Obama is still "proud" of Affordable Care Act

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25159887

I have continued to cover stories about the Affordable Care Act and the continuous grief Obama has received from this act throughout my blog.  This week in a television interview Obama was still standing behind the act and was quoted stating, "that he would be extraordinarily proud of the program."  Now the issue is the website.  The government is focusing on the website because amidst all of the chaos Healthcare.gov was down for eleven hours.  I also saw something on the news this morning about the site shutting down and having issues but, honestly, I find that some media outlets make sure to introduce this because they want to make sure the population is notified about ANY AND ALL issues that the Affordable Care Act has.  In addition, I find that Obama has tried his hardest with the program, has apologized to America for the issues, and it is important, yet hard to believe, that he continues his stance behind the program instead of denouncing it because of the struggles it has faced. 
This quote describes his devotion to the program (even though he knows it has flaws!)
"I continue to believe and [I'm] absolutely convinced that, at the end of the day, people are going to look back at the work we've done to make sure that in this country you don't go bankrupt when you get sick, that families have that security," said President Obama.

Do you think it is good that Obama is still standing by the program or do you think he should have just dropped it??

Obama Apologizes...

As many people have seen Obama has recently been on the news apologizing to any individuals that are being kicked off their health care plan and for any other issues associated with the new health care bill (Obamacare).  I found this article the other day and it raises a couple questions about the issue.  First, the article states that Obama apologized to congressional democrats for letting them down with the health care bill; however, the bill was approved by Congress.  I am confused as to why he is apologizing to Congressional Democrats when they obviously approved the health care plan.  I understand that Democrats may be more inclined or more able to approve what Obama is introducing but they knew of the bill and could have examined possible outcomes of it.  In addition, I think that Obama is right in apologizing to the American people, but I also find that his apology allows for the bias news media to write that he is stating what a failure Obamacare is and has owned up to being a bad president.  I do not believe he is our worst President and I also do not believe that he needs to take the blame for THE WHOLE Obamacare issues because there are other people that had to sign off on the new health care plan.  What do you think??



http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/14/obama-apologizes-to-democrats-for-letting-them-down/

Here are a couple political cartoons I found that go along with some of the more recent topics I have blogged about.....




Most of these are bias and against Obama but you get the point.

Google Barge

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24819850

Okay so this story I ran across on BBC news about the Google barges off of the US coast poses many questions and has been circulating rumors.  The barge a four story structure on the deck and so far Google has not commented on what the facility will be used for but they do have a patent from 2009 for a "water based" data center.  The article states several different rumors that are circulating that some seem completely outrageous like floating data centers powered by wave action and others seem more adequate like the deck will be fitted with showrooms to form a type of "party deck" on top. 

After reading this article it made me think about how the media speculates and starts rumors about the story because they do not know the answer or have all of the information.  Have you noticed that this has been happening more often?

Forced entry really??

Earlier this week I came across several articles posted on my friends facebook pages noting that Obamacare has reached a whole new level or that we are moving towards Communism with this new health bill so, obviously, I was curious to read more about what in the world they were talking about.  Here are several news articles that delve into this same issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEd5WsMJO4

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/02/its-amazing-people-obamacare.html

The video above notes the tax dollars needed to put forth the new health care plan but it mostly discusses how these tax dollars are being used to invade your privacy through a "forced" home search.  When I first heard about how the new health care bill has forced home searches I was baffled at the issue because I wanted to get to the bottom of the story knowing that it truly could not allow home invasions because it would be against our rights.  Then, I stumbled upon the article on Politicus USA called, Its Amazing What People Believe About Obamacare. Deborah Foster, the writer of the article, notes several different websites she encourages individuals should use to fact check claims made or stories seen on media outlets.  Obviously the many posts stating forced entry are incorrect.   The health care bill does state that there will be home visits to any families or individuals using government health care, but these visits are voluntary and most likely will not be unannounced. These visits are voluntary because said inviduals or families are receiving the government funded medical insurance and they would not have to comply if they would rather switch to a different insurance.  Finally, there are several people in the community that are under the government health insurance that would benefit from guidance or assistance. 

Can we say Biased!

So here are two articles I came across that are both describing the lifted furlough and the next steps the US government should make. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24563189

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/17/with-budget-deal-national-debt-free-to-soar-again/

The first article, US Governmental Employees Head Back to Work, describes how Obama signed the deal ending the shutdown and extending the debt limit.  It later describes how this decision by Obama was very much needed but it still does not resolve the budgetary issues that the Democrats and Republicans have continuously fought over.  However, this decision does create a committee with mixed party members that are supposed to craft a long term budget.  Finally, the article notes Obama's views on how the Republican's tactics during the shutdown caused more harm to the population.

The second article on Fox news, With Budget 'deal' national debt free to soar again, is a similar article but it talks about the national debt and what our government will do.  It notes that this debt increase is the sixth since Obama took office (three times when Democrats controlled Congress and three times when Republicans controlled the house).  Then the article continues to describe and note percentages of how much the debt has risen under Obama's terms.  In addition, "Republicans have been more modestly emboldened in their push for spending cuts after the dire consequences that administration officials said would emerge."

After reading these two articles the reader can note clear differences in the journalists viewpoints towards budget spending, Obama, and the conflict amongst Republicans and Democrats.  I feel as if the BBC article is simply stating more of the facts, besides stating Obamacare instead of calling the health plan by its full name, and the Fox news article is leaning more towards the Republican viewpoint.  It is evident in the Fox article that they want to make sure the reader knows that the national debt is increasing because of Obama and that there was such a delay in lifting the furlough because Obama would not budge.  In the BBC article I found there is not much information on the Republican standpoint and more direct quotes from Obama on the issue which is very biased and against the Republican party. 
Have you noticed that news articles on the same subject read completely differently due to the bias that is, almost always, introduced into the material?  I know each reader should keep their mind open, but do you believe that in todays society he population only reads one article and believes that the information given is true???

Media on repeat?

As everyone is aware, the Government is still shutdown because of continuous debates and a standoff between Republicans and Democrats.  I read an article today about the subject and there is clearly still a political stalemate making the US Governmental shutdown continue.  The BBC noted in the article that for the first time in weeks the Senate held direct talks for the first time.  My question for this is why did the Senate not do direct talks earlier? 

In addition, the media, of course, has continued their coverage of the issue but one needs to ask, does the medias coverage and information help or worsen the communities ideas of the subject.  The media outlets keep information flowing about the government shutdown just so the community will stay informed about what is going on; however, many of the articles I have read have the same information with just a couple new political stances or statements from politicians.  This new article on BBC about the Senate opening direct talks was the first article, that I have seen, that has completely new information on the subject.  This problem may be because the Government has not made any moves that are notable towards lifting the governmental shutdown, but I know it is also because of the medias trend.  I find that this continuous repeated information through the mass media hinders the publics opinion of the media. 

Have you noticed media outlets, during an issue, continue to promote the same information over and over and over again?

US budget shutdown tomorrow?

I know most Americans are following the issue over the fiscal budget and hoping that something will be agreed upon before tomorrow.  Our government has not even signed a back up plan that would go into affect if nothing is agreed upon.  BBC news has introduced an article that notes Obama has stated that a potential US government shutdown is "entirely avoidable; " however, he has criticized Republicans for trying to fight the budget in order to further delay his health care law.  "Republicans in the House of Representatives- and their allies in the Senate- have continuously demanded that [Obama's health care plan] be repealed or stripped of funding as a condition for continuing to fund the government. "  Either way major portions of the law were passed back in 2010 and will take effect on Tuesday even if there is a shutdown.  The shutdown they are describing would cause the close of all non-essential federal services at midnight and more than 700,000 federal government workers could be sent home on unpaid leave until this issue is resolved.  Although Obama seems very concerned for the well being of the federal workers, he along with fellow Democrats in the Senate say that they will reject any House bill that touches the health care law.  So there it is, the Republicans will do anything to make sure the health care law does not go into full effect and the Democrats will do anything to make sure Republicans cannot shoot it down and because of this complete lack of understanding or compromise we as a nation will have to see what happens tomorrow.
What are your thoughts on the subject?

article:
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24341801

Syria hands in information on chemical weapons

The BBC introduced an article today that stated that the international chemical weapons watchdog has received an "expected" account of the chemical weapons.  This announcement was introduced before the deadline set in the Russia-US deal.  Syria is believed to have 1,000 tonnes of chemical toxins and these weapons are supposed to all be dismantled by the middle of next year.  The UN confirmed that the chemical sarin had been used in an attack on Damascus.  The report did not say who was to blame for the attack; however, it has been assumed that the Syrian government is behind it.  Of course the Syrian President Assad has blamed the rebel groups for this retaliation and even though Russia believes that the rebels did provoke the Syrian government, there has been 100,000 deaths since the uprising against president Assad.  Whether this deal we have made with Syria and handing over their chemical weapons will work we will have to wait and see.

Chemical weapons plan

The US and Russia have come to an agreement stating that Syrian chemical weapons must be destroyed or removed by mid-2014.  In addition, the document also states that the US and Russia must be notified, in detail, of Syria's stockpile of weapons within a week.  If Syria does not agree to these terms it will result in an UN Resolution because Syria has recently joined the Chemical Weapons Convention.  The government of Bashar al-Assad still denies any involvement in the use of gas or chemical weapons against its citizens.  It is great to hear that the US and Russia have, both, taken a stance against Syria.  The only steps now would for Syria either to choose to cooperate or for Assad to not cooperate which would introduce the use of force under an announced UN Resolution.  The US somewhat expects for Syria "to live up to its public commitments" and wanted to let the population know that if Syria chooses to not obey the rules that our government is still prepared to take action. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24098159

During the G20 Summit talks about Syria continued and Putin continued to stress that the US not intervene in the issue in Syria.  In addition, this past week after Obama asked approval from Congress to intervene in the issue I noticed that there were several stories about how Obama wanted to share the blame, but I find that this was a good stance for Obama to take.  If he went ahead with the order to engage in Syria conflict without Congressional approval and it went downhill he would be blamed; however, this issue is clearly a major international crisis where Congress should, and did, agree to take a stance against Assad and the Syrian cruelty.  Today on BBC news Secretary of State, Kerry, spoke out about his stance on the Syrian conflict and noted that there will be a bigger risk if the US does not take action.  Even though Russia urges for peace talks and Assad said that if the US attacks militarily we should be prepared for retaliation Kerry finds that it would be a greater risk to allow Assad to continue using chemical weapons.  In addition, during the Summit Syrian leaders denied any knowledge of chemical weapons and stated that the weapons were not used on the population. This conflict urges the question of,  on the international stage if someone does not intervene when a country uses chemical weapons then what will happen next???

*Ultimately my answer for this question would be that other countries will see that the use of chemical weapons was frowned upon but there was no reprimand so it will enable the use of chemical weapons. 

What do you think?

Kerry's article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24016844

"Never give up"

After watching the news yesterday evening I have to blog about Diana Nyad.  She ultimately reached her lifelong dream of swimming from Cuba to Florida without a shark cage.  Diana, 64 years old, swam the 110 miles for fifty-three hours straight.  Diana has been trying to fulfill this dream since she was 28 and this was her fifth attempt at swimming this long treacherous distance.  After she got out of the water she looked very distraught but continued to walk and praise supporters telling them to never give up on their dreams.  Diana's story is a brave and very encouraging story for others to uplift others, especially women. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23915203
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/02/20288819-diana-nyad-makes-history-swimming-from-cuba-to-florida?lite

What has the media today become?

As we all watch and anticipate a FINAL verdict on the Syria crisis the media has went stir crazy with articles.  CNN and BBC have created articles that are key for the uninvolved US population to read and become more aware of this evolving problem; however, some articles I have come across are problematic only because of mass media.  Yesterday, as I was reading my daily news at work I noticed that one of the top stories reported on Syria was about one of Assad's children threatening the US through his Facebook.  In Hafez Assad's page long status update he rants on about how he wishes the US would attack and that the US may have more weapons but they will never completely cease the resistance that has been built up in Syria.  Honestly, I do not feel that an article about Assad's 11 year old sons rant on Facebook trumps real stories about the human rights tragedies happening in Syria, President Obama's stance on Syria, or any article that will let us know how close the US is to attacking the nation.  After reading the ranting Facebook status I wondered, are US citizens really more concerned/interested in this little boys tantrum and could they care less that we are about to potentially bomb another nation and have our whole country put at risk??  I have found that some of the media lately has been consumed with stories that are completely bogus about the latest celebrity scandals (especially Miley Cyrus's VMA performance) and about royal weddings, babies, and scandals.  I am SURE that there are some people in the US today that have heard about Syria, but have not read or watched anything beneficial to the subject. 


This blog pertains to:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/bashar-al-assads-young-son-dares-us-to-attack-syria-in-facebook-rant-photo/

Important articles:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23918157#TWEET874893

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+(RSS%3A+Politics)