Drunk on the Job

Earlier this year, videos recordings surfaced of US defense contractors in Kabul, Afghanistan who appear to be staggeringly drunk and or high on narcotics. The defense contractors are from a private contracting company, Jorge Scientific Corporation, a trusted partner of the US government that designs solutions to the most challenging problems in critical situation. The contractors appear drunk and high, despite a strict zero tolerance of drugs and alcohol by the Department of the Army's general order number one. The general order reads that, "possessing, consuming, introducing, purchasing, selling transferring, or manufacturing alcohol" is prohibited as well as controlled substances and prescription medications (to read more of the actual General Order Number 1 click here).   These videos were sent into ABC News by John Melson and Kenny Smith, two former Jorge employees.  (To watch the video click this link, http://www.tubechop.com/watch/61553, or watch below from :35 seconds to 1:03). Not only are the contractors endangering Jorge employees and US military personnel, but they are also endangering the US mission and American tax dollars.

These US defense contractors in Kabul, Afghanistan are under the US Legacy Program to train Afghan National Police in counter-insurgency efforts, a forty-seven million dollar contract funded by American tax dollars. These videos raise questions about the role of private companies in Afghanistan after US military leaves. Not only is this concerning for the role of private companies in Afghanistan, but also concerning the issue where American tax dollars go.
So, where do our tax dollars really go? How do we know that there are not more of these types of prohibited behaviors going on in other tax-funded operations? After this incident, do you think tax-funded private companies should stay in Afghanistan?

The Third and Final Presidential Debate

cbsnews.com

With only a little more than two weeks until Election Day, the presidential campaign's are heating up. On Monday, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will meet for the third and final Presidential Debate in Boca Ration, Florida for a must win televised debate on international affairs. Florida is also important because it is the biggest swing state prize with twenty-nine electoral votes. The third debate proves to be a pivotal one, after Romney landed a much-needed boost after his widely-applauded performance in the first debate and Obama barely edging out Romney in the second debate.
According to a NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll released today, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are in a dead ties, both having likely voters of 47%, which makes the third debate even more important. This time around, the candidates will return to a more traditional formatted debated, similar to the first presidential debate and will focus on the controversial topic of international affairs. Many believe that President Barack Obama has the advantage because he is the incumbent and has ended the war in Iraq, ordered the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, and as claimed by many polls, is trusted more among voters on foreign affairs and policy than Mitt Romney. Monday's The moderator, Bob Schieffer, will also play a big role in the debate because of past moderator's performance. How will Schieffer approach questions?How will Schieffer guide the debate? These are some of the many question people are questioning as the final presidential debate approaches. This debate will be Romney and Obama's best chance to pull ahead, but who will win? How do you think the debate will turn out?

Eleven Years and 2,044 Deaths Later

Eleven years, 2,044 deaths, and almost a half-trillion dollars. This Sunday, October 7th, marks the beginning of the US Military's twelfth year in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan started October 7th, 2001 when the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, or the War on Terror. The original driving force of the invasion was the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Towers and ending Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan. Since 2001, the US has accomplished its original goals and has  removed a large portion of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and killed Osama Bin Laden. Although the US has accomplished all of its initial goals in Afghanistan, we still remain there.  As many years have passed and military deaths have hit the 2,000 mark, many US citizens are wondering why the US is still there while others have simply forgotten about the war. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama's exit strategy was signed off by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that calls for an end to combat operations next year and international military force removal, led by the US, by the end of 2014. (CNN) However, 2014 is two years away, which leaves many wondering why the United States is still in Afghanistan after eleven years, thousands of deaths, and billions of dollars.  Many people have their own opinions about the Afghanistan war, so why do you think the US remains in Afghanistan? Should the US continue to have a presence in Afghanistan?

War in Afghanistan Collage

2012 Presidential Debate: Jim Lehrer

This past Wednesday, the presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their first 2012 Presidential Debate in Denver, Colorado with Jim Lehrer moderating. Jim Lehrer is an American journalist and a former PBS anchor who has been honored with many journalism awards. (Read more background information of Lehrer here) This past presidential debate was his 12th debate as a moderator. However, his moderation of the 2012 debate has received many tough reviews. Even before the Presidential debate ended Wednesday night, the social media Twitter was ablaze with criticism of Lehrer's performance. A review of Lehrer by USA Today says that, "Lehrer lost control, early and often. But just as clearly, he had a goal beyond presiding over a tightly structure debate-- which was to stay out of the way as much as possible and make the candidates run the debate themselves" (To read more of USA Today's review of Jim Lehrer click here). As stated by USA Today, Jim Lehrer was very insistent upon letting the candidates speak and staying out of the flow of the debate. Lehrer even says a moderator should be like a "baseball umpire, get out of the way and let the candidates speak" (The Washington Times). However, many believe this moderating philosophy left the debate wandering from surface point to surface point. So what do you think of Jim Lehrer's performance? If Jim Lehrer were not the moderator, would the debate have played out differently or more focused? Would the candidates had said anything differently or had said anything more?