Saturday, November 22, 2008

Better safe than sorry

As planning for the inauguration of Barack Obama continues at full speed, many security measure have been taken into account. Washington is bracing for the largest crowds in inaugural history, an estimated FOUR MILLION people will watch President-elect Barack Obama be sworn in to office.

Despite the fact that there has never been an assassination attempt at a persidental inauguration, threats against Obama have been higher than any other president-elect in American history so some precautions are being take. They range from thousands of video cameras, sharpshooters, air patrols, searches by machines and security personnel, undercover officers, and bomb sniffing dogs to countersnipers who are trained to hit a target the size of a teacup saucer from 1,000 yards away.

So for those who are going on the Washington trip watch out for suspicious activity and remember...you can run but you can't hide.

Obama's Communications Team

Downsizing...? Downsizing?

The stock market's crash and the shakiness of the economy continues to affect working Americans. Companies are still trying to cut down on spending by laying off employees left and right. Although this seems like a necessary move on the business's part, it definitely causes concern for most Americans. Citizens throughout the country are losing their jobs, losing their homes, and are worrying about what tomorrow will bring and how their bills will ge paid. It is very depressing to see America in this state and the country needs to take action right now. Since people have lost their jobs, spending has gone down and it seems like a never ending downward cycle...Hopefully Obama's economic plan (which we blogged about earlier) will be just what this country needs.

If you want information on which companies are downsizing (in the words of Dwight Schrute) go to the following site!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27840008/

Obama's economic plan

In what could have been a speech by FDR, president-elect Barack Obama promoted his economic plan today. His plan will supposedly create 2.5 million jobs by rebuilding roads and bridges and modernizing schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars. Obama explains that it will take support from Democrats and Republicans to pass the economic plan, Obama said. "I'll be welcome to ideas and suggestions from both sides of the aisle," he said. "But what is not negotiable is the need for immediate action." This is huge proactive change from the current administration, which has done almost nothing to try to create jobs and make effective changes. Will the plan work? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Friday, November 21, 2008

It's down, it's down, no wait it's up?

Wall Streets incredible volatility continued today with the Dow rising 494 points. Why? It didn't rise because of better unemployment numbers, better economic indicators, an improvement in the housing market, or even a change in the value of the dollar. So what was it? Obama announced today that he will nominate New York Federal Bank President Timothy Geithner as his new Treasury secretary. It was this announcement that seemed to prompt the rally. Investor confidence has lessened to the point that any glimmer of hope seems to bring about short term gain. This just goes to show how little confidence people really have in our current administration. Even this small hint of intelligent change brought about positive result on Wall Street. When investigators wake up on Monday and realize that the Bush administration hasn't changed, who knows what’s going to happen. I wish I could be more optimistic.

For more info:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/21/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008112118

Thursday, November 20, 2008

...and you would think they would be smarter, wouldn't you?

Genius political one-liners can have the power to stick with voters throughout a politician's campaign. They can create an image of a politician that represents them forever...but this may not be such a good thing for some..It is incredible that despite all that a politician does and sacrifices for the country, their entire career can be destroyed by a single one-liner...but do they deserve it? That's for you to decide!

The following is a collection of the top ten unfortunate political one-liners of America's history:
"I am not a crook." -Richard Nixon, 1973
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." -Bill Clinton, 1998
"Read my lips: no new taxes." -George H.W. Bush, 1988
"The fundamentals of the economy are strong." -John McCain 2008
"I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." -Jimmy Carter, 1976
"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."- Mark Foley, 1998
"We still seek no wider war."- Lyndon B. Johnson, 1964
"That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." -Bill Clinton, 1998
"The fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis." -Herbert Hoover, 1929
"You know, I always wondered about that taping equipment but I'm damn glad we have it, aren't you?" -Richard Nixon, 1973

Depressing News

With all of the talk regarding the bailout, the newly elected president, and other economic issues, it’s easy to ignore the long term global destabilization that is likely to bring about increased terrorism and even increase the chance of nuclear weapons being used. I think the fact that Europe and Asia followed in the US economy’s downturn, reinforces how interconnected the world has become. The “smaller” world we inhabit really increases the scariness of existential threats brought about by rouge states with high tech weapons. US intelligence sources revealed today, that nuclear warfare is becoming increasingly likely in the future. The world seems headed down a path that will include more nuclear weapons by rogue states, population increases in the poorest parts of the world, climate shifts brought about by global warming, and terrible food shortages. (Just the highlights from a long list of depressing future possibilities.) Maybe, the nightly news isn’t so depressing after all.


Nuclear weapons use more likely in future: US intelligence

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely by 2025, US intelligence predicted Thursday in a report on global trends that forecasts a tense, unstable world shadowed by war.
"The world of the near future will be subject to an increased likelihood of conflict over scarce resources, including food and water, and will be haunted by the persistence of rogue states and terrorist groups with greater access to nuclear weapons," said the report.
"Widening gaps in birth rates and wealth-to-poverty ratios, and the uneven impact of climate change, could further exacerbate tensions," it concludes.
Called "Global Trends 2025 - a Transformed World," the 121-page report was produced by the National Intelligence Council, a body of analysts from across the US intelligence community.
It has good news for some countries. Among its conclusions:
-- A technology to replace oil may be underway or in place by 2025;
-- Multiple financial centers will serve as "shock absorbers" of the world financial system;
-- Global power will be multipolar with the rise of India and China, and the Korean peninsula will be unified in some form.
But the report also says some African and South Asian states may wither away altogether, organized crime could take over at least one state in central Europe; and the spread of nuclear weapons will heighten the risk they will be used.
"The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used will increase with expanded access to technology and a widening range of options for limited strikes," it said.
The report highlighted the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East where a number of countries are thinking about developing or acquiring technologies that would be useful to make nuclear weapons.
"Over the next 15-20 years, reactions to the decisions Iran makes about its nuclear program could cause a number of regional states to intensify these efforts and consider actively pursuing nuclear weapons," the report said.
"This will add a new and more dangerous dimension to what is likely to be increasing competition for influence within the region," it said.
The report said it was not certain that the kind of deterrent relationships that existed for most of the Cold War would emerge in a nuclear armed Middle East.
Instead, the possession of nuclear weapons may be perceived as "making it safe" to engage in low intensity conflicts, terrorism or even larger conventional attacks, the report said.
"Each such incident between nuclear-armed states, however, would hold the potential for nuclear escalation," it said.
The spread of nuclear capabilities will raise questions about the ability of weak states to safeguard them, it said.
"If the number of nuclear-capable states increases, so will the number of countries potentially willing to provide nuclear assistance to other countries or to terrorists," it said.
"The potential for theft or diversion of nuclear weapons, materials, and technology -- and the potential for unauthorized nuclear use -- also would rise," it said.
The report said terrorism would likely be a factor in 2025 but suggested that Al-Qaeda's "terrorist wave" might be breaking up.
"Al-Qaeda's weaknesses -- unachievable strategic objectives, inability to attract broad-based support, and self-destructive actions -- might cause it to decay sooner than many people think," it said.
"Because history suggests that the global Islamic terrorist movement will outlast Al-Qaeda as a group, strategic counterterrorism efforts will need to focus on how and why a successor terrorist group might evolve during the remaining years of the 'Islamic terrorist wave.'"
The report was vague about the outcome of current conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and nuclear armed Pakistan.
In 2025, the government in Baghdad could still be "an object of competition" among various factions seeking foreign aid or pride of place.
Afghanistan "may still evince significant patterns of tribal competition and conflict."
"The future of Pakistan is a wildcard in considering the trajectory of neighboring Afghanistan," it said.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/pl_afp/usintelligenceforecastnuclear;_ylt=AmK2SdXCiSatOVZt9f0wrp6s0NUE)

Change or simply more of the same?


Obama campaigned on the slogan of "change we can believe in" but as he continues to form his cabinet, he is appointing many people in high positions who are definitely not new to Washington. Although it is favorable that the people appointed have experience, many are angered by the lack of "change" in Obama's cabinet. Many want to see new faces in Washington instead of the recycling the same leaders. However, if Obama were to have chosen completely new politicians to advise him during his presidency, I believe that American's would also be angered because some think that Obama himself isn't experienced and at times would need Washington insiders to lead the way. Also, it seems as though Obama has been using Clinton's cabinet as a model for his own. Many perceive Clinton's cabinet in a good light (despite his affair...) because of what they were able to accomplish as a team. It may be beneficial that Obama rely on Clinton's cabinet as an example so that completely new and inexperienced people are not appointed to the highest positions in the government. Although many would like to see new faces in government it is vital that these positions are filled by people who are accustomed to Washington and American government.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

More on the bailout





Here are some political cartoons regarding the much debated bailout.

What are they thinking?

What would people say if a homeless man drove up to a soup kitchen in a limousine claiming that he was starving and asking for food? Similarly, the major auto company leaders showed up in Washington DC today in corporate jets, begging for a 25 million dollar bailout. It is ironic that the same men who are claiming that they are going to modify their business models to make them more effective, are still living so lavishly. Ultimately, I do not know if the auto bailout should happen or not, but what I do know is that selling their corporate jets would be a good start both in lowering auto industry costs and showing a commitment to not doing “business as usual”.



(CNN) -- Some lawmakers lashed out at the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies Wednesday for flying private jets to Washington to request taxpayer bailout money.
Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli, left, and Ford CEO Alan Mulally testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
"There is a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told the chief executive officers of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee.
"It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo. It kind of makes you a little bit suspicious."
He added, "couldn't you all have downgraded to first class or jet-pooled or something to get here? It would have at least sent a message that you do get it."
The executives -- Alan Mulally of Ford, Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Richard Wagoner of GM -- were seeking support for a $25 billion loan package. Later Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reversed plans to hold a test vote on the measure.
An aide told CNN that Reid decided to cancel the test vote when it became clear the measure would fall well short of the 60 votes needed. Reid did, however, make a procedural move that could allow a vote on a compromise, which several senators from auto-producing states were feverishly trying to craft.
At Wednesday's hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, pressed the private-jet issue, asking the three CEOs to "raise their hand if they flew here commercial."
"Let the record show, no hands went up," Sherman said. "Second, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you are planning to sell your jet in place now and fly back commercial. Let the record show, no hands went up."
The executives did not specifically respond to those remarks. In their testimony, they said they are streamlining business operations in general. Watch Nardelli ask for help »
When contacted by CNN, the three auto companies defended the CEOs' travel as standard procedure.
Like many other major corporations, all three have policies requiring their CEOs to travel in private jets for safety reasons.
"Making a big to-do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans are being discussed in Washington is diverting attention away from a critical debate that will determine the future health of the auto industry and the American economy," GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in a statement.
Chrysler spokeswoman Lori McTavish said in a statement, "while always being mindful of company costs, all business travel requires the highest standard of safety for all employees."
Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker pointed to the company's travel policy and did not provide a statement elaborating.

But those statements did little to mollify the critics.
"If it is simply the company's money at stake, then only the shareholders can be upset or feel as it might be excessive," said Thomas Schatz, president of the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.
But in this case, he said, "it's outrageous."
"They're coming to Washington to beg the taxpayers to help them. It's unseemly to be running around on a $20,000 flight versus a $500 round trip," Schatz added.
The companies did not disclose how much the flights cost.
Analysts contacted by CNN noted that the prices vary with the size of the plane and the crew, and whether the aircraft is leased or owned by the company.

Al-Qaida Scares Me...

Today, a video of Ayman al-Zawahiri, a member of Al-Qaida, has appeared on the internet. This video is the group's first response to Obama's victory and employs racist comments and slurs against. him. The video aims at attacking his policies, race, and religion. For example, he refers to Obama as a "house slave" who serves his white masters.

The video also includes a picture of Obama wearing a kippah (Jewish skullcap) while praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Al-Zawahiri then makes the comment that Obama has betrayed his Muslim father and of creating ties with Jewish organizations to further his political ambitions. He continues and states, "You have reached the position of president, and a heavy legacy of failure and crimes awaits you". He later says that Obama must "Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them" and that despite claims Obama is not a force of change.

Wow. He must be living in a cave with Osama Bin Laden.

Although it may seem that foreign groups may be more accepting of America once an African American is president, obviously this will not be the case. Hatred toward America continues to grow despite a shift in power. This will be a major struggle that the Obama administration will have to face and try to overcome in the future.

you should not go to the following site or watch the following video if you are sensitive...

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6291091

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

more information: continuation of the previous prop 8 blog!

I just came across this article, which relates to the previous post I made...so if you're interested and want more info go here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/us/18marriage.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

To bail or not to bail? That is the question.

Unfortunately this is very scary! Losing three of the biggest employers in the United states would be an unimaginable blow to the economy. However, trying to keep three businesses in business that are operating with business models that keep them from being able to be competitive and turn a profit seems like we would be throwing our money away. What to do? I'm not sure, but I am sure that there isn't a ground swell for automaker reform coming from either Bush or Congess. If congress decides to go for a bailout, which I ultimately hope they do, it can't happen without huge reform. Perhaps Warren Buffett has a yen to be the next Henry Ford. Somehow the automakers are going to have to find a way to make desirable small fuel efficient cars profitable. It is hard to picture anything else as the future of the automobile industry. Can labor costs controlled by big powerful unions really be reduced to make them competitive with the international market? Will executives take dramatically reduced salaries? Will the automakers be able to refocus and make a more desirable product while increasing efficiency and reclaiming the role of technology leaders? With the very shaky future of oil will car makers rise to the challenge and create new technology that ultimately frees the US from foreign oil dependency and makes the creators of the new technology and their companies long term profitable? While I have no idea if any of these things are really possible I remain hopeful. The idea of losing a entire industry is to bleak to fathom.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081118/ap_on_go_co/congress_autos;_ylt=ArmsqrYOlJCXi0_AiT09oHeMwfIE

Senator Stevens bites the dust

Reason rules out, and a convicted senator has been booted out of office. Stevens has served six terms in the senate, the longest serving senator in the history of Alaska. He will be replaced by Mark Begich, a democrat. Interestingly Begich ran on a platform that not only differed from his opponent, but greatly differed from former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Begich 's platform included promises to return Alaska to an education policy that respects community values, work across party lines to implement a new Alaska energy plan that works for Alaska families and communities, and to safely and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq. Personally, I think he is the real maverick from Alaska.

WASHINGTON— Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has lost his bid for a seventh term. The longest-serving Republican in the history of the Senate trailed Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich by 3,724 votes after Tuesday's count. That's an insurmountable lead with only about 2,500 overseas ballots left to be counted.

Stevens, who turned 85 Tuesday, also revealed that he will not ask President George W. Bush to give him a pardon for his seven felony convictions.

Stevens had already been removed as top Republican on the Commerce panel and his ranking position on the powerful subcommittee responsible for the defense budget.

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-18-stevens-gop_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip)

What's your news IQ?

Where do Aragon gov students fit into the national average?

Take the quiz at http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/quiz/

Anger over the outcome of Prop 8 anyone?


































There may be hope!



Protests againts prop 8 are being held across the state by supporters of same-sex marriages, and frankly they're making a splash. Currently, the California Supreme Court is reviewing the propostion to decide if the passage of eight is constitutional or if it should be overturned. In 2000, proposition 22 was passed with 61% of the votes in order to prevent California from recognizing same-sex marriages. Although voters did pass the propostion, in May 2008 the California Supreme Court struck down the initiative, thus giving same-sex couples the right to marry. So, although proposition eight has been passed by 52% of voters, it is a possibility that the court will overturn the decision and give the same rights to gay couple as straight couples. The only issue is....how long could that take?


If you would like to read an article covering the specifics or the protests..here it is! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/16protest.html?pagewanted=1&ref=politics
I found this article extremely interesting and I take pride in the fact that American's have taken it upon themselves to create change and bring light to an important issue.

Anger over the outcome of Prop 8 anyone?

Monday, November 17, 2008

for your entertainment :)

Will Obama really emulate Lincoln?

Obama often references Lincoln as his political hero. After the civil war, faced with calls to exact painful reparations on the south, Lincoln refused and tried when possible to include former enemies in the newly re-united nation. Speculation has abounded that Obama will include republicans in his new cabinet. Just yesterday he met at length with his former competitor John McCain to discuss how they can work together to help solve the nations problems. Building bridges before he even assumes power is definitely not something I've seen in my lifetime.

Here is some of the speculation out there from the horses mouth regarding republicans he might appoint to cabinet posts. (Obama's answer to a question about republicans he would work with at a town hall event in Manchester N.H.):

1. Dick Lugar who is a moderate republican that Obama says he liked working with in the senate. (He has been consistently mentioned as a candidate for Secretary of state.)

2. Sen. Chuck Hagel who is a moderate republican and Vietnam war veteran.

3. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who as the republican gov. of California has been a worldwide leader on global warming and environmental issues.

Since his election he has repeated his promise to have at least one republican in his cabinet. Abraham Lincoln? I'm not sure, but to borrow his campaign catch phrase, appointing a republican really will be change.

View the following links for more info:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/obama-pledges-to-appoint-republican-to-cabinet/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdGYHC3XNj8

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-says-hed.html

Obama and McCain: working together?

Recently, President Elect Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain met to discuss issues America is facing and how they may work together to solve these problems. Obviously, Obama is making an effort to reach bipartisan solutions.

It is important that politicans set an example for American citizens when it comes to being open to working with people that may not share the same ideals/beliefs. Often it is easy for us to reject the ideas of members of the opposite political party, but this is only holding our nation back from reaching its fullest potential. Politicians must work together to solve this nation's problems because the issues we face today do not face only Democrats or only Republicans but every single American. Although it may be more difficult to work with someone that is not exactly like you, it is important that politicians go through the struggle in order for the govermment and its policies to represent and meet the needs of as many citizens as possible. Also, by working together Obama and McCain are unifying Americans and demonstrating that to succeed everyone must be eager and willing to work together and reach solutions.

During the election/campaign process, hatred between the opposing parties has been more evident than ever. McCain and Obama's attempts to work together have displayed that American's must put their differences aside for the good of the country.

If you would like to know the specifics when it comes to what was discussed during the talks visit....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122694399164234073.html