America must nation-build...itself

Here is an article by Bob Herbert in the New York Times that really nails down the idea that America needs to worry about its own issues before it can adequately solve the world's issues.

Pulse of 2010

This will be a continuous feed of opinion pieces that are related to the 2010 election.

- (Saturday, January 23, 2010) Insight into the Democratic operation can be found here. Obama is really taking the lead on the midterms as either a Democratic win or loss will change his presidency. Specifically, this article touches on two very important issues that will be key to the direction of Obama's presidency:

The discussion inside the White House includes at least two distinct debates: Should Mr. Obama assume a more populist or centrist theme in his message? And should the White House do what it takes to pass compromise legislation or should it force votes, which even if unsuccessful can be used to carry an argument against Republicans in the fall?

I think that Obama should take a centrist stance, bringing himself back to the base that elected him in the election of 2008. This should be followed by compromise legislation that is truly reform minded. Obama should ignore politicians on both extremes and actually accomplish what he set out to do.

- (Saturday, January 23, 2010) The Tea Party activists and Republican Party are having a struggle about who is in charge. You can read an interesting piece about this through the
New York Times here. It would be interesting to see if the tea party actually pushes the Republican Party to the center.

- (Friday, January 22, 2010) A piece about Republican prospects for winning seats in 2010 and their struggle to find a candidate, written by Bill Schneider and published in the National Journal, can be found here.

The Truth about Judicial Activism

This piece by Erwin Chemerinsky (the dean of UC Irvine's Law School) shows how conservatives can become caught up in their rhetoric. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision proved that judicial activism is not solely a tool of liberal judges. This article shows another important possible outcome that this decision could lead to.

Almost 10 years ago, in Bush vs. Gore, the five conservative justices for the first time decided a presidential election. One would have thought that decision would have laid to rest the notion that judicial activism is a tool of liberal judges and revealed that the real judicial activism today is from the right. Perhaps Thursday's decision will finally reveal the truth.

~Ori

Haiti

This post will be an updated feed of interesting news and media coming from Haiti.

A 360-degree video of damage in Haiti.

- Ori

Action against yesterday's Supreme Court Decision

While I will not trumpet a particular political candidate or party on this blog, I will advocate for the issues that I feel are important to me.

Organizing for America sent out this email yesterday with a petition to sign that support Congressional action to limit the decision.

Here is the e-mail:

Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.

It's a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.

While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.

Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.

The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn't buy "issue ads" -- which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates -- in the closing days of campaigns.

The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.

With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans -- and Republicans seem ecstatic.

While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy -- and we need to show that the American people stand with him.

You can add your name through this link:

http://my.barackobama.com/FairElections

~Ori

Guantanamo

How can the Obama administration decide that a detainee is too difficult to prosecute?

[Obama's Guantanamo task force] evaluated any evidence against each man, the perceived threat he might pose if released, and the possibility of successfully prosecuting him.

If a detainee's prosecution is unfeasible, his release is required. The Obama administration is deluding itself and misleading the American people by permitting the military to hold these men without giving each and every one due process and the ability to fight the charges (or in some cases accusations) against them.

Here is the full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22gitmo.html?hp

~Ori

Campaign Finance

I think the New York Times really sums up the disgust that I feel for the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to contribute to political campaigns. Anything I say here would really just be overkill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?hp

Again the pertinent quote comes at the end of the article:

The real solution lies in getting the court’s ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy.

~Ori