Defense Article: Gays in the Military.

This article deals with the attempted repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy which continues to support the discrimination of homosexuals in the military.

Link to article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1975451,00.html

Could the problems in Russia affect the US?

This Sunday, 2 suicide bombs went off in Moscow's main metro station, Lubyanka. The blasts killed 38 people and injured 60 more. The bombers are suspected to be from the North Caucasus region of Chechnya which has had a long history of clashes with the Russian government. The primarily Muslim region of Chechnya has been attempting to gain independence from Russia for many years, but has failed due to Russia's intense interest in Chechnya's oil reserves. However, Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, declared that "Terrorists will be destroyed." Perhaps another civil war? I think that possibly if Russia goes to war with Chechnya, the US may be forced to intervene. The question is: on which side would the US step in? Classically wishing to protect human rights across the globe, the US could be expected to defend the oppressed Chechnyans. However, the US has been making major attempts to establish peace with Russia and alleviate Cold War tensions. Hopefully both sides will keep a cool head and no one will have to deal with making that decision.

Links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8593961.stm

Russia makes nice.

Obama recently announced that he and Russia's president Dmitri Medvedev have reached another nuclear arms deal that will this time slash nuclear arsenals to one quarter of what they used to be and begin an inspection cycle that will make sure each side is holding true to the deal.  However, this agreement will not impede the US's plans for a missile defense base in Europe.  I think this is a great step in the relations between the US and Russia as well as progress in the nuclear warfare threat.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25start.html?ref=politics

Death threats, really?

Immediately following the House vote on the health care bill Sunday, several representatives that voted for the bill received death threats, menacing photos, and vandalism to their homes and offices. New York Rep Louise Slaughter received a message concerning possible sniper attacks against the members of the House that voted for the bill. Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords' office was also vandalized. Now, while I understand that people may be upset about the passage of the bill, I certainly don't think it calls for death threats - the bill is about health care for god's sake. It just doesn't make any sense. How dimwitted and anti-democracy do you have to be to send death threats to people elected to vote according to their own judgement. What would those people prefer? A government that is run by one person's decisions, and only if that person is a Republican? It's just so uncompromising and truly anti-American if they expect everyone to bend to their will and yet they show no compromise or concession in return.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html?ref=politics

Public education = classist.

In Chicago, reports have surfaced that members of the Board of Education have been keeping a "VIP" list containing certain select students who have major connections to politicians that were given preference when applying to be admitted to some of the most prestigious public schools. The Department of Education office claims that the log only listed names of people who had asked for help, yet reports show that these people were shown preference during the application process.

I think this is a little outrageous. If any city wants there education system to flourish it has to rely on talent and students' own dedication, not on having the "right" political connections. It's not going to help anyone if a less qualified student is admitted to one of the most rigorous schools; it will hurt the more qualified applicants who were denied, and not provide the most appropriate place for the student granted admission. In my opinion, in any case like this, applicants should be judged on their own personal merit, not on external fluff.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/education/24chicago.html?ref=politics

Won't someone compromise for the animals?

At a UN conference on endangered species in Qatar this week, American proposals to ban international trade of bluefin tuna and to protect the polar bears from hunting were shot down. Mostly to the delight of the Japanese, who enjoy bluefin tuna in their sushi, the conference held that the fish was to marketable and not in immediate danger of extinction due to commercial fishing. In the worsening case of the polar bears, the conference delegates decided that the polar bear population severely threatened by global warming is healthy enough to withstand small hunting.

I think this is a real tragedy for the polar bears. While there may be a large enough population now, the population of the polar bear is decreasing at astronomical rates, mostly due to the rapid melting of the ice caps on which they live. It appears that once again mankind has chosen the selfish, short-sided route that will benefit today and leave tomorrow in ruins. Research shows that if nothing is done to assist the survival of the polar bears - which nothing is - they could be extinct in as little as 50 years.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/science/earth/19species.html?ref=science

Will the US interfere with Irsael's plans?

The Obama administration has yet to announce a decision on what the US will do in response to the Israeli plan to build 1600 homes on the disputed territory with Palestine. So far, the US administration has released several statements of their disapproval of the action as well as Hilary Clinton's calls for peace talks between the two leaders. However, none of the scolds have been responded to by the Israeli government, and plans for construction seem to be ready to move along as scheduled.
I think that while the US should possibly offer to facilitate peace talks between the two areas to avoid some type of violent outbreak that could occur if the issue is not addressed. I think it is ridiculous that Israel would chose now, one of the most peaceful times in that area's history, to rock the boat and cause trouble. While I understand that they believe they are entitled to that land, I think that if they were smart, they would chose to play nice with the Palestinians for the safe of their own people, and their country.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/world/middleeast/18diplo.html?ref=politics

Obama to appear on Fox News

Obama has decided in a last ditch effort to do an interview on the highly conservative Fox News network this week in order to arouse any last support for the health care bill that is next set to be voted on in the House this Friday. It is unclear however, whether this is will be a helpful move or not on the President's behalf. I highly doubt that he will be received with warm welcomes, or if his interview will be anything other than ridiculed by the Republican viewers. I think it is a smart move though, as, with Obama's charisma, I doubt it will mar his appearance to his existing supporters. In fact, it may force the people of Fox News to behave with slightly more decorum than usual, because now that the world is focusing on them and their behavior and reaction to seemingly logical comments by the President, they will have to appear more thoughtful and less reactionary. One can only hope that this will finally be the encouraging factor that will allow the Republicans and Democrats to work together and pass a bill on health care once and for all.

Links:
www.nytimes.com/politics/

Argentina v. United Kingdom

Argentine President Christina Fernandez issued a decree Tuesday that stated that any ships that would seek passage through southern Argentine waters including around the Falkland Islands would require prior permission by the Argentine government. The problem is, Argentina doesn't control the Falkland Islands, Great Britain does. But now the controversy ensues. The United Kingdom is set to search for oil around the shores of their Falkland Islands this week, but now, they can not legally reach the islands per Argentina's new legislation. The decree apparently comes from Argentina's disapproval of the proposed oil drilling near their country and near a set of islands they feel are rightly theirs.
This is an interesting legal issue, because the UK does control the waters they are drilling in, but they are cutting it awfully close to Argentina's. Plus, directly surpassing this decree could cause a renual of tensions between the two countries who went to was over the islands as recently as 1982. It seems natural for Argentina to be defensive over the drilling around the islands, but I am surprised that Great Britain has decided to directly defy another country's pleadings and wishes and drill anyways. It seems highly disrespectful for the UK to do this, but perhaps they feel like this is the situation to assert their authority and ownership over these islands once and for all.

Links:

A real life Bourne Identity.

Much has been unfolding in recent days about the murder of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a top Hamas official, in Dubai. Apparently killed by a professional hit squad, suspected of being funded by the Irsaeli Mossad. The Hamas leader was apparently given several electric shocks prior to being suffocated in his hotel room. It is unclear how the murders entered the room. Just today, 11 people were identified as potential suspects in the murder, all of whom were found to be carrying false passports and only remaining in the country for one day. It appears that Mahmoud was followed from Syria to Dubai where he was supposedly making an arms purchase for Hamas. I just thought this article was interesting because it shows how incredibly detailed investigations can get, and yet even with this amount of analysis, the 11 suspected murderers go unharmed. These are some interesting photos released from the government of the tracking of the suspected murderers:

HAMAS KILLING

Police in Dubai have issued arrest warrants for 11 suspects they want to question about the killing of a senior Hamas official in Dubai. The suspects include six men travelling on false British passports.

Three other suspects, including one woman, were travelling on false Irish passports. Two further suspects had French and German papers. Dubai police say they appeared to be a professional hit-squad.

Dubai police say the suspects only spent a day in the country. Here two of them are seen arriving at a local shopping centre. Three others were filmed arriving at the same centre. The suspects did not make contact by phone.

Police allege that one of the suspects, pictured on the left pulling a trolley, went to a hotel to put on a disguise. He is seen entering a men's toilet and later left wearing a wig.

Their alleged victim, Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh is seen at the hotel reception, circled in red above. At the bottom of the image the head of one of the suspects can just be seen. As Mr Mabhouh leaves, the suspect follows.

Mr Mabhouh is followed into the lift by a number of the suspects, including two pictured here in tennis gear. It is thought he had been followed from Syria to Dubai where he wanted to buy weapons for Hamas.

When Mr Mabhouh leaves the lift, the police say he was followed by one of the suspects, who appeared to be trying to establish which room he was staying in. He was later killed in his room.

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518481.stm

http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article311399.ece

Bad, Iran. Go sit in the corner.

Obama announced that several serious sanctions will be brought against Iran for thier 'misbehaviors' regarding their enrichment of uranium to 20% as opposed to the 3.5% they claimed they were enriching. It is in agreement in the UN, now including Russia's approval of the sanctions, that Iran was not in the right to lie about their existing nuclear program. The US has stood by the idea that Iran is clearly in attempts to construct a nuclear bomb. China, a member of the UN Security Council has remained silent on the issue thus far, but the US still plans to bring action against Iran for their actions.

It is unclear to me if the assumption that Iran was attempting to make a nuclear bomb can be made, simply because they were enriching 20% uranium, where as they would need up to 90% enriched to produce a bomb. However, their actions are suspect, and I am not sure if their word can be trusted at this point. Perhaps sanctions is the best way presently to address the problem. My only issue is that if we already say we can not trust Iran, how can we assume this was their only illegal plant? I feel that we should be searching like crazy for another plant hidden somewhere that could be producing even more enriched uranium.

Links:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/163a765e-15a8-11df-ad7e-00144feab49a.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577345,00.html

What does Russia want with war ships?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with French officials recently to voice US concerns over the sale of a Mistral-class amphibious assault ship to Russia. Gates says that they are very concerned over any new arms sales taking place in the region, especially because they are not currently at war. In addition, many of the previous Soviet republics expressed renewed fear of Russian arming. Georgia seemed to express the most concern having just ended a war with the Russian government and their proximity to the Black Sea that could be a potential docking station for the new ships. It is slightly questionable why the Russian government would seek to by new warships when they are currently in a peace state. Gates suggested that the world can not continue to treat Russia with Soviet era skepticism if there is no precedence.

I agree that our bipolar view of Russia really needs to be steadied - either we like them or we don't. Although we may be wary of some of the Russian government's recent actions, it is unfair to treat them with the same reacitonary caution simply because they used to be Communist. If we want to become a more approachable, accepting country, we cannot hold Russia to a double standard any more. I think we need to commit to either a position of full-time skepticism and distrust, or take a leap of faith and be completely trusting and open to the Kremlin (while of course increasing covert intelligence of the region to back up our trust). Trust is a tricky thing, but essential to the prospering of the world.



Links:

www.newyorktimes.com/2010/02/09/world/europe/09gates.html?ref=politics

http://www.csmonitor.com/

Health care is apparently still alive.

Obama recently announced that he would be holding a bipartisan meeting with the Senate in an attempt to finally reconcile some of the differences between the two sides. The session is apparently intended to allow the Republicans their promised public meeting to air their grievances against the health care bill. Hopefully, Obama says, the Senate will be able to move on with the bill once the Republicans have had their sufficient time to relay their opinions.

I think that with this special session, Obama is attempting to, for lack of a better word, expose the Republicans as simply being purposefully stubborn in regards to the bill. I think that he hopes that once the Republicans are documented on film available to the public as receiving their requested attention and not offering any better health care plans, they will be forced to become more accepting to the proposed bill. If they continue to be stubborn and protest the bill for no apparent reason, the public will begin to see that the Republicans are not in fact fighting in their best interest, but stagnating the entire legislative system of America. Hopefully, something good will come out of the session, like a new idea or two, or at the very least, force a few Republicans to stop acting like idiots and pass the bill.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/us/politics/08webobama.html?ref=politics

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0819338820100208

Quick, everyone get under their desks!

The top three intelligence officials in the US held a meeting with the Senate yesterday informing them they had information of an almost guaranteed terrorist attack within the next 6 months. Dennis Blair of the National Intelligense and Panetta of the CIA stated that there was overwhelming signs and cyberintelligence that the something bad is coming. They said that they don't expect another 9/11 because Al Qaeda seems to be focusing on smaller attacks that are less easy to detect. However, during the hearing, the witness testimonies were apparently disrupted several times by the break out of bickering of the Senators. It appears that for some time, the Senators fought over which court the December 25th bomber should have been tried in.

Our own Senators are going to kill us. Can no one seem to just focus on the problem at hand, and put their own personal opinions and grudges aside? I am shocked that the country even runs at all - that just shows me how little our Senators actually do. So here's the situation: an almost guarenteed terrorist attack on US soil within the next 6 months. Now, what are we going to do about it? We need to act. Now. If we don't want to physically attack anyone right now, we should at least be hyper-monitering the incoming intelligence and crossreferncing the data to make sure we don't miss anything anymore. We can't afford another devastating attack. I also have to reiterate that the extreme stubborness of the people in office these days is going to kill the entire structure of US government. There should never be a situation in the Congress when the top US intelligence official is trying to warn people of an attack and old white men in suits start fighting with each other during his speech like preschoolers in a schoolyard.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03intel.html

http://online.wsj.com/aricle/SB10001424052748703385045750.html

Gay rights, the new health care?

With the health care debate simmering down it appears that gay rights may be taking the forefront of legislators minds.  Most recently, the two top officials of Defense have announced their support of repealing the "don't ask don't tell" law.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Andrew Mullen, announced that he finds the "don't ask don't tell law" completely unfair and rather offensive.  Many top officials believe that the act didn't make any sense in the first place and that performance in the military is not any different among gays and nongays.  Senator McCain says he definitely does not want the law repealed, claiming it will be a complete and total disruption in the military's structure which can not be afforded during two wars.  

This is ridiculous, and utter discrimination.  If we are to be a truly "fair" country, I don't see why gay rights would be exempt from the law.  Just like African Americans attained equal rights, and race/gender can not be used to discriminate, gays should not be persecuted.  How is a different sexual orientation any different from a different gender?  Many say that being gay goes against the Bible, and this is why they oppose it.  But there were slaves in the Bible too, does that mean that we should all have slaves too?  No, especially because this claim is made based on a religious belief, when the Church and State are supposed to be separate from each other.  Choosing to discriminate against gays should be as much viewed as a hate crime as one against a person of a minority race.  America, it seems, is a country of hypocrites; we go all over the world promoting democracy and equality when we don't even have it secured at home.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03military.html?ref=politics

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Pentagon+moves+tell/2513655/story.html

Will Utah ever change?

Utah lawmakers decided last Friday that they will not pursue to pass a law that would ba discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the workplace and in housing. Rather, the officials say they will spend a year studying the matter. The officials and the LDS Church say they disapprove of discrimination, but don't think being gay should be legal.

This is outrageous to me. First of all, I'm almost positive that the Constitution does not say anything about the 'legality' of choosing to prefer a different sex than the majority of the population. Second of all, I think the actions of the officials could almost be considered a hate crime because they are deliberately allowing the discrimination of a whole population, and by not equalizing the playing field, endorsing the continued discrimination. Plus, they pulled such a lazy, pathetic move by pretending to actually care, and 'research' the situation. Postponing the passage, just like Congress postponed the slave issue, to continue to delay progress and ignore a real issue. Essentially, Utah has taken a step backwards about 5o years and decided not to just turn the other way on the whole issue of gay discrimination, but actually deny the passage of an anti-discrimination law. That's messed up, and in my opinion, completely unAmerican.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31utah.html?ref=politics

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=5202&MediaType=1&Category=26

Will companies control the courts?

The recent Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission essentially overturned 2003 decision McConnell v. Federal Election Commission which put a limit on campaign funding for elected state judges. Sandra Day O'Connor feels that the recent decision is extremely dangerous to the justice in the American judicial system. With funding basically unlimited, companies or corporations can donate as much as they'd like to certain candidates for election, possibly bringing a bias to the newly elected officials' decisions. Corporations like tobacco companies may attempt to impose their influence on state court decisions that could have major effects. Ms. O'Connor suggested that we do away with state judicial elections and make judges appointed positions in an attempt to eliminate bias.

I agree with Ms. O'Connor; the system of electing judges and allowing exorbitant donations seems to promote a general acceptance of injustice that will only hurt the country in the long run. If anything, the spending should be limited, and I'm not sure why the decision was overturned. Perhaps it was argued that it is the company's constitutional right to support whomever they want to however much they want to, but it still seems like an excellent way to legalize cheating. Sometimes I feel that because of our history, this country gets caught up in everything being fair, and everyones' personal freedom to do as they choose. But the fact of the matter is that people will take advantage of a situation if given the opportunity and that in turn can inflict harm on someone else's rights.

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/oconnor-mildly-criicizes-courts-campaign-finance-decision/

http://www.examiner.com/

Freeze, and put your hands behind your back!

Obama recently announced that he will freeze the spending for domestic programs for three years, only allowing increases caused by inflation to take place. Domestic programs like security/military spending and Social Security/Medicare will not be included in the freeze. The programs that will be hit are air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks. This decision will not greatly reduce the national deficit of $9 trillion, only cutting around $250 million. Democrats are already wary of cutting the necessary domestic programs, and republicans mock that it is not really that brilliant of a move since the Democrats have caused such a large portion of the deficit themselves.

First of all, the Democrats are not entirely responsible for the massive deficit, let us not forget President Bush and the Iraq War. However, in our current economic state, I feel that this freeze may be one of the only active things the president can do for the country. However much they don't like it, with a deficit like ours, providing everyone with the perfect benefits of being an American is not going to be possible. Freezing the budget will allow the economy to hopefully stable a bit and eliminate the chance of extraneous, unnecessary spending by the government. I think with the freeze in combination with job creation and the reduction of foreign spending, America will be back on track to getting out of this recession.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26budget.html?hp

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6835140.html

Is Massachusetts Anti-Woman?

New opinions have surfaced following Martha Coakley's loss of the Senate seat last week that perhaps Massachusetts itself has a problem electing a woman to a high-standing political position. It seems odd that seemingly the most classically liberal state in the United States would be the one with an anti-woman problem, but so the case seems. In all of Mass's history, only five women have been elected to a constitutional office, and none to the Senate.

I find this to be a very strange phenomenon, especially coming out of Massachusetts. However, I will concede that while Mass is one of the most liberal states (being the first one to legalize gay-marraige) it is also one of the most traditional states. Since the beginning of the country, all the way back to the Puritans, Mass has valued traditions, order, and structure. However, for the many liberal-minded people living in the state, it seems odd that this would be where they consciously or unconsciously draw the line. I personally don't think gender should decide, or even influence an election, but it would be nice to see a little more diversity in the political structure of one of our most powerful states.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/us/25mass.html?ref=politics

http://www.mccormack.umb.edu/centers/cwppp/index.php

Is healthcare dead?

After the upset victory of a Republican, Scott Brown, in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, Obama appears to be reevaluating his current agenda. With a filibuster now possible by the Republicans, Obama is backing off of his strict guidelines for healthcare and says he will take what he can get at this point. However, he did emphasize that he still wanted healthcare costs to be lowered and insurance companies cracked down on for unfair treatment. The 41 Republicans have also upset Mr. Obama's plans for a new energy bill and the banking regulation. As it is, many Republicans are calling for a complete rewrite of the healthcare bill.

I think it is ridiculous that the United States is full of such stupidly stubborn people. I hate the fact that we are a country of warring, never-to-get-along people that can not compromise and basically live to make each other's lives hell. Why is it that the Congress can not all be a little more reasonable. If they want America to really be great, they can't be bickering over the most trivial things all the time. I think it is time for someone to challenge the Congress to become a more united and cooperative group rather than a divide hub of old sweaty men. America should stop tolerating this childish activity and pressure their congressmen to actually step up and try to actively work for a better America.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/health/policy/21health.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-scott-brown22-2010jan22,0,1805237.story

Michelle Obama is taking on hamburgers.

Nearly every First Lady has had a focus while in office, like Mrs. Reagan and drugs and Laura Bush and literacy. Michelle Obama has appeared to have chosen the health of the nation, especially dealing with the threat of exceedingly high obesity rates. Mrs. Obama said in a speech on Wednesday that nearly one third of Americans can be classified as obese, and this number will only continue to grow. It is her goal to promote personal health starting with more nutritious meals and exercise in schools as well as providing more affordable healthy food options and an abundance of information on health and nutrition. Mrs. Obama proposes that the health of the nation will negatively effect our economy with more people needing healthcare involving heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

I think this is a fantastic issue for the First Lady to approach because health is at the base of life and without it, everything else becomes sort of idle. This topic also seems like one that the First Lady would be able to make some real headway with, it's not to extravagant and yet it is incredibly impactful. I think that this issue definitely needs to be addressed and strictly implemented because schools basically have no incentive now for promoting any physical health as it is. Most meals are dreadful for one's health, and most gym classes are nothing more than social hour. I did find it odd though that the New York Times article would decide to specially note what Mrs. Obama was wearing at the meeting stating, "wearing a plum jacket over a silky leopard-print top." I just find it odd that they would take the time to note this seemingly useless information, but no matter, sexism in America is a topic for another blog.

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/michelle-obama-tackles-childhood-obesity/

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/01/michelle-obamas-antiobesity-movement.html

Obama wants us smarter

President Obama announced Tuesday that he would ask Congress for an additional $1.3 billion for an initiative called Race to the Top. The money would be put toward a grant competition that will hopefully encourage schools to expand the level of innovation. The initiative would require states to, "pledge adherence to stricter standards." Some states, like Ohio, appear to be getting cold feet about the plan, but otherwise, it looks like it will go through.

I think this is a tremendous idea. While today's problems might not be 100% fixable, the future may be better if the next generation can attain better educations. As the "world power" it is astonishing that our school system is not better quality than it is. To most people, school is just something you have to do until you become an adult and not actually a commitment that requires a lot of hard work. I think it is a fantastic idea to raise and hold states accountable to higher academic standards. If everyone is more educated, our nation can run smoother, smarter, and more efficiently - hopefully reinstating us as the real world power.

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/obama-seeks-13-billion-more-for-schools-initiative/

http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/19/president-obama-seeks-1-35-billion-more-for-education/

Secretary of State will not waver.

Obama's Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton says that the Obama administration will not waver in their stance towards Asia. Now facing tensions with both Japan and China, Clinton says the US will not compromise on already agreed arrangements or human rights ideals. Japan recently underwent a change of governmental authority, and the new prime minister Yukio Hatoyama says he wishes to remove the US Marine Corpes Air Station from Japan all together, rather than the previously agreed upon move to a less populated area of Japan. China is still stagnated in relations with the US, especially over human rights, climate change, and their newly successful test of missile launchers.

I think it is of vital importance that the US maintain if not good, then stable relationships with the major Asian countries because no matter how much we don't like it, Asia is growing in wealth and power, and if they decided to attack America, it would be highly devastating. I think we could show a little more compromise on the issue with Japan, but I feel that we should stand firm for the rights of the oppressed citizens of China and Tibet. Fold once, and it'll never seem to stop.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/asia/13diplo.html?ref=politics

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9537803

Is everyone a racist now a days?

Harry Reid, senate majority leader, apparently remarked to two colleagues that Obama could be the first African American president because he is, "light skinned and doesn't speak with a Negro dialect." However, Obama and the White House are by no means attempting to distance themselves from the senator. In fact, Obama announced that he will accompany Mr. Reid on a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nevada. Harry Reid is up for reelection this fall and after his recent comments and the wavering Democratic party, it appears unsure whether Reid will retain his position or not. The White House is desperate to maintain a Democratic majority in the Congress because it is crucial to the furthering of Obama's legislation.

I think the Democrats better work this election season because it is going to be one extremely close race. While I think it is ridiculous to harass Obama for not fixing all of America's problems in one year, it doesn't change the fact that the US public are getting nervous. I don't know how they're going to try to do it. But unless several of Obama's policies miraculously fall into place in the next couple months, the White House should be very worried that that may be the last time they have the luxury of a Democratic Congress.

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/obama-plans-campaign-stop-for-reid-in-nevada/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6962710/Barack-Obama-receives-race-apology-after-book-tells-all-about-2008-election-campaign.html

What to do about the deficit?

So, remember when the government decided it would be a good idea to spend $700 billion bailing out the banks? It turns out, we might actually get some of that back. Obama announced recently that he would be implementing a policy in an attempt to regain much of that $700 billion spent last year. However, he is meeting a great deal of opposition, especially from the four major banks: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America. The banks are upset by Obama's proposal that a tax be implemented on the banks revenue. However, the banks contest that they were initially told to loan to small businesses to help the recession, and now, the tax will limit their ability to do so. No official legislation has been proposed, but a 2-day hearing including testimonies from those four banks will begin on Wednesday.

I think it is a great idea to try to decrease the deficit, obviously. A tax seems like the only real way to go about this unfortunately. It may seem like a socialist idea, but in times of need, sometimes you have to tax the rich to avoid the collapse of the whole country. However, I think Obama should be wary that the tax not severely damage the growth of the banks, or the economy will continue to stagnate.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/business/economy/12bailout.html?ref=politics

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/business/econwatch/entry6084139.shtml

Obama a model now?

Weatherproof Garment Company has apparently overstepped the boundaries of the president's picture in the public eye. The company has purchased a billboard in Times Square that displays an image of Obama wearing one of Weatherproof's jackets at the Great Wall of China. The picture was purchased legally and in no way insinuates that the President is endorsing the clothing company. However, the White House is requesting, more like insisting, that the advertisement be taken down. The White House says they wish to avoid as much as possible, the use of the President's image in any type of commercial industry.

I understand the White House's position. I don't think it's wise that the President become associated with an commercial industry, because it really is an abuse of power in my opinion. I think it would be unfair, and a waist of the President's time to be spent in commercial/marketing venues. However, I also do not think that the White House has the authority to require that the company to remove the image. The company is not in violation of any legal, commercial law seeing as Obama does not own the photo. Plus, I agree with the company that it is essentially their First Amendment write to publish what they want, wherever they want.

Links:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/alltherage/2010/01/white-house-rains-on-weatherproof-ad-featuring-obama.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6929284/Barack-Obama-effigy-found-hanging-in-Jimmy-Carters-home-town.html

Obama's Cabinet To Stay Put.

After Bill Ritter's recent announcement that he will not seek a second term as Colorado state governor, many believed that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar would step down from his place in Washington and enter the race. However, Mr. Salazar insists that he will not be leaving his post and will support Denver mayor John Hickenlooper as the Democratic candidate. Although Hickenlooper has not announced his candidacy, it is expected that he will be on the ballot this November.

I don't understand why people would think that Salazar would just abandon his very esteemed position in President Obama's cabinet for a state governorship. I am also very happy that he chose to stay in Washington, because I am very excited about the legislation he is helping Obama prepare regarding the expansion of clean energy and environmental preservation.

Links:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/salazar-wont-leave-cabinet-for-govs-race/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0110/Salazar_not_running_for_governor_backing_Hickenlooper.html

Obama puts the screws to national security

This Tuesday, President Obama made a speech regarding the lacking aspects of our national security system. The President said that although the actual security screening for the airplane carrying the bomb Christmas Day was done in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, US intelligence agencies had plenty of preexisting information about the threat. Several intelligence agencies had been informed months ago that a Nigerian was planning on attacking the US through the airways as a plot in connection to terrorist organizations. The father of the attacker also contacted several agencies to inform them of his son's radicalization. However, the US missed it. Obama says that it was the US intelligence community's responsibility to, "connect the dots," and that it failed to do so. Mr. Obama says he wants the exact reasons for the intelligence failure and corrective actions to be taken immediately, especially concerning the National Counterterrorism Center. The President feels that the intelligence sector has become lazy and that this performance will not be accepted.

I think it is understandable that the intelligence centers could overlook this information, but I also agree with the President that it is vital that they be resolved immediately. I think the best plan for the intelligence community would be to develop some type of system, probably a computer program of some kind that could be kept running constantly. It would not be that difficult to create a program that could scan through incoming information and match highlighted key terms with information already collected and being stored in the system. I think this would greatly help this particular situation from happening again and hopefully keep our country safer from possible terrorist threats.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/us/politics/06obama.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-0106jan06,0,676913.story