Fun Late Blog Time/Serious Christmas Day Terror Issue

So the article I read today is by the Associated Press titled, "Obama wants answers after botched attack". What's the botched attack? Well if you were not aware, on Christmas Day "a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, with suspected ties to al-Qaida", according to the article, made an attempt to blow up a Detroit bound airliner coming from "Nigeria by way of Amsterdam". Luckily, as the title says, this was a botched attempt.

But here's the real issue, there was intelligence floating around about this possible attack weeks before this botched attempt occured. The article states many examples foreshadowing last Friday's attack. However, it was the revelation examined in an article by the New York Times that seemed to be the last straw. It revealed that the government had intelligience of Al-Qaida leaders speaking about the attack days before Christmas. This all leads to the president asking the same question everyone's asking, "why was this not addressed".

What was the purpose of this tentativeness? For someone as open minded as me it's still hard to understand. At the same time, I can tell where this will lead to, a good amount of finger pointing. History has turned out the same, and I'm speaking as recently as Katrina. Except it seems that this finger pointing will take place more in federal government than between the federal and state government. However at the same time, some people are pointing at Obama for asking this question a week after the "botched attack". There may be blame to share on this one. However I can see this ending in one of two ways, there will be some kind of government reform so something like this doesn't happen again, or all of the blame will be put on one person or group of people and they will hold a stigma for years to come. I guess we'll see what happens

PS. to whoever was really supposed to blog today, I'm sorry if we ended up using the same article because there's a good possibility we did, I mean hey, this is juicy. And also sorry this is late in general, especially because this is so late I may not even get any credit for this and my post might have been almost pointless. Oh well.

and by the way

HAPPY NEW YEAR NEWFIELD AP GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS CLASS!

Airport Security: Where to Draw the Line

An attempted bombing on a Northwest flight headed to Detroit on Christmas day has sparked a new debate over airport security and where to draw the line between protecting passengers and protecting their privacy.
The main device in question is a "full body scanner", nicknamed by critics the "digital strip search. Already in use at several airports in the United States, the device looks like a metal detector, but, it actually captures the contours of the body, revealing any foreign bodies that might be hidden under clothing. Supporters of the technologically advanced security measure argue that the device could have stopped the would-be bomber on the Christmas-day flight, or anyone else who attempted a similar feat (hiding chemical explosives in underwear in order to board a plane). Opposing groups, however, such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the device is an invasion of privacy, as it basically produces a digital naked image of anyone who walks through it.
The controversy over the issue lies in the possibility that the images could be leaked onto the internet via airport employees. While some argue that the scanner is far too invasive, others argue that it does not do enough as the machine cannot detect threats hidden inside the body. The real question is whether or not the full body scan's added security is worth the invasion of the passengers right to privacy.
Jason Chaffetz, Republican Representative of Utah, has pushed for a bill requiring the use of such machines in air ports, but only as a secondary screening. While the bill did not recieve much attention earlier this year, it is sure to be a hot issue when Congress reconvenes in the New Year in the wake of a such a close call on Christmas day.

Source: The New York Times
Debate Over Full-body Scans vs. Invasion of Privacy Flares Anew After Incident by John Schwartz
www.nytimes/2009/12/30/us/30privacy.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Possible Elimination of Public Option

The conflict on whether or not there should be a public option in the health care bill is slowing down the process of getting a bill passed. Liberals favor the public option, and conservatives oppose it. The House Bill contains a public option, however the Senate Bill does not. President Obama supports the public option but has no guidelines on what public option should include.

While there is no exact definition given on what a public option means in the health care bill, those supporting it want the public option to give more choices to insurers, increase competition for insurance competition, and to contain costs. Those opposing the public option say that it would allow the government to takeover the health care system. Even though the Senate Bill does not contain a public option, the idea of a public option is not necessarily dead. The Senate was barely able to get the sixty votes that it had, and both the Senate and House Bill allow for the creation of nonprofit insurance cooperatives to increase competition, and increased competition is one of the points of an ideal public option. I personally believe that there should be a public option. Competition among insurance companies will be at the best interest of the insurer, and even though it might give more power to the government in health care, the government is already going to have some control over health care, and a little more control won't hurt.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/28/health.care/index.html

Dropping the Public Option, but not really.

The health care bill has been negotiated between the House and Senate but still cannot be agreed upon. One problem facing the passage of the health care bill is the "public option". The public option exists for three reasons as stated by Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, "create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies and to contain costs", many liberals in both parties favor a public option, while conservatives believe it is the beginning of the complete government takeover of health care.

Democrats realize the precarious nature of their predicament, their proposed health care bill barely passed through the senate. To drop the public option would cause an increase in support from conservatives who were originally opposed to it. Still, the Democrats would like to see their ideals for the public option, as stated by James Clyburn, to exist within the bill. Clyburn says, "So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I'm all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence."

It seems for the Democrats that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. A public option, not labeled the public option but still achieving the same goals is the way Democrats may attempt to pass their controversial health care bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/28/health.care/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Merry Christmas Healthcare

Before this year ends I'd like to ignore other cover stories of this month to focus on the healthcare bill that is finally being passed. I need to ignore the fact that New York needs to not keep up with the times and just approve gay marriage(seriously, when are these people going to wake up or never wake up so reasonable people can take their place?)or Obama's plans for finally finishing the war in the middle east, which is really just the same thing we've been doing so far.

This is the holiday season, meant for hope and positivity so I must focus on the only positive thing that happened. Yay healthcare. I'm not completely happy because the healthcare bill is going somewhere, but because Obama finally started to accomplish something. He's getting across to congress after a year of struggle and I'm excited to see how much more cooperation he can get for the next 3 years. I really do hope that next year will be an even better year for politics. Bush is gone, the "crusades" on terror are gone. Celebrate my brothers and sisters, things are happening! Lets forget Tiger Woods's problems and just concentrate on fixing our own problems. Why do people have to keep trying to bomb planes? It's gunna be soo last decade.

Guliani Says Farewell, For Now, to Politics

Rudolph Guliani, one of New York City's most notable mayors, has announced the resignation of his efforts to run for the presidency. A Catholic Republican (matter of fact, he wanted to be the first Catholic Republican president), he ran in the Republican primaries for the election of 2008, but lost to candidate John McCain. Additionally, Guliani had hopes of becoming the governor and a United States Senator, but, like the presidency, he withdrew his campaigning efforts. In turn, he endorsed Rick Lazio for governor. His reason for this is that although he would be honored to become president, governor, or a United States Senator, his life already is very busy and he is satisfied with all the other opportunities he has been given. Some of his supporters are saddened by the news. One of his most distinguished features was his capturing personality and sense of sympathy for those in need. To those who encountered him, they could easily describe him as a warmhearted politician. Those who might remember him most may be from his work during the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He not only made powerful speeches and assisted in defending his city from ultimate plunder but he helped the families of the victims of September 11. He spoke individually with these family members, expressed his deep concern, etc. Although every one of these families was devastated from the attacks, they can mostly all agree that Guliani was an exceptional source of comfort.
After examining the type of person Guliani came to be and his withdrawal from major governmental campaigns, some significant questions remain. For one thing, why would a politican so respected by the American public have lost the primary vote? What held him back from being our president today? At the same time, for a man so diligent, why would Guliani put in so much effort to spark major campaigns and then abandon them? Yes, it is understood that his ambition for this position was not soaring. However, why would he begin a campaign (which requires unbelievable amounts of organization and finances) and end it so hopelessly? After this statement from Guliani, would the American public want him to run for the presidency or other governmental position again, or would they rather him proceed with his own responsibilities? These are all questions that circle around the mystery of Rudy Guliani's campaigning resignation--all questions we can only have answered through time.

Senate Still Must Deal With Debt Limit Increase

The Senate us attempting to increase the federal debt limit before Christmas and New Year's so they wont have to spend next week debating it. Although with America's current financial situation, time is definitely needed to further debate both bills. Concerning the federal debt limit, which they are looking to increase, can further hurt America's economy if it is not deliberately thought through. Further debate for this issue is scheduled throughout the up coming holidays such as Christmas and New Years. But the Senator's will have to put their personal lives behind them and put the good of the country first. Increasing the debt limit to 290$ billion could leave America in debt longer then anticipated and the increase in money may not be enough to take America out of the recession and jump start the economy. As for the Health care debate, Democrats may be eager to pass the bill due to debating schedule not being in their favor, but it looks like Republican senators refuse to sway their vote for their own personal Holiday break. The Health care bill could fail such as the Health care bill had failed during the Clinton Administration, although the current Health care Bill could increase America's dept and lead into another depression. The Republicans are looking towards debating till early February and not rushing. I believe all economic and political decisions are crucial to the future of America and no bill should be passes without full understanding of affects it may have.

Climate Accord In Hand, Obama Turns To Senate

Obama returned from the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen to discuss with the Senate a bill that will reduce carbon emissions and increase jobs in new companies. The president felt he was very successful in Copenhagen stating that, "...the world's major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change." The meeting was successful in that the countries represented in the gathering were focused on what could be done for the environment within their country. There were no contracts or legal papers signed. The United Nations decided to set goals such as cut carbon emissions by 2050 and create a fund to aid poor nations that have been affected by global warming. This gathering in Copenhagen is viewed by the president as the first step in organizing the nations around the world to come together and work as a team in solving this dilemma.

Many are unsatisfied with the conference because it does not address the reducing of deforestation and protecting the world's rainforests. According to the article, "Burning trees to clear land for plantations or cattle ranches and logging forests for wood is blamed for about 15 percent of the world's emissions — or as much carbon dioxide as all the world's cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships combined." Logging is a tricky issue to deal with since it involves the losing of jobs for lumberman and cattle ranchers. What other options are there for these people? How else will they earn a living and provide for their families?

For now the answer is uncertain. Once the health care bill is finalized, more attention will be drawn to the fate of the planet.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121669686

Obama’s Ambitious Agenda Carries a Few Bruises

The worldwide leaders are attempting to make advancements in controlling climate change. Mr. Obama now has to put an even greater focus on climate change amongst his other major issues such as, the economy and healthcare. According to John Harwood, "Mr.Obama's most ambitious effort is to reshape America's economy in the name of averting environmental disaster, and to persuade foreign rivals to work together toward that goal." President Obama is essentially try to "kill two birds with one stone," in that he is attempting to help our economy and the environment at the same time. However, this could potentially hurt our 10 percent unemployment rate even more, although Pelosi states that this will create more jobs opportunities. If Obama plans to make a green economy then jobs would now open up in the science research field. These jobs would be taken by the more educated people, not the average "Joe" which our country mostly consists of. People that work in places such as, coal mines and oil mines will lose their jobs, which will cause an increase in unemployment.

Also, President Obama would like to raise domestic energy prices so that America could send money overseas to help the environment damage. Although this could help our environment, which is in dire need of help, many people can not afford this increase in energy prices in our present day economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/us/21caucus.html?_r=1

Panel Backs Bernanke for a Second Term at Fed

The Senate Banking Committe has backed Ben S. Bernanke as a candidate for a second four year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Bernanke has been known for encouraging risk taking and is blamed and considered responsible for the disastrous state of the economy and current economic downturn. He has taken responsibility for some of the job loss and depleting savings accounts, but credit also has to be given where credit is due.

Christopher J. Dodd believes that if he had not acted in the way he did last Fall, the country would be facing an "utter economic catastrophe...". However, Bernanke has also been targeted for not being able to find the balance between doing too much and too little.

The split in opinion is demonstrated by the voting of Mr. Ben Bernanke as the Person of the Year by Time Magazine. They believe he is key in our economic recovery. One Senator made a very profound statement: "...it would be like rewarding the captain of the Titanic for piloting the ship into an iceberg, not for getting everyone off safely."

You can only put so much blame on one person; whether Ben Bernanke is a genius or single handedly running this country's economy into the ground, it is all a matter of opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/economy/18fed.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Universal Healthcare by the Holidays?

As we have seen over the last few months President Obama has been trying his hardest to find a middle groud for all Democrates to be able to agree on for the new healthcare plan. In earlier months the House of Representatives had passed thier version of the bill. The probalme now is finding a way to pass the bill through the Senate. Oddly enough, or maybe even not, even though both houses are controlled by the Democratic party, legislation is still taking a decent bit of time being passed. However as even the President has said, this is a very historic piece of legislation, and that all government officials would agree it will take time to create a stable, common interest, and workable plan. There is a lot of pressure behind this bill. However many politicians as well as the President him self are saying that all their fellow party members must work together to pass this important piece of legislation for all American's, for it is their governmental duty to do so, each politican must find common ground and parically let go of their own interests for the good of the United States. As Americans we must try and believe our government will do us well in the end, and hope for the best.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AnObplkeoaNL3QE6cHgDt36s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuZzlqOXZzBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjE2L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDdXBiZWF0b2JhbWFz

Big bucks for the happy holidays

The Senate passed a new legislation in a 57 to 35 vote for 446.8 billion dollars, much of which is going to fund the federal government. Although this bill was due to be passed last October it is just now passing this Sunday. The legislation includes six separate bills; these bills will keep federal agencies running until September 30th. Despite this legislation passing, Republicans still believe that the Federal government needs to cut down on its spending. However, Democrats fought that these funds were needed and are also hoping to pass yet another bill, that will total 600 billion, in which they can fund more projects not covered by the previous legislation.
Despite this legislation passing there are many more that Congress needs to face: the national debt limit, health care, and many more. By the end of the week the House is supposed to have all of its business finished for the 2009 year, however it seems unclear if that will happen since the Senate is still tangled up in the Health care bill.

(Source)

House Ban on Acorn Grant is Ruled Unconsitutional

WASHINGTON - The federal government must continue to provide grant money to the national community organizing group Acorn, a federal court ruled Friday, saying that the House violated the Constitution when it passed a resolution barring the group from receiving federal dollars.

A judge at the United States District Court in Brooklyn issued a preliminary injunction that nullifies the resolution and requires the government to honor existing contracts with the group and review its applications for new grants unless the Obama administration appeals the decision.

In the opinion, Judge Nina Gershon wrote of Acorn, "They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."

The chief executive of Acorn, Bertha Lewis, issued a statement calling the ruling a victory for the group and "the citizens who work through Acorn to improve their communities and promote responsible lending and home ownership."

In a lawsuit filed last month, Acorn argued that it was penalized by Congress without "an investigation" and has been forced to cut programs that counsel struggling homeowners and to lay off workers.

I feel that it is outrageous that Congress would feel that it is unnecessary to continue to fund this beneficial program. Not only does it help out those in need, which there are many who are, but it aids the impoverished communities. Especially since as a country we are experiencing such harsh economic times, and helping one another out is extremely imperative. How does Congress think we are going to get out of this recession if we do not help each other deal with these unfortunate times. We must not forget those who struggle the most. Thankfully, Acorn will continue to receive funds, as it rightfully deserves since it does so much good for our nation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/us/politics/12acorn.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Accepting Peace Prize, Obama Evokes ‘Just War’

Today, Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. In his speech he stated that some wars are necessary, thus justifying his decision to put more troops in Afghanistan. He stated that, "Make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.” This statement is very true however I am surprised he said it. I feel that it will bring mixed opinions to many, especially those who sought peace under Obama.
I also respect Obama's decision to state that there are others who deserve this award more than him. I feel that he handled this situation very well and his speech was in the right sense.
Finally, Obama renewed his pledge to close the American base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I do not agree with this because this base kept many horrible terrorists and by closing it, it may look as an opportunity for terrorists.

U.S. Will Settle Indian Lawsuit for $3.4 Billion

Yesterday the US Senate has decided that it will settle the Indian lawsuit for $3.4 Billion. This case has been in the court system for the last thirteen years and was finally settled. Obama has stated that this is a sincere reconciliation between the federal government and the American Indians. The American Indians land in 1889 was divided into parcels, which now the Interior department manages. The Interior department is resonsible for all money made off the lands from parks to oil. The case against the US is that the Interior Department mishandled that money which was supposed to be disperse to the Interior department and the American Indians living in that plot of land.

The American Indians have been shorted millions of dollars over the last thirteen years which is where the money was mishandled. The American Indians are finally being addressed directly by congress for their failed actions of properly dispersing the money that belonged to them. It is a good thing that Obama has taken the time to address this situation and fix a long problem that should have never happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/09tribes.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=US%20will%20settle%20lawsuit%20for%20indians&st=cse

Senator Democrats on Public Option

According to a few Democratic sources, liberal and moderate Democrats are said to have come to a broad agreement on the public option portion of the Senate health bill. The agreement is supposed to replace the public option by creating a not-for-profit private insurance option overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management. This would allow people of fifty five years and older to buy into Medicare that is currently only available to those who are sixty five and older.

Russ Feingold, a liberal senator from Wisconsin who is working on the deal has an opposing opinion. He disagrees with the idea of replacing the public option because he believes that it is necessary to have competition amongst the insurance industry in order to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars.

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut typically oppose a public option, were both interested in the idea of a nonprofit private alternative to a public opinion. Lieberman also said that he would join a Republican “filibuster” if the health care bill contains a public option. But he strived to make a point about the concern of allowing people of age fifty five to buy into Medicare. He states that it might add an additional burden to the program, which unfortunately is already going bankrupt.

Overall the idea is more of an interest to liberal Democrats whom are trying to expand health coverage. The new proposals also would give money to states that would allow them to cover low-income people through existing programs instead of Medicaid. Snowe was in opposition with this part of the deal. Stating that without a doubt, it is too expensive of a proposition.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/08/health.care/index.html

Exiting from Afghanistan?

The war in Afghanistan is one of the longest wars in United States history, and with the projected starting time for withdrawal in 2011, it doesn't seem like there will be an end soon. Obama plans to send in 30,000 more troops before starting the withdrawal, which doesn't help the process very much.

Setting the deadline seems more like a mistake to Republicans, who said that setting a date for withdrawal is handing the strategy to the enemy. That gives the enemy a set time limit to then strike while the Afghan forces are still recuperating. The withdrawal will transfer responsibility from the US armed forces to the Afghan armed forces. Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai has stated that he would like to work with the United States to bolster the country's military, which he believes will not have the fortitude to take responsibility from the American troops.

The withdrawal should not be based on time, but rather on internal security of Afghanistan, an idea supported by General David H. Petraeus, the commander of United States Central Command. Amidst all of this talk, questions arose about Osama bin Laden, whom the intelligence agencies in the United States could not find reliable data on. No real details were released by General James Jones, the president's national security advisor.

The shaky plan to withdraw troops in 2011 doesn't seem like it will come to the conclusion Obama plans, and perhaps American Troops will remain in Afghanistan even after the war is over. Will the Afghanistan army be ready to resume responsibility in their country, or will they continue to depend on the United States?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/world/asia/07afghan.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Good luck, Senate

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/06/senate.health.care/index.html



Today, President Obama met with Senate Democrats in an attempt to rally support for the health care reform bill. The gathering lasted about an hour, in which the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid stated the President did not address all of the outstanding issues. Among these issues is abortion, which will surface later on in the week when an amendment to restrict federal funding for abortion is voted upon.
As it stands now, the health care proposal is unanimously opposed by Republican senators. Being said, a group of moderate and liberal Democrats, including Reid, has been meeting regularly to resort issues such as the public option dilemma, which continue to hinder Republican support of the bill. Henry Reid stated that the Republicans are "being destructive." He views the overwhelming Republican disapproval of the bill as another intentional act to politically harm the Obama administration and the Democrats.
Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mich McConnell, continues to disapprove the health care bill. He believes that the Democrats have composed a bill so far to the left, that they have written a bill that they know the Republicans could not, in good conscience, support. He continues to criticize the bill, saying it ignored GOP concerns and problems.
Democrats occupy 60 seats within the 100-member chamber: the minimum number needed to overcome a unanimous Republican disapproval. If any Democrats reject the bill, Obama's health care reform bill will need some Republican support in order to be implemented. With two outlying Democrats already, refusing to support the bill because of the public option issue, this could cause a huge roadblock for the Democrats, and the passage of this legislation.
Even if the Senate manages to pass this bill, a congressional conference committee will then need to combine House and Senate proposals into a cohesive version that requires final approval from each chamber. Only then, will the bill finally be administered to Obama's desk to be signed into law....

Beginning of the End?

Over six years have passed since the start of the Iraq War. The Bush administration's initial plan to hand over security to the Iraqis following the invasion in 2003 may finally be put into play. The training of local Iraqi troops is now a central cohesive element of President Obama's plan to begin the withdrawal of American troops in Afghanistan in eighteen months.

The civilians' response? Positive. An Iraqi police officer said, "We’d be safer if just the Iraqi police came. Sometimes, if we work with coalition forces, some people feel the Iraqi police are in the hands of the coalition."

Although Iraqi responses to attacks are far from perfect, it's a step in the right direction. "An Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem" will allow for the withdrawal of our troops; the Iraqi people need regain control of their own country. The development of the country is certainly crucial to rebuilding the unstable nation, but training Iraqi troops will be the most significant step towards the end of the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/middleeast/05kirkuk.html?pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper

Dec 4th

The New York State Senate rejected a bill on Wednesday that would have allowed gay couples to wed, providing a major victory for those who oppose same-sex marriage, but instead, provided a victory for the opposing side who claim that gay marriage is either, "unnecessary," "wrong," or "unimportant." Senators who voted against the measure said the public was gripped by financial anxiety and remained uneasy about changing the state’s definition of marriage. We can also suspect that those who are wishing for reelection next year may have voted differently if they did not have the weight of the public's vote on their shoulders. Again, another example of why constant elections make our government an ironically slow process for change, which certainly does not display "good government". Politicians are not thinking of how issues will effect economics, but selfishly, how it will affect themselves.

In a state that is known for being typically Democratic, this was largely a surprise to me. I always felt that it was hard to find any who strongly oppose gay marriage within close physical distance to myself, and that those with more conservative social values were only typical of generally Republican states. Now that this bill has been denied by the state senate, I feel that more opposers to gay marriage have "come out", shall we say? Gay rights is again a hot topic in a time where young children, alike one 5th grader who has gotten some recent press, who will not stand for the flag until there is, "liberty, and justice for all". In a time where men and women patrol the streets annually in pride for their homosexuality, and even the young children stand up to protest against the hatred against them, how is it possible that New York state, a state of highly renown education standards and blue social values, vote against gay marriage? It's a frightening thought that we are all still diverse on this, once one-sided issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/nyregion/03marriage.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=dec%204&st=cse

NY rejects same-sex marriage proposal

Yesterday December 2, 2009 the New York Senate rejected the legalization of gay marriage. The vote was rejected by a 38 to 24 margin. Governor Paterson was relying on Democratic leaders to vote for the bill however, afraid of their reputation these close-minded people of New York did not follow through and voted against the passage of the bill. All the leaders of New York allow for the continual circle of discrimination .
We are seeing discrimination at its finest in our very own state. It is shocking to see rejection especially in a state that is generally democratic. Gay marriage has been a controversial subject matter, but it needs to be dealt with. It is completely and utterly unfair for gay marriage to be illegal. How is it in our society that when we see young kids getting married when they are clearly too young and unfaithful relationships we turn our cheeks but when gay marriage is brought up people all of a sudden care and pay attention.....it is not logical. If its a question of a religion then it should not be brought up because separation of church and state. The Gay community should be treated and granted the rights that all the people of the United States get to practice. If we accept shogun weddings in Vegas that more often than not will be annulled, why can we not accept a marriage in between two people that actually love each other?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/opinion/03thu2.html?ref=opinion

Obama's Speech

Earlier tonight, President Obama made a speech on his plans for the war in Afghanistan (Yes, I watched the speech and am now writing this after the speech). Speaking at the Military Academy at West Point, President Obama outlined his plans for the war, speaking mostly on why he would be sending more troops to the region, among other subjects.

Standing before West Point cadets and top military leaders, President Obama told of his plans for the war in Afghanistan. The war, which is now entering its ninth year, has become a very troublesome issue for the United States. With this in mind, President Obama outlined a clear plan on what he was going to do, and why he was doing it. First, and most importantly, Mr. Obama announced that early 2010 he would be sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. This would be to target, and further weaken, the insurgency, making the country safer, and also so that more Afghani forces may be trained, so that power may be transferred back to Afghanistan, and so that American troops may begin to leave. President Obama vowed to begin bringing troops home in the middle of 2011. He defended the war, stating that "Afghanistan is not lost," "but for several years it has moved backwards," and that it now needs to be brought back. Hinting at the Bush years, and also criticizing the Afghani leader, Hamid Karzai, Obama also stated that Afghanistan would no longer be receiving a "blank check." Also, bringing up the issue of Pakistan, he stated that he would continue to support Pakistan. President Obama addressed many points during his speech, detailing a clear plan for the war, but also leaving many questions unanswered.

Three whole months were spent before this speech in determining a proper strategy for the war in Afghanistan. Both sides gave their views on what should be done, with many on the right wanting Obama to heed General McChrystal's advice and add 40,000 more troops, and many on the left wanting Obama to set a definitive exit plan. He addressed both sides, adding 30,000 more troops, instead of McChrystal's requested 40,000, and giving a time -- the middle of 2011 -- for when he would begin to bring troops back home. On this last issue though, he was somewhat ambiguous. He never said how many troops he would begin to bring home at that time, and when he would bring all troops back home. Though even this is better than simply stating that the war must be won before we left, as the last President stated. Also, it is not certain that the surge will even work. It worked in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it will work here. Afghanistan has already become somewhat of a quagmire, and one hopes that it does not truly become a quagmire and even more of a detriment to this country. President Obama spoke somewhat definitively, being concise, and telling of what he actually wanted and why he wanted it. Now, one can only hope that all works well, and that we get out of Afghanistan as soon as we can, not allowing it to become a quagmire.

Source:

The New York Times

Update:

The New York Times

Bring Home the Troops!

The White House announced that President Obama would officially make a speech on the withdrawal of American soldiers from Afghanistan. It was said that he would make this very speech tonight at West Point Military Academy to cadets prepared to leave at the very beginning of the next year. These 30,000 additional troops will not necessarily be fighting, but rather, finishing up setting up final details. This means helping native Afghans to help rehabilitate themselves so they can have a stable government and create their own security. That would allow the Americans to leave efficiently and with relief, knowing that the Afghans would be able to take care of themselves.
Truly it is, "the sooner, the better." We've technically been in the "war" for about a decade now, and finally we have a president who's bringing change. In the NYTimes article, the contributors give a hint of blame on the former president, George W. Bush who failed to successfully train and ready/prepare a "reliable Afghan force, not only the national army but a series of local forces as well." The new troops would better "equip" the Afghans with knowledge and understanding of their own terrain and help them to become a stable nation of their own.
Although it's been a run of trials and errors, it's about time this change has come around. However, even though McCain does disagree with President Obama, I would have to say "it's about time." I feel like we can't keep involving ourselves with Afghanistan like we're its mother. This country is known for its "international policing powers" but that power only goes so far, if not, this world might as well just be considered "American." Afghanistan will get its help and when the President says its time, its time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02policy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=politics

Growing Need of Food Stamps

The recession is hurting many families in the United States. More than 36 million people currently use food stamps and the number keeps on rising every month. The sight of people using food stamps is now just as common as seeing people buying groceries with their own money.

About 2/3 of the people that qualify for food stamps, receive food stamps. 20,000 new people receive foods stamps every day. In 239 counties food stamps feed 1/4 of the population and in 750 counties, food stamps feed 1 in 3 blacks. It is reported that by the age of 20, 90% of all black children will at some point use food stamps. While food stamps were originally more common in poor communities below the poverty line, more an more food stamps are being used by families living in the suburbs. Many rich counties have seen a spike in the amount of people applying for food stamps. Food stamps originally symbolized laziness, but now as more and more people lose jobs, and less jobs are available, support for food stamps continues to rise.

I think that even though it is important to help people that can't afford food, more importance should be placed on trying to get jobs. In many counties, factories and stores closing has caused people to get laid off. After people get laid off, they apply for food stamps. If new jobs can be created, people will have a steady income coming in which will stop them from getting food stamps. The number of people applying for food stamps is increasing way too quickly. With the recession this is to be expected, but actions must be taken to slow-down this rise.

What Voters Want?

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has commented that voters want politicians to reach across the aisle, to participate in bipartisan efforts. This attitude of participation and reform, however, has gotten him in trouble with his constituents in his home state. Charlston County has recently censured, or officially reprimanded, the moderate Senator, with a number of grievances included voting to confirm Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and working with Senator John Kerry on climate change legislation, voting to support the Wall Street bailout, and "tarnishing the ideals of freedom."
Senator Graham avoided an additional censure in Berkeley County by agreeing to meet with party leaders, and neighboring York County has made its disapproval of Graham's politics clear.
Opposingly, South Carolina's other Senator, fellow Republican Jim DeMint practices different politics. Known in the Republican party as a "Defender of Liberty", DeMint is far less moderate and believes that Republicans need to stay true to conservative ideals instead of compromising with the Democrats across the aisle.
Many followers of politics in the area say that in reality, Graham and DeMint's voting records are about eighty percent identical. So why the criticism for Graham while DeMint is so well supported?
Former Republican state lawmaker John Graham Altman says that it is the polarized political climate under the new Democrat President Barack Obama, as well as the pressure of the healthcare debate that has South Carolina conservatives all riled up.
On the other hand, as long as these ultra-conservatives have control over the local Republican parties, there is no solid way to tell whether the voters (who in the past have been on the whole moderate Republicans) are really all that upset. Professor of political science at Winthrop University Scott Huffmon says that the image of Lindsey Graham "on the ropes" is not entirely accurate, and Senator DeMint has also said that the differences between himself and Senator Graham have been largely exaggerated.
With such a mix of information, it is hard to determine whether Graham has really lost popularity with his constituents, or whether hard-core conservatives are making mole hills into mountains.

www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/politics/29senators.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
South Carlina Rift Highlights Debate Over G.O.P.
by Shaila Dewan

Pakistani Leader Leaves Office After Intense Pressure

The leader of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari late friday night on news release. Zardari held the top civilian position in the organization known as the National Command Authority which controls every aspect of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Some speculate that President Zardari left because of Obama's strategy for that region. He is also charged with corruption and other criminal charges. Analysts say that this move does not throw off the stability of the Pakistan as long as President Obama continues to enforce his changes. President Zardari did not get a long with the Pakistani military and the Pakistan People's Party so many were thrilled to see him leave office. The move for him to leave office has helped out Pakistan, many say. Now the United States wants to take control of that powers that he has and control Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Many have question the power of the Pakistani government and questions its ability to handle these situations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29pstan.html?_r=1&hp

The ole miss

It was a beautiful day for football on the 21st of november 2009. Ole Miss vs. LSU, two colleges fighting it out. Then the KKK showed up to protest.

Such a random event in what will now be some sort of history. I really don't understand what they were thinking but alas, the 1st amendment continues to assualt us. If they wanted to protest the changing of the song, they could have done it without using a full fledge KKK representation. Times have changed and it's gotten to the point where even children know it's not alright. They changed the words of the song at the end only and it was because it said "the south shall rise again" fro the same reasons the elementry school down the road changed their mascot from a native american to a dragon. political correctness. It's not to say what is or what is not right to make another person's opinion wrong, but it is assured that we are not going to have a southern uprising on our hands anytime soon. So it's only accurate to make the song relevant again by correcting it much like the constitution.

The age of prejudice is over. It's a childish fear of the unknown and judging a book by it's cover. We are smarter now, until other sentient beings come down from outerspace according to District 9. The uniforms still entitle hatred from americans, but it happens to be more on the outside than on the inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezkvRywf4vw

Enthusiasm for Palin, Echoes of 2008 Divide

Conservatives joined in great numbers this week to not only meet, but promote Sarah Palin. She has been pioneering a tour to advertise her new book, "Going Rogue," which has been a major subject of discussion in politics lately. Many conservatives came to purchase her book. However, all conservatives came to bind their minds together and argue in favor of conservative principles.
The New York Times interviewed random groups of people at Palin's appearance to discover their intentions for traveling to this event and their views on Obama's current performance. The consensus that plagued the crowd was that Palin is a "great conservative hope" and a "role model." Generally, they are confident that she is the solution to Obama's "tragic" performance. Palin did not choose to visit the typical popular cities that other politicians may have normally traveled to had they been launching their own tour. Rather, she targeted smaller towns, where she demonstrated the most success with McCain during their campaign last year.
Opinions about Obama grew strong amongst Palin's supporters. They believe that after a year of sitting in office, he still has not truly governed. Rather, he has been campaigning and illustrating his hope for what can happen, but not actually doing anything except spending money. They also were concerned about his policy in Afghanistan. Many agreed that he still has not made a sufficient decision about what to do there and he must either take action or get the troops out immediately. Some hard-core conspiracy theorists went as far as claiming that Obama is a Communist that wishes for everyone to attend re-education camps. Whatever the case was, everyone was angered by Obama's downfalls, such as the hightening budget deficits and proper health care reform that does not seem to exist. Attacks against Obama seemed especially prominent because Palin stopped in cities that are mostly unemployed. They all expressed hope for Palin to be our next president. They were actually not sure exactly what she would do to "fix" our country, but they are confident in her since she knows how to "run a family and a state."
I agree with how conservatives have reacted to Obama's performance and why they are looking for change. When Obama campaigned last year, I supported him and maintained great hopes that he would be the greatest solution to our country's major issues. I was confident that the economy would be restored, the war would either be dealt with better or settled, health care reform would be in effect rapidly, etc. Unfortunately, Obama has not proved to me that he deserves the presidential position yet--and it has been a year. I hoped that everything he stated in his speeches would be true. However, I know that, at least for now, Obama's words were not true. He pushed our hopes up for very little positive change. Where is the health care reform? What is happening with the war? When will our economy return to a better condition? I have many questions that have been left unanswered. I appreciate his positive attitude and his undying hope. However, how can he have so much hope left when little has been done? Hopefully, Obama will use his next few years in office wisely and actually demonstrate reform rather than speak of it. Until then, I will agree with the conservatives' views that we need change as soon as possible.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/us/politics/22palin.html?pagewanted=print

The Senate Health Reform Bill

For many months now we have been hearing news about how our government has been taking steps to try and reform health care. It cannot be denied that the process has been slow and tedious, but finally there has been a progressive step in the right direction. The two major versions of the health care bill that were previously being debated have finally been merged, surprisingly, into a somewhat better overall bill.
The Bill, if passed, would cost in excess of $848 billion over the next decade. The Bill would cover 31 million Americans that would have previously been uninsured. Furthermore, it would reduce the Nation's deficit by $130 billion in the first decade alone. In the decade, after that it would reduce the deficit by over half a trillion dollars. The Bill will also make health care more affordable for the middle class and it would force companies to shy away from expensive health care. Unlike the old Bill. the new Bill will include health care plans that cover abortions at the cost of the individual. However, the Bill's benefits would cause a slight increase in the amount that lower income people would have to contribute.
After we have waited so long for the Senate to decide on a single Bill, we must now wait to see if the Bill will make it up for debate. In order for the Bill to be debated, the senate will have to unite all the democrats, including the conservative democrats, in order to overcome the Republican filibuster. After waiting for so long our government owes it to us to allow this bill to be debated.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/opinion/21sat2.html?scp=5&sq=november+21+2009&st=nyt

Panel Votes to Broaden Oversight of the Fed

The United States is currently in a recession. The government has come up with many "remedies" to try to end this recession. One of these "remedies" includes bailing out large companies, such as GMC. However, this company has faced such a large financial deficit that one bail out has not cut it for them. This problem is one of the many problems of the Federal Reserve that has caused anger in the House . Yesterday a House panel voted that Congress oversee the central bank's actions.
The House Financial Services Committee has recently approved a measure proposed by Ron Paul of Texas which, allows Congress to audit essentialy everything the Federal Reserve does. However, this measure is feared by many in the Federal reserve because it will cause the Federal Reserve to be a lot more pressured by not only politicians, but the public. Also, the Federal Reserve believes that, "it would undermine the central bank’s political independence and gravely threaten its credibility as a bulwark against inflation."
This measure proposed entails that the Government Accountability Office perform all these audits on the most controversial things such as the bail outs. Also, the Goverment Accountability Office would oversee the interest rates set by the central bank. With this measure the goal of the central bank to decrease interest rates would be disturbed because now Congress would also have to agree on a way to accomplish the goal of decreasing interest rates.
This proposed measure seems extremelly efficient during these difficult times. The Federal Reserve has made many mistakes in bailing out these companies, in that, these companies still have not learned their lessons. Now with Congress being able to oversee the actions of the Federal Reserve, Congress can now disagree with the actions taken by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve will potentially not make these mistakes anymore. Also, the public can also pressure the Federal Reserve to act in accordance with the publics opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/business/20regulate.html?scp=27&sq=the%20times%20in%20print%20for%20November%2020,%202009&st=cse

Moderate Dems Pivotal in Saturday Health Care Vote

The Health Care bill is still currently being disputed in the Senate as a few Senators are still "unsure" of whether they are for or against it. Tomorrow three moderate Democratic Senators will provide their votes and possibly sway the legislation to a close finish. These three Senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas, are feeling the intense pressure of their local voters in their state as well as the media in the Capitol. Each Senator has been hinting at what their decision will be but not saying it outright. Republicans are jumping on every opportunity to making these Democratic Senators look bad and gain the upper hand for future elections. Also, the pressure is even more intense since they are strongly encouraging the Senators to be opposed to it. Hmm, anyone game for a little Hardball?

A major deciding factor for this bill especially for the Louisiana Senator is the Section 2006. It states that the state of Louisiana will receive $100 million or more in federal funds to cover costs for Medicaid. This goes to the whole idea of the "politics is local"; if she votes against the bill in favor of the Republican view, she will deny her state all of the funds and Louisianans might feel neglected for the lack of support. If she votes for it, the Democrats and her state will be satisfied but the Republicans won't. It's a sacrifice that is going to be made by every Senator. Most likely she will vote for the bill, considering the praise she will receive from her state and the higher chance of being reelected even though she will be criticized by the Republicans. As they say, something has to give. Not everyone is going to be satisfied by whatever the end result happens to be.

Although these Senators are being influenced by those who oppose the health care bill, it seems to me that they're going to listen to their fellow Democrats and vote for passage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Forget about Palin's book, listen to this!

So when I started to read CNN's article, "Obama Wont Read Palin's Book", I thought two things, 'Sure does look like some crap's gonna hit the fan', and 'How is this relevent to American politics?' Well, the discoveries I made reading this article surprised me.
First of all, there wasn't much drama behind this decision at all. In fact, when the president was asked about Sarah Palin's memoir he cordially responded, "I probably won't, but I don't get a chance to read things other than briefing books very often these days anyway." Alright, doesn't sound like a big deal to me.
However, what he said after that was quite shocking:"I said to myself very early on, even when I started running for office, I don't want to be making decisions based on getting reelected, because I think the challenges that America faces right now are so significant...Obviously, if I make those decisions and I think that I'm moving the country on the right direction economically, in terms of our security interests, our foreign policy, I'd like to think that those policies are continued because they're not going to bear fruit just in four years"
What a bold statement. The president of the United States basically implied that he wasn't looking to get re-elected. The last president to state that intention was Lyndon B Johnson prior to the 1968 election. And this relates to the debate we had earlier today about whether campaigning was good for the American government. One of the biggest arguments for the NO side was that politicians were so worried about getting re-elected, that they made decisions based on what the people in their regions wanted rather than what they knew was beneficial to those people. A huge amount of these politicians' efforts are made towards securing their seat in office instead of securing the right of due process for the people. Obama's plan almost works in reverse. Instead of focusing on campaigning, he's focusing on developing his ideas to make our country and its government better. Maybe Obama shares views with Anthony King, whose article, "Running Shared", reflects many of the ideas of the NO side of the debate.
But do I agree with Obama's idea? I have to say, I'm not sure.One of the best things about America is having the chance to have your voice heard. If a politician is ignorant to your stated needs, how can he give them to you? However, many people are just plain ignorant themselves, and don't understand the full consequences of their decisions. Politicians aren't just chosen for the representation they will provide, but for the decisions they will make. This stands even more true for the president, who isn't representing a specific region of the country and is therefore needed solely because of his or her ability to lead this country to success.
I guess only time will tell where these decisions lead us.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Obama Addresses the 'Axis of Evil'

The development of a nuclear arsenal by North Korea, and research on nuclear technologies by Iran has lead President Obama to confront these two countries. Together President Obama and President Lee Myung-bak have addressed Iran due to their rejection of an offer from the west to take Iran's enriched uranium stockpile and make fuel rods in order to buy more time for diplomatic negotiations to prevent sanctions on the country. The two also talked about an issue which must be dealt with, which is the cycle North Korea, where it acts provocatively, then talks, leaves talks, and seeks further concessions. President Lee has was elected on the concept of a tougher treatment of North Korea, but he has also been criticized for his support of sending aid to help the American led force in Afghanistan. The article raises an important question. Does American has the obligation as well as the right to police the rest of the world? I believe that as the sole super power in the world, our country has LIMITED obligation to take action on countries in which the people are suppressed, and in which the government has shown aggression by developing technologies which would put other countries in danger. Although, our country has no right to interfere with the general views and actions of the majority of a nation, if there is no evidence it is threatening other countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/asia/19prexy.html?ref=politics

Under Friendly Veneer, China Pushes Back on Obama

Foreign relations have always served as a way of allowing the President to show what kind of person they really are. When President Clinton was in office, he demanded the respect of his fellow leaders when discussing important issues. Even President George W. Bush was able to receive rigorous endorsements for his political platform and what had been considered a priority. President Obama has stepped onto the world stage, into the limelight, and has been metaphorically booed right off by China.

Although China has always been a tough critic, the abrasive attitude of Hu Jintao in topics ranging from Iranian nuclear regime to currency has American conservatives believing President Obama has softened the American position that we had once held in strength. However, by staying mute and allowing China to look to our example instead of trying to flaunt it, President Obama is using a technique that has drawn success whereas a lecturing approach would not and has not obtained. He is attempting to win over the minds of the Chinese; by doing this we will be able to move forward in many areas that are currently at a stand still. Some of these areas include human rights which Mr. Hu has acknowledged stating China and the United States have differences of opinions about, economic issues, Iran, and climate issues.

The Obama administration is now facing some hard critiquing because of its placement in time. Our current economic and social situation are making it hard to obtain respect globally. As a country, we must pull ourselves back together before we can address what we consider "problems" in places such as China. America is trying to play the role of the world's mediator, and this address of China and its policies reflects that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/asia/18prexy.html?hp

A Change in Ideology

As of Monday, new guidelines have been established for medical screening regarding Breast Cancer. A decrease in medical attentiveness has been set by the panel that establishes these guidelines, an odd change in pace considering. Due to these suggestions, regular Breast Cancer screening will be started at age 50 and continued done every two years instead of the previous age 40 and yearly examination. As well, it tells doctors to stop teaching woman to stop performing self-examinations. This radical leap has been the biggest leap since the 2002 announcement by Tommy G. Thompson for the, now changed, guidelines for mammograms.
Health care has been thought to be a governmental crutch for the old, injured, poor, etc. but that the ultimate responsibility relies in the individual. This panel's decision might be the beginning of an "Entitlement Revolution." A change of governmental handling of Health care such as: Increasing of age required for Social Security, or people risking their Social Security on the stock market. This change in ideology might represent the future health care of the American Health Care system.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html?_r=1&hp

President on the ropes

President Obama has taken his first trip to China to speak with many political figures, such as President Hu Jintao and also many young citizens of China from univerities around the country. The President hopes to up hold good ties with China as a allied nation in the fight against the worlds dropping economy, global warming, and the spread of terrorism. However past events on both sides are making many other political critics skeptical. China's biggest concern is with Washington's government spending, and how the U.S. will pay back China in the future. Also with China's ugent moves to contain North Korea's nuclear progressions which have helped ease many minds, China seems wary of getting involved in containing Irans urainium enrichment. On the U.S. perspective many are concerned with the trade problems that have occured with China, and the ever persitent want for greater enforcement of human rights in China. However the President is trying to focus on the good each country has with one another, even with politcal figures in America sketical of the Presidents methods, largely surround the conflict of how to bring up human rights and religious tolerance. The President has promised to bring these issues up privately with Chinese leaders. President Obama will also hold "town hall" styled meetings with many scholars in hopes to share U.S. views with China's youth. However concern for the broadcasts of these talks in a communist nation, which may possibly pick and choose what should be shown, are out there, but the U.S. will be posting cover of the talks online.
In the end, i believe the President is doing all he can, but at the same time remembering that he is in another country and does not wish to offend his hosts, just as anyone should. However the President will do his job as the President of the United States, nothing will stop that. President Obama, i believe is not going "soft" on anyone, however he does not want to lose a currently rising country as a potentional allie in the future. Now is the time to draw nations together, when we need it the most.
link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091115/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama;_ylt=AmuCO5KtDVX7kmjNTGRhIYys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJqbm5jcW5hBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTE1L29iYW1hBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y
sorce: Yahoo News

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/13/mohammed.critics/index.html

"Politicians Rip Decision On Terrorism Trials"

Attorney General, Eric Holder, decided Friday to try five suspected 9/11 terrorists in civilian court. Many members of congress opposed this type of trial. Many accused Holder of risking American security by treating the suspects as "common criminals." This type of treatment would entitle the suspect to greater constitutional liberties than they would if the case was tried as a military trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack who confessed, as well as five Guantanamo Bay detainees with supposed ties to the attacks will be tried in civilian court in New York. Some argue that this type of trial is too lenient on the alleged terrorists. "These terrorists planned and executed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans. Treating them like common criminals is unconscionable." This statement by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn supports the opposing side of the argument: These suspects did something horrible and do not deserve to be treated as common criminals. John Cornyn also stated that Eric Holder only put this decision into action, and endangered the security of Americans to fulfill a campaign promise. Democratic opposition also came along with Holder's proposition; Moderate Virginia Sen. Jim Webb stated he is "very concerned about the wisdom" of holding civilian trials instead of military ones. He also opposed Holder's proposal by saying the trial of these suspected terrorists in civilian court will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive. Some also argue that the families of the 9/11 victims deserve the opportunity to see justice served against those who caused them grief. Clearly, there is a wide range of beliefs on this subject. However, opposition or support for this decision is not divided by Democratic beliefs or Republican views. It is divided by a sense of morality. This issue has been the cause of much controversy within congress.

Overhaulin'?

Obama's plan to do an "immigration overhaul" by the beginning months of the 2010 is claimed to still be on the agenda, despite the other important issues he has to face such as the healthcare bill, and alternative energy sources. Ms. Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secrety, says that it will definitely be an issue brought up and addressed by 2010 despite the other pressing issues the nation needs to face; despite this people are still skeptical as to whether president Obama will keep to his agenda and really address immigration by 2010. When and if Obama adresses the immigration issue it is going to include "enacting tougher enforcement laws against illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, and streamlining the system for legal immigration," as Napolitano said, also calling it the "three-legged stool" of immigration.
When action is taken the Obama administration is planning on also giving 12 million illegal immigrants legal status. When this happens I wonder what is going to happen to things like the healthcare coverage. The figures now are to give healthcare to everyone, but were these 12million extra individuals added into this figure? Will we really be able to cover all of them without sending us into a deficit? Along with this, how are they planning to enforce all of these new changes they plan to make? Wanting to tax, fine, register, and do background checks on all illegal immigrants is a hefty job to take on, will that ever be fully accomplished?

Source