The Perpetual Campaign

Before the Congress elected in 2006 has even been sworn in, the 2008 Congressional campaign has begun. The Democrats are using their power to organize the House of Representatives with the next election in mind.

According to Adam Nagourney in the December 22nd New York Times, they are taking steps to hold on to the most vulnerable seats they have just won. Committee assignments are being designed to produce early achievements and easier fund raising. Special training in using the media and managing constituent service is going to particular new members.

Not to be outdone, the December 22nd Wall Street Journal says “HOUSE REPUBLICANS EYE 2008 targets after Democratic Sweep. Campaign committee chief Tom Cole touts 60 seats held by Democrats in districts Bush carried twice. One aim: ’Minimize retirements’ among Republican members chafing at life in the minority.”

Political Language

One method politicians use to attract median voters is manipulation of the language. They frame their opinions and policy with more neutral terms. Thus, using the right language is essential in political world.

In one of the Washington Post's affliated blogs, The Fix, Chris Cillizza, a former Roll Call newspaper journalist, mentions about the importance of language and image in politics. In this perticular blog entry, he parses the polls and examines the effects of the political words.

The new Gallup survey, nationally conducted at the end of November, brings us an insight to what the terms such as "liberal," "conservative," and "progressive" mean to people today. Check out Cillizza's interesting interpretation of this survey. For example, he says that the fact that 54 percent of the respondents considered themselves "conservative" while 34 percent said that they were "liberal" reveals the image problem Democrats have had in recent elections. This blog entry also sheds light on the exit polls from the last general election.

Lack of Intelligence

Most Democrats were relieved, I suppose, when Nancy Pelosi finally picked Sylvestre Reyes, a Texas Democrat, to chair the House Intelligence Committee. Pelosi passed over the most senior Democrat, Jane Harman, reportedly because Harman had not challenged the Bush Administration strongly enough on its (mis)use of intelligence in the Iraq War--though many suspect that Pelosi's longstanding animus towards her fellow Californian was the main motivation. Pelosi's second option, the next most senior Democrat, Alcee Hastings, is an embarassment: Hastings somehow managed to get elected to the House after being impeached as a federal judge by the Senate and convicted by the House for corruption and perjury. Reyes was the third option, and he seems like a nice guy--but not terribly well-versed in intelligence issues. Jeff Stein, of Congressional Quarterly, has been doing a wonderful job of exposing the ignorance of American policymakers about fundamental aspects of the Middle East. He reveals that Reyes didn't know that Al Qaeda is Sunni rather than Shiite, or that Hezbollah is Shiite.

Actually Reyes is ahead of several others Stein has talked to: At least he knows that the Sunni/Shiite division is significant. Two Republicans on the Intelligence Committee didn't seem to understand the distinction when Stein interviewed them in the fall. And Stein reports that a "reliable source" claims President Bush himself was unaware of the possibility that a Sunni/Shia civil war could spring up in the chaos of post-invasion Iraq.

Taking the Oath, the American Way

Keith Ellison, the newly elected Representative for US Congress from Minnesota’s Fifth District, is Muslim. Because of this, he has chosen to take the oath of office on a Qur’an, as opposed the more traditionally used Bible. This has sparked protest all over the country, especially in the blogging world. Dennis Prager, a radio talk show host with his own online column has been particularly vocal in his disapproval of this act, saying “Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath”. An article from the Star-Tribune of Minneapolis pointed to the fact that this statement is in fact false, quoting Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, who cites two men who chose to affirm, instead of swear, the oath of presidential office, Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover.

The reaction to Ellison’s decision to swear an oath on a text to which is has a connection is staggering. By expecting every office holder to swear on the Christian Bible, Prager, and the many like him, are undermining the freedoms that this country supposedly grants to all citizens: the freedom of religion. In truth, just as not every politician is sworn in using the same Bible, not every politician need be sworn in using the same text. Prager later says, “When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization”. If he believes that this is the case, then shouldn’t that book be the United States Constitution, which each of these men and women are committing to serve throughout their time in office?

Breaking the Immigrant Stereotype

Many people who are anti-immigration cite the fact that immigrants receive taxpayer benefits without actually paying taxes. However, a report has shown that immigrants, in Texas at least, actually contribute more than they receive in benefits.

In addition, the Annual Report on Immigration Enforcement Actions has been released.

GOP’s Control of Congress Comes to an End

The Washington Post reported on the Republican’s final hours of congressional control, which came to an end on Saturday. Republicans adjourned the 109^th Congress at 5 in the morning, ending over a decade of nearly uninterrupted congressional control. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) attempted to remain positive during his farewell address telling his fellow Republicans, “Together, we reformed welfare. We cut taxes, and small businesses grew all over the nation. We promised to protect this nation from further attack, and by the grace of God and with the leadership of President Bush, we have been successful.” Despite Hastert’s upbeat attempt at optimism, it is likely that Republicans were dwelling on the recent scandals that have shaken their party’s image and the crushing defeat they were dealt on November 7^th.

9th Circuit Courts Decision On Using Race as an Admission Factor

The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled in favor of a Hawaiian school giving preference to those students of Native decent. A fifteen judge panel deemed it legal for the elite Kamehameha School to use race as an admission factor. The majority of the judges hearing the case said that this case, bought by a white student who was not admitted because of his race, was unique because of the educationally inequality that Hawaiian students experience, just as similar cases in Alaska and with Native American Indians The plaintiffs attorney claimed that he would appeal to the Supreme Court "Discrimination in favor of native Hawaiians and against other persons is racial discrimination," he said. The last time that the Supreme Court ruled in a case similar to this matter was in 2003 when they ruled against a system at University of Michigan that used formulas that awarded points based on race.

Baker-Hamilton report rejected by Iraqis (and possibly the White House)

Iraq President Jalal Talabani unilaterally rejected the Baker-Hamilton report put forward by the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission) of the United States, believing that it dangerously undermines Iraqi sovereignty and its constitution (CNN.com). The report makes 79 recommendations for strategy in Iraq. Some recommendations include centralization of Iraqi oil wealth; a U.S.-led "diplomatic offensive" seeking help from other Middle Eastern nations, most notably Iran and Syria; allowing members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party to serve in Iraqi government; and, of the most interest to Americans, a recommendation that most U.S. troops should be out of Iraq by early 2008 (CNN.com).

A Washington Post article dated two days ago chronicles the White House's struggle to find a strategy to announce and implement by Christmas. According to the article, there are three major alternatives that they are considering. While the White House claims that the Baker-Hamilton report's recommendations "are being considered alongside internal reviews," there is speculation that their potential formulas are alternatives to the report instead (MSNBC.com). The options being pondered by the White House are: redirecting U.S. troops from internal conflicts to focus on hunting al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists; sending 15,000-30,000 troops to Iraq for a short time "to secure Baghdad and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces;" and concentrating political attention to supporting the majority Shiite party in Iraq and stopping seemingly futile efforts to reach out to Sunni insurgents (MSNBC.com).

President Bush is and has been between a rock and a hard place regarding the Iraqi situation. Now that the Iraq Study Group has released its report, the pressure has intensified with an impending deadline. His determination thus far to "stay the course" in Iraq seems to lead to the conclusion that he would choose to send more troops to Iraq to further the same goals. However, due to the outpouring of dissent regarding a) sending more troops overseas and b) his "course" that has had no readily visible effect, it is very likely that one of the other options will be pursued.

Will Mary Cheney's Baby's Mother have Legal Rights in the Commonwealth of Virginia?

Yes, it is true. Vice-President Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, is pregnant. But what, may you ask, is so special about this particular event? Well, honestly, we don't know... meaning we don't know where the sperm came from. But what just may be most special about this baby is taken from the Wonkette article titled "Mary Cheney's baby has two mommies." Really. It says everything. The other mommy is Cheney's partner for fifteen years, Heather Poe. Reportedly, the grandparents are thrilled about their sixth grandchild. This will, naturally, according to the Washington Post, set off sparks about gay marriage. Cheney feels that she and Poe are married, despite the fact that Commonwealth of Virginia, wherein the couple resides, just passed a state constitutional amendment baning gay marriage and even civil unions. Tragically, therefore, they would obviously not fall under Virginia's common law marriage statute. It is unclear whether or not Heather Poe will have any rights over the baby as the law does not make clear provisions for this sort of situation. Well there is nothing like a good baby to stir up Washington politics...

The EU--Arab Style

It is common knowledge that Turkey wants to join the European Union. And it’s been a long hard fight for Turkey, even given that the country was once the cradle of the Ottoman Empire, which, at its height reached across much of southern Europe. If Turkey is having such a hard time joining the EU, imagine what other Middle Eastern countries would have to go through to join.

But that’s not what I want to talk about. I’m more interested in the Gulf Region.

The Gulf States, those countries with the most oil (and thus money) in the Middle East have joined together to create a union of Arab States based on the same principles as the European Union. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) began its two-day meeting on the ninth. The purpose? To discuss plans for a unified monetary system that should be in place by 2010. If the GCC can pull this together, it will be a huge step for Arab countries. So far, they all seem dedicated to its success. Even Oman, who has declared that it will not be able to meet the 2010 deadline, is full of team spirit. It’s dropped out, but declared that it plans to join when it is able to fulfill membership obligations.

Wait, there’s more. There was a little surprise announced at the GCC meeting as well. Apparently, the Gulf States are doing research into building a nuclear program. Naturally, they have stated that it will be a peaceful program. But with Iran, a predominately Shi’ite country, pursuing nuclear weapons just on the border of the Gulf region, there’s no doubt that the Gulf States are feeling threatened.

The US hasn’t released an official statement on this issue yet. But you can bet that Washington is worrying over what could happen if some of its wealthiest allies no longer need American bases to defend their oil fields.

Somalia Update

The United Nations Security Council passed the US-proposed resolution for a peacekeeping force in Somalia. Prime Minister of Somalia Ali Mohamed Gedi approves of the UN decision to send in peacekeepers as well as the lift of the 1992 arms embargo. However, response from the Islamic militants in Somalia threatened war. This comes after reports of violence between the Council of Islamic Courts and Ethiopian troops following protests to the UN resolution. It is estimated that 6,000-8,000 Ethiopian soldiers have entered Somalia in support of the Somali government and it is reported that 2,000 troops from Ethiopia’s rival Eritrea have also become involved supporting the rebels (Eritrea denies these claims). The Washington Post has reaction from spokesmen from both neighboring countries which would be excluded from the approved peacekeeping force. It is probable that this force will be led by Uganda who has already agreed to send in troops.

(In my opinion, Uganda has issues within its own borders that demand its attention. The conflict that began two decades ago is ongoing and highly ignored by its own government as well as the United States and the rest of the international community.)

Congress Passes US-India Nuclear Bill

On Friday, Congress gave its final approval to allow the export of civilian nuclear fuel and reactors to India for the first time in 30 years reported the Washington Post. The Bush administration claim that this will increase cooperation with the world accelerate India's rise as a counterweight to China; Republican and Democratic supporters argue that this will also provide millions of dollars in sales for the American energy industry. Critics however contend that the deal will allow India's existing nuclear reactors to be devoted solely to producing fuel for nuclear weapons, damage ties with China and Pakistan, as well as worsen negotiations with Iran.

Eminent Domain Extortion?

Since the landmark case Kelo v. City of New London (see decision, oral argument transcript) in which the US Supreme Court held that the government can take private property for the purpose of economic development by commercial developers, 34 states have adopted stricter rules limiting the scope of eminent domain (see article). The American public disagrees strongly with the consequences of the ruling; various polls report between 65% and 97% in disagreement.

A new case seeks to limit the broad power upheld by the Court in Kelo. As described in the Volokh Conspiracy blog, a private developer in New York approached two property owners and asked for either $800,000 or a 50% interest in their business. If the owners refused, the developer would have the town seize the property by way of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. If the Court decides to hear the case, in what way might this blatant extortion scenario alter the underlying basis for the Kelo case?

Patrick's First Test

Early Thursday morning Governor-elect Deval Patrick announced that he would be reviewing current Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to allow certain state troopers to arrest illegal immigrants. As of now, troopers cannot detain people because of their citizenship statue alone. But under Romney’s new deal, if a state trooper suspects someone is not a citizen they can call to check, and arrest the person.

This has, understandably, immigration and civil liberties activists, very troubled. The claim “it would lead to racial profiling and foster mistrust of the police in communities with large numbers of immigrants” (Boston Globe). Clearly, this raises several issues. While Romney claims the troopers will be specially trained, it is a 4 and ½ week training session, and many doubt that that will be enough to allow troopers to really understand and get involved in one of the most controversial issues in America. There is also a question of the amount of time someone can be detained, and detaining without probable cause. The exact details are still not clear.

Luckily, Deval Patrick has taken the other side saying, "I still think it’s a bad idea, and I’m going to get briefed by the secretary of public safety on exactly what the agreement is and what the guidelines are, and then I’m going to be looking at my power and my opportunities to fix what I think is broken."

Many of his supporters hope that he will overturn the Romney deal; however, one cannot help but notice the tentative tone with which Patrick speaks. Let’s hope that for Patrick becoming Governor doesn’t come in the way of pursuing what is right.

Chavez wins in Venezuela

This past week, Hugo Chavez won a third term as President of Venezuela. Chavez is most recognized for his remarks earlier this fall commenting that: “Bush is the Devil.”

Chavez has consistently resisted relations with the United States and report from CNN noted that: “The former paratrooper called his victory a blow to U.S. President George W. Bush, whose government he calls dangerously imperialistic.”

As one of the world’s top oil exporters, the economy of Venezuela has drastically grown as the price for oil has risen. This is important to the political relations between the US and Venezuela, and particularly influential in the economy of the US and the need for oil.

BBC also noted in an article addressing the possibility of upcoming changes that: "The ultimate goal is to become completely economically independent from the US because Mr Chavez does not want to be a leader who is at the beck and call of the political and economic establishment of North America."

Venezuela, especially under the leadership of Chavez, proves to be another nation on the radar for the United States. According to CNN , “He has increasingly posed a challenge to the United States while leading a growing bloc of Latin American leftists, influencing elections across the region, and allying himself with U.S. enemies like Iran and Syria.”

Under scrutiny from both parties, Bush may have no choice but to change the course.

“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.” Those words introduce the executive summary of the Iraq Study Group Report, a report created by a bipartisan team of five Democrats and five Republicans on the current state of affairs in Iraq. The report makes absolutely no attempt to sugarcoat the situation, but rather bluntly and forthrightly addresses key issues in the region, such as the fact that insurgent violence in the region has been quickly escalating (particularly in the last year) and that US troops are stretched beyond their means.

According to the New York Times, the group made 79 recommendations for the war in Iraq, many of which will not be easily stomached by the President. The report, for example, calls for direct negotiations with Syria and Iran, two countries President Bush considers to be within the “axis of evil.”

As a result of such overwhelming opposition to his policies, the President will begin to “chart a new course in the war” next week. He is expected to introduce his “new way forward” by Christmas. It is unclear whether this elusive new plan of action will give the troops and their families what they really want for the holidays—a war with some end in sight and the possibility of returning home—but it seems as though President Bush has no choice but to heed the requests of the Iraq Study Group, the United States’ military, Congress, and the citizens of both America and Iraq—all of whom have become disillusioned with the war.

Rumsfeld torture suit

An interesting news story appeared today which could be an example of how the courts can interfere with core military functions. A federal judge was reluctant to give Donald H. Rumsfeld immunity from torture allegations, yet said it would be unprecedented to let the departing defense secretary face a civil trial.

Rumsfeld’s lawyers contend that under the qualified immunity doctrine, "federal officials are immune from suit" unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right. If the suit were to go forward, it could force Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to disclose what officials knew about abuses at prisons such as Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and what was done to stop it. They say that aliens held in a military detention facility in the field of battle abroad simply do not have established constitutional rights during their alleged detention and abuse.

Two big headlines dealing with abortion hit us this week, in two branches of the government.

In the House of Representatives, a bill that would have required doctors to offer women painkiller for the fetus before performing an abortion failed. The bill also would have required doctors to distribute a pamphlet saying a fetus feels pain after five months. Surprisingly, the Republican-controlled House couldn’t get a two-thirds majority vote on the bill. That will pretty much be the end of that, at least for awhile, as the Democrats have taken control of Congress.

Over in the judicial branch, a confessed murderer of a doctor who performs abortions, John Kopp, will be heading to federal court after a judge in Buffalo rejected his motion to dismiss the case. He has prepared his own defense in prison, where he already sits a 25-year term for a 1998 murder. One of his many arguments to dismiss the case was that he had shot the doctor to save the lives of many unborn fetuses, but the prosecutor reminded him that actions to prevent legal behavior don’t serve as a defense. The judge additionally ruled that in the trial, the defendant is not allowed to discuss religious or moral objections to abortion, and no anti-abortion photographs, clothing, or other paraphernalia is allowed. Seems like an attempt to make the case less issue-based and more law-based and focused on the murder itself.

Shrinking Supreme Court Docket

The New York Times has an interesting article on the dwindling Supreme Court Docket. When former Chief Justice Rehnquist took office in 1986 he made reducing the size of the docket a major goal. He succeeded, the number of opinions last year, 69, was the lowest since 1953. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, has testified that more cases might help clarify the law. But so far this year the downward trend seems to be continuing. The article presents several reasons why the docket may be so light. Perhaps the most interesting one is the speculation that, in a divided court, justices are reluctant to take a case if it is likely that they will end up in the minority.

Depressing Numbers in Iraq Opinion Poll

According to Harris Interactive, their latest poll of public attitudes on the situation in Iraq makes for depressing reading as “most of the numbers are worse than they have ever been in the course of more than three years.” The depressing numbers include: 58 percent of Americans now believe that the situation in Iraq is getting worse while only nine percent think that it is getting better, and 46 percent of Americans believe that “taking military action against Iraq” was the wrong thing to do while 36 percent think that it was the right thing to do. For further discouragement, 63 percent (to 17 percent) of Americans are “not confident” that U.S. policy in Iraq will be successful.

The poll found that Americans were more confident about the troops than the policies pursued in Iraq – 83 percent of those polled thought that the American troops were doing a good job. These positive feelings about soldiers, however, did not extend to Iraqi forces, which had a 78 percent negative rating compared to a 12 percent positive rating.

Environmentalists Excited About New EPW Chair

As the new Democratic Congress gets ready to take power and assigns committee chairs, environmentalists breath a sigh of relief as Democratic Californian Senator Barbara Boxer announces some of her plans for once she takes her place as Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Senator Boxer announced in a press conference, "Any kind of weakening of environmental laws or secrecy or changes in the dead of night--it's over. We're going to for once, finally, make this committee an environment committee, not an anti-environment committee." She plans to push for federal legislation similar to the Californian law fighting global warming.

After years of Republican control of Congress, environmentalists are excited to see Democrats who share their environmental beliefs in power. As the environmental blog Gristmill declared, "I heart me some Babs.".

How many different ways can you say "cut and run"?

This week the Daily Show focused on their Mess o'potamia coverage, focusing their irony-colored glasses on washington as well. The show highlighted the inconsistency of Rumsfeld's denial of wrongdoing before his resignation with his memo to the president after. The memo included suggestions of withdrawal, but this wouldn't be "cutting and running" it would be something about
riding a bike and pulling up socks.But even better than Rumsfeld's metaphor was Bush's truism, "I think anytime you murder somebody, you're a criminal".

This perceptive foreign policy strategy has been eloquently described by the Daily Show as "go big, go long, and go f**k yourself" meaning send more troops, reoccupy and keep doing what we've been doing. I strongly recommend this clip by correspondant Rob Riggle called Iraq to the future. Rob Riggle's "cut and run" is called "operation mulligan".

The Media and Presidential Rhetoric

Jim A. Kuypers, an assistant professor of communication at Virginia Tech, recently authored a book entitled "Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age." According to an article by Jean Elliott , "Overall, Kuypers examined themes about 9/11 and the War on Terror that the President used, and compared them to the themes that the press used when reporting on what the president said." According to the Wall Street Journal Online, Bush's approval ratings are slipping. But it's easy to forget how much power the press has as a medium between us and President Bush. Although there is a trend where the public's trust in the government is decreasing, how much faith are we putting in the media to effectively and accurately relay Bush's messages to us? To what degree does the media play a role in this increasing public distrust? Kuypers writes that within eight weeks after 9/11, the press "began to intentionally ignore certain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed the president's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift the focus." We know that the framing of questions and answer choices in polls can completely affect the accuracy of the poll. Kuypers asserts that major news corporations such as CBS, ABC, NBC, and The New York Times are framing Bush's speeches in their own way, proving that we should not take the integrity of their coverage for granted.

Thou Shalt Not Punch thy Commander-in-Chief in the Face...

Americans are no strangers to a little political squabbling, but White House brawls just simply aren't done... A lesson some hope Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb has learned following his chilly exchange with the leader of the free world... or rather President George W. Bush at a White House reception for newly-elected members of the legislature.

What sparked this little incendiary interaction between the Senator and the President? Allegedly, President Bush asked after Senator-elect Webb's son, a Marine currently serving in Iraq. Webb responded, according to a Washington Post article , "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush's linguistic finesse prompted him to retort, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" The Senator-elected replied that that was between him "and his boy."

Some believe this shows Webb's lack of political politesse, not to mention a certain disrespect for the presidency, further revealed in his unwillingness to pose for a picture with the President. Moreover, he reportedly, in the Hill Newspaper, was tempted to –as the blog Wonkette puts it , – “slug Dubya in the face.” He, obviously, did not. But this encounter simply goes to show that Senator-elect Jim Webb came into Congress on his issue-based campaign and plans to stay there. Perhaps Jim Webb was just being polite not asking after the Bush twins, who were purportedly kicked out of Argentina , after their 25th-birthday excursion to the country… No doubt Senator Webb’s son is not having nearly as much fun…

Next time, perhaps it would be best if politicians in social situations kept to the weather…

US Proposes Peacekeeping Force in Somalia

The United States has drafted a resolution calling for a regional peacekeeping force to be sent to Somalia. American ambassador John Bolton argues that the 8,000 troops are necessary to stabilize the region. The force would be composed of troops from other African nations, intentionally excluding neighboring countries to prevent further conflict. The resolution asks for a peaceful settlement with the Union of Islamic Courts which has been fighting the interim Somali government, formed two years ago, and its predecessor for control of the country. This alliance has also been recently linked to Hezbollah and is considered by the United States to be a great threat to security. To arm the necessary forces, the resolution would also allow for a lift on the UN arms embargo put in place in 1992. There are fears however that the peacekeeping force could only spark further violence in the precarious setting, but Bolton argues that some form of action must be taken. Other countries’ opinions are hoped to be considered in meetings as early as Monday in the drafting process.

The Not-So-Phantom Menace

For such a tiny country, Lebanon sure has been in the news a lot lately.

In February of 2005, Rafiq al-Hariri, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, and a major opponent of the Syrian influence in Lebanon was assassinated. No one is sure who is responsible for the killing, however many suspect that Syria was involved in Hariri’s death.

This past summer, Lebanon was in the headlines as Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel provoked large-scale retaliation that crippled the country’s infrastructure. The country is still struggling to recover, and the government is in a precarious position, having been proven incapable of controlling Hezbollah.

And a few weeks ago, on Novermber 21^st, Pierre Gemayel, a Christian Cabinet Minister who, like Hariri, opposed Syria’s 20-year presence in Lebanon was killed. Again, no one knows who was behind the killing.

This weekend, Hezbollah finally took advantage of the precarious situation in Lebanon. Thousands of pro-Syrian, pro-Hezbollah protestors took to the streets of Beirut calling for the resignation of Premier Fouad Siniora. Siniora says that he has no intention of acceding to their demands—after all, he has been lawfully elected and he is supported by a majority in the Lebanese Parliament.

Foreign leaders have been voicing their support of Siniora, commending him for his refusal to back down and instructing him to stay strong. Still, I can’t help wishing that they would back up their words with a Security Council resolution. At this point, the Lebanese government needs to push Hezbollah out of the south—the group is too great a threat to the tenuous peace that has lasted since the end of the 15 year civil war in 1990.

The last thing I want is to see Lebanon turn into another Afghanistan or Iraq where a “coalition” enters the country to hunt down and kill the terrorists without regard for civilian casualties. But a show of force is what is needed. It is common knowledge that Hezbollah receives funding from both Syria and Iran. While it puts some of those funds to good use and provides schools and hospitals for the Shi’ite population, the fact remains that it refuses to help Christians or Sunnis.

Hezbollah will only respond to a show of force. Now that it has made its agenda for Lebanon clear (a coup to remove the current government), the world should work with the Lebanese government to protect all Lebanese citizens from this menace.

A Narrowing of the "God" Gap

The Religious Gap is the trend that has been occurring in which the most religious Christians are voting Republican, and the least devout are voting Democrat. In the midterm election, this gap narrowed a bit, as the number of religious voters voting Republican going from 58/41 in 2004 to 51/48 this year.

In addition to the most devout, other religious groups voted more towards the Democrats as well. Catholics voted Democrat 57/42 this year, up from 52/47 in 2004. Evangelical Christians voted for Democrats at a rate of 29 percent, up from 21 percent in 2004.

The article, found on Beliefnet.com, also mentioned the increased number of pro-life Democrats that will be in Congress this year. It cited that because of the Iraq war, the Democrats had gained both houses, but they must be able to appeal to more “centrist religious voters” in order to maintain Congress once the war is less prominent.

What could be interesting out of this is how democrats in Congress will react to the more conservative democrats who have come into the houses as a reaction to the war. The author suggests that Democrats will need a more moderate view on abortion, among other things. However, what will that mean to the entire concept of American politics, if the median voter theory begins to hold true in the United States?

Changing the course in Iraq?

A recently disclosed memo from former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on the eve of his resignation from office contains an admission the Bush administration's strategy was not working and his suggestions for improvement, including troop reductions "as well as a recasting of the U.S. mission and goals there, but [endorsing] no specific recommendations" (CNN.com). The defection of a "planner and defender of Bush's Iraq strategy" since before the U.S. actually invaded Iraq is another straw adding to the already-large pile of critical voices calling on Bush to severely shift his strategy.

Another article on CNN.com, summarizing this week's TIME cover story, surveys the chances of President Bush's finding a graceful exit strategy for Iraq. According to the article, Bush would have to make a reversal akin to "a personality transplant," given his staunch position in favor of staying the course in Iraq when confronted by the opposition -- virtually since the start of the war (CNN.com). On Wednesday, the Baker-Hamilton commission (Iraq Study Group) is expected to brief President Bush on their findings and then do the same for congressional leaders that same day. Speculation says that they will propose a restart to peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians and also propose an international conference. What exactly the panel will suggest (or, more to the point, what President Bush will carry out) remains unclear. It will, however, be "significantly different than what we've been doing..." according to a White House official (CNN.com).

Foundations and Educational Institutions to meet their ends

Principal's Policy Blog features an interesting entry, written by a blog journalist Shana Kemp, about a study on “tattered relationship between education and funders." The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching conducted this 30-month long study in order to find a way to promote the divided relationship between foundations and educational institutions.

Ray Bacchetti and Thomas Ehrlich, directors of the study, explained that foundation leaders tend to think that "they've made large investments into K-12 schools without much return." Meanwhile, they see education leaders feeling "as though foundations are quick to abandon projects if results are not produced quickly enough." In the book that the two directors co-authored, Reconnecting Education and Foundations: Turning Good Intentions into Educational Capital, they provide some tips for both foundations and educational institutions so that they can meet their ends without tension.

This study is a timely report since President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy is catching the media's attention as the law has to be reauthorized by the new Congress next year. How President, as a foundation, and the schools, as educational institutions, will respond to each other under the policy will provide another insight to Bacchetti and Ehrlich's study.

Virginia upholds Vermont decision

Over the Thanksgiving period, an important and influential case has been heard in the Virginia Supreme Court. The Case of Janet Miller-Jenkins v. Lisa Miller-Jenkins is a significant case as it deals with a custody dispute between a lesbian couple who had entered into a civil union and raised a child together in Vermont. The biological mother (Lisa) had kidnapped the child and taken them to Virginia and tried to deny Janet any visitation rights. This is the first time a court has applied a federal law aimed at stopping parental kidnapping to a dispute between a same-sex couple. The November 28 decision is also the first time a court has ruled on the validity of the federal Defence of Marriage Act in custody disputes between same-sex couples. This has been celebrated by the LGBT community as a positive step; this couple have been treated as any heterosexual couple. The case did, however, fail to answer the broader question of whether "Virginia recognizes the civil union entered into by the parties in Vermont."

New Citizen Test: More "Why" Than "What"

As reported by USA Today, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services unveiled on Thursday a set of new questions to be asked of prospective citizens. The changes are an attempt to shift from memorization to understanding; instead of "What are the three branches of U.S. government?" the new test asks "Why do we have three branches of government?" Says Emilio Gonzalez, directory of the U.S.C.I.S, "The goal is to make it more meaningful." In contrast, a few immigration groups, like the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights, feel the questions should be revised: "Our main concern is the level of difficulty."

Reaction has been varied. Some feel the test is still too memorization-heavy: "They are still rote memorization questions with one correct answer. ... What we need is an open-ended test," says Debbie Schlussel. On the other hand, others are afraid that the test is too subjective and costly, like wtweldon from Texas Common Sense: "[T]here will not be simple right and wrong answers. ... Then there is the cost [$6.5 million]..."

In large part, however, bloggers and pundits welcome the changes. Says Simon from Stubborn Facts, "For the most part, the new list is manifestly better than the existing questions."

Hundreds Protest Bridgegroom's Killing by Police

Sean Bell, along with two of his friends (who were unarmed), were shot at over 50 times by the NY Police while driving a car; Bell died later on that day—the day that was supposed to be his wedding day.

Sean Bell was buried today, and hundreds came to his funeral to protest police violence.

“It is still unclear what prompted officers to fire on Bell’s vehicle on November 25, but the police apparently feared one man in the group was about to get a gun. The unarmed victims were black; the five officers were black, Hispanic and white.”

“An unidentified undercover officer and four others have been placed on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of a grand jury investigation that could result in criminal charges.”

To read article: article

Does Change for Cuba mean Change for US-Cuba Realtions?

BBC News reported today that Fidel Castro missed an important military acknowledgement of Havana and belated birthday celebration in his honor. His public absence continues to suggest that his health is worsening. If this is the case, it has the potential to lead to drastic political change. In his absence, Raúl Castro addressed the nation and “attacked Washington but also left open the possibility of improving ties.”

In his speech, Raúl Castro referred to the conflict between the US and Cuba and acknowledged an interest in resolving differences between the two nations. As Raúl Castro asserts authoritative power of Cuba while the health of his brother continues to deteriorate, his willingness to negotiate with the US could have strong political implications for Cuba. Additionally, this could create an opportunity to rebuild the relationship between the United States and Cuba, which was severed by an economic embargo in 1962.

But how would the United States react to a change in regime for Cuba? Just last week, the US State Department openly “criticized the replacement of one Castro by another and said Cubans should have the opportunity for democratic change.” One Sate Department official noted that, “We think the Cuban people need to be given the opportunity to see and have democratic change. We believe that is what the Cuban people would like to have.”

Bush's Executive Power

One of the tactics that President Bush has used to expand his presidential power is “signing statements” which challenged legislation that Congress has sent him. He has signed bills into law -- and then issued signing statements in which he has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills. This has allowed President Bush to get around the veto requirement and prevent Congress from having the chance to override it, as the Founders required. Indeed, he flexed his executive muscles by using this tactic more than any of his predecessors on more than 750 provisions. Yet, he did not veto a single bill until well into his second term.

The Democratic Party's midterm election victory has the potential to curtail some of Bush’s expanded presidential authority. The Democrats cannot stop the president from issuing singing statements, but the practice could be met by intensified congressional hearings on the subject--and perhaps lawsuits or refusals to appropriate money for projects or programs the president favors. A Democratic Congress could also scrutinize whether the executive branch has followed Bush's directions, or observed congressional expectations as presented in law.

Congressional Democrats: Plan for direction in Iraq?

A recent Washington Post article states that congressional Democrats were encouraged by the recent report of a special commission on Iraq. The commission, which is led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, is calling for a major reduction in the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq. Democrats are in accordance with the reports of the commission and are hopeful that the report will force President Bush to comply with an early removal of troops from Iraq. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) hopes that "the White House will seriously consider the ideas put forward by the study group." While the report has given Democrats "a jumping-off point" for enacting their plan to begin withdrawal from Iraq in 2007, Democrats still have not created a unified and well-defined plan for the removal of troops from Iraq. The Post speculates that the Democrats plans are still "elusive" because Democrats are still divided among themselves and with President Bush. It will be interesting to track the development of a more concrete plan and timetable for the removal of troops.

Lieberman has wavering, hypocritical support from Democrats

The anti-Lieberman sentiment present throughout the Democratic Party hasn’t been mentioned much since the Connecticut Senator won reelection last month.

“Crashing the Lieberman Party,” a Congressional Quarterly article featured in the New York Times, describes some anti-Lieberman feelings that are still lingering throughout the Democratic Party.

John Orman, a critic and failed opponent of Senator Joe Lieberman, was the first and only person to change his party affiliation to the “Connecticut for Lieberman” Party, simply so he could declare himself party chair and use it as an outlet to denounce the Senator. Lieberman remains a registered Democrat.

The article sheds light on an issue that the Democrats have glazed over since winning a majority in both houses of Congress. Though I am a staunch Democrat, I was nauseated by the party’s treatment of Lieberman. While some of his views—particularly those on Iraq—differed with those of the party, since when was either political party a bastion of unity? The Democratic candidates supported this year ranged from the typically liberal Ted Kennedy to the atypically pro-life Bob Casey. The wide spectrum of thought within the party was apparent more than ever in this election.

The Democrats unsuccessfully campaigned for Ned Lamont and fought in a failed attempt to secure Lieberman’s defeat. The Connecticut Senator was the black sheep of the party, until his victory and subsequent decision to caucus with the Democrats helped ensure their majority in the Senate. At once, Lieberman was welcomed with open arms, and the harsh feelings of previous months were near forgotten. He was no longer an enemy of the party, but a vital ally.

If Lieberman had chosen to align himself with the Republican Party, the Democrats would not have found themselves in a position of power. All eyes are on the Democrats now, and they will need to have unwavering support for all of their elected officials if they want to have any leverage in Congress for the next two years.

Pelosi Picks Reyes as Head of Intelligence Panel

Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi ended speculation today when she named anti-war Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX) to become the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Included too in the Forbes article are Reyes' plans that he articulated to the business magazine before Pelosi's announcement.

In picking Vietnam veteran and Border Patrol agent-turned-congressman Reyes, Pelosi has deviated from the "seniority rule". She sidelines the panel's top Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (CA) and the next in line, Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL). In addition to Pelosi privately criticizing Harman for not being more aggressive on faulty pre-war intelligence and the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, she made clear earlier this week that she would not pick Hastings with his tainted history of bribery.

Evidently, Pelosi has been cautious about her selection of the leader of the committee that oversees the nation's intelligence agencies, after a widely-perceived political blunder of endorsing Rep. John Murtha (PA) for the Majority Leader post. She got Harman to issue a statement prior to her own about Harman's "full and enthusiastic support" for Reyes.

Nonetheless, as Pelosi attempts to ensure that her nominee is clean and will "ask the tough questions", she risks alienating the Congressional Black Caucus. Not long ago, she removed William Jefferson (LA), who is Black as Hastings is, from the powerful Ways and Means Committee after allegations of corruption. Furthermore, according to the Wall Street Journal, even now Pelosi's choice is facing skepticism of the intelligence community due to Reyes' travels with one of the panel's most senior and controversial Republicans.

Could the analogy of a former press secretary, Rich Galen, that Pelosi is quickly becoming as radioactive as the polonium-210 that poisoned the ex-Russian spy, be a reality? Some in the blogosphere have already begun to call her Pelosium-2007...

Church and state...so define "church"....

As the new class of Senators and Representatives prepare for their January inaugurations, one particular member of the 2006 midterm victors is already stirring up controversy before even formally swearing into office. In fact, it's this swearing in itself that's stemmed the most recent debate on the idea of the separation (or lack thereof) between church and state. In November, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison became the first Muslim American elected to serve in Congress. In the interest of his personal faith and principles, he has announced his plan to swear in on a copy of the Quran, the Muslim holy book, rather than the Bible. From a purely pragmatic, logical perspective, this makes sense. The idea behind the oath is a personal pledge to uphold the dignity and truth necessary for honestly serving the people. This decision, however, has lead to criticism by both conservative commentators and those staunchly opposed to religious influence in public life all together.
"He should not be allowed to do so," Commentator Dennis Prager wrote on his website "not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American culture."American culture? The above statement fully implies that the Bible is fundamental to the most basic structure of American "culture." While it may be such a beacon for certain subgroups of Americans, the Constitution clearly delineates the prohibition of an established national religion. So we're left with new battles involving indignant preservers of Biblical tradition and equally indignant preservers of the constitutional tradition who argue that the Biblical tradition is quite inappropriate in the first place.

It is the opinion of this humble blogger that a personal oath of integrity should have sufficient validity from personal affirmation alone, and if a particular individual so chooses to bolster this commitment with the help of a higher power, that is his or her prerogative rather than requirement. For Allah's sake, you'd think this only logical in such a free country as the United States of America.

Another Tradition Abandoned?

(CBS4) BOSTON reports that a wonderful, Boston holiday tradition has been cancelled! Many excited children from all over New England will be disappointed this Christmas season when they visit City Hall Plaza and find that the Enchanted Village is missing. The Enchanted Village is a beautiful display bought from Macy in the 90’s, which has lit up the face of New Englanders for over a decade. This year there will be a few parts of the village, scattered around on display. For next year though, there are no promises and little hope. "The equipment just became too old, too fragile and the attendance wasn't there," said Mayor Menino. He hopes, however, that if “goes away for a few years, maybe people will want it to come back”

Maybe people already want it to come back.