Rec Boaters Beware

Uncle Sam wants you, boaters, to patrol our waters for threats! Recreational boating is a popular pastime for Americans and the next frontier in homeland security. The threat of small boat attacks is growing in the United States and our waters are grossly under protected. The 80 million recreational boaters in the U.S. are being asked to keep an eye out for suspicious activity and to report this activity to the government and Coast Guard.

There are millions of small watercraft off our shores that are not regulated by the nation. These dinghies, fishing boats, and other small craft are “Al Qaeda’s weapon of choice in the maritime environment” because of their “ease in arming and deploying, low cost, and record of success”. The government is enlisting the aid of rec boaters to find potential terrorist attack boats and help secure our tankers, supply ships, ports, power plants, dams, and other terrorist targets.

The Coast Guard wants boaters to help prevent an attack similar to the bombing of U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000. This attack, which involved terrorist slamming a dinghy filled with a cargo of explosives into the destroyer, killed 17 American sailors. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen believes that “the vulnerability is there” even though “there is no intelligence right now that there’s a credible risk”.

Unknown boaters are often spotted taking pictures or measurements of bridges and while not all of these incidents are terrorist threats and many are never checked out. There are not enough guards in the water on patrol to check out every intelligence report or sighting. Maritime security expert Stephen Flynn suggests that the best way to police the water “is to get as many participants who are part of that community to be essentially on your side”. Boaters are more than happy to aide the country fend off terrorists but are against a federal license for boat operators, a measure that would help regulate boaters off our shores. The government does want a way to register and regulate recreational boats in order to separate our citizens and allies from our threats and enemies.

Presidential Candidates Vie for Best Health Care Plan

National trends in health care are currently pointing towards universal plans and improvements for Medicare. Many states, including California, have tried to institute universal health care, but only few, such as Massachusetts, have succeeded. The primary concern with Medicare is funding.

As the race to the White House continues, each candidate presents solutions to these issues. Obama, Clinton and McCain all have different ideas, though the two democrats’ plans are more similar.

McCain takes the stance that citizens should take personal initiative. He believes in insurance changes that would not only inspire competition between providers, but also initiative among citizens to obtain insurance. With this plan, not everyone would have insurance—it would still leave out many people who, for reasons of time, money or otherwise, are not able to take initiative.

On the other hand, Clinton maintains that everyone should have insurance, and it should be made available through employment. She plans to extend programs like Medicare, and to create a Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. We can only hope that her mishaps in the (Bill) Clinton Administration will not be repeated.

Obama also focuses on employee insurance programs, but with the additional provisions for small businesses and individuals who would not have access to those programs.

Obama and Clinton both require that everyone have health insurance, while McCain makes no mandate.

Each candidate has a different target group: Obama, through programs such as SCHIP, focuses on children; McCain wants to help veterans by improving usefulness of VA benefits; Clinton has the idealistic goal of helping everyone.

Which of these looks the best? I am anxious to see whether Clinton’s plan proves too ambitious, or McCain’s and Obama’s too exclusive.

A Slowdown on the Floor?

The lack of floor action in the House has begun to frustrate and worry members going into the 2008 election cycle.  While there have been some significant pieces of legislation passed, most recently the indefinite delay on the Bush-supported Colombia Free Trade Agreement, much of the day-to-day floor business consists of suspension votes.  There are reports of growing concern within the Democratic Caucus that come November, incumbents will have a hard time getting reelected since there have been so few significant accomplishments -- particularly since one of the major promises from the Democratic Party in 2006 was to bring change.  The Republican leadership is blaming the Democrats and Democratic leadership for this apparent lack of progress -- and in the game schema, this strategy can be seen as an attempt to link Democrats with Congress's low approval rating and aid Republican challengers in November.  However, Democrats, particularly the leadership, are trying to use the governing schema to frame the situation, saying that the majority of what Congress does, doesn't happen on the floor, but rather in committees, and that the committees have been very productive.

Regardless of party spin, different representatives are citing different reasons for the supposed legislative slowdown from President Bush, to Senators (and presidential hopefuls) Clinton and Obama's current ongoing quest for superdelegates, but there are some who are criticizing the Democratic leadership for not pushing the committee chairs to get more done.  This idea that most of the legislative responsibility lies with the committee chairs, and that it's the responsibility of the leadership to make sure that Congress runs effectively and efficiently follows with a more centralized view of Congress and democracy -- and less with the "I'm Just a Bill" where individual citizens petition their individual representatives who then take responsibility for getting the legislation passed.

From Little State to Little Guys

Alert to illegal immigrants: avoid small states whose governors are strapped for cash.

Last month Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri signed an executive order commanding state police to intensify their enforcement of immigration control. Not coincidentally, the state currently has a budget deficit of $568 million. The current budget proposal will cut funding from education, social services, and aid to communities. These same state services are stressed by the illegal families already, which mean the stage is set for state services to go down the drain. It is no comfort that similar orders have cost counties huge amounts elsewhere, such as Prince William County in Virginia.

In addition to fiscal overheads, minority communities have expressed fiery concerns over the social impact of such an order. Racial profiling and unnecessary investigations will undoubtedly increase with more police power. It’s also notable that illegal immigrants are easy political targets with no vote and no voice.

Although Governor Carcieri is doing the federal government a favor by testing policy that they (the Republicans) would love to have, he also blames the federal government for the problems in his state. Now the state must fend for itself, and it’s doing so aggressively. Targeting the little man seems to be the goal for the littlest state. Unfortunately, the move is costing the big guys big bucks and public trust.

"In God We Trust" Papal power and the Hispanic Catholic

One of the US pillars of democratic governance involves the separation of church and state. However, the religious values of the ‘American Creed’ remain embedded in modern US society. In reference to his recent visit to the US, Pope Benedict stated, "From the dawn of the republic, America has been . . . a nation which values the role of religious belief in ensuring a vibrant and ethically sound democratic order." However, as the pope’s visit so clearly showed, there is still large interaction between the religious and political sphere.

The Catholic Church in the US has undergone huge shifts in demographics in just the past ten years. Hispanics, born in the U.S. or elsewhere, now account for nearly a third of American Catholic adults, said a Pew Forum on Religion and Public. And the Hispanic share of the church is likely to grow; according to the study, nearly half of American Catholics under the age of 40 are Hispanic. Hispanics worshipers are joining generations of Italian, Polish and Irish Catholics, and bringing into the church their specific problems of poverty, integration, and perhaps most controversial; the US immigration debate.

Although Pope Benedict’s visit did not focus directly on Hispanics or migration, he delivered much of his opening message in Spanish, including the recital of the Lord’s Prayer – making it very clear that he knew the importance of Hispanic Catholics in US Catholicism.

During his visits with President Bush, Pope Benedict discussed immigration reform and urged the president to push for granting legal status to the illegal immigrants living in the US. The Hispanic community has voiced its hope that the pope’s visit will “send a message of tolerance towards immigrants in America.” Compassionate treatment of immigrants is an issue Catholics care deeply about as they seek to protect the Hispanics that are bolstering church membership numbers.

There has been much discussion concerning the fact that the pope’s visit coincides with a particularly heated time in US elections. Although representatives from the church have voiced their hopes that the visit will not be ‘instrumentalized’, the Hispanic voter population is one that may have great sway in the increasingly heated Democratic Primary race, as well as in the Presidential elections.

A federal judge last week declared a second mistrial in the case against six Miami men who were accused of plotting to carry out a terror attack against the Sears Tower in Chicago. The first mistrial was declared last December when one of the defendants was also acquitted. The government is pursuing a third trial.

The Justice Department has been acting on local terror threats on a pre-emptive basis in order to prevent suspected terrorists from attaining the necessary resources to carry out an attack. Some of the investigative methods used by the FBI have been questionable with much of their information coming from informants, one of whom posed as a representative of bin Laden in order to incite the participation of the accused men.

This raises the question of whether or not the Justice Department, a part of the executive branch, is allowed to fight terrorism by any means possible. The need to stop potential terrorists is great and the issue of national security is pressing, but should civil liberties be sacrificed in the process?

Fortunately, the judicial system is still acting independently and despite pressures set by the executive to establish precedence in such cases, the judiciary still acquits in the absence of concrete evidence.

The Power of the Masses

The news media has recently reported on the passing of “landmark legislation” by the Senate on a bill that would outlaw discrimination by health insurance companies and employers based on a person’s genetic tests that might indicate they are at risk for hereditary diseases. These include breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, and glaucoma. In the past, health insurance companies and employers have claimed that they didn’t use this information when deciding coverage or premiums for customers but evidence has shown otherwise. A vote of 95-0 on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act came after over a decade of debate in both the House and the Senate. So why, after such a long fight, did the bill pass?

The reason sure wasn’t because the interest groups for the insurance companies stopped fighting the bill. In fact the pluralist vision of democracy is still alive and well; there are thousands of interests groups on the Hill, one of the most powerful being the health insurance lobby. In fact, the bill passed in spite of business and insurance groups working against it.

But the political climate has changed over the last decade here in the United States. Rhetoric of all the candidates for presidency includes reform for the health care system in this country and much of the public believes health care to be a key issue. With documentaries like Michael Moore’s SiCKO making its impression on popular culture, the health care industry has been a hot topic for discussion. People from both sides of the aisle have come out in favor for health care reform that is more humane and less discriminatory. This movement has challenged and apparently won against the pluralist vision, thus shifting the power to the masses, to a more plebiscitary vision. The evidence is clear: even in an increasingly polarized Congress, the Senate voted unanimously to pass this act, even in light of attempts by interest groups to stop it. The people spoke and in this case, the politicians listened. Will this be the trend in the future? We shall see. But this is certainly an example of different competing visions of democracy.

Teaching Too Soon?

On May 17, 1954 by a unanimous vote, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brown v. Board of Education declares that “separate but equal” education facilities are “inherently unequal” and that segregation is therefore unconstitutional. Yet, schools are still racially segregated, and in fact, the educational system has consistently failed poor people of color.

In August of this year a group of parents filed a law suit against the department of Education and the secretary of Education. Those involved in the lawsuit claimed that the department of Education gave a free pass to States like California by allowing them to hire intern teachers. They also claimed that schools serving minority students had a higher concentration of intern teachers than others. Those involved in the lawsuit argued that the Department of Education failed to enforce the requirements set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act, thus, leaving the most vulnerable child behind. The “No Child Left Behind Act” requires that teachers be highly qualified, which essentially means that they have a degree in the subject area in which they are teaching. Once again the government has failed to police and enforce the laws that would ensure an equal education for all. The government argued that teaching interns help to address the shortage of teachers in areas which serve minority students.

This requirement in the NCLB is key; teachers play a significant role in the education crisis and quality teachers are essential. We do not send a first year law student into the court room alone, so why send a first year teaching student into the classroom? Instead of offering these students an inherently unequal education, why not offer other incentives for teachers, such as an increase in pay? Teaching is one of the most underpaid and undervalued professions in America yet the most important. Brown v. Board of Education and the “No Child Left Behind Act” look great on paper but when it comes to the government executing these laws it becomes nothing more than a fairytale, a hopeful read.

When he wins the election...McCain, that is.

As everyone seems to have noticed, the carnage of the Democratic race to get the candidacy is only helping one man. And that man is John McCain. He now has a slight lead over both Clinton and Obama and about half of Democrats are displeased with the battle that has lasted far too long to decide who their candidate will be this fall. He casually plays with the candidates’ remarks and missteps, like this latest comment in response to Obama’s comment in PA, “[The people Obama was calling bitter] are the heart and soul of our country.” Sounds like a man trying to win the presidency, according to German news site Spiegel. He has his hawks, former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton and William Kristol, a Washington neoconservative, and he has his doves, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and his ex-deputy, Richard Armitage. Spiegel observes that if McCain could do what he wanted, he would push Russia out of the G-8. He also wants to enlarge the U.S. military, but as a “realistic idealist,” understands the importance of negotiating rather than using force.

McCain has another thing up his sleeve, Spiegel says, and “when two people argue, it sometimes means that a fourth person wins out.” And this fourth person? Condoleezza Rice. She has all the things the Democratic candidates have, and more—black and female, experienced and well-spoken. Spiegel predicts that as a likely appointee to run as Vice President, Rice could launch her own presidential campaign from behind McCain. He will probably only serve one term and her bid for the presidency seems possible in 2012. True, Spiegel calls this potential addition to McCain’s ticket “a little bit of glamour,” but what candidate hasn’t won without some kind of special mark to set them apart from the crowd? Rice appeals to several different demographics and with her tough yet not stubborn demeanor, she is willing to defend sensitive issues. With this kind of staying power and appeal to the median voter, McCain would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to put Rice on his ticket. It might just be that extra push he needs to completely push the Democratic candidate out of sight.

McCain's Potential Downfall: The War in Iraq or the Economy?

With the Democratic side of the presidential race dominating the media, many Americans have relatively limited knowledge of the policies and ideals of Republican candidate John McCain. Because of this, these Americans are quick to pigeonhole the Vietnam vet as the "Iraq War supporter," which is an accurate categorization, but one that perhaps requires further explanation. While McCain absolutely advocates the war, he has never been entirely on board with George Bush’s plan of action, a fact that either is unimportant to or unrecognized by many Americans.

On his campaign website, McCain’s opinion that the number of troops in Iraq has never been adequate is clearly stated. He spoke out in full support of General David Petraeus’s recent promotion to leader of U.S. Central Command and still argues for bolstering the number of troops in Iraq. Numbers of critics contend that McCain’s stance on the war should be his downfall as advocacy for the war among Americans continues to plummet. He, like George Bush, promotes the United States remaining in Iraq until we are victorious, a thought that concerns and angers many Americans.

However, others note that as focus in the media and the minds of voters is shifting from the war to the economy, his issues lie elsewhere. It appears as though McCain has not tried to hide the fact that he is “not an expert” on the economy. Because of his repeated statements indicating that he isn’t as knowledgeable as a presidential hopeful should be, even voters who support McCain have become concerned. As the economy has taken over the number one slot as the most important issue that voters are considering when voting this November, perhaps it is time for McCain to step up his game in that arena.

Is it Enough?

On Tuesday April 22nd Democrats flocked to the Pennsylvania presidential primary in record numbers. Sen. Clinton has been trailing behind Sen. Obama in the delegate race and this primary was crucial for her campaign. Fortunately for Sen. Clinton she was able to win the state by a narrow lead of 10% and prevented a swell of delegates in Sen. Obama’s favor. Had Sen. Clinton lost the primary, she would have been forced to drop out of the race. Sen. Obama is still leading the race but as the Washington Post puts it, Sen. Clinton’s win “only further muddled a race that has stretched on for nearly four months and has sharply divided the party.”

Exit polls show that voters were generally well divided between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton. However, 69% of the voters felt that Sen. Obama could bring change and 94% felt that Sen. Clinton has the right experience. Exit polls also showed that race played a large role in voting decisions with 62% of white voters in Sen. Clinton’s favor and 89% of black voters in Sen. Obama’s favor.

Although Sen. Clinton was able to win Pennsylvania her campaign is losing steam as her funds run low. With a growing support Obama is able to spend more than double the amount on advertisement than Sen. Clinton and with the upcoming primaries it is imperative that Sen. Clinton raises more money fast. In her Pennsylvania victory speech she pleaded to her supporters to send the money that her campaign needs. For now her pleads work because her campaign reports that it raised over $2.5 million over night. But will it be enough for Clinton to finally gain a lead and win the Democratic primary? Only time will tell as the impending Indiana and North Carolina primaries draw closer.

Former President meets with Hamas leader

I disagree with Machiavelli's post about President Bush "aggravating" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by celebrating Israel's independence. He should not have to apologize for celebrating America's greatest and most loyal ally's 60th birthday. I will comment now, though, on Former President Jimmy Carter's trip to the Middle East.

Carter took a trip to Damascus, Syria, last week to meet with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshal. Despite warnings from the State Department, Carter insisted on meeting with Meshal to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Carter, mediator of the 1978 Israel-Egypt peace agreement and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, has been seen by many as a threat to the legitimacy of the peace process. His most recent book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, garnered a great deal of criticism, showing that it was filled with falacies and inaccuracies about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice asserted that meeting with Hamas would be a bad idea because it would give the terrorist organization legitimacy.

Not only does all of this show how seriously the State Department takes Hamas, but it shows the kind of power that a past president can have. If Carter had not been so involved with past peace negotiations, would the State Department be so gravely condoning his actions now? Chances are that any former president would be scorned in the same way that Carter was.

Carter (or any other president) has no obligation to follow the recommendations of the State Department, though. It just goes to show that no matter how autonomous we may think our executive is while in office, there's always someone out there who is more autonomous--a former president.

Taking "Diplomatic Measures" Into Their Own Hands

President George W. Bush will be aggravating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by attending Israel's 60th birthday celebration. Palestinians feel that President Bush's trip will be a display of insensitivity to the emotional scars of their forced expulsion.
“Forty-eight was, of course, the date when Israel was created, but it’s also a very sad date for Palestinians who were dispossessed from their lands. It’s a very deep scar in Palestinian life.”
-Mustafa Barghouti, former Palestinian information minister.
White House secreatary, Dana Perino, stated, "President Bush's itinerary has not been finalized yet." Obviously, this statement does nothing to alleviate the situation. Palestinians continue to express their outrage. One can see how the President's actions are extremely significant since they are highlighted in the media.

Speaking of President's actions...former President Jimmy Carter has also decided to take "diplomatic action" into his own hands by meeting with Hamas leader, Khaled Mashal. Condoleezza Rice and the State Department are criticizing Carter for his decision.

In the unique arena of foreign policy, the government is accustomed to the idea of expanded presidential powers. The President feels entitled to do as he pleases and, apparently, this sense of presidential entitlement extends beyond terms in office. Despite the constant criticism that they face from world leaders and the U.S State Department, both the current President and a former President are acting upon their own ideas on foreign policy.

If businessmen were angels

This week, Republicans in the Senate successfully stopped an attempt by Democrats to overturn a Supreme Court decision that limited pay discrimination suits. The failure of this measure can be seen as part of the pluralist vision of democracy, and highlights some of its failures.

Some of the biggest opponents to this measure were business interest groups, who were concerned that if the measure passed, they would be faced with lawsuits from many years ago and be forced to pay. Business interests groups not only have a major interest in the outcome, they also have almost unlimited financial resources to try and gain support. The other most interest group is women. However, this is a large, diverse group that has more trouble organizing than businesses. Thus, it is easy for business to get the upper hand in most issues in a pluralist democracy.

Another issue with the pluralist vision is that there is no concept of the common good. Businesses (and the Republicans who support them) aren't basing their support on this measure based on whether equal pay for equal work is good for our country. Rather, they are protecting their own interests. The Madisonian vision of democracy not only allows for this, it demands it. But since men aren't angels, what is right and just can get lost in the shuffle.

Police Power

In a Unanimous decision on Wednesday afternoon, the Supreme Court ruled that police do not act unconstitutionally if they conduct a search following an arrest, even if the arrest violated a state law.

The decision came from Virginia where David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. According to state law, the police were only supposed to give him a ticket. But, instead they arrested him and brought him to a hotel where they conducted a search, finding 16 grams of cocaine in his jacket.

The Virginia Supreme Court had ruled that the police should have released Moore and that they could not lawfully conduct a search. Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only after a lawful state arrest, but as Justice Scalia wrote in the opinion, “When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety…"

The Justices agreed that when conducting a search (and using found evidence in court), police are within their constitutional bounds as long as an officer has probable cause to make the arrest, even if some provision of state law was violated in the process.

The constitution’s wording is often vague and requires interpretation. In this decision, the Court examined the Fourth Amendment’s use of “probable cause” and ruled to keep its vague meaning for the police to determine.

The Supreme Court’s ruling enforced the constitution as above state law; Virginia’s law gave citizens added privacy rights. This decision took power away from the states, centralizing the government rather than promoting federalism.

Media Obsession with Candidate Tax Returns

If you've perused the politics section of any media publication today, you're probably aware that Senator John McCain released made his tax returns public. But unlike Democratic candidates Clinton and Obama, who have both released tax returns since 2000 (Clinton even earlier), McCain only released his tax returns for 2006 and 2007. The media craze over the measly two-year period returns has turned all attention over to McCain's wife, Cindy McCain. The media have scrutinized the couple's prenuptial agreement and Cindy McCain's separate tax returns, hidden for privacy reasons. Her co-ownership of a Phoenix based beer distributor, Hensley & Co makes her estimated worth exceed $100 million.

Although, McCain's failure to release his tax returns did not catch media attention until a week after Senator Clinton released her tax returns. As early as February 2008, the media persistently criticized Senator Hillary Clinton for not making her tax returns public. MSNBC's Senior Campaign Correspondent Tucker Carlson emphasized, "[I]n order to know where the money is coming from, I think it's fair to see her tax return. That's why Obama has released his. That's why every candidate has and she hasn't." Carlson's remark was false--John McCain also had not released his tax returns at the time. In March, Tim Russert encouraged Mary Matalin's criticism of the Democrats, suggesting the voters' right to know exactly where the Clintons got their money. She responded, "...it is emblematic of her candidacy and what people don't like about her and what they are done with. They want transparency." When the Clintons released eight years of their income tax information on April 4, 2008, the media immediately covered the story on its headlines.

But does the American public really care about the “specific” tax returns of the presidential candidates? I don’t think so. Many voters already have trouble getting the candidates’ views on issues straight. I doubt many voters will take out their calculators to carefully track each candidate’s tax return from eight years ago. The media’s exaggeration of the importance of “open-book”, “transparent”, tax returns is due to their dominant game schema. Contrarily, the public’s governing schema has minimal interest on these statistics. For the media to even suggest that public is interested each candidate’s detailed tax return is an unrealistic and self-defeating illusion. The only probable reason for media demand for the long-term release of these tax returns is to enable political analysts to meticulously search for further questionable events, in each candidate’s past, that would make a good story. As for John McCain, Media Matters for America reports that although McCain’s story is currently in the news, “the media do not cover John McCain the way they have covered countless Democratic presidential candidates.”

Uncle Sam: Stepping In On Students' Behalf

Shockwaves from the subprime mortgage crisis are still rippling across the student loan market. Luckily for cash-strapped college students, their cause is an easy one to get behind--for politicians on both sides of the aisle. H.R. 5717, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act, was passed in the House yesterday with a large, bipartisan majority at 383-27. Intended to form a sort of federally-financed safety net in the case of collapse in the student loan market, the bill would: 

-require the Department of Education to pump federal funds into guarantee agencies without enough capital to meet loan demands

-permit the Department of Education to buy federally guaranteed student loans from lenders unable to attract secondary investors

-increase annual limits on federal unsubsidized loans by $2,000

-lengthen the amount of time parents are given to defer repayment of PLUS loans from 60 days to 6 months

Currently the bill's prospects are looking good: an OMB statement Wednesday indicates that it enjoys considerable support from the Bush Administration, and similar legislation has been proposed in the Senate. And financially speaking, maybe the sooner the law is passed, the better. Yesterday's vote coincided with major lender Bank of America's announcement that it will no longer be issuing private student loans; other lenders are dropping out of the market altogether.

Moderators- Source of Debate

After Wednesday night’s presidential debate, the moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, received many criticisms on their questions to the democratic candidates. The Wednesday night’s Democratic Primary debate on ABC was seen by 10.7 million viewers, the highest watched debate throughout the 2008 election. Yet, the questions asked by the moderators were less than adequate to the issues that concern the American people. “Only after half of the 90-minute debate had been concluded did the moderators turn to questions concerning Iraq, Iran, the housing crisis and affirmative action.” Instead, the moderators asked questions like why wasn’t Senator Barack Obama wear an American flag pin on his jacket lapel?

When commenting on the complaints by bloggers over the debate, George Stephanopolous, the host of “This Week” on ABC, commented, “ We thought it made sense to deal with the core controversies,” but “what has become the No. 1 issue between the candidates- who can win in November?” I guess winning, who’s ahead in the election, is the most significant issue, but to most viewers say otherwise, seen through the complaints and criticisms of the debate. Rather than viewing the politics of the primaries as a means of choosing leaders and solving their problems, the debate was seen as a game, a competition of who’s on top. Reporters are taught to focus on game schema, keeping the politics of the primaries a race and competition rather than a source of problem solving. David Bohrman, overseer of political coverage at CNN, “said he would have instead had the moderators ask each candidate about their stance on a possible amendment to the Constitution banning flag-burning,” rather than take up the issue of Obama not wearing the flag pin on his lapel. “ ‘That’s a legitimate flag question,’ Mr. Bohrman said. ‘ I think the voters are expecting more from us.’” The media needs to focus more on the candidates stances of how to solve issues and problems through policy, rather than “dwelling on matters that had been picked over for weeks, like the incendiary comments of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion that she had to duck sniper fire in Bosnia more than a decade ago.”

Braggadocio

In Latin American, Chávez has gained enormous fame and support for standing up to the Bush administration, by supporting Iran’s right to a nuclear program and by befriending the notorious Fidel Castro. This alone is enough to get you blacklisted by the Bush administration, and now Chávez wants his own nuclear program.

Chávez has announced plans to develop a nuclear energy program and has been making progress to sign deals with neighboring Argentina and Brazil towards acquiring nuclear reactors, stating, “It cannot be that the countries that have developed nuclear energy prohibit those of the third world from developing it… We are not the ones developing atomic bombs, it's others who do that."

Touché, Chávez, as Venezuela has not dropped any nuclear bombs… but will they? Chávez has every right towards developing peaceful nuclear energy, yet the Bush administration has side swiped Venezuelan agreements with Brazil. The US is one of the largest investors in the Brazilian economy, and connections with the Bush administration have been too lucrative for Brazil to carelessly push aside. With a little pressure from Bush, the process has slowed significantly.

Curiously enough, Congress has had relatively little influence over relations with Chávez. With his blatant anti-American/anti-imperialist stance towards the Bush administration, there has been no discussion permitted. Washington has more leverage with Brazil and Argentina, perhaps because of more comfortable diplomatic relations that the Bush administration has passed on. The power of the executive has become a major factor in American foreign policy, and as seen in this scenario, the Bush administration sets the standards and gives Congress the leftovers.

José Goldemberg, the Minister of Science and Technology in Brazil, is doubtful of Chávez’s ability to put into effect his nuclear plans, stating of Chávez, “This is braggadocio. It's a way of challenging Bush, of making themselves feel important and forcing the United States to pay attention.”

The United States is certainly paying attention, but is this braggadocio, or a slap in the face towards Congressional power?

The Power of the Court Regarding a Religious Practice -- Polygamy

 The Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints split ties with the Mormon Church in 1890 after the Mormon Church's leaders banned the practice of polygamy, or plural marriage. Today, a compound exists outside of Eldorado, west Texas, that has recently been discovered to be the home of 416 children who were given birth by mothers aged 20 and younger. The compound, named "Yearning for Zion Ranch," was discovered after police received a call from a 16-year old girl who said she had been "beaten and raped by her 50-year old spiritual husband".

 Now the court -- in specific, Judge Walther --  has a decision to make. Firstly, it has to be decided whether the children were abused or are at risk of being abused. If they are at risk, a second decision has to be determined: is the entire culture of under-age marriage through plural marriage in the community detrimental to the well-being of the children? 

 However Judge Walther decides, he will actually be making a statement regarding family in the United States. The practice of polygamy not only causes emotional repercussions for the women -- or girls -- involved, but it also redefines the typical ideas we have of family. Plural marriages result in children having one father, but multiple mothers and half-siblings. Depending on how Judge Walther rules, he could have to attempt to define "family."

 Although the initial issue involves child abuse, many people agree that the community's lifestyle will ultimately end up on trial. This would increase the government's power to rule personal matters, such as that of religious practices. While the members of the compound feel that their practice of plural marriage descends from the founding prophet, Joseph Smith. If the court makes a decision that rules against the community's ability to polygamous relations, they would be making a decision regarding their ability to partake in religious practices. However, they would be protecting children from abuse. The question is whether the court will give itself this power. 

What Makes a Delegate Super?...or Not Super?

If you've been following the Democratic nomination process, even if just at a minimal amount, you have probably heard the term "super delegate". But over the course of the last few months, I have been continually asked: "What actually is a super delegate?" According to her interview with Jay Leno, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton says they get one vote each, "and they walk around with capes on!" Although this provides us with a spectacular visual image of a super delegate, it doesn't quite clarify their actual job. So, Mr. Leno asked a follow-up question that everyone seems to want to ask: "But why does their vote count more?" Well, to be honest, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't. As Sen. Clinton said, "every delegate's vote counts the same."
There's the trick! "Every delegate's vote counts the same." This is where you need to know what a "ordinary" delegate is. In a way, delegates are like the electors of the electoral college; they are chosen before the convention and they cast their vote for the candidate that their vote is designated for. Let's say you're a democrat in Nevada, Nevada has 25 delegates given to them by the Democratic Party. Each district in NV is also awarded a certain number of delegates for the state vote based primarily on population and proportion of registered democrats in that district. When the caucus finished in NV, the delegates in each district were apportioned based on the popular vote of that district. Then those delegates go to the state convention to vote for thier candidate. Based on that vote, the delegates for the state are reapportioned. In NV they split 13 for Barak Obama and 12 for Hillary Clinton (even though Clinton won the popular vote in NV). These 25 state delegates go to the Democratic National Convention in the summer (this year, August in Denver) and cast their votes for their candidate (13 for BO and 12 for HRC).
As I mentioned in a previous post, a candidate needs 2025 delegates to receive the nomination for the Democratic party. Neither Clinton nor Obama will be able to reach that number with just the "ordinary" delegates, and so for the first time in a very long time, the super delegates' votes actually will make a difference. Super delegates consist of prominent members of the democratic party, such as all democratic members of Congress, all Democratic Governors, past Democratic Presidents, party chairs, and even people we associate with the media (like Donna Brazille). At the convention, they too vote as the other delegates. The Party decided to use this system about 35 years ago, because they wanted the input of the dems that are actually deeply invested in the party and who may have more insight into who would make a better President/candidate for the party. In other words, it helps measure for intensity.

I hope this helps!

The Jewish Vote

During the debate on Wednesday night our good friend George Stephanopoulos questioned both democratic presidential hopefuls on U.S. reactions to an Iranian attack on Israel. The next day the headlines of all the major Israeli newspapers focused on Senator Hillary Clinton's staunch reply to such an attack. She said, "An attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation from the United States," and continued to describe a "security umbrella" she would like to create for Israel and other allies in the area. Senator Barack Obama vowed to "take appropriate action" and described such an attack as "unacceptable." He also spoke of Israel as a strong ally who's security is of paramount importance.
I couldn't help but realize the focus on Clinton's response and came to realize that the concrete and strong comment on retaliation is something that strikes many Israeli's and thus the focus in the Israeli newspapers. Obama's comments were reassuring but more general and less to the point.
With everything that happened regarding Jeremiah Wright it is important and very interesting to look at where Jewish support falls in this election. In an article from the Jerusalem Post published April 16th, Jewish support for Obama (or lack thereof) is researched in Pennsylvania. Although Josh Shapiro, the deputy speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and a Jew himself showed his support for Obama, the audience (or at least those interviewed in the article) still had major hesitations. One woman, who is a Clinton supporter, said, "I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have questions [about Obama]. I just don't know if we know who the real Obama is." Her husband, also included in the article, said, "he planned to vote for McCain because he believed the former navy officer would be the strongest supporter of Israel and he objected to Obama's willingness to talk to the leaders of Iran and other rogue states." This certainly leads me to question if an Obama nomination will lead Clinton supporters, namely Jewish supporters, to the Republican side.
Contrary to this article, a Gallup poll conducted a month ago showed that out of 348 Jewish Democrats polled, which is an necessary oversampling, only 48% supported Clinton and 43% Obama. This mere 5 point difference is not large enough to see any real trend in Jewish voting because it is within the margin of error.
I guess that leaves us right where we began.

Oh Please!

Everyone seems to have an opinion on the Democratic Pennsylvania debate on Wednesday. The debate proceeded much like its predecessors, where moderators baited the two candidates until one or both tripped up. The only difference was that this time, Senator Hillary Clinton was not the target of most of the pointed personal jabs. For forty-five minutes, moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos shot one character- related question after another to Senator Barack Obama, inquiring about his associations with Jeremiah Wright and Willaim Ayers, and his infamous “guns and religion” speech.

Many of the reactions to Stephanopoulos and Gibson’s questions have been negative. The Washington Post’s Tom Shayles wrote an editorial entitled “In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser is ABC,” and threats of a petition against ABC on the website MoveOn.org have recently surfaced. Excuse me, but where was this outcry when Tim Russert hassled Senator Clinton about her position on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants? Where was the indignation when Senator Obama basically parroted Senator Clinton’s response to a question on Russia’s Dimitri Medvedev?

The infallibility of Senator Obama is bordering ridiculousness. As a presidential candidate, one needs to be able to fight criticism and defend one’s own positions. While the presidential race should focus on the country’s issues, candidates’ personal characteristics are important as well. And let’s face it; there were around twenty debates prior to Pennsylvania. If you have not grasped the candidates’ positions by now, you never will.

If Barack Obama’s supporters truly believe in his message, let him fight his own battles.

Role Reversal: The Attack on the Media

As the media continues to criticize candidates and candidates continue to criticize the media, a new group enters the fray: Americans.

The media’s focus on the game schema, which is the analysis of strategy and key players rather than issues, has reached a new high this primary season. After heavy coverage of Clinton’s misspoken “sniper” episode and Obama’s “bittergate,” Americans are beginning to demand to hear the actual issues.

ABC News’s debate this Wednesday is especially being hard hit for focusing too little on the issues and too much on campaign stumbles. For the first 52 minutes of the debate, the moderators focused only on the strategy and errors of both campaigns. Perhaps not coincidentally, a few hundred thousand viewers stopped watching the debate after the first hour. This could be interpreted as the public’s interest purely in tabloid style news and the game schema, or it could be interpreted as the public’s wavering enthusiasm about politics. It certainly did not help that American Idol conflicted with its air time. The popular reality TV show drew in 22.7 million viewers, which eclipsed the debate’s approximately 10.7 million viewers. Even more disheartening, this past debate was the most watched debate of the primary election.

Additional criticisms include ABC’s choice of George Stephanopoulos as a moderator alongside Charles Gibson. Stephanopoulos, a former advisor in Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, is clearly not a top choice for a neutral moderator. Obama supporters are crying out against the injustices of the debate as they find out he may not have all of the answers. Stephanopoulos claims that his "off the issues" questions were necessary as Obama continues to dodge political bullets that will be shot if he makes the general election. In particular, Stephanopoulos questioned Obama's relationship with former political radical William Ayers. Obama was clearly frustrated with the game schema at work throughout the debate.

One debate viewer, John of New York City, responded to the New York Times’ Caucus blog “Blogtalk: Bloggers Turn Up Heat on ABC” that the “ABC moderators’ questions were embarrassing and shallow” and that the “media are desperate for attention and advertising dollars and no longer follow strict journalistic, philosophical, or political standards.”

However, not everyone was disgusted with the debate. Conservative Ed Morrissey of Hot Air said “Kudos to ABC News for taking on both candidates fearlessly. John McCain has to feel grateful not to be included.”

Although people are voicing their disgust about the media's focus on campaign dirt and strategy, their voices will probably not be enough. Unless viewers tune in for the segments of the debate that focus on the issues rather than gossip, the media will continue to focus on what they do best. When push comes to shove, ratings almost always trump journalistic integrity. 

Should the Fed give a hand?

Bear Sterns Cos. Was bailed out by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the federal government last month. The Federal Reserve's unprecedented intervention on behalf of Bear Stearns Cos. was intended to prevent the complete collapse of the company which could have shaken the very foundations of the U.S. financial system. However, this particular action ignited a debate about how big a role the central back should play.
The arrangement allows JPMorgan Chase & Co. to borrow from the Fed and provide that funding to Bear Stearns for 28 days. As a commercial bank, JPMorgan can do so, while Bear Stearns, an investment bank, cannot.
Fed officials said the procedure that was used actually dates back to the Great Depression of the 1930s which has rarely been used since then, and financial experts said they believed the action was unprecedented for an investment bank." It is the first bailout of an investment bank by the Fed," said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian and finance professor at Manhattan College. By contrast, investment bank Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. was allowed to go bankruptcy in 1990.
Most of the financial experts had little sympathy towards Bear Stearns. Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Drexel University, commented: "Once an institution is insolvent, the only responsible thing to do is to unwind it in an orderly fashion," He said, "It's not a business enterprise worth saving."
Lawrence White, an economics professor at New York University said: "I know things are a little dicey out there, but we can't have the Fed going around protecting everybody in sight," He continued by saying, "You take risks and you lose, you're supposed to be shown the door, and these guys are not being shown the door."
In fact, not only the experts were highly dubious about the Fed’s plan to save Bear Stearns, taxpayers also revealed their oppositions to the act. People like Nathan Schneeberger, an ordinary middle class complained, “banks and investment firms (and the wealthy men and women who run them) can benefit and profit disproportionately more than the middle class and working poor during the good times, but when their judgments and leadership turn out to be wrong, they do not return the disproportionate earnings from the good times. Instead, we the taxpayers, end up paying for their poor judgment.”
Federal Reserve officials’ arguments were that if Bear Stearns were to fall into bankruptcy, it would leave other companies who have lent money to the investment bank in the lurch, which could cause a chain reaction, threatening the financial system.
As the Subprime Mortgage Crisis has deepened, complaints of government intervention to back up distressed financial companies have risen tremendously in recent days. The Fed thinks that some firms are simply “too big to fail”, yet many people believe that these firms deserve punishments and it is simply beyond the Fed’s obligation to bail them out, as we are all living in a Free Market with everyone playing a fair game.
Sources: Business Week and New York Times

Klein's Last Stand

Joel Klein hasn’t given up. Although the New York state budget released last week made clear that teachers being considered for tenure would not be held responsible for the standardized test results of their students, Klein, the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, refuses to let the issue be dropped. Klein insists that “making tenure decisions both more fair and more rigorous will ensure that people who can’t do the job effectively won’t be in our schools teaching our students for decades to come.”

Standardized testing is an undying issue in American education. Whether it’s a question of the Federal government’s right to test nationally, problems with accuracy of particular tests, or a more pedagogical question of whether tests are necessary or useful at all, it seems to be one problem that refuses to go away (along with the economy... and Iraq... and health care... and the Democratic primary). This case in New York City is no different. As the State Legislature approved the budget for New York, they also signed away the vague responsibility teachers have held in the past for the test results of their students. This practice may be, as Randi Weingarten, President of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) insinuated, similar to holding doctors responsible for the results of blood tests. But if a doctor’s patients were all receiving bad test results, wouldn’t we question that doctor’s ability to treat? And what better way to judge the efficiency of treatment than running tests?

I will bet that Klein (or at least his staff) is currently nitpicking at the language of the legislature’s approved budget, hoping to find a loophole in the likely event that his plea for an overturn is ignored. I certainly don’t blame him. Setting aside for a moment what some consider to be inherent problems in standardized testing, where else might we expect to find consistent reports on how well a teacher teaches? The fact that New York has dismissed one of the few checks in the tenure hiring process is simply astounding. As a state reporting 81 high schools and 27 districts “In need of improvement” by NCLB standards (based, of course, on testing!), perhaps New York should reconsider the subjectivity in hiring it is currently promoting.


-- On a lighter note... For those of you with what I would call a more “social” interest in education -- have no fear. Rumor has it that Margaret Spellings’ Facebook page will be up and running soon!

In Pur(suit) of Health Care

Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo is tackling California's Anthem Blue Cross with a $1 billion lawsuit after Anthem Blue Cross, its sister company WellPoint, Inc., and another company revoked the health policies of over 6,000 policyholders. The suit claims that Anthem Blue Cross rescinded individual and shared policies after policyholders filed expensive medical bills.

Although insurance companies are allowed to protect themselves from policyholders that fail to disclose their medical history, California Anthem researched their policyholders' health history only after a medical condition arose. In the case of 61-year-old Jennifer Thompson, Thompson failed to disclose that she had breast cancer 11 years before--although the insurance form only asked for a ten year medical history. Thus for Thompson and many like her, Anthem withdrew their policyholders' health insurance when they discovered a previous undisclosed condition. The loss of health insurance has forced many individuals to pay their medical bills from the beginning of the date of the policy agreement.

However, where the private companies fail, the state succeeds. Cindy Ehnes, the director of the Department of Managed Health Care of California, is to reinstate the health care coverage of those policyholders who lost their Blue Cross insurance.

Trying to deal with its overwhelming health care crisis, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to pass sweeping health care reform in late January 2008. However, the California Senate rejected the legislative attempt, citing that California's $14.5 billion deficit could not afford another expensive initiative.

Although both Democrats and Republicans turned down the Governor's health care reform, it's ironic that no decisive health care reform legislation or public initiative has successfully navigated its way to the Governor's desk. In a state still very independent-minded that recounted its Democratic governor, no one has been able to compromise a solution. Despite the fact that California is a large pluralist state that represents many interested parties, health care reform seems trapped in limbo.

Unlike the federal government, in which executive power has greatly expanded, executive power within the states is still stilted. Governor Schwarzenegger can position his people to push these legislative changes; but until he can bargain and convince legislators to vote his way, he'll still have a $14.5 billion dollar deficit and millions of uninsured Californians.

Lethal Injection is Found Constitutional

On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the case Baze v. Rees which posed the question of whether death by lethal injection violated a prisoner’s Eight Amendment. Two inmates on death row in Kentucky, Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling, brought the case to the Supreme Court saying that the lethal injection “creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain.” After the case was filed, several states, including California, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee, all halted scheduled executions. The lethal injection, which consists of Sodium Pentathol, Pavulon, and potassium chloride, causes a prisoner to go into cardiac arrest, resulting in his death.
The issue the case presented was how the Supreme Court should evaluate the risks that arise with the injection. Because the injection paralyzes the prisoner, the court found it difficult to asses whether an improperly anesthetized inmate feels uneccesary excruciating pain without the ability to vocalize it. Although there was much discord among the justices, they still held in 7-2 vote that the lethal injection did not create an “objectively intolerable risk of harm,” thus not violating a prisoner’s right against cruel and unusual punishment. Chief Justice Roberts went on to say that “simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death,” is not sufficient enough violate a person’s Eighth Amendment.

Naked at the Airport

There are some major changes happening at some of America’s busiest airports as the Transportation Security Administration has purchased 30 Millimeter Wave Machines. First used in Arizona, The Millimeter Wave Machines can reveal a person’s body under their clothes to security screeners. Known as the “whole body imaging” machines, will be put in use at JFK international airport in New York City as was as Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California this week. More U.S. airports will be getting these machines as the year goes by. Travelers going through secondary screening will be the ones with the option to go through the imaging machine or to receive a pat-down.
There has been a backlash against the machines by privacy advocacy groups but the TSA stands by the machines and their work to maintain passenger’s privacy. The person screening the images will be in a booth and unable to see the actual passenger, just the picture on the screen. The person’s face will be pixilated and the TSA says the images the machine produces will not be saved. Many other countries use the Millimeter wave machines and some states use them at courts and prisons.
Is it creepy and a bit of an invasion of privacy for someone to see an abstract version of you naked at the airport but is it more a violation of privacy if someone is actively patting you down? Would people rather some nameless, faceless security officer see a picture on the screen with the face pixilated out then actually being touched? In Arizona, ninety percent of those asked preferred the machine to a pat-down.

With these machines, the TSA can see if you are carrying any metallic or non-metallic items on your body. They also get a full body view of you which is more than a pat-down shows. The TSA should be able to detect more with these machines than they ever could before. Also the TSA is getting more than 500 more x-ray machine to scan carry-ons. These multi-view x-ray machines can be updated to detect liquid explosives. Get ready America to fly the safer skies!

"No lights at the end of the tunnel" for U.S. Economy?

These days, it seems nearly impossible to contend that the war in Iraq is having no effect on the United States economy. While it is not uncommon for Americans to blame our nation's economic woes on whomever the current president may be, this time Americans who are anti-war have double the amount of contempt for George W. Bush. Not only does the war in Iraq continue despite a variety of protests, but now even those who support the war have reason to begin question whether or not the benefits will ever outweigh the turmoil that the war has created in the United States.

Recently, American General David Petraeus stated that currently there "are no lights at the end of the tunnel" in Iraq, that those United States troops currently in Iraq will have to remain in Iraq for an indeterminate amount of time before any hope for what Bush refers to as "victory" will come about. This means that the U.S. government will continue to spend the money of taxpayers to participate in a war that many taxpayers don't agree with. Regardless of whether or not taxpayers advocate the war, the mere possibility that the occupation is having a negative effect on U.S. economy and that there is no end in sight is alarming.

Politicians and economists alike are speaking out about the negative toll that the war in Iraq is taking on our economy. One such politician, Democratic Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky, stated today that the amount of money that the U.S. has spent and continues to spend in Iraq "is not only linked to our economic skid, but is a leading cause of it." These days, such statements are becoming commonplace as more and more Americans make the connection between the recent decline in the economy and U.S. expenditure in Iraq as it nears half a trillion dollars.

While some economists contend that the war in Iraq has had little effect on our economy over the majority of the past five years, at the very least the contentions to the contrary have caused more Americans to question government spending in general. We can only hope that a "light at the end of the tunnel" will appear soon, especially if those who see government spending in Iraq as detrimental to our economy are correct.

NAFTA a non-issue in the Denocrat Primaries?

As Democratic primaries heat up, with a key race in Pennsylvania on April 22nd, it seems that there is at least one trade issue that both Obama and Clinton agree on. In debates leading up to the Ohio primaries, Both candidates advocated the use of a potential opt-out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), if they could not renegotiate it to include stronger labour and environmental protections. The trade deal is extremely unpopular among Democrats in Ohio, which is facing economic challenges related to the US recession. In that state, NAFTA is blamed for thousands of job losses in the industrial sector. In fact, the only reason that NAFTA is being discussed in the U.S. primaries is that manufacturing jobs in the Northeast are suffering heavily under tightening economic conditions.
In a classic example of ‘playing up to the locality’, both candidates have reiterated their stance concerning NAFTA, anticipating the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. However there was no mention whatsoever of the agreement during campaigns in the Texas primary, where the benefits from trade with Mexico are well accepted. The play of political rhetoric has not gone unnoticed by the US northern neighbour. Canadian trade minister cautioned, in February that if the US decides to pull out of NAFTA, it might lose preferential access to Canadian and Mexican oil. The Obama campaign, which was especially outspoken was quick to reassure Canada, that this was mere “political talk”.
Republican candidate for the Presidential race, McCain assured the Canadians that he is a strong supporter of NAFTA. In fact he has used the Democratic skepticism of Trade liberalization to launch his own campaign rhetoric. “Democratic opposition to NAFTA could threaten Canada’s (large) contribution to the war in Afghanistan” McCain pointed out. However he may have a very good point. Every time in history that the US has practiced protectionism, a very heavy price has been paid for it.

Word rapidly reached foreign ears that the Bush administration intends to remain in the quicksand of Iraq. As the Washington Post and New York Times were reporting the statements made by General David Petraeus, President Bush, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, so was the famed news source of the Arab world: Al-Jazeera.

Many Americans associate Al-Jazeera with fuzzy pictures of hiding militia leaders and biased reporting that edges toward propaganda. It may come as a surprise, then, that it is difficult to distinguish differences between the Al-Jazeera article and that with the same subject in the New York Times. The only difference is the punch at the end of the Al-Jazeera article, all too conveniently mentioning Bush’s diving approval rating of 28%.

Although the articles spins are strikingly similar, biases appear among reader responses. A few brave – and possibly insane – souls attempted to stick up for the Bush administration, and were promptly shot down. Criticism was woven into nearly all the threads. “May god help us to bring stability in a region that was completely damaged by the united states of America,” decried Noha M. from Cairo. “We know that the 'superpower' is 'superpowerless', embarrassed and embarrassing,” said Niloufar from Tehran, who was promptly applauded by journey from Cairo. Omar fox from the UAE pointedly noted, “The whole 'Muslim-on-Muslim' rhetoric is a weak distraction away from the failures of the US administration to achieve any of its set out objectives in Iraq.”

Condemnation rings in the ears of the Bush administration, and yet they continue in their path. Not only has this administration risen above the law, they have risen above the fundamental commandment of democratic politics: thou shalt please those whom hath given you thine office. Though the accusations have targeted the actions of the Bush administration, they are misdirected. The true crime of George and his cronies is not what they have done, it is what they have purposefully neglected: an ear for public opinion.

The Judges Versus New York

Chief Judge Judith Kaye’s decision to file suit against the New York State Legislature in order to force a pay increase for New York’s judges has caused a revisiting of the debate on judicial compensation.

The judges, who have not received a pay raise since 1999, were again disappointed this week when none of the additional $6 billion approved by the legislature in this year’s budget was designated for a judicial pay increase. Bernard W. Nussbaum, who filed suit on behalf of the judges, claimed that the failure to provide a pay increase violated the constitution’s separation of powers in regards to the independence of the judiciary. He further argued that the denial of a pay increase had effectively lowered the salaries of current judges as their wages have lost value in the face of continued inflation.

While Nussbaum’s claim is supported by an alleged constitutional violation, the case
itself could also be problematic. According to Madison’s view on government, the government was designed in a way to ensure that each branch would serve as a check on the other two. This was particularly targeted towards the legislative branch, but the current issue of judicial compensation raises another question: when the judiciary directly challenges the legislature, who will serve as a check on the judiciary’s power?

It is understandable that judges, whose positions appear to have become less desirable as their salaries have become less competitive, would want a pay increase. However, their suit could pose a direct conflict of interest as their case is being brought before the courts. If no other state employees can both demand and authorize a personal salary increase then should judges be allowed to do so?

The Education Catastrophe

America’s dropout Rate is an epidemic. The overall graduation rate in the United States is less than 70%. For Latino and Black students it is even worse, 50%. America’s Promise Alliance released a report last week which revealed chilling statistics on dropout rates in America’s top 50 largest cities. At the bottom of the list are districts like Detroit where the graduation rate is 24.9%, Indianapolis, Cleveland and Baltimore follow closely behind. Along with the report, America’s Promise Alliance also issued a 10-Point Plan for reducing Dropout Rate. At the top of the list is an inaccurate graduation and dropout statistics. These statistics have been difficult to calculate based on tracking the number of students who transfer to another district, as well as, inflated statistics by school districts, which are desperate to meet the guidelines set by one of the many requirements set forth by the 2002 No Child Left behind Act. As a result, the Bush Administration and secretary Margret Spellings announced that they will require all states to use one federal formula.

This is only the first of many steps that the government is and should be taking to address this issue. Getting the data is not even half of the battle. The dropout rate is a symptom of the cancer growing in the educational system, and everyone shares part of the blame. By allowing teachers who do not perform well, and  lost all concern and vitality to teach our children is a lightening bolt of a message to our students that we just do not care.

 Accountability, who is accountable to our children the future of our country? I believe that we all share in the failures of our schools, from the government to our school’s administration, to the voters and especially the parents.   Our schools are not the only problem but the government needs to hold parents responsible as well. Sanctions should be placed on parents Why not fine them or sentence them to community service when they do not ensure their child is in school? Barrack Obama has discussed the importance of parenting in a couple of his speeches at high schools across the country.  He seems to understand that this is not strictly a problem with the schools.  We need to be as serious about education and holding people accountable as the IRS is about collecting taxes or as serious as we are about homeland security. The future of this country lies in the hands of the youth and the youth are not being educated.  We are under attack by our failed schools, government and community.  We must protect ourselves and actively find a cure for the “CANCER” that lies within our current system. 

Everybody wants a change...in the Supreme Court

Naturally, people tend to search for the easiest solution to a problem. When it comes to voting, people’s lazy nature causes them to use heuristics, a method that uses readily accessible information to help solve a problem, in this case – who to vote for. Heuristics cause people to vote for the candidate whose campaign slogan fits best with their desires rather than vote based on specific issues. A common heuristic used in the upcoming election is the strong need for change.

The word change is used extremely often in this upcoming election, but it is usually used with regards to the economy and the war in Iraq. Change is rarely used in reference to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court justices’ lifetime terms are meant to keep them separate from the political world in which they work; they are meant to interpret the constitution without political bias. Nevertheless, a justice’s political leaning tends to match with the president who nominated him or her. Justice Kennedy, the Court’s current swing voter, leans a little more towards the right, which causes the Robert’s Court to rule many 5-4 (conservative) decisions. The Court may become even more conservative as the next three openings on the court are predicted to come from the liberal side of the bench.

The Supreme Court is often overlooked during election times because of voters’ inability to directly choose new justices. Also, the complex, hard to understand nature of the Court turns voters off. Even so, the Supreme Court’s hold on the constitution gives it incomparable power that shouldn’t be underestimated.

Another Republican in office, even the moderate McCain, will probably elect replacement justices with conservative leanings.
The Supreme Court has the power to outlaw abortion, gay marriage and many other rights that liberals are fighting for. Change is the motif in every campaign in the upcoming election, but change cannot be implemented without the cooperation of the Supreme Court.

A "Nail Biter" of a Race

Not since 1952 has a Representative successfully toppled an incumbent Senator's bid in a primary.  However, Rep. Robert Andrews of the New Jersey 1st is hoping to defeat 4-term incumbent Sen. Frank Lautenberg in the New Jersey primary on June 3rd.  

This race bears striking similarities to the ongoing (and seemingly never ending) presidential primaries: Andrews is about 30 years younger than his opponent, and Democrats nationwide will be watching this race to see how voters react to the difference in age and experience. Current polling has Andrews trailing Lautenberg 21-52%.  Lautenberg's bid for reelection was somewhat surprising; he had retired in 2000, only to be resurrected to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli.  Many, including Andrews, had assumed that Lautenberg was interested in only serving out the rest of Torricelli's term and then retreating back into retirement.

Adding to the intrigue of the race, Andrews's wife, Camille, has just filed as a candidate to fill her husband's open House seat.  Many are speculating whether this is a ploy to ensure that Andrews will still have a seat in Congress should his senatorial bid not work out, but he has assured voters that "I'm not coming back to the House."  Whether Camille Andrews, or one of her competitors, will run is to be decided, not by primary vote, but by a group of party bosses.  This method of candidate selection is similar to the pre-Progressive Era reforms, where a small group of party leaders decides who is the strongest and best candidate to run.  The New Jersey 1st is considered to be a "safe seat" for the Democrats, so the question isn't really "Who will run in Andrews's place?" but "Who will fill Andrews's seat?"  

Hillary Who?

Despite the fact that there remain three candidates for the presidential race of 2008, foreign news organizations seem to have made a decision about which one those three will make it to November. Recent news has shown a distinct focus on Senator Obama and his campaign for the Democratic nomination. In particular, the French news source Le Monde, the BBC online news and Asia Times all have their own spin on this high-profile campaigner. Hillary who?

BBC blogger Justin Webb wonders if Obama’s charisma and apparent success will be enough to flip world opinion on its head and change the negative feelings that many foreigners have been harboring toward the United States once he wins the election. The blogger sites Asia Times, in which a rather “weird and incomprehensible” opinion surfaces. The article Webb refers to criticizes Obama’s career for being devoid of any kind of character revealers—not his “empty rhetoric,” an article for the Harvard Law Review or a piece of legislation is indicative of who he is at the core. Instead, the article decides, Obama can be hashed out according to the women in his life, in particular his mother, Ann Dunham, and his wife, Michelle Obama. Apparently, America is the “abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another”; it is the creative destroyer of the cultures which seek a new life within its borders. Anthropologists are those people who look to stop this cultural destruction by trying to preserve what many do not care about losing. Well, Obama’s mother was an anthropologist and according to Asia Times, “The probable next president of the United States is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.” A harsh judgment, to say the least. Webb was indeed correct when he wondered whether the negative outlook on America could be changed with this election. Obama’s wife, Michelle, has also made her presence known and Asia Times recognizes her spirit and ideology as more potent than that of her husband.

In contrast, Le Monde finds him and his campaign to be the embodiment of the Democratic party. He represents the people, they claim, and understands that Americans find appeal in a candidate which will reflect the policies they want, and in this case, those that will benefit the common people.

John McCain, meanwhile, doesn’t yet have the clout to shove the democratic race off front pages just yet. The BBC gives him a small spotlight in video coverage posted on their page, but the general tone of the voiceover seems to undermine the idea of a victory which the Republican party hope for this fall. Again, world opinion of the U.S. and of Bush has not been favorable, and the BBC suggests that McCain’s ties to Bush are not helping him as he approaches the 2008 presidential election.

No real change in new Burmese constitution

Conflict-plagued Burma recently released it's 200-page long constitution on Wednesday, and has already come under fire from the United States.  Through a system of referendum, the draft of the constitution is up for vote on May 10th.  The major issue that the US has with the constitution, however, is the lack of room to promote any form of real democratic change.  The constitution also did not allow for any influence from the political opposition during the entire drafting process.  

Within the draft it is stipulated that one quarter of all seats in the houses of parliament are reserved for military officers.  Additionally, it allows for the military chief to suspend the constitution whenever they see fit.  The most direct of attacks on the opposition, however, involves a clause which prohibits any citizen who has been married to a non-Burmese citizen from attaining and holding any political office.  This clause directly applies to Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) party.  She had previously been married to a British citizen.  

Freedom for Burma blogs on this very issue and reports on Aung San Suu Kyi's call to all Burmese to cast a "No" vote in this referendum.  This is clearly a move which goes against the participatory vision of democracy, in which all members of political groups are involved in the decision-making process.  The exclusion of the opposition is in clear violation of these ideals, and no hope can be seen for the future of Burma if it cannot allow voices to be heard.  Aung San Suu Kyi's main complaint was that the constitution had not been written by elected representatives, rather by individuals hand-picked by the current regime.

It is up to the people to exercise their political rights and have control over their fates.

Who really IS the greenest?

The cover story of Newsweek magazine this week is entitled "Environment and Leadership: Who's the Greenest of Them All?" The cover story seeks to pull apart the environmental records and stances of the three major candidates- Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain.

"Environment and Leadership" stems from two competing visions of democracy. First, the plebiscitary vision, which states that the leaders should follow public opinion. So if Americans believe that global warming is an important issue, the candidates should all be taking it seriously. So far this is the case, even with the Republican candidate, who did not vote on any of the fifteen key environmental votes (to not upset anyone as he walks this fine line), but still has a considerably better overall voting record than most Republicans. Hopefully public pressure in this case will make all of the candidates stick to their promises down the road.

The second vision of democracy that can be seen here is the pluralist vision. Special interest groups like the League of Conservation Voters have great influence over their member's votes. Their endorsement will mean a great deal to the candidate who gets it. It's a big deal that they are still considering McCain, the Republican candidate, and if he does come out with stronger stances about emissions rates and fuel-efficiency standards and gets the endorsement, it will perhaps be the day that environmentalists stop voting Democrat as a bloc.

Another Change in Sen. Clinton's Campaign

Less than two months after replacing campaign manager Patti Doyle with longtime friend Maggie Williams, Sen. Clinton’s campaign made yet another major change on April 6th. Mark Penn, the senior strategist and pollster for Sen. Clinton’s presidential bid left the campaign.

On March 31st Penn met with Colombian government representatives in an effort to have his company promote the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. Throughout her campaign, Sen. Clinton has made very clear her opposition to this trade deal.

Although Penn, who is the CEO of the public relations and lobbying firm Burson-Marsteller, held the meeting as a representative for his company and not for Sen. Clinton's campaign, he was asked to resign as chief strategist.

According to campaign manager Maggie Williams, Pollster Geoff Garin and communications director Howard Wolfson will now lead Sen. Clinton’s campaign strategy. However Williams states that, “Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. [Penn’s consulting firm] will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign.”

Unfortunately, this past event has ended his longtime relationship with the Clintons. Penn created polling and strategic advice in Bill’s 1996 re-election campaign and also crafted Hillary’s 2000 Senate campaign.

As reported in the PBS Reporter's Blog, several of Mark Penn’s clients go against Sen. Clinton’s campaign stances. For example, Sen. Clinton has emphasized union support. However, Penn’s company provides public relations advice to other companies who are trying to defeat union organization. While Clinton has also criticized the home mortgage industry, Penn’s company represents the nation’s largest home mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial.

Penn had considerable influence over Sen. Clinton’s campaign despite the fact that he was known to have sparked a lot of controversy. It has been reported that Penn argued and shouted often with other members of Sen. Clinton’s campaign team.

In my opinion, Sen. Clinton’s high campaign turnover is leading voters to question her ability to appropriately choose elected officials if she were to be president.