge (OIC) of a Swift Boat. For that service, he was awarded combat medals that include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Securing an early return to the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in which he served as a nationally recognized spokesman and as an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War. He appeared before the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs where he deemed United States war policy in Vietnam to be the cause of “war crimes.”

From The Film Archives 

It’s been said that presidents who have military or foreign policy experience, are less likely to commit American troops to combat in foreign nations, then presidents without that previous experience, because they know exactly what they are putting those troops through and what they have to go through. And the sacrifices they and their families will make as a result and perhaps even the ultimate sacrifice they may make.

I’ll give you a perfect example of that: when Dwight Eisenhower became President in 1953, one of the first things he looked to was to get American troops out of the Korean War. Because he saw it as a civil war.

Ronald Reagan a World War II veteran, never committed American troops into combat. We never went to war in his eight years as President. Jimmy Carter, another World War II veteran, never committed American troops to combat in his four years either. President George H.W. Bush did commit troops to the Gulf War in 1991. But for a very limited mission: get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade and occupy Iraq. A big country of twenty-five million people, a mistake that his son wasn’t able to avoid twelve years later.

President George W. Bush, who never had combat experience, or foreign policy experience, other than signing up for the reserves to avoid Vietnam service, commits American troops to two wars within seventeen months as President: Afghanistan and Iraq. Two wars we are now trying to get out of ten years later.

We’ll never know what type of president John Kerry would’ve made on foreign policy, or anything else. And I believe that’s unfortunate, because we are talking about a Vietnam veteran from the Baby Boom Generation, who volunteered to serve his country in Vietnam, unlike George W. Bush who did everything he can to avoid service there.

But when you hear Senator Kerry talk about foreign policy as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and as a senior Senator, you know that he doesn’t take these things lightly. And committing American troops to any war is a huge deal and shouldn’t be taken lightly. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.