Some Republican Senators are now calling on President Obama to address Congress about the current mission in Libya as it approaches the 60 day period. Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Tom Coburn and several others believe President Obama should abide by the War Powers Act. They say he has already violated the law but not informing Congress about the current operations in Libya. The War Powers Act would prevent U.S. forces for continuing military operations in Libya without the approval of Congress. Sen. Rand Paul is even threatening to take this before the U.S. Supreme Court if Obama does not bring this before Congress. Paul believes that it is crucial that executive power to launch military operations be restrained by Congress to prevent the President from having to much power. Fortunately not all Republicans agree. Sen. John McCain a very vocal advocate of U.S. and NATO military operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces. McCain has been attempting to create a bipartisan resolution to support the Libyan rebels. McCain believes that War Powers Act is unconstitutional and therefore does not need to be followed. He also stated that there has not been any President, Republican or Democrat, that has recognized the law's constitutionality. I agree with Sen. McCain. The Wars Powers Act has never really been a practiced law by any President. American and NATO involvement in general has been small and inconsistent with bombing raids against Gadaffi's installations and heavy weaponry. American involvement is so minimal that U.S. forces are not any high risk. I believe Sen. Rand Paul and the six other Republican Senators demanding the War Powers Act be enacted are doing this for partisan reasons more than the actual belief that the President should submit himself before Congress to continue military operations.

The revolving door in U.S. politics, again

Barely four months after the Federal Communications Commission contentiously allowed for the Comcast/NBC Universal media merger, making Comcast the worlds largest cable, broadcast, motion picture, and yes theme park conglomerate, a former FCC official joins their ranks. 

 

Merideth Attwell Baker, the former FCC official, announced May 18th that she is leaving the FCC when her term expires in June. Baker's new title: Senior vice president for government affairs for NBC Universal. ...Really?

Baker, one of two Republicans on the five-member commission, recently criticized the speed of the commission’s review of the Comcast-NBC merger, which took 355 days. The F.C.C. voted 4-1 in January for approval, subject to several conditions. "[It] took too long, in my view," she said. I bet it did. 

Among criticizers is The Daily Show's John Stewart (scroll to 1:30):

Other criticizers accuse the deal of allowing Comcast an unfair monopoly in many sectors, making way for unfair pricing and preventing relevant competition. 

 

Another blatant example of a so-called public servant taking advantage of their position to cash in at a company they are supposed to be regulating. This is another all-too-common example of the disease of cronyism that exists within the U.S. government. 

Is the War Powers Act now defunct?

As U.S. involvement in Libya approaches the 60 day mark, the War Power Act's modern relevancy is brought into question. 

For those unfamiliar, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a federal law restricting the power of the President to commit the U.S. to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. Specifics of the law allow the President to send U.S. forces for a period of 90 days without direct allowance. Now 60 days into conflict in Libya, if Obama fails to get congressional support for the military action, he must end U.S. involvement by mid-June. Or does he?

Congress's only real power to enforce the rules of the WPA is to cut funding for the military operations, but they are clearly not willing to do that: what Congress wants to be accused of cutting off money for active duty troops? Also, no President has ever wanted to go to war without some semblance of political support...there has always been late-in-the-game dealmaking between the two branches. We've heard NOTHING about the WPA in the news or from the Presidents office, it's not even on the radar. 

Clinton received clearance from Congress after bombing raids carried out in Kosovo. George W. Bush also gained approval for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does the WPA allow the President to wage war without our consent? If Obama fails to get formal Congressional support for our action in Libya, the War powers Act will silently die in the shadows. The funny thing is, it will die during the tenure of a President who pledged to put an end to unconsidered warmaking.

The Next "Bubble" Crisis: College

An opinion brief on the website "The Week" called "Is Education the Next Bubble?" looks at people who want to give advice to those seeking higher education. It was interesting to me to see the Founder of Pay Pal, the payment website famous by EBay, encouraging young people to not bother investing in an overpriced education. As I agree with this statement, we must be real and say that at this point, all education can be considered overpriced. Seeing our educational system here in NH, our tuition will only rise if our state government votes to cut our state university budget. A commenter on this article said that he is seeking to cut costs of getting an education, but even community college is becoming more and more an investment.

Another interesting aspect of this conversation is the old idea of college being an investment that will definitely have a return. The reason so many people these days are reluctant to pay high amounts for education is the fact that jobs are not available after graduation anymore to give back these said returns. I wasn't very impressed to see one quote from the article: "Grad school has become a socially acceptable way to drink beer, read, and go into massive debt in your 20s" said a writer for The Atlantic. As someone who wishes to soon begin to apply for grad school and save money in order to pursue that goal, I am not excited for an atmosphere such as that described.

I believe it is somewhat accurate to label this as a bubble crisis, as we are so fond as to put that label on anything that gives our wallets heartache. I think that the only way our society will relieve the pressures of high priced higher education is if the government stops cutting money out of budgets that are for education. This seems like such a simple idea, yet no one seems to be acting on this principle.

http://theweek.com/article/index/214400/is-education-the-next-bubble

CO Senate Bill 244 Dies in House

The Colorado State House voted down a bill Friday to take adultery laws off the books. The bill, which was voted down in committee, was initiated in the State Senate and would have removed the adultery statue and a similar statute, "promoting sexual immorality" [by renting a room to unmarried people who have sex]. The bill passed the democratically controlled senate but was defeated by republicans and one democrat in the House Health and Environment Committee.

According to the Denver Post, members of Colorado Family Action, a branch of Colorado Springs based Focus on The Family lobbed republican representatives not to pass the bill. The Director of Colorado Family Action said, “Colorado Family Action does not believe that as a state, we should encourage the moral decay of our society, no matter how archaic the laws may be and appear to some.”

When questioned, members of the House Health and Environment Committee said they did not want to vote for a bill they believed endorsed/excused adultery.

Regardless of the legislatures failure to remove these statutes it is unlikely that they could ever be enforced. Nathan Koppel, writing for the Wall Street Journal’s law blog notes that, “they are presumptively invalid under Lawrence v Texas” the 2003 Supreme Court case in which Texas’ anti-sodomy laws were overturned.

In any event, it is nice to see that someone else’s state legislature is behaving as well as our own.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/05/09/adultery-remains-a-no-no-in-colorado/?mod=WSJBlog&mod=smallbusiness

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_18013601

Partisanship and Online Information

It appears, based on this New York Times article, that increasing numbers of Americans are receiving their political information from online sources. It should be no surprise that newspapers are no longer the primary source for political news, especially when the internet offers free information during troubled economic times. In that sense it is easy to understand to increase of internet use pertaining to political issues. The problem appears to be the content being spread by such websites. As we discussed in class, there is a clearly a strong partisan message accompanying most political blogs and websites. Teddy Wayne, the author of this article, observed these statistics in a Pew Internet Report that is linked at the bottom of this posting. While I agree that there are a lot of strong partisan messages offered through internet sites, and a lot of pure crap as well, is this really such a concern or a surprise to anyone? And who is the New York Times to talk? They are easily one of the most biased newspapers on earth. That is not to say that they are the only one by any means, but would the newspaper really be an adequate alternative to online political education? People tend to visit sites and read papers that reflect their own ideas. They could read opposing sources to get a relatively objective look at issues, but let's face it, Americans would be less likely to buy two newspapers just to compare them than they would be to visit two websites woth the intent of doing the same thing. Maybe internet sites have an unseen perk?
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The-Internet-and-Campaign-2010/Summary.aspx

"Drill, Baby, Drill"

While I am upset that gas prices are going up, the fact that we have not learned our lesson and haven't started taking a preventative approach to the oil issue is rather discouraging. We use one quarter of the worlds oil while we only own two percent of its reserves and only account for 4.5% of the worlds population. Therefore drilling itself will not ensure any sort of energy independence. 

Last Thursday the House passed the first of three bills which will ask the Interior Department to accelerate drilling permits without proper environmental reviews. One of the bills that passed is called the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act.The bills, which are expected to clear the House but not the Democratically controlled Senate, would expand drilling to offshore Virginia and require the Interior Department to act within 60 days on permits for companies searching for oil offshore. After BP did we not learn anything, these bills are reinstating the leases and opening up protected coastal waters. Have we already forgotten the event that released 5 million barrels into the Gulf of Mexico, did we forget that we released 53,000 barrels a day for more than three months? The Energy Information Agency projected that there would be no price impact whatsoever. Thus, focusing on energy efficiency should be a top priority. 

Senator Max Baucus in Montana is looking to draft a bill that would repeal the $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry and use the proceeds to develop efficient cars etc. Oil companies have money and they should be the ones paying out of pocket. Ending tax incentives for the five largest oil and gas companies that announced the billions of dollars that they had made in profits is necessary. Last week, Exxon Mobil reported profits of nearly $11 billion in the first three months of the year, a 69 percent increase over last year. Meanwhile, Shell reported profits of $7 billion, ConocoPhillips reported profits of $3 billion, Chevron reported $6.2 billion and BP reported $5.5 billion. 

The BP crisis was supposed to be a wake up call. The attitude among Americans is not helping either. We need to start thinking for the long term rather than complaining about the 4$ at the gas pump. Right now we are on a one way track to a larger economic recession. In a time of desperate need for jobs, why are we not focusing on energy efficiency. Republicans are trying increasingly hard to ease the pain at the pump while accusing Democrats of wanting to be hooked on foreign oil. They continue to use the argument about the cost of gas to get legislation passed. More drilling domestically does not mean lower gas prices, it just means more profits for Big Oil. Many experts say that legislation will not reduce the price at the pump. 

Oil is traded on a world market, and the United States does not have enough petroleum to increase the global supply, which would reduce demand and thus the price for fuel.What comes out of the outer continental shelf is about 1 percent of the world total, and that's not enough to affect world prices. The oil and gas industry has actually given $8.8 million to the campaigns to the drilling bill's lead sponsors. This is not a fair system, the American government is only further proving that it choses big money over national priorities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/opinion/07sat1.html?ref=politics

Providence Leading the Way

In a time when so many people are without jobs in our country, it is very encouraging to come across headlines such as this: "Providence rehires roughly 75 percent of laid off teachers" on Yahoo News. The article claimed that the Rhode Island capital has given 1,445 teaching jobs back, out of the 2,000 individuals that it had dismissed in February. This generous act by the state was apparently "part of an effort to boost the city's precarious finances".
Don't get too excited though, Providence is currently in the process of closing down five of it's schools, which will cut around 50 more jobs in the near future. According to the news story, "The closures are expected to shave $12 million from the school budget".
The city had followed proper procedure in keeping all of its school employees informed by sending out termination letters to those who would possibly be effected prior to March 1st of this year. This move had sparked an uproar among Union members, claiming such action was unlawful; but, Mayor Taveras "said that Providence's looming $110 million deficit next fiscal year warranted the cuts". Tuesday of this week however, those lucky 1,445 teachers were notified of their rehire.

More information:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110504/us_nm/us_providence_teachers_layoffs;_ylt=ArKpw78IcC43UfcXWK7t4gtvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzMjZqbGtjBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNTA0L3VzX3Byb3ZpZGVuY2VfdGVhY2hlcnNfbGF5b2ZmcwRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fYXJ0aWNsZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA3Byb3ZpZGVuY2VyZQ--

I think that this measure taken by Providence to re-employ its workers is just what was needed. Hopefully this act will inspire other areas to reconsider their layoffs as well and put more people back into the workplace.

The United States and the Death of Osama Bin Laden

The United States cheers over the death of Osama Bin Laden. After the U.S. raid in Pakistan that brought about the death of one of the most well known faces in the world, the United States has issued various statements that celebrate such an achievement. With the U.S. President Barack Obama referring to the event as "...a good day for America," others around the country have celebrated by taking to the streets.

While there is reason for Americans to celebrate, it has also been mentioned that the possibility of retaliation should be considered. Osama Bin Laden was the most prominently known figure of Al-Qaeda. As such, he died with his beliefs firmly intact. Such a death could result in his followers declaring him to be a martyr. If such is the case, martyrs have a tendency of gathering followers and encouraging others to join the cause. This would lead to an increase in membership and action. CIA director Leon Panetta confirms this by stating that "(Al-Qaeda) would 'almost certainly' try to avenge the death of Bin Laden."

Another interesting piece of the information regarding Bin Laden's death was found in his location of Pakistan. While Pakistan has in fact cooperated with the United States over the years, U.S. counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan acknowledged that "it was "inconceivable" that Bin Laden did not have a support system in Pakistan." Furthermore, he added that "we're going to pursue all leads to find out exactly what type of support system and benefactors that Bin Laden might have had." Such a statement implies that U.S. action to uncover a hidden circuit of criminals in Pakistan is only beginning. And with time, it will be seen how far such action will go.

With no one in the United States complaining about having one less known terrorist in existence, there is also the other side of the picture where Bin Laden's death could serve the interests of the United States. If analysts, politicians, military and intelligence personnel are all looking for ways to benefit from the death, then it is not out of the question to consider the possibility that Bin Laden's death could have a very strong effect on America's foreign policy in the Middle East and Pakistan in Particular.

The State of Florida is tackling an area of government that has been very contentious lately. Medicaid is a flawed system, no doubt, but should it be scrapped in favor of exclusive HMO's? The bill proposed by the Republicans would put all Medicaid patients in a for-profit HMO that would receive a pre-allocated budget from the state and federal government. The "pilot program" would significantly reduce governmental expenditures, however, many people would be left with less healthcare than Medicaid offered. Among those that would be exposed would be the elderly, because they are often in financial dire straits and in poor health that requires intensive care. Aside from the lack of care provided; the idea of a for-profit business profiting off the those with the inability to pay for their care is very alarming. The entire industry is based off the business benefiting from someone's sickness. This works when dealing with insured patients but I don't see how this could work with uninsured patients. Any suggestions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/health/policy/28medicaid.html?_r=1&hp

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/barbour-decides-against-presidential-run/?ref=politics

As the election of 2012 is nearing the list of future candidates is beginning to unfold. This election seems to be unlike any other and it will be unique in itself. We have yet to hear from many possible candidates who are holding off until the last minute so that they can gather themselves and decide for sure whether or not running for president is the best idea for them. For example in this article Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi who was a tentative republican candidate for the election has chosen not to run as a personal decision. This came as a surprise to many people of both parties because in the past few months Barbour has been traveling around to different states to test the support of Republican activists. Barbour and many others just do not think they can commit to the long term commitment that ensues when one runs for president. This committment lasts upwards of 10 years. This proves a bit too much for some no matter how commited to the party they may be, even someone like Barbour who has an impressive political background. Mr. Barbour has worked on the very first political campaign of Richard Nixon back in 1960. As the article states, and I agree with this, "he would be dealing with a much different Republican party than he would have back then." The tea party movement has really changed many aspects of the party and this according to the article would be a challenge for Barbour because of his uneasy relationship with them. In my experience of researching the tea party you are either with them or your not and there usually is not a middle ground.

Latin American General tortures by night and enjoys sunny Florida beaches by day, what a life.

Eugenio Vides Casanova is an eldery man that enjoys his residence in the state of Florida that he has had since 1989. I am sure he frequents the bingo hall and fits right in while the large population of retired age individuals that live in Florida. The one minor difference that some people might find odd about Mr. Vides is that he is a former general for the armed forces of El Salvador. He also served as the defense minister for six years. This man was responsible for the armed forces in the 70's and 80's that tortured, murdered, and disappeared individuals that were deemed a danger to the government at the time. This doesn't seem all that unusual for that time period, however this man was awarded the Legion of Merit by our president at the time Ronald Reagan.However he is in danger of being deported back to his home country for immigration violations. This only brings to light the level of cooperation the United States government had with latin american and south american countries that used violence against its people. The U.S. policy towards these people like our friend general Eugenio Vides Casanova was that we would work with them through back channels to help them out if they gave the United States what it wanted in terms of interests whether that be militarily or economically. This has been the case for decades in the United States. This sudden shift towards seeking out and removing former henchmen of countries that the United States has dealt with could mean that we as a nation are attempting to clean out the skeletons in our closets to improve transparency. The United States has been unable to convict the general of any torture crimes during his time in charge of forces that were involved in the murders of four churchwomen 18 years ago by national guardmen in El Salvador. They have however been able to bring about immigration charges which have brought up tangled webs of covert operations and working relationships between the general and American officials. This man has literally gotten away with murder and lived the good life on our sandy shores for almost 25 years. I am glad he is being deported but how in the world does this man get into the country with his public persona without american officials knowing he was here illegally for over 20 years? This is a slap in the face to the American people and to the struggling migrant families that cross into the United States illegally but with no other options. This man controlled terror and violence with the aid of American officials and was even awarded a distinguished honor by our president. Then after the people of El Salvador had enough of this guy he slips away and moves to the United States and avoids what I am sure would have been imprisonment or worse for his crimes against his people. The United States responds by doing what? Allowing him to live in peace in his advanced age. It makes me feel good to know that this man was given all that america has to offer after he murdered and plundered his nation but the people who are murdered and plundered in other nations are looked down upon and mistreated when they come to the United States. I hope this change of heart in U.S. policy is here to stay so that we may move forward and make right the involvements the United States were just as guilty of as this General of the Sunshine State was. http://www,nytimes.com/2011/4/18/us/18deport.html?ref=todayspaper Accessed April 18th 2011

2008 Presidential Campaign takes over the Social Media

I found an article that goes along with Jackie’s blog “The Whitehouse Invited Me!” With the Presidential campaign underway, many candidates are turning to social media to get out the vote. “The candidates and contenders have embraced the Internet to far greater degrees than previous White House campaigns, communicating directly with voters on platforms where they work and play.” Candidates are learning they need to meet the people where they are and what’s easiest for them to gain information. The article states that “next year's race will be the first to reflect the broad cultural migration to the digital world.”
The three main social networks the candidates feel are the most influential are YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. I believe out of all the website Facebook is the most influential to the American people. Facebook has about 500 million users. A person can upload videos, post statuses, create events, and create groups. President Obama is meeting with Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, this week to answer Facebook user’s questions that were posted on the site. Just a commercial on Television does not reach people as it used to. Social Media is on the rise.
Last Wednesday, after President Obama’s speech on the budget, politicians took to Twitter to express their opinion on the tax raises. “In the past, candidates would have pointed supporters to their websites for such a response. Now, as [Romney's online director, Zac] Moffatt puts it, “the campaign site may be headquarters, but it needs digital embassies across the web.”’ The article goes on to state that during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Sen. John McCain, was quoted as saying he did not even use e-mail.
With the younger generation’s internet savvy ways that we sometimes get criticized for, it seems that even the older generations are now using our source of communication. The rise of Social Media is forcing candidates to meet us on our ground instead of simply showing us to their websites or watching them on TV. I say great job Presidential candidates! Hopefully, this will force people who would not normally take the time to search through the candidates’ takes on the issues to get out and vote!


Click here for more information about the article

Anti-Muslim Sentiments

I have seen it grow stronger and stronger in the past few years, and seen it grow to a point where it's almost a bit frightening. It's racism on every single level, and the fact that so many go along with these deluded ideas is outrageous. I recently read an article that highlighted extremely racist comments towards Muslim people; they even went as far to say that they should be "exterminated like rodents." This new "Terrorism Hearing" that will be taking place tomorrow is just forcing more Americans to believe that all Muslims, even American Muslims, have been "radicalized" and want to wipe us out. During this Terrorism Hearing, there will be an array of different testimonies, one of which includes a woman, Egyptian born, who was taught to "hate Americans and Israeli's" during her years in school.

These types of attacks on Muslims is not HELPING the issue whatsoever, if anything, it's simply making people even more paranoid and panicky. This hatred for Muslims isn't going to be solved by holding hearings to help solidify the anti-Muslim sentiments. The general public has little to know knowledge of what being a true Muslim means, and only sees the fundamentalists and extremists that our media portrays, but no one ever sees the good. With all of the problems that the world has no-a-days, we should be focusing on the positive within cultures, and show this country that not everyone is out to get us. Running stories like this "Terrorism Hearing" on the New York Times makes people believe that it's something to be worried about right now, and simply adds another strike against an entire population of people.

Not only does deepen Americans hatred/fear of Muslims, it also makes us look even worse to the Muslim world, and our own Muslims. We shouldn't be alienating our own people; people that were born in this country, people that are Americans, but simply practice a religion that is foreign to most Americans. I find all of these stereotypical and radical views of Muslims to be offensive and it needs to stop in order for this country to fully understand the impact of their hatred. Unfortunately, this country always needs someone else to blame for the problems, and tend to really nag at a point even if it should have died down. I can only hope that these "Terrorism Hearings" aren't something that will be happening very often, and I hope that the American people don't buy into these stunts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/nyregion/07muslim.html?scp=1&sq=Anti-muslim&st=cse

Glenn Beck is off Fox: What does this mean for politics?

Glenn Beck in recent years has appointed himself a sort of prophet of Right wing conspiracy theories. With his chalkboard and his hotbutton words like "Sharia" and "Socialism," he has built an audience who devoutly listens to his every word. He has become the unofficial head of the "Tea Party," along with Sarah Palin, and even hosted a rally around it. He has become a hugely influential talking head, perhaps one of the most prominent ones on TV. He could theoretically have the power to make or break a Republican nomination in 2012, second only to Limbaugh in Republican influence. However, he is also such a divisive figure that advertisers fear him, and rumors have floated around that Fox wanted to be rid of him. It's unclear whether he decided to leave the network or they opted not to renew his contract, but either way, Beck will need to find a new platform.

This will impact the 2012 race greatly. Beck is one of the most major public supporters of the "Tea Party" and would undoubtedly support whoever they choose to run in 2012. He is also perhaps the media figure with the strongest contempt for Obama, who he portrays as a totalitarian Muslim Communist planning on making concentration camps (this is not hyperbole.) Without his prominence, candidates like Christine O'Donnell may never have been fielded. The other reigning voice of the Right, Rush Limbaugh, will most likely avoid the Tea Party because of how divisive they've become in all but the fringes of the Right. Beck not having a major platform could be the difference between which candidate gets the Republican nomination, and how strong the opposition to Obama is. It will also mean a void for Beck's angry audience. They will need to seek out a new media figure to tell them which candidates will stop the Socialists and the Muslims. Perhaps a new "Tea Party" icon will take his place, or he'll land an even bigger job, but until then, the public voice of the Tea Party is gone.

the whitehouse invited me!

The world is changing all the time, and the social network scene tends to be the place to be these days. Social networking is a way to keep in touch, keep tabs on, keep close in mind, to those you may be distanced with by the physical world. I am personally impressed with, and my parents or grandparents might perhaps disagree,the level of social networking capability that our President Obama chooses to utilize in an effort to remain accessible. When someone really takes a minute to contemplate in which situations the average American has to reach out to and bounce ideas off of the President of the United States, there are very few. Postal mail seems to be so ancient these days, and chances are any letter that an opinionated American chooses to write to the President won’t even reach the President’s eyes and last I checked President Obama’s personal email is not listed on any contacts page on the Whitehouse website. Imagine my surprise to find that the last time I checked my twitter account (@JackieDelMonte feel free to follow me), that I had been invited to a nationwide town-hall style meeting located on Facebook in a week and a half. The Whitehouse tweet reads: “Not your average facebook invite: Join President Obama's Town Hall @facebook HQ. RSVP now: http://on.fb.me/fplXJH” Believe it or not, our President is going to be holding a live Facebook hosted town meeting. Facebook will be selecting questions for the town meeting, and you can post the questions right on the wall for the Facebook event. The guest list currently reads, 7,622 currently attending, 1,164 maybe attending, and 12,821 currently awaiting RSVP. If in any way a guest list of that magnitude makes you doubtful that your question would be chosen from the event wall, you may also submit your questions directly to: whitehouse.gov/facebooktownhall. I felt the need to blog about this because blogs are one way of utilizing technology to communicate politically, and now I guess country-wide live Facebook town-hall style meetings are too.

Congressman Paul Ryan calls for a $6.2 Trillion Spending Cut

The GOP budget Chief, Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, proposed a radical overhaul of the federal government's budget. His plan would save $6.2 trillion dollars over the next ten years. Doing this would completely gut Medicare and Medicaid. The federal work would be cut by 10%. The tax code would also be modified by lowering the tax rate for wealthy Americans and business to 25% while eliminating loopholes in the tax code. This plan would drop federal spending to under 20% of the economy instead of President Obama's plan which would be at least 23%. If this plan was to be implemented and unaltered there would be a surplus by 2040. Everyone wants to see an end to our debt problem and Paul Ryan's plan is a good step in making drastic cuts but his proposal fails in several aspects. My biggest criticism is that this plan is based on the "Trickle Down" Theory which has been proven ineffective time and time again. Instead of lowering the tax rates like Congressman Ryan suggests the tax rate should be increased for the wealthiest Americans and for companies. Currently companies are not spending the $1.4 trillion they're holding on to. Instead of trying to stimulate the economy they are hording money. General Electric a company that had a profit of $14 billion did not spend a single dime in taxes. Companies and the rich will never be willing to risk their money for the benefit of the country. Also Paul Ryan fails to realize that by cutting the federal work force people will not have jobs to pay taxes to the government and the government will have to spend more for unemployment and welfare. Medicare and Medicaid should have some limited cut backs but to completely gut those programs will have great reprercussions. If these programs are cut the enormous costs of medicine will bankrupt many Americans. Like most politicians Paul Ryan never suggests cuts to the military. Though military spending should not be overly reduced for defensive and economic reasons (providing jobs to militray personal and manufacturers) thee is still plenty of room to make cut backs. Advanced military technoloy like the F-22 Raptor costs $150 million per figher plane, but it has never been used in combat even though the United States is currently engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. In recent decades our enemies have given up on conventional means of fighting us due to our overwhelming strength, and instead uses guerilla tactics and terrorism. Our F-22's may give us a huge advantage in air combat but our enemies don't have planes. I do appreciate a politican willing to propose a drastic reduction of federal spending but Congressman Paul Ryan's plan plan to is extreme and narrow minded.

Drug War Fostering Violence and Creating Resentment in Mexico

Mexico has been a producer and transit route for illegal drugs since the 1970's. However the country is now dealing with drug cartels that are extremely well financed. While American and Mexican officials are working very closely, their strategy has not proved very successful.The violence has now spilled over the border and is a major concern in the Southwest.

Unarmed drones have been sent out in order to gather intelligence. Several suspects have been found. However, the rising drug related murders has proved that this alone will not end the violence. This struggle is affecting U.S -Mexico relations as threats against American diplomats, and consulate workers along the Mexican border have occurred. News organizations and journalists have been targeted and many reporters have been killed.

Mexicans have just started to openly speak about decriminalizing drugs to reduce the sizable profits the gangs receive. American and Mexican agencies are also refocusing on border enforcement efforts and strengthening training of Mexican police officers, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders. Instead of building a larger wall at the border, there would be a system that would allow goods and people to be screened.

Personally I think that the federal and state expenditures of billions of dollars a year have been a failure. This is based on the fact that the number of drug users has grown. Interception of drug cartels has led to more of a demand for drugs, this leads to higher prices, which ultimately leads to the drug lords making higher profits. Realistically people in the U.S are not going to stop using drugs. Well armed drug cartels can afford to fight a war in Mexico and they can bribe and coerce officials who are dealing with high rates of unemployment. The high rates of unemployment are due to the flight of Mexicans to the U.S claiming higher paid jobs. Another solution may be to increase educational and employment opportunities within Mexico. Since the majority of the workforce is now in the U.S the majority of the Mexican population is either elderly or very young. This leads to a lack of teachers and normal jobs.

I think that we are ignoring the lessons of the Prohibition Era which drove distillers underground and failed to eliminate alcohol from the private market. This created gangs and the mafia. Thousands of people die every day as a result of overuse of alcohol and smoking tobacco, no one has died due to smoking marijuana. While I am not entirely for legalization of marijuana I do think that decriminalization in Southwestern states will have a major effect.

The war on drugs can be solved if drug gangs lost their source of income, they would not be able to bribe officials with large sums of money which would decrease corruption in government. Turning low level drug offenders through the system, putting them in jail, these prisoners come out with more problems then when they went in. Incarcerating, arresting, charging high profile drug sellers, marijuana levels did not decrease rather it resulted in an opportunity for others to take up the profession. Resources going towards offenses of robbery, rape and murder are limited because most resources are going towards drug crimes. Getting tough with drug crime creates a soft approach to other more serious crimes.

Even Republican Ron Paul describes the situation “The drug war encourages violence. Government violence against nonviolent users is notorious and has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation. Innocent taxpayers are forced to pay for all this so-called justice. Our drug eradication project (using spraying) around the world, from Colombia to Afghanistan, breeds resentment because normal crops and good land can be severely damaged. Local populations perceive that the efforts and the profiteering remain somehow beneficial to our own agenda in these various countries.”

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/mexico/drug_trafficking/index.html

2012 Election is starting up already

It was a bit of a shock to get an email last week that Democrat Annie Kuster is running for office in 2012, only because it seems as though we just had an election. A mere 5 months ago, Kuster was defeated by Republican Charlie Bass for the District 2 House seat. And today I saw on facebook that President Obama has filed his papers for reelection. I thought that Kuster's announcement for reelection could not have come at a better time, when people were protesting on the steps of the capital in Concord. This is the perfect time for Kuster, who ran her campaign last year on job creation and fiscal responsibility, which we really have not seen from this NH congress, especially the former. I am very happy that Annie is running again and she will have a great amount of support from people who are fed up and feel as though they are not represented in the current House. Today, Vice President Biden was at UNH speaking to students about sexual violence and the youth vote. Newt Gingrich was also in NH on Monday speaking to students at Saint Anselm College. He spoke about " a multi-pronged fiscal plan to spur economic growth and reduce the deficit. That plan includes reducing the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent; repealing the estate tax; reducing the capital gains tax to zero, and permanently extending the tax breaks for all Americans passed by Congress," according to the Union Leader. I also heard that presidential hopeful and reality star Donald Trump will be heading to Saint Anselm College to talk about his campaign...that will be interesting. So, are we ready for another election season, one that may be more important than the last? I hope we are, I am ready for the excitement of a NH primary, but I'm not sure I'm ready for the incessant attack adds and phone calls. Many people are very upset with all the politicians in the country right now. This is the kind of political climate that will make the pendulum swing back towards Democrat, I believe, so it will be very interesting to watch.

Obama Seeks to Better Educate Hispanic Population

This past week President Obama met with students and teachers at Bell Multicultural High School in Washington to discuss the challenges of educating Hispanic youth in today's society. As expected, teachers are finding it very difficult to work with these students because their English is not proficient enough to go very in-depth on any subject. Parents and school officials worry that this will result in them not being able to pass the state-mandated tests required so that they will be able to even graduate from high school. Throughout the town hall meeting the president was direct in voicing his belief that adequate programs must be set into place in order for Latino students to truly benefit from their studies in America's public schools and to become functioning members of our nation's society. He focused his attention on the large responsibilities of parents and schools to make sure the students are actively engaging in their schoolwork and practicing the English language. Many of the students only have the opportunity to develop and refine these skills in the classroom, as their home life is often set to their native languages. One concern held by many is that these struggling students will not be able to immerse themselves into the workforce -- which could be a major set-back for America's economy. Thus, he emphasized the crucial need for these students to have access to both bilingual education and immersion programs in our public schools. Obama stated, "We have schools that do it very well; there are some schools that don't do it as well. We want to lift up those models that do it well" (CNN). I think it is peculiar that he's putting so much effort and interest into this cause, yet every other day on the news the public is informed that the government is working to cut funding to our schools. How exactly does he plan to better educate this population and expand programming of schools are having a hard enough time as it is to simply teach others the basics? I am in no way saying that I do not stand behind the president and this cause; I'm just curious as to how exactly it will be funded. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/27/obama.hispanics/index.html

Another U.S. conflict? Is the United States a glutton for punishment?

The rebel uprising in Libya has been a roller coaster of ups and downs when it comes to success for either side in the fight for control of the government. The revolt against Colonel Qaddafi has taken a decisive turn in favor of the current regime. This has been the focus of the international community and especially the U.N. The United States has never been good at these situations and quite often makes the situation worse in the long run. The United States has taken a surprising stance in this conflict, being part of a multilateral effort to bring about a peaceful transistion. The Obama administration has let the U.N. com up with a resolution and then abided by it to create a no fly zone to protect libyan citizens. This new twist is refreshing considering the american history involving foreign countries internal affairs and american involvement. America has been directly involved with the overthrow of a multitude of nations at the expense of the people in that country and to the benefit usually of an american corporation. This refreshing feeling about the new american stance was short lived however, debate has begun in Congress about arming the libyan rebels with american weapons to turn the tide of the conflict and overthrow Colonel Qaddafi. This new turn of events is mind boggling, how can this even be up for debate? I personally hope that the rebels overthrow Qaddafi and create a free and fair government for themselves and I am sure I am not the only american with that thought process. This however needs to be accomplished by the Libyan people themselves with no interference from outside nations, especially the United States. Creating the no fly zone evens the odds and reduces the amount of collateral damage that occurs through off course bombs killing innocent civilians. That makes sense, that seems like a responsible direction of take this conflict in. Instead of leaving it at that and for once letting the United States come out of situation without deep seeded hatred from nations all over the world the U.S. opens this pandora's box once again. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that while the U.S. has not decided to arm the libyan rebels yet it is completely within the United States legal right to do so if they feel the need to. This blatant disreguard for mulitlateral decision making is what creates terrorism. Engaging in this decision would bury the United States in Libya for years. I am at a lost for words if this comes to light. President Obama has allowed CIA agents to collect more information on th rebels and at some point he will make a decision on whether or not to arm the rebels. That decision if it is made to arm the rebels will be another in a long list of bad security decisions that american administrations have made over the years. Let these two groups work out their differences maintain the no fly zone and monitor any civilian harm and respond accordingly. For the life of me I can not understand why the U.S. feels the need to stick its nose in matters that do not affect it. The people of Libya are responsible for Libya. The men and women who defend the United States are responsible to defend against nations that attack us. They are not to be used as international police at the whim on a marginal interest. We as american must love being hated around the world. Lets change that with the right decision in Libya. Citation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-libya-cia-is-gathering-intelligence-on-rebels/2011/03/30/AFLyb25B_story.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?ref=todayspaper

The Early Bird gets the Worm?

Just Wednesday of this week, Annie McLane Kuster, the spitfire Democratic Congressional candidate for the NH House District 2 announced to her more dedicated followers of her intentions of running again for the position in 2012. Now, this might not surprise most people, we've become more accustomed to hearing about early candidacies here in New Hampshire. To me, her announcement is incredibly bold. When I received an e-mail from her blast with this announcement, I read the entire thing with excitement, and I also followed her Twitter account which now posts updates about what she plans on doing with her time before she really starts campaigning. However, this early announcement caught ears of local news sources such as WMUR and The Union Leader. In a place like NH, it could make or break her. Sometimes if candidates get too early of a start, they are more prone to exhaustive criticism and intense scrutiny. It also allows for more time for the candidate to slip up, say something they might regret, or do something that the media might take the wrong way. Sometimes, getting an early start for a candidate could be postitive. For Annie, I'm sure she is using this tactic to raise a ton of money, and also get a really large, dedicated, and excited base. If you look at the comments under each news article from the links above, most are not in support of her campaign. Actually, most are filled with direct criticisms to her as well as the democratic party as a whole. With everything going on in Washington and even here in Concord, bi-partisanship I don't think has ever been in a worse condition. It seems like with every or any policy that comes through, especially with the state and national budget feuds, it is nearly impossible for anyone to find common ground. So, Annie...bold move, you are very brave to put yourself out there so early in a climate like this. I think her announcement drew a lot of her voters from the 2010 election right back in immediately. If she does follow through with the work that she promises to do in the next year or so right here in NH, there will be an even larger group behind her as she campaigns her way through the state. Those people will only want to give more to her if she is successful in her work. She only lost by 4,000 votes to Charlie Bass the first time around. I'm not going to be surprised if she goes out and finds those 4,000 or more.

Clear and Present Danger to Planned Parenthood

More and more talk within the House is circulating on the defunding Planned Parenthood, and along with the talk, seems to come more support. The entire issue behind state funding for Planned Parenthood is people's "moral dilemma" to help fund abortions; to most people, that's all that Planned Parenthood stands for, despite their huge efforts to educate and aid young women. According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: "the time has come to respect the wishes of the majority of Americans who adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars for abortions." The "majority" of Americans, I would certainly be interested in seeing the actual numbers on this one, or else I call bull. They're reflecting their own beliefs onto others, and claiming that us sheep are in compliance with everything they say on the matter.

Planned Parenthood is a respectable establishment that does so much more than just perform abortions, those on the crusade against the organization act as though women waltz in and use abortions for birth control. “What’s clear to me, if you follow the money, you can actually take the funding supports out of abortion. We then have a much better opportunity to move forward to be a society that says yes to life.” Life, ah yes, something they're continually harping on, but wait, they're also interested in cutting funding to programs that help mothers in need, and more often than not they're the people using Planned Parenthood for a plethora of needs. The GOP, for the most part, couldn't careless about the children once they're born, they're too interested in the "sanctity of life," and yanking away a woman's choice.

Also argued within the link that I found states: "cutting off support for millions of women's health clinics would cut off their ability to perform the procedure." Actually, if you stopped to think about these actions you'd understand that the number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and neglected children will probably skyrocket. Women have a choice, and Planned Parenthood provides them with the means to make that decision. I cannot understand how taking that away will move this country in the right direction. The work that Planned Parenthood does is provide the means and the information to remains sexually safe, but allows women a place to go for abortion services if necessary.

To state it simply, I am beyond frustrated that our "leaders" are attempting to push their morals and ideals on the country, when in fact, these issues should not even come onto the table in the Senate. Show me the "majority" that believes what you do, and possibly, I'll understand.

The Attack on Planned Parenthood http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49830.html

Wisconsin's Union Laws blocked?

Only days after the anti-union law in Wisconsin was passed, stripping Wisconsinites of their collective bargaining rights and requiring a larger retirement contribution, a state judge ordered a restraining order disabling the bill from becoming an obligatory law. State law states that the law must take effect one day after its passing in the house but the court order on behalf of the left could jeopardize the validity of the law. Despite the controversial nature of the law, the attempts on behalf of the "right to unionize" demographic are a desperate, last-ditch effort to thwart a bipartisan bill that was brought to law legally and constitutionally. I remain sympathetic with the blue-collar left, however the methods of resistance by the liberals are inexcusable, not to mention immature. When the universal healthcare came to fruition, no Republican was seen deserting their post or commit dereliction of duty. There are better ways to deal with contentious legislation than shutting down and refusing to diplomatically deal with the issue at hand, which is what the Democrats are guilty of in this instance.

"Congress Returns to Questions on Libya and Budget"

Congress returns this week to face two major issues: our military involvement in Libya and the budget. In an article written by Carl Hulse, members only have two more weeks to discuss the budget before "current measure financing the federal government expires." "Democrats said White House and Congressional officials continued over the weekend to try to identify potential cuts to make a new offer to Republicans of about $20 billion in reductions on top of $10 billion already approved. But whether that level could jump-start negotiations that hit an angry bump last week is unclear and Republicans said that some of the cuts Democrats had earlier proffered amounted to gimmicks." Democrats state that the Republican negotiators had originally decided on $30-40 billion in cuts, however, are now getting "cold feet under conservative and Tea Party pressure." With the two parties disagreeing on budget cuts, a solution in the near future seems unlikely. From what we have been learning in class about the clash of the two parties, can the two work together to successfully to come to one budget solution?

Since Congress was out of town when the United States military entered Libya, they will be seeking answers from administration. "Still, lawmakers are certain to push the administration to offer details on how long American hardware and troops will be engaged, what the goal of the mission is, how much it is going to cost and where the money will come from." President Obama will be leading a press conference tonight to answer most of these questions. I feel like these questions should have been answered before entering Libya and not after the fact. Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, stated on Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC, that she feels the public and Congress has a right to ask questions.

"Congress Returns to Questions on Libya and Budget"

Haley Barbour on Afghanistan

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi expressed his opinions about what is going on in Afghanistan these days and I have to say that Mississippi has seen better days. Barbour feels that there is no "end game" in sight in Afghanistan and that we do not have a clear mission or a mission that requires the troops that we currently have in theater. This coming from the same guy who backed addition troops in 2009. Governor Barbour needs to look at the reports provided by General Petraeus since McCrystal was ousted last summer. Having served a year in Afghanistan I feel like I have at least a respectable platform to base my opinion on. I would also mention that when people like Gov. Barbour say they have "been there" they are almost certainly referring to Bagram Airfield (BAF) an overseas paradise complete with Burger King and Thanksgiving Day parades and is in no way a look into the third world country that combat arms soldiers experience.
The mission is clear in Afghanistan; disrupt the insurgency while simultaneously building local confidence in the Afghan police and army. This will, in turn, bring stabilization to the government. I am not saying that this will be easy but it is a clear mission plan nonetheless. Barbour needs to look a little further into the military side of things before he makes himself look like an idiot.
I can agree with him, however is excessive spending in Afghanistan. While Barbour insists that cuts can be made in the Pentagon he cannot seem to articulate where the cuts will come from. I would make cuts from defense contractors that cover outsourced military jobs to overpaid Americans and third country nationals when they could be used to employ exponentially more servicemembers in a time when even the military is turning unemployed Americans away.

"Obama calls for remaking of no child left behind"http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/obama-calls-for-remaking-of-no-child-left-behind/?ref

This week President Obama has decided there needs to be a few changes in the "no child left behind" program. He wants both sides to come together and re-do this program because he feels as though it is not working as well as it should be. Obama wants these changes to take palce as early as this coming September when students start a new school year.
Basically what he wants to change is to push more control to state and local governments in regards to education as well as improving testing quality and demanding of increased standards. This stand that he is taking on this issue is surprising more on the conservative side because the democrats have said that they would like greater investments into the schools and the conservatives have said more local control over decisions.
President Obama has come to the decision to mend this program because he feels as though he does not want to let the students down and he wants them to know that he is investing in their future and wants them to be successful.
Although I do not have much prior knowledge on the no child left behind program, besides basic information I think this sounds like a great idea. I do not think there could ever be enough money and time invested into the education of children because they are not only the future, but they should have the right to and education and should know that no one will let them give up no matter what they will always have their education.
The standardized tests that will be involved will be a gerat way to help the schools and teachers to recognize which areas students are struggling in and to fix that. There are far too many students that go through their entire schooling just being too embarassed to ask for help or not wanting to. There are so many corrective measures that can be taken in order to make sure that every student has an opportunity to redeem themselves in this world and to be a smart and successful individual.

Our Right to Vote

I'm sure we all remember when the hearing for HB 176 was taking place in Concord. February 24, students from around the state descended on the State Capital to protest the bill that would re-define "domicile" prohibiting students from voting in the town where they go to college. It would prohibit students from registering in a town where they did not live prior to matriculation. There were a large amount of students from Plymouth State University, including myself, who protested and testified against the bill. Many newspapers in the state, including the Union Leader and the Concord Monitor covered the issue. I was very glad to see that this was gaining publicity in the state, so hopefully more people could come out against it. I was even more surprised when a friend of mine from Ohio sent me a link to a Washington Post article about the recent suppression of rights around the country including our NH HB 176! Our protests had made it to the national news! Along with our NH voting debate, it seems that similar voting restrictions are popping up in other states as well, such as Wisconsin's voter ID bill and a similar North Carolina bill. Its great to see these issues are getting national press. Hopefully this will cause people to take a stand against them and fight for the voter rights. Any restriction you put on voting, or the harder that you make registration, Democrats are going to loss votes. Republicans that are now in office want to make it harder for young foolish liberals to be able to vote. While I do understand that voter fraud is a problem and it threatens our Democracy, placing restrictions on voting is equally a threat to Democracy. If people can't register to vote they can't vote. If people can't vote then our whole system of government will not work. Its a scary time for individual rights, and we must protect them.

Republicans in 2012

The 2012 presidential election cycle is starting to pick up its pace but in no way does it compare to this time in 2007. As usual, when an incumbent is seeking reelection, the election seems to be a little calmer, unless you are saying Jimmy Carter or Bush 41. This may be a sign of good fortune for President Obama. The question still remains, who will run for the nomination of the Republican Party? The 2011 CPAC showcased some of the top contenders; in my opinion some very lack luster contenders to face up against the Obama/Biden ticket. The best of the bunch that fits with my brand of moderate conservatism was Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. Not as right as say a Goldwater Republican and not as left as let’s say a Rockefeller Republican. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic aptly states that Mitch Daniels is an Eisenhower Republican, meaning he stays away from the spotlight is wary of the military, economically conservative and more liberal on social issues. But as it seems now, Daniels is not seeking election.
Mitt Romney has also been making the rounds, but he has yet to formally announce his candidacy. Romney has however been traveling to early primary states, this past week he traveled to Bartlett and Manchester where he held rallies, throwing some red meat to the conservative base. He discussed his business credentials, according to the New York Times, Romney’s main theme was his reiteration of these credentials “I spent my career in the private sector…I know how jobs are created and how jobs are lost”. Are these possible campaign themes? Only time will tell. The problem Romney still faces is from religious social conservatives in regards to his Mormon faith. As we saw in 2008 many in the religious right refused to support him because of his faith, their support went to Mike Huckabee a former Pastor from Arkansas. Romney, seems however to be the most concrete candidate thus far.
There are not many others to pick from, Michelle Bachman seems to be making the moves towards setting up a presidential bid. Though it would be nice having a woman presidential nominee from the Republican Party, I find it very unlikely that Bachmann is main-stream enough to rally the Republican base. She will be blasted by the media, just as Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell were. Even if it is not so, Bachmann seems to give off a sense of incompetence,the media will have a field day with that. Donald Trump has been has also been floated around in the past weeks. I cannot truly consider Donald Trump as a presidential candidate for the presidency, did anybody see his CPAC speech; it was very unbecoming to say the least. The Republican Party still seems to be reeling in the current tea party split. No real leader has yet to come out to unite the party. If it is not done with much speed, there is little hope for a strong Republican contender in 2012.

Obama Clears Way for Guantánamo Trials

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/americas/08guantanamo.html?ref=americas

President Obama had originally ordered a halt on military charges on suspects in Guantanamo Bay, and had previously decided to try to close the prison itself. However on Monday he "admitted his failure" when it came to trying to close it, and although has been trying to have detainees released to civil courts in the US, these attempts have been blocked by Congress. Now I hate to be the one who states the cruel fact, but people that have been capture by the US that have done something as grave as plan the September 11th attacks don't deserve to ever get out of prison. As a matter of fact, it is good that Guantanamo Bay still exists, so as to house terrible people like this (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed).

Such people do not deserve a civil trial, no matter how angry they are or what their reasons were for planning such an act. The people that are in Guantanamo belong in Guantanamo. Although sometimes mistakes are made, people wrongfully accused, I do believe that the existence of this prison still remains beneficial.

Guantanamo has been a site of torture, this is well known. Although I do not advocate violation of civil liberties, I do not believe that someone possess' those liberties after committing acts like what Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (a Saudi Arabian who was accused of planning the bombing of the US destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000) did. Torture can be a useful method, but it can also be a way of obtaining inconclusive information, so my stance on this is neutral at the moment. I do however advocate the existence of Guantanamo. Maybe some changes to the prison itself would be effective, but the destruction of its usefulness is not in the best interests of the US.

White House Seeks to Allay Muslims’ Fears on Terror Hearings

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/us/politics/07muslim.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Threats come constantly from the Muslim world, and it is frankly surprising that the White House is even addressing this "threat," considering the threats in the past have been even more credible and intense. Disregarding this lack of intensity, the fact that the Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King stated that “The threat is coming from the Muslim community, the radicalization attempts are directed at the Muslim community. Why should I investigate other communities?” Is a bold move. Although many people may shout religious prejudice, I see his statement to be correct.

I don't understand why people think it is an outrage to direct a statement at a particular group of people if that group of people is the one being specified in these world events. It is obvious, why wouldn't someone investigate a group under scrutiny because of the fact that those who strike odd cords against world harmony are from that group.

Although I am no supporter of racism (if that's what you want to call this), I agree with any policy decisions on the part of Homeland Security of this country. This does not seem like fear mongering to me, considering it was simply a statement to embody the position of Homeland Security's public policy.

Chairman for hearings against American Islamic Radicalism is former IRA supporter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/politics/09king.html?ref=politics
In an interesting turn of events, Republican Representative Peter King, who will be chairing the congressional hearings on Muslim radicalization, has an unashamedly radical past himself. Turns out that this law-maker, a grand-nephew of an IRA member, and avid IRA cause supporter, has no shame or concern about the relationship he has with other terrorist movements. In the New York Times article I have linked in above, they write that he simply explains:

"Of comparisons between the terrorism of the I.R.A. and that of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, Mr. King said: "I understand why people who are misinformed might see a parallel. The fact is, the I.R.A. never attacked the United States. And my loyalty is to the United States."

Just as secrets don't make friends; neither does racial, ethnic, national or religious supremacy Mr. King. I would love to have a conversation with this man, or any supported of the lobbyist campaign that undoubtedly fuels his fire, ACT for America. I mean, 2 of 10 of their points may not be entirely bias and opinion based, I just don't find those numbers to be very encouraging. Of course there is going to be a difference between the IRA and Al-quada, the IRA was operating mainly as a whole unit toward a united goal, however, they are both groups that use terrorism to advance their political goals. Hypocrisy is the dish of the day in this regard.
The biggest problem with King chairing these hearings has less to do with his own pro-IRA, terrorist group supporting, activities and speeches, and more to do with his current agenda. He seems to aim all of his efforts at re-assessing the terror agenda in general. In particular, underplay the importance of the individuals, the extremists or terrorists within the Muslim community, which all communities have, the outliers; he chooses to suggest more about the community as a whole. This is just a problem.

Briggitte Gabrielle

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08gabriel.html

After reading the New York times article I have provided the link for, my first reaction, I need to google this woman, after some more research into the matter, my second reaction was "Is this real life?" I cannot believe what I am reading about This women is dangerous, she needs to simmer down. She should go back to where there isn't such a large base of recently scarred, scared and for the most part politically uneducated, she can propagandize into her own extremist views; the last thing the US national security and counter-terrorist operations needs is a hate-inspiring witch hunt for "jihadists" and 'Islamic Radicals' in the US. If she is doing anything, it is merely stirring up trouble and making more trouble with anti-American groups by encouraging intolerance and cornering people into wanting to fight back. She speaks of political correctness being a cancer in the national government, is that another way of saying decency, respect and tolerance are a cancer?
I have invited Ms. Briggitte Gabriel to an educational discussion/debate via email, as I would love to be provided the opportunity to allow a 23 year old college student such as myself to make a fool of her, simply by arguing with fact and figures rather than with feelings and revenge based conviction. I highly doubt I will even receive a response from the staffers at ACT let alone an RSVP to that invite. Since I have learned of this 'Islamic expert' or 'terrorism' expert, I have found irony in one lurking fact: I cannot find a single piece of information on this woman's credentials as a so-called expert. I cannot locate a single document with any evidence of any post-secondary education, let alone anything that could even MAYBE qualify her to be an expert in ANYTHING. I invite anyone reading this to help me uncover her expertise training or education.
Note: in regards to the ACT! For America show, every single episode begins with the same sympathy inducing story, turning the political crisis that Gabrielle lived through in Lebanon, into a terror siege and raid by Islamists. I am not in any way trying to down play the role of religious conviction in the tragic and unfortunate events this woman lived through, and in no way do I mean to undermine real and factual links between specific terrorists and Islam. To use a childhood experience in your tote bag as the necessary requirement to witch hunt Islamic however, i am going to argue that such accusations and anti-tolerance promoting ideology is deserving of a far more legitimate platform as her expertise are applied today. A.k.a. this is probably the very last thing to do in order to promote national security.
The first statement of these episodes is a cryptic statement that flashes against a black screen with the sound of gunshots in the background: "those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it." Well, Ms. Gabrielle, I do remember reading something about another guy who chose a religious ethnicity to pin as the enemy, his name was Adolf Hitler. Talk about repeating history, unfortunately, the next time around, there will be no survival stories.
""In the Muslim world, extreme is mainstream," she wrote. She said that there is a "cancer" infecting the world, and said: "The cancer is called Islamofacism. This ideology is coming out of one source: The Koran." – New York Times
Then!!! As if she CAN justify anything she says as being a matter of national security rather than the disgusting display of over-simplifying and discrimination and intolerance that it is, they plan on attempting to humiliate Muslims, and anyone with a right head on their shoulders, this upcoming September.
"In what ACT! is calling "Open a Koran" day this September, the group plans to put up 750 tables in front of post offices, libraries, churches and synagogues and hand out leaflets selectively highlighting verses that appear to advocate violence, slavery and subjugation of women." –New York Times
Finally, we really need to step up and expose this movement for being radical and mis-directed.
""She really opened up my eyes about Islam," said Natalie Rix Cresson, a composer, clutching a signed copy of Ms. Gabriel's book. "I didn't realize it was so infiltrated in the schools, everywhere." –New York Times

Honestly, to even listen to this woman speak is so irritating and it just makes me wonder if I should consider her book the next "Mein Kampf." I know that seems rather radical on my end to suggest, but I don't understand where anyone in their RIGHT mind is coming from trying to manifest an enemy based on intolerance.

http://act4america.blip.tv/

plurality and proportional representation

Primary elections in the US have some of the lowest voter turnout in any election, but the people who vote in these primaries tend to be the most loyal voters. The Republican and democrats vary on what rules they follow for how many delegates they win.

The Republicans use a plurality rule the “Only the leading candidate will emerge with delegates; the other candidates win nothing” (Hershey 32). This rule is the fastest way to get to the candidate who will represent Republican Party, but it also encourages candidates who are not the frontrunner to drop out of the race. This in a way hurts the Republican parties to be represented by the best candidate because the frontrunner may not always be the best candidate.

While the Democratic Party uses the rule of proportional representation. In proportional representation candidates need to win 15% of the vote to win a delegate. “Candidates win delegates in rough proportion to their popular support. So in a typical Democratic primary, the less successful candidates are encouraged to stay in the race longer” (Hershey 32).Proportional representation rules force candidates to win by a large margin in order to pull far ahead. This creates a more competitive environment for candidates to win the nomination.

Proportional representation seems the best and most democratic way of candidates competing to win delegates because candidates have to campaign effectively in a competitive election. An example is Obama and Clinton in the 2008 campaign. Obama and his staff had to “Put enormous effort into states where Democratic candidates didn’t usually campaign, and thus Clinton’s advantages were barely perceptible” (Hershey 183). This rule is maybe the best way to determines who should be a party’s nominee. While the plurality rules just seems to reward those who can win early on.

But these two rules have a down side, the matter of minor parties. These parties don’t have a chance of getting one of its parties nominated for the presidency. In Republican primaries it is nearly impossible for this to happen and in Democratic primaries the odds are more in their favor but it is still unlikely. The Democrats and Republicans are using to their advantage the rules and people from the far right or far left are the ones who tend to vote in primaries. These two dominant parties are not allowing for minor parties to invade the two party- system.

Works Cited

Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America. New York: Pearson Longman, 2011. Print.

Discouraging "radicalized" individuals or encouraging profiling?

Some months ago, I heard a passing news story that Congress was to hold hearings on Muslims. I discounted it as impossible or innacurate reporting. However, I was wrong. Today, there were protests prior to actual hearings which will be conducted by the House Homeland Security Committee this coming Thursday, March 10th. What this committee hopes to accomplish, I cannot understand. It seems to me, this may harken back to the time of McCarthyism and the House Un-American Activities Committee.



In 1950, Congress passed the Internal Security Act (later repealed in '68), which provided for concentration camps where "subversives" could be held without trial (similar to Guantanamo?). In '51, New Hampshire followed suit and passed the Subversives Activities Act and appropriated money to conduct investigations into individuals such as university professors. In the documentary Rights & Reds: Cold War in NH, some proposed that the Red Scare was an effort by one of our political parties to use the public's fear of Communism to regain powers lost during the Roosevelt administration and to reinvigorate public support of military spending.



Are we once again living in an environment where public policies are beginning to erode our privacy and personal freedoms, one group at a time? Is belonging to an ethnic or religious group considered probable cause for investigation? Or are these kinds of policies necessary to protect our citizenship? Does the perceived public opinion of "Islamaphobia" really exist? If so, does it justify our government targeting a specific group of Americans for hearings?

Wisconsin, Unions, and Anti-Public Sector Sentiment in the US

I have been carefully watching the Union issues that have unfolded in Wisconsin, and one of the things that strikes me the most is the general hostility people have toward public workers. It seems as if people will not be satisfied until public workers are making the salaries of McDonalds employees with no benefits. It comes from a greater contempt Americans have for government and anything provided to them by taxes. Since the 80's, the public has come to believe that the government serves no useful purpose except for possibly fighting wars. The private sector has been idealized as serving the interests of Americans no matter what they do. Jobs have been moved overseas, benefits and wages have been cut, and unemployment has skyrocketed, but most of the blame has been put on the government and anything public. Recently, this issue has come to the forefront amongst public workers in Wisconsin

Wisconsin public workers are unionized. They do not make particularly impressive salaries, but they get very good benefits to make up for it. Pensions and stellar health insurance are the main attraction to taking a public job, and have been fought for by state employees unions. The governor has decided that they should no longer have the right to unionization and should have their benefits cut to "make sacrifices" in a poor economy. He fails to mention that before he took office and created massive corporate tax cuts, Wisconsin was not suffering nearly as badly with budget issues.This blatant attack on public workers has led to massive protests, and Democratic state senators actually leaving so they would not be forced to participate in the bill being put through. The public has been disturbingly indifferent to the whole situation. Media coverage has not been impressive considering the large scale of these events. Hostility toward public workers and resentment that they get benefits private sector workers do not has created this. Rather than demand the same benefits for themselves, or questioning the extremely dramatic wealth disparity in America, people attack those who they see as taking a tiny bit more than they themselves get, rather than those who get dramatically more. This leads to the anti-union, anti-public sentiment seen in the Wisconsin protests. Hopefully, people start to see that these workers are not their enemies, and public pressure forces the state government to stop attempting to union-bust and destroy the livelihood of the people who allow the state to function in the first place.

Iranian Opposition Arrested

Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, first under house arrest, have been taken by security forces. Their wives were forced to accompany then, and none have been seen or heard from since. Their location of detainment has yet to be identified, but it is speculated that they have become the latest occupants of the Heshmatiyeh jail in Tehran.

Mir Hossein Mousavi was the key figure of opposition to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Though he is not by any means a liberal, his conservative views are not nearly as extreme as President Ahmadinejad. He went as far as to break with Iranian political tradition and be seen holding his wife's hand during campaigning. Through various interviews, Mousavi made it clear that he thought Iran was in horrible danger if Ahmadinejad received another term. That could be one of the reasons he and Mehdi Karroubi called for peaceful demonstrations.

Mehdi Karroubi, former conciliator and presidential candidate in the discredited 2009 Iranian election, has played a strong hand in continuing to encourage protesters to voice their opposition to the government. While Karroubi supported the protests that began with the demand for reform within the government, he has continued to play a role when the demand for reform changed for one of revolution.


With Mousavi and Karroubi under arrest, the Iranian government could find itself in a better position to deal with suppression without having to endure a voice for those who are silenced. There is no indication that the level of activity of security forces will be reduced, and the protesters are finding themselves united but without further guidance. The next protest is scheduled for Tuesday; but without a strong voice from a leader, their efforts have a greater risk of clashing with security.