Ron Paul Raising a Lot of Money, Wait Whose Ron Paul?

The Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has been making a lot of money these days on the Internet, even though not many people know who he is. However, one man is trying to change this by his Internet giving site. The man’s name is Trevor Lyman and he “doesn’t look the part of political fat cat” (Morain). Ron Paul “has raised more than $10 million in the last few weeks but has yet to hit double digits in the polls” (Morain). The presidential candidates are breaking fundraising records and Trevor Lyman is one of the biggest fundraiser of all of them. Lyman is doing everything in his power so that Ron Paul will get the attention that Lyman believes he deserves. Lyman created a “money bomb” which are dates that people donate money and help Ron Paul’s campaign grow, they have become quite successful. Lyman is an unlikely man for this money raising job because he is “a 37-year-old musician and Internet entrepreneur [who] didn’t finish college” (Morain). There are now houses throughout New Hampshire that will house about 1,000 members of Ron Paul’s volunteers. The funny thing is that Ron Paul has never met Lyman and even pronounced his name wrong when he was on “Face the Nation.” However, all of Lyman’s help for money has hired staff and bought television airtime, something that Lyman would want.

I had never really heard about Ron Paul until all this excitement occurred that he was raising so much money on the Internet, but I was shocked to hear how much he had actually raised. Ron Paul, in my opinion, will not win the Republican nomination because is too much of an unknown and too much of a libertarian for most. However, why are so many people giving him money? The answer to this is unknown, but perhaps it is because he has different ideals than most Republicans and that he is much more honest than all of the other candidates. Still, I am shocked that there has not been much more commentary about him in the last few months or even weeks. He is not a candidate to watch for the Republicans, but maybe he will be a possible Independent candidate once the Republican primary season is over. Will he win the election, probably not. However, it is very interesting to see how much support that the is gaining just on the Internet.

For more information: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-moneyman16dec16,1,4490146.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

So, Iran Doesn't Have Nuclear Weapons?

There was no need for Bush, Cheney, and Israel to be frightened about Iran’s nuclear weapons. This was because “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” (Powers). This means that the American intelligence community has no need to be worried or to attack Iran at all. However, this is a very complicated piece of intelligence because “Who pressed to declassify these highly inconvenient findings?” (Powers). The president did receive these findings but when he was briefed on it he did not know whether to let it emerge over days or weeks or declassify these findings. Basically, the president decided to declassify these findings, but the editorialist believes that this also shows that the “White House has lost control over American intelligence” (Powers). Everyone believes that the Iranians stopped the bomb-design program during the easy part, not during the hard part which is when the fissionable material is needed and used. However, this is what “Iran is doing with its ongoing centrifuge program to enrich natural uranium” (Powers). Many believe that Iran will be able to make a nuclear bomb in less than ten years, which is a huge threat to Israel. “Israel dreads the difficulties of every sort promised by an Iranian bomb and has been hoping that the Bush administration was going to shut down the possibility once and for all. The new NIE intelligence estimate kills that hope” (Powers). The American intelligence says that there is no nuclear bomb program, which means that there is no way that the United States can begin a new war.

This is very exciting, but very frightening at the same time. This is exciting because these reports mean that there is no possible way that we will be able to go in to Iran and start a war. However, I am very skeptical of these reports because it seems as if they have come out of nowhere. If Iran has not had a nuclear weapon program since 2003, why have we all been so frightened? This is very good report that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program, but I am not sure if I really trust this. How do we know that this report is not false and that Iran is working on material that could be made into a nuclear bomb. All I hope is that Iran is not making nuclear weapons, therefore we will neither attack them nor will they attack Israel. I just hope that our intelligence agencies are proving to be intelligent at this crucial time.

For More Information Read Thomas Powers' article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-powers9dec09,1,3609512.story

The Mideast Needs Help With Peace

President Bush has created a new plan that he spoke about last week for the situation in the Mideast. The plan “laid out an American role in the upcoming Mideast peace talks that challenges the accumulated wisdom of former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker III and Presidents Carter and Clinton” (Richter). The plan, which calls for a limited U.S. role, may be harder to stick to then Bush thinks. Bush, defying diplomatic consensus, has said that he would not negotiate with Palestine and Israel, but would encourage them. Bush is using this approach because Rice has said that “the conventional approach, based on more active American prodding, simply ‘hasn't worked’” (Richter). However, this limited role makes people think that there might never be a peace agreement by the end of Bush’s term in office. Europeans and Arabs believe that the U.S needs an activist stance so progress is made. Without the U.S intervening with the peace agreements there is more of a burden on the other two countries and the agreements might not be as strong because usually the representatives from the countries make their agreements to appease the U.S. Most believe that the U.S. will not be staying out for long because they will want this agreement to be made.

The United States should get involved in the Mideast peace talks. Although there is so much strain with other issues I think that this might be something good for a change. Many analysts have said that Palestine and Israel will not make peace if the U.S is not involved. I think that we should make this peace a reality and be a mediator. It seems like the U.S. has to get involved in everyone’s business, which is true, but in this case if we do not their will still be fighting and/or we will not get better tied allies, which we need at this point. Staying out of these talks just shows that we care too much about our problems in Iraq and in Iran more than other issues. I think in order to show that Iraq is not everything and that we are a caring nation, we should get involved with the Mideast peace talks.

For more information: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usmideast2dec02,1,4929352.story

School Lunches are Making us Fat, so Let's Fix Them

School lunches are one of the main causes of childhood obesity because the lunches are so unhealthy. In fact, “Lunches averaged 800 to 900 calories -- much higher than federal guidelines -- and were loaded with salt” (Gaouette). Since lunches are this unhealthy, many parents, nutrition advocates, and physicians are going to Congress so that they can change the farm bill. The farm bill “sets the nation’s agricultural agenda every five years” (Gaouette). By changing the farm bill these people can make sure that students will have better cafeteria lunches. However, the rewriting of this bill was stalled last week in the Senate, which means that it might not be rewritten until next year. Still, advocates are happy because they believe that with more time they will be able to make a better case that the bill is causing the unhealthy food in schools. The Senate bill, right now, is a $288-billon bill that spends on more fruit and vegetables, but advocates think that the bill is more about subsidizing farmers, not eating right. In fact, these subsidies “make fast food less expensive than fresh fruits and vegetables” (Gaouette).

Thinking about the lunches that they served at my elementary school, or even at Chaminade, just makes me sick. Most my elementary school lunches, which I did not eat because my mom is a dietician, were tater tots, hamburger, and a small fruit cup (which no one really ate. Then I look at Chaminade, which is so much worse, students are eating greasy pizza with greasy french-fries that sometimes have salt flavoring. What does this all equal? This food equals fat, sodium, and obesity. Schools need to overhaul lunches completely, and hopefully changing the farm bill will help. I think the government is ignoring the facts about obesity because they have so many other things that they need to deal with overseas. However, this is an extremely important issue that needs to be faced right now. Now, farmers are making more money a year than the average American, but they are not helping our children. The Senate needs to focus on fruits and vegetables and make the school food healthier. If they do not, then the schools need to change all by themselves.

For more information: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-farmbill25nov25,1,7067796.story

War-Crimes Trials Not Fair

There are upcoming war-crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; however, there are problems about how these trials will occur. “The rules governing war-crimes trials here require defense lawyers and prosecutors to inform each other of witnesses they will call and evidence they will present at the military commissions” (Williams). However, the rules are vague on how much time is needed for the lawyers to inform each other of witnesses. The law does not make it necessary for the government to make witnesses available for pretrial hearings and it is okay for the witnesses to not be named or seen in the trial. “Defense lawyers for the terrorism suspects contend that the deck is stacked against them in preparing their cases. They say the administration officials running the tribunals can hide critical information and helpful testimony from the defense” (Williams). Last week in a case against in Canadian war-crimes suspect the United States withheld the name of an eyewitness that the U.S. had known about five years ago; the Canadians found about the eyewitness thirty-six hours before trial. This eyewitness contradicted everything that the Canadian lawyers were going to bring up; therefore, causing many to say that these trials are unfair. Also, “Affidavits sworn by bounty hunters in Pakistan who turned over more than 200 of Guantanamo's prisoners in exchange for sums upward of $5,000 are among the classified documents that neither defendants nor trial observers are allowed to see. That withholding of classified information from the defense and the public has resulted in many of the 305 prisoners here remaining in detention for nearly six years without knowing exactly what they are accused of or who made the accusations.” (Willilams).
I do not find the war-crimes trials to be fair because they are giving the side with more evidence more of an edge against the other side. Trials are supposed to be fair; the judge or the jury is supposed to see both sides of the case, the lawyers are given time to create a case, and lawyers need to show evidence to the other side with enough time for the other side to make a case. However, in war-crimes trials this is not happening and, in fact, the law is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. I do not think that it matters that the United States is benefiting from this because it is basically cheating to be able to win, with an unfair advantage, at the end. The article made the great point that this would not be allowed in a U.S. courthouse; then why is it allowed in the world? This situation needs to be rectified quickly, so people are not put in jail for war crimes or other situations when they might not even be guilty. What do you think?

For More Information Read Carol Williams's article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gitmo13nov13,1,6567733.story

Mayors Trying to Help the Environment

America’s mayors are trying to change the carbon footprint of their cities, however they are finding that doing this is quite hard. To help mayors, “Congress has included block grants in energy legislation now under consideration—up to $2 billion a year in a House bill” (Roosevelt). These grants will help train workers to make buildings that are more energy efficient and it will help teach them to “install climate-friendly energy systems” (Roosevelt). Last week 728 mayors signed the Climate Protection Agreement, which means that the mayors have “formally pledged to slash greenhouse gas emissions by their cities to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012” (Roosevelt). Also, “the mayors have set a goal to further cut their cities’ emissions by 80% by 2050—the amount most scientists say is needed to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change” (Roosevelt). However, “the Bush Administration has opposed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol [the agreement that launched the Climate Protection Agreement], saying that it would damage the U.S. economy—a stance that drew scathing criticism at last week’s summit” (Roosevelt). Still, though many cities are having a hard time trying to calculate the level of greenhouse gases from 1990.

I think that this article brings up a great point that I think we all should be doing in our lives. I think that everyone needs to step up and try to cut his or her use of energy. Although this may be difficult, I think that the mayors are doing a good job by being influences for the citizens. By trying to cut emissions by 7% from 17 years ago, I think that the country will be in really great shape. However, I am angry that the Bush administration is so against this policy because I think that this is one of the most important issues, not the most but one of the most. I believe that the Bush administration is more into their war spending then into how they are going to save the planet because they are not seeing immediate results. This policy is not going to occur overnight, but it will make a huge difference in the long run. I believe that besides trying to cut emissions we also need to find alternative resources so we will not be ruining the Earth.

To read more, read Roosevelt's article: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mayors4nov04,1,1764128.story

Following "the Gipper" Won't Work

The Republicans are still surprised about how the 2006 midterm election panned out, so because of this they are structuring the 2008 elections so that does not happen again. Most candidates who want to receive the GOP nomination for the 2008 election have tried to remind voters of Ronald Reagan. They believe that by having being “the model small-government Republican” (Voegeli) they will get more votes. However, the author makes the point that being compared to Reagan would not be a good thing because “what they fail to understand is that Reagan himself was not a terribly effective Reaganite, and despite his rhetoric, his success at limiting government was itself pretty limited” (Voegeli). Instead of making the government small, as Reagan said he wanted to do, Reagan expanded the government. “The GOP candidates who suggest that they will succeed where Reagan failed are implying that the Gipper spent too much time on the sidelines during the contest against big government. The problem with this is not that it flunks the piety test but that it flunks the laugh test – Ronald Reagan was not just pretending to be a Reagan Republican” (Voegeli).

I think that the author of this editorial makes a great point about the GOP candidates and Ronald Reagan. Why would the GOP candidates try to compare themselves to Reagan when he failed at what he wanted to do? This reinforces the idea that maybe Reagan’s thought was wrong or too big and that the candidates should start smaller. I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this Voegeli’s idea because I did not see what happened in the Reagan administration nor have I seen the comparisons the GOPs have made. However, this editorial has forced me to think hard about what the candidates are trying to do and if it is worth it or not. By just reading the facts, I have realized that this decision to try to follow in Reagan’s footsteps will not work, for the fact that Reagan did not even follow what he wanted to do. I also think that if they try to out-do Reagan the government might just fall apart because I believe that Reagan realized that it would not work, which is why he did not do it.

For more information read William Voegeli's editorial from the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-voegeli28oct28,1,3832529.story

FBI: Fixing the CIA's Mistakes

The FBI is reconstructing the cases against 15 Al Qaeda leaders that are at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The FBI is doing this because they believe that the evidence that they have against this mean is “inadmissible or too controversial to present at their upcoming war crimes tribunals” (Meyer). This is an embarrassing for the Bush administration because they called for CIA to use measures that would get information, but would not be allowed in the court or if it was it would be focusing on the agencies actions instead of he leaders. The most important captive in this case is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who has said he is the mastermind behind September 11th and while in Guantanamo Bay planned the event that killed Daniel Pearl. Basically the article says that the CIA has made many mistakes in this trial and the FBI is being used to help fix the mess if there are any more problems.
I found this article interesting because I had not heard much about the Al Qaeda leaders in Guantanamo Bay in a while. However, I found this article to be disheartening because of all the mistakes that the CIA has made. I believe that the CIA has made a tremendous amount of errors in planning this case, and also there were definite errors made by the Bush administration. I do not feel that it is the responsibility of the FBI to fix the mess that was made, but I also feel that we need to convict these men of the crimes they have committed. Another aspect that I was really surprised of was the comment from the head of Amnesty International who said, “ I think there’s no surprise that they have to call in the FBI to clean up the mess left by the CIA secret detention program” (Meyer). I feel that after this trial the government really needs to fix the problems in their programs quickly so this will never happen again. What do you think?

For more information look at Josh Meyer's article called "FBI working to bolster Al Qaeda cases":
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror21oct21,1,2519428.story

Spying Legislation Approved

"The Senate Intelligence Committee approved legislation Thursday that would place new controls on the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program, but includes provisions sought by the White House to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for aiding the government spying effort" (Miller). This new legislation will let a special federalized court have more authority to overlook the practices that the Bush administation is using to target terrorists. The previous legislation allows the NSA (who listens to electronic communications around the world) the ability to monitor conversations between the United States and someone outside of the country without a warrant. However, this new legislation would require a warrant that requires the government to get governmental authority when an American is targeted overseas.

I believe that this legislation was a good choice for the Senate Intelligence Committee. I do not believe that the government should be allowed to listen to calls without a warrant or use them later without a warrant because it is a violation of privacy. However, this practice has been helping us, but I still think that there should be more rights for the citizens. This legislation will make this practice more legal for the government and will stop the questions on President Bush's practices.

For more information on the legislation please read Greg Miller's article on the Los Angeles Times Website: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-fisa19oct19,1,4939644.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=7&cset=true

The American Flag and God

Recently on Capitol Hill there has been a question on whether a practice is breaking separation from Church and State. There are about 100,000 requests to fly the flag on top of the Capitol building for political significance every year. In August, a 17 year old wrote his congressman to ask to fly the American flag at a certain time to "honor his grandfather and his 'love of God, country and family'" (Neuman). The architect of the Capitol was very angry that this boy would make such a religious dedication for the Capitol. In fact, the architect failed to provide the dedication because he said that dedications would not occur if there was a political or religous message. The architect was afraid that boy using this dedication it would ruin separation of Church and State. However, people have called for the architect's decision to be overturned and is now in Congress, 160 members have signed on as of today.

I believe that what the architect at the Capitol did was ridiculous. I agree with Rep. Nuergebauer who said "This is a case of political correctness run amok," wrote Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas). "The government is not imposing 'God' on flag certificates. Rather, it is the request of the taxpayer who wants to mark a special occasion with the honor of a flag flown over the world's symbol of democracy" (Neuman). What the seventeen year old and many others wanted was to honor someone or something with the American flag, not a cross. However, it was these people's decision to put God in the flag certificates because that is some thing that those people believe in. These people are not trying to impose God on anyone or to bring relgion into the government, they are just trying to fly the true symbol of freedom. What do you think?

Here is the article from the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-god11oct11,1,2646998.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Senator Craig Will Not Resign

Senator Larry Craig from Idaho has decided that he will go against his previous decision to resign. Senator Craig was caught in a sex-sting investigation in Minnesota after he tried to have sex with a man in the stall next to him. Senator Craig said that he was guilty, but then tried to take back his statement would be public property. He has also said that he did not know that he was being called on these charges and says that he was wrongly accused. He said that he would resign his senatorial duty before his term ends if his case (to take back the charges) was lost in trial. On Thursday, the judge said that Craig could not take back his guilty plea, which meant that Craig had to step down. However, he sid tht he would not run for reelection, but would finish out his term until January 2009. This has angered many of his GOP collegues because they want to try to fix the Senate after the Democrats took over Congress last year. "Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who had called on Craig to resign, said, 'The right thing for him to do was what he said he would do'" (Simon and Huffstutter). Also, "Ensign said Craig's decision may end up putting the Senate through a painful ethics investigation. 'It's embarrassing for the Senate; it's embarrassing for our party,' he said. 'It's going to be potentially further embarrassing for his family'" (Simon and Huffstutter).
I think that Senator Craig is making a huge mistake because he is ruining his political party. To be an honest man, and to end his political run with some dignity, I believe that Senator Craig should step down. I believe that this move would help his state out and would be benefical to his party as well. It does not matter whether what political party that I side with because the main point of the manner is that Senator Craig made a promise and should keep it. If he wants to help his party and does not leave as more of a disgrace than he already is then he should resign. What do you think?

More on Senator Craig's decision: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-craig5oct05,1,7456533.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

President Ahmadinejad Goes to Columbia

On Monday, September 24, 2007 President Mahmoud Ahadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University. This invitation was highly controversial and there were tons of protesters outside of the building the day he arrived. Many people, especially those of the Jewish faith, were against the Iranian President's coming because he has publically stated that he would bomb and destroy Israel if he gets a nuclear weapon. This was actually one of the questions that was brought up in the question and answer session. Although the Ahadinejad beat around the bush, the answer was basically yes. Also, during his speech he said that " In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it." These statements led to laughing and also tons of booing from the audience. Another issue in Ahadinejad's visit was that he was not allowed to put a wreath on Ground Zero because the government said that he could not.
I believe that the president should not have talked at Columbia University because I do not think he should even have the right to. President Ahadinejad, in my opinion, only wanted to speak at Columbia University to protect his own back. In almost every single one of his answers to the questions he covered himself up or beat around the bush to make himself look better. This was especially shown when he was asked about bombing Israel; he never said the word yes, but every statement that he made seemed to be pointing to yes. This president has said many times that he would bomb Israel, one of our allies. Also, the statement that he made about homosexuals is completely ridiculous because everyone knows that he killed people who he found out were homosexual. This president had no right to spread his message to the students and others a Columbia because of what he does and has done. To some it may be important, but to me it seems as if we are helping him look better to others.

Transcripts of Speech: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html

Presidential Candidates and the Jena Six

We learned in class yesterday, September 20th, about the Jena Six. The incidents started at the end of last school year when African-American students sat under a “white” tree, after these students asked and received permission from the school administration in Jena, LA. However, the next day there were three nooses in the school colors hanging on the tree. The white students who did this, as the school called it, "prank" only were suspended for 2 days. Later on, white students at a party beat up one African-American student; no charges were filed. Soon after, three African-American students were held up at a convenience store. When the boys took the weapon away, the cops came and put the boys in jail saying that they had stolen a firearm; the boys who held them up did not get in trouble at all. Later that day, six of the African-American students beat up the "ring-leader" of all these events. The boy only had a few cuts on his face and was out of the hospital in a few hours. This boy also went to a party that evening, which shows that he was fine. However, the six boys were arrested and the "ring-leader," the boy who was beaten up was given 22 years in prison because he was tried as an adult. However, the courts overturned the sentence and he was tried as a minor, he is only sixteen.
Yesterday, there were thousands of protestors at the courthouse who were protesting the injustice of this case. However, most of the presidential hopefuls have not made a stand about the case. Barack Obama said,” We shouldn't have to have a national rally for people to recognize the injustice of what's been happening down there." Then he proceeded to talk about how President Bush is failing at the Justice Department, but he never really talked about the incidents and what he feels. Hillary Clinton has talked about how she was "troubled" and "worried" about the case, but still talked very little about the case to try to help her campaign. I feel that this issue needs to be talked about, especially among the political candidates, because in my opinion it is going to be one of the most important court cases of my generation. The presidential candidates, especially Clinton and Obama, need support from African-American voters and this would be a moment for them to break the ice and show how they will be as president. Instead of attacking President Bush and saying that they are "worried," the candidates should take a stand and say how unjust this whole situation really is. What do you think?

Here is the LA Times article on the political candidates and the Jena Six: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-race21sep21,1,5373123.story

Moveon.org's Attack Against General Petraeus

On Monday the Army General, David Petraeus, testified before two House committees on the Iraq War situation and what will happen next. However, before this speech was even made moveon.org, the "liberal anti-war group" bought an ad in the New York Times bashing General Petraeus. The full-page advertisement said, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the Books for the White House." An interesting fact to note though is that the New York Times made it much easier for this advertisement to bought and printed. It has been reported that moveone.org paid $65,000 for the ad, which may seem to be a hefty price. However, the usual price for a full-page ad in the New York Times is actually $181,692. So, why the discounted rate? This is exactly what the New York Post asked and now I am asking.

The response that the New York Post got from the New York Times was an answer that showed a lack of responsibility:

"Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias and said it was the paper's policy not to disclose the rate paid by any advertiser. 'We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad,' Mathis told Reuters. 'The advertising folks did not see the content of the ad before the rate was quoted," she said, adding that there were over 30 different categories of ads with varying rates.' Mathis confirmed the open rate for an ad of that size and type was around $181,000. Among reasons for lower rates are advertisers buying in bulk or taking a standby rate, she said. 'There are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages,' she said" (NYT, 9/13/07).

Still, why should they have been discounted? I believe that website should have been charged more for their advertisement because of the negative commentary that they had. I'm not going to say whether I disagree or agree with the ad because that is not the point. The point is that the New York Times should have not made the moveon.org $116,000 cheaper than it should have been. I feel that, although they claim that the advertising people did not see the ad before the quote, moveon.org was let off easily. I feel that, in a way, the New York Times tainted their credibility with this advertisement because it was so negative and harsh, plus that they made the ad easy to make. It would be interesting to see who else gets huge discounts on ads, or if this is done all the time. What do you think of the New York Times?

New York Times Article on the advertisement: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-media.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The actual ad: http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

~Rachael Gordon <3