GREENSBORO -- A buck-a-day -- that's the incentive being offered to young girls to keep them from getting pregnant...

Brown said she hopes the program, which pays $1 each day to 12-to-18-year-old girls, will keep them from getting pregnant. In addition to remaining pregnancy-free, the girls must also attend weekly meetings.

The program is funded by a four-year grant from the state...

Under the program, $7 is deposited into an interest-bearing college fund that the girls can collect once they graduate high school.

Some recent graduates earned more than $2,000 and are an inspiration to those still in the program...

If a girl drops out or gets pregnant, her money is divided among the other girls still in the program.

$1 dollar a day to not have sex or get pregnant; not much of an incentive in my view, when these same girls could probably get lots more by 'having' sex, or for that matter, getting pregnant (welfare).

I can see it now.  The young guys in high school hear about the $1 a day program and through the grapevine get word of who signed up for the program. Once the guy knows that, he knows the girl must 'need' money.  He than offers that girl 'more' money for 'having' sex with him.  All he has to do is offer her a condom and say, "Hey, you want to make an extra buck or two on top of that $1 you are getting from the program?"

The idea of putting $7 a week away for college in exchange for graduating from high school; now that I can agree with.  That is a good idea.

What happens if the girl graduates but ends up pregnant just before graduating?  Does she lose all that college money?  I don't think that would be fair.  Maybe they would give her a percentage of the money (subtracting that extra $1 a day sum)?  Anybody know?  I would hope so.  At least she graduated high school.

A lot of 'ifs' involved; but I like the goals.

I just loved President Obama's comment today when asked a question about the private insurers assertion that having a public health plan would run them out of business:

"Why would it drive private insurers out of business?" asked Obama. "If they tell you they're offering a good deal, why is it that government, which they say can't run anything, can drive them out of business? There are gonna be some legitimate debates to be had about how this takes shape. But conceptually, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision on the best plan, that defies logic."

I'd like the reporters to now go and ask those private insurers and the GOP leaders that made the initial claim that private companies would be run out of business if a public health plan was provided -- where they get this so called fact?

While I continue to worry about Obama's promise that if you like your companies plan and your doctor, you can keep them.  What if the company decides to change plans or go into a public health plan?  He's not answering that question as of yet.

However, in his defense, your company could change plans tomorrow.  They could suddenly say, "Hey, that Health Alliance is just too expensive for us, we're changing to PPO".  So either way, you are still forced to 'change' plans and possibly doctors.

Is that what they call a single payer system?  You pay your premium one place, and go to any hospital or doctor you please.  No more HMO's.

Officials investigating Washington D.C.'s worst subway accident, which left at least nine dead, are eyeing whether the failure to upgrade old trains with key recording devices designed to prevent such collisions contributed to the crash.

The train that triggered the crash wasn't equipped with the recorders, said National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman. It was part of an old "thousand-series" fleet that was not outfitted with the technology, she told reporters Tuesday at a news conference.

The NTSB had previously recommended that all trains have the recorders installed.

Guess who was thinking into the future when they all voted for the Recovery and Reinvestment Act?  President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

The Department of Transportation moved another step closer to realizing President Obama's vision for high-speed rail in America, publishing guidelines for states and regions to apply for federal funds as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The guidelines require rigorous financial and environmental planning to make sure projects are worthy of investment and likely to be successful. The program will offer grants for both planning and construction so that states can apply for funds no matter what stage of development their project is in. The guidance states that proposals will be considered on the merits for their ability to make trips quicker and more convenient reduce congestion on highways and at airports and meet other environmental, energy and safety goals. And it allows the USDOT to actively promote standard specifications for rail cars and other equipment. The Federal Railroad Administration will award the first round of grants by mid-September. [U.S. Department of Transportation, 6-17-09]

May I remind you all that not one Republican in the House of Representatives and only 3 Republican Senators voted 'YES' for Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

While the bill was passed too late to help these poor citizens that lost their lives or were injured during the Washington D.C. crash; thank GOD President Obama and the Democrats created a plan to help stop such accidents from happening again.

To continue the subject of my previous post about President Obama's comments to Iran and how I would relate them to the President's current stand "Let's move on" on possible war crimes being committed by the Bush administration.

I noted the following statements by Republican members about how Obama is confronting the abuse in Iran:

"The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on a Sunday morning talk show. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like."

"If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on ... obviously they are going to ask, do we really care about our principles?" Sen. Chuck Grassleysaid.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., told "FOX News Sunday" that Obama, in person, needs to address the Iranian and American people -- he called the election backlash a potential "game changer" in Iran which Obama should leverage.

"This president is a great orator. This president needs to come out, he needs to speak to the American people, but more important he needs to speak to the people of Iran, the people of the Middle East and he has to make a forceful statement on behalf of the people on the streets for freedom and democracy," Hoekstra said. 

John McCain argued that treading softly isn't the right approach.

"People are being killed and beaten in the streets of Tehran and all over Iran, and we should stand up for them," he told FOX News. "The way we stood up for the Polish workers in Gdansk, the way we stood up for the people of then Czechoslovakia in the Prague Spring and we have stood up for freedom in every part of the world. We're not doing that."

"Well those that are being beaten in the streets of Tehran and around Iran obviously don't hold that view," he said. "So let's not take the side necessarily of the protestors...the fact is we should be on the side of a free and fair election, and not be in favor of an oppressive brutal government."

In support of Obama's actions were...

Zakaria: I think a good historic analogy is President George H.W. Bush's cautious response to the cracks in the Soviet empire in 1989. Then, many neo-conservatives were livid with Bush for not loudly supporting those trying to topple the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But Bush's concern was that the situation was fragile. Those regimes could easily crack down on the protestors and the Soviet Union could send in tanks. Handing the communists reasons to react forcefully would help no one, least of all the protesters. Bush's basic approach was correct and has been vindicated by history.

George Will: The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what's going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don't need that reinforced.

Peggy Noonan, another conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan, denounced the right-wing attacks, particularly those from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). "To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous," she wrote, adding that "the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week."

Isn't it odd how our leader's views CHANGE when it comes to OTHER nations?

How would Graham, Grassley and McCain feel if other nations said the same things to the United States -- let the truth come out, punish the war criminals -- would they listen?  They haven't so far.  They just want to "MOVE ON".

Hundreds were beaten and tortured (some even innocent) in OUR prisons and we simply 'MOVE ON'. What you can't see or hear can't hurt you - attitude.

Hypocrites!

President Barack Obama's words to Iran on Saturday:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

I agree with the President 100% with his statement to the Iranian government and I sincerely, with all my heart, for the sake of the Iranian people, hope their nation's government will stop all violence and compromise by having a fair and open election with perhaps the United Nations standing by to validate the results.

Now I'd like to discuss the President's statement to Iran in terms of our own leadership's actions. 

The world is watching President Obama, they're waiting to see if the United States means what it says; do we really believe in the truth?  Or will the world continue to bear witness against the coverup of abuse and torture during the past recent years of the Bush administration?

Will United State's leadership allow the American people and the world to hear the truth?  Will those involved be given the freedom to speak if they so choose and will those that are being protected by the government be forced to admit the truth about our  recent past or will you continue to believe that suppressing ideas will make them go away?

Will those that committed these abuses and torture ever see the inside of a prison for their crimes or will they forever be considered heros as some in these United States are still proclaiming them to be?


Am I obsessed with this topic - you might say that; then again, you might just say I'm for letting justice be served.  The longer we ignore the past, the less chances we have to get the 'whole' truth out.