What is in a name? I like to think that mine is one of the better names. Michael, by the way. But we have seen a variety and somewhat odd batch of names for children in the last several years. However, do you ever wonder if there is another person with the same name as you? Well, Wes Moore found another Wes Moore. The two had lived two vastly different lives, but one's story could have easily been the other one's. I discovered this interesting development via a CNN article on names. This article covers a few different subjects including the power and importance of your name. You might think twice before naming your son or daughter.
Here is the link below as well as the copy of it:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/05/26/naming.names.importance/index.html?hpt=C2
Wes Moore appeared in his hometown newspaper, The Baltimore Sun, 10 years ago because of his impressive academic achievements. Around the same time, he noticed a story in the paper about a jewelry store robbery in which a police officer and a father of five was killed.
He learned one of the convicted killers shared his name.
While Wes Moore the Rhodes Scholar would become a combat veteran in Afghanistan and a White House fellow, Wes Moore the convicted felon was sentenced to life in prison. Their correspondence through letters and prison visits led to the release of the book "The Other Wes Moore" this spring.
"The name was the first thing that drove me," said Moore, 31, on what inspired him to befriend the inmate.
Other people may have wondered who also lays claim to their name. Google a relatively common name such as "Steve Jones," and a biologist, musician and golfer appear. And Steve is not even among the Top 10 boys' names of the last century.
Names are becoming increasingly diverse in the United States. Cleveland Evans, former president of The American Name Society, says more parents are seeking distinctive names for all sorts of reasons, from paying tribute to their child's ethnicity to giving the child a unique Google legacy.
"They want their child to have something neat or inspiring," said Michael Campbell, owner of Behindthename.com, a website housing the meanings of about 16,000 names.
Parents are spending more time mulling over what to name their child, said Laura Wattenberg, founder of the book and blog BabyNameWizard.com. The possibilities are endless, and not even experts such as Evans can pinpoint an exact number of names in America.
In recent decades, Wattenberg said popular baby names are becoming a smaller fraction of what parents are choosing for their children.
The Social Security Administration announced this month that Isabella reigns as the top baby girl's name in America. But even today's most popular name of Isabella represents only half the number of babies named Mary when it was the top girl's name in 1960.
The SSA, which began documenting name popularity in 1997, tracks only the 1,000 most popular names each year.
The 1960s, a decade of tremendous political and social shifts, is responsible for expanding the pool of names, several naming experts noted. More Americans began to reject conformity and embrace individualism.
"Nobody wants their kids to fit in anymore," Wattenberg said. "They want them to stand out."
One unusual name that made it into the SSA's 1,000 most popular names recently is Nevaeh, which is "heaven" spelled backward. Other unusual names for babies include picking places such as Brooklyn and Memphis.
Celebrity and ethnicity
Some celebrities are exemplifying the trend. Actress Gwyneth Paltrow stirred up mixed reactions when she decided to name her child Apple in 2004. When Angelina Jolie named her children Shiloh and Maddox, naming experts predicted those names would become popular in coming years. Maddox has already seen steady gains in the past five years, climbing to No. 180 on the SSA list this year.
Parents can be influenced by Hollywood, said Michael J. Astrue, SSA commissioner. He thinks the name Isabella reached the top spot because of the hit "Twilight" movie series, in which the heroine is named Bella. Astrue also speculated the name Lindsay fell from No. 381 in 2008 to No. 524 in 2009 because of actress Lindsay Lohan's legal woes.
Immigrants to the U.S. historically have adopted more American-sounding names. Italian immigrants in the earlier part of the 20th century sometimes dropped vowels from the end of last names to assimilate.
Now ethnic-sounding names are making a comeback. Some naming experts have cited an uptick in names such as Barack, inspired by President Barack Obama.
Parents from immigrant families may give their children an ethnic name to remain tied to their culture, said Hannah Emery, a graduate student of sociology at the University of California-Berkeley. She is studying naming trends.
Biracial and multiracial couples are more careful of the names they select for their children because they want the name to reflect different ethnic backgrounds, she said.
Naming consequences implied
So what's the big deal about picking the right name?
If some academic studies are correct, a name can have consequences for a person's job, residency and even school grades.
One of the most famous studies comes from the University of Chicago in 2003. Professors reported children with "black-sounding" names such as Lakisha and Jamal are 50 percent less likely to receive a call back for a job interview compared to "white-sounding" names such as Emily or Greg.
Brett Pelham, a psychology professor at the University of Buffalo in New York, discovered names can affect where a person decides to live. Women named Georgia and Virginia are about 44 percent more likely to move to a state with the same name, according to his research.
Pelham attributes the naming phenomenon to 'implicit egotism," the idea that people unconsciously select things, places and other people that resemble them.
A name can affect academic achievement, said professors Leif Nelson, now at the University of California-Berkeley, and Joseph Simmons at Yale University, in their 2007 study. After analyzing grades, they found students with names that began with a C or D earned lower grade point averages than those that started with an A or a B.
These studies are not absolute. But one thing is clear: A name is more than a name.
"It's a decision that people really do put in time, effort and weight," says June Rifkin, author of "The Everything Baby Names Book," a compilation of baby names released in 2006. "I don't think it is haphazard. There is a lot of consideration because their child will have to have their name for the rest of their lives."
Friday, May 28, 2010
Stanley Cup Preview
After the first two rounds had lengthy series play and a lot of excitement, we saw the Canadiens and Sharks come out flat and were beaten rather easily by the Flyers and Blackhawks, respectively. Jaroslav Halak ran out of gas after his great run as the Flyers first and second lines got to him early in the series and set the tone. And speaking of tone, the Blackhawks were the tougher and more physical team out West as they swept the Sharks, who were coming off a great series win against the Red Wings. The Sharks continued to underperform when it counts most in the playoffs. Now we will see the underdog Flyers up against a surely favored Blackhawks team. Yet, as we have seen thus far expect the unexpected and this one could easily be a seven game thriller. Overall, my predictions have me at 10-4. Now time for all the marbles and the Stanley Cup trophy.
Stanley Cup Finals
2 Chicago Blackhawks vs 7 Philadelphia Flyers: The Blackhawks have an excellent young core that is led by Patrick Kane as they have maneuvered through the West. The Flyers rode the underdog role and eliminated "the underdog" of the playoffs, the Canadiens, to get here. With a win by either team, they will end droughts of 49 years for the Blackhawks and 35 years for Flyers. Ironically, Kane was the prize pick in 2007 and the Blackhawks got that top pick over the Flyers. Alongside Kane is another young star in Jonathan Toews and together could be the foundation for a bit of dynasty in Chicago. The Flyers have a tough defense led by Chris Pronger and have dealt with multiple injuries yet they continue to surprise doubters. Many may not even remember that it was a shootout win over the Rangers that got the Flyers into the playoffs. Mike Richards is the scoring presence on the Flyers and his play will be important for the Flyers' hopes of winning it all. As with past Stanley Cup playoffs, if your team has a hot goalie; that team can make a run. Michael Leighton has been clutch for the Flyers while Antti Niemi has been nearly as impressive and is probably a better goalie, which makes Leighton play that much more spectacular. One matchup that might be interesting and physical is Dustin Byfuglien against Pronger. Byfuglien is a large man and Pronger hardly runs away from a fight.
This looks like a potentially great series. The Blackhawks were a trendy pick to make this game while the Flyers were lucky to make the postseason. This will a physical series that will be determined by depth and goalie play in the end. PREDICTION: BLACKHAWKS IN SIX
The Blackhawks look too good from top to bottom. They are healthier and the Flyers will finally show enough cracks for a team to beat them four times.
Stanley Cup Finals
2 Chicago Blackhawks vs 7 Philadelphia Flyers: The Blackhawks have an excellent young core that is led by Patrick Kane as they have maneuvered through the West. The Flyers rode the underdog role and eliminated "the underdog" of the playoffs, the Canadiens, to get here. With a win by either team, they will end droughts of 49 years for the Blackhawks and 35 years for Flyers. Ironically, Kane was the prize pick in 2007 and the Blackhawks got that top pick over the Flyers. Alongside Kane is another young star in Jonathan Toews and together could be the foundation for a bit of dynasty in Chicago. The Flyers have a tough defense led by Chris Pronger and have dealt with multiple injuries yet they continue to surprise doubters. Many may not even remember that it was a shootout win over the Rangers that got the Flyers into the playoffs. Mike Richards is the scoring presence on the Flyers and his play will be important for the Flyers' hopes of winning it all. As with past Stanley Cup playoffs, if your team has a hot goalie; that team can make a run. Michael Leighton has been clutch for the Flyers while Antti Niemi has been nearly as impressive and is probably a better goalie, which makes Leighton play that much more spectacular. One matchup that might be interesting and physical is Dustin Byfuglien against Pronger. Byfuglien is a large man and Pronger hardly runs away from a fight.
This looks like a potentially great series. The Blackhawks were a trendy pick to make this game while the Flyers were lucky to make the postseason. This will a physical series that will be determined by depth and goalie play in the end. PREDICTION: BLACKHAWKS IN SIX
The Blackhawks look too good from top to bottom. They are healthier and the Flyers will finally show enough cracks for a team to beat them four times.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Twist on the Korean War
A few months ago, I wrote about a twist on the end of World War II. This time I present the Korean War. However, this is more fact than fiction.
On June 25, 1950 the Korean War began. 60 years later it still has not officially ended. In July 1953, a cease-fire was ordered and much of the fighting stopped. I will admit until recently I misunderstood the way that the Korean War has stopped and how that has affected the relationship of the two main countries involved. Over the near 57 years since that cease-fire, we have seen that tensions are still very high between North and South Korea.
At the end of March, a South Korean navy vessel was sunk by a North Korea torpedo attack. This was the latest example that the possibility of war between the two nations still exists. South Korea has tried to act as openly as possible in regard to not looking for fight with their neighbors to the north, but this incident has set off much anger. South Korea will not sit idly by and allow North Korea to attack them without a response. Self-defense will the first and most obvious claim by South Korea if they seek retribution. Lee Myung-bak, the president of South Korea, has spoken out in the wake of the sinking of the vessel. Lee has called the action a clear violation of the U.N. Charter as well as the Korean War Armistice that paved the way for an end to fighting. North Korea has tried to brush blame away from them, but has not shown any sign of being afraid to begin an all out war against South Korea and the surrounding area.
However, this could be an opportunity for paving a pathway for negotiations with North Korea and increase pressure on them. China, though, is of crucial importance. China has yet to speak out against or for action against North Korea. Previously, China approved two U.N. sanctions in the last five years against North Korea when there was evidence that they had tested nuclear weapons. This is more ambigious and might be a bit tougher to garner their support. Additionally, the relationship between the two Asian nations of late as been fairly good as they assist each other financially.
Nonetheless, the most important item at hand is avoiding a return to warfare in Korea. Right now, there are roughly one million troops at the Demilitarized Zone or border of the two Korean nations. There are also nearly 30,000 American troops in South Korea still and it goes without mentioning the nuclear capabilities of North Korea. The world is a lot different than 1953 when the cease-fire occurred and if the war was restarted somehow; it could be far worse in one year than the three years of Korean War combined.
The sinking incident is an important reminder that deterrence and proper diplomatic measures are of high importance moving forward with North Korea. Anger often leads to rash decisions and choices and right now the anger is about as high as it gets between South and North Korea. The attack is also a reminder that talks for an elimination of nuclear weapons needs to be restarted for security and safety of that region of the world. These talks were cut off when the United States and North Korea could not make any reasonable headway.
If tensions continue and we see another incident like the vessel attack, then what was paused in 1953 could very well begin anew. Ultimately, that is what is at stake and cannot be looked at too lightly.
On June 25, 1950 the Korean War began. 60 years later it still has not officially ended. In July 1953, a cease-fire was ordered and much of the fighting stopped. I will admit until recently I misunderstood the way that the Korean War has stopped and how that has affected the relationship of the two main countries involved. Over the near 57 years since that cease-fire, we have seen that tensions are still very high between North and South Korea.
At the end of March, a South Korean navy vessel was sunk by a North Korea torpedo attack. This was the latest example that the possibility of war between the two nations still exists. South Korea has tried to act as openly as possible in regard to not looking for fight with their neighbors to the north, but this incident has set off much anger. South Korea will not sit idly by and allow North Korea to attack them without a response. Self-defense will the first and most obvious claim by South Korea if they seek retribution. Lee Myung-bak, the president of South Korea, has spoken out in the wake of the sinking of the vessel. Lee has called the action a clear violation of the U.N. Charter as well as the Korean War Armistice that paved the way for an end to fighting. North Korea has tried to brush blame away from them, but has not shown any sign of being afraid to begin an all out war against South Korea and the surrounding area.
However, this could be an opportunity for paving a pathway for negotiations with North Korea and increase pressure on them. China, though, is of crucial importance. China has yet to speak out against or for action against North Korea. Previously, China approved two U.N. sanctions in the last five years against North Korea when there was evidence that they had tested nuclear weapons. This is more ambigious and might be a bit tougher to garner their support. Additionally, the relationship between the two Asian nations of late as been fairly good as they assist each other financially.
Nonetheless, the most important item at hand is avoiding a return to warfare in Korea. Right now, there are roughly one million troops at the Demilitarized Zone or border of the two Korean nations. There are also nearly 30,000 American troops in South Korea still and it goes without mentioning the nuclear capabilities of North Korea. The world is a lot different than 1953 when the cease-fire occurred and if the war was restarted somehow; it could be far worse in one year than the three years of Korean War combined.
The sinking incident is an important reminder that deterrence and proper diplomatic measures are of high importance moving forward with North Korea. Anger often leads to rash decisions and choices and right now the anger is about as high as it gets between South and North Korea. The attack is also a reminder that talks for an elimination of nuclear weapons needs to be restarted for security and safety of that region of the world. These talks were cut off when the United States and North Korea could not make any reasonable headway.
If tensions continue and we see another incident like the vessel attack, then what was paused in 1953 could very well begin anew. Ultimately, that is what is at stake and cannot be looked at too lightly.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tea Party Views: Fact or Fiction
Politics can sometimes become a game of facts and lies. If politicians can get lies past the electorate, then it is a success. But if they are caught, they become exposed and flawed. Two individuals who get worked up involving expanding the truth are John Amato and David Neiwert. The two have a book coming out shortly regarding how the right wing conservative movement is on a mission in the wake of President Obama's election. Individuals like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others like them are the prophets and give "their facts" life. As part of digging up the dirt thrown around, Amato and Neiwert have 10 beliefs of the Tea Party movement that belong in the fiction section of a bookstore as opposed to the non-fiction section.
The two, as do I, question how some people can continue to doubt things that have been proven to be factual and go against "their conventional wisdom". There are many conservatives and members of the Tea Party who seem to live in a delusional world, where only their facts exist.
The Top 10 of these myths and claims:
1. The birth-certificate conspiracy. Reality: Not even official birth certificates from Hawaii, newspaper clippings from 1961, and the testimony of state officials will convince the true-blue Tea Partiers and Birthers. Which is why WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah lectured the National Tea Party Convention for an hour about the “truth” of the birth-certificate story.
2. Death panels. Reality: PolitiFact named Sarah Palin’s Facebook invention its “Lie of the Year,” and the belief was thoroughly exposed as a falsehood by every news network including Fox News. Yet Palin still insists that the panels exist somewhere in the health-care reform bill that was signed into law, its actual language notwithstanding.
3. Obama is a Muslim/Socialist/Fascist. Reality: Glenn Beck’s fantasy of the week -- one week Obama was a Socialist, the next he was a Communist, then a Fascist. Then it was on to Marxism and Maoism -- was avidly adopted by sign-bearing fans at Tea Party gatherings, who sometimes shared Beck’s confusion by just calling Obama All of the Above. Reality: Obama’s self-evident cautious centrism, embodied by his health-care reform package stripped of a public option, as well as his more recent embrace of a limited offshore drilling program, has infuriated liberals in his party -- but it hasn’t stopped Tea Partiers from denouncing the president as a radical anyway.
4. Obama is going to take away our guns. Reality: Well, the NRA managed to scare a whole lot of people into buying up every gun and piece of ammunition in sight the first year or so after Obama’s election. And at least five police officers died because the suspects they were arresting feared Obama was going to take away their guns. But Obama not only has adhered to his promise not to address gun-control issues, there hasn’t been even a breath of it from his administration. Which, of course, just makes the paranoids that much more paranoid: It’s proof that he’s really up to something.
5. Obama is raising our taxes. Reality: Obama lowered taxes for 95 percent of working Americans in his first year in office. But, you know, he’s a liberal Democrat, which for true-blue right-wing folks that correlates to a tax hike.
6. Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. Reality: We can thank Jonah Goldberg with a big assist from Beck for the popularity of this one, even though Goldberg’s thesis has been demolished and angrily dismissed by academic historians. It’s especially come in handy for Tea Partiers with "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, who are not impressed by those pointy-headed professorial types anyway.
7. Global warming is a hoax. Reality: So Sean Hannity assures us, citing the Climategate brouhaha, which was itself shown largely to be a hoax of its own. Meanwhile, the world’s ocean levels keep rising, and glaciers and the polar ice cap keep receding despite the endless words thrown up denying that they are.
8. Some 16,000 new IRS agents will enforce the new health care reform act by throwing you in jail. Reality: The IRS is actually only increasing its spending in the coming budget year as it normally would, but some Republican operatives decided to figure out how many positions its increased budget would buy, and came up with 16,000, a figure that then became gospel on Newt Gingrich’s lips. According to the same mythmakers, this nonexistent new army of health care police was going to start throwing people in jail if they failed to buy health insurance. However, in fact, the only penalties contemplated for such failures are fines and taxes.
9. Two million people were at the 9/12 March on Washington. Reality: At the culmination of a month-long promotion; highlighted by a national Tea Party Express bus tour; by Beck and Fox News, about 70,000 people gathered on the National Mall on September 12 to protest. Beck cited an erroneous early report that over a million had shown up. Later that grew to be two million, the figure now commonly cited by Tea Party leaders as evidence of their tremendous numerical force.
10. The Tea Parties are a non-partisan, broad grassroots movement. Reality: Sure, if by non-partisan you mean rabidly paleo-conservative, to the point of even dismissing Republicans, and by grassroots you mean fake populism organized and whipped up by the most popular cable-news network on television, with a heaping helping of corporate financing. Tea Party folks and their defenders also want to believe that they are just ordinary Americans who want to be serious about helping their country. But it’s pretty hard to fit that description when you embrace plain old nuttiness.
The two, as do I, question how some people can continue to doubt things that have been proven to be factual and go against "their conventional wisdom". There are many conservatives and members of the Tea Party who seem to live in a delusional world, where only their facts exist.
The Top 10 of these myths and claims:
1. The birth-certificate conspiracy. Reality: Not even official birth certificates from Hawaii, newspaper clippings from 1961, and the testimony of state officials will convince the true-blue Tea Partiers and Birthers. Which is why WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah lectured the National Tea Party Convention for an hour about the “truth” of the birth-certificate story.
2. Death panels. Reality: PolitiFact named Sarah Palin’s Facebook invention its “Lie of the Year,” and the belief was thoroughly exposed as a falsehood by every news network including Fox News. Yet Palin still insists that the panels exist somewhere in the health-care reform bill that was signed into law, its actual language notwithstanding.
3. Obama is a Muslim/Socialist/Fascist. Reality: Glenn Beck’s fantasy of the week -- one week Obama was a Socialist, the next he was a Communist, then a Fascist. Then it was on to Marxism and Maoism -- was avidly adopted by sign-bearing fans at Tea Party gatherings, who sometimes shared Beck’s confusion by just calling Obama All of the Above. Reality: Obama’s self-evident cautious centrism, embodied by his health-care reform package stripped of a public option, as well as his more recent embrace of a limited offshore drilling program, has infuriated liberals in his party -- but it hasn’t stopped Tea Partiers from denouncing the president as a radical anyway.
4. Obama is going to take away our guns. Reality: Well, the NRA managed to scare a whole lot of people into buying up every gun and piece of ammunition in sight the first year or so after Obama’s election. And at least five police officers died because the suspects they were arresting feared Obama was going to take away their guns. But Obama not only has adhered to his promise not to address gun-control issues, there hasn’t been even a breath of it from his administration. Which, of course, just makes the paranoids that much more paranoid: It’s proof that he’s really up to something.
5. Obama is raising our taxes. Reality: Obama lowered taxes for 95 percent of working Americans in his first year in office. But, you know, he’s a liberal Democrat, which for true-blue right-wing folks that correlates to a tax hike.
6. Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon. Reality: We can thank Jonah Goldberg with a big assist from Beck for the popularity of this one, even though Goldberg’s thesis has been demolished and angrily dismissed by academic historians. It’s especially come in handy for Tea Partiers with "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, who are not impressed by those pointy-headed professorial types anyway.
7. Global warming is a hoax. Reality: So Sean Hannity assures us, citing the Climategate brouhaha, which was itself shown largely to be a hoax of its own. Meanwhile, the world’s ocean levels keep rising, and glaciers and the polar ice cap keep receding despite the endless words thrown up denying that they are.
8. Some 16,000 new IRS agents will enforce the new health care reform act by throwing you in jail. Reality: The IRS is actually only increasing its spending in the coming budget year as it normally would, but some Republican operatives decided to figure out how many positions its increased budget would buy, and came up with 16,000, a figure that then became gospel on Newt Gingrich’s lips. According to the same mythmakers, this nonexistent new army of health care police was going to start throwing people in jail if they failed to buy health insurance. However, in fact, the only penalties contemplated for such failures are fines and taxes.
9. Two million people were at the 9/12 March on Washington. Reality: At the culmination of a month-long promotion; highlighted by a national Tea Party Express bus tour; by Beck and Fox News, about 70,000 people gathered on the National Mall on September 12 to protest. Beck cited an erroneous early report that over a million had shown up. Later that grew to be two million, the figure now commonly cited by Tea Party leaders as evidence of their tremendous numerical force.
10. The Tea Parties are a non-partisan, broad grassroots movement. Reality: Sure, if by non-partisan you mean rabidly paleo-conservative, to the point of even dismissing Republicans, and by grassroots you mean fake populism organized and whipped up by the most popular cable-news network on television, with a heaping helping of corporate financing. Tea Party folks and their defenders also want to believe that they are just ordinary Americans who want to be serious about helping their country. But it’s pretty hard to fit that description when you embrace plain old nuttiness.
Friday, May 21, 2010
What Happened to Being Rewarded for Bipartisanship?
There once was a time when you would see Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) working alongside Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Or Senator John McCain (R-AZ) working alongside Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI). However, in the wake of President Obama's election; such behavior is a rarity. That problem is on the minds of some if not many including Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D). He wrote a op-ed in the Washington Post in the wake of Utah Senator Bob Bennett (R) being shunned by his state party at their primary convention, where he was defeated in his re-election bid to two challengers associated with the Tea Party crowd. It is a shame that Senator Bennett was punished for trying to do what members of Congress have done for years: reach across the aisle for the betterment of the country.
Some perspective provided by Senator Wyden:
The message that many partisan activists want me and my congressional colleagues to take away from this week's primaries and Utah's recent GOP convention is that engaging in bipartisanship is tantamount to surrendering your political party's most-prized principles. In fact, some in my party will undoubtedly criticize me for writing kind words about my friend Sen. Bob Bennett, just as some in Bob's party thought that his working with a Democrat was sufficient grounds for losing his seat in the U.S Senate. In other words, many of the most committed activists believe that the only way for Republicans to win legislatively is for Democrats to lose, and vice versa.
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, legislating is treated as if there is a giant congressional scoreboard that will ultimately determine which party gets to be in charge. What one side is for legislatively, the other is unalterably against. Many believe that is the only way to achieve clear victory.
While it is certainly true that legislating can be (and is) turned into a zero-sum game, despite what you hear on cable news, not every issue has diametrically opposed Democratic and Republican ideologies. In fact, not only are there policy areas on which Democrats and Republicans agree but when it comes to legislating, many issues present opportunities to build on the best ideas of both parties. No single party has a lock on all the good ideas.
I still think I had a pretty good idea for health reform -- despite its rejection by significant Democratic and Republican leaders -- but so did Bob Bennett. I was on the Senate floor three years ago when Bob walked across the center aisle to tell me he was willing to work with me on health reform. I had been meeting with him and other Senate colleagues for many weeks to talk about the Healthy Americans Act and what I believed was a historic opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together on an important issue.
Ideologically, Bob and I couldn't be more different. He's pro-life. I'm pro-choice. He voted for the Iraq war; I didn't. If Bob has ever seen a tax break he didn't like, I am unaware of it. But one thing Bob and I have in common is our fundamental belief that we were elected to do more than just get reelected, that once elections are over we have a duty to try to govern even if it means working with people with whom we don't always agree.
While I'll let others debate what became of the Wyden-Bennett health-reform bill, our effort married the best, most principled ideas that both parties had been promoting for decades. Like most Democrats, my fundamental principle was guaranteeing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. Like most Republicans, Bob felt strongly that market forces be used to promote expanded consumer choice and competition. Our legislation did both. As long as I would help Bob achieve his marketplace principles and avoid bigger government, Bob said he could back me on getting everyone insured.
Working in a bipartisan fashion can lead to watered-down legislation, yes, but principled bipartisanship can also lead to a value-added, better result. Personally, I believe that both sides can get much more of what they want by working together than by simply trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. By working with those with whom we don't necessarily see eye to eye, we are forced to work harder, to test our ideas and to consider solutions that we may never have thought of on our own. Moreover, if Democrats and Republicans ever stop fighting each other, they might finally find the strength to defeat the interest groups that all too easily exploit the partisan divide.
Bob Bennett is one of the most conservative men I have ever known, but he is also one of the best. Even in defeat, he told me that he doesn't for one minute regret working with me to try to do something important for the country, which is why I consider his loss so tragic. The country needs more senators who think like Bob Bennett, not fewer.
While it may be tempting to read the recent elections as a rejection of principled bipartisanship, polling shows that the majority of the American people are sick of the status quo, and the status quo is a Washington obsessed with legislating as though Congress's sole function is to play a wholly partisan, zero-sum game. The American people want us to put our nation ahead of party allegiances. They want us to do more than devise ways to gain and maintain power. They want us to be constructive with that power.
The regrettable irony of what transpired in Utah's Republican convention is that a small number of hyperpartisan activists have just ensured that Utah's contribution to the Senate will be less bipartisanship and more of the status quo in Washington. If that is the change that partisans are offering the nation, let's make certain the American public understands.
There should be more members of Congress like Senator Wyden speaking out about the party politics that are eroding bipartisanship in Congress. Without bipartisanship, Congress is more like two groups fighting against each other instead of two groups fighting for America. Isn't the latter what our country was supposed to be founded upon?
Some perspective provided by Senator Wyden:
The message that many partisan activists want me and my congressional colleagues to take away from this week's primaries and Utah's recent GOP convention is that engaging in bipartisanship is tantamount to surrendering your political party's most-prized principles. In fact, some in my party will undoubtedly criticize me for writing kind words about my friend Sen. Bob Bennett, just as some in Bob's party thought that his working with a Democrat was sufficient grounds for losing his seat in the U.S Senate. In other words, many of the most committed activists believe that the only way for Republicans to win legislatively is for Democrats to lose, and vice versa.
Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, legislating is treated as if there is a giant congressional scoreboard that will ultimately determine which party gets to be in charge. What one side is for legislatively, the other is unalterably against. Many believe that is the only way to achieve clear victory.
While it is certainly true that legislating can be (and is) turned into a zero-sum game, despite what you hear on cable news, not every issue has diametrically opposed Democratic and Republican ideologies. In fact, not only are there policy areas on which Democrats and Republicans agree but when it comes to legislating, many issues present opportunities to build on the best ideas of both parties. No single party has a lock on all the good ideas.
I still think I had a pretty good idea for health reform -- despite its rejection by significant Democratic and Republican leaders -- but so did Bob Bennett. I was on the Senate floor three years ago when Bob walked across the center aisle to tell me he was willing to work with me on health reform. I had been meeting with him and other Senate colleagues for many weeks to talk about the Healthy Americans Act and what I believed was a historic opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together on an important issue.
Ideologically, Bob and I couldn't be more different. He's pro-life. I'm pro-choice. He voted for the Iraq war; I didn't. If Bob has ever seen a tax break he didn't like, I am unaware of it. But one thing Bob and I have in common is our fundamental belief that we were elected to do more than just get reelected, that once elections are over we have a duty to try to govern even if it means working with people with whom we don't always agree.
While I'll let others debate what became of the Wyden-Bennett health-reform bill, our effort married the best, most principled ideas that both parties had been promoting for decades. Like most Democrats, my fundamental principle was guaranteeing quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans. Like most Republicans, Bob felt strongly that market forces be used to promote expanded consumer choice and competition. Our legislation did both. As long as I would help Bob achieve his marketplace principles and avoid bigger government, Bob said he could back me on getting everyone insured.
Working in a bipartisan fashion can lead to watered-down legislation, yes, but principled bipartisanship can also lead to a value-added, better result. Personally, I believe that both sides can get much more of what they want by working together than by simply trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. By working with those with whom we don't necessarily see eye to eye, we are forced to work harder, to test our ideas and to consider solutions that we may never have thought of on our own. Moreover, if Democrats and Republicans ever stop fighting each other, they might finally find the strength to defeat the interest groups that all too easily exploit the partisan divide.
Bob Bennett is one of the most conservative men I have ever known, but he is also one of the best. Even in defeat, he told me that he doesn't for one minute regret working with me to try to do something important for the country, which is why I consider his loss so tragic. The country needs more senators who think like Bob Bennett, not fewer.
While it may be tempting to read the recent elections as a rejection of principled bipartisanship, polling shows that the majority of the American people are sick of the status quo, and the status quo is a Washington obsessed with legislating as though Congress's sole function is to play a wholly partisan, zero-sum game. The American people want us to put our nation ahead of party allegiances. They want us to do more than devise ways to gain and maintain power. They want us to be constructive with that power.
The regrettable irony of what transpired in Utah's Republican convention is that a small number of hyperpartisan activists have just ensured that Utah's contribution to the Senate will be less bipartisanship and more of the status quo in Washington. If that is the change that partisans are offering the nation, let's make certain the American public understands.
There should be more members of Congress like Senator Wyden speaking out about the party politics that are eroding bipartisanship in Congress. Without bipartisanship, Congress is more like two groups fighting against each other instead of two groups fighting for America. Isn't the latter what our country was supposed to be founded upon?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Kids Say the Darnedest Things
Kids often are open values. Adults have a gauge that prevents them from always truly speaking their minds in most cases. However, if you ask a child a question, they will most likely give you an honest answer. We see adults every day on television or just in our every day lives saying and doing things that might catch some of us off guard. One such action that might cause one to gasp is a racial viewpoint. Whether we want to admit it or not, regardless of the progress made in civil rights; racism still exists and not minimally.
Racial issues are one of the complex issues or topics of our time and discussion on them are often pushed aside as they are feared to be almost too controversial for our media times. I find that hard to believe with reality television and tabloids dominating many Americans' attention and focus. But we never seem to gather what the true open values (children) think about racial issues. We often just assume we make racial decisions when we become adults, but as I will discuss; that is far from true.
I came across a feature by Anderson Cooper and CNN. CNN did a study with children of different races to access their racial beliefs, attitudes, and preferences based off of 5 skin-toned model that ranged from light skin to dark skin children. The children sampled were mostly from kindergarten age to late elementary. The results were almost shocking to me when I saw the report on CNN.
Furthermore, an example would be a white girl from Georgia who pointed to a light-skinned picture when asked who was smartest or good and then in turn pointed to a black-skinned picture when asked who was bad or ugly. Parents watched results of the study as they were taking place and what parents saw brought shock and tears to their faces. This was not a rarity as more and more children would echo similar reactions. White children displayed bias towards white models and black children showed a similar bias towards white models to a slightly lesser scale.
And this was not a handful of kids at one school. 133 children were tested from different schools featuring students with a certain economic and demographic background.
The study reveals a harsh reality: parents and children are not having enough of a discussion regarding the issue of race. The study showed that between white and black parents; black parents are more likely to talk to their children on racial issues. The number in studies in recent years are practically reversed. Much of the different comes from how white parents hope their children make the right choices as they see them. While black parents are very much aware of the obstacles of being an African American and try to brace their children for that future.
This study and what I saw was behind eye opening. I can vouch that growing up, my parents never brought up the issue of race and various aspects that are linked to it in our society. I was able to gain a perspective as I grew up and who I hung out with. I always had a multicultural collection of friends and that has probably played a major role in how I perceive race. However, white children on average just assume that white children are better than black children. And black children on average are brought up to believe certain perceptions regarding white vs black.
As we see, race is still a major debate topic. But, at the most basic level; what parents do and say at home can play a great role in how their children develop. I would like to think that all those involved in this study have come out of it with a new outlook. Talking to children about race is not something taboo as this study shows. Plus, all races must teach their children to be unique and not allow the color of their skin hold them back or being a way of judging someone.
This study is a just another example of kids saying the darnedest things. However, this time; something can be learned from what comes out of their mouths.
For more on this study, below is the link to the article as well as the detailed study. Definitely worth looking into!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/18/doll.study.parents/index.html
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/13/expanded_results_methods_cnn.pdf
Racial issues are one of the complex issues or topics of our time and discussion on them are often pushed aside as they are feared to be almost too controversial for our media times. I find that hard to believe with reality television and tabloids dominating many Americans' attention and focus. But we never seem to gather what the true open values (children) think about racial issues. We often just assume we make racial decisions when we become adults, but as I will discuss; that is far from true.
I came across a feature by Anderson Cooper and CNN. CNN did a study with children of different races to access their racial beliefs, attitudes, and preferences based off of 5 skin-toned model that ranged from light skin to dark skin children. The children sampled were mostly from kindergarten age to late elementary. The results were almost shocking to me when I saw the report on CNN.
Furthermore, an example would be a white girl from Georgia who pointed to a light-skinned picture when asked who was smartest or good and then in turn pointed to a black-skinned picture when asked who was bad or ugly. Parents watched results of the study as they were taking place and what parents saw brought shock and tears to their faces. This was not a rarity as more and more children would echo similar reactions. White children displayed bias towards white models and black children showed a similar bias towards white models to a slightly lesser scale.
And this was not a handful of kids at one school. 133 children were tested from different schools featuring students with a certain economic and demographic background.
The study reveals a harsh reality: parents and children are not having enough of a discussion regarding the issue of race. The study showed that between white and black parents; black parents are more likely to talk to their children on racial issues. The number in studies in recent years are practically reversed. Much of the different comes from how white parents hope their children make the right choices as they see them. While black parents are very much aware of the obstacles of being an African American and try to brace their children for that future.
This study and what I saw was behind eye opening. I can vouch that growing up, my parents never brought up the issue of race and various aspects that are linked to it in our society. I was able to gain a perspective as I grew up and who I hung out with. I always had a multicultural collection of friends and that has probably played a major role in how I perceive race. However, white children on average just assume that white children are better than black children. And black children on average are brought up to believe certain perceptions regarding white vs black.
As we see, race is still a major debate topic. But, at the most basic level; what parents do and say at home can play a great role in how their children develop. I would like to think that all those involved in this study have come out of it with a new outlook. Talking to children about race is not something taboo as this study shows. Plus, all races must teach their children to be unique and not allow the color of their skin hold them back or being a way of judging someone.
This study is a just another example of kids saying the darnedest things. However, this time; something can be learned from what comes out of their mouths.
For more on this study, below is the link to the article as well as the detailed study. Definitely worth looking into!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/18/doll.study.parents/index.html
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/13/expanded_results_methods_cnn.pdf
Sunday, May 16, 2010
What PA-12 Might Mean for November
After much talk in 2010, the beginning of the primary season is upon us. However, this Tuesday; there is a general election that might dictate how successful Republicans might be in November or how successful the Democrats will be in managing election damage.
There has been discussion that the Democrats are heading for a major setback in November. Almost every midterm election, the party opposite the president usually picks up seats. President Obama and the Democrats hope that their losses are low, but Republicans in some corners are predicting big wins, which would lead to them taking back one or both houses of Congress.
Conventional wisdom will have its first test when Mark Critz (D) faces Tim Burns (R) in the special election to replace the late Congressman John Murtha (D). The race between the two has been very close and should come down to the wire on Tuesday night. This southwestern Pennsylvania district has received the attention of both major parties and many high caliber individuals campaigning for one candidate or the other.
The current Democratic seat would be a major win for Republicans if their prophecy of total domination in November is to come true. PA-12 is one of the most conservative swing districts in the country.
Working against Republicans might be the fact that there is also a statewide primary between Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Joe Sestak for the right to most likely face former Congressman Pat Toomey in November. Hence, there will probably be more Democratic voters going to the ballot box, but that will change how close the Critz-Burns race will be.
So, whatever the outcome; the winning party will have an argument and potential strategy for the fall. It would be a bigger win for the GOP as they want to continue their winning ways after New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Ultimately, though, this is a local election, as were those two, with two candidates running against some of the White House's views.
This looks to be a speed bump on the road to November.
There has been discussion that the Democrats are heading for a major setback in November. Almost every midterm election, the party opposite the president usually picks up seats. President Obama and the Democrats hope that their losses are low, but Republicans in some corners are predicting big wins, which would lead to them taking back one or both houses of Congress.
Conventional wisdom will have its first test when Mark Critz (D) faces Tim Burns (R) in the special election to replace the late Congressman John Murtha (D). The race between the two has been very close and should come down to the wire on Tuesday night. This southwestern Pennsylvania district has received the attention of both major parties and many high caliber individuals campaigning for one candidate or the other.
The current Democratic seat would be a major win for Republicans if their prophecy of total domination in November is to come true. PA-12 is one of the most conservative swing districts in the country.
Working against Republicans might be the fact that there is also a statewide primary between Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Joe Sestak for the right to most likely face former Congressman Pat Toomey in November. Hence, there will probably be more Democratic voters going to the ballot box, but that will change how close the Critz-Burns race will be.
So, whatever the outcome; the winning party will have an argument and potential strategy for the fall. It would be a bigger win for the GOP as they want to continue their winning ways after New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Ultimately, though, this is a local election, as were those two, with two candidates running against some of the White House's views.
This looks to be a speed bump on the road to November.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Frozen Four...NHL Style
The underdog stories in the East playoffs continued while the two best teams out West moved onto the Western Finals. Goalie play and shutdown defense were certainly the story of the last round as well as the first round. The Canadiens not only have knocked out Alex Ovechekin, but now have sent home Sidney Crosby and the defending champion Penguins. The Flyers might not have the greatest goalie and a healthy line up, but they not only beat the Bruins, but made history coming back from down 3-0. The Sharks and Blackhawks were able to outlast the Red Wings and Canucks, respectively. San Jose was especially good as they demonstrated a killer extinct in nearly sweeping Detroit. Now it is time to battle for the right to play for the Stanley Cup. Overall, my predictions have me at 8-4. Not too bad considering some of the surprising results as all series went at least six games.
Eastern Conference Finals
7 Philadelphia Flyers v 8 Montreal Canadiens: It's not every year that the Number 7 seed gets to host a Conference Finals. However, in the Eastern playoffs this year, the seeding has meant next to nothing. The Flyers overcame injuries to oust the Devils in 5 and then fell down 3-0 to the Bruins before the Bruins forced a Game 7, where they fell down by 3 early and battled back to win the game 4-3 and the series 4-3. Almost fitting. They became only the third NHL team to come back from such a deficit. The legend of Jaroslav Halak for the Canadiens continues as the team forced another Game 7 against a better team and won in impressive fashion to move on to the Conference Finals. Halak is the better goalie in this one, but will be challenged by a persistent squad. I think the Canadiens will push the Flyers to the limit, but Philadelphia will have enough and their goalie play has been above its expectations. PICK: FLYERS (in 6)
Western Conference Finals
1 San Jose Sharks v 2 Chicago Blackhawks: The Sharks and Blackhawks both struggled a bit at times in the first round, but they stepped up their play in the last round. The Sharks showed something extra taking it to the Red Wings while the Blackhawks battled off a very tough Canucks team. I see this one being a close battle between the two best teams in the West. The Sharks have shown they can play on a big stage, but will they have enough to shut down a young and diverse Chicago team. I think Chicago has too much for the Sharks in the end. PICK: BLACKHAWKS (in 6)
These Conference Finals should continue the playoff excitement of the first two rounds and it looks like the Flyers and Blackhawks seemed poised for a Stanley Cup matchup. Not exactly the matchup that many would have foreseen over a month ago. Let the NHL's Frozen Four begin.
Eastern Conference Finals
7 Philadelphia Flyers v 8 Montreal Canadiens: It's not every year that the Number 7 seed gets to host a Conference Finals. However, in the Eastern playoffs this year, the seeding has meant next to nothing. The Flyers overcame injuries to oust the Devils in 5 and then fell down 3-0 to the Bruins before the Bruins forced a Game 7, where they fell down by 3 early and battled back to win the game 4-3 and the series 4-3. Almost fitting. They became only the third NHL team to come back from such a deficit. The legend of Jaroslav Halak for the Canadiens continues as the team forced another Game 7 against a better team and won in impressive fashion to move on to the Conference Finals. Halak is the better goalie in this one, but will be challenged by a persistent squad. I think the Canadiens will push the Flyers to the limit, but Philadelphia will have enough and their goalie play has been above its expectations. PICK: FLYERS (in 6)
Western Conference Finals
1 San Jose Sharks v 2 Chicago Blackhawks: The Sharks and Blackhawks both struggled a bit at times in the first round, but they stepped up their play in the last round. The Sharks showed something extra taking it to the Red Wings while the Blackhawks battled off a very tough Canucks team. I see this one being a close battle between the two best teams in the West. The Sharks have shown they can play on a big stage, but will they have enough to shut down a young and diverse Chicago team. I think Chicago has too much for the Sharks in the end. PICK: BLACKHAWKS (in 6)
These Conference Finals should continue the playoff excitement of the first two rounds and it looks like the Flyers and Blackhawks seemed poised for a Stanley Cup matchup. Not exactly the matchup that many would have foreseen over a month ago. Let the NHL's Frozen Four begin.
NBA Conference Finals Preview
The theme of the Conference Semi-Finals was sweep. That was what happened in three of the four series. The Lakers were hardly challenged by the Jazz and the Suns exorcised some demons by not only beating the Spurs, but sweeping them without too much trouble. It will be interesting to see the Lakers-Suns matchup as they come in equally rested and playing hot. The Magic were the most impressive of the three teams completing sweeps as they thrashed the Hawks by close to 30 points a game. The only series that was competitive was probably the one with the most drama and storylines around it. The big 3 and the now big 4th member, Rajon Rondo, were matched up against LeBron James. James was still looking for his first title while the Celtics were healthy and on a mission to get back to the Finals and show that they could of and should of repeated in 2009. In the end, the team beat the player as LeBron James could not come up when needed and when he did his teammates were no where to be found as the Celtics bounced the King and his mates in 6. Overall, I I have gone 10-2 in the playoffs. Now we will find out who will battle it out for the championship. A Boston-L.A. matchup could reappear while Phoenix and Orlando want their first title.
Eastern Conference Finals
2) Orlando Magic vs 4) Boston Celtics: The last two Eastern Conference champions meet for the right to go the Finals this year. The Magic have run through both the Bobcats and the Hawks; sweeping both. While the Celtics dismissed Dwayne Wade and the Heat in 5 and LeBron James and the Cavaliers in 6. Rajon Rondo has become a star in these playoffs for the Celtics and will be a dual threat against the Magic. One might wonder how the Magic will react to adversity after getting to this point with such ease. Will they play aggressive enough? Will they come out flat with the extra rest? The Celtics might be an older team, but they are still savy and have a few role guys coming off the bench. The Magic still use a simple Howard in the post and shooters on the wings approach that could become troublesome in a tough game. The Celtics have grinded out some tough ones and looked impressive while the Magic have not done anything but beat up on inferior talent. The Magic won the season series 3-1. The Celtics were one of the best road teams and a win in either or both Game 1 and/or 2 might give them an extra advantage. Don't expect a sweep here for the Magic. PREDICTION: CELTICS IN 6
Western Conference Finals
1) Los Angeles Lakers vs 3) Phoenix Suns: Both the Lakers and the Suns were too much for their respective opponents. Anytime the Jazz made a run, the Lakers erased it and held off a couple late victories for the Jazz. While the Suns caught a tired and injured Spurs team that ran out of gas and had little answer for Steve Nash or Amare Stoudamire. How well Nash can continue to move the ball will be of major importance for the Suns. Stoudamire will be challenged inside by Pau Gasol and at times by Andrew Bynum. Kobe Bryant is starting to turn it up with a 5th ring becoming a closer reality. This one should go longer than 4 as both have shown a lot of promise especially the Suns, who are one of the hottest teams since January 1st. The Lakers won the season series 3-1. If Kobe can get a good game or two from Ron Artest and Lamar Odom; it will be tough to knock out the Lakers. PREDICTION: LAKERS IN 6
Unfortunately the games were not that great overall in the Conference Semi-Finals. Expect that to change here. All four teams are hot and hungry and should provide us with an actual series or two. But from what I've seen thus far, we might see the 12th meeting in the Finals between the Celtics and the Lakers. Some might want to see either the Suns or Magic, but the non-fan might be more inclined to see a basketball rivalry that goes back to the 1960s.
Eastern Conference Finals
2) Orlando Magic vs 4) Boston Celtics: The last two Eastern Conference champions meet for the right to go the Finals this year. The Magic have run through both the Bobcats and the Hawks; sweeping both. While the Celtics dismissed Dwayne Wade and the Heat in 5 and LeBron James and the Cavaliers in 6. Rajon Rondo has become a star in these playoffs for the Celtics and will be a dual threat against the Magic. One might wonder how the Magic will react to adversity after getting to this point with such ease. Will they play aggressive enough? Will they come out flat with the extra rest? The Celtics might be an older team, but they are still savy and have a few role guys coming off the bench. The Magic still use a simple Howard in the post and shooters on the wings approach that could become troublesome in a tough game. The Celtics have grinded out some tough ones and looked impressive while the Magic have not done anything but beat up on inferior talent. The Magic won the season series 3-1. The Celtics were one of the best road teams and a win in either or both Game 1 and/or 2 might give them an extra advantage. Don't expect a sweep here for the Magic. PREDICTION: CELTICS IN 6
Western Conference Finals
1) Los Angeles Lakers vs 3) Phoenix Suns: Both the Lakers and the Suns were too much for their respective opponents. Anytime the Jazz made a run, the Lakers erased it and held off a couple late victories for the Jazz. While the Suns caught a tired and injured Spurs team that ran out of gas and had little answer for Steve Nash or Amare Stoudamire. How well Nash can continue to move the ball will be of major importance for the Suns. Stoudamire will be challenged inside by Pau Gasol and at times by Andrew Bynum. Kobe Bryant is starting to turn it up with a 5th ring becoming a closer reality. This one should go longer than 4 as both have shown a lot of promise especially the Suns, who are one of the hottest teams since January 1st. The Lakers won the season series 3-1. If Kobe can get a good game or two from Ron Artest and Lamar Odom; it will be tough to knock out the Lakers. PREDICTION: LAKERS IN 6
Unfortunately the games were not that great overall in the Conference Semi-Finals. Expect that to change here. All four teams are hot and hungry and should provide us with an actual series or two. But from what I've seen thus far, we might see the 12th meeting in the Finals between the Celtics and the Lakers. Some might want to see either the Suns or Magic, but the non-fan might be more inclined to see a basketball rivalry that goes back to the 1960s.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Will GOP's Immigration Stance Affect Its Future?
Much can be said about a political party's priorities when it comes to voting blocs. Corporation America generally is backed by the GOP while the down-trodden in this country are supported mostly by Democrats.
One of those voting blocs that is critical nationwide and especially in certain states like Arizona is the Hispanic voting bloc. Hispanics tend to vote more with the Democrats and the latest ongoing argument involving immigration might deal the Republicans a deep wound that might take many years to heal.
There is a tear nationally and both parties can agree that something needs to be done to address immigration issues. Illegal immigration has strained the country to some degree and unrest has arisen. However, the anti-immigration stance that the GOP has accidentally or not painted of themselves is not smart.
Democrats are wise to bring up the missteps of Republican members when it comes to their immigration public relations efforts. There are elements of the Republican Party that view Hispanics and immigrants as a threat to America's values and very being. Arizona state Representative Russell Pearce (R), one of the authors of the AZ immigration bill, has been quoted as saying that Mexicans' and Central Americans' way of doing things is different. Arizona Republican Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, who is running against Senator John McCain, has called for a moratorium on legal immigration from Mexico. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has referred to places like Miami as a third world country.
These are three examples that can be seen as Republicans being not welcoming of Hispanics.
Hayworth's actions and views, for instance, are also forcing individuals like McCain to bend former stances to appeal to a farther right base. John McCain has been a long-term supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, but since he is in the middle of a Republican primary race against a strong anti-immigration supporter; he comes off as a flip-flopper and an anti-immigration supporter as well.
Under President Obama, the worries that many in the Republican Party have are over the top. Violence is down overall. Less illegal immigrants are coming in and more are being deported under Obama then were under President Bush.
For several years, the issue of blacks and civil rights dictated political discussion. In the 1860s, the Republican Party under President Abraham Lincoln cleared the way for progress. However, a century later, it was the Democratic Party under President Lyndon Johnson giving blacks further progress. And since, African-Americans has generally voted in large numbers for Democratic candidates. Can the same pattern be starting with Latinos?
In the last two decades, Republicans have made moves that might lead to a division between them and most Hispanics. First came California's Proposition 187 passed in 1994 and sent out to deny illegal immigrants health care and public education before it was struck down. Second came the immigration debate in 2006 with several Republicans speaking out against reform. And third came the Arizona immigration law that is at the center of today's immigration debate.
In 2008, a study was taken by the Pew Hispanic Center. In that study, 49% of Hispanics felt Democrats had more concern for them while only 7% felt the same way about Republicans. This immigration debate has certainly not closed that gap and potentially has cost Republicans several loyal Hispanics in Arizona.
Voting constituencies can be fickle and vote based on their emotions. Emotions are certainly high among the high growing voting bloc and Republicans would be wise not to push their stances too far or they could find themselves a hole ten, twenty, or fifty years down the road. The Republican Party in the wake of its big defeats in 2006 and 2008 have been trying to re-image themselves. They want to bring more women, blacks, Latinos, and other minorities to their table. However, at least when it comes to the Latino base they are not gaining, but losing members of their potential base by being so anti-immigration.
Once you turn away a voting bloc, it will take some time to win some of them over again or for the first time. And that goes double in today's hyper sensitive environment when voters are a little more fickle than usual.
One of those voting blocs that is critical nationwide and especially in certain states like Arizona is the Hispanic voting bloc. Hispanics tend to vote more with the Democrats and the latest ongoing argument involving immigration might deal the Republicans a deep wound that might take many years to heal.
There is a tear nationally and both parties can agree that something needs to be done to address immigration issues. Illegal immigration has strained the country to some degree and unrest has arisen. However, the anti-immigration stance that the GOP has accidentally or not painted of themselves is not smart.
Democrats are wise to bring up the missteps of Republican members when it comes to their immigration public relations efforts. There are elements of the Republican Party that view Hispanics and immigrants as a threat to America's values and very being. Arizona state Representative Russell Pearce (R), one of the authors of the AZ immigration bill, has been quoted as saying that Mexicans' and Central Americans' way of doing things is different. Arizona Republican Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth, who is running against Senator John McCain, has called for a moratorium on legal immigration from Mexico. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has referred to places like Miami as a third world country.
These are three examples that can be seen as Republicans being not welcoming of Hispanics.
Hayworth's actions and views, for instance, are also forcing individuals like McCain to bend former stances to appeal to a farther right base. John McCain has been a long-term supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, but since he is in the middle of a Republican primary race against a strong anti-immigration supporter; he comes off as a flip-flopper and an anti-immigration supporter as well.
Under President Obama, the worries that many in the Republican Party have are over the top. Violence is down overall. Less illegal immigrants are coming in and more are being deported under Obama then were under President Bush.
For several years, the issue of blacks and civil rights dictated political discussion. In the 1860s, the Republican Party under President Abraham Lincoln cleared the way for progress. However, a century later, it was the Democratic Party under President Lyndon Johnson giving blacks further progress. And since, African-Americans has generally voted in large numbers for Democratic candidates. Can the same pattern be starting with Latinos?
In the last two decades, Republicans have made moves that might lead to a division between them and most Hispanics. First came California's Proposition 187 passed in 1994 and sent out to deny illegal immigrants health care and public education before it was struck down. Second came the immigration debate in 2006 with several Republicans speaking out against reform. And third came the Arizona immigration law that is at the center of today's immigration debate.
In 2008, a study was taken by the Pew Hispanic Center. In that study, 49% of Hispanics felt Democrats had more concern for them while only 7% felt the same way about Republicans. This immigration debate has certainly not closed that gap and potentially has cost Republicans several loyal Hispanics in Arizona.
Voting constituencies can be fickle and vote based on their emotions. Emotions are certainly high among the high growing voting bloc and Republicans would be wise not to push their stances too far or they could find themselves a hole ten, twenty, or fifty years down the road. The Republican Party in the wake of its big defeats in 2006 and 2008 have been trying to re-image themselves. They want to bring more women, blacks, Latinos, and other minorities to their table. However, at least when it comes to the Latino base they are not gaining, but losing members of their potential base by being so anti-immigration.
Once you turn away a voting bloc, it will take some time to win some of them over again or for the first time. And that goes double in today's hyper sensitive environment when voters are a little more fickle than usual.
Monday, May 10, 2010
No More Bennett...An Incumbent Falls
We have heard it for much of the 2010 so far: incumbents are in trouble this year. The environment is not ideal for incumbents as there are a wealth of problems and those in office are the first to garner the blame. Well, it will be hard to tell until the primary cycle closes at the end of August, but one incumbent has found out the hard way that times might be unfavorable. 3-term U.S. Senator Bob Bennett from Utah lost in the Republican convention voting this past Saturday. He found himself not being viewed conservative enough for his party in Utah.
He finished behind two Tea Party oriented candidates and highlights the challenges some incumbents might face this year. Bennett's record over the last couple years might have contributed to his demise.
Bennett survived the first round of voting featuring about 3,500 delegates, but then fell behind both Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee. The former being a businessman and the latter being an attorney. Bridgewater finished with 37% to Lee's 36% and Bennett's 27. Bridgewater and Lee now move towards a primary on June 22nd after neither got at least 60% following the third round of voting. The endorsements of both Mitt Romney and the National Rifle Association were enough to help Bennett.
Bennett certainly not fit the mold of liberal or moderate politician, but one of his votes might have angered enough core voters in the Republican Party. The bailout vote might have helped seal Bennett's fate in this case. His "Yes" vote was viewed unpopular by several delegates who opposed the bailout and don't see it doing any good. Also he co-sponsored a bipartisan bill that mandated health insurance coverage. Bennett additionally aggressively pursued earmarks as well. Those votes and decisions might not go along with some of the conservative values of today, but his record overall strongly matches those values.
Utah is probably one of the most conservative states and with the Tea Party and the direction that the Republican Party is going; if you are not conservative enough, the party will not want you carrying the "R". The term RINO or Republican in Name Only comes to mind here. Bennett's two challengers focused on the one of the core principles of the party with reining in spending and appealed to the core of those who feel they are a Republican.
Both Bridgewater and Lee are not very politically experienced, but that might have only helped them as the non-incumbents or insider type of candidates. However, both were involved with former Governor Jon Huntsman Jr's office.
Bennett's loss does not follow the trend in Utah as both of Utah's Republican congressmen and Republican Governor Gary Herbert all easily won their party's nomination. Also, so far in the small amount of primaries we have had, mostly the incumbents are getting renominated with Bennett being one of the rare exceptions.
Another point of note was a promise Bennett made when he originally ran for office in 1992. He had promised to serve only two terms and now he is trying to a fourth. In 2004, Bennett was easily reelected with 69% of the vote.
Based on Saturday's results, it is not necessarily an attack on incumbents, but an incumbent who failed to connect with who mattered most: those delegates voting. Bennett does not fit the mold of some these wingnuts and rabble raisers who the party has been pandering too recently. He is more of a practical politician with conservative principles and tendencies. Also, if Bennett faced a primary he might have had a much better chance of either getting renominated or at least making it to the run-off primary in June. 3,500 delegates made the decision for a population that features 3 million. Granted not all of those 3 million are Republican voters, but there are certainly a lot more than 3,500. Additionally, Bennett has more money on hand than the other two, but money does not really matter in a convention setting.
Whether Bridgewater or Lee emerges they will have a major advantage over the Democratic nominee Sam Granato due to the overwhelmingly Republican population.
This has truly been a bit of rollercoaster ride since January. Scott Brown emerged as the newest U.S. Senator in Massachusetts and holds the late Ted Kennedy's seat. The Republican Party in Florida turned on Governor and current candidate for the U.S. Senator, Charlie Crist. He was able to avoid what happened to Bennett by leaving the party and has the possibly to surprise Marco Rubio and the Republican Party come November.
This convention primary will most likely come up as the primary season continues and multiple races and those running in them might gauge Saturday's results for their primaries. Next week, establishment candidate Trey Grayson faces upstart and a popular face amongst the Tea Party in Rand Paul, the son of Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has the lead in polls in that one and could continue what we saw in Utah. In Arizona, Senator John McCain is facing a tough opponent in former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth is further right than McCain and thus forcing McCain to run more to the right of his party to get renominated. McCain has voted, but moderately than Bennett during his tenure, but Arizona is not as conservative as Utah.
If we start to see more incumbents and favorites struggle throughout the May primaries we may begin to start to gauge the political temperature moving along in 2010. So far, it might be much to do about nothing so far. Bennett met and unusual circumstance in a tough environment in a state where your conservative leeway in much smaller than other states.
Personally, I would not say I'm the biggest Bob Bennett fan, but he at least has shown a willingness to vote against the popular opinion of the Republican Party at times while still staying true most of the time to his party and those who call themselves conservatives. Most likely one of the two guys who beat Bennett will win because of the voting record of Utah, but neither brings what I would characterize a positive vibe to the U.S. Senate. They would only add to partisanship and possibly even shake up the Republican Party and make them too conservative.
We do not know too much this year at times, but one thing is for sure; a new face will enter the United States Senate in January 2011 and Bob Bennett will need to reevaluate his political future.
He finished behind two Tea Party oriented candidates and highlights the challenges some incumbents might face this year. Bennett's record over the last couple years might have contributed to his demise.
Bennett survived the first round of voting featuring about 3,500 delegates, but then fell behind both Tim Bridgewater and Mike Lee. The former being a businessman and the latter being an attorney. Bridgewater finished with 37% to Lee's 36% and Bennett's 27. Bridgewater and Lee now move towards a primary on June 22nd after neither got at least 60% following the third round of voting. The endorsements of both Mitt Romney and the National Rifle Association were enough to help Bennett.
Bennett certainly not fit the mold of liberal or moderate politician, but one of his votes might have angered enough core voters in the Republican Party. The bailout vote might have helped seal Bennett's fate in this case. His "Yes" vote was viewed unpopular by several delegates who opposed the bailout and don't see it doing any good. Also he co-sponsored a bipartisan bill that mandated health insurance coverage. Bennett additionally aggressively pursued earmarks as well. Those votes and decisions might not go along with some of the conservative values of today, but his record overall strongly matches those values.
Utah is probably one of the most conservative states and with the Tea Party and the direction that the Republican Party is going; if you are not conservative enough, the party will not want you carrying the "R". The term RINO or Republican in Name Only comes to mind here. Bennett's two challengers focused on the one of the core principles of the party with reining in spending and appealed to the core of those who feel they are a Republican.
Both Bridgewater and Lee are not very politically experienced, but that might have only helped them as the non-incumbents or insider type of candidates. However, both were involved with former Governor Jon Huntsman Jr's office.
Bennett's loss does not follow the trend in Utah as both of Utah's Republican congressmen and Republican Governor Gary Herbert all easily won their party's nomination. Also, so far in the small amount of primaries we have had, mostly the incumbents are getting renominated with Bennett being one of the rare exceptions.
Another point of note was a promise Bennett made when he originally ran for office in 1992. He had promised to serve only two terms and now he is trying to a fourth. In 2004, Bennett was easily reelected with 69% of the vote.
Based on Saturday's results, it is not necessarily an attack on incumbents, but an incumbent who failed to connect with who mattered most: those delegates voting. Bennett does not fit the mold of some these wingnuts and rabble raisers who the party has been pandering too recently. He is more of a practical politician with conservative principles and tendencies. Also, if Bennett faced a primary he might have had a much better chance of either getting renominated or at least making it to the run-off primary in June. 3,500 delegates made the decision for a population that features 3 million. Granted not all of those 3 million are Republican voters, but there are certainly a lot more than 3,500. Additionally, Bennett has more money on hand than the other two, but money does not really matter in a convention setting.
Whether Bridgewater or Lee emerges they will have a major advantage over the Democratic nominee Sam Granato due to the overwhelmingly Republican population.
This has truly been a bit of rollercoaster ride since January. Scott Brown emerged as the newest U.S. Senator in Massachusetts and holds the late Ted Kennedy's seat. The Republican Party in Florida turned on Governor and current candidate for the U.S. Senator, Charlie Crist. He was able to avoid what happened to Bennett by leaving the party and has the possibly to surprise Marco Rubio and the Republican Party come November.
This convention primary will most likely come up as the primary season continues and multiple races and those running in them might gauge Saturday's results for their primaries. Next week, establishment candidate Trey Grayson faces upstart and a popular face amongst the Tea Party in Rand Paul, the son of Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has the lead in polls in that one and could continue what we saw in Utah. In Arizona, Senator John McCain is facing a tough opponent in former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Hayworth is further right than McCain and thus forcing McCain to run more to the right of his party to get renominated. McCain has voted, but moderately than Bennett during his tenure, but Arizona is not as conservative as Utah.
If we start to see more incumbents and favorites struggle throughout the May primaries we may begin to start to gauge the political temperature moving along in 2010. So far, it might be much to do about nothing so far. Bennett met and unusual circumstance in a tough environment in a state where your conservative leeway in much smaller than other states.
Personally, I would not say I'm the biggest Bob Bennett fan, but he at least has shown a willingness to vote against the popular opinion of the Republican Party at times while still staying true most of the time to his party and those who call themselves conservatives. Most likely one of the two guys who beat Bennett will win because of the voting record of Utah, but neither brings what I would characterize a positive vibe to the U.S. Senate. They would only add to partisanship and possibly even shake up the Republican Party and make them too conservative.
We do not know too much this year at times, but one thing is for sure; a new face will enter the United States Senate in January 2011 and Bob Bennett will need to reevaluate his political future.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Immigration: Fact or Fiction
Immigration is at the center of much debate right now. Arizona's immigration law has been talked about by both sides of the political spectrum. However, for the purpose of this entry I want to highlight some myths and misconception. I have done similar posts with health care and came across a similar entry in the Washington by Doris Meissner. Below are her 5 points that are often misunderstood at the heart of this big debate.
1. Immigrants take jobs from American workers.
Although immigrants account for 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, they make up about 15 percent of the workforce. They are overrepresented among workers largely because the rest of our population is aging: Immigrants and their children have accounted for 58 percent of U.S. population growth since 1980. This probably won't change anytime soon. Low U.S. fertility rates and the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers mean that immigration is likely to be the only source of growth in what we call the "prime age" workforce -- workers ages 25 to 55 -- in the decades ahead. As record numbers of retirees begin drawing Social Security checks, younger immigrant workers will be paying taxes, somewhat easing the financial pressures on the system. Moreover, immigrants tend to be concentrated in high- and low-skilled occupations that complement -- rather than compete with -- jobs held by native workers. And the foreign-born workers who fill lower-paying jobs are typically first-hired/first-fired employees, allowing employers to expand and contract their workforces rapidly. As a result, immigrants experience higher employment than natives during booms -- but they suffer higher job losses during downturns, including the current one. It's true that an influx of new workers pushes wages down, but immigration also stimulates growth by creating new consumers, entrepreneurs and investors. As a result of this growth, economists estimate that wages for the vast majority of American workers are slightly higher than they would be without immigration. U.S. workers without a high school degree experience wage declines as a result of competition from immigrants, but these losses are modest, at just over 1 percent. Economists also estimate that for each job an immigrant fills, an additional job is created.
2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.
The historic high came more than a century ago, in 1890, when immigrants made up 14.8 percent of our population. Today, about two-thirds of immigrants are here legally, either as naturalized citizens or as lawful permanent residents, more commonly known as "green card" holders. And of the approximately 10.8 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, about 40 percent arrived legally but overstayed their visas. It's worth noting that although the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants. As for the flow of illegal immigrants, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years, while increases in the size of the illegal population, which had been growing by about 500,000 a year for more than a decade, have stopped. This decline is largely due to the recession, but stepped-up border enforcement is playing a part.
3. Today's immigrants are not integrating into American life like past waves did.
The integration of immigrants remains a hallmark of America's vitality as a society and a source of admiration abroad, as it has been throughout our history. Although some people complain that today's immigrants are not integrating into U.S. society as quickly as previous newcomers did, the same charge was leveled at virtually every past wave of immigrants, including the large numbers of Germans, Irish and Italians who arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, as before, immigrant integration takes a generation or two. Learning English is one key driver of this process; the education and upward mobility of immigrants' children is the other. On the first count, today's immigrants consistently seek English instruction in such large numbers that adult-education programs cannot meet the demand, especially in places such as California. On the second count, the No Child Left Behind Act has played a critical role in helping educate immigrant children because it holds schools newly accountable for teaching them English. However, the unauthorized status of millions of foreign-born immigrants can slow integration in crucial ways. For example, illegal immigrants are ineligible for in-state tuition at most public colleges and universities, putting higher education effectively out of their reach. And laws prohibiting unauthorized immigrants from getting driver's licenses or various professional credentials can leave them stuck in jobs with a high density of other immigrants and unable to advance.
4. Cracking down on illegal border crossings will make us safer.
The job of protecting the nation's borders is immense, encompassing nearly 7,500 miles of land borders, 12,380 miles of coastline and a vast network of sea ports, international airports, ports of entry along the Mexican and Canadian borders and visa-issuing consulates abroad. Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have dramatically strengthened our borders through the use of biometrics at ports of entry, secure cargo-shipment systems, intelligence gathering, integrated databases and increased international cooperation. The Border Patrol has nearly doubled in size in the past five years, to more than 20,000 agents. The Department of Homeland Security says it is on schedule to meet congressional mandates for southwestern border enforcement, including fence-building. And cooperation with the Mexican government has improved significantly. Still, our southwest border is more a classic law enforcement challenge than a front line in the war on terrorism. Antiterrorism measures rely heavily on intelligence gathering and clandestine efforts that are unrelated to border enforcement. The seasoned enforcement officials I have spoken with all contend that if we provided enough visas to meet the economy's demand for workers, border agents would be freed to focus on protecting the nation from truly dangerous individuals and activities, such as drug-trafficking, smuggling and cartel violence.
5. Immigration reform cannot happen in an election year.
The politics of immigration can be explosive and can chase lawmakers away, especially as elections near, with the result that Congress infrequently and reluctantly updates immigration laws. However, all the significant immigration bills enacted in recent decades were passed in election years, often at the last minute and after fractious debates. This list dates back to the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our system for humanitarian protection and refugee and asylum admissions. Next came the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to hire unauthorized immigrants and provided amnesty for 2.7 million illegal immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of visas allotted to highly skilled workers. And the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act charged immigration agencies with implementing significant new law enforcement mandates. Legislative attempts to make urgently needed changes fizzled in the House in 2005 and in the Senate in 2006 and 2007, and the to-do list for this Congress is substantial. But ruling out immigration reform, whether because Congress has other priorities or because it's an election year, would be a mistake. The outline for immigration legislation that Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and his Democratic colleagues unveiled last week, together with the uproar over the Arizona law, may help convince lawmakers that there's no time like the present.
These 5 myths are hopefully debunked now. Here below is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001106.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions
1. Immigrants take jobs from American workers.
Although immigrants account for 12.5 percent of the U.S. population, they make up about 15 percent of the workforce. They are overrepresented among workers largely because the rest of our population is aging: Immigrants and their children have accounted for 58 percent of U.S. population growth since 1980. This probably won't change anytime soon. Low U.S. fertility rates and the upcoming retirement of the baby boomers mean that immigration is likely to be the only source of growth in what we call the "prime age" workforce -- workers ages 25 to 55 -- in the decades ahead. As record numbers of retirees begin drawing Social Security checks, younger immigrant workers will be paying taxes, somewhat easing the financial pressures on the system. Moreover, immigrants tend to be concentrated in high- and low-skilled occupations that complement -- rather than compete with -- jobs held by native workers. And the foreign-born workers who fill lower-paying jobs are typically first-hired/first-fired employees, allowing employers to expand and contract their workforces rapidly. As a result, immigrants experience higher employment than natives during booms -- but they suffer higher job losses during downturns, including the current one. It's true that an influx of new workers pushes wages down, but immigration also stimulates growth by creating new consumers, entrepreneurs and investors. As a result of this growth, economists estimate that wages for the vast majority of American workers are slightly higher than they would be without immigration. U.S. workers without a high school degree experience wage declines as a result of competition from immigrants, but these losses are modest, at just over 1 percent. Economists also estimate that for each job an immigrant fills, an additional job is created.
2. Immigration is at an all-time high, and most new immigrants came illegally.
The historic high came more than a century ago, in 1890, when immigrants made up 14.8 percent of our population. Today, about two-thirds of immigrants are here legally, either as naturalized citizens or as lawful permanent residents, more commonly known as "green card" holders. And of the approximately 10.8 million immigrants who are in the country illegally, about 40 percent arrived legally but overstayed their visas. It's worth noting that although the unauthorized immigrant population includes more people from Mexico than from any other country, Mexicans are also the largest group of lawful immigrants. As for the flow of illegal immigrants, apprehensions along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined by more than 50 percent over the past four years, while increases in the size of the illegal population, which had been growing by about 500,000 a year for more than a decade, have stopped. This decline is largely due to the recession, but stepped-up border enforcement is playing a part.
3. Today's immigrants are not integrating into American life like past waves did.
The integration of immigrants remains a hallmark of America's vitality as a society and a source of admiration abroad, as it has been throughout our history. Although some people complain that today's immigrants are not integrating into U.S. society as quickly as previous newcomers did, the same charge was leveled at virtually every past wave of immigrants, including the large numbers of Germans, Irish and Italians who arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, as before, immigrant integration takes a generation or two. Learning English is one key driver of this process; the education and upward mobility of immigrants' children is the other. On the first count, today's immigrants consistently seek English instruction in such large numbers that adult-education programs cannot meet the demand, especially in places such as California. On the second count, the No Child Left Behind Act has played a critical role in helping educate immigrant children because it holds schools newly accountable for teaching them English. However, the unauthorized status of millions of foreign-born immigrants can slow integration in crucial ways. For example, illegal immigrants are ineligible for in-state tuition at most public colleges and universities, putting higher education effectively out of their reach. And laws prohibiting unauthorized immigrants from getting driver's licenses or various professional credentials can leave them stuck in jobs with a high density of other immigrants and unable to advance.
4. Cracking down on illegal border crossings will make us safer.
The job of protecting the nation's borders is immense, encompassing nearly 7,500 miles of land borders, 12,380 miles of coastline and a vast network of sea ports, international airports, ports of entry along the Mexican and Canadian borders and visa-issuing consulates abroad. Since Sept. 11, 2001, we have dramatically strengthened our borders through the use of biometrics at ports of entry, secure cargo-shipment systems, intelligence gathering, integrated databases and increased international cooperation. The Border Patrol has nearly doubled in size in the past five years, to more than 20,000 agents. The Department of Homeland Security says it is on schedule to meet congressional mandates for southwestern border enforcement, including fence-building. And cooperation with the Mexican government has improved significantly. Still, our southwest border is more a classic law enforcement challenge than a front line in the war on terrorism. Antiterrorism measures rely heavily on intelligence gathering and clandestine efforts that are unrelated to border enforcement. The seasoned enforcement officials I have spoken with all contend that if we provided enough visas to meet the economy's demand for workers, border agents would be freed to focus on protecting the nation from truly dangerous individuals and activities, such as drug-trafficking, smuggling and cartel violence.
5. Immigration reform cannot happen in an election year.
The politics of immigration can be explosive and can chase lawmakers away, especially as elections near, with the result that Congress infrequently and reluctantly updates immigration laws. However, all the significant immigration bills enacted in recent decades were passed in election years, often at the last minute and after fractious debates. This list dates back to the Refugee Act of 1980, which established our system for humanitarian protection and refugee and asylum admissions. Next came the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to hire unauthorized immigrants and provided amnesty for 2.7 million illegal immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of visas allotted to highly skilled workers. And the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act charged immigration agencies with implementing significant new law enforcement mandates. Legislative attempts to make urgently needed changes fizzled in the House in 2005 and in the Senate in 2006 and 2007, and the to-do list for this Congress is substantial. But ruling out immigration reform, whether because Congress has other priorities or because it's an election year, would be a mistake. The outline for immigration legislation that Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and his Democratic colleagues unveiled last week, together with the uproar over the Arizona law, may help convince lawmakers that there's no time like the present.
These 5 myths are hopefully debunked now. Here below is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001106.html?wpisrc=nl_pmopinions
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Kent State..40 Years Later
On May 4, 1970, the campus of Kent State University in Kent, OH was shaken by an unexpected massacre. On that afternoon, unarmed college students were shot out by the Ohio National Guard. Over a very short time span, four students were left dead and nine more left wounded. Students that day were protesting against the invasion by American troops into Cambodia. Unfortunately, people were shot out whether they were part of the protest or an innocent bystander.
How did this horrendous event occur? Well, much of it spawns from the Vietnam War.
The previous year, Richard Nixon became the 37th president and he promised bringing the Vietnam War to an end. Late in 1969, the My Lai Massacre occurred and it would send many into a state of anti-war opposition unlike before. Things were not going as perceived or hoped for the doves of the country. Then in early 1970 it was decided upon to invade Cambodia. The draft lottery had been reinstituted and there was fear from students and teachers alike of their number being called. Going into Cambodia was a sign to those who opposed the war as a way to expand that war into another territory and thus only escalate the war. 1970 would see several campuses protest the current situation involving the Vietnam War and Kent State was no different.
April 30th would set the dominoes in motion. On that day, President Nixon announced that the Cambodian Incursion had been launched. The next day, about 500 students held a demonstration in response to the action. At the conclusion of the day, it was decided that there would be another rally on May 4th. That night, though, many began to riot and set places on fire. The actions called for a state of emergency and police forces were on guard. The following day, the National Guard was called in and arrived that night. Demonstrations, riots, and all types of chaos was still taking place including the ROTC building on campus being set ablaze. Then on the 3rd of May, Governor James Rhodes called out the protesters and denounced their actions. He used many horrible comparisons to the point of referring to anyone involved as being Un-American. Due to the ongoing proceedings, a curfew was set in place and guardsmen had to continue dealing with protesters.
Then came May 4th. A protest was still planned from the 1st and University officials hoped to curb it from happening. They hoped to spread the word that the rally was canceled. Despite all those efforts, roughly 2,000 people gathered on the university's center. Once gathered, National Guard companies were called in to monitor in anticipation of what might occur. Guardsmen approached students in hopes of getting them to disperse, but were greeted with hostility and things thrown at them. The Guardsmen tried once again and were met with a similar response. This time they began to put pressure on the students and the students began to march away as a way of escaping the National Guard. Taylor Hall was the common building during most of all of this. The students would march towards an athletic field and continue to make their statement. The Guardsmen, then, used their firearms to get the students to scatter and disperse. They were able to get many to retreat, but a bunch still refused to be removed. This would soon lead to a chaotic scene.
Early that afternoon after a couple hours, members of the Guard began to fire at students. 67 bullets were fired amongst the 29 guardsmen who shot their pistols and rifles. The firing only lasted 13 seconds, but felt much longer for those there. It is still unknown what truly provoked the necessity of the firing. There are disputes to this day whether a call to fire was ordered or not. Some of the Guardsmen felt worried for their lives. Still it might be viewed as a drastic measure to fire at unarmed students.
The results? Four dead, nine wounded. Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, two of the four who died, were involved with the protest. Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, the other two who died that day, were just going about their normal Monday schedule and heading to class. The average distance away of those shot was 345 feet from the Guardsmen. Miller died instantly, Scheuer died a few minutes later, Schroeder died an hour later, and Krause died later that day. The names of those wounded: Joseph Lewis, Jr, John R. Cleary, Thomas Mark Grace, Alan Michael Canfora, Dean R. Kahler (left paralyzed from chest down), Douglas Alan Wrentmore, James Dennis Russell, Robert Follis Stamps, and Donald Scott MacKenzie. Their fellow classmates were ready to launch an attack geared towards the National Guard. However, some teachers were able to get the students to finally back down and allow for medical care to come in. Only one Guardsmen, Sgt. Lawrence Shafer, was injured during the day's proceedings.
As the media got a hold of the events, it gained the national spotlight. It only increased the anti-war sentiment regarding Cambodia and the Vietnam War.
This picture became a symbol of the massacre: http://digitalrhetor.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kent-famousphoto.jpg
The shootings at Kent State would set in motion several student strikes at campuses across the country. Roughly 450 campuses shut down from both violent and non-violent protests. Students across the country were uniting against the war and the actions at Kent State. Signs like "They Can't Kill Us All" were hung from dorm windows. An antiwar protest was held in New York City four days after the shootings. Its purpose was partially geared from the actions earlier that week at Kent State. Protests took place the following week in Washington D.C. against the killing of unarmed student protesters. The White House was so worried for President Nixon's life that they removed him from the city and hid him at Camp David for a few days until the situation quelled over. The war had reached a boiling point in America and now the young people had something to truly spark their fire. 4 million students were reported to be protesting as over 900 American colleges and universities were shut down in reaction to the strikes. This was the first and only national student strike in the wake of the Kent State shootings. Nixon's response did help matters as he was perceived to be callous and unemotional about the death of students.
Vigils and responses occurred in the coming days. Most looked to the students as the ones who should garner the blame and many in the National Guard were remorseful that deaths occurred, but felt that the actions were a last resort after attempting other methods.
On May 14th, at Jackson State University, two students were killed and 12 were wounded under somewhat similar circumstances. This incident did not garner nearly the attention that Kent State received. As a result of both incidents, President Nixon would establish the President's Commission on Campus Unrest in June to address and study these protests and reactions. The verdict? The Ohio National Guard was unjustified in their use of lethal force against unarmed protesters.
The actions by the Guardsmen that May day have changed the way that they handle protests, riots, and similar situations like the riots in L.A. in the early 1990s. Two of the wounded; James Russell and Robert Stamps; have since passed in the last couple years. Each May 4th, those affected and those on campus remember that day.
Now, I cannot verify how vicious the protesters were that day. How come they were not allowed to peacefully be left alone to protest against the war. Yes, they did burn and destroy campus buildings along with surrounding facilities. And yes, they should have been monitored. But to be shot at?
I can almost relate to the students at Kent State that day. I attended Rutgers University for four years. Throughout all four years, we (the United States) were engaged in not one, but two wars in the Middle East. People my age were losing lives and sacrificing their futures for this country. I respect each and every one who decided to make that decision. Unlike in 1970, there is no draft lottery today. However, the Iraq War is/was as unpopular as the Vietnam War for my generation of college students. During all four of my years, there was a rally/protest against the Iraq War. Each spring around the anniversary of the day the United States invaded Iraq events are held. It is called Tent State. For a week, speeches and conversations are held. Veterans come in and talk. Memorials are held. Then there is a march down the streets and around campus and town to bring light to the unrest regarding the war. During my time at Rutgers, the worse thing that happened was three students were arrested for their actions; non-violent actions.
I respect all my fellow students decision to protest and rally against the war. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was the college students who were the most vocal against the war. They were the ones who were first in line to get set over to Vietnam for what seemed like a loss cause. Then, the events of May 4, 1970 occurred. Those four dead could have been anyone. Two of them were not even involved. Personally, the shootings that day have left a stain during that time. Young individuals felt pushed to the brink and that was their response. The legal system exists for a reason; that is how you punish those who go a little too far. None of the protesters had anything deadly on them. Shooting should not have been the answer, but you can't go back and change it.
Unfortunately, four had to die for eyes to open and actions to change moving forward. Having a country of college students unite together showed then and could show today that young people can stand up for something and make a statement. So, remember those who died and were shot that day and not be afraid to stand up for what you believe in. We are given freedoms under the Constitution and those students that day utilized them.
How did this horrendous event occur? Well, much of it spawns from the Vietnam War.
The previous year, Richard Nixon became the 37th president and he promised bringing the Vietnam War to an end. Late in 1969, the My Lai Massacre occurred and it would send many into a state of anti-war opposition unlike before. Things were not going as perceived or hoped for the doves of the country. Then in early 1970 it was decided upon to invade Cambodia. The draft lottery had been reinstituted and there was fear from students and teachers alike of their number being called. Going into Cambodia was a sign to those who opposed the war as a way to expand that war into another territory and thus only escalate the war. 1970 would see several campuses protest the current situation involving the Vietnam War and Kent State was no different.
April 30th would set the dominoes in motion. On that day, President Nixon announced that the Cambodian Incursion had been launched. The next day, about 500 students held a demonstration in response to the action. At the conclusion of the day, it was decided that there would be another rally on May 4th. That night, though, many began to riot and set places on fire. The actions called for a state of emergency and police forces were on guard. The following day, the National Guard was called in and arrived that night. Demonstrations, riots, and all types of chaos was still taking place including the ROTC building on campus being set ablaze. Then on the 3rd of May, Governor James Rhodes called out the protesters and denounced their actions. He used many horrible comparisons to the point of referring to anyone involved as being Un-American. Due to the ongoing proceedings, a curfew was set in place and guardsmen had to continue dealing with protesters.
Then came May 4th. A protest was still planned from the 1st and University officials hoped to curb it from happening. They hoped to spread the word that the rally was canceled. Despite all those efforts, roughly 2,000 people gathered on the university's center. Once gathered, National Guard companies were called in to monitor in anticipation of what might occur. Guardsmen approached students in hopes of getting them to disperse, but were greeted with hostility and things thrown at them. The Guardsmen tried once again and were met with a similar response. This time they began to put pressure on the students and the students began to march away as a way of escaping the National Guard. Taylor Hall was the common building during most of all of this. The students would march towards an athletic field and continue to make their statement. The Guardsmen, then, used their firearms to get the students to scatter and disperse. They were able to get many to retreat, but a bunch still refused to be removed. This would soon lead to a chaotic scene.
Early that afternoon after a couple hours, members of the Guard began to fire at students. 67 bullets were fired amongst the 29 guardsmen who shot their pistols and rifles. The firing only lasted 13 seconds, but felt much longer for those there. It is still unknown what truly provoked the necessity of the firing. There are disputes to this day whether a call to fire was ordered or not. Some of the Guardsmen felt worried for their lives. Still it might be viewed as a drastic measure to fire at unarmed students.
The results? Four dead, nine wounded. Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, two of the four who died, were involved with the protest. Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, the other two who died that day, were just going about their normal Monday schedule and heading to class. The average distance away of those shot was 345 feet from the Guardsmen. Miller died instantly, Scheuer died a few minutes later, Schroeder died an hour later, and Krause died later that day. The names of those wounded: Joseph Lewis, Jr, John R. Cleary, Thomas Mark Grace, Alan Michael Canfora, Dean R. Kahler (left paralyzed from chest down), Douglas Alan Wrentmore, James Dennis Russell, Robert Follis Stamps, and Donald Scott MacKenzie. Their fellow classmates were ready to launch an attack geared towards the National Guard. However, some teachers were able to get the students to finally back down and allow for medical care to come in. Only one Guardsmen, Sgt. Lawrence Shafer, was injured during the day's proceedings.
As the media got a hold of the events, it gained the national spotlight. It only increased the anti-war sentiment regarding Cambodia and the Vietnam War.
This picture became a symbol of the massacre: http://digitalrhetor.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/kent-famousphoto.jpg
The shootings at Kent State would set in motion several student strikes at campuses across the country. Roughly 450 campuses shut down from both violent and non-violent protests. Students across the country were uniting against the war and the actions at Kent State. Signs like "They Can't Kill Us All" were hung from dorm windows. An antiwar protest was held in New York City four days after the shootings. Its purpose was partially geared from the actions earlier that week at Kent State. Protests took place the following week in Washington D.C. against the killing of unarmed student protesters. The White House was so worried for President Nixon's life that they removed him from the city and hid him at Camp David for a few days until the situation quelled over. The war had reached a boiling point in America and now the young people had something to truly spark their fire. 4 million students were reported to be protesting as over 900 American colleges and universities were shut down in reaction to the strikes. This was the first and only national student strike in the wake of the Kent State shootings. Nixon's response did help matters as he was perceived to be callous and unemotional about the death of students.
Vigils and responses occurred in the coming days. Most looked to the students as the ones who should garner the blame and many in the National Guard were remorseful that deaths occurred, but felt that the actions were a last resort after attempting other methods.
On May 14th, at Jackson State University, two students were killed and 12 were wounded under somewhat similar circumstances. This incident did not garner nearly the attention that Kent State received. As a result of both incidents, President Nixon would establish the President's Commission on Campus Unrest in June to address and study these protests and reactions. The verdict? The Ohio National Guard was unjustified in their use of lethal force against unarmed protesters.
The actions by the Guardsmen that May day have changed the way that they handle protests, riots, and similar situations like the riots in L.A. in the early 1990s. Two of the wounded; James Russell and Robert Stamps; have since passed in the last couple years. Each May 4th, those affected and those on campus remember that day.
Now, I cannot verify how vicious the protesters were that day. How come they were not allowed to peacefully be left alone to protest against the war. Yes, they did burn and destroy campus buildings along with surrounding facilities. And yes, they should have been monitored. But to be shot at?
I can almost relate to the students at Kent State that day. I attended Rutgers University for four years. Throughout all four years, we (the United States) were engaged in not one, but two wars in the Middle East. People my age were losing lives and sacrificing their futures for this country. I respect each and every one who decided to make that decision. Unlike in 1970, there is no draft lottery today. However, the Iraq War is/was as unpopular as the Vietnam War for my generation of college students. During all four of my years, there was a rally/protest against the Iraq War. Each spring around the anniversary of the day the United States invaded Iraq events are held. It is called Tent State. For a week, speeches and conversations are held. Veterans come in and talk. Memorials are held. Then there is a march down the streets and around campus and town to bring light to the unrest regarding the war. During my time at Rutgers, the worse thing that happened was three students were arrested for their actions; non-violent actions.
I respect all my fellow students decision to protest and rally against the war. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, it was the college students who were the most vocal against the war. They were the ones who were first in line to get set over to Vietnam for what seemed like a loss cause. Then, the events of May 4, 1970 occurred. Those four dead could have been anyone. Two of them were not even involved. Personally, the shootings that day have left a stain during that time. Young individuals felt pushed to the brink and that was their response. The legal system exists for a reason; that is how you punish those who go a little too far. None of the protesters had anything deadly on them. Shooting should not have been the answer, but you can't go back and change it.
Unfortunately, four had to die for eyes to open and actions to change moving forward. Having a country of college students unite together showed then and could show today that young people can stand up for something and make a statement. So, remember those who died and were shot that day and not be afraid to stand up for what you believe in. We are given freedoms under the Constitution and those students that day utilized them.
Monday, May 3, 2010
The Bomb Almost Drops in Times Square
This past Saturday in Times Square, the United States had a brush with a terrorist threat. A car bomb was set up in the middle of Times Square, but it failed to serve its intended purpose luckily. Law enforcement officials began to review surveillance tapes to gain a better understanding of who might be involved with this attempt. When the officials got to the suspicious vehicle they discovered gasoline, propane, firecrackers, alarm clocks, and eight bags of a nonexplosive grade of fertilizer inside a nearly 5 foot tall metal locker. There is no doubt that if this bomb went off, casualties would have occurred.
F.B.I. agents have linked the Pathfinder that was abandoned to being from Connecticut. There does not seem to be a motive of sort, but the Pakistani Taliban have been mentioned amongst who were behind this plan. The Pakistani Taliban is claiming themselves to be behind this plot, but the Pakistani government has quickly denounced that. This is being addressed as a terrorist threat whether it was the workings of a group or one individual.
Two street vendors are to be mentioned here because it was their keen eyes that noticed smoke emerging from the vehicle and notified the police officials nearby. All of this took place around 6:30pm Saturday night when a lot of residents and tourists are on the streets. All the items that were in the vehicle are items that anyone could buy at various stores.
The investigation thus far has concluded that the detonation device was set up for the timers to ignite the can of explosives and that would then cause the five gallon cans to be set on fire and thus explode the propane tanks and trigger off the rifle box that held the fertilizer. The suspect most likely lit the firecrackers, but nothing ended up exploding. The burning fuses are what caused the smoke to begin to appear as part of the interior was being burnt. Investigators have compared the setup and much of the details of the plot to be very similar to what transpired in Glasgow and London in 2007. Both planned and failed attacks involved vehicles parked in a populous area.
Additionally, the car was parked near the headquarters of Viacom, which runs Comedy Central and one of their shows, South Park. The show recently had an episode involving the Prophet Muhammad and some are drawing parallels between the episode and the attempted attack and location of the vehicle.
Despite the claims that might have been made in this short time span, the NYPD have put the Taliban at the bottom of their suspect list. However, Islamic terrorists are certainly on the watch list as they look to apprehend the suspect involved. What might seem like the most reasonable conclusion regarding the incident is to link the action to domestic terrorism. The individual who was behind this might have connections to extremist groups in the Middle East and through their philosophies attempted to set off a car bomb.
We have yet to know all the details involved here, but over the next few days we should get a much clearer picture. The most important thing is a major crisis was avoided and the officials involved are quickly to give more information. The worst part, though, is this individual was able to get into Times Square and if he was more efficient; things could have turned out differently. We have seen a man fly an airplane into an IRS building in Austin, TX. An enlisted man on an Army base turn on his fellow soldiers and go on a shooting spree. And we saw someone attach a bomb to his genital region and fly into Detroit, MI. In the case of the second example, he was stopped before he could do further harm and in the case of the last example, he was caught before he could do anything.
I will not go as far as to say our national security is flawless, but it has shown with this latest incident that the proper officials are more than capable and on top of things. As details are unfolding, I would not be surprised if the culprit were caught sometime this week and despite Pakistani terrorist claims; Islamic terrorists are most likely who are behind much of what was attempted.
Every January 1st, the big crystal ball drops in Times Square to bring in the new year. Luckily on Saturday the bomb didn't drop or go off.
F.B.I. agents have linked the Pathfinder that was abandoned to being from Connecticut. There does not seem to be a motive of sort, but the Pakistani Taliban have been mentioned amongst who were behind this plan. The Pakistani Taliban is claiming themselves to be behind this plot, but the Pakistani government has quickly denounced that. This is being addressed as a terrorist threat whether it was the workings of a group or one individual.
Two street vendors are to be mentioned here because it was their keen eyes that noticed smoke emerging from the vehicle and notified the police officials nearby. All of this took place around 6:30pm Saturday night when a lot of residents and tourists are on the streets. All the items that were in the vehicle are items that anyone could buy at various stores.
The investigation thus far has concluded that the detonation device was set up for the timers to ignite the can of explosives and that would then cause the five gallon cans to be set on fire and thus explode the propane tanks and trigger off the rifle box that held the fertilizer. The suspect most likely lit the firecrackers, but nothing ended up exploding. The burning fuses are what caused the smoke to begin to appear as part of the interior was being burnt. Investigators have compared the setup and much of the details of the plot to be very similar to what transpired in Glasgow and London in 2007. Both planned and failed attacks involved vehicles parked in a populous area.
Additionally, the car was parked near the headquarters of Viacom, which runs Comedy Central and one of their shows, South Park. The show recently had an episode involving the Prophet Muhammad and some are drawing parallels between the episode and the attempted attack and location of the vehicle.
Despite the claims that might have been made in this short time span, the NYPD have put the Taliban at the bottom of their suspect list. However, Islamic terrorists are certainly on the watch list as they look to apprehend the suspect involved. What might seem like the most reasonable conclusion regarding the incident is to link the action to domestic terrorism. The individual who was behind this might have connections to extremist groups in the Middle East and through their philosophies attempted to set off a car bomb.
We have yet to know all the details involved here, but over the next few days we should get a much clearer picture. The most important thing is a major crisis was avoided and the officials involved are quickly to give more information. The worst part, though, is this individual was able to get into Times Square and if he was more efficient; things could have turned out differently. We have seen a man fly an airplane into an IRS building in Austin, TX. An enlisted man on an Army base turn on his fellow soldiers and go on a shooting spree. And we saw someone attach a bomb to his genital region and fly into Detroit, MI. In the case of the second example, he was stopped before he could do further harm and in the case of the last example, he was caught before he could do anything.
I will not go as far as to say our national security is flawless, but it has shown with this latest incident that the proper officials are more than capable and on top of things. As details are unfolding, I would not be surprised if the culprit were caught sometime this week and despite Pakistani terrorist claims; Islamic terrorists are most likely who are behind much of what was attempted.
Every January 1st, the big crystal ball drops in Times Square to bring in the new year. Luckily on Saturday the bomb didn't drop or go off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
