British Election

British Election

In the UK, the debate between the three frontrunners for the upcoming election for Prime Minister- current Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, David Cameron of the Conservative Party, and Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats party- has rearranged the conventional expectations of who will become a frontrunner come election day. Brown, who was originally expected to sweep the race, has been surpassed both by current leader Cameron and, shockingly, by Clegg, who was never expected to be relevant in the general election. Suffering through a mild controversy this week, Brown was unable to bounce back and retake the debate in a way that would have asserted his power as a candidate, rather, he allowed Clegg to engage Cameron in a volatile and image-assisting conversation, effectively shutting Brown out of the argument.

Currently, though election-day projections may argue otherwise, Clegg is the new runner-up to Cameron, leading to a possibility of a Liberal Democrat victory, which has not happened in the UK in years. The Conservative Party has gone through a lot of controversy in the last few years for various comments and positions that have been seen by some as overly mean or intolerant, and this along with Brown’s recent verbal blunder when he called an older woman “bigoted,” the Liberal Democrats may have finally been given their chance.
A Liberal Democratic win may be the best thing for Britain, who was hit hard by the economic crisis and who has started to investigate into the Goldman Sachs fraud along with the United States. The Liberal Democrats would bring a new wave of regulation to the British banks and would possibly be able to prevent such wide-scale banking fraud to occur again in the UK. Still, it is likely that Cameron will win the office, ensuring that any efforts to regulate will be eschewed and quite possibly reversed.

Read more »

Show Me Your Papers

Show Me Your Papers

"What does an illegal immigrant look like?" a polite reporter inquired of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer at her press conference to sign the new Arizona immigration legislation, not so lovingly dubbed the 'show me your papers' law by the media. "Do they look like me?" The governor responded vaguely, declaring she didn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like but " there are people in Arizona who assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like" and that some sort of profile would be formed.
The Arizona law essentially gives police the power to pull over any Arizonian who they feel appears to be an illegal immigrant and demand to see the proper immigration paperwork. Any US citizen unable to produce such paperwork may face jail time; any illegal immigrant will be deported. The arrest, according to the law, cannot be solely made based on a persons race, color, etc, but it may be a contributing factor, and other factors that can determine reasonable cause have not been determined. 
Because of the law's racially-based nature- for, no matter what Governor Brewer claims, most Americans see illegal immigrants as being almost entirely hispanic- it is highly likely that racial profiling will occur. Due to this probability, several elected officials, prominently including many from Arizona like the mayor of Tucson and a Arizonian in the US House of Representatives, have called for an economic boycott of Arizona, or, at least, the repeal of the law. Arizona, which has suffered from national boycott before, after deciding not to participate in Martin Luther King Day, to disastrous effects, may once again be facing the wrath of angry politicians and discontent people across America. 
Stopping illegal immigration on a one-by-one basis, even if you ignore the civil rights issue in this case, is hardly an effective way to lower illegal immigration. Arizona's boarder is the most popular for illegal crossing, so it is physically impossible for Arizona's police to stop every illegal immigrant from entering the state. 
Arizona is already starting to feel the ramifications. Mexico set a travel warning this week for all citizens visiting the US, specifically Arizona. Democratic Congressmen have begun to take up immigration reform; President Obama has spoken out against Arizona's new restrictions. San Francisco has discussed boycotting Arizona-based companies; conferences planned in Arizona have already been canceled. Tuscan's mayor has decided to take legal action against his own state's law. 
Everyone currently living in America who is not a Native American descends from immigrants. Whether your American roots are set back ten, twenty, sixty, or two-hundred years, you still have origins somewhere else, and your ancestors came for the same reason people do today: to get a better life. And if you were born in this country, you were born into the world's largest economy by no doing of your own. People illegally crossing America's borders were born into some of the world's smallest economies by no doing of their own. This doesn't mean that anyone should be able to become a US citizen, far from it. It just means that we cannot allow the far too recent mantras like one Italian immigrant's reflections of "I came to America because I heard the streets were paved with gold. When I got here, found out three things: First, the streets weren't paved with gold; second, they weren't paved at all: and third, I was expected to pave them," to be forgotten too quickly, and those currently living and working in our country should be able to become a member of it just as our grandparents and great-grandparents and great-great-great-grandparents did.

Read more »

National Security Nightmare

National Security Nightmare

The United States is currently in control of hundreds of long-range 'minute-men' missiles, which can practiaclly fire from the US to any point in the world in aproximately an hour. They are equipt with nuclear weaponry, so firing these missles would be both disasterous to for the country reached and for humanity as a whole. A few years ago, the Bush Administration had the brilliant idea yo remove the nuclear capabilities on these weapons and re-equipt them with conventional bombing abilities, which sounds great in theory- being able to conventionally bomb any location worldwide without starting a nuclear war, but the program is much more sinister. As Russian officials pointed out to the Bush Administration, other nations would not be willing to docilely sit by as a missile- potentially conventional, potentially nuclear- soared towards them from a country with nuclear capabilities, rather, they would react as though it was a nuclear weapon. Quite simply, by unintentionally disguising a conventional missile as a much more dangerous one, we would be starting an international nuclear crisis, if not an international war. Now, the Obama Administration is re-proposing this idea, seemingly either in an attempt to appear strong on defense or as a compromise for nuclear-friendly military officials who are unhappy with the impending nuclear reductions.
Returning to this problematic plan is hardly a good idea. It may seem like a super-protective national security measure to further the American ability to fire missiles of any time upon any world nation, but the disastrous ramifications would outweigh any superficial feeling of protection from Americans. While some may see allowing this program to go un-fulfilled would as an act against the protection of our nation, the continuation of the idea would do just that.

Read more »

Friday Feature: Ugly Betty and Diversity

Friday Feature: Ugly Betty and Diversity

"This person- who looked like the 'other', who always seemed to be the 'other', not the one who was accepted... she was the one who was actually the heart and soul and really was the cornerstone of this life. You walk into any place, and you say to somebody, 'do you think you're really the right stuff?'... Nobody's going to say yes, in their heart of hearts." - Judith Light on Ugly Betty

Until last week's dramatic finale, Ugly Betty was the reigning champion of portraying diversity in characters and their diverse problems on television. There is Betty (America Fererra) and the rest of the Suarez family, all Mexican-Americans; Wilhelmina Slater (Vanessa Williams), the African-American Editor-in-Chief of Mode Magazine; and Mark, Slater's openly gay assistant. Betty's nephew, Justin (Mark Indelicato), also came out as openly gay during the show's final season. Other formally taboo subjects are tastefully approached by Betty's creators: Claire Meade (Judith Light)'s alcoholism, Daniel Meade (Eric Mabeus)'s over-sexualism and cult involvement, and Alex- or Alexis- Meade (Rebecca Romijin)'s sex-change operation, among others.

Ugly Betty is unfortunately unique in these portrayals. From news to reality or sitcoms, diversity in television is minimal, and contentious political issues, while more prevalent than in the past, are rarely shown. When these issues and characters are actually portrayed, they are nearly always stereotypical and often offensive. In the news media, diversity is rarely seen; most lead anchors are white men. The news status quo- Brian Williams, Larry King, the late Tim Russert, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, David Gregory, Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews- are all white men, thereby keeping the news media in their hands.
Now that Ugly Betty is over, no show on television is giving a voice to minorities in the same way. Sure, shows like Glee and 30 Rock and Lost feature certain minority groups, but none do so to the same extent that Betty did. Maybe, in the future, someone else will take Betty's lead and look at the Ugly issues and at the people who are different.

Read more »

Crist Can't Be Saved

Crist Can't Be Saved

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, formerly a hopeful and attractive GOP superstar whose name was once floated as a serious presidential contender, is the latest Republican candidate to fall victim to a tea party candidate in a Republican primary. Marco Rubio, the much younger and extremely conservative poll-leader for the Florida Senate primary, is poised to take the Republican nomination away from the popular governor. In past days, as Crist has made some vaguely moderate decisions, he was abandoned by former endorsers and his own campaign staff. Although Crist continues to narrowly lead the general poll, he may never get to run in the general; the deadline for Crist to pull out of the primary and run as an Independent, as many expect him to do, is just over a week away. It is very unlikely Crist would be able to win the Republican primary.

Other Republicans have quickly deserted Crist. Even Senator John McCain, onetime 'maverick' (although, don't forget, he never considered himself one), has said that if Crist runs as an Independent, he can consider McCain's endorsement void.
Is this what the Republican Party has become? Its viable candidates are only those like Rubio, or only those who have the momentum of the tea party behind them, and people like Crist, popular and qualified, are unelectable unless they run left in a last-ditch effort to enter the general. Limiting your electoral pool to only those who completely and totally identify with the most extreme version of your ideology is neither productive nor viable, for, eventually, your candidates will polarize so many voters that they will turn to the Democrats, whether or not they identify with the left in any way. 

Read more »

Day of Silence, Night of Policy Change, Still No Equality

Day of Silence, Night of Policy Change, Still No Equality

Late Thursday night, President Obama publicized a new memorandum which extends medical rights to same-sex couples, specifically allowing them hospital visitation even if they are not married. The timing of Obama's announcement couldn't have been more serendipitous; Friday was the Day of Silence, a GLSEN and Gay-Straight Alliance organized event where students across the country stayed completely silent for a day as a show of support for gay rights. The annual event is centered around bullying and harassment in schools of gay students, as well as gay rights issues in general. "I'm not gay, bi, etc," one participating student wrote as way of communication. "I just believe that people should be able to express themselves any way they want to. I see nothing wrong with these people, and believe that they should be able to live normal lives, without all the harassment." "My uncle is gay," another scrawled, "so I'm a huge supporter."
The Obama decision was welcome news to the students, although it is not nearly as sweeping as it should be. America is hardly finished achieving equality, and while the medical policy changes are a fantastic symbolic victory, unequal laws- like civil unions, or in some states, no unions- and unequal treatment- like harassment- still are prevalent. Friday morning, on the heels of the Obama announcement, news came out over the fervor made when a White House official's sexuality was challenged wrongly. The fact that this libelous statement made such a fuss is just a mark of how divided America still is over this basic issue of human rights. 

Read more »

Quote 4/20/10

Quote 4/20/10

Paul Krugman 

"[The Obama Administration officials] seem not to have learned, even now, that the right has an awesome ability to create its own reality: that Mitch McConnell et al would stand in the way of reform while claiming to be taking a stand against Wall Street." 

Read more »

Returning to Regulatory Reform

Returning to Regulatory Reform

This quarter, Citigroup- who still owes bailout funds to the American taxpayers- reported netting 4.4 billion dollars while 9.6 percent of Americans are still listed as unemployed and the tentatively recovering economy is creating jobs at a less than ideal rate. Somehow, the banks, whose reckless lending and side-stepping of government regulators were major causes of the 2008 financial breakdown, have come out of the crisis relatively unscathed while average Americans still suffer. As President Obama moves on from health care and returns to the economy and energy issues, among others, the importance of fixing the broken regulatory system has taken precedent.
The lack of regulation and the resulting actions of the banks were major catalysts for the damaging financial crisis during the last presidential election. Although Obama's economy-saving efforts began with government spending, job creation, and tax breaks, he has now turned to fixing the root problem: the banks. The first step will have to be ending the sweeping deregulation of the nineties, but there is more to be done. In Chis Dodd's Senate plan to re-regulate the banks, the derivatives market will be brought under control, a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, initial steps to downsize overly large banks, and other heightened regulations. This is hardly a final or a comprehensive plan, but it acts as an effective first step to reform. 
Following the recent bitterly partisan health care debate, the bipartisan distaste for the banks in Congress is not enough to override the deep idealogical divides over regulation. Originally, Mitch McConnell had gotten all 41 Republicans in Senate to agree to voting against any reform plan, but as the public case against Goldman Sachs began to emerge, some Republicans backtracked slightly. Certainly the contentious nature of government involvement in the banking sector will continue this debate, though some hopeful comments have been made by newly-elected Senator Scott Brown, indicating support for some of the reforms and a willingness to work with the Democratic caucus. 
The American government cannot fix everything on their own. Already, European nations have been extraordinarily proactive in challenging banks. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has began to order an investigation of the actions of Goldman Sachs because of major losses of a massive bank based in England, and Germany has threatened to take similar action. Hopefully, these legal movements along with increased regulation- and more attentive regulators, for the ones over the past few years were truly asleep at the wheel- in the United States will help to ensure that a global financial breakdown like the one in 2008 is prevented, or at least postponed. 

Read more »

Quote 4/19/10

Quote 4/19/10

Barney Frank 

"George Bush appointed people [to financial regulation positions] who didn't believe in doing their job."  

Read more »

"Why sometimes I believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast!" (The Tea Party)

"Why sometimes I believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast!" (The Tea Party)

The 'Tea Party', a radically right-wing group composed of many different conservative groups including Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, has not died away subsequent to the health care debate, as some expected. Focusing on small-government, lower taxes, and other highly contentious issues, the Tea Party has become a megaphone for angry conservatives and a soapbox for Republican candidates looking for an easily attainable and fiercely loyal base to follow him or her into election season. Republicans are continuing to capitalize on the Tea Party's momentum and some, like Florida's Marco Rubio, are harnessing it in an attempt to win big-ticket elections. Others, like Massachusetts' Scott Brown, have already done so.
There is no way around it: the Tea Party can win some elections. However, Tea Party candidates cannot. In Arizona, Senator John McCain is, very publicly, being challenged by a Tea Party candidate, but it is highly unlikely that McCain, a recent presidential nominee, will not recapture his Senate seat. In New York's 23 district, the Tea Party candidate forced the Republican out of the race and lost to a Democrat in a district where Democratic wins are rare.
Beyond just the Tea Party's radical beliefs, it is their methods to further these ideals that truly make them so polarizing. Not only are many- or at least the loudest- of the Tea Partiers belligerent and ill-informed, for, one elderly Tea Partier once exclaimed that Obama ought to "get [his] government hands off [her] Medicare," they are a disruptive force to the point of stopping civil discussion between elected officials and constituants. Pandemoniac videos of town halls have surfaced since last August in an attempt to humiliate various officials, many including shots of fellow citizens being shouted down by Tea Party members.
Yelling at peers and Congressmen is not the way to further your goals, nor is misinforming the public, whether it is intentional or unintentional. Still, even if the Tea Party reverted to more civil methods, their unprecedentedly right-wing beliefs would not survive. For the same reason that today's America will not be a communist state in the foreseeable future, America will not become a completely laissez-faire capitalist nation any time soon.

Read more »

Arms Race

Arms Race

"My goal is the total elimination of nuclear weapons." 
These words are not those of President Obama, who recently signed a nuclear treaty with Russia, nor those of any anti-nuclear activist. In fact, it was Ronald Reagan who made not just one, but several statements throughout his presidency speaking of his hope to remove all nuclear weaponry from the world.
Would any of today's Republicans call Reagan, a "Republican hero" according to the Republican National Committee's website, weak on national security because he wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons? Probably not. Still, Republicans easily charge Obama with the same. Obama's nuclear plan includes the removal of one-third of all nuclear weapons in four years- far less sweeping than anything Reagan aspired to.
There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy it many times over. They are unstable, dangerous, and easy for terrorist groups to steal if given an opportunity. In the event of a catastrophe, the unintentional detonation of nuclear weapons would be devastating. 
Any weapon that can, literally, destroy the world is not one that any nation should have the responsibility to deal with, nor should it be a power given to any one nation. Not the United States, not Russia, not Iran or Pakistan or China. No country should have the ability to destroy the Earth. And if you take this power away from everyone, no one needs to use nuclear weapons as a defense.

Read more »

And The Nominees Are...

And The Nominees Are...

In March of 2009, President Obama nominated former federal court judge Sonia Sotomayor for retiring justice David Souter's spot on the Supreme Court. Souter's unexpectedly left-wing tendencies ensured that Sotomayor's eventual confirmation would not change the makeup of the Supreme Court to any substantive degree. Although minor qualms were made about more contentious statements made by Sotomayor, she was approved by the Senate relatively quickly.
Now, President Obama has been presented with a second opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice. As long-time liberal justice John Paul Stevens prepares for his retirement, Obama and the Democratic Senators must prepare for a vicious battle in Congress.
Some in Congress have already made a fuss about the as-yet-unnamed candidate. Congressional Republicans don't want to see another liberal on the court, even if it means keeping the balace of the court in check.
However, the fragile balace of the court must be maintained, even if this means, for Congressional Republicans, the confirmation of a liberal. Still, the Obama Administration may not even nominate a liberal- fear of a bitter partisan battle, especially so soon after the health care debate, might turn them away from promoting a more polarizing person.
The Obama Administration, unless they wish to see more of- and more radical versions of- court decisions like January's on corporations, must nominate someone who is as much an ideologue as Stevens. Although nominating a partisan judge to the land's highest court may not be a popular, nor even a remarkably good decision, it is imperative that the court remains balanced. Stevens was the leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, so if Obama is to appoint a moderate, non-partisan, or even a right-wing judge, the already conservative court will be flung so far right that its future may become unsalvageable.

Read more »

Quote 4/12/10

Quote 4/12/10

Eugene Robinson 

"Nobody's going to be able to ignore [Michael Steele], if only because the people who book guests for television talk shows have his number on speed dial. He's the perfect guest: You never know what he's going to say."

Read more »

CNN

CNN

No matter your opinion on current media trends, it's hard to deny that opinions in the news have become increasingly polarized. From Keith Olbermann to Glenn Bleck, today's media is marked by strong personalities, outlandish statements, and serious convictions. Of all the top cable news stations, one has stayed out of the mudslinging game to a certain extent: CNN.
Which isn't to say the CNN is a perfect channel by any means. Their far-too-often forays into 'infotainment' and sensationalist tendencies certainly do them no favors, but CNN is definitely the farthest away from partisan programing.
However, now CNN's viewership has been almost cut in half. At ten o'clock, a rerun of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' is beating the live CNN programing. The previously aloofly unpartisan channel has seem to finally fallen to its more polarizing counterparts. CNN executives are now discussing bringing on more outrageously oversized personalities in order to compete with MSNBC and Fox.
What does this mean for cable news? Well, cable news is certainly falling farther into the trap of giving consumers what they want rather than what they need. People like to hear talking heads reiterate their own opinions; they like to feel authenticated.
While the imminent opinion inflation on CNN's airwaves may be the best way to ensure higher viewership, it is not the most responsible way. As a major provider of information to Americans, it is the responsibility of CNN to report relevant and important stories in an impartial manner, and to present as many views as possible, at least if they continue to claim to do so.

Read more »

Quote 4/8/10

Quote 4/8/10

Patrick Leahy

“You get fifteen Democrats in a room, and you get twenty opinions”

Read more »

Quote 4/7/10

Quote 4/7/10

Amy Klobuchar 

"In my job you can't just put your head in the sand and throw partisan bombshells. You have to get results.”

Read more »

RNC

RNC

Since Michael Steele won the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC) last year, he had been involved in several scandals, both his own and those of the RNC. These have all culminated in the recent resignation of the RNC Chief of Staff, which has sparked talk that Steele is unable to carry out his responsibilities as the leader of the Republican Party. It is the job of the RNC to promote the Republican Party on a national scale, and Steele is, by tarnishing what reputation the party has left, not completing that job.

Soon after being declared chairman, Steele called Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal his "slum" buddy, referring to the Indian official in what many considered a racial slur. Later, the chairman came under fire for not hiring staff after a massive overhaul of RNC employees. More recently, Steele and the RNC have fueled contention over their spending and fundraising habits. A private RNC slideshow comparing President Obama to the Joker and calling Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid the "Evil Empire" was intercepted by Politico. The slideshow was an incentivizing fundraising presentation for high value donors, and was presented with the knowledge of Steele. Most recently, spending documents of the RNC have revealed expenses at inappropriate clubs in Los Angeles and an a liquor store.

These are not ways to improve the reputation of any party, let alone one that was sweepingly defeated in the most recent national election. Steele obviously is not the right person to project an image of a 'new' Republican Party to America- but who is? Certainly not the party's most visible members, its television representatives like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Nor is the party's loudest member, Rush Limbaugh, right for the job. The Republican Party needs to turn within itself- as the Democratic Party did not so long ago- and decide what direction the party is headed. Will they turn towards their loud, fumbling leaders like Steele? Will the Tea Party become the new norm? Or will the party return to their long-loyal politicians like Mitt Romney? The decisions made over the next few years about the direction of the Republican Party could, ultimately, decide the longevity of the party on a national scale.

Read more »

Quote 4/6/10

Quote 4/6/10

Nancy Pelosi

"America must be a light to the world, not just a missile."

Read more »