Thursday, November 30, 2006

Entertainment or propaganda?

According to a Washington Post article from today, the independent film “Bella,” which won the Peoples Choice Award at the Toronto Film Festival and is scheduled for public release in April, is a blatant antiabortion film giving hope to pro-life politicians in D.C. The film is being screened (now up to 10 showings nationwide, many to select audiences in the capital) by the National Council for Adoption, but is decidedly not propaganda, especially when considering its page on the Internet Movie Database. This plot summary never mentions abortion at all, only alluding to life-changing and emotional events. The conflicting descriptions of the film are confusing, to say the least. I’m looking forward to April.

No surprise that the Washington Post article considered the movie in relation to the recent elections, which displayed the Democrat party as a truly pro-choice party (only three of the freshmen Democratic House members aren’t) and transferred 13 seats from pro-life congressmen to pro-choice congressmen.

The film was written and directed by three conservative Mexican Catholics and funded by a wealthy Catholic family from Philadelphia. Now the concern, despite the Toronto award, is how to get movie theaters (dominated by liberal Hollywood folk, say the film’s producers) to show the movie starring unknown actors and an inexperienced director. I guess I’m looking forward to April, on the condition that I can find a movie theater showing “Bella.”

Should We Wish You a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays”?

According to a recent survey of 1,000 adults by Rasmussen Reports, 69% of Americans prefer when stores use the phrase “Merry Christmas” in their holiday advertising while only 23% prefer the politically correct “Happy Holidays” greeting. This issue of the wording of commercial holiday greetings became controversial last year when retailers including Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco used the term “Happy Holidays” in an effort to replace specific references to Christmas. In an announcement earlier this month, Wal-Mart confirmed that it will reverse policies and allow commercials and employees to say “Merry Christmas” again.

According to the same survey, this debate over commercial holiday language is one issue on which Democrats and Republicans are not sharply divided. Eighty-five percent of Republicans prefer “Merry Christmas,” and 61% of Democrats and 60% of unaffiliated voters hold the same view. Thus, it seems a love for the commercial extravaganza that is Christmas is one issue on which a majority of Americans – Democrat and Republican alike – can agree.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Massachusetts v. EPA

Tomorrow morning, led by Massachusetts, twelve states, three cities, the government of the American Samoa, and thirteen environmental groups, will appear before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, which is joined by ten states and numerous motor vehicle companies. The case is explained in more detail in an article from The Washington Post.

Though the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, maintains that it lacks the authority, the plaintiffs argue that it is the EPA's responsibility to place limits on carbon emissions which "have been shown to hasten climate change." More specifically, the Supreme Court will decide whether greenhouse gasses can be defined as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which would place them under the EPA's authority. As the EPA officials have been appointed by the Bush administration, they are following Bush's lead in preferring "voluntary" reduction of emission rather than government regulation. In other words, as is clear by the EPA's fellow defendants, the Bush administration is siding with industry over the environment. A decision is expected mid-2007.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Next Entrée for Congress: Political Pork?

Political pork, i.e. earmarking, is often associated with corruption due to its role in recent bribery scandals that involved lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Californian House Representative Randy Cunningham. There also has been much criticism that this "piggy bank" system fosters cronyism by allowing lawmakers to direct federal money to pet projects with minimal oversight.

While Democratic Congressional leaders have pledged to require disclosure of authorship and proposed banning the “airdropping” of items into a bill just before final passage, appropriators and their allies often complain that such measures single them out unfairly, and Democratic draft proposals introduced this year left loopholes for many projects. David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times and David Wren of Grand Strand, OH-based The Sun News offer the latest insights into the new cardinals (how the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees are known on Capitol Hill).

To learn more about political pork in addition to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's definition of "government funds, jobs, or favors distributed by politicians to gain political advantage", Ed Wimmer, a conservative Republican who appears on 'In the News' with Craig Wright on Cox Cable Channel 9, provides a hilarious introduction to this dish on his website.

Will the Democrats end the pork barrel spending that has gone out of control since the Republicans reined Congress? With the Democrats' healthy appetite, the taste of pork will most likely still linger.

Wall Street Merger on K Street

One of the latest happenings on K Street is the merger between the Securities Industry Association (SIA) and the Bond Market Association (BMA) to form the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) . The idea of reblending them (BMA was originally part of SIA) stemmed from many companies deal with both stocks and bonds, hence are members are SIA and BMA.

Washington Post reports that this mouthpiece of the financial services industry with a budget of $80 million is the biggest corporate player in national politics with only organized labor surpassing them in federal candidate donations. It is not surprisingly as they are taking on some of the most heated, high-stakes battles on Capitol Hill, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act regulatory requirements and tax breaks for profits from stocks and bonds. Its goals are to expand markets, foster new financial instruments' development and reduce the industry's costs, partly through regulatory relief. Although not exactly the model of corporate efficiency, SIFMA is to be co-headed by the two chiefs of SIA and BMA, Marc Lackritz and Micah S. Green.

Financial denizens say that the main driver behind the merger was Goldman Sachs, with assistance from fellow investment banking heavyweight Morgan Stanley, as they wanted more influence over the groups and perceived the combination as a way. This begs one to question if Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, who is the former Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, played any role in this merger.

This merger is also particularly timely with the Economist commenting that the Democrats are less likely to want to loosen financial-market laws than Republicans, and slightly more inclined to toughen up hedge-fund regulation, albeit Sarbanes-Oxley was a bipartisan bill. Nevertheless, reformers must be careful as this is not just a party politics issue but more importantly affects Wall Street's global superiority as a capital market. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have anything to gain if reforms drive away lenders and borrowers to other markets, as they did in the 1960s.

Justice Department: Don't get involved, Supreme Court!

Yesterday, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to refrain from blocking the government's review of the phone records of two New York Times reporters, Judith Miller and Philip Shenon. The department wants to see Miller's and Shenon's records to track down the confidential sources they used for stories in 2001 about the government freezing the assets of two Islamic charities, The Holy Land Foundation and Global Relief Foundation, that was printed a day prior to the Justice Department's terrorist-funding investigation.

The Supreme Court was urged not to get involved, as it would harm a significant criminal investigation. Prosecutors had less than three weeks left to file charges on some of the possible crimes, because important statutes of limitations will expire on December 13th and 14th — five years after the two separate raids took place. The Justice Department also contended that the facts of the case were unusual and would not create a far-reaching precedent allowing the disclosure of a reporter’s confidential sources.

Some background on the case:

  • According to the Justice Department, the reporters' contacting both charities and asking questions one day prior to the raids reduced the effectiveness of the searches and endangered the federal agents carrying out the raids.
  • Earlier, a federal judge had ruled in the newspaper's favor, saying the First Amendment supplied a qualified privilege to reporters to protect confidential sources. He said there is no evidence in the case that suggests the reporters tipped off the charities about the raids or that the reporters knew of the government's plans to raid either charity.
  • In August, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Manhattan ruled 2 to 1 that the reporters were not entitled to shield their sources under the First Amendment or under precedents established in common law.
  • On Friday, The Times asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court to delay federal prosecutor, Mr. Patrick Fitzgerald from reviewing the telephone records until the court has an opportunity to decide whether to hear the case. The court gave the government until Saturday to submit a formal response.

Rudy Explores Presidential Bid

Former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani filed papers with the Federal Elections Commission just before Thanksgiving to create a presidential exploratory committee, reports the New York Times. This enables him to begin fundraising, spending campaign money and travel but cannot declare himself as a candidate yet.

Some dismiss him for his moderate views, especially regarding abortion and gay rights. Nevertheless, with his pre and post 9/11 stellar record, widespread popularity and eloquence, an unorthodox candidate such as Giuliani might be what the Republicans need to continue occupying the Oval Office. While experts on Capitol Hill have offered him free advice through the New York Times such as "Evolve but don't be Phony", "Surrender on Abortion", "Go for the Big Tent" and "Model Yourself on Schwarzenegger", it is how Giuliani decides to position himself that is key.

CNN's latest polls indicate that Giuliani is leading fellow Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona by a slim margin. However the billion-dollar question is who else is running on either the Republican or Democratic front and who will have the power and persuasian to win.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Campaign Finance Reform: A New Paradigm

From out of the primordial soup of policy ideas comes a great idea that goes against the current paradigm for campaign finance reform. Instead of full disclosure of all political donations, full anonymity. This is an idea that used to earn me a lot of blank stares when I brought it up in water-cooler political discussions. At the time, I thought it was my original idea. (That may be why I’m so fond of it.)

As it turns out, about the same time that I was discussing it, Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayers were publishing the idea in book form, “Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance”. They call it the “secret donor booth”. In the book, they couple anonymous donation with a citizen directed public financing scheme called Patriot dollars. The Patriot scheme provides each registered voter with the power to direct anonymously up to 50 government dollars to the federal candidate of their choice. The anonymity serves to prevent possibility of campaigns corruptly purchasing these dollars at a discount. The secret donor booth allows citizens to contribute their own funds anonymously. Generally Ackermann and Ayers would prohibit contributions outside of this secret channel. (For more discussion of their ideas see the links on Ayers’ site particularly the new paradigm revisited)

The current paradigm attempts to deal with the corrupting influence of political contributions by bringing full transparency to all such transactions. At least you will know whose pocket Senator Iam Forsale is in (for whatever good this does.) The current paradigm also tries to limit the size of individual contributions (thus creating an industry for those skilled making end runs around the law.)

The new paradigm (or at least my version of it) is based on the idea that giving money to candidates whose ideas you agree with is appropriate. However, giving money to candidates so that they will support your ideas is textbook corruption. With anonymous giving, the candidate will not know who donated what, so she can’t return the favor. Anyone can claim to have made a large donation but no one can prove it. The purpose of donating would become helping to elect people with good ideas rather than those folks whose ideas can be shaped by money. The donations would no longer purchase either access or influence.

Ackermann and Ayer are more suspicious of large private donations. They seek to democratize giving. They feel that the Patriot scheme, though expensive, would reduce the extent of special interest influence and increase civic involvement by citizens. I agree. It would be great to have some State give this paradigm a trial run.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Global Orgasm or Abstinence? You Decide...

Recently appointed deputy assistant secretary for Health and Human Services, Dr. Eric James Keroack, might just have his work cut out for him if the Global Orgasm movement grabs followers this December 22. The website for the movement claims its goal is “to effect positive change in the energy field of the Earth through input of the largest possible surge of human energy a Synchronized Global Orgasm. There are two more US fleets heading for the Persian Gulf with anti-submarine equipment that can only be for use against Iran, so the time to change Earth’s energy is NOW!” The “masterminds” behind the Global Orgasm, Donna Sheehan and Paul Reffell, are co-founders of the anti-war organization Baring Witness. Even more info can be found at their blog. Though their movement has nothing to do with Bush’s decision to appoint gynecologist Keroack, who has been an active anti-abortion, pro-abstinence programs advocate, it just seems too ironic to be true.

We have not failed...YET

General John P. Abizaid visited the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard on Friday to talk about the ongoing war in Iraq. His message was that “we have not failed yet” (Boston Globe). Abizaid blamed the US news media for the widespread public assumption that the initiatives in Iraq are not going well, adding that the US has reached the critical stage in Iraq where progress must be made. He also said the failure to act in Iraq and against extremism would undoubtedly have given rise to World War III. Abizaid, the man at the top of the command in Iraq, had spent the earlier part of the week being hammered with questions regarding the war by members of Congress.

The Globe also reported that President Bush had been asked recently whether the war in Iraq compares with the war in Vietnam in terms of popular support at home and debilitation of the military abroad. Bush’s denial and subsequent response, “We’ll succeed unless we quit,” merely echo the same phrase he has uttered throughout the duration of the war. However, Bush’s and Abizaid’s words of resolve do little to bolster the support of a country who recently watched the “architect of an unpopular war in Iraq” resign from office (CNN.com)

Local Politics: How Do They Differ?

While we tend to focus on politics on the national level, we must keep in mind the importance of local politics. In many cases, it is politics at this level that affect us the most. Many important decisions regarding a community’s school system, budget, public services, etc. are made at this level and are the best opportunity for citizens to participate in our country’s democratic system. Unfortunately, in my opinion, we tend to forget about these opportunities and miss out not only on an exciting and wonderfully American act, but on the chance to speak out and have an impact in politics. Having participated in several local elections, overrides regarding school budgets in particular, I am somewhat familiar with the local politics scene and wanted to bring it to you.

To emphasize the importance of local politics I chose to present to you a recent Board of Selectmen’s Meeting in my hometown of Milton Massachusetts where one blogger illustrates how discussion quickly turned from public policy to personal attacks. To understand the context of the meeting you might want to educate yourself on what the No Place for Hate Committee does. In short, its goal is to create a safe and accepting community that fights any form of hate whether it be racism, anti-Semitism, or any other type of hate. You can view the video of this meeting here (be sure to watch all 3 videos in order).

This incident raises the question of how resilient politicians must be and how important their receptiveness to criticism from their constituents is in their role as elected officials. Does this incident show that local politicians aren’t as tough as those at the State and National level? Or is this an unfortunate occurrence that should only concern Milton residents? How much do you know about what is going on in your town’s political arena?

Democrats Plan for Economic Change

With Congress in their control, the Democrats are seeking to address the economic needs of middle-class and working-class Americans. Although many political analysts argue that Bush’s presidential veto and his tax cuts that aren't set to expire until 2010 will make it difficult for the Democrats to enact radical economic change; many of the Democrats' newly proposed policies are focused on domestic economic problems. An article in the Washington Post, by Amy Goldstein and Lyndsey Layton, gives an overview of the various economic plans being proposed by the Democrats. Democrats plan to focus on “workers' pay, college tuition, health-care costs, retirees' income and other issues that touch ordinary families.” Many Democrats view the redirection of both domestic and foreign policies as a chance to respond to the wishes of voters and lay a strong foundation for the presidential election in 2008. The Democrats' economic plans are ambitious as they hope to respond to the needs of the middle class while also trying to tighten federal spending policies. Will the Democrats be able to maintain party unity within Congress and truly move America in the new direction they are seeking?

Saturday, November 18, 2006

President Bush visits Vietnam; U.S. officials admit trip is "poorly timed."

President Bush made a trip to Vietnam on November 17th, in a visit that brought about discussion of wars past and present.

The war in Iraq is often compared to the Vietnam War, and the parallels between today’s war and the war of nearly 40 years ago are not hard to distinguish. The nightly news is filled with reports of young men, many just out of high school, whose lives are tragically ended at the hands of a vague enemy. We are fighting an enemy so passionate about their cause that they will stop at nothing to achieve their objective. Yet, Americans are unsure of exactly who our enemy is, what their objective is, and why the United States needs to play a role in the conflict at all.

The Bush administration acknowledged the notion that there are similarities between the two wars:

In private, some White House officials concede that Mr. Bush’s visit to Vietnam for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting, scheduled many months ago, is proving to be spectacularly poorly timed, because of all the uncomfortable parallels between the two wars.

For example, just as Lyndon B. Johnson did in 1968, Mr. Bush has ousted his longtime defense secretary and nominated a realist with “fresh eyes” to replace him. Just like President Johnson in 1968, he is conducting a broad rethinking of strategy, and is hearing options he does not like.

President Bush asserts that there are major differences between the two wars, namely the fact that there is no draft, and that he does not “micromanage his generals” like Lyndon B. Johnson.

The President cites one lesson learned in Vietnam: “We’ll win unless we quit.” He remains focused on “staying the course,” though that course will likely change between the introduction of a new Secretary of Defense and the legislation of a Democratic Congress.

Friday, November 17, 2006

There's no such thing as a free pregnancy test

According to a November 16 article from ABC News, you can now find more “crisis pregnancy centers” than abortion clinics in the United States. These crisis pregnancy centers, of which there are now 2,000, attempt to dissuade women from having abortions but often advertise themselves at neutral places for free pregnancy tests. The majority of crisis pregnancy centers are run by Christian groups that use various strategies to deter women from getting abortions, such as “explicit” videos of abortions and showing them ultrasounds.

The National Abortion Federation produced a 23-page report condemning the crisis pregnancy centers and pointing out the problems with them. The report accuses the centers of using misleading advertising, using scare tactics and coercion, and giving out false information.

In addition to building crisis pregnancy centers, the pro-lifers also seem to be changing their strategy in getting abortion clinics shut down, says an article on MotherJones.com, a website sponsored by the Foundation for National Progress. In many states, instead of protesting outside of (or the more extreme bombing) the clinics, they have turned to legislature and “stealth tactics.” Laws are popping up in many states that allow women who regret their abortion to sue the doctor performing them. As the laws pass and then are not overturned by courts, it becomes more and more risky for doctors to perform abortions. Additionally, the pro-lifers are doing their best to create strict licensing requirements for the clinics, such as regulating the size of rooms or requiring more staff members, thus making it more expensive to keep a clinic running.

Breakin' All the Rules

As a person of Middle-Eastern descent, I was horrified and outraged last night when I saw this video of UCLA campus police repeatedly tasering an Iranian student. Frankly, I do not see how this could be considered an acceptable response to a student who was merely failed to produce identification during a random ID check in the library. (I’ll admit though, I found it sickeningly ironic that the officers refused to comply with students’ requests for their badge numbers). When students called for the officers to stop, they were told to stay back or they too would be tasered. After the six-minute camera phone clip had ended, I felt sick to my stomach.

At the same time however, I was excited by the possibilities that this tape presented. Could it end up being the Arab equivalent of the Rodney King tape? After all, the student had been attempting to comply with requests that he leave the library when he was shocked. To me, it was clearly an abuse of power, a hateful act that could only be explained by racism.

But my research into this topic has me depressed. Naturally, I went first to UCLA’s site for the university’s official take on the confrontation. First, there’s the statement released by Acting Chancellor Norman Abrams. It’s callously brief, and frustrating in its refusal to address the obvious questions that this incident raises. And then there’s the UCLA Police Department’s Official Report. I’ll just whet your appetite with this choice tidbit, “A crowd gathering around the officers and Tabatabainejad's [the student’s name is Mostafa Tabatabainejad] continued resistance made it urgent to remove Tabatabainejad from the area. The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser in a ‘drive stun" capacity.’”

Feeling disheartened, I turned to the major news sources, finally drawing most of my information from the LA Times not only because there was little professional coverage on this issue when I first searched, but because I generally find them to be a reliable source. The first report classed this incident with other cell phone videos that showed “questionable arrest tactics.” It provides a summary of witness reports that Tabatabainejad was on his way out of the library when he ran up against the campus police. This made me angry, but kept me thinking that this tape could be used to unite the Arab community and discourage racial violence. The latest LATimes article’s headline speaks for itself: UCLA student stunned by Taser plans suit.


But reading the article, I realized that Arabs will have to wait before we have a chance to bring anti-Arab sentiment to the forefront. Why? Tabatabainejad refused to comply with the request that he provide ID because he felt he was being profiled. As his lawyer said:


Tabatabainejad, when asked for his ID after 11 p.m. Tuesday, declined because he thought he was being singled out because of his Middle Eastern appearance. Yagman [the lawyer] said Tabatabainejad is of Iranian descent but is a U.S.-born resident of Los Angeles.
The lawyer said Tabatabainejad eventually decided to leave the library but when an officer refused the student's request to take his hand off him, the student fell limp to the floor, again to avoid participating in what he considered a case of racial profiling. After police started firing the Taser, Tabatabainejad tried to "get the beating, the use of brutal force, to stop by shouting and causing people to watch."

In doing this, in resisting, he immediately changed his position from that of one who is purely the victim to the instigator of the event. From the first time I encountered anti-Arab sentiment, I learned that to get along in America as an Arab you need to keep your head down. Had Tabatabainejad followed this basic rule of survival, he would not have been abused. Because he failed to adhere to it, he cannot be our hero.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Looking Ahead to 2008

According to the most recent polls by Rasmussen Reports, today President Bush enjoys only a 42% approval rating and has a 56% disapproval rating. So who is in the race to replace the fumbling President? For the Republicans, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has already filed his paperwork for a 2008 Presidential bid. According to Rasmussen Reports’ most recent data, Giuliani is ahead of fellow Republican John McCain who is currently forming a committee to explore the possibility of running in 2008.

As far as the Democrats are concerned Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama are considered the frontrunners. Clinton is tied with Giuliani and ahead of Gore and Obama although she is viewed favorably by 52% of voters, and unfavorably by 48%. Compared to Giuliani’s favorability rating of 64% (27% unfavorable), Clinton’s numbers do not look so good. It seems that the Democrats, despite having taken back both Houses of Congress in the midterms, face an uphill battle in the Presidential race, and they should begin this battle, based on these favorability numbers, by working on being likable.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Lets Review…

Just to recap what has happened in Massachusetts news recently:

  • The Democrats swept. Everything.
  • Deval Patrick became the first African American elected governor of Massachusetts
  • The SDP’s push to pass Questions 4 and 5 on the situation in the Middle East (see below, 11/02), thankfully failed; Somerville voted 2 to 1 to reject the questions.
  • Gov. Romney’s plan to end tolls on the Mass Pike have hit a dead end. Combined with Patrick, the Governor-Elect’s reserve about the plan, it seems that those “who live west of Boston (will continue) to pay a disproportionate share of the Big Dig” (Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's director of communications)


In short: everything seems back to normal.

Energy Industry's Hopes for the Lame Duck Session

With the new Democratic majority in Congress, gas company officials are becoming increasingly nervous about the passing of a bill opening the seas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling. They had hoped the Republican's would use their majority to pass a widespread bill, but are now declaring the need for Republicans to speed through a previously ignored bill that would produce oil for only two months, and heating gas for only fifteen years. Though we will have to wait and see if this bill passes before the Democrats come to power in January, the energy industry will have to hold off on the expansive off coast drilling they had expected until their Republican supporters return to power.

For more details on the bill, see The New York Times.

Habeas Corpus Denied

Armed with the new Military Commissions Act, the U.S. “Justice” department is already up to its old tricks. According to the Washington Post a motion has been filed in the 4th Circuit asserting that the law allows a foreign national accused of being an enemy combatant to be detained indefinitely without recourse to the civilian court system. This is said to apply even if the person is arrested within the United States.

A controversial section (5a) of the law states that “No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories”. On the face of it, this section revokes a constitutional right with roots in the Magna Carta of 1215 (see section 39) and made explicit by the British Parliament in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 .

Unfortunately, the public can often be swayed by the argument that terrorists shouldn’t have rights. Often the courts are equally reluctant to tread in national security areas especially when both the President and Congress have spoken. But without Habeas Corpus how do we know that a detainee is in fact a foreign national enemy combatant? There have already been cases of completely uninvolved people being swept up in the terrorism hysteria. What’s to prevent this law from being extended to an unrelated situation where it is politically inconvenient to have a person on the street talking to the media? Research the background to the 1679 Act if you think this is just paranoia. Limiting Habeas Corpus could be used to deny anyone (not just evil doers) access to the law.++

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Las Cruces Without The Crosses

The city of Las Cruces, New Mexico created a logo for their town: three Christian crosses. Before this could be enacted, a citizen of the city had filed a lawsuit through the American Civil Liberties Union, saying that “government's use of crosses violated the First Amendment by endorsing and advancing a religion”. The suit was dismissed on Friday by Judge Robert Brack, who declared that “When there is no evidence of the original purpose for adopting a practice, the government may propose possible secular justifications for the challenged practice”.

This brings the American idea of the separation of church and state into the question. While I believe that the church should ideally be completely separate from state affairs, how can we expect that a city with a name of Las Cruces to use anything but a cross for their symbol. As Mayor Bill Mattiace responded, “The logo [is] ‘the signature and the spirit of what [the citizens of Las Cruces] call home’”. In theory, the lawsuit should be filed to change the name of the town, right?

Peace Be Unto Whom?: Bush Listens to Tammy Wynette and Stands by His Man

President George W. Bush reportedly wishes for a United States of America where the donkey and the elephant can ”working together” to go about furthering the goals of the American nation. He goes on further to say he "reassured the House and Senate leaders that I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country." In theory, this is noble of him. Really. After all, what else can he do with such a moderately Democratic Congress such as he has now?

One cannot fault the President on his want to cohesively work with Congress (that's part of the job description). But the part of his job description that leaves one uneasy is his nominations... While naturally, anyone who knows anything about politics understands the advantage of "spoils system" type government - and after having it for so long, in the Republican case, why not fight to save it - the great mistake of Bush's, out of order with his call for unity, is his adamant, injudicious support of one man: John Bolton, the Presidential nominee for United Nations ambassador. He just won't give him up.

Unable to have Bolton confirmed at his initial appointment, President Bush seems to believe the confirmation of Bolton to be a top priority during the lame-duck session of Congress. Rather than working on important international and domestic delimmas - together - the President's main goal during the lame-duck session seems to be getting over in Congress one man he knows neither party agree on. Republicans have in the past - and some to this day- sang the praises of the UN ambassador who holds the UN in unconcealed contempt while Democrats have obstinately contested his appointment. There is a general Congressional consensus for President Bush to nominate someone new. So, why the Bush push for the UN-bashing anti-diplomat?

According to a Washington Post article, "finding a replacement for Bolton would come at a sensitive time for the Bush administration. It is counting heavily on U.N. diplomacy to help confront North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs and to end fighting in Sudan's Darfur region... Bush should alter course now and nominate someone less hard-charging, with greater finesse in handling sensitive diplomatic matters." Who better for the Bush administration to have than the pro-superpower, anti-international community, pro-war, anti-negotiations right-hand Bush nominee? Perhaps someone who is qualified for the job with an interest in peacekeeping? We'll see how long this purported phase of concordance will last up, Mr. President. With an ambassador candidate like Bolton, one can be sure it won't be long...

Will there be radical change?

Many rejoice over the Democratic victory of Congress, as they anticipate change in the country's direction. First ever woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have pledged much, such as "changing the course" for the Iraq war, raising minimum wage, ending tax giveaways to big oil and stopping Republican repudiation of stem-cell research.

The Economist however doubts that Pelosi and her generals are unlikely to do anything radical partly because Bush's presidential veto could cause policy gridlocks as well as Bush's tax cuts are set to only expire in 2010. Nevertheless, the publication's pessimism stems mainly from the ambiguity of the Democratic agenda and the new House cheftains not perceiving themselves as revolutionaries. It argues that the Democrats' goal "is not to enact a specific agenda, but to prepare the ground for the presidential election of 2008." Former Secretary of the Treasury under the Clinton administration, Larry Summers also concedes that in the changed political landscape, big structural tax reform or action on entitlements are almost inconceivable.

That said, the Democrats must maximize this opportunity to establish credibility in the public mind. Otherwise, the GOP could continue to occupy the Yellow Oval Room in 2008.

Democrats Educational Plans Upon Big Win In Washington

With their victory in Washington this past election season, the Democrats are making plans to make changes in the American educational system. Their biggest priorities are tax breaks for businesses and college tuition. They want to increases and simplify tax breaks for college and rearrange alternate minimum tax that jeopardizes millions of American middle-income families with higher taxes. AS far as the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) act, the democratic leader in the house has expressed desires to retain the central accountability that schools have through this law.

You can thank John Stewart for everything

Rusty Shackleford, who is actually very liberal despite his name, credits John and the Daily Show with swinging the midterms elections on townhall.com. Rusty cites the fervor of college students for the Daily Show's brand of faux news and turns John Stewart into the new Rush Limbuagh, an association I doubt Stewart would be flattered by. The Daily Show did rival the conservative powerhouse in the coverage of the elections,The Daily Show was second only to the O'Reilly factor, proving the polarization of political entertainment.
But anyone convinced the Daily Show is too liberal should watch the report on the incompetance of the Democratic Party to party.

Immigrant Protection Rules Draw Fire

Immigrants have been taken advantage of ever since the beginning of this country. Language, traditions, inexperience with the American culture, all are barriers that make it easier for people to take advantage of immigrants.

Policies have been implemented in many parts of the country to try to protect immigrants, illegal and legal. These policies are causing conservatives to stand on their feet and protest—why should we pay taxes, protect immigrants, and advocate criminal behavior?
Liberals have an answer: because illegal immigrants are people like everyone else.

Illegal immigrants as criminals or as humans? This is the question.
NY Times Article

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Warrantless Wiretapping Fight in Congress

As mentioned in an earlier post, legislation explicitly allowing the controversial NSA "warrantless wiretapping" program is a substantial part of President Bush's agenda for the next Congress. The administration has maintained that the program is a legal use of executive power (see a letter from the Department of Justice to a Senate committee) as a consequence of the War on Terror (although the timing of the program is disputed). However, the ACLU claims the program is a blatant violation of the Constitution and federal law, and filed a lawsuit in January.

A federal judge ruled in August that the program is, in fact, unconstitutional, and must stop immediately (story in Wired). From her opinion:
"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required ..."
The decision has been appealed, and the program is allowed to continue until the appeal is decided.

Legislation to explicitly allow limited warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch has been passed by the House of Representatives, and three competing bills are pending in the Senate. However, due to the recent change in power in Congress and continued ACLU pressure, it looks like a law won't get passed (AP) anytime soon.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Bush's agenda during lame-duck session

President Bush pledged to put bitter campaign disputes aside and work together with the Democrats who will rule Capital Hill next year. At the same time, Bush is pressing for an aggressive agenda to pass items deeply controversial to Democrats while Congress remains in Republican hands for the next two months.

On Thursday, Bush called on the GOP-led Congress to pass the warrantless eavesdropping bill, which retroactively authorizes the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on phone calls between people in the United States and suspected terrorists overseas without a court order.

Also on Thursday, President Bush resubmitted John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to the Senate, where it has stalled for over a year. Bolton, strongly opposed by Democrats, assumed the post last year in a recess appointment, which does not require a Senate vote. His temporary appointment will expire in January, unless the Senate confirms him in a formal vote or President Bush finds another cleaver way for Bolton to keep his position.

looking at the bans.

The mid-term election has been an unquestionable victory for Democrats. By gaining control of both the House and the Senate it seems that the country has sent out a clear message that a regime change or at the very least, a wake-up call, is wanted. A very different message has been sent out in regards to ‘same-sex marriage’ following a much more conservative vote. Seven States (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin) voted in support of the ban on same-sex marriage. This may not be especially surprising considering the political/cultural make-up of these states, but the level of anti-gay marriage sentiments was indeed very high; with some States passing the ban with percentages as high as 80% (Tennessee). Colorado, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin also voted with anti-domestic-partnership/anti-civil- union laws which show shockingly low levels of tolerance for gay partnerships.

The results were not all so bleak for the LGBT community; Arizona became the first in the nation to defeat a gay marriage ban (with around 52% of voters against the ban.) Another positive outcome was the election of the new governor in New York; Eliot Spitzer, who has made a pledge to work towards legalising same-sex marriage despite the Court of Appeals ruling saying it was illegal under current law. The election of Deval Patrick in Massachusetts is a further victory, as he also supports same-sex marriage and will hopefully fight the efforts by opponents to overturn the current law.

The United States just says NO.

Is the United States powerful enough to control the coca plant market in Bolivia? Apparently, that’s the plan. The US has been instructing the Bolivian government on how to and in what regards to control and permit the use and sale of the coca plant.

The conflict over the coca plan lies between the US government with the concern of cocaine and drug trafficking and Bolivian President Evo Morales who supports coca farmers in the Yucatan as the first indigenous president who was a farmer.

Although the coca plan is sold as an ingredient for goods such as medicine, toothpaste and food, it is also used as a main ingredient for cocaine. The US approach to this problem is to attack the source and eliminate the commercialization and consumption of cocaine, except for in specific traditional use in Bolivia. In a government issued statement, Christy McCampbell, the district assistant secretary for the State Department noted: "that the United States does not support 'any kind of commercialization of coca and never will' because 'if you grow coca that means there's more cocaine on the streets. You need only one specific thing to make cocaine and that's the coca leaf.'"

In contrast, President Morales supports and defends the farmers in Bolivia. In addition, he has also promise to fight drug use and trafficking. Morales addresses the conflict of interest, although he is trying to support both sides, in an article in which the Bolivian President is asking the US to address the cocaine problem: “As much as our colleagues strive toward voluntary coca eradication, if they (the United States) don't reduce demand, there'll be coca that goes toward the illegal problem.”

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Exit Polls

As soon as each party's heated campaigns cool down, it's time for the journalists, political scientists, and the exit poll reporters to evaluate the election.

Before the exit polls results came out, Mark Blumenthal, who calls himself big fan of exit poll(pollster.com), prepared the audience with a thorough explanation about the exit poll on his blog, the Exit Polls, on November 07, 2006.

Indeed, the CNN immediately reports the exit polls results from yesterday. The article, "Exit polls: Bush, Iraq key to outcome" states that "57 percent of all voters disapprove of the war in Iraq and 58 percent disapprove of Bush's job performance. Most voters cast their ballots on national rather than local issues, with 60 percent saying national issues mattered most to their vote, while 34 percent said local issues mattered most."

This exit polls result caused Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resign only a day after. Read Different-Drummer's note below to get the full story.

Rumsfeld steps down, former CIA chief Robert Gates nominated by Bush

One day after the Elections that caused the Republican Party to loose control of the House of Representatives, the GOP announced the stepping down of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, after six rocky years in office.
See Article on CNN

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Free Speech vs. Separation of Church and State

To take a step back from the imminent midterm elections, a recent federal court case explores the fuzzy boundary between two pillars of America's Constitutional system: federal protection of free speech and its prohibition against the establishment of religion. California's Contra Costa County's library allows members of its community to schedule rooms for "meetings, programs, or activities of educational, cultural, or community interest." Citing a policy against religious worship, the county canceled a meeting of the Faith Center Church. The church challenged the policy, and it most recently reached the 9th Circuit court. Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, writing for the majority opinion, finds:
... the First Amendment ... establishes different standards relative to government action concerning speech and government action concerning religion. ... [R]eligious speech is categorically different than secular speech and is subject to analysis under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause without regard to the jurisprudence of free speech.
Richard W. Garnett of the Daily Journal writes a great op-ed about the decision, which he finds inaccurately construes the meaning of the First Amendment. For more information, check out the original court brief, as well as a great discussion by libertarian-leaning law professor Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Will Election Voters Respond to the Supreme Court's Challenge?

In honor of the upcoming elections, I'd like to address how the Supreme Court can affect the ballot.

Last year, in Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's "takings" clause allowed the government to seize private property on behalf of private interest. In their decision, they went in a direction different from prior cases and interpreted the phrase "public use" to mean "public purpose".

The decision caused tremendous political backlash. Many property owners worried that they'd lose their property. Others argued that the decision seriously misconstrued the intentions of the Framers. Lousiana amended their Constitution to oppose the ruling and several other states have proposed anti-Kelo bills within their state legislatures. Even so, the Supreme Court refused to retry the decision, with Justice Stevens saying "the public outcry that greeted [the Kelo ruling] is some evidence that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy concerns ."

Today, the Wall Street Journal article reported that 11 states will be voting on anti-Kelo initiatives this election. Earlier this month, civil justice blog TortDeform, suggested that regulatory takings may just be the sleeper issue of the elections this Tuesday.

Because most Americans don't like the idea of big government and really don't like the idea of losing their property, I think the Anti-Kelo initiatives will fare well.

Looming Saddam Verdict: Repercussions in Iraq and US?

Many predict an upswing of violence in the next few days following the announcement of the trial verdict for Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity. An article by MSNBC stated that violent acts had already begun, with the discovery of "the bodies of 87 torture victims throughout the capital" in a 36-hour time frame. An additional 16 Iraqis have died across the nation today. In anticipation of continued violence as repercussions of the verdict, curfews are in place in cities across Iraq, among them Baghdad, Mosul, Salah Addin, Diyala and Anbar and all troops are on duty without leave for the first few days, if not longer.

Ibon Villelabeitia and Ahmed Rasheed talked to Iraqis for their article "Judgment day looms for Saddam" on swissinfo.com. Sunni Iraqis from Hussein's birthplace in the Salahaddin province are sympathetic to Hussein and call the legal proceedings a "farce," while Khalil al-Dulaimi, Saddam's chief lawyer, claims that the verdict had been delayed from its original date in October to coincide with U.S. midterm elections (Villelabeitia and Rasheed). This statement is fairly controversial, although I am sure that several Democrats here in the States are of the same opinion. Amid reports that Bush and his cronies control oil prices and are lowering them to entice voters before the elections, is it so far-fetched that they orchestrated a delay of the verdict for the same reason? And when the (presumed) guilty verdict arrives, will it actually help the Republicans at all? The trial (the first of several) has taken a year, with the guilty verdict a foregone conclusion in the minds of most Americans. Could this verdict actually help out the Republican incumbents? Hypothetically subscribing to this theory, I would be inclined to say no; that Americans are more concerned with the way the war has been mismanaged than by one verdict that is practically guaranteed and has been for some time. That doesn't mean that Bush is not hoping that it will, or even that he orchestrated the delay. He could just be one lucky guy.

Political Implications for the United States in Latin American Race for Security Council Nonpermanent Seat

The two year term for Argentina on the UN Security Council as a nonpermanent seat is coming to a close at the end of the fiscal year and several countries were in contention to replace them. Throughout the race for appointment, both Guatemala and Venezuela have been equally favored. Guatemala was heavily supported by the United States, while Venezuela and the United States have most recently not been on good terms.

In addition, an international news source reported that: “Although Venezuela is a major oil supplier to the United States, ties have deteriorated, particularly since Chavez described Washington as his No. 1 enemy and called President George W. Bush "the devil" in a General Assembly speech in September. Diplomats said that cost him votes.”

Suffice to say this has not helped political or diplomatic relations between the US and Venezuela, therefore promoting the US to strongly campaign for Guatemala to succeed Argentina in the nonpermanent Security Council seat.

The United Nations reported on November 2, 2006, that Panama was named the compromise candidate after “more than two weeks and 47 rounds of voting deadlock in the General Assembly that pitted Guatemala against Venezuela to represent the Latin American and Caribbean region.” Panama was proposed by both Guatemala and Venezuela because: “Both Ministers stressed that Panama was chosen as it was a country with which both nations had close ties.”

The concern for the United States with Venezuela in the nonpermanent Security Council seat was the threat of political uncertainty and lack of control or influence in Latin America by the United States with the force of Venezuela as a voice on the Security Council.

A New York Times article confirms that: “Venezuela’s failure to win the seat, which opens up in January, was a setback for President Hugo Chávez, who saw a seat on the council as another way to further his efforts to establish himself as a leading anti-United States voice on the world stage.” Furthermore, “The Venezuelan leader portrayed the contest as a battle against efforts by President Bush to dominate the United Nations. The Bush administration, for its part, warned that Venezuela would use the Council seat to obstruct international initiatives.”

Immigration Paranoia?

According to the November 2nd Washington Post ,“ Second generation immigrants have become more successful than Americans who have more history here” .According to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a higher percentage of 2nd generation immigrants graduate from college than 3rd or 4th generation Americans. There is also an increasing percentage of 2nd generation immigrants that pursues careers in law or medicine. What conclusions might we draw from these statistics? Is it that 2nd generation immigrants are under an extreme amount of pressure? Do they see professions such as law and medicine as the only options? Might these statistics influence American citizens to be more interested in immigration policies or benefits for immigrants?

The Seattle Times reported that n an effort to demonstrate the effectiveness of increased Border Patrol, in its annual statistics on illegal immigration, the Homeland Security Department released statistics that Border Patrol agents have made fewer arrests of illegal immigrants trying to enter the country this year than last year. However, these statistics have not led to less strict monitoring of US borders. In fact, Texas just launched a program which involves installing network surveillance cameras around its borders and the public helps monitor them. The program was announced over the summer, but since its launch has had many technical difficulties. While the current problems are being fixed, the effectiveness of this program does not look too optimistic.

Yet Another Sex Scandal

The circus that seems to encompass conservative America just keeps getting better and better. An article from CNN on Friday used the headline "Evangelical leader quits, denies male escort's allegations" to describe the latest sex scandal just before midterm elections.

Ted Haggard, the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that comprises of 45,000 churches and over three million members across America, stepped aside from the pulpit on Thursday, after Mike Jones, a male prostitute, came forward about their three year relationship. The relationship began with Haggard, a resident of Colorado, contacting Jones, and using a fake name to pay him for sex approximately once a month over the past three years. Of course, Haggard is married, with five children, and claims "I've never had a gay relationship with anybody. I'm steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife."

Jones told the press that he thought for a long time after discovering Haggard’s identity, before coming to the press. Jones recognized Haggard’s face on TV four months ago, and in the end decided to come forward because of the Association’s support for the Marriage Amendment, that goes before the voters in Colorado on Tuesday.

Other conservative leaders are supporting Haggard, including James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, which is also centered in Colorado. Says Dobson, "It is unconscionable that the legitimate news media would report a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation."

To throw some more fun into the mix, Haggard has also admitted to buying drugs from Jones, including methamphetamine.

Peace, Friendship, Cooperation, Development

That is the slogan of the upcoming China-Africa forum meant to unite China and 48 of the 53 African nations to discuss economic policies intended to be mutually beneficial. China has great interest in Africa’s oil, iron, and other resources while China promises to help development on the continent in return. China’s actions and the forum itself are under much scrutiny.

China sees Africa as an opportunity that the United States and Europe have not taken full advantage of, however some of their policies can be seen as imperialistic or otherwise exploitative. Others argue that it is China’s approach that will bring success. Political scientist Wenran Jiang, professor at the University of Alberta (see his blog) says, “African leaders see China as a new kind of global partner that has lots of money but treats them as equals.

Another major concern centers around the current genocide going on in the Darfur region of Sudan. There is no denying that China economically supports the Sudanese government which is responsible for the mobilization of the Janjaweed who are perpetrating the genocide and for preventing the involvement of UN peacekeeping troops. Sophie Richardson from Human Rights Watch explains, “China insists that it will not interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs, but it also claims to be a great friend of the African people. But that doesn’t square with staying silent while mass killings go on in Darfur.” Beyond that, China’s position on the Security Council is a key negotiating point for relations with nations such as Sudan who wish to avoid international intervention.

Is the United States missing out on an important opportunity in Africa that China is seizing while we are distracted in Iraq, or is this effort to make close ties with African countries more a gesture and less of an effective strategic move?

Hamas' Headline Return

Hamas has managed to regain headline status. A recent conflict in Beit Hanoun has allowed the group to demonstrate its organizational power. As Israeli forces fired on militants holed up in a mosque, a rallying cry was sent out to women through the party’s radio station, telling them to come to the mosque. They came, by the dozens, even though they were caught in the crossfire, and then subject to direct firing as Israelis soldiers spotted a couple of militants in the crowd. At last count, two women had died, and ten were wounded. For an in-depth commentary and analysis of this incident, check out Helena Cobban’s blog.

The Beit Hanoun episode, although not so different from other stand-offs between Israel and Hamas has shown that Hamas can motivate people to action. The next step is for the non-militant wings of the party to use that power to incite peaceful protest and change.


The Arab world is reacting to the incident, usually by labeling it an attack on civilians. Iran is condemning what government officials call “Zionist crimes” and has urged international peacekeepers to protect the Palestinian people. In Turkey, newspapers acknowledge the women were acting as “human shields,” but this article claims that Reuters footage fails to reveal men hiding among the women.

As usual, the United State has chosen to tread a meaningless path of empty rhetoric. A newspaper from the UAE reports that:

The United States regretted the loss of “innocent life” during the Israeli military’s offensive in the Gaza Strip on Friday but blamed the violence on Palestinian rocket attacks that sparked the fighting.

What the United States should be doing is urging Hamas to use its popularity to move its supporters to nonviolent action. Instead, it is letting another chance for progress to pass by.

Finally, every vote will count . . . or atleast we won't know if it doesn't

Live from ohio, Stewart mocks electronic voting, which is inline with the satiric nature of the show, and yet seems out of line with their previous mockery of 18th century voting procedures that led to such controversy in the 2000 election. The criticism questions changing voting procedures, though the fact that they haven't been tested raises concerns and would have been funny if The Daily Show hadn't already done atleast three segments about the more "complicated" electronic version and the "straightfoward" old fashioned way. Electronic voting joke #7
The NY times published an article in September concerning the possibility of tampering, hacking and disenfranchisement. We won't have to worry about re-counts though; with many of the machines, paper reciepts will not be available. Apparently the way to make recounts unneccessary is to make them impossible.

Republican's Letter Aims to Intimidate Latino Voters. Backfired?

A Letter was sent to more than 14,000 Spanish-surnamed voters in Orange County (CA) to intimidate them about voting in the coming election. The letter, written in Spanish, warns: “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in incarceration and you will be deported…”

The letter, from the office of Tan Nguyen, the Republican congressional candidate in Orange County (running against leading [incumbent] candidate Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D]), was a direct attack on the Spanish population in Southern California. While illegal immigrants cannot vote, legal immigrants, who might be citizens because of naturalization, are able to vote in this country. The letter can even give them an incentive to go to the polls next week.
Message to Latinos: Don’t Vote

Friday, November 03, 2006

How to build an atomic bomb....

Today’s New York Times article titled U.S. Web Archive is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer might as well been titled “Don’t re-elect Republicans to Congress.”

Last March, the federal government set up the website, “Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal” to publicize and defend their perception that prewar Iraq was a serious threat to national security. Perhaps they thought that by using authentic documents proving Iraq dangerous would counter the “no blood for oil” arguments. The federal government shut-down the website last night because of concerns that the archive created a danger and that countries such as Iran could use the detailed narratives, charts, and diagrams as a sort of nuclear cookbook.

The author of the NY Times article, William J. Broad, writes “the impetus for the Web site’s creation came from an array of sources – private conservative groups, Congressional Republicans and some figures in the Bush administration – who clung to the belief that close examination of the captured documents would show that Mr. Hussein’s government had clandestinely reconstituted an unconventional arms program.” Considering that the situation in Iraq will be one the most important issues affecting a person’s vote this Tuesday (see Expat’s blog post “All Politics May Not Be Local”), this article seems to spin the issue against conservatives in Congress, blaming them for irresponsibly “toss[ing] the match into this flammable area.”

14 Democratic Senators Call for Investigation

Following a request made by 14 Democratic Senators earlier this fall, two Inspector Generals have begun investigating the Bush administration’s actions regarding government scientists’ research on global warming. According to an article by Juliet Eilperin, of The Washington Post, the administration may have attempted to suppress the research on global warming being done by government scientists.

The investigation will determine if the Bush administration prevented scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from publicly publishing their findings. Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) authored the letter to the two IGs in September and claims the evidence “is so obvious” that the administration has been “trying to block the presentation of information on (global warming) in an unbiased fashion.” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) is skeptical of the investigation of the inspector generals and calls the democratic senators request for the investigation a matter of “eleventh-hour election-year politics.”

Out-dated Health Insurance Plan

A healthcare policies expert, Dr. Magee, brings the audience’s attention to the problems of today’s health insurance system. On October 25th, he wrote an article titled, Employer-Based Health Care: We Have to Think Long Term, on his blog. He reveals the fact that 63% of American citizens are dependent on employer-based health insurance, which sounds to be an out-dated system. By providing several links to some suggested solutions, he invites us to think about this issue together: consumer-directed health care plans, health savings accounts, and universal health care.

Joshua Kendall, a journalist from The Boston Globe, wrote a related article, covering various attempts to renovate the health insurance plan in the United States. The article introduces the birth of current health insurance system. This goes back to President Roosevelt era, when the nation was suffering from a severe inflation. Constricted by Wage and Price Control Legislation, the one benefit the competing companies could provide was the health insurance. Click here for more comprehensive explanation.
Even today, nine out of ten people who have health insurance are covered by their employers. This means that if they lose their jobs, they will not have any health insurance covered anymore. This doesn’t sound fitting to today’s world where people change their jobs more frequently, and small businesses take up greater part of economy.

There have been several efforts to renew this system. “Two years ago, the Bush administration introduced Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which combine low-cost catastrophic coverage with a tax-free savings account to pay for medical expenses.” Another prominent economist also shared his point of view. Paul Pilzer believes that the government should “let consumers spend their own money” in order to prevent waste; he argues that “patients often opt for unnecessary drugs or medical tests simply because their health plans foot the bulk of the bill.”
Meanwhile, from the liberal’s perspective, the government should take charge of this issue and solve the problem for the uninsured with providing private options for those who can afford the better plans. Fernandopulle proposed to copy the British system, “where the public sector offers a basic plan to everyone, but where there is also private insurance.”

This fall, Massachusetts government is taking an experimental action. Governor Mitt Romney attempts to “facilitate more affordable basic health insurance and then require individuals to buy coverage for themselves with subsidies for low income residents.” Many experts, including Len Nichols, a health policy analyst at the New America Foundation, will be watching Massachusetts test case carefully to find a nationwide solution from this result.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Ann Coulter: the Woman who Learned Nothing from Martha Stewart (or Herself)

What does a bitterly hated, egomaniac, loud-mouthed, close-minded authoress have in common with an American Susie-homemaker business magnate? A felony. If the American government can put away its Betty Crocker of the 21st Century, did Ann Coulter really think it wouldn't catch up with its Anne Boleyn of the same? And as it may be the case, this Ann must have lost her head, as well, long ago...

What High Crimes and Misdemeanors did the sainted columnist commit? One, she insists that "women have no capacity to understand how money is earned... it would be a much better country if women did not...": vote. Now, you may say it is her fundamental right to vote, and bless you, unfortunately, it is. Her crime was not that she voted, but rather where. Allegedly, Coulter voted in the incorrect precinct in a Palm Beach town council election. The offense is punishable up to five years in prison. Beats Martha’s five months; at least Coulter will have all the time she needs to really get things off her chest.

One thing Coulter does have that Martha Stewart did not: President George W. Bush and his Florida re-count lawyer, according to Arianna Huffington’s weblog the Huffington Post. Marcos Jimenez is her man. All attempts to contact Coulter by Florida officials have been ignored, and if she does not respond within the next few weeks, she may be stripped of her right to vote in Florida. A tragic incident that would be.

One really doesn't want to give the infamous pundit more of what she thrives upon: attention and little gasps of liberal horror. But our gasps are not present here; in fact, there is a general... laissez-faire sentiment to this whole debacle. One simply wants to ask oneself, do I really care about her anymore? And shockingly, that may be the only way we can truly rid ourselves of the disease that is America’s fascination with the controversial “Rush Limbaugh in a miniskirt”. The better question is: do we really want to?

After all, America’s obsession with feline brashness surprisingly never grows old…It’s why the good girls to heaven and are never heard from, again, and the Ann Coulters go to… jail… That way, when she gets out – or even, if she goes – we can be sure we’ll get an account of how she ever survived herself…

Nicaragua bans abortions

The pro-lifers have chalked up an international victory with the Nicaraguan ban on all abortions passed last week. Despite EU diplomats, UN representatives, and medical representatives all arguing for patience on passing the bill, the Nicaraguan Congress went full speed ahead anyway. The bill comes at a tense political time, two weeks before the November 5 election, and is supported by all but one of the leading presidential candidates. The bill now waits on a signature from President Enrique Bolanos.

In the mostly-Catholic Nicaragua, the bill is supported by Catholics, who surprisingly joined with evangelical Protestants to lobby for its passage. The Christian Science Monitor took this opportunity to point out the rise of evangelical Protestantism in Nicaragua. Though it remains a somewhat politically divided group, seen in this case by the varying levels of support among individuals for the abortion ban, it may sway Nicaragua toward the more socially conservative side.

According to a New York Times editorial condemning the Nicaraguan law, Latin America has the highest abortion rates in the world despite the fact that their abortion laws are the strictest. Should the US take this as a prophecy as we tighten our state abortion restrictions?

A Change of Pace...

Despite the upcoming gubernatorial election, many other things will come into question this Election Day. For one small Massachusetts town, Somerville, their districts attitude about the Middle East Conflict is one such thing. This is the third time that the Somerville Divestment Project, or SDP, has tried to pass two ballot questions concerning the Middle East Conflict. The first calls for a non-binding statement in support refugees, specifically Palestinian refugees, “right of return.” The second questions is whether to instruct the State Representative from the 27th district in Somerville to vote for resolutions requiring the government of Massachusetts to divest, or no longer invest in or support Israeli bonds or companies that sell military equipment to Israel. However, it should be noted that the term ‘military equipment’ is loosely defined, as the SDP website complains about CAT selling tractors to Israel as well.

Most noticeably, however, SDP is a little off the deep end. They blatantly quote figures that are not correct, and throw around incredibly offensive terms like ‘ethnic cleansing,’ which for the record, they use incorrectly repeatedly. Their press release makes no attempts to hide their complete and utter anti-Israel point of view, and this latest attempt (the third such) to put such a question on the ballot is seen by many as pointless, since these questions are non-binding (which is how it got on the ballot, non-binding questions require only 200 signatures, not the regular 10% of the population).

In response to the SDP, an organization called Somerville Peace has sprung up, claiming that these seemingly pointless votes are actually the beginning of something far more dangerous. “In 2004 and 2005, they tried and failed to get Somerville to become the first city in the country to support divestment from Israel, hoping to use that as the basis of a campaign for municipal divestment across the country. The two resolutions on this year's ballot are part of a broader effort to urge boycott, divestment and sanctions to isolate and punish the Jewish state and a "test drive" to see if this type of misleading language can be effective in an electoral campaign strategy. “

The issue is clearly a heated one because of the circumstances, and the topic. Unfortunately also, because it is overshadowed by the elections, all the information that is being posted out is by partisan groups, leaving the outside reader to wonder if this is all just a propaganda battle that the Middlesex voters are stuck in the middle of.

Stay tuned for a seemingly-irrelevant-but-possibly-threatening ballot proposal near you.

Bush and his marriage problem

With the midterm elections coming up this week, and a particularly dishevelled Republican party expecting significant defeats, Bush was out in force to try and create some enthusiasm. Rather than push the Republicans' two main issues of taxes and terrorism he instead decided to voice his concern about the New Jersey ruling claiming that "activist judges" had "issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage" and that the American public still believes that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended." This comment was welcomed by huge applause from the crowd of 5,000. Bush did of course neglect to enforce the fact that he supports civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage as this would not have created the desired response. This is especially important because there are a total of 8 states with ballot initiatives dealing with same-sex marriage.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Update: Father gets 10 Years in First Female Circumcision Trial

UPDATE

Father found guilty of "aggravated battery and cruelty to children. Federal law specifically bans the practice of genital mutilation." It seems that this is how the United States has prevented, or rather, made clear to its inhabitants that (cultural) circumcision is not accepted--by having a federal law banning it. Article on CNN

Vote the Party, Not the Candidate

Political scientists have been saying for years that, contrary to American dogma, there's absolutely nothing wrong with voting for candidates based on the party label rather than a deep knowledge of their backgrounds, their personalities, their positions on every last issue or, as in this year's election, the parties they attend and the sex scenes they write in novels. Now Michael Kinsley, the sage columnist and founder of Slate, has joined our side.

Opinionated "Opinion Polls"

This election season not all telephone opinion polls are actually polling opinions. According to Mark Blumenthal, a poll analyst for Democratic political candidates, Republican Senate candidates in Maryland and Tennessee are employing a company called ccAdvertising that uses phone calls as “push polls” – these phone calls are disguised as opinion polls, but rather than asking people for their opinions, the calls (millions of which are made each day) are used to spread negative information about the opposing candidates. The calls lure listeners into thinking that they are participating in legitimate polls and then spew “distorted” messages that, according to Blumenthal, campaigns “would never publicly embrace.”

All Politics May Not Be Local

Americans cited Iraq as the most important issue affecting their vote according to a most recent news poll conducted by the New York Times/CBS that surveyed 1084 adults. More Americans have come to see the war as a mistake that cost nearly $380 billion and led to the deaths of more than 2,800 Americans in less than four years.

Public support for Iraq has slid steadily and the latest polls found that only 29% approved of the way the President was handling the war in Iraq, the lowest yet of his presidency. Iraq has become a major liability for Republicans and a potential opportunity for Democrats. Among the surveyed registered voters, 33 percent said they planned to support Republicans, and 52 percent said they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Senator Coleman: A Ban on Carbon Dioxide Emission Limits

Last week Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman (R.), in a direct response to California legislation recently signed by Republican Governor Schwarzenegger reducing carbon dioxide emissions in California, proposed a new law blocking state and government agencies from limiting carbon dioxide emissions. His proposal would instead offer credits to the companies that voluntarily reduced emissions.


Under attack from environmental groups, Coleman's website defends the proposal, declaring "Our goal is to strengthen emission standards and any assertion to the contrary is false." The Minnesota Natural Legacy Campaign, a Minnesota group advocating for the protection of Minnesota wildlife and agriculture, released a poll showing that 62% of Minnesotans were in favor of "limiting the pollution that causes global warming." Though Coleman wants to frame the proposal as beneficial to the environment, he is clearly veiling the proposals protection of big business behind a claim to protect the environment, all while blatantly ignoring his constituents.


John Kerry: In the Doghouse

What do President Bush and John Kerry have in common? Before this week they had very little common ground. Now they’re both finding themselves in the political doghouse after becoming outcasts in their respective parties.

John Kerry caused much controversy on Monday after addressing a crowd in California, where he said, "Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

His tasteless remark has drawn criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, including President Bush and several Democratic candidates in contested races. Many politicians, including the President, called on Senator Kerry to offer an apology to troops overseas.

Senator Kerry apologized Wednesday for what he called a “botched joke,” and remarked that President Bush should apologize to US troops for a “misguided war” in Iraq. He insisted that the end of the joke was supposed to say "...you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq” -- a line poking fun at President Bush’s intellect.

John Kerry has since cancelled any campaign appearances he was scheduled to make for his fellow Democrats, amidst fear that this scandal will damage the reputation of any politicians associated with him. As one Democratic official said, “I would be surprised if you see him welcomed out there anywhere, and certainly not in a race that is meaningful.”

Senator Kerry is not the only public official shunned by his comrades, however. President Bush’s low approval ratings have resulted in Republican candidates trying to distance themselves from the Commander-in-Chief. Republicans have spoken out against the President in campaign advertisements, and have avoided being seen with him at campaign events.

Both the President and Senator Kerry may find themselves significantly less busy than they were at this time in 2004. Both men, who were at the forefront of their parties two years ago, are now finding themselves exiled from their peers in Washington.

Single Sex Classrooms

For years people have debated the advantages of single sex education, for matters such as attention span and unfair advantages in subjects such math and science. Now the Bush Administration has issued authorization for schools to separate classrooms based on sex. The "Boys Crisis" as Americans call it, is the major reason why many are pushing for this movement. Many believe that boys are lacking in academics and are falling further behind female counterparts. Boys and girls have different ways of learning and they believe would benefit from being in a single sex environment that would cater appropriately to their learning patterns. They believe by implementing this type of learning there will be great benefits and single sex classrooms will potentially close the gap between boys and girls achievement in schools. Others, however, believe that this crisis is not as big as people are speculating but are admitting that minority males are seriously behind their female counterparts. Stats show that boys test scores are up in certain cases, however girls are are improving also. Educators believe that this will only sidetrack and take away from the overall goal of public education pointing to examples in California that failed. They believe that it is a poor and time consuming investment that is not worth it in the long run.