The Next Reagan

Recently Newt Gingrich spoke out about Barack Obama’s potential as a future president, saying he would make a good leader if “the country wants therapy”. Gingrich thus managed to undermine Obama’s candidacy by communicating the oft-used message of the Republican party in regards to the Democratic party: that Democrats and the people who vote for them are too soft. The Republican party is currently having issues with its front-runner candidates, as this Washington Post article explains. Neither Romney or McCain or Giuliani fits well the party persona, and Gingrich himself is listed as the number one desired alternative to the candidates. The general consensus is that the Republican party needs a candidate who truly reflects the right-of-center stance (Giuliani is not conservative enough) and can take a stand against the Democratic candidates (Romney and McCain are too wishy-washy). According to recent polls the outlook is grim for Republicans in 2008, and this post discusses personal opinions as to why, many of which include issues people have with the Republican candidates themselves.

So who else? Fred Thompson is a former Senator from Tennessee and if you IMDB his name you can see a slew of television and movie appearances he has made. He starred most recently in several episodes of Law and Order (the original, SVU, CI and Trial by Jury incidentally), as well as an episode of Sex and the City entitled “Politically Erect”. The movie database website also lists him as having represented the state of Tennessee from December 2 1994 to January 3 2003. His television and film connections give him a leg up in terms of cash and support, but is he too Hollywood for the presidency? He has not announced candidacy, but hinted he may, and this link talks all about him and his potential as a candidate. Hint: the potential is lacking.

Bong Hits for Jesus

Sounds like something only a stoner would talk about, right? Normally you would probably be right. However, this phrase was the center of discussion by the U.S. Supreme Court when it heard oral arguments on March 19 for Morse v. Frederick, a case involving the First Amendment right to free speech.

Frederick, a high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, displayed a large banner with the phrase “Bong hits for Jesus” across the street from his school during the Olympic Torch Relay through the city in 2002. Morse, the school principal, suspended him for 10 days when he refused her order to put down the banner. Frederick appealed his suspension to the school board, which upheld the punishment. So, he took the case to court.

The district court found for Morse, but then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found for Frederick. Now the future of this case lies in the hands of the country’s highest court. What is at stake? According to Justice Breyer, if the Court rules for Frederick, students will be “testing limits all over the place in high school,” but if it rules for Morse, it will give schools large amounts of power to quash all speech contrary to officially school endorsed messages.

For an amusing take on this case, read this article. Also try here.

Education Outsourcing

When the news of job outsourcing to India was splashed across the headlines, concern for the security of Americans’ jobs grew. There also grew the idea of a yet untouched market, not only useful for commerce but also for education. This week, Karen P. Hughes, an envoy for public diplomacy for the Bush administration, is visiting India along with the presidents of several American universities. Their goal is to promote as a commodity higher education received from a US institution. Columbia, Rice, Carnegie Mellon, and Cornell are among several schools to either set up satellite campuses in India or create a partnership with an existing Indian university.

There is a law currently being drafted in India’s Parliament concerning the rules and regulations that apply to foreign institutions, which if passed would exempt them from the procedures that accredited Indian universities must currently follow. The United States is of course advocating for less restrictions.

An American degree offered to Indian students would further qualify them for coveted American jobs. However, as President Bush stated hardly a year ago when asked about concerns over outsourcing, "we won't fear competition."

Dead Man Walking

Remember John Ashcroft? Bush’s first attorney general resigned over two years ago leaving behind his legacy, The Patriot Act, which steamrolled over the Bill of Rights and gave the average citizen nervous twitters merely using a library card. Defiance against the Act included states and cities passing anti-Patriot Act resolutions and Republican conservative Rep. Don Young calling it the “worst act we have ever passed.” When then Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch proposed keeping the Act permanently, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Republican F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin responded, “Over my dead body.”

Now we have the equally controversial Roberto Gonzales to scrutinize. From his days in Texas when he was legal counsel to then Gov. Bush, to his years as Bush White House Counsel, Gonzales has been a faithful Bush loyalist little known outside Washington, although he was mired in the decisions that led to the 2004 Abu Ghraib fiasco, including prisoner treatment, interrogation and torture, and rights. In a July 2004 Newsweek article Gonzales was described as “low-key” and “genteel”, someone who would not “contradict forceful officials like John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld.” When appointed to his post in February 2005, the new Attorney General Gonzales spoke to Department of Justice employees, stressing the his duty to be “consistent with our values and legal obligations. That will be the lodestar that guides us in our efforts at the Department.” Fast forward two years, and Gonzales’ lack of integrity and evasiveness, his rubber-stamping of forceful officials’ questionable policies and his unquestioning loyalty to the president is dragging the Bush administration to a new low in public trust and confidence.

Facing bipartisan censure for misleading Congress in their investigation into the firing of eight US attorneys, allegedly for not showing sufficient loyalty to the Bush administration and policies, Gonzales is dead man walking, with the count-down to his demise trumping the demise of Nicole Smith in the news. One website is even turning the Gonzales circus into a contest, with whomever guesses the exact timing of the resignation of Gonzales to walk away with a year’s supply of ice-cream.

But connecting the dots from Ashcroft and his divisive reign, to Abu Ghraib, to the appointment of a loyal push-over to the post of Attorney General, perhaps we should not be surprised that Gonzales has used his office not in the tradition of Burke, but in the tradition of Boss Tweed.

As Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, “The rule of law, without fear or favor, is so important to this country.”


(find articles for WC library links:
over my dead body: Patriots vs. the Patriot Act.(Column). David Sarasohn. The Nation 277.8 (Sept 22, 2003): p23.
July 2004 Newsweek article: Homesick for Texas; Alberto Gonzales left a good life to become White House counsel. Amid a series of legal setbacks, he's wondering why. Daniel Klaidman and Tamara Lipper. Newsweek (July 12, 2004): p32. (670 words)

The New Iraqi Independence Day?

March 28, 2007- President Bush today proved again that he is stuck in the mindset of September of 2001. Mr. Bush seems to think that the America of today is the America of six years ago, an America that was so afraid of the threats abroad that they were willing to support his plans to invade a sovereign nation that had not committed an offense against the United States of America. Mr. Bush, the Democrats say that time is no more. America has stood up, seen the light, and come out in full force against the war in Iraq. Democrats have a plan: troop withdrawal, by March 31, 2008. Their bill requires that in order for Mr. Bush to get funding for his war, he must begin to pull out the troops. Apparently, all is fair in love, war, and politics--even as our men and women die abroad. The Democratic Party will no longer give their president a blank check to play with the money of our nation, pouring resources into a war that we can not possibly win alone. Mr. Bush refuses to realize a loss. In effect, he has lost his credibility and America's standing and respect in the world. Money, time, effort, and of course, most importantly, the lives of American soldiers who died furthering another crusade has been lost. Thank God the Democrats found this blessing of a solution. The 2006 midterm elections were a referendum on Mr. Bush and his war and the American people voted against him. The Democratic Party has finally taken a firm hand against Mr. Bush and can no longer support an open-ended commitment of troops to Iraq. Even if Al-Qaeda will wait silently until America's pullout date, the American people feel our soldiers need to come home to safety and give Iraq back to the Iraqis.
Democracy, a gift from God, must come from the people. We cannot impose democracy on others. It may break our hearts, souls, and spirits to see others living in oppression, to see others deprived of freedom, but you must earn your freedom to appreciate it, it must come from your heart, so that when you are truly free, you know what that is worth. The Iraqi people have been given freedom that they haven’t earned on their own; they do not know what to do with it. We must come back to our side of the world and let them figure it out, and gently, without guns or war, but our deep faith in the power of our beautiful democratic institutions, lead them on their way to freedom.

Is Congress Dealing with a "Planetary Emergency"?

Al Gore, following his environmental boost in the public eye after his compelling film An Inconvenient Truth, is now taking another stance to address global warming. Last Wednesday (3/21) Gore came to Congress promoting his idea that global warming is an issue of emergency that needs to be taken care of aggressively by the federal government with immediate action.

Gore reiterated the anthropocentric nature of the global warming crisis and that taking no action would cause severe negative global consequences. He suggested that the U.S. government should be setting the precedent for immediate action on this issue; potentially following the British model of curbing greenhouse gas emissions and enacting energy-saving tactics. He brings up the question, “Why are we waiting around for another country to take command of the issue of global warming when we have the capability and international power to embark on this mission ourselves?”

The reaction from Congress showed that there was no debate about the underlying science surrounding the issue, but rather that Gore’s comments took on a more radical than rational tone. There was a definite trend showing far les support from Republican committee leaders than their overall “rank-and-file” colleagues. Republicans tended to focus their argument on how the U.S. was going to take on this issue, given the country’s current fuel and power driven economy. The overall consensus growing out of this debate is the agreement that global warming is an anthropocentric problem that needs to be addressed. However, what still lies in debate is whether such an extreme, “right now”, and potentially costly approach the best approach?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/washington/22gore.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin

Notes on a (not-so-big) scandal...

If there's one thing Massachusetts political spectators love, it's watching the new guy struggle. From Democrats to Republicans, urbanites to farm dwellers, new voters to seasoned veterans, whether they hate them or love them, there is something that Massachusetts residents relish about the political struggle. That being said, newly-inaugurated governor Deval Patrick is putting on one great performance for his audience.

As a new player in the Massachusetts political game and a man with a strong background in big-money business, Governor Patrick seems to have missed the memo that being governor of the Commonwealth is a lot less about the "Benjamins" and a lot more about the "Bay State." One would think that he got the idea after being berated for his purchase of $10,000 damask drapes for his office and his lease of a $500/month luxury SUV. He immediately made public statements apologizing and promising to pay the taxpayers back for his seemingly excessive spending. It was a rookie mistake, and onlookers took the opportunity to hassle him, but Patrick didn't seem to let it get the best of him. His next error, however, seemed far more egregious.

In a move that is more than acceptable in the business world, Governor Patrick made a call to Citigroup on behalf of a friend at Ameriquest, which is currently seeking financial support from Citigroup. Asking favors of friends in the business world is not something you do when you are Governor of Massachusetts (although a look into the Commonwealth's history would suggest that some previous governors would disagree). It's a luxury the governor gave up as soon as a he swore the oath at inauaguration. A quick call to the state ethics committee would have told Patrick that this was the wrong move to make, but no one in the administration thought that far ahead. STRIKE TWO. The governor was quick to apologize for his latest transgression but still seemed to be struggling with the transition into the world of the "24-hour governor." Luckily, his qualifications and seeming desire to do right are helping him protect himself.

As a man who strived for perfection in his gubernatorial race, Deval Patrick seems to be having a tough time comprehending the rules and regulations (both legal and societal) that come with being governor of Massachusetts, a state where politics falls right below the Red Sox on the list of vital necessities. Hopefully, by creating a sturdier staff and watching where he steps for a while, Patrick will prove to be more than an ignorant rookie. This is no Watergate yet, but if this new governor is wise, he'll be on his toes because in Massachusetts politics your hardest critics are often the ones that gave you the most support, and he sure did have a lot of support...

"Healthcare is a right, not a privilege"

Hillary Clinton, one of the seven democratic candidates present at the March 24th forum on healthcare at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said that she “hoped to make health care the number one voting issue in the 2008 election.” One might question her enthusiasm for such emphasis on the issue, when in the not so distant past her 1994 universal healthcare proposal was an utter failure. But Senator Clinton’s new plan to tackle the healthcare dilemma in the United States has many good qualities and similarities with the other democratic candidates proposals.

John Edwards approach is to raise taxes in order to cover the costs of universal healthcare, under his plan employers would either have to cover their employees or pay into a fund that would finance the coverage. Senators Clinton and Obama agreed with Edwards on that prevision, but Obama did not have a strong or definitive plan and was reluctant to take a strong stand. Whether his lack of a detailed plan is an early sign of his campaigns failed progress, or a strategic move on his part, is up for interpretation. Part of Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico’s’ plan was that after we are out of Iraq he would redirect the funds to go to healthcare. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio presented the possibility of creating a universal single-payer plan, which was similar to Senator Mike Gravels’ of Alaska, who also spoke about a voucher program.

The obvious emphasis on the need for universal healthcare is going to be a crucial part of the 2008 presidential elections, but more responsibility needs to be placed on the insurance companies. As Senator Clinton pointed out, that when insurance companies aren’t doing everything they can to deny people coverage, especially those with preexisting health conditions and who really need it, they are charging much higher premiums and trying to avoid paying for any healthcare that people do receive. Not only will the healthcare issue be a major part of who gets elected as the next president of the United States, but it will also play a large role in defining their first term and the effectiveness of their presidency in its entirety.

The Beginning of a New Friendship?

Bush’s desire to soften his harsh, militaristic image prompted him to undertake his longest trip to Latin America, demonstrating that America has not forsaken the poor nor forgotten about social justice. Yet his talk of a pan-American trade alliance that would improve health, education and foster economic development was not received as enthusiastically as he hoped. Far from it! His tour sparked violence and protests throughout the entire continent. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez only aggravated the situation with his “copy-cat” tour, denouncing the United States as the “most murderous empire in all of history” and mocking Bush and his capitalist schemes.
Latin America is notorious for housing some of the most unequal countries in the world, notably Brazil and Colombia. While its business and infrastructure are more or less established, the wealth and benefits end up in the hands of only a few. Its massive poverty stricken populations voice their discontent by supporting leftist, socialist governments that are unsympathetic towards their capitalist neighbor to the North. Moreover, the United States’ history of disastrous privatization plots, tariff barriers, and recent immigration scandals make Bush’s sudden interest in social justice seem like just another ploy by the “big guys.” Besides, our President’s speeches of economic development might warm a listener’s heart, but we all know he had mainly ethanol on his mind. It is something that our country is dependent on, and Brazil has a lot of. Maybe South Americans were right in not accepting Bush’s words of friendship.

Lackluster Enthusiasm for NJ Civil Unions

Preliminary numbers released on March 20 demonstrate low support for the recent enactment of civil unions in New Jersey. In stark contrast with Connecticut, Vermont, and even New Jersey domestic partnership registration, only 229 New Jersey couples have sought civil unions during the first three months of its legal commencement. Officials note that this number represents a mere 1% of same-sex couples who reside in New Jersey.

Apparently, the era of enthusiasm for civil unions, if there ever truly was one, is quickly dying out. When asked why he and his partner of 17 years chose not to register for a civil union, Charles Paragian stated in the New York Times, ''I don't want my children to learn to settle for anything… it’s a Jim Crow law, it's two separate water fountains, it's not equal, we just don't agree with it" (Couples Not Rushing to Civil Unions in NJ). Gay rights advocates hum a similar tune. Or, rather, blast it. In New Jersey, especially, civil unions were an extreme disappointment to those fighting for same-sex marriage. While the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that homosexual relationships should be given all the same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts, it turned over the ability to name the decision "marriage" to the legislature. Classically, the legislature denied marriage and established civil unions.

Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality have begun to hint at mobilization toward litigation, which would lead to a challenge of civil unions in the state. Stephen Goldstein, head of Garden State Equality, claims that over twenty couples registered by civil unions have been routinely discriminated against, saying:

''Hospitals, employers, and other institutions will say, 'We don't care what the law says, you are not married’…word is starting to spread that the civil union law is in fact not working to provide couples with the protection that only the word marriage can.''

Only a couple of original plaintiffs of the case for marital equality in New Jersey have filed for civil unions. Cindy Meneghin and her partner, Maureen Kilian, still argue that civil unions are like the "Bermuda Triangle of relationships", noting that "you can maybe pass through without any harm, but wait until you disappear".

The battle for same-sex marriage in New Jersey and elsewhere indicates a strange combination of the Madisonian system of government. For example, on the state level, the New Jersey Supreme Court told the legislature that it would need to endow same-sex relationships with equal legal rights - however, the courts left implementation to the legislature. In addition, even full state marriage rights do not mean full equality because of the relationship between the federal and state government on the issue of marriage. However, it can be sure that the fight for same-sex marriage will be picking up speed as legal precedents for same-sex equality become established throughout the nation.

Mom for President!

Two of the most prominent women in American politics have been presenting their “motherly side”. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton believe that portraying themselves as mothers will help get them ahead in politics.

The two women are trying to soften their images. Pelosi, who the republicans have labeled as a ‘tax-raising liberal’, would rather be seen as a grandmother who lets her grandchildren hold the gavel in the eyes of voters. The New York Times article notes that women “who are weary of a long and difficult war and the intense partisanship in Washington in recent years” are especially likely to be attracted by Pelosi’s new image. For similar reasons, Clinton is exploring what the image of mother can do for her. After having six years of a “Big Brother” approach coming from the white house, a trusting mother may be very attractive to Americans.

Is the image of female politicians being mothers actually beneficial to women? Female politicians have tried to get away from the mother stereotype for decades because it reinforces the traditional family mentality that has kept women out of politics for so long. But, if women are using the mother image to their advantage and to get to higher levels of government, doesn’t that make it ok? Clinton and Pelosi are both seen as intelligent, competent, powerful women—all characteristics that we see in our own mothers and that we would love to see in more government officials.

Consitutional Purgatory: You're Either Dead, Alive, or a Detainee

U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Hogan recently dismissed charges holding military leaders responsible for prisoner torture in Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights First and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the complaint against the quartet of big-name defendants: Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense; retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of US Military forces in Iraq at the time; and previous Abu Ghraib prison commanders Col. Thomas Pappas and former Brigadier General Janis Karpinski.

The plaintiff cites specific tortures, mentioned in a BBC News report, which include electric shock, stabbing, beatings, and torture with aggressive dogs, all inflicted upon prisoners (5 of whom are from Iraq, 4 from Afghanistan) who were never charged with a crime.

So who's accountable? Certainly not Rumsfeld, who paved the way by authorizing new methods of interrogation at Guantanamo Bay. Neither is Sanchez, who, although denying it under oath, authorized similar methods of interrogation at Abu Ghraib, violating Geneva Convention statutes outlawing coercive force. That leaves Karpinski and Pappas, since they were allegedly present as the officers they commanded tortured prisoners. No, they're not responsible either. Didn't you hear? Those prisoners don't technically have rights in the U.S. In fact, they don't even have standing to pursue their claim against the defendants, said Hogan.

P.S.: By the way, by precedent, government officials can't be sued for actions in office.

Come again? People were ruthlessly tortured, violating not just the U.S. consitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) but international law, and no one is to blame? Well, wrote Hogan in his 58-page opinion, this case does "constitute an indictment of the humanity with which the United States treats its detainees", but those "constitutional rights" y'all mention--see, they don't apply to foreigners. Especially not to enemy foreigners against whom the U.S. happens to be fighting a war. Oh, and that Geneva Convention thing, the one that says coercive force can't be used on prisoners under the law of war, well you can just forget about that too.

Needless to say, the ACLU is not pleased.

Healthcare politics take center stage

Patrick Chorpenning, Director of the Arizona Department of Veterans services, resigned yesterday amidst criticism over health and safety conditions at veteran nursing homes in Phoenix. Violations included "patients left in soiled undergarments and covered in bodily fluids leaking from medical devices."

Chorpenning's resignation comes on the heels of national scrutiny of the conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC. Rooms at the facility were found to contain mold, cockroaches, and mice, and there were complaints of poor patient care. One soldier described his experience:

Wearing a black eye patch, Staff Sgt. John Daniel Shannon described how he was struck in the head by a round from an AK-47 in November 2004 during a firefight near Ramadi, causing a traumatic brain injury and the loss of an eye.

Within a week of the injury, he was released to outpatient treatment, Sergeant Shannon recounted.

Despite being extremely disoriented, he said, he was given a map and told to find his own way to his new residence on the hospital’s sprawling grounds. He wandered into a building and received directions.

He then waited several weeks wondering whether anyone would contact him about additional treatment, eventually calling people himself until he reached his case worker.

The spotlight on poor treatment has been a source of embarrassment for the military recently. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said he was “extraordinarily angry and embarrassed” by the condition of Walter Reed facilities. Army officials have have said that extensive repairs are are underway.

The unfavorable attention has come at a bad time for the Bush administration as it faces public criticism over its war policy and as the Senate moves forward with an Iraq War Bill which includes the establishment of a troop withdrawal date.

Large Missiles, Angry Russians

The U.S. proposal to place radar and interceptor sites for a new missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic has caused an explosion of controversy across Europe. The main purpose of the shield is to protect against long-range rocket attacks from "rogue" states, in particular North Korea and Iran. Russia, however, has virulently condemned the plan, saying that the shield threatens Moscow's security. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated that, "Washington failed to respect its European partners because it devised the scheme unilaterally, then tried to impose it on them." President Vladimir Putin added, threateningly, that these tactics are very "Cold War," and that Russia would have absolutely no problem developing counter-measures.

Although mainly Russia has been feeling the heat from the missile shield proposal, other European countries have been speaking out against the plan. In a Washington Post article, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany warned the United States not to try to divide the shaky bonds between European countries, or even worse, spark a new arms race. Polish parliamentary member Radek Sikorski stated that the proposal could potentially weaken NATO, deepen Russian paranoia, and ultimately, "cost the United States some of its last friends on the continent."

The Bush Administration originally sought to have amicable relations with Moscow. Now, for the sake of national security, the shaky ties are now strained. Even worse, new allies (particularly ex-Eastern Bloc countries that have now become EU members, i.e. Poland and the Czech Republic) are beginning to wonder if it's in their best interest to support the U.S. Relations with Russia were going in a positive direction; it would be unwise to destroy that now.

The Presidential E-Campaign, 2008

The internet has become an interesting campaigning tool. So much so that a Politics Online Conference has been held every year since 2004 until now. Speakers from this year include representatives from Google, Microsoft Research, CNN and WashingtonPost.com, professors, bloggers, and founders and co-founders from all sorts of businesses and organizations, both web-based and not.

Michele Miller explains how the Edwards campaign is making the most of the internet's reach here. His site is connected to facebook, myspace, flickr and other social media sites that allow voters to view and comment on content. "Twitters," short messages sent out to Friends on a "Twitter List," make supporters feel like they are "in-the-know" regarding the campaign. An open blog gives voters the opportunity to post their own entries into it and become a part of the Edwards campaign. Michele comments that "[she doesn't] even know if John Edwards is [her] personal choice for president, but already feel[s] [she] know[s] him better than any of the other candidates." With personality being such an important part of the Presidency, at least in the eyes of the public, seeming like a close aquaintance of the voters must be a big advantage.

James Kotecki, a self-titled YouTube Consultant, searches the internet for politicians' videos and analyzes them for effectiveness in attracting the right audiences and sending the right messages. Short, topic specific, open videos and less general speech-making seem to be the order of the day for most politicians. Amusingly enough, Mister Kotecki talks about video campaigns in a video blog, with video comments and responses from a few of the politicians whose e-campaigns he has analyzed.

ICE heating things up

Not too long ago, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested 99 employees of a meatpacking plant in Marshalltown, Iowa after an immigration raid on December 16. This was part of ICE’s largest-ever operation raiding six other states’ Swift & Co. slaughterhouses, in total arresting 1,297 workers, 649 of which have been deported as of March 1. More recently, on March 6, federal officials raided Michael Bianco INC. leather goods factory in New Bedford, MA, arresting 360 workers and flying them off to Texas to be detained for possible deportation. Immigration raids similar to what occurred at New Bedford and Marshalltown have continued to increase in recent months. There has been a 750 percent increase in arrest of undocumented immigrants since 2002, growing from 485 to 3,667.

Families are being ripped apart by these raids. In New Bedford, dozens of children were left uncared for while their parents were transported to ANOTHER STATE to await bond hearings and deportation. Social workers were sent down to Texas to investigate the situation of the children. It was only after public pressure, did the ICE allow for some single parents and, if both parents were incarcerated, one parent to return to their children. Even though they are released, these parents are not off the hook yet: they still need to stand trial. The sad thing is, when these parents are forced to leave the United States must CHOOSE to either take their children with them or leave them behind for better opportunities.

The Bush Administration has made some effort for immigration reform with guest worker programs and citizenship for undocumented immigrants. They admit though, that they need to be tougher on enforcement to gain the vote of congressmen. Senator Ted Kennedy has even promised an immigration reform bill that includes citizenship for undocumented workers which will reach the senate by June. The reality is that these proposals for immigration reform will probably be used to sway votes in the 2008 presidential candidates as opposed to helping the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US.

It's All About the Money

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is up for renewal in Congress this year, opening the floodgates for policies to take advantage of this policy window. The Center on Budget and Policy Issues recently published several reports that examine SCHIP funding. Though there is a growing realization that SCHIP should expand its program to cover the insurance costs of all uninsured low-income children, issues of funding has been at the keystone of passing the reauthorization.

First off, the President’s 2008 fiscal budget report proposed a decrease in federal funding of SCHIP. According to the report, SCHIP would receive$ 7 billion less of any funding necessary to sustain the current programs. However, the current program clearly needs to receive either an increase in budgeting or a program reform since 8.4 million American children (11% of all American children) are uninsured. Moreover, nearly six million of them are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, but remain uninsured, largely due to lack of funding. The budget under the President’s proposal will force states to reduce eligibility and benefits, unless states--in the true manner of federalism--can find the fiscal means to cover the loss.

On the other hand, SCHIP calls for a significant increase in funding. If it were to expand its program to cover the eligible 6 million children, then federal funding would increase from the current expenditure of $7.9 billion over 5 years, to nearly $50 billion over 5 years. Studies show, however, that options exist to offset these costs of extending health coverage to uninsured children. Yet, most of these, while ideologically sound, are realistically implausible. For example, one of them calls for an increase in raising federal tobacco and/or alcohol taxes. Judging from the political clout that the concerned special interest groups have in this matter, it is still highly unlikely that those on the Hill will have any incentive to overcome their personal alliances and relationships with these groups to aid a politically powerless community—uninsured, low-income children.

Don't Ask Don't Tell...

On Wednesday, March 7, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called homosexuality “immoral” when giving an interview. He was speaking to a Tribune reporter about the Department of Defense’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy that prohibits officers from questioning people about their sexuality, basically allowing gays to serve in the military if they keep there sexuality private, and do not engage in homosexual acts. In the interview, Pace supported this policy, saying, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts, I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." He then proceeded to compare homosexuality to adultery. This comment sparked outrage in the gay community, but Pace refuses to apologize. He does, however, express “regret”. This article> descibes the situation well.

Media attention on Pace’s remark brought attention to the sharp reduction of dismissals of gays from the military this year. Only 612 people were dismissed; a low figure compared to 1,227 people in 2001. With the Iraq war underway, the military can’t spare its troops. It’s interesting how the number of people discharged decreases when the military needs soldiers. The gay community complains about the hypocrisy of the situation in this article.

Popular Presidential prospectives, Senator Hillary Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), were asked their view of gays, and “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy that former president Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. Both candidates were very hesitant, and neither responded immediately, as descibed in this article. Both released statements that they do not believe homosexuality to be immoral. Hilary Clinton spoke out against the “Don’t ask don’t tell policy, while Obama criticized Pace for speaking about issues not related to the military. Clinton and Obama’s cautious responses are most likely because “A Gallup poll last May showed that 51 percent of Americans think homosexual relations are morally wrong, while 44 percent think they're acceptable.”

But Officer, I Have a Brain Tumor

Lately, the New York Times has been delving into the seedier side of criminal law. In 1995, the controversial Kansas v. Hendricks case was heard by the Supreme Court. They ruled that keeping sex offenders in "civil commitment facilities" beyond their sentences did not violate due process. Since then, an increasing number of states have passed laws allowing this confinement. The Times' recent series features an interview with the plaintiff from the original case, as well as other sex offenders confined in these facilities.

The Times also featured an article on neurolaw, a relatively new topic that deals with the admittance of brain abnormalities, such as tumors and trauma, as evidence in criminal trials. The article provides a good overview of the topic, as does the author's NPR interview.

China Increases Military Spending, Makes Uncle Sam Sweat

A recent announcement by Chinese government officials of a 17% hike in China’s military spending in its budget has, as Simon Elegant put it, effectively thrown “the fox into the dovecote.” This action by the National People’s Congress has ruffled feathers across the Web: on one hand, people are warning of Chinese hegemonism, and on the other hand, there are those who brush this news aside, saying that China wouldn’t be stupid enough to follow the U.S.’s example and willingly plunge into war.

I believe that these people (like Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace) who are caught up trying to unravel the intent behind China’s budget hike, are wasting their time. Whether the increase in spending is truly only for defense, or whether China is itching to start a brawl in the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. is jumping the gun by even poking its nose into China’s military affairs. Why? Because Uncle Sam is literally on his knees to China both politically and economically. He’s not only an inextricably partner in trade (the deficit with China surged 12% to $21.3 billion in 2007), but he’s also on his knees in front of China when it comes to reigning in North Korea. To make a rough analogy, does the U.S. have the right to play policeman and investigate the shady donut shop when he and his friends are scoring cheap coffee and Boston Creams? Basically, China is acquiring economic and political power (which may or may not require building a better military) and if it decides to have fun with its shiny new war gadgets, the United States will find itself positioned between a rock and a hard place. If the U.S. acts and starts a war with China, it will find itself dragged down by the fall of its adversary, connected by what Emanuel Pastreich calls the “Frankenstein Alliance.” If the U.S. wants to protect not only its coveted title of the world’s superpower, but also its independence, it should start finding ways to become less dependent on a potential rival.

State-funded Biblical courses?

After much deliberation, the State Board of Education in Georgia has added two courses to the list of classes funded by the state. The catch? Both classes have a biblical focus. Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams, a key Republican sponsor of the plan, stated 'It's not just ‘The Good Book, it's a good book.’ This policy is the first in the nation to fund statewide Bible-focused classes. Supporters of the bill argue that the Bible plays an important role in literature and history, and thus, should be explored in the classroom setting. The classes could be instilled into the public school system as early as this coming fall.

The controversy? While the bill does state that the courses will not move towards a form of religious teaching, the guidelines are vague. The courses are outlined to be taught in an “objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students,” the bill states.

Critics of the new legislation claim that while guidelines were stated in the bill, it is impossible to monitor the way in which the courses will be taught. Maggie Garrett of the legislative counsel for the Georgia branch of the American Civil Liberties Union states that a teacher could easily incorporate personal beliefs, or be swayed by the students to turn the class into a non-literature focus.

As the nation’s first state to fund and pass such legislation, the results of the courses are unknown. Will they remain as literature courses? Or will the classes act as a supplement to Sunday school?

And California's Next Immigration Issue is...

What with California's enormous and ever-growing immigrant population, California State Senator Gil Cedillo is proposing a bill that would create an Office of Immigrant Affairs. The concept behind this new Office is to create an organization that would consolidate and focus statewide efforts to help immigrants. It would be mostly responsible for facilitating educational opportunities (especially English teaching efforts) and the integration of immigrants into the United States, including helping them with citizenship applications.
The big problem, of course, is getting it passed. As an article in the Sacramento Bee discussed, although more than a quarter of California residents are foreign-born, and many more are the children of immigrants, the majority of voters are still elderly and Caucasian. Passage of this Bill would mean more state government expenditures; money that would go to the part of the population that is voting less, something that many voters (and many legislators) are hesitant to do. Also, as with all immigration issues in California, there are suspicions that an agency that is created to help immigrants will not care so much about making the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.
Cedillo proposed a similar Bill last year but it was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Other states have created similar offices with varied result.

The inconvenient truth of environmental policy-making

When it comes to climate change, Al Gore’s academy award winning film “An Inconvenient Truth” may well have opened a policy window. The documentary met with resounding success amid growing concern on the effects of man’s industrial activity.

As voters start pressuring aspiring candidates to the Presidency to include the issue into their agenda, the future of environmental policy-making seems prosperous indeed.

Yet, while climate change demands bold and swift action, the consensus needed to enact such a policy leaves something to be desired. As a recent article on the limits of Gore’s documentary suggests, designing a policy on a subject that wields so much controversy and whose consequences are uncertain will prove a difficult.

Pondering Giuliani's Popularity

Even with the actual election more than two years away, the Republican hopefuls for 2008 have come under public scrutiny. Recently, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, has taken many hits about his past.

Giuliani has been married three times and has been accused of serial adultery. Also, his college-age son Andrew just publicly announced that he would not campaign for his father. Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, said, as reported by YahooNews: "I mean, this is divorce on steroids. To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, on March 11, 34 percent of the people favored Giuliani over McCain (18 percent) and Romney and Gingrich (9 percent each). A lot of voters don’t seem to share Land’s point of view. Giuliani’s popularity puzzles, considering that a recent Newsweek poll revealed 58% of all Republican-leaning voters as social conservatives; however, 74% of them said that Giuliani's marriage record didn't matter to them.

On Politico.com, Roger Simon argues that the country cares more about getting a president who knows what’s really important for the country as opposed to preaching ideology. In Giuliani’s own words: "The point of a presidential election is to figure out who you believe the most and what you think are the most important things for this country at a particular time."

Conservative columnist George Will argues that the set-up of the 2008 primaries will favor a socially liberal candidate, and voters might realize that. California’s primary is being moved up to February 5^th. These are states where Giuliani’s liberal stance on social issues might mean an advantage to convince independent, centrist, swing and non-ideological voters – Giuliani might be able to challenge the state’s crucial 34 electoral votes.

We might find the political turf looking very differently in 2008 as the Republicans ponder the question Simon asks: “Which would you rather have: purity or the presidency?”

Plans for Iraq War Pullout

Preferring a faster end to the Iraq War, many Democrats recently challenged President Bush's policy for the war in Iraq. Calling for a troop withdrawal deadline of September 1, 2008, a plan set forth by anti-war democrats gained House committee approval in a near-party line vote of 36-28. However, Democrats suffered defeat in the Senate when Republicans reversed legislation that required troop withdrawal to begin as soon as 120 days.

Liberal Democrat Jose Serrano was quoted as saying, "I want this war to end. I don't want to go to any more funerals." Republicans argued that while they too did not want to leave troops in Iraq, that it was foolish to hand over Iraq to al Qaeda.

The House committee vote strongly suggested that Democrats will be able to push their measure through the full House next week. Unfortunately for the Dems, it is considered highly unlikely that the Senate will approve of the plans.

An artice in cnn.com pointed out the evidence of a brewing consitutional battle: "The day's votes in Congress underscored the extraordinary, unpredictable wartime clash between commander in chief and lawmakers." According to NY Sen. Charles Schumer, Republicans are "caught ... between the president who sticks to this policy and their consituencies, who know this policy is wrong."

New Iran Counter Proliferation Bill

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) introduced the Iran Counter Proliferation Act of 2007 (H.R. 1400). This bill aims to put additional economic and political pressures on Iran in order to impede Iran’s efforts to obtain nuclear capabilities. A nuclear capable Iran would threaten the entire Middle Eastern region. As as Iran is a Shiite state, other Sunni states in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, will feel pressure to develope their own nuclear weapons. Also, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeated called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”. Israel is America's only ally in the region and has been a strong partner in the war on terror.
Similar bills against Iran have been passed before, but this legislation closes loopholes and essentially calls for divestment from Iran. Further details of the bill can be found here. In an article from The Hill, “Lantos called the bill the single most important piece of legislation members of Congress will consider this year.”

"Unspeakable Truths" and Public Opinion

Jacob Weisberg at Slate has a wonderful article on the "Four Unspeakable Truths" about Iraq that politicians can't bring themselves to admit.

Here's a sampling:

"When it comes to Iraq, there are two kinds of presidential candidates. The disciplined ones, like Hillary Clinton, carefully avoid acknowledging reality. The more candid, like John McCain and Barack Obama, sometimes blurt out the truth, but quickly apologize."

Why can't they admit the reality of the war? Weisberg attributes it partly to the egotism of politicians: For most of them, telling the truth would mean admitting they made mistakes on Iraq. But a bigger part is fear of public opinion. The polls show that Americans are tired of the war, but that doesn't mean they're ready to admit what a disaster it's been. Politicians on both sides are calculating that if Americans are told the truth, they will punish the messenger.

Are the politicians wrong?