Reuters reported that President Obama is trying to find new ways to delay foreclosure of homes for unemployed Americans. Slashing Tongue support hims whole heartedly on this issue and hope that he takes it up with more urgency.

The single major factor that had brought to the world’s economy to her knees is the collapse of the housing sector in America. So I find it regrettable that the US has made headway in getting fat-cat banks back up to health (especially Goldman Sacs), but jobs are not created and foreclosure rates are still high. You have to wonder where the priority of governments really lies : In the people that voted them into power, or the supporters that contributed millions to their election campaigns.

Why is President Obama and company mulling over this? This could be too costly? The US government has already spent trillions trying to get the economy back and the deficit has passed the 1 trillion mark for the first time; And you are telling me that we cannot help people stay in their homes?

Could this not have support from the other side? I dare the Republicans to vote against this! Try telling their own constituents that you cannot keep your home because of big government. It would be a great political point to score for the Democrats if this happens. There is no way in hell that the Republicans would not back helping people stay in their homes.

Could there be a feeling amongst some people, with homes that they can afford, that this is making them pay for the homes of others who do not deserve it? Yes, there would always be some people feeling that way. But do you think that these people would like to have more homeless people in their neighborhood? What do you think would happen? You think crime rates would not go up in their neighborhood? You think the value of their house would not drop in a neighborhood that has become unsafe?

Having a home is not a luxury, it is a need. Be it a hut or a mansion, a roof over one’s head is essential to one’s life. It is on the basis that lives are made and lived. After food, water and jobs, homes are critical. And saving homes is a must to get this economy back to her feet.

President Obama would fundamentally fail as a President if he chooses to ignore this. Health care is not the biggest priority, this is. We have stated in earlier articles that the economy would roar back if three sectors are tackled. One is jobs, the other is the stability of the banks and lastly, it is housing. Failure to address any one of these three components would not lead to an economic recovery and ultimately, a failed Presidency.

It is amazing that no media really gives a damn about this, with the exception of Reuters. Why?! Isn’t this the news that is important and affects the lives of millions of Americans? Why does the words of the Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, have more coverage than this? Why is it that people know more about rumors of Michael Jackson being gay than about the homes that they live in? It is one thing that people not care to read an important article, it is another for news agencies not to report it at all!

I hope that people take note about this and call their leaders. Pressure them to ensure that people can stay in their homes!

Please visit www.reuters.com for more information on this.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Americans Overwhelmingly Like Sonia Sotomayor (mydd.com)
• Why does the US hate my heritage? (guardian.co.uk)
• Analysis: Sotomayor quietly prepares for hearings (cnn.com)
• Obama picks first Hispanic judge for U.S. Supreme Court (nationalpost.com)
• Obama picks first Hispanic judge for U.S. top court (windsorstar.com)
• Filling Supreme Court Vacancies: I Was for Sam. Now I’m for Sonia. (oup.com)
• Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court Nominee Would Be First Hispanic (Video) (blippitt.com)
• TV Show Inspired Sotomayor to the Bench, Newly Released Documents Show (usnews.com)

We really tried very hard not to comment on Micheal Jackson’s death. We felt that the death of Michael Jackson should be private and hence we did not write anything about it. But then, this has now gone into the realm of politics in such a bizarre fashion thanks to Representative Peter King of New York.

The world has seen what Representative Peter King said with regards to Michael Jackson. My reaction to that was that he could say whatever he wanted but I would not agree with him. But why did he have to call him a child molester? That unnecessary started a chain of unnecessary events.

African Americans love Michael Jackson. It was Michael Jackson that put a Black image on the map. He was a worldwide media icon and entered a league of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley when it comes to being a phenomenon. There were only Whites before he came along. Everybody wanted to be Michael Jackson in his hey day. You could be a waiter from Beijing, China to millionaire in Dakar, Senegal; you were a Michael Jackson. He did it first, what Michael Jordan and President Obama did later.

I do not think that he is a person that was responsible for breaking the barriers for Black people, I think he was the first one to walk through it. After all the hard work done by the civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King in the past that broke the barriers down, Michael Jackson justified their success in ways the they could not imagine. Was he important? To some extent, yes. However, I think that somebody else could have broken that barrier too with sheer brilliance. It was just that Michael Jackson did it first.

I agree with Representative King that he spoke what many Americans thought of Michael Jackson. But by calling a Black icon who died a week or so away a pedophile, you knew you would be asking for trouble. He should have expected African Americans to snap in their emotional state. And they did.

He is now being called a racist by some members National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Come on! What he said was wrong but it was not racist! If he said that about a White guy, he would have been equally wrong. People should not equate a person of minority being wronged with that person being a victim of racial harassment.

I also think that there is also this element of jumping on the opportunity to get their five minute of fame from all corners here. Did anyone know who Representative King was before this? It was also good for people like Representative Bobby Rush and Hazel Dukes. Who ever heard of them before? And you know what, the media have allowed them to succeed.

For the record, I do not think that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. I am not that big of a fan but I liked some of his earlier works.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Michael Jackson memorial service: Mariah Carey and Lionel Richie to perform (telegraph.co.uk)
• O’Reilly’s Rant On Michael Jackson (perezhilton.com)
• Clarence B. Jones: Remembering Michael Jackson — The Man in Our Mirror (huffingtonpost.com)
• Video: MLK Children Speak at Memorial (cbsnews.com)
• Watch Live Coverage of Michael Jackson Memorial Service Funeral Streaming Online (binside.typepad.com)
• Barry Michael Cooper: Michael Jackson Agonistes: Act II of an American Pop’era (huffingtonpost.com)

Just give Bill O Reilly one night off and his show comes up with something that is so bad and so below the belt that it warrants something to be written on ST. For God’s sake FOX, when Bill O goes off the factor, go off the air!

It started well with the talk of the CIA having low morale. That I can agree and can understand. I also think that CIA personnel should not be prosecuted and President Obama has also echoed this. He said that it would be the decision of the Attorney General whether people that wrote the memos would be prosecuted but would leave the CIA operatives alone.

The first guest was Donovan Campbell. He was saying that people can serve the CIA in the private sector as much as the public one. Laws are there to ensure that CIA agents are not outed out. That however does not apply to the 2 interrogators who are actually consultants roped in by the CIA. They are not bound by non-contractual laws of the CIA. They are not CIA agents. To say that these people are members of the CIA is like saying that Blackwater are elite Military Policemen in the army.

It is already ridiculous for me that the CIA is having these people in the first place. Why pay so much for something that your men are supposed to be able to do. Even if torture was part of the agenda then, they could have easily asked their Israeli allies on how it is done and train their troops to do so. Many countries around the world base their military training on Israeli advice, why can’t the US? Why pay so much for something that the CIA was supposed to do? Were they afraid that they would break the law in that way? Why is the US having mercenaries at all in the army? That is the main point I felt that Mr Campbell was wrong on.

Then comes the other guest. Before that, the stand in host, Luara Ingraham said that “They are treating these guys like criminals!”Of course they are! They are being accused of torture. We did not treat Bernard Madoff with less scorn did we? Neither did we treat Michael Jackson with less scorn even though he has yet to be proven guilty of anything!

The disturbing part comes from Bo Dietl, the other guest. It is okay to call the new practices Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, but it is another thing to say that it is interrogation. The difference is that this is not allowed in standard interrogation procedure and sort of implying that this should be the standard interrogation techniques used by cops. He even gave an example where he said that police would just let cars go by because they fear complaints! Now you know why the minorities hate the police so much? It is because there are a minority of police officers like you who spoil the name!

The thing that he said that I am sure many elements in the media would catch on is the fact that he asked the President a question he really should not have : If the President’s children were kidnapped by Al Qaeda, would he want to “interrogate”?

You really want to get wife and kids involved in this? When are people going to learn that one should never bring out sentiments when you are making a decision? You think Roxana Saberi’s mum would not want a nuclear strike on Iran to free her or the parents of the 2 journalists kidnapped in North Korea would not support an invasion into that country to get their kids out. Would that mean that the US should attack Iran and North Korea as well? Obviously not!

This was terrible behavior by the guest and the host. She did not do anything to stop it at all. Bill O Reilly would never have allowed this to happen. He would would have cut the guest off might have even apologize for something like this being said..

This is the worst yet this year. I hope Bill O never bring Laura Ingraham, and Bo Dietl on on air again. They are terrible! Though FOX News is the right wing version of MSNBC, this is something that is low even for their standards!