Re: U.S. & Australian Bonds are Looking to Strengthen

After reading Lauren's editorial (view here) regarding President Obama's recent visit to Australia, I was left wondering why the President felt that this trip was necessary. I understand that Australia is a strong ally to the U.S., but I was unsure of why President Obama felt that we needed a stronger military presence there. So as I did some research (see here: I & II), I found more than one answer to my question.

Since mid September there has been a slow reigniting of old territorial disputes in the South China Sea. This began with the detainment of Chinese fishing boats by Japan near the Senkaku Islands which later led to a standoff resulting in the release of the Chinese crewmen. China has also faced similar disputes with South Korea. With tensions mounting, President Obama hopes that with the U.S. and Australia showing solidarity, potential threats can be avoided.

The U.S. also hopes that the closer proximity to these South Pacific nations will allow us to respond more quickly to natural disasters that have recently plagued the region.

I found both reasons to be "acceptable," but I couldn't help agreeing with Lauren that it seems as though President Obama just wants to keep a closer eye on China, and wants our presence to be a tad bit more apparent to that booming nation across the way. I guess the best way to do that is to get as close to them as we possibly can.

Where Did All That $$ Go

I recently blogged about the now bankrupt solar panel making company Solyndra, and discussed why this meltdown occurred. Republican party members are now attacking the Obama administration saying that the $535 million loan guarantee was a decision made based on politics, and also a waste of taxpayer's money. A recent response from Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu (see here) was given were he defended the administration stating that Solyndra's collapse was unforeseeable. After reading Secretary Chu's response, I couldn't agree more with him. No one could have predicted the rapid fall in price of silicon allowing
China to develop more affordable solar panels. It is extremely unfortunate and somewhat frustrating that so much of the taxpayer's money was lost during this venture, but I think that people need to applaud the effort. That insanely steep loan guarantee was the first move made by any political figure-head to make America a greener nation for its citizens. These types of endeavors are vital to the longevity of our nation. Being green means taking risks. This is not an issue that can or will be solved over night. Too many people are stuck in traditional ideas and policies and are unable to realize that to produce the drastic overhaul this country needs to survive for centuries to come, our government must take steps, such as these, in the direction of green companies.

With that being said, after diving deeper into Solyndra's story I found it enormously disturbing that the administration improperly restructured the loan back in 2010 allowing private investors to get $75 million of their money back before the government sees a dime. I find this restructure to be somewhat unconstitutional. It seems to put a definite higher importance on these private investors, dwarfing the taxpayers and our hard earned money. This is where my opinion splits. Both sides make a compelling argument. Secretary Chu states that this was a necessary and sort of "last-ditch" effort to try and get the company back on its feet, but to no avail. With hopes high, and money falling from the sky Solyndra was still unable to compete with Chinese imports. Simply put, this is is sad day for taxpayers and a sad day for America.

Critiquing Presidential Debates

Yessica Martinez recently blogged about the current presidential debates and their relevance to presidential elections. View Here. I feel that debates are a vital aspect of every political campaign. Since the first televised debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the American people have been able to make tough decisions based upon who the most informed candidate is. Debates are not used to stump candidates, but rather to find out how informed possible presidential candidates are on important issues. If candidates simply spent their entire campaigns talking to the masses, the presidential election would be based solely on emotion. Debates allow citizens to judge their potential president on intelligence and poise. In this day and age some debates even allow citizens to send in questions of their own, somewhat solidifying our right to political participation.

Perry's performance in the last couple debates were terrifyingly awful. So much so that his "thoughts" on debates  ("Designed to tear down candidates"), I believe, are just a cover for his fear. He knows that he an not afford another poor performance. And he also knows, just like everyone else, that he is not the most informed. I for one want my president to be the more informed on each and every issue.