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