All States' and no National Prerogative makes Jack an Illiterate Boy

Whether Americans elect Obama or McCain on Tuesday, Mike Petrilli in his Washington Times Op-Ed says that President Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB, whimsically pronounced "nicklebee") Act is here to stay. Too deeply entrenched in American education policies to be easily removed, NCLB is a widely criticized act intended to get American students up to par internationally. While the NCLB’s implementation itself may have been an excessive imposition of the power of the national government upon state governments, NCLB’s worst faults come from an interpretation of federalism where states are given too much prerogative. Yet, these faults can be improved while still allowing states to maintain some control over their schools.

The act sets a central goal of 100% of American students proficient in reading and maths by 2014, while allowing states to set their own standards of proficiency. This leniency in standards problematically establishes a system of incentives that seems more likely to lower the competitiveness of American students than to raise it. Sam Dillon of the New York Times notes that states with high academic standards compare unfavourably against states with relatively lower standards under NCLB. What logically would follow is a perverse race to the bottom where the states that appear most successful under NCLB may be the most reading and maths-illiterate of them all.

NCLB can be improved, but only if Americans are willing to cede some of the states' powers. If the federal government set national tests they could still allow states to set their own goals and methods towards achieving a high rate of proficiency, as Mr. Petrilli recommends. Such standardization would allow for objective comparison of reading and maths competence, and even productive competition.

Given that NCLB will not disappear with Mr. Bush—even Obama, who is critical of the act talks about fixing, not revoking—the next president will have to make sure to reform educational policy so teachers and children will work towards higher, not ever lower, standards. To do so, however, he would have to negotiate the American dilemma described by Samuel Huntington where, to function most effectively, government must lose some credibility.

In the past few weeks Sarah Palin has made remarks departing from the official position of the McCain campaign. Not only did she speak out recently about her support for a marriage amendment and her belief that North Korea should be taken off the list of terrorist countries, she has also openly disagreed with certain campaign strategies such as McCain’s hesitance to talk about Jeremiah Wright and the choice to withdraw campaign funding from Michigan. Several McCain aides have commented that Sarah Palin leaves something to be desired as a team player for the McCain campaign. One particularly vehement aide told CNN that “she takes no advice from anyone” and that “she is playing for her own future.” If this is true, and Palin does have ambitions for the 2012 or 2016 elections, her “maverick” strategy has the potential to backfire horribly.

In election years, both the Republicans and the Democrats tend to seek out reliable team players who the entire party can rally around. Palin on the other hand, has had the freedom to disagree because McCain’s opinions are relatively moderate and his campaign needs to draw in the conservative votes. If he wins the election on Tuesday, she will automatically be considered the presumptive GOP candidate in either the 2012 or the 2016 election.

However, if Obama continues to dominate, many will attribute a Republican loss to her aggressive and divisive campaigning. Although she whipped up a large following with her “real talk” and her concern for conservative agendas, even more conservative sources are reporting that Palin’s approval ratings have dropped recently as the election nears and panic sets in for the GOP. Critics are pointing to her lack of experience and knowledge and her partisan attacks of Obama and his campaign as major contributors to the decrease in McCain’s popularity. If McCain loses, Palin might have trouble getting support in the future from a party dissatisfied and disillusioned with such forceful campaigning techniques.

How the Race Card is affecting the Race

Senator Barack Obama is bringing a large number of African-Americans to the polls. Georgia residents, including newly registered votes, have been anxiously waiting to cast their ballots. The New York Times claims that there are currently 25% more newly registered black voters than there were in 2004, many of whom were black women. Obama’s ability to mobilize such a substantial number of African-Americans has caused politicians to be cautious and observe Georgia closely because any slight change could make a difference in who “wins”. This is a significant moment in American Politics where the race card could define who has the election up their sleeve.
Although it has been said that many African-Americans have claimed that Obama “isn’t black enough”, a large majority believe that he will amend many issues of the black community. Trusteeship is particularly taking an interesting role in this election among the African-American population, as many of them are relying on Obama to represent their issues and be their voice in the United States government. Issues such as a low source of job opportunities, economy and education are not only issues Obama frequently covers, but they are also prevalent issues within the African-American community. With a large population, 29% of which are registered African-American voters, Obama’s populist appeal could help him win the race, for his race.

The Future of Foreign Policy

The United States has always played a major role in foreign politics. Since World War II, when the U.S. emerged as a super power, it rose so greatly so that it and, arguably, other nations, view it as the world police. The purpose of America’s foreign policy is, “to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community,” according to the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State.

America’s foreign policy has been heavily criticized by both those abroad and at home for its hypocrisy. While the United States proclaims the importance of freedom and equality for all, dictatorships in Latin America and the Middle East have been spurred on by American approval and aid. The United States also states its interest in helping developing and/or troubled nations. However, when opportunity strikes, America does not spend as much, or send as much aid as it should, in order to sufficiently aid these ailing nations.

Possibly the greatest upset above all among critics, is America’s attitude towards its own position in foreign policy. America views itself as above the rules, and beyond the reach of the ideals it sets out for other countries. For example, America, while advocating the end of nuclear proliferation maintains its own nuclear weapons. In addition, even with the statements of global peril of the environment, the United States refuses to take part of the Kyoto Protocol, which works to slow and eradicate the effects of global warming. It is perceived that it is America's role, or even, obligation to spread democracy and freedom to all, as the nation views these ideals as essential to the basis of any country, whether the efforts of the US was called on for help, or not.

One can say that this problem was exacerbated by President George W. Bush’s efforts to “expand democracy around the world and maintain a role for the United States befitting the world’s only superpower.” He attempted to make this goal into a reality by making the events of September 11 the core foundation of his foreign policy: fighting terrorism. Yet, seven years have passed, and the United States is still in the midst of this war and the number of deaths multiplies each day. Bush’s push for spreading democracy in Latin America, the Middle East and Africa has not produced any positive outcomes.

Now, in the midst of this historical election, it seems as if foreign policy is playing a significant role in each candidate’s campaign. John McCain, playing to his military background and congressional experience handling foreign policy, criticized Barack Obama for his lack of experience in foreign politics, while many chief military and foreign policy experts such as Secretary of State, Colin Powell and Regan Defense Department official, Ken Adelman, have supported Obama’s position of being willing to negotiate with several oppositional national figures such as Kim Jong Il of North Korea, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and the Castro brothers of Cuba. It is presumed that American voters prefer Obama’s more novel approach, as seen in the election polls, as opposed to McCain’s more traditional one, but one can only wait and see what this election will have in store for the foreign policy of the United States for the next four years.

The American Creed Takes a Hit

Last week, Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, made a formal apology before the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, citing his "shock and disbelief" over the state of the financial market that he had once regulated from 1987 to 2006. Greenspan, a relentless proponent for market deregulation, acknowledged that he "made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

What does this apology say about the capitalist way of life?

Americans have always been generally skeptical of strong government intervention, and argue in favor of equal opportunity for all individuals. After all, who has never heard of the "American Dream," that glorified ideal of the self-made man who strove to the top on nothing but his wits and a little bit of elbow grease? Alan Greenspan himself was the stronghold of deregulation in his time, believing that business' fears of their own downfalls would motivate them to make timed and careful movements. However, in the midst of the recent economic crisis, the capitalism itself has become endangered.

Of course, there is no doubt that capitalism will bounce back from these troubled times, but what form it will take when that eventually happens remains a mystery. Through its bailout bill, the U.S. Government is playing an active role in repairing Wall Street, but at the expense of sacrificing the old economic system. As both Alan Greenspan and every global leader has come to realize, albeit several years too late, the economy cannot always regulate itself. The question is whether this has become the case as the result of an increasingly complicated and confusing economic system that no one body can fully control, or whether this argument has existed all along. If the former is true, then the American economy is in need of a makeover: a system more effective than what Alan Greenspan once oversaw to keep track of the confusing network of banks, firms, and intermediaries that exist today. If the latter is true, then the classic American ideology of competition free from government intervention was never the right way from the start.

Picking and Choosing...

About a week ago, the Bush administration, according to The New York Times, told congress that they were going to "bypass" a law that they didn't see fit to follow. The law "requires the [Department of Homeland Security's] chief privacy officer to report each year about Homeland Security activities tat affect privacy, and requires that the reports be submitted directly to Congress 'without any prior comment or amendment' by superiors at the department or the White House. The homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, said that the president didn't need to follow that particular law 'strictly' because it 'infringed' on the president's powers.'

The law in question, signed by President Bush August 2007, was originally put into place to serve as a 'checks & balances' of some sort. Given the Bush administrations past transgressions involving citizens’ privacy in combination with the secret activities of Guantanamo Bay, the law was supposed to give the system a little more transparency.

The deliberate disregard of the law, naturally, was not taken lightly by the Congress, republicans included. The ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pennsylvania senator Arlen Spector, called Bush’s actions “unconstitutional. He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.”

Politicians, and scholars alike, think it’s just another example of the Bush administration doing what it wants and how it wants. The question, however, is not so much about why the Bush administration does what it wants but more about why Congress doesn’t do much to stop it. The system of checks and balances was put into place so that when times like these arise, the legislative branch doesn’t have to feel helpless in comparison to the executive branch. Moreover, congressmen and women are voted into office by the people for the people. And according to PollingReport.com, the people are tired of the Bush administration’s cavalier ways of governing; only 29% approve of the job he’s doing. One would hope that politicians look at the polls and see that public is not happy. Hopefully they’ll do more to defend our rights and actually stand up to the administration on behalf of the people (isn’t that why we elected them?); it’s time they do more for the people.

Will they? Only time will tell.

What do bracelets have to do with the military?

As the days pass by, the countdown continues to November 4th - presidential election day.  In this election, perhaps more than in others past, current affairs of the U.S. military play a large role in how voters will cast their ballots.  With the Iraq War still at the forefront of many American's minds, presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama weigh in on how they would approach the task of directing the military as commander in chief.

In the first presidential debate, each candidate made a point to explain the meaning of the bracelet he was wearing.  Both bracelets were from military mothers but the message each candidate took away was extremely different.  McCain's message was simple: the troops want to win, we must let them win.  Obama's message was equally simple: we must stop the needless death of our troops, we must bring them home.

When both candidates bring such a personal issue as this to light in a highly publicized debate, one can only wonder what each man is really trying to say.  What do they have to say about the military?  Or what does their approach to the military say about them?

In an early presidential campaign ad, McCain's military service is highlighted as a reflection on his character.  The ad is packed with heuristics that scream strong, courageous, enduring masculinity, right down to the light blue shirts and ties that McCain wears.  He even mentions that he wasn't the best student at the naval academy.  It is easy to identify with him in this ad.  Voters think, "This is a man who has my back."  Are these cues meant to speak to the inner assumptions Americans have regarding those who serve their country?

Obama's approach is extremely different.  Having based much of his campaign on his opposition to the war in Iraq, Obama is more a fan of the judicious and tempered use of the military.  But what can he do to align himself with those in the military?  Having grown up abroad, Obama cannot even play up an image of a home-grown, corn-fed, all-American boy.  As a gesture to military families, Michelle Obama travels the nation to speak with military wives.  But will this be enough to combat McCain's robust image?  Can Obama present himself in a way that speaks to American's heuristics and also inspire faith in his military prowess?

H.R. 6049

A part of George W. Bush’s election platform in 2004 included the support of tax incentives to increase the use of energy efficient products by the average American. Despite Bush’s keen interest in business and oil superseding any care for the environment, Congress and Senate have been rough-housing over H.R. 6049: Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, which gives hope to the ardent polar-bear loving environmentalists among us.
H.R. 6049 amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It creates new tax incentives for individuals and businesses to purchase renewable energy generation systems. Such systems take advantage of sustainable resources like wind and solar power, and hydroelectricity. H.R. 6049, sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), was called the Energy and Tax Extenders Act of 2008 when introduced to Congress on May 14, 2008. It became the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 after debate and the passing of amendments. Shortly after its introduction the Act was passed in the House whereby it was introduced in the Senate where it languished for months.
Debate raged on in Senate with two failed cloture motions until the amended Act passed on September 23, 2008. Almost all Republican members of the House voted nay on both cloture motions. What became so controversial was the way in which the federal government would pay for the tax credits. Republicans balked at the initially proposed payment scheme, which involved cutting tax breaks given to oil companies in the 2005 energy bill to pay for the tax credits. The decision to cut tax breaks to have money for tax credit is a part of the “pay as you go” system of the House. However, President Bush, ever sensitive to oil company complaints, threatened to veto the Act if the revenue-raising conditions were not changed.
H.R. 6049 is important not only because it supports vital tax credits in order to promote investment in the renewable energy sector but also because it is a prime example of how the separation of power system created and defended by our great “thinker” James Madison functions. This system, which separates the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government into wholly autonomous institutions with different incentives, has lead (as Madison intended) to conflict and inefficiency as the branches can “check” one another slowing down and or halting legislation. Not to mention, Bush has failed to directly – as he will most likely not sign this Act before he leaves office - respond to any of his energy promises from his election platform of 2004. And where is the incentive to do so? The separation of power system leads to a shared responsibility. Bush can legitimately blame the Congressmen and Senators for their lack of efficiency in passing the legislation as opposed to himself.

Gender, race, ethnicity, economic status are traditional factors in determining a person’s voting choice. For the 2008 election, one significant variable has been reintroduced: age. Political commentators have all noticed that a significant amount of support for Obama’s campaign has come from the “Millenials,” the age group ranging from 18-29. Obama’s rhetoric of change is refreshing for America’s youth, who have grown up with presidencies rocked by the remnants of the cultural and social upheavals of the baby boom generation.

This trend can be explained in part by the communication revolution through the Internet. Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, podcasts, and blogs are the new conduits of political activity and surely the biggest user base for these electronic tools is America’s youth. Young voters see Obama as a celebrity inside and outside the political sphere. Hollywood celebrities have become a link, connecting the youth with Obama’s campaign and the rhetoric it uses. An 18 year-old voter would be more moved by Will I. Am’s support for Obama than a voter over the age of 30.

YouTube in particular has been a significant source for the dissemination of election events. By displaying everything from debates, to speeches, to interviews, to advertisements, and public announcements, it has drawn youths into the political arena and has transformed them from spectators to active participants, especially in this year’s election. Underlying all this propaganda to get involved in the election is the call for one to honor the classic idea of civic duty. The “Don’t Vote” video on YouTube combines the force of the Internet, the influence of celebrities, and the idea of civic duty to get people to vote. The combination of these factors creates a message that rings most clearly for America’s youth. This empowering rhetoric reminds young voters that they can be a pivotal force in the political world, despite their age. Rallying behind Obama’s rhetoric for change, young America will become an even more influential force in the political world. For this election, America’s youth have come out in significant figures to honor their civic duty.

You're Only Young Once

Gender, race, ethnicity, economic status are traditional factors in determining a person’s voting choice. For the 2008 election, one significant variable has been reintroduced: age. Political commentators have all noticed that a significant amount of support for Obama’s campaign has come from the “Millenials,” the age group ranging from 18-29. Obama’s rhetoric of change is refreshing for America’s youth, who have grown up with presidencies rocked by the remnants of the cultural and social upheavals of the baby boom generation.

This trend can be explained in part by the communication revolution through the Internet. Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, podcasts, and blogs are the new conduits of political activity and surely the biggest user base for these electronic tools is America’s youth. Young voters see Obama as a celebrity inside and outside the political sphere. Hollywood celebrities have become a link, connecting the youth with Obama’s campaign and the rhetoric it uses. An 18 year-old voter would be more moved by Will I. Am’s support for Obama than a voter over the age of 30.

YouTube in particular has been a significant source for the dissemination of election events. By displaying everything from debates, to speeches, to interviews, to advertisements, and public announcements, it has drawn youths into the political arena and has transformed them from spectators to active participants, especially in this year’s election. Underlying all this propaganda to get involved in the election is the call for one to honor the classic idea of civic duty. The “Don’t Vote” video on YouTube combines the force of the Internet, the influence of celebrities, and the idea of civic duty to get people to vote. The combination of these factors creates a message that rings most clearly for America’s youth. This empowering rhetoric reminds young voters that they can be a pivotal force in the political world, despite their age. Rallying behind Obama’s rhetoric for change, young America will become an even more influential force in the political world. For this election, America’s youth have come out in significant figures to honor their civic duty.

If Gore Were President, This is Probably All We’d Care About

The pressure to live a greener life is being felt stronger now than ever before. Every day a new eco-friendly, world-saving consumer good is thrust into the market of the giant superstore that is contemporary America: cleaning products, cars, foods, cosmetics, even Oreos, which, let me tell you, no one eats to sustain anything, except maybe their high BMI. Over-consuming Americans contribute to the pollution of their surroundings in almost everything they do, but recent reports show that you can make a change simply by changing your tee shirt.

Polyester, the most common component in manufactured clothing, comes from petroleum, a fossil fuel that produced over 2500 million tons of carbon dioxide last year alone. The cultivation of cotton, another main fiber in manufactured clothing, uses approximately 25% of the world’s insecticides in its yearly production. The clothing manufacturing process is so detrimental to the environment that most textile manufacturing facilities are considered hazardous waste generators by the EPA.

A new trend is popping up that caters to Americans’ hyperconsuming lifestyle: environmentally friendly clothing. Fleece products are being made from recycled plastic bottles by packaging manufacturer Wellman, Inc. Wellman keeps almost 3 billion plastic PET bottles out of the world's landfills each year, saving over 1/2 million barrels of oil and eliminating 400,000 tons of harmful air emissions, all by recycling plastic bottles into weavable fiber strands. American Apparel, at the forefront of eco-friendly clothing (well, the variety that people actually wear), promotes a clothing line made from 20% recycled cotton, recycles over a million pounds of scrap fabric per year and uses solar panels on all their LA factories. Levi-Strauss, who produced the first sustainable blue jeans, is now using organic cotton, recycled zippers and buttons, and natural indigo dye in all their designs. Brooks shoe company distributes its shoes in recycled boxes, saving 14,285 trees and 5.9 million gallons of water a year. Even the Gap, a company with a shady past in social responsibility, is offering products made with organic cotton for babies, men and women. And for those Internet bargain shoppers, there is even a green eBay, WorldofGood.com, the world’s first eco-friendly online marketplace.

While eco-friendly manufacturing processes are certainly a step in the right direction, the real task lies in the hands of the consumer. This is perhaps one of the first times in which we will be able to rely on our nation’s overconsuming, media-driven nature to hop on the eco-bandwagon and save the planet, one shopping spree at a time. So the next time you’re in the market for a new fleece, check out one of the companies listed above. After all, you’ve probably consumed at least one of the Diet Cokes that were recycled to make it.

Proposition 8 or Proposition H8?

On November 4, 2008 Californians will be making their second decision on whether or not to ban same-sex marriage. It started in 2000 with Proposition 22 that sought to define marriage as between one man and one woman; it passed with a 61 % voter approval. The California Supreme Court then determined the ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional in a close 4 to 3 decision this past May. In response, Californians have brought the question back to the voters in Proposition 8.

Voting yes on Prop. 8 is a vote for defining marriage as between a man and woman. Many supporters of this position state that same-sex marriage will infringe upon the rights of heterosexual couples and will degrade the family unit. According to protectmarriage.com: "...schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between any two persons rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of 'marriage.'"

On the other end of things, those opposing Proposition 8 believe that banning same-sex marriage is a violation of a fundamental right. Many also believe that proponents of Proposition 8 are using scare tactics, most of which are false claims, to encourage Californians to vote yes. One previously mentioned was that gay marriage would have to be taught in schools. Jack O'Connell, superintendent of schools in California, spoke against this, stating that it was simply untrue.

I agree strongly with those opposing Proposition 8. I believe it will be step backward for California to prohibit same-sex marriage and I fear that if it is passed, many other states will follow suit. But Proposition 8 poses another difficult question. Should the majority always rule? Should the government act in opposition to public opinion? The California Supreme Court clearly acted against public opinion when it overturned the ban after it had passed with 61 % voter approval. Although I would ideally like to believe that majority rule is the voice of reason, I think that in this case the California Supreme Court made the right decision. I hope that Californians also make the right decision Tuesday.

Immigration Nation

It started with healthcare. In an interview with Charlie Rose, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi skirted healthcare and eased into talk of immigration reform. In response to Rose’s queries on whether Democrats intend to pursue universal healthcare, Pelosi stated "access to quality healthcare" and registration of illegal immigrants with the government as the preliminary steps. Despite her unwillingness to discuss universal healthcare, Pelosi’s statements intimate a shift in Democrats’ attitude toward immigration policy.

Pelosi proposes that illegal immigrants register with the government or face deportation. While some believe her words ring blasphemously of partial amnesty, her latest position sparked a different sort of outrage among some in the U.S. Latino community. "Maybe there never is a path to citizenship if you came here illegally," Pelosi said in an interview with the AP. "I would hope that there could be, but maybe there isn't." Some Latinos fear that Pelosi intends to doom illegal immigrants to an inferior, second-class status.

However, this sounds more like a compromise between two radical positions on immigration policy. At one end of the spectrum are those clamoring for amnesty. At the other end are those pressing for the deportation of virtually all illegal immigrants. Given the failure of the latest bipartisan measure on immigration law reform, Pelosi and Congressional Democrats seem to be compromising their past priorities, such as facilitating the eventual naturalization of illegal immigrants, in the hopes of success this time around. Better the government reform immigration law than not at all.

Illegal immigration has long been vilified by a majority of Americans. The classic argument is that one, illegal immigrants pose an unnecessary burden on tax-paying members of society, and two, illegal immigrants “rob” Americans of jobs. However, Pelosi admitted that the estimated 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally "are part of the U.S. economy", many of them filling low-skill, low-pay jobs Americans do not want. In light of globalization and the infinitely more profitable outsourcing of low-skill jobs to developing countries, preserving low-skill American jobs is not a wise investment of human capital. Rather, Americans should look to the rapidly expanding service sector for high-paying, high-skill jobs.

Americans can gripe about working illegal immigrants all they want, but they should not forget that many illegal immigrants residing in the United States did and do not come of their own volition, but rather are brought over by or along with their family. Is it fair to uproot children and those who came to the U.S. as children from the life and living standards with which they have become so familiar? The opportunity cost to the U.S. and global economy of displacing them, depriving them access to adequate education and a safe home, is just as high, if not higher as sacrificing some low-skill American jobs. Then again, is it fair that they get to be naturalized for violating the law? “We cannot send them all home, and we cannot send them all to jail, so we have to address it," Pelosi said. She is right, but the question is, is this the best way? Or rather, is this the only way?

Disregard the Figures...

Senator Barack Obama just came out with a new campaign advertisement in which he criticized Senator John Mccain’s health care proposal, which would require $882 billion worth of cuts in Medicare to be paid off. As Election Day draws near, both candidates are attempting to make their final impressions on voters, doing whatever it takes to point out the other’s flaws and constantly staying on the offensive in this race to the White House. Obama’s accusation is now being argued by the Mccain campaign as the “worst and most sustained distortion of policy in this entire campaign”. Although they may be necessary in paying off his plan, Mccain has not proposed any benefit cuts. The question behind Obama’s advertisement is that it was not an accurate criticism, since most it was made based on assumptions from news reports and rough calculations by a bipartisan group.
Obama isn’t the only one going off imprecise estimates. It seems that both candidates have been fuzzy in their numbers when it comes to health care. Although we have heard Senator Obama and Senator John Mccain give authoritative speeches and make confident promises that in their plans millions of Americans would be covered and a lot of money would be saved, it has now been confirmed by health economists that most of the figures the candidates cite are meaningless. It is impossible to know the future behavior of insurers, employers and consumers; the only thing they can do is guess. Each campaign has its paid consultants that will confirm figures even if they are not accurate , and so according to the New York Times, economists are saying it would be better for voters “to simply tune out all of the competing numbers and focus instead on the philosophical underpinnings of the candidates’ plans.” To the average American voter who isn’t engaged in politics and who probably has not concentrated much on the numerical figures spewed out in this election: just keep it simple and vote your party line (which you were going to do anyway).

Model volcanoes built by middle school science students could come in handy…

The failure so far of the international community to have any real effect on carbon emissions in the face of what some are calling a climate disaster has led members of the scientific community to begin discussing other ways to respond to the effects humanity is having on the climate. The idea of geoengineering has come to the forefront of discussion in some circles.

Geoengineering is the intentional modification of the Earth’s environment to make it more suitable for human life. This is not a new concept in the study of climate change. The New York Times published an article about geoengineering in July of 2006, and Chemist and Nobel Prize Winner Paul Crutzen published an essay in August of 2006 suggesting geoengineering as a legitimate solution to global warming.

Crutzen’s suggests in his essay that the release of sulphate particles into the air could combat global warming by cooling the atmosphere. Sulphate particles are released most notably during large volcanic eruptions, such as the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and they have been shown to cause temporary cooling in the atmosphere. Crutzen basically proposes that creating a manmade volcanic reaction to spread sulphate particles in upper levels of the atmosphere could be the solution to global warming.

While the idea of a manmade volcano might seem outrageous, this idea is now receiving a great deal of consideration from the scientific community. It seems that Crutzen’s proposed solution, as well as other theories of geoengineering are the subject of much debate. At a conference just a few weeks ago at a workshop in Wildbad-Kreuth in the Bavarian Alps, 40 scientists and engineers met to discuss whether the world should be alarmed by the idea of geoengineering. The consensus seemed to be that if even as only a last-resort option, humanity needs to begin considering geoengineering as a viable solution, and that any potentially done by geoengineering will most likely be outweighed by positive effects.

While there are certainly still a great deal of questions regarding geoengineering, this is something we may be hearing more about in the near future, if carbon emissions continue as expected.

The Economic Crisis: Can We Really Blame Any One Person or Group?

In recent weeks -- in light of failing banks, tight credit, volatile markets, expensive interventions and a very uncertain economic future -- many have focused on the past: Who can be held responsible for the current economic crisis? The banks? Members of Congress, who should have voted for more regulation? The Fed? Greedy investment bankers? Shady mortgage lenders? The Democrats? The Republicans? The president? Some even have gone so far as to lay the blame on individual congressmen.

But is it really so cut and dried? How can such a complex and extensive group of economic problems possibly be the fault of only one person or organization?

I’m not an economic expert, but somehow I doubt that the root of our economic crisis today can be found in the actions of one or a small group of people. I also find it hard to believe the possibility that the fault all lies with one particular political party, or the failure of a particular political party to take action on one or more issues, such as the failure of the Democrats, cited by President Bush, to agree to drill in ANWR.

And yet, at the same time, I’m not convinced that the Democrats or Republicans in Congress are completely blameless either. True, Wall Street CEOs have encouraged a lot of risky investing in the recent past, but don’t we also have to hold those who were supposed to be regulating them responsible as well?

The most recent round in the blame game has focused on Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman. Greenspan, who went before the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday to answer some questions about his time as Fed Chairman, has faced rising criticism from politicians and the public. Though he admitted that he must bear some of the responsibility for our current economic situation, his admissions are more related to a certain flaw in judgment. Mr. Greenspan says now that he “made a mistake” when he believed that free markets could regulate themselves.

But can we really say that the fault all lies with the lawmakers or the banks? At the moment, there’s hardly any recognition of responsibility on the part of ordinary Americans (the exception perhaps being SNL), who made bad judgments about their own personal finances and what they were actually in a position to pay for.

At the end of the day, we can’t fairly blame any individual or any single group for an economic crisis that is so complicated that it’s hard to even determine all the contributing factors. All we can do is try to remedy the situation and make sure that we restructure our system in such a way that we don’t see a repetition of this combination of factors.

A Party Divided

With 12 days until the election the electoral map is showing more blue than in 2004, indicating the likelihood that Obama will come away victorious in November. As Democrats (cautiously) prepare to celebrate Republicans are wasting no time in finding someone to blame for their predicted loss. Republicans are getting right to the point and blaming one another.

Poor strategy, lack of message, and the pick of Sarah Palin are just some of the scapegoats Republicans are citing. The most interesting sparring is taking place between McCain and the current Republican party leadership. McCain has criticized the Bush administration and the like for letting things "get completely out of hand," from spending in Iraq to not taking action on climate change. In response a top Republican strategist critiqued McCain for attacking Republicans rather than his opponent, and calling McCain out on spending $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe rather than other Republican congressional candidates.

While the Republican party suffers a meltdown, it gives the rest of us time to appreciate the United States of America and its electoral system that allows for election year, party in-fighting. With many parliamentary systems a party is elected, usually a unified party. Instead, we elect candidates who don't have to stick to their party when times are bad (as the Republicans are experiencing now.) A candidate can run away from his party--as some say McCain has done.

In the meantime both Democrats and Republicans will wait to see just how this election turns out (money is on Obama.) And afterwards the Republicans can go off and try to rebuild before mid-terms in 2010.

Divide and Conquer?

Collin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama on October 19th was not as much a surprise as it was a wake up call to the candidates and the voters. Powell’s words are a reminder that the campaign is a mean to an end (the end being governance). While ‘divide and conquer’ might be a great strategy to win elections it is not a great way to govern a country.

We are less than two weeks away from Election Day and the Republicans have been making sure to do everything they can to win. But as Powell suggested, the Republican attacks have not just been aimed at the opponent but also at the different sectors of America he represents.

Sarah Palin has been without a doubt the most polarizing figure in the past months. She has identified herself as the voice of the American people. But by people she does not mean all people. From arguing that small town America is (or suggesting it should be) the real America in a rally in North Carolina, to her emphasis on Hussein, the middle name of Obama and his ties with terrorists, Sarah Palin has alienated many Americans who do not fit in her stereotypical boxes. McCain in the meantime has done little to stop her. As George Packer argues in an article for the New Yorker, the Republican candidates are “Playing with Fire”.

Today many Americans are not only voting for a candidate or for a party, they are voting against the opponent of their candidate. While some are buying bullet-prove jackets and building bomb shelters in case Barack Obama and Joe Biden win, others are booking their tickets to Canada or Mexico in case John McCain and Sarah Palin do. The problem with this, is not only that Mexico or Canada are not exactly liberal havens at the moment, but the fact that Americans are afraid of the prospect of fundamental changes in this country. I am not talking about issues like health care or the fate of the troops in Iraq, I am talking about something deeper.

Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba once argued in their essay "The Civic Culture" that while the existence of partisan feeling is acceptable in a healthy democracy, a too hostile partisanship might jeopardize the willingness to accept opposition. The election on November 4th will be tight. The upcoming president will have to make the effort to represent all the different ‘Americas’ (Wall Street, main street, small town, city…). At the same time the losing party will have to make sure they are putting America (all of it) and democracy first and leave the divisions behind. However, this will not be easy if the dividing lines between America keep being carved deeper and deeper.

Justice for Whom?

When asked the question “is justice an important part of the United States?” the majority of Americans would undoubtedly answer, yes. After all, the Constitution itself was created to, “establish justice.” But what does this mean exactly? Justice for whom?
That’s where things get tricky. There are many things that Americans disagree about, but one common theme in our society is the idea of creating justice where injustices exist. This means that in general, it is an American value to try to correct injustices such as the institution of slavery. We, as a nation, after an excruciatingly long and laborious process, came to the consensus that slavery was immoral, and we did away with it. The same applied to correcting the discrimination that was occurring against women and minorities. Eventually, Americans came to their senses. And, eventually we came to the conclusion that all humans should have equal protection under the Constitution. We all hold the same idea that justice is, or at least should be, an inherent value in American society. Nobody likes it when the bad guy gets away with murder, so we've established laws to hold people accountable for doing things such as this, to punish them if they decide to act in ways which negatively effect society.  Likewise, nobody likes to feel as if they are not being granted equal rights, so we have the legal system established as an institution to protect those rights. So, if we all agree that people’s rights should be protected under the Constitution, what’s the problem?
Well, for starters, no one can seem to agree on what defines, “a person.” Many of you have probably heard about the Amendment 48. This is an amendment which has been proposed in Colorado which states that the term, “person” would apply to any human being at the moment of fertilization. The idea is to provide equal rights to all, including these unborn babies, well before the woman is even in her first trimester. It’s no surprise that this is a proposal supported strongly by many right wing conservatives, as well as many hardcore Christians, who have always argued against abortion, at any stage of pregnancy. It’s also no surprise that the proposal is getting a great deal of criticism from pro-choice liberals, who believe that this proposal is an outrage because of several things. They say that the amendment effectively bans birth control in Colorado because essentially, by using birth control to prevent implantation, this would be classified as homicide. In addition pro-choice activists argue that women who suffer a miscarriage could possibly be charged with negligent homicide because they didn’t protect the fertilized egg, even though it may have been so early in her first trimester that she was not even aware she was pregnant.
People will always have their different values and opinions about things, and that’s precisely the point. However, in general as Americans, we all have a consensus that we should abide by the Constitution, which states that, “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” My point is this however, Americans have different backgrounds, religions, and lifestyles which all shape their own personal values. With this particular issue of Amendment 48, although we want to provide equal protection for all people because this would be the “just” thing to do, we can’t seem to agree on what constitutes a person. Our individual religious and personal beliefs have come into conflict with each other, and there is now a defined dissensus among Americans over this issue.

US-Russian Questionable Relations

The Russian invasion of Georgia this past August put George Bush in a difficult situation. He could either side with Georgia, a longtime Western Ally and respected member of NATO, or ignore the invasion to strengthen his friendship with his buddy, Putin. To be fair, Bush did say he was 'concerned' about the situation, and sent a few humanitarian planes to Georgia for support. And Georgia did receive some American media coverage (below the stories about Michael Phelps' gold medal victories, of course). But it is still clear that Putin remains one of Bush's closest friends.

This past Tuesday though, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff met with General Nikolai Makarov of Russia for the first time. Although the US never specifically punished Russia for its unwarranted invasion of Georgia, US-Russian relations were clearly disrupted. The secret high level military meeting in Helsinki was a reported success despite the fact that no details were released about the nature of the discussion. Admiral Mullen said "I'll go home encouraged by the opportunities that I had to discuss the issues in a very direct way, face to face, and the commitment that in the future we will stay engaged." Other topics such as NATO relations, cooperating on the fight against terrorism and blocking increased narotics trafficking were also discussed.

The United States' current assessment of the Russian threat is very low. Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, "have challenged the Kremlin to behave better in global affairs but have noted that Russia's armed forces do not pose a global risk." The crisis was briefly addressed by both presidental campaigns in August, but has since disappeared from the more pressing issues of debate. Both campaigns felt Russia's invasion constituted aggression and urged an immediate response. Will US foreign policy with Russia change with the election of a new president? Or are the candidates just talk?

A Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Over the course of the past couple of months, the War in Iraq has seemed to be heading for a light at the end of a five and a half year long tunnel. Negotiations have been in the works for a U.S.-Iraq security agreement that will—at last—set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2011.

In response, Iraqi civilians are protesting for an “end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.” These protests are affecting the decisions of the United Iraqi Alliance, of which Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki’s Dawa party is a member, concerning the agreement: they were staged in Baghdad this past Saturday and negotiations between the two countries arrived at a standstill on Sunday. Since provincial elections are next year, the overwhelming dissent in Iraq is forcing al-Maliki and other Shi’ite party leaders to worry about maintaining the support of their parties if they take a pro-American stand, which they would be doing by acquiescing to the proposal as it is now.

On the one hand, the response of Iraqi leaders to the protests points to a growing influence of the Iraqi people in the political process. This demonstrates the beginning stages of a democratic system relative to Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian regime. On the other, Iraq has decided to change only the wording of the proposed agreement. This leads us to question what actual political power the people have and thus, the true nature of the Iraqi democracy. Moreover, it is the Shi’ite majority who are in opposition to the proposition; the Kurdish minority has already approved of it. Is this response an example of majority rule in action, or merely of what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution feared, a “pursuit of self-interest” by the government?

The mostly peaceful protests have been supplemented by a continuation of bombings in Baghdad as recently as Sunday. In retrospect, the bloodiest months of the war did in fact follow President George W. Bush’s announcement of “mission accomplished” on May 1, 2003. Thus, these protests of the U.S.-Iraq peace pact hint that the future of Iraq has the potential to be rocky—perhaps even as rocky as the past five years of supposed post-major combat operations have been.

Although peace in Iraq may not be in the future of tomorrow, there is at least a glimmer of hope for it someday. The democratic system that is gradually and somewhat unsteadily taking hold of the country will continue to do so, as Iraq learns to lessens its dependency on the U.S.