Mark Riley  

What do Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and Thomas Friedman have in common? Yerah, they all work for the New York Times, but they also took turns slamming President Obama over the weekend. Is Obama in over his head trying to fix the economy? Should Tim Geithner go? Is the administration being overly optimistic about when the crisis will end? Mark Riley and Vianney Ausseil will talk about all this, and the Madame that A-Rod and disgraced former New York Governor Spitzer allegedly have in common! This Tuesday, High Noon, on Blogtalk Radio.

To those of you who may be parents of ‘tween girls, how far do you think school officials should be allowed to go in stopping drugs in your child’s school?

That’s the issue the Supreme Court is taking up in the case of a young lady from Safford, Arizona. Savana Redding, now 19, was 13 years old when officials at her school suspected her of bringing prescription strength ibuprofen to school. She was strip searched by the school nurse and a secretary, an event she still remembers with dread.

                                                               


No drugs were found, but her parents sued, claiming violation of the Fourth Amendment  ban on unreasonable searches. So the question becomes this. When does the right of a school to institute zero tolerance drug policy end, and the rights of students not to be humiliated begin?

What is appropriate under the circumstances? Savana Redding had no previous disciplinary problems at her school. She was an honors student. The school says she may have had no record, but that just means she didn’t get caught. Huh? How weak is that? Is that an excuse for stripping her down to her underwear, pulling out her bra and moving it from side to side, and spreading her legs?

Legal scholars will talk about the bad precedent that could be set by awarding this girl and her family punitive damages. Because I dimly remember what it was like to be a kid, I tend to side with the rights of children as a reflex.

No one wants drugs floating around the nation’s classrooms and hallways. Yet this search seems over the top. The Supreme Court as now composed may not agree, but it’s about time someone sets limits when it comes to zero tolerance.

After all, strip searching otherwise innocent adults would hardly be tolerated without probable cause. What kind of example are we setting for kids who will all too soon become grown?

You tell me. Is strip-searching out of bounds when it comes to enforcing a zero tolerance drug policy?

AIG, Vets paying for healthcare, and SEX-ting for teens... American veteran radio presenter Mark Riley discusses politics and culture with French-American student of political science, Vianney Ausseil. This meeting of the minds, experienced/youthful, progressive/liberal, Black/White, American/ Euro...provides for explosive conversation on a variety of newsworthy topics. You'll want to listen and join in!

President Barack Obama delivered a double dose of good news to the US military. In doing so, he made good on his promise to listen to those who might oppose a policy change he was considering. How different this is than the past eight years, when George W. Bush declared himself "Decider in Chief." 

                                                                      

Obama was considering requiring veterans to use their private health insurance to pay for combat related injuries. It would have saved the government almost a half billion dollars a year, but it was an awful idea. Everyone from the American Legion to "The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart slammed it. 

And rightly so. How do you say you honor those who put themselves in harm's way for their country while at the same time forcing them to pay deductibles virtually all private insurers require?

Well, it seems the president was listening. It took around 48 hours after his meeting with the national commander of the American Legion for his press secretary to say the idea has been abandoned. He might well have been paying attention to senior members of Congress, who were vocal in their opposition as well. Either way it was a smart move by the president. And speaking of smart moves....

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced a projected end to one of the military''s most disliked policies. Stop loss was the military's term for the forcible retention of personnel beyond the end of their alloted time in the service. It was used when soldiers were set to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and some 120,000 have been affected by it since 2001. 

Currently there are 13,000 soldiers unable to exit the armed forces. Secretary Gates says that number will be cut in half by June of next year, and eliminated by 2011. That can't be soon enough for military families affected by stop loss. They rightly see it as a backdoor draft, and an extraordinary hard ship on them.

So, the administration gets points from constituents who may not have been solidly in his corner in the past. More importantly, Barack Obama shows he can listen to critics, and absorb what they have to say. It's obvious he's going to need to call on that skill in the immediate future, especially as he tries to navigate the public anger over the AIG bonuses.

                                                               

But that's another story for another day. What do you think? Did President Obama handle the veteran's insurance issue well?

 

 

The American International Group has become the Nation’s most reviled corporation, forcing Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and even Lehman Brothers into the background. Paying $165 million dollars in bonuses while taking $170 billion in taxpayer money will do that for you.

Yes, there have been a few apologists for AIG, like the New York Times article Tuesday that argued for the sanctity of contracts. Former White House spokesperson Dana Perino would have us believe most of the bonus money would go to middle class AIG workers. Neither of these arguments make the slightest bit of sense.

                                                         
There are several questions that has to be asked here. If most Americans assume bonuses should be paid based on performance, just who was it at AIG that wrote contracts mandating this money at the beginning of last year?

The answer is simple. That’s how the Masters of the Universe operate. Performance based bonuses are for someone else, not them. And make no mistake. AIG was not alone in paying bonuses no matter what.

The argument that the bonuses had to be paid to keep key executives doesn’t hold water either. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says 52 AIG employees who received retention bonuses left the company anyway.

The idea that the company’s financial products division, now notorious for running the company into the ground, would be the beneficiary of US taxpayers has lawmakers scrambling to create some form of redress.

Many, including the Obama Administration, said there was little that could be done at first. Public outrage has changed their tune. The president knows simmering anger over AIG has the potential to stop his recovery plans in their tracks.

AIG boss Edward Liddy, himself a beneficiary of big bonuses while chair of Allstate, will be visiting Congress Wednesday. I wouldn’t want to be him.




Would you? What would YOU say to Congress?