How to buy a President

Super PAC’s and how the very rich are buying the elections. This NY Times editorial seems to be coming from the left as it mostly points to big donors to republican candidates.

This author is clearly attempting to argue that the conservatives are getting unfair and unbalanced investments by donations all the while, it is noted, Obama is innocent of any wrongdoing and has only gotten a few dollars. Then goes on to say that he too might be falling into the easy money trap showing us the author isn't really biased, but clearly is.
In addition, the author seems to grab at straws while making salient points about the potential failings of the system, to wave a very particular point about a donor’s personal view regarding uses for aspirin. Really quite an odd point.

But a strong point is made that an elite few interested parties certainly do have opportunities with the system set up today as it is, to influence politicians to see their way. Super PAC’s are entities that are designed to take in money and then spit it to a candidate as if it wasn't from an individual.

Individuals are limited as to how much they can give to politicians so as to keep money launderers or criminals or power brokers from buying power. Now they can just go through these intermediaries to give as much as they want.

The link below you will find the argument the author is trying to make.  Makes for an interesting read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/donors-with-agendas.html?ref=editorials

Woman In Combat

The Pentagon announced today that woman would be formally permitted in crucial and dangerous jobs in combat, but not officially allowed to be in combat.  What?!  Oh come on make up your mind.  Woman already serve in many of those jobs but as temporary "attachments" to battalions as medics, tank mechanics, radio operators and other critical jobs.  For instance in Afghanistan and Iraq, these temporary jobs were a bureaucratic sidestep that has been necessary due to the high demand for troops in the last ten years of war.  The Pentagons new rules make permanent these existing arrangments and are simply playing catch up.  Bans to woman serving in the infantry, in combat tank units, and in special ops for woman to advance in a military career, they need to be recognized that they really have a role in combat.  The current policy does not recognize this role and are therefore holding back woman from advancing.  I'm sure that many still believe that one reason why woman should not these combat roles in the military is because woman aren't strong or emotionally able to handle it. But weren't not talking about a entire battalion of woman.  What we are talking about are the women who have interest and the ablility to perform in these roles.  Many are mentally and physically capable to perform at the same or even better levels as some men.  The point is, a lot of women will leave the service if they realize they're career is limited, and yet some of the old stereo types persist.
The link below brings on a strong argument I feel interesting:
www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/pentagon-to-loosen-restrictions-on-woman-in-combat.html