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.