Tahoma

Hello all. I didn't really know where to post this question, but this forum seems very friendly and insightful. My question is to those men (or women) from the USA who have married a foreign bride. FWIW, I do not assume there are more or less risks involved in marrying a foreigner than there is in marrying an American. I'm a little naive on the subject and I'd like to learn more.

I read divorce rates for K1 and K3 visa marriages are roughly 20%, which is great compared to the 50+% rates for American marriages. Do the rates vary much based on region? For instance, is the divorce rate higher for those marriages where the bride comes from Southeast Asia or the Caribbean, than say a bride from Russia or Norway? I have met some very sweet foreign girls, but I will be honest... my American buddies always tell me to watch out. They say they only want a visa.

I am not the sort of person who discriminates. I don't assume somebody from another nation has lesser values than I do, just because I am from the USA. To that extent, I will confess that I believe most normal men and women want something tangible in a partner. Whether it be money, security, love, his/her smile, his/her sense of humor. I think this is somewhat true at least.

There was this one cute Russian girl working at the beach and she called me after I gave her my number. She had to return home after the summer, but she was very sweet. All my friends told me she's Russian and that automatically means she loves you first and foremost because you can give her a green card and a better standard of living. Truth be told, I can't blame Russian girls if that is true. I mean, who wouldn't want a better standard of living? I think that's normal.

Perhaps some of you can shed more light on this subject. I ask this question, because it's a little scary nowadays to marry an American girl. The odds are against you. The statistics reveal over half the marriages end within a few years. So, by marrying an American girl, chances are I will be divorced and have to give up half of what I earned during that time we were married (regardless of whether she helped contribute to that). Even couples that have the best of intentions going in often end up in divorce. It's a little crazy if you ask me. So, I'm interested in the possibility of finding a girl in Russia or maybe some other country. Why is there such a stigma and no such stigma for American-American marriages?

You're an adult (I assume) so maybe it's time to start acting like one.

You can chart your own course or you can let your peers decide for you. Put another way, you can be a wolf or you can be a sheep.

Your entire article reeks of someone who cares way too much about what other people think.

Getting over that is step 1. Before you find a wife, find yourself.

Let's see if I understand this advice...

> It is childish to have a conversation about one of the most important decisions of your life.

> The world is black and white...there are no shades of gray.

> Never listen to anyone...their opinions, advice, and information don't matter.

> Tearing someone down helps them find themself.

I can hardly wait for step 2.

aljhel, Happy to hear about your touch. It is probably a really good sign, but I have even better news

I GOT APPROVAL NOTICE EMAIL TONIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally!!!!!!!!!!!! So, I never sent in the G325A for her daughter and it didnt hold it up. Maybe you will be ok. Good luck!!!

Funny thing is, I was having such a bad night too, then I checked my email again just before I was going to sleep and there it was - I was just expecting more reply notices from VJ. It has been sitting there for a few hours!

AMY, Looks like you dont need to open that can up after all, but thanks for your support, it meant a lot.

Congrats Chuck & Grace! That's another good news for September filers.

Aljhel, it seems you will get your NOA2 soon too.

Maribob...Better to be truthful on your medical. Anyway, you are negative on your xray. I assume that SLEC will require additional test such as sputum exam/culture if your xray is positive.

Some members here have explained to you already why it is very common for Filipinos to have positive skin test.

How long will you take your prescribed TB meds?

Wow..that's good news. Congrats. It is getting exciting now.

Keep it coming guys.

Still hoping for NOA2 before this year ends. Good to know that some Sept CSC filers have been approved already.

It will be our turn soon.

Aljhel...Welcome!...'Touched' means Last updated.

Only 6 september filers from Phils(VJ) so far...I hope our application will be processed fast.

We are September filer too. Still wishing to get the NOA2 before this year ends.

I love teaching my pangga some tagalog words and phrases. He always make me proud everytime I hear him say a complete Tagalog sentence. We have so much fun doing our tagalog lessons and he is doing very well.

It will be December next week..time is running fast and I cant wait to be with him. As for now, we try to keep ourselves busy to make the waiting bearable.

I am very very sorry for your loss.

I feel your pain. My heart goes out to you.

Allow yourself time to heal. It will take some time and you will experience a mixture of emotions..the roller-coaster ride of emotions..the anger, denial, depression, sadness. Some days you will feel fine and think that you are doing well but the next minute, the sadness just seeps in and you will feel like you are back to stage 1 again. Grief has different stages and you just have to deal with them. Stay strong. Express your emotions. Talk to a trusted friend, a counselor or just anyone who will be there to listen to you. Write your thoughts. It will help a lot. Just let out what you feel.

Dont look on the future, but take each day one day at a time and if it really becomes so difficult, break it down to hours and minutes. Just stay focus on the present. It will be very hard to survive each day without that one person you love. But hang on and keep your faith.

I wish you peace and healing and enough strength for each day.

Yeppers! Only few filed K1 for Philippines. I hope that our case will be process as soon as we get our NOA2. Praying for our NOA2 to come out earlier than the time we are expecting it. And of course, hope there's no RFE.

Make sure to look all the way to the bottom of your stocking on Christmas Day!

Wow. You sure do have some nerve. I particularly like the demand for references, as if this is some sort of term paper. I'm still laughing at the sheer level of your audacity.

I disagree with most of everything you said, especially since you did so in a degrading and insulting manner. If you wish to have a conversation then I'd suggest you do so without looking petty. At the very least, no one will wish to discuss issues with you. I know I don't and I love debating. However, I refuse to engage in conversation with someone so full of themselves that they not only make inflammatory statements (and demand that someone else back up their assertions with references when they have none of their own), but they believe -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that their view is the correct and only one.

You have a lot to learn about debate. I would strongly suggest you take a few classes on the subject. Perhaps you may learn how to discuss issues with another person in a rational manner, instead of acting smugly superior.

That's too bad you feel that you are too far in over your head to even attempt to defend your posting. I did not mean to scare you. My hope is that someday you will realize that there is nothing wrong with learning something new. But then again, I didn't really expect anything of substance from you.

I'd like to weigh in here.

I think trusting any politician is a bad idea. I don't care what party they're from and how well they present themselves, no politician is to be trusted. They predominately want power and a legacy that history teachers will force upon students. It's hardly about the American people.

Obama makes a lot of nice speeches and wonderful promises. How many times has a politician said he or she would do something and then never carry through with it? Lots and I'm sure that's occurred in Canada too. Politicians actually have the psychological profile of sociopaths. I know that sounds extreme, but your typical sociopath does not run around hacking people to death with a hatchet. They use people by saying whatever is necessary to get their way. They benefit from lies and deceit and hurt others around them by taking advantage of all they know. Tell me... how well does that match up with your average politician?

I suppose what irritates me most about Obama isn't his supposed policies or that he's a Democrat. What bothers me is how so many in the U.S. react to him like he's the messiah and practically worship the ground he walks on. Even worse, many in the African American community see him as the panacea to all of their problems and those who're particular zealous out of that group view Obama as a way to "assist them and hurt their white aggressors."

I find the above amusing in a way, if not overly sad. Obama's mother (who raised him) was a white woman from Wichita, Kansas. Kansas is typically seen as a "red state." He speaks and acts like what many in the African American community would normally refer to as an "Uncle Tom." Yet somehow, that is all overlooked as Obama is considered the African American salvation. Something doesn't seem logical about this reaction, but then again, why should people actually look at a politician's history and information surrounding them? It's far easier to point and go, "Obama's black so he'll help us all!"

The reason some people say we shouldn't tax the wealthy hard or do something to destabilize those with wealth is due to their position. Who owns the companies and provides jobs? It's not the people on welfare. If the wealthy are heavily taxed, they will cut jobs in order to regain lost income. Overtaxing the wealthy is as foolish as dramatically raising the minimum wage. Both options will put more people out of work than previously before. That doesn't mean the rich can't be taxed, but to specifically target them because "they have more than other people" won't solve our problems and might actually exacerbate them.

I don't believe in paying for other people. I might hand out a loan to someone I know personally, but if I'm in California and someone I don't know at all needs monetary assistance in New York, how is my responsibility to help them? The answer is it isn't. While not everyone seeks to exploit the welfare system, there are many who do and would be just fine taking money from others in return for not having to work.

Disregarding welfare, the idea of using taxes simply to help out everyone won't work. People who are successful generally work hard their money. They've gone to college (or university, as Canadians like to say) and worked through the ranks at a company or set up their own business. Whatever they've done, they're apparently successful now. To punish such success by ripping money away from them to give to others is a true smack in the face of the American Dream. In the U.S., it's been said that anyone can become successful if they work hard enough. That's not always true, of course, but it's right more often than not. Why would people really strive for success if they knew their income would be dramatically reduced in order to help those they don't even know and will probably never know? All in all, such acts would decrease the drive of many Americans, since they'll know ahead of time that being successful isn't necessary in order to earn money.

I absolutely agree about the "elite" commentary. As was previously said, everyone wants the best doctor and the best lawyer. The "best" is among the elite. Who really looks for someone in any field who's merely "okay" or even "bad" at their career? No one I know.

And finally... capitalism has not failed. There have been economic downturns before. If you know anything about history, there was something called "The Great Depression" that occurred in 1929 and took World War II to effectively stop it. Was that crash the fault of then-President Herbert Hoover? Many irrationally blamed him, just as they now blame Bush today. There was also a crash in 1987, which actually resulted in the loss of more money than the 1929 crash. However, there were policies set in place and the country recovered faster and more easily than before. The economy is hardly a direct result of who resides in the White House. What happens in the stock market is mostly due to investors and business endeavors as a whole.

Greetings DPX.......

It never ceases to amaze me how people can have such a different view of the world around them...

> I believe that there are honest politicians out there, and I believe that we have the power to elect more good politicians. But, if we are going to elect good representatives, I feel that we need to pay attention to the issues, and the politics which surround them, for longer than simply during the campaign season. This way, a person will have a better context into which they can fit the campaign speeches, the debates, the political ads,and the rhetoric. If politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose...it is a wise idea to make reading about politics and issues your new hobby. It is really all up to us.

> As for your contention that "politicians actually have the psychological profile of sociopaths"...I'm not very familiar with the study of psychology, and I'm not going to touch that one...I'm glad to leave it for someone else. I certainly do agree with you about one thing..."that sounds extreme".

> I'm particularly interested in your assertion about Barack Obama when you say "many in the African American community see him as the panacea to all of their problems" and some of the "zealous" ones "view Obama as a way to assist them and hurt their white aggressors". Would you please provide references to any articles or studies you have read about these issues, or provide references to the polls that you have seen. Or, maybe you have African American family, friends, or acquaintances that reached this conclusion. My African American friends and acquaintances have never expressed these sentiments. Instead, they respect and appreciate a brother who is educated, articulate, and successful. Have you ever noticed that the Democrats consistently receive an overwhelming majority of the African American vote regardless of the color of the candidate's skin? There are good reasons for this and I would encourage you to explore them. Did it ever occur to you that there may be a variety of reasons that "Uncle Tom" Obama is a better choice for African Americans than the alternative? Also, please cite your sources for your assertion that "Obama is considered the African American salvation". Exactly who said "'Obama's black so he'll help us all'". Could it be that you are generalizing?

> I have a good friend who was born and raised in "red" Kansas. He and his fiancee still live there. They are a free thinkers and progressive in their politics. They both voted for Obama. It does not stretch my imagination to imagine that there may be another liberal citizen in Kansas, or from Kansas...such as Obama's mother...or the thousands of Kansas voters who cast their ballots for Obama. Barack Obama never lived in Kansas, and he was raised by his grandmother as well as his mother. And yes, Obama's mother is white and his father is black. To give you some insight about that aspect of Barack Obama, please ask the African Americans in your life about the "one drop" rule. Maybe it is you who are not looking at the history and information around him. If you look closely at McCain's record, as well as his past and current associations, it makes Obama look good in comparison.

> Please don't feel sorry for the rich in our country. They have gotten richer and richer. The gap between rich and poor in this country has not been this great since the guilded age of the late 1800's when capitalism was king and the robber barons ruled (which happened to be an era without government regulation of business). Fast forward to today. The rich have outsourced millions of jobs. They have dodged countless billions in taxes by using illegal off-shore corporate shell schemes. They go to the government for handouts when they gamble away your money on risky investments. This country was mostly built by the sweat of slave labor, cheap labor, and child labor. The rich would have nothing if there was no one to produce it for them. Do you know anyone who can make a living on minimum wage? Raise a family? Buy a home? Do you actually know anyone who lost their job because the minimum wage went up from $5.15 / hour? President Clinton taxed the wealthy at the same rate that President-elect Obama proposes to tax them. The economy grew and added millions of jobs. The federal budget had a surplus instead of these record deficits...and the rich still got richer.

> I also support our welfare program, our food stamp program, and our employment security program. It is the humanitarian and the Christian thing to do. Are there abuses to these programs? Sure. Are the abuses a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water? If you don't like spending a relatively small amount of tax dollars to lend a helping hand to people in need, you must be appalled at the enormous number of tax dollars this country is spending on the war in Iraq...which was sold to you using distortions and lies. Yet, I see that you did not even mention this massive waste of money.

> Finally, it is a mystery to me how someone who purportedly knows so much about the economic history of the United States can have absolutely no clue about the regulatory authority, oversight, and responsibility over business in this country which is exercised (or not) by the President, his relevant Cabinet members, and Congress. The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted during the Great Depression to place certain regulations on business, was gutted by a vote of Congress and the signature of a President. This was one of the major factors in our current economic meltdown. Other meltdowns can easily be traced to Congress and Presidents who deregulated business and industry. How about the Savings and Loan meltdown? Remember Enron? Today, it is the same story with Wall Street. The market (capitalism) needs rules for a reason.

> While there are many culprits responsible for our current economic meltdown, Presidents and Members of Congress have the ultimate responsibility and duty to regulate business and industry. To even begin to understand what caused the current crisis, I would suggest starting with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000...what is it...who sponsored it...how it was slipped into the omnibus spending bill...and what affect it had on Wall Street and beyond. You can go to motherjones.com and read the article by David Corn titled "Foreclosure Phil". Or go to portfolio.com and read the article by Michael Lewis titled "The End".

What's your attitude towards American - Ukrainian merriages?

It depends on if she is from eastern Ukraine or western Ukraine.

Before all of you Sarah Palin supporters jump all over me, I will tell you that I did not vote for Barack Obama. I will also say that I agree with many conservative pundits and politicians who question whether she is informed on the issues, and whether she is qualified to become vice president (or president). I have no doubt that Sarah Palin is smart and ambitious. However, I believe she has some major faults which became glaringly obvious to many...both liberal and conservative alike. First, she is woefully uninformed on some major issues. Second, she would not admit it when she did not know something. Third, she lacks the political instincts necessary to attract the independent voters...those in the middle of the political spectrum who are the ones that actually provide the votes which elect a president. Instead, she shamelessly pandered to the rabid red-meat right wing of the GOP. Lastly, she overestimated herself. She was not ready to run for the highest office in the land, yet she surrendered to her ego.

It was not only us voters who watched her. The world was watching too. I felt embarrassed for my country. As for her future on the national political stage...while she can go home and study up on the issues, her performance during this campaign will come back to haunt her. Senator McCain showed poor judgement not only in his choice of running mates, but also in his lack of any vetting process. OK, now you can jump all over me.

They'll jump all over you saying she wasn't running for highest office in the land...

Otherwise, I agree with most of the rest of what you said...

Sister, you are probably right. There may be some out there who do not place a high value on the vice presidency. I am not one of those. I look at it as being one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Before all of you Sarah Palin supporters jump all over me, I will tell you that I did not vote for Barack Obama. I will also say that I agree with many conservative pundits and politicians who question whether she is informed on the issues, and whether she is qualified to become vice president (or president). I have no doubt that Sarah Palin is smart and ambitious. However, I believe she has some major faults which became glaringly obvious to many...both liberal and conservative alike. First, she is woefully uninformed on some major issues. Second, she would not admit it when she did not know something. Third, she lacks the political instincts necessary to attract the independent voters...those in the middle of the political spectrum who are the ones that actually provide the votes which elect a president. Instead, she shamelessly pandered to the rabid red-meat right wing of the GOP. Lastly, she overestimated herself. She was not ready to run for the highest office in the land, yet she surrendered to her ego.

It was not only us voters who watched her. The world was watching too. I felt embarrassed for my country. As for her future on the national political stage...while she can go home and study up on the issues, her performance during this campaign will come back to haunt her. Senator McCain showed poor judgement not only in his choice of running mates, but also in his lack of any vetting process. OK, now you can jump all over me.

September filer here.

It seems that there are very few from Phils who filed last Sept.

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction.

uh no, try again.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons.

It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty.

said treaty was with the soviet union, not russia.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 the status of the treaty became unclear, debated by members of Congress and professors of law, Succession of the ABM Treaty,State Succession and the Legal Status of the ABM Treaty, and Miron-Feith Memorandum. In 1997, a memorandum of understanding[4] between the US and four of the former USSR states was signed and subject to ratification by each signatory, however it was not presented to the US Senate for advice and consent by Bill Clinton.

On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that requires six months notice before terminating the pact. This was the first time in recent history the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the Missile Defense Agency.[5]

Reaction to the withdrawal by both the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China was much milder than many had predicted, following months of discussion with both Russia and China aimed at convincing both that development of a National Missile Defense was not directed at them. In the case of Russia, the United States stated that it intended to discuss a bilateral reduction in the numbers of nuclear warheads, which would allow Russia to reduce its spending on missiles without decrease of comparative strength. Discussions led to the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in Moscow on May 24, 2002. This treaty mandated the deepest ever cuts in deployed strategic nuclear warheads, without actually mandating cuts to total stockpiled warheads.

Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty).

covered in the first part of this reply. now what missiles are you referring to? maybe it's just me, but you calling them defensive missiles does not make them sound ominous.

and it's nice if you provide links to back up what you're saying.

the above is from link

Hi Charles...

I was surprised and pleased to see your reply to my posting. From what I have seen of your usual postings, you enjoy sitting back and adding to the fun with your wisecracks that I enjoy so much. Who knew that you had a serious side.

From my reading of your response, we are on the same page much of the time. For example, I'm sure you would agree that no matter whether it is the old Soviet Union, or the new Russia...it is the same bunch of guys who are pointing enough ballistic missiles at us (and Europe) to incinerate us many times over. The number of missiles may be fewer, but any resulting nuclear war would yield the same result. Therefore, both sides still operate under the principle of mutual assured destruction.

I'm sure that you have noticed Russia's latest proposal to place missiles near the Polish border. It is not the first time that they have threatened to do just that. They also did so in response to the Bush administration's trial balloon regarding the placement of our missiles in Poland at Russia's doorstep. Why should we instigate another arms race? My point is...what do we (or the Europeans) have to gain from threatening Russia with a missile system which does not work, and could not possibly stop a strike? The downside is too great...another costly and futile arms race. I see no upside.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make when you say, "what missiles are you referring to? Maybe it's just me, but you calling them defensive missiles does not make them sound ominous." Maybe you could explain what you mean...and I would be glad to talk to your point.

I am not trying to make anything sound more ominous than it already is.

I am glad that you care about this issue as I do, and I look forward to your response. By the way, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will tell you that my customary reading includes "The Nation" magazine, "The Progressive" magazine, "The Spectator" newsletter, "Mother Jones" magazine, "The Guardian" newspaper, and "The Seattle Times" newspaper. I watch Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and LINK TV. I find wiki distilled down to unhelpful blandness.

Hi everyone...

Pangga..........Seattle, Washington

Baby ko.........Bacolod, Negros Occidental, Philippines

Obama said today that he is "not committed" to missile defense. The Bush administration negotiated to put a missile defense system in Poland that protects the US and when Obama spoke to the Polish President he would not commit to the agreement. He stated that he couldn't support such a system until we knew it worked. This is similar to his position on nuclear power. He says he supports it but then gives himself an out by saying that it is not safe to store the nuclear waste. Another phony excuse. There will be no progress on energy independence during Obama's term. The honeymoon will be quickly over as the economy tanks with his misguided policies and he wont be able to point the blame at Bush.

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty. Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty). It would be the equivalent of Russia placing missiles on the Canadian (or Mexican) border with the United States. Contrary to what you assert, this administration has never made any claims about these missiles defending the United States. Instead, they claim the defensive missiles are for protecting Europe. However, Europeans do not want this missile system. Many observers of this issue believe that one of the reasons the Bush administration is using the missile defense issue is to further intimidate Russia at a time when the administration is attempting to enlist Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Also, no matter what you think of President-elect Obama's policies, he is correct about missile defense not working. Many people see no value, nor increase in our security, from spending countless billions of dollars for a missile system that does not work. Even if we could build a missile system which could actually shoot down incoming missiles, it would make no one any safer from nuclear attack. A defensive missile system is of absolutely no defense against a submarine-launched attack. Hence, we are right back to the idea of mutual assured destruction. The only thing that is certain to prevent a nuclear attack is the assurance that the attacker will be destroyed also. Additionally, there is no defense against missiles armed with conventional warheads. An alternative to the increasing tension (and expense) of a new arms race would be diplomacy. I am willing to give our President-elect the opportunity to patch up our frayed friendships around the world, and to building civil relationships with other countries.

As for the safe storage of nuclear waste, I am unclear about what you are trying to say regarding this issue. Are you saying that radioactivity is not hazardous to our health? Are you saying that currently we are storing our nuclear waste in a safe, secure, and permanent manner? I used to live near (now a three-hour drive) from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The first nuclear reactor there was built during World War II and supplied some of the uranium and plutonium for the first atomic bombs. There has since been a large accumulation of nuclear waste from several reactors on the site. The Hanford Reservation has possibly the largest amount of nuclear waste in the country stored "temporarily" on their site. This "temporary" storage includes dozens of huge single-wall and double-wall tanks which are full of radioactive sludge. Many of them are leaking. The radioactive sludge has already started it's migration toward the nearby mighty Columbia River. As far as I know, none of this massive amount of radioactive material, dating back to World War II and the start of the nuclear age, has ever been properly nor permanently stored. The problem of nuclear waste storage is not confined only to Hanford. We need to talk about solutions to this problem instead of adding to the problem, and I support a national dialog on this matter.

Ironically, during the 1970's, five new nuclear power plants were planned for the State of Washington...with three of them to be located at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Three or four were actually built. If I remember correctly, only one of the nuclear power plants ever generated any electricity. The others are still mothballed because they simply were not needed. People in this region found ways to conserve power so that the plants were not needed. My point is that we need to take a hard look at conservation. We also need to invest in alternatives to traditional power sources...such as wind, solar, and wave power. We also need to work on the technology for no-carbon coal. And, until we clean up the nuclear waste we have generated for over 60 years, we need to hold off on building any more nuclear power plants. I am glad that President-elect Obama does not want to sweep this issue under the rug. Energy independence is an important issue which will require us to do some hard thinking about untidy things like nuclear waste. Call me an optimist, but I believed President Kennedy when he pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's. I believe that America can achieve energy independence in a safe, responsible, and environmentally-friendly manner.

Obama said today that he is "not committed" to missile defense. The Bush administration negotiated to put a missile defense system in Poland that protects the US and when Obama spoke to the Polish President he would not commit to the agreement. He stated that he couldn't support such a system until we knew it worked. This is similar to his position on nuclear power. He says he supports it but then gives himself an out by saying that it is not safe to store the nuclear waste. Another phony excuse. There will be no progress on energy independence during Obama's term. The honeymoon will be quickly over as the economy tanks with his misguided policies and he wont be able to point the blame at Bush.

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty. Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty). It would be the equivalent of Russia placing missiles on the Canadian (or Mexican) border with the United States. Contrary to what you assert, this administration has never made any claims about these missiles defending the United States. Instead, they claim the defensive missiles are for protecting Europe. However, Europeans do not want this missile system. Many observers of this issue believe that one of the reasons the Bush administration is using the missile defense issue is to further intimidate Russia at a time when the administration is attempting to enlist Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Also, no matter what you think of President-elect Obama's policies, he is correct about missile defense not working. Many people see no value, nor increase in our security, from spending countless billions of dollars for a missile system that does not work. Even if we could build a missile system which could actually shoot down incoming missiles, it would make no one any safer from nuclear attack. A defensive missile system is of absolutely no defense against a submarine-launched attack. Hence, we are right back to the idea of mutual assured destruction. The only thing that is certain to prevent a nuclear attack is the assurance that the attacker will be destroyed also. Additionally, there is no defense against missiles armed with conventional warheads. An alternative to the increasing tension (and expense) of a new arms race would be diplomacy. I am willing to give our President-elect the opportunity to patch up our frayed friendships around the world, and to building civil relationships with other countries.

As for the safe storage of nuclear waste, I am unclear about what you are trying to say regarding this issue. Are you saying that radioactivity is not hazardous to our health? Are you saying that currently we are storing our nuclear waste in a safe, secure, and permanent manner? I used to live near (now a three-hour drive) from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The first nuclear reactor there was built during World War II and supplied some of the uranium and plutonium for the first atomic bombs. There has since been a large accumulation of nuclear waste from several reactors on the site. The Hanford Reservation has possibly the largest amount of nuclear waste in the country stored "temporarily" on their site. This "temporary" storage includes dozens of huge single-wall and double-wall tanks which are full of radioactive sludge. Many of them are leaking. The radioactive sludge has already started it's migration toward the nearby mighty Columbia River. As far as I know, none of this massive amount of radioactive material, dating back to World War II and the start of the nuclear age, has ever been properly nor permanently stored. The problem of nuclear waste storage is not confined only to Hanford. We need to talk about solutions to this problem instead of adding to the problem, and I support a national dialog on this matter.

Ironically, during the 1970's, five new nuclear power plants were planned for the State of Washington...with three of them to be located at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Three or four were actually built. If I remember correctly, only one of the nuclear power plants ever generated any electricity. The others are still mothballed because they simply were not needed. People in this region found ways to conserve power so that the plants were not needed. My point is that we need to take a hard look at conservation. We also need to invest in alternatives to traditional power sources...such as wind, solar, and wave power. We also need to work on the technology for no-carbon coal. And, until we clean up the nuclear waste we have generated for over 60 years, we need to hold off on building any more nuclear power plants. I am glad that President-elect Obama does not want to sweep this issue under the rug. Energy independence is an important issue which will require us to do some hard thinking about untidy things like nuclear waste. Call me an optimist, but I believed President Kennedy when he pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's. I believe that America can achieve energy independence in a safe, responsible, and environmentally-friendly manner.

Obama said today that he is "not committed" to missile defense. The Bush administration negotiated to put a missile defense system in Poland that protects the US and when Obama spoke to the Polish President he would not commit to the agreement. He stated that he couldn't support such a system until we knew it worked. This is similar to his position on nuclear power. He says he supports it but then gives himself an out by saying that it is not safe to store the nuclear waste. Another phony excuse. There will be no progress on energy independence during Obama's term. The honeymoon will be quickly over as the economy tanks with his misguided policies and he wont be able to point the blame at Bush.

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty. Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty). It would be the equivalent of Russia placing missiles on the Canadian (or Mexican) border with the United States. Contrary to what you assert, this administration has never made any claims about these missiles defending the United States. Instead, they claim the defensive missiles are for protecting Europe. However, Europeans do not want this missile system. Many observers of this issue believe that one of the reasons the Bush administration is using the missile defense issue is to further intimidate Russia at a time when the administration is attempting to enlist Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Also, no matter what you think of President-elect Obama's policies, he is correct about missile defense not working. Many people see no value, nor increase in our security, from spending countless billions of dollars for a missile system that does not work. Even if we could build a missile system which could actually shoot down incoming missiles, it would make no one any safer from nuclear attack. A defensive missile system is of absolutely no defense against a submarine-launched attack. Hence, we are right back to the idea of mutual assured destruction. The only thing that is certain to prevent a nuclear attack is the assurance that the attacker will be destroyed also. Additionally, there is no defense against missiles armed with conventional warheads. An alternative to the increasing tension (and expense) of a new arms race would be diplomacy. I am willing to give our President-elect the opportunity to patch up our frayed friendships around the world, and to building civil relationships with other countries.

As for the safe storage of nuclear waste, I am unclear about what you are trying to say regarding this issue. Are you saying that radioactivity is not hazardous to our health? Are you saying that currently we are storing our nuclear waste in a safe, secure, and permanent manner? I used to live near (now a three-hour drive) from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The first nuclear reactor there was built during World War II and supplied some of the uranium and plutonium for the first atomic bombs. There has since been a large accumulation of nuclear waste from several reactors on the site. The Hanford Reservation has possibly the largest amount of nuclear waste in the country stored "temporarily" on their site. This "temporary" storage includes dozens of huge single-wall and double-wall tanks which are full of radioactive sludge. Many of them are leaking. The radioactive sludge has already started it's migration toward the nearby mighty Columbia River. As far as I know, none of this massive amount of radioactive material, dating back to World War II and the start of the nuclear age, has ever been properly nor permanently stored. The problem of nuclear waste storage is not confined only to Hanford. We need to talk about solutions to this problem instead of adding to the problem, and I support a national dialog on this matter.

Ironically, during the 1970's, five new nuclear power plants were planned for the State of Washington...with three of them to be located at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Three or four were actually built. If I remember correctly, only one of the nuclear power plants ever generated any electricity. The others are still mothballed because they simply were not needed. People in this region found ways to conserve power so that the plants were not needed. My point is that we need to take a hard look at conservation. We also need to invest in alternatives to traditional power sources...such as wind, solar, and wave power. We also need to work on the technology for no-carbon coal. And, until we clean up the nuclear waste we have generated for over 60 years, we need to hold off on building any more nuclear power plants. I am glad that President-elect Obama does not want to sweep this issue under the rug. Energy independence is an important issue which will require us to do some hard thinking about untidy things like nuclear waste. Call me an optimist, but I believed President Kennedy when he pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's. I believe that America can achieve energy independence in a safe, responsible, and environmentally-friendly manner.

Obama said today that he is "not committed" to missile defense. The Bush administration negotiated to put a missile defense system in Poland that protects the US and when Obama spoke to the Polish President he would not commit to the agreement. He stated that he couldn't support such a system until we knew it worked. This is similar to his position on nuclear power. He says he supports it but then gives himself an out by saying that it is not safe to store the nuclear waste. Another phony excuse. There will be no progress on energy independence during Obama's term. The honeymoon will be quickly over as the economy tanks with his misguided policies and he wont be able to point the blame at Bush.

Greetings Tsup2...

The Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) worked well for us for more than a generation to provide security from nuclear attack. The ABM Treaty is based on the principle of mutual assured destruction. It has always been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. However, the Bush administration unilaterally scrapped the ABM Treaty. Now, this administration is proposing to place defensive missiles on Russia's doorstep (a complete violation of the ABM Treaty). It would be the equivalent of Russia placing missiles on the Canadian (or Mexican) border with the United States. Contrary to what you assert, this administration has never made any claims about these missiles defending the United States. Instead, they claim the defensive missiles are for protecting Europe. However, Europeans do not want this missile system. Many observers of this issue believe that one of the reasons the Bush administration is using the missile defense issue is to further intimidate Russia at a time when the administration is attempting to enlist Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Also, no matter what you think of President-elect Obama's policies, he is correct about missile defense not working. Many people see no value, nor increase in our security, from spending countless billions of dollars for a missile system that does not work. Even if we could build a missile system which could actually shoot down incoming missiles, it would make no one any safer from nuclear attack. A defensive missile system is of absolutely no defense against a submarine-launched attack. Hence, we are right back to the idea of mutual assured destruction. The only thing that is certain to prevent a nuclear attack is the assurance that the attacker will be destroyed also. Additionally, there is no defense against missiles armed with conventional warheads. An alternative to the increasing tension (and expense) of a new arms race would be diplomacy. I am willing to give our President-elect the opportunity to patch up our frayed friendships around the world, and to building civil relationships with other countries.

As for the safe storage of nuclear waste, I am unclear about what you are trying to say regarding this issue. Are you saying that radioactivity is not hazardous to our health? Are you saying that currently we are storing our nuclear waste in a safe, secure, and permanent manner? I used to live near (now a three-hour drive) from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The first nuclear reactor there was built during World War II and supplied some of the uranium and plutonium for the first atomic bombs. There has since been a large accumulation of nuclear waste from several reactors on the site. The Hanford Reservation has possibly the largest amount of nuclear waste in the country stored "temporarily" on their site. This "temporary" storage includes dozens of huge single-wall and double-wall tanks which are full of radioactive sludge. Many of them are leaking. The radioactive sludge has already started it's migration toward the nearby mighty Columbia River. As far as I know, none of this massive amount of radioactive material, dating back to World War II and the start of the nuclear age, has ever been properly nor permanently stored. The problem of nuclear waste storage is not confined only to Hanford. We need to talk about solutions to this problem instead of adding to the problem, and I support a national dialog on this matter.

Ironically, during the 1970's, five new nuclear power plants were planned for the State of Washington...with three of them to be located at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Three or four were actually built. If I remember correctly, only one of the nuclear power plants ever generated any electricity. The others are still mothballed because they simply were not needed. People in this region found ways to conserve power so that the plants were not needed. My point is that we need to take a hard look at conservation. We also need to invest in alternatives to traditional power sources...such as wind, solar, and wave power. We also need to work on the technology for no-carbon coal. And, until we clean up the nuclear waste we have generated for over 60 years, we need to hold off on building any more nuclear power plants. I am glad that President-elect Obama does not want to sweep this issue under the rug. Energy independence is an important issue which will require us to do some hard thinking about untidy things like nuclear waste. Call me an optimist, but I believed President Kennedy when he pledged to put a man on the moon before the end of the 1960's. I believe that America can achieve energy independence in a safe, responsible, and environmentally-friendly manner.

You need to teach your kids to speak Spanish.

That will be there work competion when they grow up.

Greetings tallcoolone...

I have had the opportunity to read several of your posts, and I applaud you on the progress of your English language skills. Those "English as a Second Language" (ESL) classes are starting to pay off. You made only two mistakes in your two sentences ("there" instead of "their"...and "competion" instead of "competition"). Keep up the good work. By the way...what is your native language?

I was frightened by all of this talk about socialism, spreading the wealth, and redistribution in the United States.....until I remembered:

> I get up every morning and turn on the light...which uses electricity provided by the socialist, government-run electric company.

> When I flush the toilet, it drains into the public sewer system which was provided by the socialist utilities company.

> Then I put on my morning cup of coffee, using water that is supplied by the socialist government-run water supplier.

> After I enjoy my morning cup-of-joe, I jump in the shower and use some more of that socialist-provided water.

> Later, it's off to work on roads which were built and maintained with socialist redistributed tax dollars.

> And I remembered that I have had to call the police before...and I even had to call the fire department once...both socialist programs.

> I don't want to forget to mention our biggest socialist, government-run program of them all...the United States military.

Thank goodness I have several more years before I retire because that will give me time to think about whether or not I will accept my monthly Social Security check and my Medicare health coverage, since both of these programs are also socialist, government run-programs.