Do Repeal [Don't Ask]

Do Repeal [Don't Ask]

Tonight, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted through a provision allowing the Defense Departement to take action to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, the ban on openly gay men and women in the military. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama are supportive of repealing the regulation that originated under President Clinton. The vote was 16-12, with Maine Senator Susan Collins the only Republican to vote for the provision.
As the bill continues on to the full Senate and eventually to the House, it is important to keep in mind why it is imperative the ban is lifted in the military. Thousands of American troops have been kicked out of the armed forces through Don't Ask Don't Tell. Just as, earlier in our nation's history, the military faced a major overhaul when it was desegregated, the armed forces must now end this discrimination of gay soldiers and allow all qualified people to serve together in the military. Even if this takes a long and bitter partisan fight, not unlike that of the sixties as segregation of races was called into question, this is a civil rights issue that deserves to be resolved. It is not patriotic to weaken our military by kicking out qualified soldiers, though it is what some politicians would have you believe. The ridiculous rebuttals offered by politicians to those who are attempting to support the administration in repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell only further clarify the necessity for imminent action. One Congressmen expressed concerns that the rule's repeal would result in "overt" sexual behavior in the military. The idea that gay men and women would encourage more "overt" sexual behavior in the armed forces than straight ones would is completely baseless, and relatively hypocritical. The endless stream of alleged and confirmed affairs of Congressmen demonstrates more "overt" sexual behavior than ever is heard of from the military.

Read more »

Top Kill: The Environmental Murder Mystery

Top Kill: The Environmental Murder Mystery

It's the classic whodunnit: a crime of massive scale was committed in the Gulf of Mexico, and all of the suspects have wildly blamed each other. The ramifications of the crime are sill being felt across the coast, and don't show signs of going away anytime soon.

In the Gulf of Mexico, sea-faring birds who once were brown are now a matted black, slick with oil. Beaches around the coast are punctuated by clumps of sand glued together in thick, greasy globs. Attempt after attempt has been made by BP and others to control and stop the spill. Today, the "top kill" method was employed, a last-ditch effort to clog the hole before the situation worsens. Top kill is a plan in which BP will bombard the hole with heavy "drilling mud" in an attempt to end the flow of oil. If this is effective, cement will be sent on top of the mud, hopefully binding the site permanently.

As President Obama embarks on a trip to Louisiana to assess the damage, it is imperative that a closer look is taken of those who were supposed to be regulating BP's off-shore drilling habits. Regulators at the Department of the Interior allowed BP to drill at an ocean depth that, while profitable to oil companies, is completely unsafe for the environment. If something goes wrong that far into the ocean, there is virtually nothing that can be done to reverse it.
Moreover, BP's rig wasn't anywhere near the deepest drilling. Oil companies are allowed by the US government to drill at much lower depths in the sea than BP did. If the BP spill is difficult to fix, imagine the position America would be in if a disaster occurred at two, five, or ten times the depth. 

Read more »

Quote 5/27/10

Quote 5/27/10

Whoopie Goldberg       

"You've got to vote for someone. It's a shame, but it's got to be done."

Read more »

What We Can't Forget

What We Can't Forget

This year, domestic issues have been the champions of the national discussion. From the health care debate and the nomination of Elena Kagen to the Wall Street debacle and the BP oil spill, the American conversation has been, quite rightfully, basically dominated by domestic problems. However, it is imperative that the foreign conflicts the US is involved in around the world are not forgotten by the American public.
As North and South Korea grow more polarized this week, world news have made a slight return to the American media. Still, when was the last time you heard a serious news report about the Iraqi conflict? After all of the controversy last year about a surge, Afganistan and Pakistan are no longer major news presences.
What does a lack of world coverage mean for America? Americans will become completely uninformed about our nation's international interactions if this pattern continues. Without an informed public, democracy could fail, for no outrage over poor decisions will act as a check over the government.
Pseudo-foreign policy issues could return the international conflicts to the spotlight.  As Don't Ask Don't Tell is discussed more frequently, it's possible that stories about the international conflicts will follow. However, this is not guaranteed. It's possible that we will continue to simply hear stories about our national debates- which are very important, but do not excuse the absence of an entire faction of news.
This isn't to say that foreign news has disappeared completely. Some stations and papers do a better job than others, but, as a whole, foreign reporting has decreased- and not just over the past bit of time. This is a trend that has been on this path for decades.
There is no way to impart how important it is for the American public to be educated about foreign issues. America is seriously involved in many parts of the world- and not just in the Middle East. If Americans do not know fully about their country's actions, there is no way for the federal government to have a proper check on it. Without a proper check, America will become a country with unrestrained executive power.

Read more »

Primaries (Part One)

Primaries (Part One)

As campaign season looms before us, we will take a look at the initial primary results as a gauge for the attitude of the nation and as foreshadowing for midterms. 
Pennsylvania 
Democratic primary: former party-switcher Arlen Specter was defeated by Joe Sestak in this week's primary. Spector had been a Republican for nearly thirty years but decided to caucus as a Democrat last April. Spector's loss was not exactly shocking, as his idealogical switch was highly controversial at the time. If Sestak, a major advocate of Wall Street reform, wins the general election, the PA seat will have become decisively more liberal, although it would not change the party holdings in the Senate.
Republican primary: Pat Toomey, previously a member of the House of Representatives, gained the support of the GOP in his race for the PA Senate seat. Toomey would certainly swing the seat to the right, and he has already begun to paint his challenger as a Washington insider, as compared to his time in Pennsylvania.
Special Election: Late Representative John Murtha's seat was also contested this week. The seat stayed in the hands of the Democratic party, whose candidate, Mark Critz, defeated Republican Tim Burns. The race was seen by many to be an indicator of how the midterms will play out.
Kentucky 
Democratic primary: Jack Conoway, the state's Attorney General, won over Kentucky Lt. Governor Daniel Mongiardo, both moderates. Mongiardo had run for the US Senate unsuccessfully in the past, and Conoway had similar results in his prior bid for the House.
Republican primary: Conservative Republican and son of failed presidential candidate Ron Paul, Rand Paul, overtook Trey Grayson, Kentucky Secretary of State, in the GOP primary. Paul is viewed by many to by extremely conservative, a point his new challenger has already begun to capitalize upon.
Arkansas 
Democratic primary: Due to overly close and severed votes, a runoff election will be held between incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln, who was the youngest woman to be elected to the US Senate, and Lt. Governor Bill Halter. The Arkansas seat has been held by a Democratic candidate for over 130 years.
Republican primary: Representative John Boozman fought for and won the GOP primary. He will be facing tough opposition by whoever wins the Democratic run-off and will have a difficult time swinging a liberal state. Still, discontent with Senator Lincoln's positions may prove a blessing for Boozman as voters turn to other solutions.

Read more »

Quote 5/19/10

Quote 5/19/10

Robert Kennedy

"All do not develop in the same manner, or at the same pace. Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others. What is important is that all nations must march toward increasing freedom; toward justice for all; toward a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all its own people, and a world of immense and dizzying change."

Read more »

Why Regulation Matters

Why Regulation Matters

When corporations make seemingly wrong or immoral decisions, such as the bad investments allegedly sold by Goldman-Sachs or the massive bonuses given by failing, taxpayer reliant banks during the height of the financial crisis, Americans tend to blame these companies. However, no matter how horrifically immoral these private interests act, they are just that- private, for-profit businesses. They act as expected, in the best interest of their profits. It is not their responsibility to act with appreciation for the American consumer of the US economy; rather, it is the job of regulators. Irresponsible and immoral action by corporations is the fault of poor regulation and of regulators who do not fulfill their jobs.
Due to the privatized nature of the American economy, there is a paramount need for the US government to protect consumers. It is important that regulators are conscientious and unbiased judges for the American people, unlike those involved in the companies they regulate, like members of both the Treasury Department and the Department of Interior.
The 2008 economic crisis was a result of un-meticulous regulation by the federal government. The mining disaster in West Virginia could have been prevented if regulations had been stricter. If, historically, oil companies were better restricted, the BP oil spill would not have been so incredibly massive.

Critics call strong regulation overreaching by the federal government. However, it is the very job and nature of the US government to protect consumers, and, often, through regulation. Created “for the people, by the people”, it is the responsibility of the people’s government to act on behalf of and protect its citizens, whether this is from outside forces or from the nation’s own companies. The only way the American government can fully do this is to actively advocate and regulate.

Read more »

"So It's Your Fault!"

"So It's Your Fault!"

As oil continues to spurt into the Gulf of Mexico, leaders of all possibly culpable parties, like BP and Halliburton, are completely unwilling to take responsibility for their actions and admit their involvement in the environmental tragedy. At last week's Congressional hearing, the representatives from each company spent more time blaming each other and absolving themselves of responsibility than offering solutions or even reasons for the failure. Even ignoring the massive impact on shore communities, fishermen, and sea-dwelling animals, the oil spill's gigantic impact on the environment is absolutely heinous. The unwillingness- not just of the corporate leaders, but of politicians- to take responsibility for their actions has become unfortunately rampant in Washington.
In 2009, after the passage of the stimulus, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal took an anti-stimulus stance for his state, attempting to spurn all aid from the federal government to help Louisiana out of the financial crisis. Now that the oil spill has infiltrated Louisiana's shore, Jindal is quick to call for the federal government to provide both personel and financial support to the state. Its not as though Jindal has changed his mind on the role of the federal government and rejected his previous actions as improper, he has just decided that in certain scenarios- when his state's workers are in imminent danger, for example- it is okay for the federal government to provide aid and in others- like a massive state-wide financial crisis- it is not.
Some politicians have simply changed their mind about off-shore drilling subsequent to the spill. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made statements changing his position on drilling off the coast of California, which is different from Jindal's selective positions. By changing his position completely, Schwarzenegger is not acting hypocritically or irresponsibly, rather, he is simply taking current events into account.
The complete danger and massive size of the spill has not changed how some view off-shore drilling. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has continued to, while oil is still being released into the water, make statements for off-shore drilling. The Obama Administration has not edited their expansive off-shore drilling plan, nor has Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. Hopefully, the enormous scope and financial and  environmental danger involved will lead to some politicians reconsidering.

Read more »

Elena Kagan's Nomination

Elena Kagan's Nomination

Late Chief Justice William Rehnquist had not judicial experience prior to joining the Supreme Court, of which he was a member of until his death in 2005. Rehnquist's lack of time as judge is a unusual trait for a judicial nominee, certainly, but hardly unique. Plenty of excellent justices have been chosen who have no or minimal prior judicial experience- in fact, nearly a third of all past justices had never served as a judge before being nominated. Still, it is a helpful, even a desirable trait for a judicial nominee to have served as a judge previously.  The true criticism presented by those who feel judicial experience is an important and accurate measure of a nominee is the lack of an attainable record for the nominee's rulings or potential rulings. In all truth, this information could be ascertained from questioning during the Senate confirmation hearing for any nominee, but a nominee's rulings on contentious political issues should not have any effect on their confirmation, except insofar as it demonstrates their devotion to the law.

Late Sunday night, rumors began to float that President Obama had finally chosen a nominee to replace retiring Justice John-Paul Stevens. The next day, Obama announced Elena Kagan, current Solicitor General and first female dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan, like Rehnquist, has no experience as a judge, though she has copious qualifications as an educator and as the primary legal advocate for the federal government.  If Kagan is confirmed by the Senate, it will mark the first time three female justices (Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and, potentially, Kagan) will have served on the court at one time.
If a nominee is qualified, devoted to the law, and shows strong moral and decision-based qualities, judicial experience should be superflous. Many years of judicial experience does not necessarily lead to a good justice, and a good justice does not require previous time as a judge. A phenomenal justice differs from a poor nominee based on character, not on irrelevant past decisions.  

Read more »

Europe's Economic Woes

Europe's Economic Woes

In 2008, the American economy took a turn for the worse, dropping the already volatile financial system into a full-blown recession. Correspondingly, the world economy fell. European debt is massive, and tenuous European economies were hit hard by the economic failure. Britain fell into a serious recession and began to fight bank fraud like the current Goldman Sachs case. Spain is being forced to reexamine their regulation of the banking sector, though are not doing so very willingly. Iceland, one of the first nations to fall victim to the international economic problems, experienced a huge financial meltdown and a disintegration of their monetary system.

In Greece, massive debt has ravaged the economy. Through tax cuts and decreased spending, the Greek government is attempting to control the crisis, to no avail. Other European nations have decided to bail out Greece, providing the nation with around 110 billion Euros, but the Greek economy is still distressingly bad. Angry Greek workers protested the new spending plan Wednesday, assaulting a Greek bank and causing the deaths of three inside the building; an attempt was also made to get into parliament. Historically, the Greek economy has been less than fantastic. Still, it can be saved with a combination of bailouts and careful federal spending to circulate money through the economy while slowly reducing Greek debt. Unfortunately, Greece is far from the only nation facing a horrific economy.

Divided savings banks in Spain have caused the Spanish government to take swift action and, today, the Spanish Prime Minister, socialist Rodríguez Zapatero, finally agreed to a deal with a more center-right leader on how to handle the failing financial system and what extent to bail out the banks. Spain also suffers from a 20% unemployment rate and massive deficit. As a final attempt to control the downwardly spiraling financial system, Spanish banks will be forced to merge together soon. The Spanish government have been and remain among the lead doubters of the Greek bailout by many European countries. 

Spain and Greece are far from the only countries suffering. Portugal's economy is suffering greatly, and eyes in Europe- at least those interested in continuing to bail out failing nations- are beginning to focus there. Until Europe's many and varied economies are repaired properly, the world economy will never be able to recover. 

Read more »

Times Square

Times Square

It is a favorite hypothetical of theorizers: a bomb is in New York City, but you only have one hour to disable it before it goes off. Its location is unknown, and whoever planted the bomb is being detained by the police. What do you do?

This hypothetical became dangerously close to reality last weekend, when a S.U.V. packed with explosives was detected in Times Square. The suspect, though not yet arrested, was caught on a security tape by the police; the car's owner has been identified. Times Square and the surrounding area were evacuated; the bomb was disarmed. This time, at least, our nations first lines of domestic defenses worked perfectly. 

But, inevitably, this is not always true. Due to human error, poor information, or otherwise, mistakes- fatal, often, when dealing with national security- will be made. Surely the Christmas (underwear) bomber's ability to get so far as to be lighting an explosive on an in-air plane indicates an error in the system. It was not the first domestic security error of the Obama Administration, nor will it be the last. The best the Administration- any administration, for that matter- and the country can hope for is that the errors are not titanic and that all can be and are quickly fixed. 

Current Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is charged with the huge task of assisting President Obama with protecting the nation in an age where, because of the technology readily available and polarization between racial, ethic, and geographical groups throughout the world, protecting America is an increasingly difficult thing to do. Surely, from time to time, our security will be breached. The best we can do is to have a strong reactionary system, just like the one that reacted to this weekend's bomb in New York. Luckily, no damage occurred, as the bomb did not go off. However, it is important to remember that, as mistakes are inevitable, even when dealing with national security, next time, we might not be so lucky.  

[photo via New York Times]

Read more »