Blackwater Being Held Responsible

It seems that, now that Obama is the new face of America, we will finally start being responsible.  5 Blackwater guards have just been indicted by the U.S. Justice Department for killing 17 innocent Iraqi civilians on September 16, 2007.  

Blackwater, the private security firm, has been running amok in Iraq since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished".  There has been no oversight, and it seemed like the Blackwater guards were above any laws.  

However, last week the Iraqis and the Americans signed an agreement which removed the Blackwater guards' immunity.  These five guards are the first to have charges brought against them - and I would fully expect there to be more to come.

However, I would just like to take a few minutes to just let it sink in... 

GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY RESPONSIBILITY IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!

Source: The New York Times: In Iraq, Anger and Satisfaction Over Blackwater Charges

Changing Bush's Orders

There is a good chance the President-Elect Obama will overturn some of President Bush's most controversial decisions. The orders under inspection range from embryonic stem cell research to "gag" orders on international aid organizations regarding abortion, to oil and gas drilling on federal lands. 

According to John Podesta, Obama's transition co-chair, Obama's transition team has been going through "hundreds of Bush's executive orders", determining whether or not they require further review and possible turnovers. Obama may use executive orders to make his mark on Washington quickly, especially if he decides to lift the ban on stem cell research, as this would cause quite a stir not only in the political world but also religious, medical, and in the general public. 

Stem cell research in particular has been a heavily debated topic during the Bush administration. In August of 2001, Bush stopped the National Institutes of Health from providing any funding for embryonic stem cell research. Despite the fact that stem cell research could help millions of people around the globe. People with diseases such as Parkinsons, Diabetes, and even spinal injuries could be helped, possibly even cured by stem cells. These people are definitely waiting for the Bush ban to be lifted on stem cell research. The controversy behind stem cell research is that researchers require human embryos for their research, which come from recently aborted fetus's. Conservatives are against this notion, and President Bush being a Conservative stunted the ability to pursue research into the capabilities of Stem Cells.

However with President-Elect Obama coming into office in January we are likely to see some of these orders overturned. If Obama were to reverse any of Bush's orders it would be an instant example of change in Washington. 

Loan Modification Plan Allows Many to Keep Their Homes

Eddie Morrison, a truck driver making $65,000 dollars a year, was behind on his mortgage and waiting for a foreclosure letter when he received a letter from their mortgage holder, IndyMac, that informed him that he would be able to keep his home.

The mortgage holder, which had recently be seized by federal regulators, and was now being headed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair, put a hold on foreclosures. This freeze gave people such as Eddie Morrison the time to create an affordable loan payment plan. Bair based this plan on the idea that she thinks it is of the utmost importance to deal with the root of the economic problem by helping homeowners such as Morrison. 

Bair has proposed a plan that will "allow homeowners who are sixty days late on their mortgage a chance to reduce high interest rates and extend the length of the loan if they qualify". Some people in Washington believe that the proposal is really just a subsidy for troubled homeowners. However Bair was quoted as saying "we could prevent 1.5 million foreclosures from occurring".  She also believed that her plan could prevent thirty percent of the predicted foreclosures expected over the next two years. 

I hope that this plan is taken into consideration by politicians in Washington, because if her numbers are correct then the proposed plan could give some seriously needed stress relief to homeowners.

The Fall of the Auto Industry?

By 2009 there are estimated to be only 19,700 auto dealerships left in the United States. This is compared to the 50,00 that were in operation during the 1940s. An even more telling number is the 747,000 cars sold in November; seems like a lot? Not when compared to the 1.18 million that were sold by this time last year. This report comes courtesy of Autodata and is a frightening look at the American auto industry. 

In Miama, Florida a sign on car dealership read "buy one, get two!" This is desperation as never before seen in the auto industry. Car dealerships continue to to report record low sales level, and it seems the only hope lies in the proposed government bailout of the big three auto companies; Chrysler, Ford, and GM. Ali Ahmed, sales manager at Rob Lambdin's University Dodge in Miami, was quoted as saying, "The first thing people think when they walk in is, 'it's a fake ad. It's a normal car dealer ad. It's a gimmick". The sad fact is that it is not. The only catch is that you must buy a Dodge truck at retail price before you can receive your second vehicle at $3,000 dollars in tax, tag and dealership fees.

With auto sales at an fifteen-year low, 700 dealerships have had to shut down since the beginning of the year, and that number is expected to hit 900 by the end of the year. Annette Sykora, the chairwoman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, stated that dealers have had to cut personnel and expenses. She has had to cut staff by almost twenty percent at her dealerships. 

Sykora discussed with the school superintendent of schools in Slaton, Texas where some of her dealerships are located, and discussed what would happen if those dealerships were to shut down. She stated that "the loss of tax revenue would would force them to cut programs and teachers". Not only this but families who lost their jobs would have to leave town in search of other work, which would only further hurt the towns economy. 

This domino effect is something that not many people may relate with a dealership closing. The economy of a town would be seriously damaged, as not only would families leave, but teachers salaries would be cut, local media would take a hit as dealerships are a prime source of advertising. These are only a few examples of how closing dealership impact this particular town, imagine if towns all over the nation began to experience these consequences. 

Bill Gates Speaks on Stimulus Package

On Wednesday December 3rd, Bill Gates, the creator and CEO of Microsoft, was interviewed on his take on the current economy. He believes that President-Elect Obama must work with Congress to implement a wide-ranging stimulus package as soon as possible, as well as double the United States commitment to foreign aid. Gates was quoted as saying "clearly we need a stimulus that doesn't undermine the incentive for business to be careful about their spending and making those correct investments". This is true as if a stimulus package were to come into play companies could become comfortable with where they are, yet this cannot happen if the economy is to recover and build. For the foreseeable future companies must remain vigilant and smart in their dealings.

Another point that Gates is pushing toward Obama is the need to increase the spending on the nation's education systems, as well as attempt to increase upon technological advances which would improve agriculture, prevent disease, and promote agricultural growth in the world's poorest nations. This is also a valid point as the global South is just beginning to enter their industrial revolution as it would be of value to the United Sates if they were to help the growth now. 

Gates made another great point in saying "The key point I'd make is that in addition to that stimulus, you've got to fund the kind of scientific work and educational investments that could really have us be a much better country as we emerge from the recession". This is true as while we need a stimulus to help us out of this economic slump, we also need programs that will help us to avoid this type of situation in the future. 

Changing Interrogation Policies?

On Wednesday December 3rd, Eric Holder, President-Elect Obama's nomination for Attorney General, met with twelve retired admirals and generals about making changes to the United States current policy on interrogation. Each of the twelve officers has been against President Bush's endorsement of brutal interrogation techniques, such as the use of water-boarding. Water-boarding is designed to make the prisoner fell as though they a re drowning when in reality they are not. 

Each of the officers has expressed the need for a single, less controversial, policy for interrogation and detainment that will apply to all agencies. The meeting was also attended by Washington lawyer Greg Craig, who is one of Obama's appointment for White House Counsel, and Mary De Rosa, a member of Obama's national security transition team. 

Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, was quoted as saying "It is (important) that the new President say up front that the United States is not going to engage in torture or enhanced interrogations". This is true as Obama needs to take a stand on a controversial issue such as the use of torture by the United States, as techniques such as these only help to strengthen a poor image of America. Another important point made by Hutson was that some inmates currently detained in Guantanamo Bay "should be treated like any other criminal" and tried in a United States district court. 

This would be a huge step in strengthening the image of the United States as Guantanamo has constantly an issue of debate among the citizens of every country. During his campaign President-Elect Obama indicated that he would like to close Guantanamo Bay and re-evaluate the Bush administrations policies on torture and detainment of suspected terrorists. Obama was quoted as saying "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close down Gunatanamo, and I will follow through on that". I for hope that this becomes a reality as the current detainment policies for Guantanamo Bay are ridiculous, containment without trial? Who knows how many innocent people are currently being housed in the facility. A change in torture policy and the closing of Guantanamo Bay would go a long way towards changing the image the world holds of America.

God Bless this American

In January Washington D.C. is going to be filled to the brim with people hoping to get a glimpse of President-Elect Obama during the inauguration. Tickets are difficult to get and are incredibly high-priced. Packages have gone for hundreds of dollars, and space to stay is even more difficult to find. Hotels have booked, and people have begun to look for rooms to rent.

However one businessman, Earl Stafford of Virginia, is making sure that some of the less fortunate people of the nation will be able to share in the historical event. Stafford has spent $1 million dollars to give hundreds of impoverished people, terminally ill individuals, and wounded men and women in uniform a chance to attend the inauguration for a cost of absolutely nothing. 

Tickets are handed out by congress and there are only 240,00 seats available. Yet Stafford has put together what is being called a "build-your-own-ball" package. HIs deal includes a high-end hotel room or luxury suite, food and drinks, a heated viewing spot above the parade route, and gowns and tuxedos to wear to the celebratory ball. He has even thrown in a beautician to help attendees get ready. Stafford invested his $1 million dollars into the JW Marriots "build-your-own-ball" package just after the election. 

The bill is being paid for by this family's nonprofit organization, the Stafford foundation, however the organization is also open to money from sponsors. Stafford was quoted as saying he hopes the balconies are filled "with those who are disadvantaged, those who are distressed, mingling with who aren't so. And we hope to see on their faces a sense of excitement." So far at least 2/3rd of the tickets will go to underprivileged people while the rest will be handed out to contributing sponsors, companies or volunteers.  

Auto Bailout Unpopular

The Auto companies proposal for a bailout, which looked strong in early November, is beginning to fail in the eyes of the American public. A recent poll has shown that six in ten Americans disagree with using taxpayers money to bail out auto companies. The poll, which was conducted on Monday and Tuesday, showed that sixty-one percent of those questioned were fully against the government using taxpayer money to aid failing auto companies, while thirty-six percent were for the auto companies receiving government aid. 

The poll also revelaed that fifty-three percent of people do not believe a government bailout will help the failing U.S. economy. This is an interesting notion as American auto-companies supply the population with millions of jobs and if they were to turn a new leaf that could result in more jobs which would strengthen the American economy. Only fifteen percent of people polled thought that they would be immediately affected if the auto-makers were to declare bankruptcy. Again this is interesting as auto-makers supply many jobs to the United States people. 

One funny aspect of this poll is that in early November there was fairly strong favor for this bailout. However after executives from GM, Ford and Chrysler performed poorly at congressional hearings, and admitted that they had taken private jets to those hearings, support dropped drastically. You would think they could have flown coach.

Where did the Ballots Go?

The recount of ballots for the senate race in Minnesota has stalled due to a large number of missing votes. An envelope from the city of Minneapolis, which contained 130 ballots, has gone missing. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann has decided to give the city until December 16th to find the missing votes, if the votes are not found by then the canvassing board will meet that day and decide upon a course of action. Gelbmann was quoted as saying "We won't meet our goal to have all the ballots hand-counted by the end of the day [Friday] unless the envelope returns in the 24 hours". Andy Barr, the spokesperson for Democratic candidate Al Franken, has said he is "glad that Minneapolis election officials now acknowledge that these ballots are missing and that they are committed to finding them". 

However, Fritz Knaak, the spokesperson for Republican candidate Norm Coleman, has stated that it was "premature and simply irresponsible to suggest that there were missing ballots". He accused the Democratic Minneapolis Mayer R.T. Rybak of giving the Franken campaign news of the situation before the Coleman campaign. Going so far as to suggest the partisanship may cause an unfair advantage for the Democratic candidate by saying that "...the Secretary of State's office will refrain from any activity or action that can be perceived as partisan or supportive of the Franken campaign's overblown rhetoric about missing ballots". 

The recount began when unofficial results from the November 4th general election had Coleman, a freshmen Republican, ahead of Franken by 215 votes. How an envelope with 130 votes goes missing we may never know, but hopefully they will be found soon and Minnesota can find out who next represent their state in the Senate. 

Amerian's Agree with Obama's Plan for Troop Withdrawal

A recent poll of Americans has shown that the majority agree with President-elect Obama's plan for U.S. troops currently in the Middle East. As it stands his plan now involves a 16-month drawback of troops from Iraq, while transferring troops into Afghanistan.  A recent CNN poll shows that fifty-five percent of people polled agreed with his plan to lower the number of troops in Iraq and increase the number in Afghanistan. 

The poll also revealed that sixty-three percent of those polled are against the war in Iraq, while thirty-six percent agree with the war. Interestingly enough fifty-two percent are in favor of a war in Afghanistan, while forty-six percent are against military involvement in Afghanistan. CNN Senior Political Advisor put the situation into the best terms i have heard yet, "To the American public, Afghanistan is the good war, and it's going badly. Iraq is the bad war and it's going fairly well". I believe that the poll results reflect these numbers, as people think we need to be in Afghanistan and while the war in Iraq may be going fairly well, we still are not supposed to be there. 

President Obama is still standing by his plan, he has been quoted as saying that 16 months is the still the "right time frame" for a withdrawal. However, the some political analysts believe that the dispute between Pakistan and India may be the next big flair up in the world. So far Americans has stated that they want to remain out of this conflict, yet if the terrorist groups responsible continue to target American's, it is a possibility that we may see some American military forces in the area; so far Obama has been against this type of action, which is a good sign for Americans. 

Rights and Bailouts

"If I knew for a certainly that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me,-some of its virus mingled with my blood"

- Thoreau

As I consider the ultimate effects of our governments continuing bailout of various business interests in the country I am disheartened by a few facts. One, We have no idea what it will ultimately cost. Two, we have been convinced that is imminently necessary. Leaving aside the economic arguments for and against for a moment let us consider the ominous effects of ceding so much of our rights to the government. We Americans guard are right jealousy, in times of peace and prosperity no one can generally shake us from an understanding of what is our due as citizens. It is only in times of trouble, when the mass of people is frothing at some nameless fear, can the government, with all the best reasons, rapidly grow in size and potency. In the infancy of our Republic the threat of war with France gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts. Our Civil War brought about the rise of a grand bureaucracy, the draft, and the first income tax in the victorious North. World War I gave us a modern standing army and the Sedition Acts With the Great Depression, which the government  and prolonged through tariffs and interference, we saw an attempt to pack the Supreme Court and a massive expansion of Government power which brought us everything from redlining to the Farm bill. During this same period the crime wave that came with government enforced prohibition was used to justify the creation of the FBI headed by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. This dreary list continues on to present day, and I would continue, but who wants to get a file started at Carnivore? The point is that the consequences of these programs and infringements generally far outstrip the urgency with which they were called for. What will be the consequences of large portions of the banking world remaining under government control?  (Some of these banks, it should be noted, accepted Government funding against their will.)  Who can say with any certainty? But mark well where the benign hand of our government flits and tarries in these days of panic. 

Conservatives are Whiny People

Conservative groups are currently latching onto a piece of the Constitution that makes Senator Hillary Clinton ineligible to be Barack Obama's Secretary of State. Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution states: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time." This basically means that  no lawmaker can hold a position if the salary for that position has been raised while that lawmaker was in office. 

This is a problem for Senator Clinton as in January, President Bush raised the salary for the Secretary of State and other cabinet positions by $4,700 dollars. Senator Clinton has served in the Senate since January of 2001. The conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch says that the case is closed and shut, that Hillary Clinton cannot be the Secretary of State. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton was quoted as saying "There's no getting around the Constitution's ineligibility clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires".

However many legal scholars are claiming that there are ways around this clause. One such solution is to lower the salary of said position to its previous amount. This happened in 1974 when Ohio Senator William Saxbe was appointed attorney general by President Nixon. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin listed off several other solutions, such as, for Senator Clinton to accept a lower salary, for the Senate to vote on a lower salary, or to simply ignore the problem based on "...the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from becoming secretary of state". 

The clause can say what it says, as far as the Obama administration is concerned there are plenty of ways around it. In fact, Obama has said that he was well aware of the clause when he nominated Senator Clinton for the position. Also the public has fully agreed with the decision as a poll showed that 71% of Americans agree with Obama's decision. Overall the conservative groups such as the Judicial Watch Committee need to get over the fact that they lost and allow the Obama administration to move ahead unhindered. When there is clearly precedent to accept Clinton to her nominated position, the conservatives should allow it to happen and stop whining.

What's a Proper Reaction?

So India has suffered an embarrassing and horrific attack on its citizens, on its' soil, on one of the best known symbols, the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai.  Now what?  India has two options: it could do like the U.S. did after 9/11, and just go wild, using military force to defeat a guerilla foe.  Or, it could do what the U.S. should have done, and work with the leadership of the country where the terrorists came from.  Let's examine the two scenarios.

Option 1: Respond Like the U.S.

Well, it certainly seems to be a popular idea.  All of the pundits and reporters and TV commentators seem to be stuck on the metaphor of "India's 9/11".  And there certainly are parallels.  Like 9/11, it was a devastating attack on India's soil, with a high number of civilian casualties, on a national landmark, with shocking swiftness, preparedness, and surprise.  If India chose to go the route of the U.S., they would likely raid Pakistan to destroy the training camps, because it is the country of the terrorist's origin.

Option 2: Diplomacy and Cooperation

The Indian government could, instead, work with Pakistan to take down the terrorists in a more lasting and damaging way, by building up security and intelligence and then sharing information with Pakistan.  It's not like the Pakistani government was behind the attacks; it was an entirely solo attack by the terrorists.  Pakistan's government is weak at this time, and is unable to effectively root out the terrorists hiding within its borders.  It needs help from other countries, especially India, to fight it's terrorists.  Plus, Pakistan has had some horrible attacks of its own, such as the September attack on the Islamabad Marriott.  It's not like the government enjoys having such dangerous chaos-makers inside its' borders.

So what'll it be?  Go on a reckless military offensive, attacking other countries mercilessly and needlessly?  Or will it be a diplomatic approach, working with other countries to counter-act the terrorists and root them out?  So far, it seems that India is going with route # 2.  I'd say that it's by far the right choice.

Now, what about the Pakistanis?  The terrorists came from their country, and they claim to be waging a jihad against the forces of evil.  What should the people of Pakistan do?  Should they sit by, let the governments make big, sweeping statements about how this cannot be tolerated and the terrorists will be dealt with?  Or should they act on their own, and show the terrorists that they are not helping their Muslim sisters and brothers?

Do you remember when the Muslim world rose up and protested the offensive Danish cartoon about the Prophet Muhammed?  What if the Muslim world rose up again and protested the killing of innocent civilians?  Most of Pakistan is not under the control of the radical fundamentalist Imams who preach hatred of the West.  They can show the terrorists that killing others is not the way to get to heaven and the promised 72 virgins.  

So far, there have been some positive signs of a repudiation of the terrorist's ideology.  The Pakistani government has responded with sincere seriousness and has shown no link to the group involved.  In addition, many of the prominent political and cultural leaders have stated their outrage and dismay and horror at the attack. Now, however, it is time for the rest of Pakistan and the Muslim world to step up.  Because its' one thing for a politician to say something.  It's quite another for the people to rise up as one and agree.

SOURCES: New York Times Op-Ed Column

India's 9/11?  Not Exactly

Calling All Pakistanis

Rice Visits Pakistan

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a brief stop in Pakistan today. Rice met with President Asif Ali Zardari, her purpose being to strengthen the lines of communication between India and Pakistan, in light of the recent attacks on Mumbai. Her stop in Pakistan cam on the heels of a stop she made in India just a few days ago. The purpose of the meeting was to again speak about the recent attack on Mumbai. 

President Zardari promised Rice that Pakistan would be investigating whether or not Pakistani militants were involved in the Mumbai attacks, he also vowed to take strong action against anyone that is found to have been involved. This statement was made after India accused Pakistani militants of being responsible for the attacks and requested that Pakistan find and turn over twenty suspects to the custody of authorities in India. 

The Pakistani paper, The Daily Times, stated that "Rice herself has made no such accusation, saying that she wouldn't make conclusions until more evidence has been gathered". Despite this Pakistani cooperation in the matter would go a long way towards improving relations between India and Pakistan. While it is still unclear as to who exactly carried out the attacks, many believe it was Pakistani militants, while others blame it on Indian Muslims, on thing that is certain is that it will take cooperation from everyone to find the people responsible and bring them to justice. 

Secretary of Defense Gates to Stay on for Obama Cabinet

Current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has agreed to stay on during the Obama administration. While the two have had their differences on certain issues, such as the Iraq war, secretary gates was quoted as saying he was "impressed" with comments made by president-elect Obama. Gates has already stated that he has no intention of being a "caretaker secretary" and listed off several challenges that Obama will face including the budget and war strategy, while also stating that he will be involved in all of these issues. 

Gates has said that he does not necessarily disagree with Obama's withdrawal plan for Iraq, stating that "he [Obama] wanted to have a responsible drawdown, and he also said that he was prepared to listen to his commanders." This is frankly great news as it shows that Obama truly is open to suggestions from people that have had more experience in government. Gates has so far stressed the issue of the Iraq war, specifically in regard to the length of a soldiers duty and the implementation of stop-loss. Stop-loss refers to the involuntary extension of a soldiers tour of duty. 

Obama to Choose Richardson for Secretary of Commerce

A Democratic source close to president-elect Obama has told CNN that Obama is likely to choose New Mexico governor Bill Richardson for his Secretary of Commerce. According to this source Obama has had Richardson on his list for cabinet members and also spoke to him about the position during November. CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley was quoted as saying "He brings to this plate, in particular in an era where the economy is the focus of attention, a lot of skills that could be put to use -- perhaps opening up marketplaces for U.S. products abroad". If this is true to be one of the reasons that Obama is seeking him then it shows that the economy is still first ad foremost on Obama's agenda. 

Richardson was considering running for the 2008 presidential election, however after a poor showing the New Hampshire primaries he dropped out and later endorsed Obama. 

Saxby Destroys Hopes for Filibuster Proof Seante

When the 2008 general election began results on the senate races began to indicate something that has not happened for over thirty years; a filibuster proof senate. The democrats were beginning to have hopes that they may not only have control of the senate but also be filibuster proof. However this dream was shot dead on Tuesday, December 2nd, when Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss was elected over his opponent, Democrat Jim Martin. 

Chambliss was reported as saying that the "people all around the world truly had their eyes on Georgia, and you have delivered tonight a strong message to the world that conservative Georgian values matter". The election, which has been going on since November 4th, due to Chambliss's inability to win the majority vote in a three-person race, marks the end of the dream for a filibuster proof senate. An interesting fact is that this is the first time since 1992 that Georgia has held a run-off election.

The New Ambassador

Susan Elizabeth Rice was born on November 17, 1964. She is a foreign policy expert and is now the American Ambassador to the United States. The two ambassadors who came before her were Kofi Annan, and Ban Ki-Moon.

Barack Obama has chosen Susan E.Rice to be the ambassador of the United Nations. According to a recent article in The New York Times, Ms.Rice will hopefully help stop major problems even if it means using armed forces to help solve those problems. Problems can include the recent genocide cases that have taken place in Darfur. According to this article, Experts believe that Obama is serious about spreading positive change, the reason they believe such a statement is because he chose Susan E.Rice who is Obama's "closest advisors, so it underscores how much of a priority he's making the position." She is a good candidate for this position because she is not afraid to face whatever she has to in order to prevent a crisis from happening. “Admirers said she is a good listener and able to stand up to strong personalities, including foreign autocrats and militants in volatile regions of the world.” (www.nytimes.com) The reason I believe Ms.Susan Rice is going to be an excellent United Nations Ambassador to the United States is because, according to the article, she visited Rwanda in 1994 right after the genocide. After she saw millions of bodies lying on the ground, she promised herself that she would never let this happen if she ever was in charge of managing or even being part of the UN. “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required,” she told the Atlantic Monthly in 2001.

 

For more information, please click here. 

Jimmy Carter and Human Rights

The world was ecstatic when it heard that Barack Obama was going to be the next president of the United States. With Barack Obama as president, everyone knew that everything was going to be okay whether it was ending the two ongoing wars or defending and properly understanding Human Rights worldwide. Jimmy Carter, the founder of The Carter Center, has said in a recent interview with CNN, “a high priority will be the restoration of human rights, which have been badly eroded in recent years.” The reason Jimmy Carter decided to focus and address this topic is because he believes that the United States should focus more on enforcing Human Rights around the world. According to Jimmy Carter, activists from around the world join his annual conferences and say that the US is not advocating and encouraging other countries to engage in Human Rights acts. Because the US is not encouraging those acts, countries do not feel the need to do so. “For years, these activists have told us that when the United States engaged in torture and indefinite detention, their decades of struggle for rights began to erode. Dictators who had felt pressure from the United States to improve rights were suddenly off the hook. With new leadership in Washington, a clear and principled message on the centrality of human rights can help set a new tone.” Jimmy Carter believes that the United States is the main and higher power in which developing countries can look up to when it comes to issues regarding Human Rights. The main purpose of Jimmy Carter’s interview was to show that when humans are taken advantage of, used and abused, peace could never be achieved. He also encourages people to listen to Human Right activists when they speak about problems within their own communities. We need to be aware of those problems and help solve them before they escalate and become more dangerous and harder to handle.

For more information, please click here.

 

Guaranteed Paycheck

Here's a reason for some why the Army is so appealing: a guaranteed paycheck. In an officially receding economy in which we are now hearing that A-Rod is starting to feel the difficulties of economic struggle, the view switches to everyday youth who would rather risk their lives in the Army rather than risk testing the waters of the slumping job market. According to an MSNBC report, the retention rate of soldiers in their early careers has been steadily increasing since 2004 and now rests 20% higher than in 2004. One soldier was identified as not hesitant in re-enlisting for 5 years after serving in the 82nd Airborne Division which suffered the highest one year total of the units sent since the fighting between Iraq and Afghanistan started (MSNBC). The soldier reasoned, "I want a stable life for my wife in a very shaky economy. There were no other options. I figure if do another five or ten years in the Army, the economy will turn around and I can get a truck-driving job." Others who were noted in the report for enlisting as a result of the sagging job market included a factory worker being laid off and a 21 year old who wanted to get a 2 year college degree but opted to enlist in the army for security.

In turn the economic crisis has been a big help to the Pentagon, which had its strongest recruiting years since 2004. David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness admitted, "We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society. What difficult economic times give us, I think is an opening to make our case to people who we might not otherwise have."

This may seem upsetting at first, to see America's jobless youth resorting to enlisting in the Army for job security because of the lack of other options. But when all is said and done, serving in the Army is a much better use for Americans than say, working at a dog racing track, which sparked debates recently about closing and eliminating jobs. And the job security that soldiers get is by far not the only benefit they receive. Many learn skills while serving in the Army that could serve them use once they finish their service. A Marine Staff Sergeant, Angela Mink stated her reason for deciding to re-enlist even after suffering a helicopter related injury, "Equivalent pay is nonexistent, once you factor in insurance premiums, housing costs...and we would definitely have had to relocate. I have a child with a disability and what civilian employer is going to take that into consideration when they think of moving you somewhere?"

At the same time people could argue that it is not right for people to have to put their lives in mortal danger in order to get better financial and employment security. It comes down to whether or not you would risk your life for a number of years instead of financial adversity, and no matter how many people join the Army, it is one job that will always be hiring.


"Soldiers choose war over bleak economy". Associated Press. 2 December 2008. MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28019406/

guess foreign policy is a big deal after all...

So, the economy is still a pretty big deal, but after the terrorist attacks in India, foreign policy has jumped to the forefront of a lot of peoples minds. So whats going to happen?

Well, Obama has defended his belief that, if terrorists flee the US into Pakistan, they can be pursued. But it will be interesting to see what his opinion is about India pursueing terrorists into Pakistan, which is where the attacks are believed to have originated from.

But besides other issues like Russia, Al Queada, Iran, and Iraq, Obama will also have to deal with one of the worlds new great powers: China.

In recent years China has had an economic growth rate 3 times that of the US, and while it is estimated that both will drop in the next few years, the best estimates are that the US will have a growth rate of 1%, while China will have a rate of 5%. If China is growing five times faster than the US, then it will not be long until the US is surpassed as the worlds leading power.

As if Obama didn't have enough on his plate with the economy, he now has to deal with all of this to? The task laid before him was already more difficult than any President has ever faced, but this is almost impossible. Hopefully he live up to expectations. Because it is very possible that America as we know it is at an end. Will the US continue to be a leading power, or will constant economic decline, terrorist attacks, and the success of other nations lead to us being the beggar of the world?

Where will Hillary go from here?

Even though she lost out to Obama in the primaries, being the newly nominated Secretary of State sure isn't that bad. But what does it mean for her career? As Secretary of State she is in a prime position to demonstrate her political effectiveness, but then again she is also in a great position to usurp Obama and cause dissent among his followers.

Clinton's options are to either work with Obama and put the past behind her, or to work to undermine him. If she works with him she will show a unified force in the White House, and will demonstrate a lot of qualities people will look for. But, if she works against Obama, and leaks information that she is displeased with the way he is handling a situation that goes badly, then she can almost gaurantee herself the Democratic nomination in the next election. Of course, if she does do that, then there is no telling what will happen to the countries economic position.

But, with either position she chooses, her performance as Secretary of State will determine what happens to her political career. If she does a good job, then she opens up more doors for herself, and, again, could have a chance at running again for President in a few years.

Regardless, Hillary Clinton is part of Obama's new powerhouse cabinet. She is intelligent, and she is capable, and while she is the most controversial of Obama's selections, she is also probably one of the best candidates ever nominated to that position. Where ever she goes from here, the nomination to Secretary of State has the potential to be a huge boost for her. While she will never overshadow Obama, she has the potential to ride the wave all the way to another presidential ballot.

Black Friday

Jdimytai Damour, a 34-year-old salesman, died during what was considered to be a crowd of customers of about 4-5,000 shoppers at Walmart. “An autopsy showed that Damour died of asphyxiation after being trampled, Nassau County officials have said.” A lady who was there at exactly 3:50 am said, “It was a real mob.”  The reason for his death is that Walmart did not have enough security and was not assuring people that they will all be able to enter the store and get what they are looking for. It all happened on Friday, which was also called “Black Friday”, in New York. Two customers are suing Walmart because they thought that Walmart should have been more prepared because it should have known more about “Black Friday.” The two customers were both injured during the rush early in the morning. The two customers were father and son, also known as the Messadieus. They were “literarily carried outside the store, and are now suffering from pain in their neck and back from being caught in that surge of people.” (cnn.com) The lawyer said that the police visited the site several times but never even bothered to really look into it. The Messadieus’ lawyer says that there should have been better security, and Walmart should have known of what was going to happen. According to CNN, a video that was taken of the scene showed customers being stepped on and being thrown to the ground. This did not only happen in New York, it also happened around the country in many other shops. In Boston, one man died in the downtown-crossing district and many were injured. Storeowners need to accept the fact that whenever black Friday comes along, chaos is bound to happen. They should know to set up security.  What is ironic is the fact that people are dying and being injured when they are shopping for a happy and joyful holiday. 

Bye Bye to bushisms

Im going to miss Bush. How could you not? I mean we have calenders and books based solely off of the 'Bushism'. I mean, Bush might have actually been a very competent man, whom will be remembered badly simply because we couldn't inderstand what the hell he was getting at most of the time. take this for example:


"The system is becoming unthawed, and it's going to take time for the system to become unthawed. What the American people have got to know is we've taken the steps to unthaw it, which is the first step to recovery."

If something is becoming unthawed, doesnt that mean its freezing? We dont want to have the system to freeze. that would be very bad Mr. Bush. Honestly though, I cant tell if he's a smart guy who cant talk, is just stupid, or is a criminal mastermind who openly admits his devilish schemes to 'unthaw' the Earth.

Of course, one of the good things is that we wont have to deal with his confusingly adamant nature anymore. I mean the guy has found every reason possible to make the Iraq war justified, but in a recent interview said himself that going to war was a mistake. But later in the same interview, when asked if he would go to war again, stated "that is a do-over I can't do". Say what? I'de like Bush as a clown, or maybe a stand up comedian, but a President needs to be a bit more concise.

Anyways, I am still glad I can finally say farewell to Bush. It's been a long strange trip, but we're starting a new one. Hopefully Obama will do better, but hes already off to a good start.

School Choice

The news recently has been that the President-Elect and his wife have decided to a send their two children to the exclusive Sidwell school in Washington D.C. The future first couple have acted prudently, in a manner not dissimilar to how the rest of the transition has been run. The children will undoubtedly receive a fine education and Sidwell seems well equipped to deal with the special needs that will arise regarding the daughters of the most powerful man in the world. One question though remains, if the Obamas recognise the superiority of private education, why then do they deny that choice to thousands in our nations capital and millions around the country by going against school choice vouchers. Vouchers  would allow parents to take the total or a large portion of what it costs for the state to educate their child and apply that money to a private institution. They are currently being tested in the capital, and for every one child who has applied for the program, three are denied. The average income of the families these children come from is 23,000 dollars. The state has failed these families, D.C. public schools rank at the bottom of  11 major city school systems. The same article notes that half of the children attend schools that are described as "persistently dangerous", and that the cost per pupil is among the highest among major cities at close to 13,000 dollars a year. That parents line up to receive a check for a little more then half of that is certainly telling. I may just be naive, but I can't see any reasonable argument for not extending this program across the country and giving the gift of hope and decent education to the most impoverished of our citizens. this would not only help to level the playing field between public and private education, the worst public schools would simply cease to exist, but it would give poorer families a far greater choice as to how their children are educated. Wouldn't that be change we could believe in?

Justice and Law

Great nations, it is said, are not destroyed from without until they are weakened from within. With the myriad of topics and grave national discussions this country is engaged in the most far reaching effect of this next election has been obscured. The opinion of the judges appointed during the coming presidency, particularly those placed on the Supreme Court, will shape the way our constitution is understood and enacted upon well into the next century. The effects of which will be felt long after the next president, with all his promises and hopes, passes into history.
The basic stability of our country is based on the simple not overly long document, ratified by the states, known as the United States Constitution. It enumerates ways which laws can be enacted and repealed; defines the rights of its citizen; and lays out a system of checks and balances which have brought this country, in the span of roughly two hundred years, from a new world back water to unarguably the greatest power on earth. The continued belief in and protection of the Constitution is an integral part of ensuring that our Republic remains the potent force and garuntee of freedom that it has become. As Thomas Jefferson said, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. "

The major candidates presented two stark interpretations of the judges necessary to maintain our rights and check any unlawful usurpation of power. Senator Obama believed in a "living constitution" that is a constitution whose interpretation changes over time. Senator Mccain believed in strict constitutionalism or in a "dead constitution" that is an interpretation where the founders "original intent" is given heavy weight. Now the idea of a living constitution is on the surface an atractive one. It allows a judge to take present mores into account and allows him or her greater leeway in correcting wrongs that are not specifically noted in the constitution. It is this changing understanding of the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" that evolves the methods by which we execute our prisoners, from strait forward hanging and firing squads to the use of more ingenous gases and injections. Of course, there is a great danger in this method, because just as such leeway can be used to do good above and beyond the letter of the law, it can just as easily be used to commit evil. The proper role of Judges is to interpet the laws that are passed by the legislative branch, not create new rights or penalties based on their own opinions. Some judges have begun to site the rulings of foreign courts, like those in Zimbabwe, as a justification for their decisions, this is completely wrong. The temptation is great to cheer the appointment of those judges that will act in accord with one's political persuasion, but Democrat and Republican alike should fear the increasing power that is placed in the hands of these unelected officals. If new rights are needed or old laws are wanting, the best place for change is in the ballot box.

Deterrence, Terrorism...Raskolnikov

Todd brought up an interesting point in one of his comments, the West has yet to come up with an adequate form of deterrence against terrorist assaults that is both effective and morally acceptable. The idea that a strong well prepared armed forces is the best guarantee to peace, and as an extension of that, that a balance of power makes War too awful to contemplate ( An idea that came to the fore with the ghastly result of World War I but was then refined and simplified to produce the horrific "Mutually Assured Destruction", where the certainty of a global nuclear holocaust was meant to chasten those among the super powers who hoped for a first strike. ) is an idea that has no power against a stateless terrorist entity. This is particularly true to a group which is dedicated to giving their lives for their cause. What threat is potent enough to stay such determination? Adolf Hitler wrote that in regards to partisan attacks in the territories his armies occupied "whatever worked" was what was to be done. This evolved in France, but even more violently in the East, into a system of hostages held in certain townships who would be shot in many multiples for every German killed or act of sabotage perpetrated. While surely monstrous, one wonders if it was even effective, for it doesn't seem to have appreciably slowed partisan activity and assuredly turned the populace more heavily against the occupying armies. Echos of this extreme response exist in present day. Seven years ago Thomas Friedman wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times describing the father of the current Syrian "President's" method in dealing with terrorist attacks emanating from a certain city, Hama. He ringed the city with troops, and then shelled it into submission, 15,000 to 20,000 Syrians are estimated to have died. The Op-Ed went on to note that Terrorist attacks from that city ceased. A few years later a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed tackled the problem more squarely and finished by considering the idea that the United States should publicly state that if a terrorist attack involving WMD occurs on American soil the response would be a Nuclear strike on the Muslim holy city of Mecca. It would seem to me that such a declaration would not be believed, but if it was would create such fear and loathing in the Muslim world as to completely negate the statements purpose.
There is something in the human psyche, perhaps particularly in the West, that craves the simplicity of the action unhampered by morality and law, as if such limits inherently impede just accomplishment. In our future considerations of how best to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks and in our responses to attacks here and abroad, we should not be so quick to accept policies which go against our country's understanding of morality and justice in hopes of greater safety. It would cheapen what we fight to save. Still, the problem of deterring those men and women who would do us harm and die for it will not fade quick, as the somber, bloodied hotels of Mumbai unfortunately reveal.

Barack Obama's Cabinet: Part 2

Barack Obama has just announced that he will be nominating Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce for his cabinet. It seems Obama's new strategy is to employ his former opponents from the Democratic primaries into positions of power. 4 out of the 8 candidates are now going to be in the cabinet this Spring. What's next? My guess, John Edwards as Secretary of Energy, Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of Transportation, Chris Dodd as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and my personal favorite, Mike Gravel as Secretary of Agriculture. Then again, Mike Gravel after the primary jumped ship, endorsed a Green party candidate, and then joined the Libertarian party. Talk about reaching across the aisle...

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN sixty years ago this week. Today, as a member of Amnesty International, I helped out at a petition tabling in Balfour, and some interesting discussions and arguments began, especially when I spoke with certain members of this class.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything Amnesty International does, or how we go about things. As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I have a few problems with it. I know it can’t technically be “universal.” I have a lot of issues with the UN in general, actually. There is also the problem of mixing things that are human rights with things that should, by nature, be civil rights, which the Declaration does.

That being said, I think that most of the values the document lays out are still a significant part of our global society. These rights should be common sense. People should be treated equally. They should not be tortured or enslaved. It’s all quite simple, really. It goes back to the concept of “Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten.” Yet we see the UDHR violated every day. We see political prisoners and torture, and we see people being denied basic rights that make us human.

To be honest, I have no clue how to fix these problems, and stop the horrors caused by violators. And I don’t think anyone does have a perfect solution, because no matter what we do, we will be encroaching on the rights of governments to make decisions for themselves.

If we do find a way to overcome these obstacles, I believe we should find an alternative to the UDHR. I think it’s a good way to take a stand against issues like torture, but it still has problems. Right now, it seems like it is merely symbolic. Even a revision might be helpful. Until then, I believe it is the best we can do for a temporary stand for human rights.

The Supreme Court: The Final Frontier

Although most is the election is over with two senatorial races still remaining, one aspect of the American Political System remains overlooked. This aspect is the Supreme Court. While thinking about which party to vote for, one had to consider what that would mean for the Supreme Court later down the line. With an increasingly aging court, there will be vacancies that will need to be filled by the Obama administration. Justice John Paul Stevens is currently 88 and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is currently 75. There are also three other Justices in their seventies. This past election was pivotal to the Supreme Court as the future nominated Justices would either mean a conservative or a liberal court.

Justice Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are considered to be the conservatives of the court whereas Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are thought to be the liberals of the court with Justice Kennedy viewed as a "swing voter". If McCain had been elected president, that would mean that his nominations would most likely be conservatives and would therefore have more conservative rulings. Roe v. Wade would most likely be overturned and abortion would no longer be protected.

With an Obama presidency however, his picks will most likely be more liberal and will therefore have more liberal rulings. If more Justices retire, or are no longer healthy enough to serve, Obama may be able to secure a liberal majority in the court, which could mean a liberal court for over 25 years or until more Justices retire. I'm sure we will know in the near future.

Sex Education Reform

In modern American society, families are changing and evolving faster than ever before. While this evolution is for the most part for the better, there are still some issues that linger and need to be answered with comprehensive policy changes in the new Obama Administration. Policy reformation must be brought forth to ensure that America’s youth stay healthy, informed, as well as responsible when dealing with sex. Therefore, the lack, or misguided use of sex education in the public school institution must be reformed to be more comprehensive and informational.

Abstinence-only education. Especially in religious context, teenagers are taught to wait until marriage to have sex, yet some of these teenagers then become pregnant though being taught abstinence-only; much like the case of Bristol Palin, Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s daughter becoming pregnant though being taught to stay abstinent until marriage. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) also run rampant among teenagers that are taught abstinence only education. The article Red Sex, Blue Sex from The New Yorker states, “Communities with high rates of pledging also have high rates of S.T.D.s” (Red Sex, Blue Sex). Pledging meaning teenagers who vow to remain abstinent until marriage.

Clearly, teaching abstinence only education or having no sex education does not impede teen pregnancy or the spread of STDs in the manner that it should. Therefore, policy should dictate that abstinence should be taught as the primary sex education in school, yet also there should be an emphasis and safe sex. Condoms should be distributed freely to students in high school. Sex should not be taught as a “bad thing” to students and should be embraced as natural as long as long as teenagers are healthy and responsible.

Although these issues are not the only ones hurting American teens, their reformation will act as a conduit for other issues like child neglect and abortion. A developed society should be able to reform it’s policies when they no longer work in the modern context. A society’s foundation relies on a strong family unit and a healthy population of citizens to survive.

Work Cited: Margaret, Talbot. "Red Sex, Blue Sex." The New Yorker 11 Nov 2008 2 Dec 2008 .

2013: The end of the world?

According to CNN, A Biological terror attack will most likely take place. This attack will be more powerful than any nuclear weapon every created. This biological weapon will hit somewhere in the world and the results will be "devastating". According to Bob Graham, a former senator, "It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed." The shocking article also related this attack to the flu virus that killed millions in 1918. The attack will kill millions and leave thousands of people if not millions with life-threatening diseases. If this is true, security should be taken more seriously around the world. Biological Research Laboratories need to be watched over, and airports need to be safe and protected at all times. It is scary what a group of people can do to the world. Scientists believe that terrorists are going to threaten peace around the world. The article mentioned that if the attack does happen it will most likely come from three major countries that are now producing nuclear weapons, the three countries are North Korea, Iran and Pakistan. This does not make sense at all, why would scientists come up with a year of when the world would is going to be under attack? What people are trying to do now is spread peace and try to repair the world and not predict future attacks. If anything, I believe that most of us are trying to move on and look forward to a bright future. I think that as young and aware citizens we should be able to speak out about this topic and be able to disagree with the fact that attacks are going to take place in the near future. The world is already suffering a series of wars; I do not believe that a biological attack will make everything better. Are we looking at World War 3? 

For more information click here. 

After some time in the shadows, Biden is desperate for some attention!

Vice President Cheney was always one to work in the shadows, but Biden seemed happy to be out in public with Barack Obama in meeting with the nation's governors. In the past month since the election, he has mostly been silent side-kicking, only to join Obama in private meetings or standing behind him during conferences without saying a word. 

But this week he looked happy to be out there, and unleashed as he was given a speaking role both at the unveiling of the national security in Chicago and then during a meeting with the National Governers' Association. He even had more to say than Obama did, proves how eager he was to speak!

“Since the race is over, no one pays attention to me at all,” Mr. Biden said. “So maybe you will walk outside with me or something later and say hello to me” (New York Times).

He even gave Palin a warm welcome, poor guy, he may be bored. He wants to be out there and participate. Well at least he's the future Vice President, and he's not over stressing himself. But I'm sure we'll see much more of him in the near future, I mean, we have to! 

However, he got a biographer recently, maybe that'll give him enough attention.   The books are likely to his the shelfs in 2012. Vice presidents need biographies too! 

Overall, Biden will remain in Obama's shadows, no matter how bright and big his smile in, I kind of feel bad for him, he seems to be a really people-person, and as of now he's not getting much attention and he not doing what he signed up to do yet...but he sure will be soon, and he'll be over his head with work!

However it's great that we have a leader who is eager to work and participate, we need someone at this point in time to be enthusiastic about leading our nation, all he wants is to do his job, and hopefully his eagerness will lead us in the right direction.

"Biden Has His Say (Once Again)" 2008 Election Update and Politics and Government - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com.

Murkowski: "Leave my seat alone Palin!"

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has some advice for Sarah Palin: If you want a chance for the White House, leave my seat alone.

Murkowski, who is up for reelection in 2010, is nervous to hear whether Palin is competing for her spot in the US Senate. 

But Murkowski is defending herself saying that Palin should be the one who is nervous.

Palin is up for reelection in 2010. She could do a second term as governor, but the Senate has some decent attractions: a national platform, getting her résumé to look better, and to rebuild her damage reputation on foreign policy and other issues. 

Murkowski thinks running against her would be a bad idea for Palin's sake, because if she lost her "stock would drop just ahead of a 2012 presidential run. And if she won, she be a backbencher on chamber that is dominated by seniority-and would have to begin her presidential campaign as soon as she took office" (Politico).

It also seems as if there as personal issues between the two woman as well that adds onto the drama.  Palin defeated Frank Murkowski, Lisa's father,  in the governors race, and claimed that her father was part of the "old boys network". This term is obviously offensive to Lisa, as she cut an interview short when the topic was brought up. 

Even though Palin's popularity decreased after she took on the role as the GOP's vice presidential candidate and didn't perform so perfectly in television interviews, at home she still has high ratings, with about 80 percent support from Republican voters.  Murkowski shares similarly high numbers.

Two Republicans from Alaska head to head for the US Senate? Pretty Crazy. But I must say that I have to agree with Murkowski on this issue, because if Palin wants to run for president, being in the senate would be unreasonable as she would have to start her campaign right as she starts her job as senator.

"Murkowski to Palin: Leave my seat alone" Politico.com. 2 Dec. 2008.

Cabinet Picks

What can we learn about the Obama war cabinet picks and what does this say about the current state of American Politics? Well, it says a lot of things. Obama is well known for his academic credentials, Editing the Harvard Law Review, among other achievements. But his approach to politics seems to be the same one: that of an academic. This is also evident in his choices for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and his choice for Secretary of Defense, who also served under the Bush administration, Robert Gates. It seems as though he is more impressed with academic credentials and governing record rather than loyalty or familiarity with a secretary or other Whitehouse position. This could play out in one of two ways: the academic vigor of his picks will eventually pay off in that they make the most logically sound decisions for the country. That, or the lack of experience by himself and others like Clinton will decrease the strength of American diplomacy, and the Obama presidency will be worth little more than popularity. 

But if intelligence is the defining guideline that secures American foreign policy, instead of experience, then we're in good shape. Of the 18 nominations, 12 were educated at an Ivy League school, Stanford or MIT. The academic vigor of this cabinet and ability to make sound decisions will allow the Obama camp to take risks, and maybe act on the themes of change that ubiquitously resounded over the course of the campaign. Fortitude and confidence in decision making, traits necessary in this time of war, will be present. Big personalities were chosen for their use in persuasion with foreign diplomats, this strategy used instead of force abroad. With intelligence he can trust, and a Democratic congress behind him, Obama should be able to promise at least some of the change he promised in regard to foreign affairs. Lets hope all goes to plan.

Spare Some Change, Mr. Obama?

As Barack Obama unveils his cabinet dream team, I can't help but wonder how these picks indicate change in the government. Some of the people he are picking were members of past administrations and even (gasp) the Bush administration. His pick of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State indicates that he is putting in the same people that he has spoken against throughout his campaign. It seems hypocritical to put in his opponent, the person he worked to beat, into his cabinet. People can no longer blame it on him trying to appease Clinton supporters since he no longer has to. Is it out of guilt or obligation? No one can say for sure.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's pick for Chief of Staff, worked as an advisor for Bill Clinton during his term as President in the 90's. Many politicians have charged that Emanuel is too partisan, being a strict democrat. House Minority Leader John Boehner claimed, "This is an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil and govern from the center" (Emanuel pick gets mixed reaction). Obama ran his campaign stating that he would reach across party lines in order to proliferate bi-partisanship, yet his pick of Emanuel might say the opposite.

Finally, Obama's decision to keep Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, on board for his Presidency is completely hypocritical of his call for change in government. Secretary Gates has served under three Republican Presidents, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Keeping Secretary gates on is not change. I support Obama's pick of a republican to encourage bi-partisanship, but he should have picked someone fresh with new ideas. In order for Barack Obama to achieve his vision of a new government must come with a new crowd. As the saying goes, if you're part of the problem, you're not part of the solution.

Works Cited: 

"Emanuel Pick Gets Mixed Reaction." CNN.com 11 Nov 2008 2 Dec 2008 .

Millennial Monies

It appears that Obama raised the most amount of money of any candidate running for office, ever. An article on Politico today shows some figures that assess the gross funds that Obama was able to raise, and also how he was able to do so. It seems that funds raisers, the people that contributed to the campaign from their own pocket, were determined not to let Obama's hopes die. The article points out that Obama's estimated $750 million raised over the course of the last two years was more than the combined raised sum by Bush in 2004 and his rival John Kerry. The article also points out the uncanny ability for the Obama camp to raise money without even asking for it. They reportedly raised nearly $10 million the night of the Republican National Convention, between the back-to-back speeches of John McCain and Sarah Palin. 

No doubt this money was able to be raised because of the internet. The use of the Obama website, allowed numerous donations to be make without even asking for it. This is evidenced in the fact that early in 2007 when Obama was first thinking abot running for office, he had about 20,000 people on his mailing list. He now has 10 million. And of these 10 million names, nearly one half of them turned into donors, some more than once. 

The increased use of the internet allowed for fundraising records to be set in the 2008 election. The electronic age has ushered in an easy of operations that will surely be copied and studied in years and elections to come. 

Obama and Clinton's Rocky Relationship

Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton's relationship has been through quite a ride since just four years ago when Obama was a Senator for Illinois and Clinton was the junior senator from New York and former first lady.

Obama has since moved past her to the top, and many say that they aren't surprised that they have taken their relationship to the next political level, even though they were rivals during the election. Just because they were rivals for the presidential position, they never really felt dislike towards one another, and it seemed more that supporters for each candidate were the ones who felt much dislike towards the opposing Democratic candidate. 

In fact, Obama was more open to consider Clinton as VP pick than most thought, he would always say things like 'should we take another look at Hillary?' while he was trying to make his decision. But from his advisors the answer he always got was a no.

When Obama was elected into the US senate, he praised her and stated that he would look to her and her staff for advice. Now, after being rivals, he is her boss. However, though they have been through this rocky road people don't necessarily realize how much respect that have always had for one another. 

Of course there has been some rough patches between them during the election.

"She attacked his inexperience and called him naïve on foreign policy for saying he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. 

He attacked her as Old Washington and defined his early candidacy in opposition to her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, which he framed as 'the single most important foreign policy decision since the end of the Cold War' " (Politico).

As the election became more heated, it is reported that Obama even ignored an awaiting handshake from Clinton and walked off. There have also been some racist and sexist issues between Obama and Clinton during the election, one where Obama interrupted Hilary's response in a debate with "You're likable enough, Hillary." and when Bill Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson's presidential runs, which was widlwt understood s an attempt to put down Obama from "a mainstream to a fringe, black candidate" (Politico).

Hillary only's compliment for Obama after she exited the primaries was that he had a 

“spirited dialogue” then said, “That was the nicest way I could think of phrasing it” (Politico).

It was even speculated that the Clintons avoided meeting with Obama after Hillary dropped out of the election. 

Yes, they've had their rough patches but after the dust settled after the primaries, they seemed back to normal, and they were respecting each other just like they 'always had'. She then had her full support for him, and they gained trust for one another when Clinton started helping Obama in the campaign. 

Their relationship has overall been fairly up and down, but now they are on they're ups, and even when they were in their downs, they still had the upmost respect for one another.  Now, they are happy to work together, with Obama as boss and Hillary as Secretary of State.

"Evolution of the Obama-Clinton connection." Politico.com. 1 Dec. 2008. 2 Dec. 2008

Obama's Test: The Economy? Mumbai? Somali Pirates?!?

Since Joe Biden proclaimed that there would be an international crisis within the first 6 months of the Obama presidency to test Obama's leadership, the media and the American Citizens have been holding their collective breath waiting to see what horrible event will occur. Will it be the economic recession, the Mumbai crisis, or was it the Somali Pirates that Obama should have handled? The correct answer is that these are not Obama's problems.....yet.

What the media seems to neglect is that we still have a president named George W. Bush. Although he is in the lame duck phase of his presidency, or as CNN put it "the lamest duck", He still has the ability to work on reform to even remotely try to fix the economy. Although his approval rating is the lowest it has been, that does not change the fact that he is still our leader and Barack Obama is not. It is a great idea for Obama to create his economic team now and to set out a plan for when he is elected, but that is not for another two months. Two months of economic recession could mean the difference of putting some people out of their homes or not being able to feed themselves. George Bush should be working now with Barack Obama to make the transition easier into office when his term is over so Obama can set his plan into motion right away. There should be some aspects George Bush could do now in order to put a solution to the crisis in motion. (Obama's full economic plan can be found at http://change.gov/agenda/economy_agenda/).

Some people have suggested moving the inauguration to an earlier date so Obama can work right away to fix the economy. Though audacious, this measure has occurred in the past. The original inauguration date was March 4 but during The Great Depression, it was decided that Herbert Hoover should leave office earlier and Franklin Roosevelt be put in sooner so that he could work to fix the crisis earlier. I say let George Bush be president until inauguration and let history will judge his presidency.

Auto Trouble

It seems that another one of America's biggest niche markets is in trouble, the auto industry. Ford Motor Company is asking Congress today for a $9 billion "stand-by line of credit" to help stabilize the company in this recession, but has no plans to actually tap into it. This is obviously a very special issue, since if one of the three big American auto makers goes bust, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, the American auto industry is all but gone. What I found interesting about the article in the LA Times is the fact that this line of credit that Ford is asking for they don't intend to use, ever. Of course if they have to, they will, seeing as the current economic situation of the country doesn't bode well for a market where the asking price is $15,000+ for one of their products. Ford CEO Alan Mulally has made a public statement to help convince Congress to allot tax-payer dollars to dig out the auto industry.

"Mulally said he'd work for $1 per year if his firm had to take any government loan money. The company's plan also says it will cancel all management employees' 2009 bonuses, scrap merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year, and sell its five corporate aircraft."

Now, these seem like drastic measure, and I'm sure they are, but I don't believe for a second that a CEO of formerly one of the largest companies in the world will accept basically no compensation is his compan goes under. Call me crazy, but Ford may have played a part in making this recession, why should our tax dollars fish them out? 

This is a big issue. GM and Chrysler have said they could collapse in weeks if not given some kind of booster to their market, and will probably present their cases to Congress later this week. With billions owed to creditors, its clear that the great American auto industry that has thrived for a decade could now be on its last leg. 

Larry King Live

There were many reactions to Obama's appointment of his cabinet yesterday. Larry King, host of the highly rated "Larry King Live" on CNN, dedicated part of his TV talk show last night in order to ask questions about the decisions that Obama made or as he referred to it "drafting the right players", particularly the choice of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Larry King discussed the experience Hillary Clinton could bring into the White House and the positive aspects of the appointment with authors and political analysts.

When Larry King put the question out there of what struck the analysts about the decisions, the analysts were quick to jump on the appointment of Hillary Clinton and how bold the move was, but also how beneficial it could end up being it they would be able to establish a stabilized relationship. Hillary Clinton could have a lot to offer and lot of advice from her previous experience in the White House. Larry King also asked whether there was anything in the appointment of Hillary Clinton that reflected his continuous slogan of change during his campaign. The main response King got was that both Hillary Clinton and Obama share completely different views compared to George Bush and that any small difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is marginal at most when compared to Bush once again, so there is change coming. The issue of big egos playing a part was also discussed, but mainly downplayed the significance of the clash that may occur between them, referring to the many appearances made during Obama's campaign and the support Hillary Clinton gave to him as well as endorsing him after she dropped out of the race.

It is strange that after bashing her so much on the campaign trail and appearing to disagree with Clinton so much, a clip was shown at the beginning of Larry King Live, with Obama saying how much confidence he has in Hillary Clinton as a woman of American stature. A clip was also shown of Clinton praising Obama and showing her excitement on being able to share the journey with Obama. On camera they will act nice for now, but we have to wait and see whether they will really buy into each other. I think the analysts on the show were being a little bit too nice in downplaying their egos. I believe both are very intelligent and if they end up having conflicts, it would be a shame because together they would be a formidable duo.

Facebook for Kids?!

In the Surrey UK, a 'mum' has been feeling left out when she off everyday working in her recruitment job, with a daily round trip of 90 miles. She misses the talks she would have with other moms at school gates to plan play dates and whatnot. And in general, she feels that she is not as much a part of her children's lives as she would like to be. 

"I saw other mums chatting and it bothered me that I wasn't building those relationships. I wished there was a website for parents that re-creates that school-gate community, a site you can log on to in your own time and catch up with other parents from the school. If I felt like this, I reali[z]ed there must be lots of other mums feeling the same way." Said mother Esther Guy.

So she decided to launch her own website, and she thought she may even get to quit her job if the site takes off, that way she'll be able to do what she originally wanted to do, and still run the website. 

Then a though came to her mind, "Let's do it for the kids as well," she exclaimed, "There are loads of primary-school-aged kids using Facebook-even though they're underage. I thought my site could be a way of introducing children safely to the grown up world of social networking. If they're on a space their parents us, they can be supervised. Children accept their real friends - their classmates - as buddies and chat to them online."

So her website ( www.schooltogethernow.com ) went live last month, and even though the official launch is not until January, it's receiving more that 1,000 hits a day from across the UK. 57%  of registered members are children ranging from ages 7-11.

Parents are exchanging school updates and information, which children are debating over High School Musical over Hannah Montana. Here's an idea of the kids networking conversations:

"I AM going to the disco, ARE YOU?" asks Holly, adding 20 smiley faces and 8 other emoticons. No one answered Holly's question, but Allison wrote "Your smilies are cool."

I can't help myself but to laugh at all of this. Is our society becoming so technologically advanced that even children who can barely spell their own name are becoming involved in today's 'fad' of social networking? It seems ridiculous to me that children would be getting involved, because in my opinion, if such a tool such as social networking is introduced to children  at such a young age, I don't think they will be able to determine it from reality. They may just get confused when they see their friends at pre-school compared to when they see them on the Internet. 

Also, children should live out their childhood, and take every advantage of his/her youth, not technology. Introducing such tools created for adults will just expose them to a world they are not ready for. It will just influence kids to act older and 'cool' and forget their child-like ways.  Social Networking has an age limit on it for a reason.

"Facebook for kids" Times Online . 29 Nov. 2008. 2 Dec. 2008

Expectations Through 2012

The months after the highly anticipated election in 2008 leaves the American people with much to be desired. Slogans of hope, change, and a new tomorrow resounded with voters, but the question still remains whether this presidency will actually translate into a safer and brighter tomorrow. Well, thats for the future and other countries to decide whether they like us again. But an article I read in The Nation  tells us, or reminds us, rather, that some of the "fundamental differences" that strengthened the Obama camp may not be so fundamental. Though not particularly riveting or profound, Nichols does add a bit of pessimism to the "revolutionary" campaign strategy launched by Obama. To begin with, naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State further extends Obama's vision, and does not add any opposing view to our alliance with Israel. It also brings a Clinton, one of the most prominent political families of our time, back into the Whitehouse. And as much of a beloved president as Bill was, is it really in keeping with Obama's theme to introduce some of the pre-Bush diplomacy back into the Whitehouse, and the man at the Oval Office desk? I guess what Clinton voters didn't get in presidency they made up for in the most important position in the cabinet. 

This isn't to say that Clinton was a bad pick, though. The article notes an important message by Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and one of the most "determined opponents of the war in Iraq." Obama and Clinton still haven't staked out distinct opinions on U.S. actions overseas. However, he does point out that Clinton is extremely well researched and well read on almost any issue in foreign policy, and is undoubtedly well known after her husband's tenure as the head of the country. I guess what I'm really saying is that the "fundamental differences" in foreign policy, differences that may have won Obama the Democrat's support, weren't really that fundamental or different after all. But you knew that already. 

Last-Minute Regrets

President Bush has recently admitted that beginning the war in Iraq based on flawed intelligence is one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. This article discusses the bad intelligence indicating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when, in fact, there did not, and quotes the President as saying:

The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein.

However, the President refused to speculate when asked if he would have invaded Iraq even if he was certain Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, instead opting to dodge the question by saying that he didn't get a chance for a "do-over." By refusing to answer the question, it makes it look like he probably would have invaded Iraq regardless. While it's nice that the President has publicly admitted to making a mistake, it does sound more like a publicity stunt than anything else; an effort to raise his embarrassingly low approval ratings. Regardless of his intentions, I think most would agree with me saying that this apology comes about 4,200 men too late. Bush discussed how he was advised to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, but ultimately decided not to because it would "compromise his principles," according to the article. Additionally, Bush revealed that he was unprepared for war when he was elected (but to be fair, nobody was or could have been prepared for 9/11).

Bush also lamented about the recent economic crisis, but was confident that he did what needed to be done to save the economy and prevent "a huge financial meltdown." He hopes to "leave the White House with [his] head held high."

Works Cited
Zakaria, Tabassum. "Bush Calls Flawed Iraq Intelligence Biggest Regret." Reuters. 1 Dec. 2008. 2 Dec. 2008 .