Beginning at 1:30 p.m. today at Ft. Hood in Texas, a disgruntled soldier, Major Nadil Malik Nadan allegedly opened fire in the Soldier Readiness Center, killing 11 and injuring 31. In this area of the base, soldiers were preparing for deployment, and also screened soldiers returning from deployment. According to reports, Nadan was preparing for deployment overseas as well. The shooter was shot by authorities.

The supsect was a psychiatrist at Darnell Army Medical Center on the Army base. According to the Chicago Tribune, this shooting is being considered one of the worst mass shooting in history at a U.S. military base. According to the article, Nadan had a history of violence concerning the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing U.S. presence there.

The weight of that is almost hard to comprehend. In my opinion, the one place in the world that would seem safe from this type of attack would be a military base. However, today that was not the case.

The GDP grew at a rate of 3.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter, which has been the fastest advance since the first quarter since 2007. The last signs of growth for the economy were in the second quarter of 2008. Now, more than a year later and with consumer spending up to 3.4 percent at the end of the third quarter, Reuters declared this increase in GDP as “unofficially ending the worst recession in 70 years.”

According to the article, the number of new American workers claiming jobless benefits dropped by 1,000 requests in the past week. In addition, the number of Americans receiving long-term aid showed the lowest numbers in seven months.

Now that signs of a rebound are on the horizon, many problems, some more troubling than the brutal recession, will begin to develop. According to Tim Chriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Assest Management in Bedford Hills, NY, this GDP rate is not enough to “tip the scale yet.”

Chriskey says that the Fed will not jump on the bandwagon to say that the economy is recovering, but will also not expect it to relapse again. He instead argues that they will behave more as “cheerleaders” for the economy and neither try to speed up the process or hinder it in any way.

On the other hand, Reuters reports Dan Cook, senior market analyst for IG Markets in Chicago, as saying that the economy will dip below zero again in the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010 before growth is seen again. This dip, he says, will be attributed to the paring down of government programs by the Fed.

So if economist are crying wolf in a sense as to the meaning of the increase in GDP, then the American people shouldn’t consider their wallets safe anytime soon. If the economy is on the up and up, which the next few quarters will show, then it will be a slow process. The effects of this recession have reached far and wide throughout this country, and it will take months, if not years, to undo the damage that has been done.

Americans have lost jobs, homes, and savings. The American fortitude has worn thin, and the repairing process will be a long road of floundering government social programs and constantly fluctuating interest rates. However, if any step of this process is taken too quickly or drawn out too long the economy could falter and this increase in GDP will be nothing but a hiccup in one of the worst recessions in U.S. history.

However, in a report printed in The New York Times on Wednesday, world leaders who met at the United Nations on Sept. 22 are having difficulty building a worldwide climate treaty when “global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years.”

According to climate scientists, the average global temperature has only risen .13 degrees Farhenheit since 1999. This would lead the average person to believe that global warming is not as immediate a threat as we have been led to believe for the past decade or more.

Scientists say that the pattern for global temperatures in the last decade is merely “a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere.”

Because of the plateau of temperatures worldwide during the past decade, and even global cooling trends in places like Antarctica, climate experts fear that their endeavors to reduce harmful air pollutants will be wasted.

Mojib Latif, a prize-winning climate and ocean scientist from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Keil in Germany recently published a paper discussing the fact that “the cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep temperatures over the next decade or so relatively stable even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continues to increase.”

However, there are many climate scientists that do not agree with Latif’s position. While many agree that a global cooling trend is inevitable sooner or later, they also are continuing to advocate the harmful effects of greenhouse gases.

While most climate scientists, according to the article, do stand by their projections for rising sea levels and other disruptive effects of global warming, they also agree that there is a one in eight chance of having a decade-long pause in global warming like we are currently experiencing.

So, will global warming continue to be a trendy subject in both political circles and the scientific community? I suppose the next few years will tell.

*Courtesy of The George-Anne

The Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was ousted from power on June 28 this year. On Sept. 3 the United States threatened to put Honduras “in a box” because they refuse to recognize the winner of the presidential election, according to The Washington Post in a report on Sept. 4.

U.S. officials have said that they will continue to shun the country unless the Honduran leaders reverted back to a negotiated plan for Zelaya to return to power with limited powers until his term expires in December, according to the report.

The country’s citizens ousted Zelaya after a constitutional succession, and the Honduran Supreme Court issued a warrant for Zelaya’s arrest for his “blatant violations of our constitution,” said Roberto Micheletti in a story published in The Washington Post this week.

The supporters of this coup feared that Zelaya would have introduced the socialist-style agenda that Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela and also the leader of an anti-America bloc in Western hemisphere, promotes.

Shortly after the country initiated this coup, the U.S. State Department fomally terminated the already suspended $30 million in aid that the Honduran government had been receiving.

The country has fair and transparent elections scheduled for Nov. 29, according to Micheletti.  The United States stands by the decision to shun the country because if Zelaya is not returned to power, Honduras will be violating the San Jose Accords, which were negotiated in San Jose, Costa Rica. Honduras will be able to return to previous interactions with the United States “once the  regime embraces and faithfully implements the San Jose Accord,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in The Washington Post.

If the Honduran people see fit to oust their leader from power because they do not believe him to be a competent leader for the country, then who are we to say that they are wrong?

The American government names itself the leading power in the world, and with its self-proclaimed title, it continues to force its opinions and policies onto unwanting recipients. The same government that proclaims freedom and equality for its people will not allow the same for countries and governments in which the United States ultimately has no say. If the Honduran people do not agree with the government that is currently in power, then they should be given the freedom to choose another leader. This seems logical to most people.

However, the American government acts as if a country behaves in a way that is  against the wishes of the self-proclaimed greatest power in the world, then it has a right to not only speak out about these actions, but the right to shun them.

Imagine if you would wake up tomorrow and  your roommate disagreed with your breakfast choice for the day and decreed that if you didn’t change your particular cereal choice then you would be shunned until the offense was righted. If you’re anything like me, you would look at your roommate like he or she was crazy. So why does our government think they have the right to do this to other countries?

America is not the world. We are one small piece of the world, and we need to start respecting other countries’ opinions and choices.

*Courtesy of The George-Anne

However, there is now a threat to our already scarce funds creeping on the horizon. As if the failing economy were not enough of a downer as we walk across that stage and proudly receive our diplomas for which we have so diligently worked, there is yet another factor that is ready to pick our pockets the second we turn our tassel.

There has been a constant buzz about health care reform everywhere from the dinner table to newspaper headlines and town hall meetings across the country for the past several months. Terms such as single-payer and universal health care have become a part of our everyday vocabulary because of this legislation.

What many young people under the age of 30 might not thoroughly understand however is that this legislation will require everyone, including poor young people to have some form of health insurance. For those who may not know, whenever you graduate college or fall below a full-time student (no longer taking 12 or more credit hours) you are automatically dropped from your parent’s health insurance policy.

Under this new health initiative, young adults would be required to buy at least minimum coverage, according to The Washington Post. Not only would this reform require young adults to purchase coverage, but also if an individual failed to do so they would be fined between $750-$950 per year. Insurance company experts stated that even the cheapest plans offered would still be over $100 a month. That would mean that the fine for not purchasing coverage would be cheaper for struggling young people than the cheapest coverage available.

According to a 2008 study by Urban Institution, more than 10 million young adults, between the ages of 19-26, do not currently have health insurance. Experts call this group the “young invincibles,” according to The Washington Post. They were given this name because this group either decides that their youth trumps any health concerns that could arise or that they would rather spend the money on other things.

Many young adults are also uninsured, according to the article, because they work for employers that do not offer health insurance, they may not qualify for public programs like Medicaid or even the lowest amount of coverage from private insurance companies is too expensive.

President Obama sees young people, or citizens below the age of 30, as the richest vein of support for his reform plan. He is also planning that this same demographic be the major funding for these changes, according to the article.

The proposed bill would also have a large negative effect on young adults with severe health issues. Policy experts also worry that these citizens might not be able to afford the expensive plans that their conditions would require.

But there is hope on the horizon for us young people. According to the article, there was another bill introduced Wednesday that offers a proposal to keep premiums manageable. However, what Congress’ view of manageable is compared to the average college graduate probably differs a great deal. While I do agree that health reform is needed, I do not believe that it should be at the expense of the young people in America.

*Courtesy of The George-Anne

My first few posts will be columns that I have previously written and published in The George-Anne.

Enjoy!