S.1362

Middle Act of 2009. is a recently proposed bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island on June 25, 2009. Such bill would provide states with a grant with the purpose of reinforcing the United States public educational system that is constantly criticized. It will specifically focus on the middle school curriculum, meaning 6th-8th grade academic courses. It is designed to elaborate a 'rigorous' curriculum strong enough to prepare the young evolving minds for success in high school or "post secondary endeavors." Its goal is to improve state and district policies and programs in order to ensure academic achievement throughout the middle school education of a student and hence increase their chances of academic excellence during their high school years. Much more it will attempt to develop and implement effective middle grades 'models' designed precisely for struggling students hoping to stimulate and encourage low performing students to strive to accomplish to the best of their potential.

The bill has been read twice and was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I must say that this proposal is a great start, because though education in America is individualistic like most of its many systems, (for one can ex cell academically and achieve a higher education if one is preserve rant and dedicated) it does deserve to be upgraded. Many students in Los Angeles California for example can proceed onto High school even if they failed core academic courses essential to their education during middle school. This seems ridiculous. For matter of fact is middle school matters, there must be a sloid foundation to one's education!

Same-Sex Marriage in D.C. will Congress intervene?

"DC votes to allow gay marriage, but issue not settled. DC councilors voted Tuesday on the gay-marriage measure, but another vote will take place in the coming weeks. Congress could also intervene." -CS Monitor Politics

One would think that in America the land "modeled" on the principle of equality would be light hearted and open minded to issues such as same-sex marriage but surpisingly enough, it is quite just the opposite. Only 5 out of the 50 United States have legalized same-sex marriage up to this day, 2009. Only f-i-v-e! Now currently the District of Columbia is "poised" to join, will it be allowed by congress though? Washington city councilors have already voted to allow gay-marriage but there is yet another upcoming vote where Congress could possibly intervene.

"If a coalition of same sex marriage opponents have their say, the issue will eventually be decided by a referendum." Let the people be heard! (If they promote what I agree with.)

So far opponents of the act alleged that they will not be overshadowed so easily, for they will lobby Congress whom has the power to overturn any laws adopted by the council within a 30 day range. In 1996 Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act,which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages. But can Republicans persuade Democrats into blocking the same-sex marriage law right now? I personally highly doubt it, the Republicans are fairly weak at the moment.

Lets do this D.C.! This progress could be a vital symbolic victory for the nation, perhaps even an eye-opener.

Same-sex marriage advocates are currently eyeing two specific states as well, New York and New Jersey. Why you may wonder, what is so special about them? Well it is precisely becasue neither state has the ballot initiative or referendum process, methods by whihc same-sex marriage laws were reversed in both the state of California Maine.

Now Congress please let the people be! Do not intervene unless you help speed up the process and pave the way towards equality. It is time to embrace individuality America! Promote Acceptance! Lets fight hate, prejudice, intolereance, and unfair "traditions".

The Media

Rachel Maddow, has now become my heroe! Why? Well she is blunt, sarcastic, and fearless! One heck of a woman, and one outspoken news anchor too. It is evident that her ideaology is practically if not entirely liberal, just listen to her. Not only does she defend herself and her co-workers on MSNBC but she discredits Fox News as a "regular" news station rather she calls them an "oppositonal political outlet". (Obviously a Republican influenced one against the Democratic party and the White House) Opinion as she says has always been a "kissing cousin" to news but it does not justify a news station for misinforming or getting strayed from covering the news efficiently. My conjecture is that the audience she most appeals to is predominantly the left-wing, the "locos", the tadadada the Liberal individuals.

MRC & FAIR; Compare & Contrast

In today's high-tech world, public opinion is influenced greatly by the media and its coverage. Society is bombarded with millions of sources of information making it difficult to choose what and who to believe. Therefore, one must not be neither oblivious nor gullible and make sure they get an appetizer from every side of the story and select which one is the most reliable. Yes, to report news coverage is difficult and can be quite a challenge rarely can one fully detach their emotions, opinions, and beliefs and presumable avoid it from affecting their coverage. Word choice and tone is crucially important!

FAIR, Fairness & Accuracy In Reportings, standing goal is to preserve an "independent, aggressive and critical media" as a guarantee to the principles of democracy. They tend to focus on a diversity in the press in which they inevitably embed their opinions within as well. They make an effort to cover a widespread rage of news including "neglected" news stories. They are "media activists" for they strongly believe that "censored and bias" information is a violation of the public's 1st Amendment. They are blunt and pragmatic they will not sugarcoat anything and will only deliver the reality of the issues. If I were to make a conjecture from analyzing the information FAIR regards I would most likely infer that it has a predominantly liberal audience.

MRC, Media Research Center, "fights Liberal Bias" in the media so donate now! Support the media coverage that has a hint of conservative view and accuses liberals for providing bias information. They provide different alternatives for issues and criticize the actions by giving insight to how they would have approached such issue. They feel targeted, like if they are attacked much more than liberal individuals.

To remain neutral is tough, unless you have no opinions.

Political Cartoons

Political Cartoons:

Dictionary says:
a. A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption.
b. A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically.

Elizabeth says: Political Cartoons are not merely images, they hold a much deeper purpose. It is a way in which creative individuals make a social comment concerning political aspects through the use of satire.


Our dear America is a democratic capitalistic nation, one that is looked down upon by the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. But what about Chris Wallace? Is he not American? Well apparently he seems to share something in common with these communist/socialist leaders, they are all OBAMAPHOBES. As a Fox news reporter Chris Wallace has been accused of distributing bias information to the American public, one plagued with purely Republican criticism of our current Democratic dominated government. The cartoon further exemplifies the idea that Obama must not go across seas to find an enemy, for he has Chris Wallace here already providing bad coverage in an attempt to defame him.

The economy, the backbone of our country, the inspiration of our happiness, and the source of our satisfaction has throughout time been our strongest pride yet now is our deepest shame. But whom is to blame? Today it seems quite obvious that we are stranded in a recession, it has almost reached a point where many have coined it as a Second Great Depression. Now the American public urges to know who is driving our national economy and where is it headed? Through this cartoon the Obama administration is portrayed as a bunch of clowns whom put up a show but in "reality" have no clue to what they are/have been doing.

The Healthcare Reform has been entirely a Democratic movement with its current leader being Mr. Barack Obama, none other than our presidente. Recently the Healthcare Bill was passed in the House of Representatives but now it must also be approved by the Senate. The elephant which in reality embodies Republican Senators will make all efforts to delay, stop, and destroy such "socialist" movement. The correct term for such action would be filibustering. Such action refers to " 'speaking or talking out a bill', a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal" (wikipedia) which is exactly what the senators whom do not support the bill will resort to now.

My favorite political cartoon out of all, for not only does it critique various aspects of society but it incorporates Sesame Street's characters, a prominent children's television show to do so. At the top right is Oscar the Grouch, with a foreclosure sign posted on his garbage can, or in other terms a place he is forced to call his home sweet home. Oscar is utilized to portray the thousands of families that recently and unexpectedly lost their homes due to their inability to pay the mortgage. It is satirical because he already lives in a thrash can, so where will he move to now? Next is Dracula, a vampire greedy for money not blood. *Gasp but how? He is placed in front of Wall Street whom gambled and manipulated the national economy as they pleased saving no one but themselves. Which depicts the idea that when $money$ is on the verge morals, principles, and duties are often replaced by an unhealthy greed and ambition. The next preceding image I can not digest yet, but if you can please share your interpretation! Bottom left image is regarding the unemployment rate that has currently risen to 10.2%! Have we really grown paranoid to such an extreme where we believe immigrants come to take over and outsource Americans, destroying its culture by replacing the traditional American ways. Following it is a picture of Bert & Ernie, they are depicted as a same-sex couple whom are forced to move out to Massachusetts, one of the few states where the same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages. One where their civil union will be recognized and equally handled. Last, is Elmo where his "ticklish" condition is used symbolically to represent the millions of health problems that often are obstacles to individuals attempting to obtain health coverage. Many insurance companies predominantly deny their coverage simply because the sick individual's medical condition might result "expensive". America right now = problems, problems, and problems both socially and economically. Oh when oh when will we see the end to them!

Universal Healtcare = Free Abortions?!

"WASHINGTON – A bipartisan House coalition voted Saturday to prohibit coverage of abortions in a new government-run health care plan that Democrats would establish to compete with private insurers." - Associated Press

Today, besides many other speculations and myths plaguing the Healthcare Reform, it seems as is the most stirring controversy roaming it is: "Will it cover abortions?" Abortion prices typically tend to range between $350-$900 Planned Parenthood sources reveal.

Recently, the house has voted a strict ban on abortion subsidies. In a 290-194 vote in favor of the Stupack amendment, where a total of 64 democrats joined the Republicans in favor of the prohibition. Michigan Democratic Representative Bart Stupack (creator of the amendmnt)strongly believe federal money in terms of aid should not cover abortions unless it falls under the specified exceptions of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger.

The original Democratic legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, only if the Health and Human Sevices secretary decided it should. Which would have allowed people to get federal "subsidies" to pay for abortion coverage with their own money.

However the amendment not only barrs the new government insurance plan from covering abortions except in the cases mentioned above. But it also prohibits people who receive new federal health "subsidies" from purchasing insurance that include abortion coverage in their plan.

Many abortion advocates, otherwise noted as pro-choice people believe this is a huge setback, alleging that the current amendment goes further than current law.

"Discrepancies between the House and Senate measures would have to be reconciled before any final bill is passed."

Lets just hope that the Stupack amendment stands firm and barrs the cover for abortion in the government Healtcare bill. Pro-life!

The Dark Side of the Internet!

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life, but define yourself.”–Harvey S. Firestone

It seems that in today's fast advancing world we want everything performed and completed fast. The quick access we have to the Internet, a worldwide web, has been but a "mixed blessing." It has presented an elusive amount of information to society at the tip of their hands. But not only does it bombard helpful information but it can also be extremely harmful and even deadly form of "advertising" violent behavior, better known as cyberbullying. Such fast and accessible growing web has paved way to an easy quick spreading method of attacking.

"Click, type, click, and post" the harm is done. But many agressors are oblivious to the fact that everything, absolutely everything has an audience, and at one point is seen and read and later commented about. Sure there is such a thing as posting anonymously, but it is still hurtful even more I would say than being confronted directly, because not only do you not know your attacker's face, but you do not know their motives, their intentions, nor when to anticipate their attacks.

Take the state of Missouri for example, it has made cyberbulling a felony under a new state law
"After the 2006 suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier, the victim of an Internet hoax, Missouri is taking cyberbullying very seriously."

Now lets hope many other states criminalize cyberbullying, because in many cases it leads to low self-esteem, emotional abuse, and even suicide.

Prevent Hate Crimes Protect All Our Citizens!!

"Preaching the Gospel Would be Against the Law! (And Other Hate Crimes Myths)"-Politics Daily

After a long sturdy tough wait in line the Gay Rights issue has been recently placed on Congress' table. There is a Senate vote expected to expand federal hate crime laws to include sexual orientation as well, yet to such sweet justice as one would be expected to perceive it, many religious conservatives have released a screaching halt. In fact they are "ramping up the rhetoric" against the bill, which already passed the House last week.

This is entirely a Democratic movement. Behind the legislation which is also coined as the Human Rights Campaign are all Democrats including our fellow President Barack Obama "the leading gay rights lobby" so they called him. He has guaranteed his support as he renewed his pledged to sign the bill. Lets just hope he is not another Clinton.>.< (Don't understand?! Watch video below, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act catching the American public off-guard, it was quite a surprise because he had previously attended an HRC "=" event speaking on behalf the country's fight against discrimination)

The Bill is named after Matthew Sheppard, a 21 year old man beaten to death by two men simply because he was GAY in small town Laramie Wyoming in October 2008, as depicted in The Laramie Project, which many of us had the opportunity to read. And James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck by a gang of white men in Texas, only a few months before Sheppard's 1998 killing. The bill was first introduced back in 2001, and since then many Republicans have been able to dodge it and turn it down, but now Democratic leaders have attached the bill to a defense appropriations measure.

The bill would categorize crimes specifically targeted at homosexuals and transgender people as Hate crimes, also covering people with disabilities. HOWEVER the tantrum is not so much over that as much as it is over the LGBT inclusion, which has given birth to some absurd myths such as those summarized below:

"Pastors would be hounded out of their pulpits or even rounded up because a hate crimes law would "criminalize" speech and particularly sermons that quote scripture saying homosexuality is a sin. The law would also "create" new rights for homosexuals and grant them "special protections" not accorded other Americans. And what the heck is a "hate crime," anyway? All crimes are hate crimes!"

LGBTQ Civil Rights Movement?!

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things... every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." — Matt Santos

California Prop 8= "Secure Traditional Marriage"

"U.S. judge refuses Prop. 8 backers' request to dismiss gay-marriage case"-Mercury News

Recently Prop 8 "backers" requests to dismiss the gay-marriage case that will challenge the constitutionality of the law were rejected in a San Francisco courtroom by federal Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

In fact "One by one, the judge shot down the legal reasons Proposition 8 lawyers presented to resolve the case now and allow the same-sex marriage ban to remain in force...[seeming] particularly unpersuaded by Proposition 8 attorney Charles Cooper's chief argument for a state law confining marriage to heterosexual couples — that the state has an interest in protecting "traditional" marriage because of its importance to procreation in society."

Judged Walker rather challenged Copper's argument by citing statistics that a large percent of children are born out to single mothers and further saying that "Procreation doesn't require marriage."

To such legal challenge on Prop.8 Judge Walker concluded that California's voter-approved measure that bans gay marriage must and will be resolved in a "full-blown" trial scheduled for January 2010. It is until then that same-sex marriage advocates will argue that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it denies same sex couples the right to marry.

Nonetheless, California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 previously, concluding that it could not "trump" the voters who approved the measure back in November 2008. But I say what about the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before Proposition 8 went into effect in California, can they "trump" over them?! Furthermore, is it fair to continue denying gay couples the right to wed while thousands of same-sex marriages remain legal in the state.

If you were to ask me about it? It was at first quite surprising that a great population of California would ratify,uphold, and enforce a law that discriminates. it is specifically targeted at the LGBT community by stripping away the right to marry with whom they chose to spend their life with. Counter attacks claim to be protecting "traditional" marriages, but what is indeed a "traditional" marriage? One between a man and a woman some might argue. But what about evidence that reflects that throughout human history 'traditional' marriage has been infested with polygony, arrange, forced, and child marriages amongst others that predicate on the subjugation and objectification of women? (Pollit presents a very solid argument supported by historical evidence) I propose we alter the definition of "traditional" marriage into one of a bond of love, sexual orientation should NOT matter. So promote EQUALITY for all and...

Love Me, I'm a Liberal!☮♥✌☀♁

"We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said "liberal" means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, 'Leave it to Beaver' trip back to the fifties," we cowered in the corner and said: 'Please, don't hurt me. No more.' "-West Wing

Based on my answers on the questionnaire my typology under the political spectrum falls into the "Liberal" category. Not much of a surprise, I can not say I was flabbergasted at the results that confirmed what I already suspected, my philosophy closely resembles liberal ideologies. I tend to be very open-minded when it comes down to social liberties and life in general, a view I adopted after being influenced greatly from my environment. Tolerance, respect, acceptance, and appreciation for who we are is what I believe in. Liberals represent 17 percent of the American public, and 19 percent of registered voters, the youngest yet most highly educated group of all.

I must admit I am not very religious at all, I believe religion mentally enslaves one, for it restricts an individual from cultivating his/her own notions and dictates one's judgement.

I support Gay Marriage, I believe marriage is no privilege its a fundamental liberty and inalienable right of all to form a bond with the one you love and wish to spend the rest of your life with. I am not as passionate about Pro-choice though, for I will not defend the idea that one can dispose of a life as they wish or find best suitable to, it is not morally right. Just as I do not believe in the death penalty I will not approve of abortion (w/ exceptions in certain cases), but in most cases one being should not hold in their hands the life of another. I do indeed favor environmental protection, it seems illogical&selfish of humans to exploit nature and allow earth to deteriorate. I am pro-immigrant as well, a young mexican-american from immigrant parents who dared to dream of a better future, if you'd ask me immigrants strenghten American society. I strongly prefer good diplomacy over relying on military force in order to secure peaceful international relationships. Military force only instigates hatred and resentment.

Fiscally I tend to be much more conservative, currently I dislike the welfare system and government aid, predominantly because it destroys self-reliance and ambition. Now don't misundersand me, I am all for helping the poor, I do not wish to abolish the welfare system. I just wished the government would regulate it more and secure that only those truly in need recieved financial help.

Overall I will admit that for the most part most of my ideas are liberal, I seek greater freedom in religious and political matters, free from prejudice and narrow thinking. Fact is I'm a "Contemporary Hippie"!

cheap prices = unhealthy food

"Lingering Unemployment Could Delay Recovery for Foodservice Industry. However, discounts, free food and additional dollar menu items could bring customers back, according to a new NPD Group report." -NACS Online

Unemployment, lay-offs, and cuts in work hours have increasingly been a major factor in the health and well-being of an individual. Not only have many lost their jobs but a multitude of individuals have lost their healthcare coverage and insurance as well. The health of America is declining as a nation and a population, but there is more than one factor in such radical downfall. The public has cut down on the luxuries of eating out one would think right?!

They can no longer afford to pay for a quick deluxe breakfast on their way to work/schoool or eat out during lunch, because of this despairing economic episode. However, truth is America still continues to eat itslef alive, most of the population eats poorly on a daily basis. As the economy falls, it is evident people restrict themselves from spending in excessive amounts, affordability and costs worry and concern the mind of consumers during times of crisis like this. Yet somehow fast food restaurants haven't been impacted much, or at least it seeems, take MC Donalds for example, they seem to be running on their famous Dollar Menu. How so, one may ask?! Well according to NPD studies consumers claimed that "Discounts (31%), giveaways (24%), and additional dollar menu items (23%)" entice them to visit restaurants more frequently.

If you'd ask me it seems as if the food industry allures the public wih deals that promote obesity and an unhealthy diet. But oh well I guess with this economy that is what most of the public is pushed to resort to, a $1 dollar cheeseburger. But I still believe that the food corporations are decieving, devious, and scheming companies. For they pretend to be concern about the struggles the public faces b/c of this economic episode, yet they continue to feed off the consumerism and needy situation of ours. Is this morally correct, to feed off and suceed through the lingering economic situation citizens are troubled with?!

More than Skin Deep?!

"The president's policies have drawn legitimate protests -- but Jimmy Carter's allegations regarding racial animus have some relevance too." -The LA Times

Anyone who saw the speech Obama delivered regarding the healthcare reform during a joint session of congress will surely remember Representative Joe Wilson's "You lie!!" outburst. President Obama had just disclaimed rumors that alleged that the healthcare reform would provide coverage for illegal immigrants, when Rep. Wilson publicly called out Obama a liar for 'retrieving' his previous idea to cover illegal immigrants as well. As Obama distangled the misconceptions that were brought upon the gullible public to believe, there was great commotion, did Obama ever promise healthcare for all, all precisely including those whom are undocumented?!

Well now a new issue has been brought to attention, currently spectators believe that many 'conservatives' or opponents of Obama's may not even consider his ideas, rather they judge him on "racial animus" not his policies."I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American" says former 'white' president Jimmy Carter.

Obama declines to make the same accusation against racial bigotry and rejects that such is so. He does not believe that that criticism comes based on the color of his skin. Many whom also discard race as a possible leading factor claim that 'Obamaphobes', critic the president because he is pushing "big government" programs in order to bring about the CHANGE he promised America.

I personally agree with the comments of spectators regarding the idea that Obama is judge predominantly on his race. Individuals dislike him because they fear the "seismic social change" Obama symbolizes as an African American president.Now I'm not calling all of Obama's detractors racist, but I must say that I do believe that because Obama is a man of color he is subjected to much more harsh criticism.

Remembering 9/11.

"President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama stand with White House staff members as they participate in a moment of silence marking the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 morning attacks, Friday, September 11, 2009."
-The Associated Press

As we all know, today September 11, 2009, marks the eight anniversary of the terrible terrorist attacks that shaped the history of America forever. Earlier this week, President Obama urged the public to mark the anniversary of the attacks with community service, after remembering those lives that were lost the morning of the tragic attacks. Today, the president and first lady, along with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, participated in a moment of silence on the South Lawn of the White House at exactly 8:46 a.m., the time the first jet line struck the World Trade Center in 2001.Then Obama, placed a wreath (circular arrangement of flowers) at the site of the attack on the Pentagon, where 184 people died, expressing his condolonces for the victims and their families. Later that day the Obama's toured a Habitat for Humanity housing development in Washington and contributed by helping paint a living room.

So far Obama has distanced himself from the anti-terror tactics of the Bush administration, but nonetheless he is committed to his responsibility as chief protector of the country. "We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail." President Obama echoed the words his predecessor delivered to Congress immediate after the attack regarding the pursuit of the al-Qaida back in 2001.

"Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric act and who plot against us still… In defense of our nation, we will never waver... Let us remember how we came together as one nation, as one people, as Americans, united not only in our grief, but in our resolve to stand with one another, to stand up for the country we all love," were his exact words at the memorial to the victims.

“There is no higher priority and no greater focus” wrote CIA Director Leon Panetta in a letter on Thursday to intelligence officials. He reassured the long steadfast commitment of the nation’s spy agency fight against al Qaida and his supporters.

“No life lost in this attack or battle shall be lost in vain."

We will never forget.

But now the investigations on the alleged claims that CIA terror tactics violated the law have been accused of "crippling" the CIA and jeopardizing the nations security. Can the government afford to do both, protect the nation and investigate its spy agency, the very organization responsible of preventing future terrorist attacks?!

Has President Obama Striked Again?!

"The White House found itself on the defensive Friday over what would ordinarily be considered the most uncontroversial of events: a back-to-school speech to the nation's children." -CNN

During times like this one cannot enforce the importance of education enough especially as the nation’s dropout rate increases day by day. Education is and will continue to be the backbone of the economy; only with it can we produce a competent workforce. Though, unfortunately the US currently finds itself in a distressing economic episode which can only improve through the success of education.

Currently President Obama's plan to deliver a speech to public school students from Virginia remain, where he will highlight the importance and significant impact education has on both the individual and the country. Yet, such plans have lit great controversy amongst critics, conservative parents to be precise, whom allege that the Democratic president is trying to 'indoctrinate' their children with socialist ideas. The uproar over the speech, in which Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has escalated to the point where parents have asked school officials to excuse the children from listening. Several other school districts, under pressure from parents, have arranged plans to let children choose not to lend an ear to the president of sweet democratic America. Other parents however, simply have decided to keep their kids home on Tuesday, for they don't want their children to witness as the school is plagued by some "socialist movement".

Obama's plans to deliver a speech was announced weeks ago, but recently Republicans have claimed he is stepping out of his presidential boundaries and his speech designated at the nation's children is all paid political advertising. They further regard Obama's plan only to be an attempt to endorse the spread of his socialist ideology paid by the dollars of taxpayers.

"At a minimum it's disruptive. Number two, it's uninvited. And number three, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it. I don't think he needs to force it upon the nation's school children," said Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.

Defendants of the speech have declared that the message is solely educational, a designed plan to encourage students to remain in school and focus on their academic studies. The choice to watch it is completely voluntarily, nobody will be obligated to watch it if they decide not to. In fact the school administration has been left to decide whether the speech will be shown during school hours to students. Some school districts (predominantly in Republican dominated states: Texas for example) have already decided that they will not show the speech. In other areas, teachers have been required to notify parents if they intend to show the speech, and if a parent objects then an alternative class will be provided. Nonetheless if students wish not to listen/watch the speech they will be given the opportunity to avoid it on any cause.

The most alarming concern in this spirited debate would have to be the extremes conservative parents went through in order to avoid the president's inspirational words to reach the minds of their children. They blame it all on the belief that the president will "brainwash" the vulnerable developing notion's of students, but I believe they are acting upon an irrational fear. I personally come from a family who has very very different stands on various issues of today, nonetheless my parents have taught me how to think, not what to think. So I suggest to the conservative parents to allow their children to cultivate their own philosophy of life.

Even if parents disagree with Obama's policies, telling the youth of America not to hear out the words of the chief justice of the country, implies the idea that one should not listen to someone with whom one disagrees with. A reasoning that still remains difficult for me to understand how it works.

Will Iraq finally hear an American Farewell?!

“The U.S. military is packing up to leave Iraq in what has been deemed the largest movement of manpower and equipment in modern military history — shipping out more than 1.5 million pieces of equipment from tanks to antennas along with a force the size of a small city.” – The Associated Press

American interference in Iraq’s domestic affairs has been extremely controversial from the start; today the American government remains unsure if the presence of U.S. troops is longer necessary. At first the Bush administration sought to intervene into Iraq’s government in an effort to avoid any more possible terrorist attacks against the USA, after the terrible Sept. 11 episode in 2001. Iraq was invaded after alleged claims that they possessed "large quantities" of weapons of mass destruction posing a future threat to the security of the nation. Subsequently, after mild success, troops remained in Iraq attempting to reform its government and “restore order” until the country was ‘suitable’ to govern itself. Now, thousands of citizens both Americans and Iraqis want the entanglement unraveled and the huge mess cleaned up.

At last has the U.S military planned to leave Iraq?! Why Brig. Gen. Heidi Brown, a deputy commander in charged of supervising the withdrawal, sure thinks so for he has been reported saying “The goal is to withdraw tens of thousands of troops and about 60% of equipment out of Iraq by the end of next March.” At this rapid pace it is obvious that the withdrawal will increase war costs by billions of dollars to move the American force out of Iraq, yet the cost is not definite at this time. For officials have declared that it is yet to be decided how much equipment will be returned back to the United States, donated to the Iraqis, or shipped off to Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the independent Government Accountability Office recently reported to Congress that the withdrawal would be a "massive and expensive effort" defining ‘expensive’ to be an additional $12 to $13 billion a year required two years after U.S. withdrawal, to maintain, repair, and replace the equipment returned from Iraq.

Since President Obama announced the deadline to remove combat troops, everything else has seemed to fall into place. Departures have already been scheduled throughout the course of the year; first out will be an Army combat ‘brigade’ (military unit) of approximately 5,000. Following it will be a ‘brigade’ that would make its exit by the end of the year only if the violence does not escalate. Accordingly, the Marine Corps would then leave, who already have accomplished to get more than half of its troops and equipment out. It has been estimated that by the time the president’s deadline is met, the 300 American bases and outposts that currently remain in Iraq will be reduced to about 50 or less.

However, due to the upcoming national elections of January 16, the military has considered keeping most of his 130,000 combat troops in Iraq. Until two months later after it would they “then rapidly [draw] down troops and equipment in the weeks that follow.” In fact Brown, confirmed their contemplation to delay the withdrawal plans after having said “the phase withdrawal of troops and equipment cold be halted at any time, if, for example, the Iraqi government asks U.S. troops to stay longer due to a resurgence in violence.”

This withdrawal has been planned for several years and yet it still remains a great enigma at times, with more than 1.5 million pieces of equipment that need to be shipped out. With every piece undergoing the: What? When? How? and Where to? process. Already the U.S. has tried to relieve itself from the burden by donating up to $15 million of such items, like desks, televisions, and air conditioners to the Iraqis; equipment “per base closure” considered too costly to be shipped out.

Brown’s final statement was “You don’t know who will win the government and how long it will take to seat the government.” In much simpler words he said a withdrawal is coming soon if not completely- at least partially, for it still remains unclear how long Iraq will take to ‘successfully’ establish a form of government and implement order. I guess after all, the question of when American troops will leave Iraqi soil remains to be determined by the behavior of its people and their so called “pleads” for U.S. help. But will the U.S. have enough money to continue helping Iraq clean up the mess?!

Dick Cheney and his so called "Good Policy"

"Former Vice President Dick Cheney says politics are driving the Justice Department's decision to investigate whether CIA interrogators abused terror suspects detained after the Sept. 11 attacks." - The Associated Press

Terror: a very great fear often utilized to intimidate an individual into "speaking."

At the recent news of CIA abuse accusations released by an internal CIA inspector general's report, President Barack Obama has assured interrogators that unless they did not follow legal guidelines they would not face any charges. Currently investigating the issue is Attorney General, Eric Holder, whom respectably admitted he realized how controversial his decision to initiate his "preliminary review" would be. He furthered declared that it is his sole obligation to review the alleged accusations.

Holder's actions in fact did attract much criticism, predominantly from former Vice President, Dick Cheney. Surprisingly enough Cheney did not only admit he personally was not a fan of Obama and his policies when he was elected and still stands firm to that opinion. But he also claimed that the Obama administration have taken the CIA justice issue into a personal matter of politics whom thought "well, we didn't like those opinions, [so] we're going to investigate those lawyers and perhaps have them disbbared."

Nonetheless, Cheney's accuastions remain mere speculation and opinion unlike the reports that claim that several CIA interrogators "went beyond Bush administration rules" using cruel tactics such as water boarding, "a simulated drowning technique" against detainees. So far it has been reported that at least three 'high level suspects' were subjected to water bordering several times. Another CIA report uncovered other cases were interrogators threatened detainees with a handgun and an electric drill.

Cheney referred this cruel and vicious methods intended to make the suspects 'talk' as a "good policy". Using the same repeated idea of 'the end justifies the mean' by claiming that those techniques were "directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States."

From this breakthrough news even bigger issues may elevate, think about it, what if detainees were so frighten by interrogators that they admitted to comitting the charges that were held against them even if innocent, only to save their life or that of their family?! So therefore I must applaud Eric Holder, for his efforts towards seeking justice, for those government officials who abused their power must not go unpunished even if it was years ago.

Will Kennedy’s Legacy be "Honored"?!

“When President Obama and Congress return next month to confront tough choices on health reform, will Sen. Edward Kennedy's death be the catalyst for finally achieving what he called the cause of his life, health care for all? It's possible, but we don't know yet exactly how.” –Politics Daily

The recent news of the death of Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, whom at the age of 77 lost the battle against brain cancer late Tuesday night, has impacted millions beyond belief. He was the last surviving brother of one of the most dominant families in American politics, a man who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in history, recognized as “The Lion of the Senate.”

To much dismay his death has left an even bigger concern unresolved, the struggle for a healthcare reform, to which he referred to as “the cause of his life.” Kennedy passed away and will no longer participate alongside the Democratic Party as they enter a new phase to witness the final judgment. Before Kennedy died, the party had a 60-vote majority in the Senate, just enough to stop a ‘filibuster’ from the Republican Party. Now that number is down by one to 59 votes. However, Massachusetts loyal Democrats are attempting to persuade their opposition to grant a request Mr. Kennedy made, in which he urged that Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat, were allowed to appoint a temporary successor upon his death, to assure the state’s representation in Congress would not be interrupted. The temporary senator would only serve until a special election in January and would not run for permanent seat. Yet not many seem to favor the idea.

But can the Democrats afford to operate with 59 votes as opposed to its original 60?! Not really, 1 sole vote makes a significant difference especially in these cases says Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, when “So many of these votes may come down to one vote." So the big question is should Massachusetts go for five or six months without a senator?! If so, then who would take the blame if Kennedy's health care vision fails by one vote?!

Much more, a ‘multitude’ of people are urging that the reform be passed quickly as a tribute to Kennedy, in respect to his dedication and long fought dream for the healthcare reform. Now this is a crucial time for Obama, he has quite a lot on his plate at the moment, including education, war, both energy and financial reforms, and healthcare. Now on the health reform he will have to step up, take a stronger leadership and decide whether he will only proceed with the support of the Democratic Party or reach some kind of common ground with the Republicans. Will he ‘invoke’ Kennedy’s memory during the discussion of the issue and if so how much?! "Obama is certainly in a position to make that a stronger factor. But you have to be careful how you use that. If it's too blatantly political, you lose people instead of gaining them” said a Democratic strategist.

So finally, I guess my strongest curiosity is: Will Kennedy’s principles and vision of America influence the Healthcare Reform even after death?!

Sonia Sotomayor more than just a Hispanic Political icon, a pragmatic Associated Justice.

“ Justice Sonia Sotomayor is getting into the swing of being a member of the Supreme Court.” –The Associated Press

Back in November of 2008 when Barack Obama was declared the first African American president of the United States, his victory denoted a historic landmark for all African Americans in the country, filling them with intense joy and pride. Months later when he took presidency, on May 2009, President Barack Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice, delivering great optimism to the Hispanic community. Shortly after the nomination was approved Sotomayor, of 55 years old, was sworn into office in August of 2009 and become the first Latina Supreme Court Justice, a momentous account that would mark American history for many years to come. To antagonists she seemed to embody “judicial activism” while to supporters like myself find her to epitomize the American Dream, a dream we all nourish our hopes and goals with.

Now just recently it seems Sotomayor made her very first public decision as an associated justice, voting unsuccessfully alongside the “court’s liberal bloc” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer to delay the execution of an Ohio death row inmate. Now I am not so familiar with the court case, but it was said that Jason Getsy, the inmate of 33 years old, was sentenced to death after shooting Ann Serafino of 66 years old back in 1995 in Hubbard, Ohio. Jason Getsy wanted to stop his execution that was programmed for Tuesday, August 18. Getsy had asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow him to challenge Ohio’s current lethal injection system to be as a “cruel and unusual” punishment in an attempt o spare his life. However the court’s other remaining judges voted to deny the inmates claim.

Later that day, after loosing the death appeal case, it was reported by the Supreme Court that Sotomayor did not participate in the preceding ‘evidentiary hearing’ of the day. The hearing for death row inmate Troy Davis, whom was condemned for allegedly killing an off-duty police officer. Again, not much details of this case were provided yet it was said by his lawyers that they held evidence that proved their client, Troy Davis, did not commit the murdered he is being charged with.

Sotomayor will sit on her first Supreme Court hearing on a “key campaign finance” case this upcoming September 9 because apparently the new term doesn’t officially start until October 5 (Associated Press).

In the court’s 220 year history Sonia Sotomayor has become the first Hispanic and third female justice. For this admiring accomplishment she achieved no matter the multitude of obstacles she faced, as a woman, as a Latina, as a citizen, and as human being I believe Sotomayor should not be looked upon as “judicial activist” solely for Hispanics, but as a defender of justice and equality for all Americans. Don’t you?! So now I suggest we look into Sotomayor's victories and recognize her accomplishments, not count her failures.

Will Congress “Bolster” School Nutrition in an Effort to Fight Child Obesity?!

“President Obama has proposed a $1-billion increase for the Child Nutrition Act, which lawmakers will consider for renewal this fall. Decades-old nutritional standards may be updated.” -The LA Times

Since World War II America has been renowned to be one of the most wealthiest, technological, and progressive countries in the world. So considering that, shouldn't it also be one of the healthiest too?! It could be, but the unfortunate truth is that America has become home to the most obese people in the world. We live in a nation plagued with obesity produced by the poor choice of diet and lifestyle of society. Americans, especially children and young adolescents, have now become some of the unhealthiest individuals currently living. Yet there is no mystery behind this epidemic according to our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who says the children in the country are "not eating right and not moving their bodies at all" citing school nutrition as part of the problem. In fact, “a fifth of U.S. children are either overweight or obese” states the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a statistic that is apparent in just about every schoolyard around the country.

Now, to many nutrition advocates our affable Michelle Obama’s comments ignite mere optimism, whom hope Congress will “bolster” the school lunch program, considering the facts and evidence when renewing the Child Nutrition Act, which will soon expire on September 30.

President Obama’s recent $1-billion increase proposal for Children Nutrition Act programs will improve the coverage on the government’s reimbursements to school districts for daily school year meals; summer and after school programs; food served at many day-care facilities for children and adults; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). For solely in 2007 it was reported that the act provided food to more than 8 million people, an act that currently costs about $15 billion a year.

A portion of the proposed bill would allow the Department of Agriculture to update the “decades old-standards” foods that contain high amounts of fat and sugar that students buy at stores, vending machines, and ‘la ca rte’ cafeteria carts within school grounds. Because about “two thirds of states have either ‘weak or no policies’ regarding junk food” points out Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director at the Center of Science in the Public Interest. With the exception of California or more precisely Los Angeles, when in 2002 The Los Angeles Unified School District banned soda (but not sport drinks) and cut most sale of junk food, putting limits on the fat and sugar food sold on school campuses could contain.

Several other proposals have been unraveled from the discussion of the Children Nutrition Act, one asks to “streamline” the qualification requirements to increase the number of students who receive free meals. Another suggests a $1 per child per day raise in the reimbursement districts receive for each free lunch they serve in order to stimulate schools to serve more fresh produce and whole grains.

I personally must say that as a student I do not find the current school lunch very appetizing whatsoever (with the exception of the fruit), I’d rather withstand my stomach grumbling, pleading for food, during class and wait until 3:30 pm to access a fast and cheap source of food, the very famous Flaming Hot Cheetos and my refreshing soda alongside. Now I am very aware of how damaging it is to my health, but I also don't believe that a school lunch with high amounts of artificial ingredients and hormones that has been stored for days and later microwaved is any much healthier. School lunch is a an excellent place to begin combatting the obesity problem maybe by improving school lunch, it could appeal to many others like myself and drive us away from the unhealthy snacking on junk food we all know and love. So I must say this new proposal sounds like a great start, however, my biggest concern is: Can America afford to be healthy now, in the middle of an economic crisis?!