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 .

A Cockeyed Optimist

Another piece of news to war your heart and lift your spirits. According to this article, we can expect a nuclear or biological attack shortly after we’ve graduated from college and moved off into “the real world.”

Experts are saying that scientists will begin selling their secrets to terrorists very shortly, and by 2013, there is a good chance that the United States will fall prey to biological or nuclear attacks. According to the article, they’re “less concerned that terrorists will become biologists and far more concerned that biologists will become terrorists.” It’s not so much that the terrorists will become rocket scientists, but that they’ll be able to convince a rocket scientist that the United States is “bad.” And with enough propaganda and clever wording, you can convince people to do anything.

I’m glad they’re being so optimistic. Great way to boost the national morale. Especially since we’re officially in a recession.

But there’s a new plan to place 20,000 troops in the United States over the next few years. They will be “trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe.” It frightens me that they’re looking at clean-up measures when the mess hasn’t happened—yet. Why should this sort of thing happen in the first place?

I really hope that Obama manages to a) improve our relations with other countries—a lot of them really don’t like us—to reduce the terrorist threat, and b) find ways to stop scientists from giving their secrets out to those who would harm us. Like al-Qaida. Bush let them slip through his fingers. Let’s hope that our new president doesn’t follow in his footsteps.

This was my Thanksgiving.

A few days ago, my father and grandfather, both of whom are very conservative, had the following conversation:

Dad: I hope Obama is a good president.
Grandpa: Are you kidding? We don’t want him to be a good president! If he is, they’ll elect him for another four years!
Dad: But if he’s a good president, we won’t have to worry.
Grandpa: He’s a Democrat.
Dad: But he looks like he’s going to keep things towards the center.
Grandpa: Then he’s a flip-flopper.
Dad: That means he realizes his mistakes. Or that he’s trying to please everyone.
Grandpa: Bush never flip-flopped.
Dad: Bush was a bad president.
Grandpa: Oh yeah? Name one thing Bush did wrong!

At this point in the conversation, my dad gave up. My grandfather is incredibly stubborn and slightly senile. But I feel that this dialogue brings up several important points.

Why is it that people get so angry when someone changes their views or policies? It’s good to admit our mistakes, but we are ashamed to (and I include myself in that statement). Plato believed that we should thank people when they correct us, but instead we get defensive (once again, I am very guilty).

Another thought: if we’re stuck with Obama, we’d all better pray that he’s the best president we’ve ever had. Because I would hate to see things get worse. I mean, if McCain had been elected, I would have been upset. But would I have hoped he did well? To quote Sarah Palin, “You betcha!”

Unfortunately, my crazy grandfather’s ramblings are being echoed everywhere. People are hoping for Obama’s failure, so he won’t be reelected in 2012. It’s some of the most backwards thinking I’ve heard. But it’s out there, and it’ll run our country even further into the ground if we’re not careful.

Well... It was the Thought That Counted

Today it was announced that the United States economy is in fact in a recession and has been since December 2007, according to this article at MSNBC ("It's Official: U.S. is in Recession"). I don't know about the rest of you, but, I kinda figured that out sometime in late winter/early spring of this year (admittedly, I wasn't sure of the exact date we entered a recession, but that's what the officials at the National Bureau for Economic Research are for!). Wasn't it only a few months we were told a recession "was possible?" Now we're in the middle of a full-blown worldwide economic crisis. To top it all off, the White House didn't even use the word "recession" when they commented on the recession! Okay, so, I probably overreacted a bit just then. But, what does this newly-gained knowledge do for us? Will it help us recover from the recession? Probably not. Instead of wasting money looking at when we got into this mess, let's look at how we got into this mess and how we can get ourselves out of it! The article tries to explain why the announcement comes so late:

The NBER committee that sets official dates for recessions typically does not act for many months after a downturn has begun. The panel is looking for clear evidence of a substantial, lasting contraction. "The committee waits long enough so that the existence of a recession is not at all in doubt," according to the NBER Web site. "It waits until it can assign an accurate date."

I can understand that. Waiting a few months seems logical, so as not to cause panic. But, it's been a year since the recession began, according to their report. Rather than avoiding panic, it's just made people angry and made themselves look like fools.

Even Charities are going Millennial

The Salvation Army is looking for new ways to raise money in the financial downturn, and they are getting creative. 

According to an article on CNN, "To boost donations, the Salvation Army is expanding its fundraising campaigns from traditional shopping centers and direct mail to cell phones and Internet social networks like Facebook and Twitter."

It also stated they were interested in reaching out to the younger generation, and were very much interested in learning what makes us tick. In a very creative way to reach young people, the Salvation Army is trying out a new cell phone plan in Atlanta and Columbus. By texting a code to the given number, cell phone users can donate five dollars, which is then charged to their monthly bill.

Also, the SA has a twitter account, and an email account where people can solicit donations from contacts via the internet. The SA is really hoping for some donations to roll in, because 2007 was the first year in eight years that donations slowed down instead of increased. 

Although they are not looking to get rid of the red kettle altogether, they acknowledge that it is much cheaper to use text messaging and social networking sites as opposed to paying people to ring a bell.