Important Note:
Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1
How fast should national policy change?
Posted at: Apr/27/2009 : Posted by: mel
Related Category: Politics & Gov,
As our 44th president approaches his 100 days in office mark, I feel some serious questions need to be asked. Obviously, in our “Republic” (we practice “Democracy” only a few days out of each year) with each new president and with that new president comes change. When we elect a new president, it is because based on what was learned during the campaign leading up to the election we concluded one individual more effectively represents what we want in a president than another. If the new president promised changes from their predecessor, then we look for those changes to happen. I am just concerned about the ramifications of the pace and scale of the changes. I will review a few of these changes in policy and offer up why I am a little concerned. The Obama administration has said it will relax their enforcement of marijuana laws and go after only distributors. I personally am not concerned with individual drug use from cocaine, to “Prozac” unless it makes you a safety risk to me. I don’t really care what you do at home, but if you are operating machinery in a work environment or driving a car, you should not be taking anything that impairs your judgment or reflexes. Back to the administration: My concern is on how this rapid change in drug policy impacts people who were put behind bars under the previous administration. Should they all be set free, or their records expunged if their convictions were possession related? The Obama administration has very publicly changed the rules on what is “Torture”. I believe that we have to conduct ourselves to the highest standards, but now there is the question of whether any of the information garnered in this mode can be used in court. Additionally, do we now open up the Federal Government to owing reparations for perceived damages from what we now brand as torture? There is no more “War on Terror”. Where does leave some of our alliances with other governments? How credible is our government to other countries if with every administration change we are potentially voiding alliances or the philosophies that some alliances are built on? Whether you agree with certain policies or not, being fickle is never good for ones image. We are closing the Detainee Center at Guantanamo. Not necessarily a bad idea, but where do you send the detainees? Most of the countries asked, have declined to accept any of these individuals. If we send them home, how many will again be shooting at us? Rescinding the Casket Ban for viewing of the return of service members caskets. Because there is still a permission process with each family, I think this was well done. Hiding the reality of American military loses from the general population has never historically been a good presidential policy. President Obama recently stated “by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end”. I am not entirely sure we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but once we did, “we broke it”. Opening Pandora’s box as it were, we destabilized the country and we have an obligation to stay as long as it takes to ensure that when we do leave, the general population of the region can enjoy some peace. The aggressive departure that is currently planned supports a campaign promise, but is not tied to regional stability and peace. Concurrently, many of these same troops are being directly transferred to Afghanistan with as far as I can tell, no clear mission. If 6 months after we depart Iraq it falls into chaos, who will the regional leaders blame for this? Lifting restrictions incrementally on Cuba is probably a good thing. The reality of the sanctions has not been to isolate Cuba from the world, rather…the United States has isolated itself from Cuba. We should use our regional power to implement humanitarian changes within Cuba, but most of our Cuban polices appear to have backfired on us and are realistically 30-40 years out of date. Policies on oil and gas leases are changing as well. Don’t get me wrong, I am a strong supporter of our wilderness areas, but I also believe in stable policy. Energy companies had begun investing exploration efforts in leases on federally controlled wilderness areas. This is back to that argument about being fickle. Other changes in policy include: - Opening up Stem Cell research - The Global Gag Rule on Gay Rights - The Health services Provider Conscience Rule - Releasing Interrogation Photos - EPA policy on Greenhouse Gases I am not saying that many of these changes shouldn’t happen, or don’t need to happen eventually. My concern is credibility and perception. Whether domestic energy policy, or foreign alliances. No one wants to do business with the crazy person down the street who changes their mind every other week. The fact that our president and national will via election can potentially change every 4 years does not mean it is good for us to actually change policy or direction at the same speed.
Comments (0) [Add Comment]
