Mr. Bernanke

Hmm.. Is it an old news now? Maybe.. But I'm just going to write on this guy since it's the only topic I can babble a little.

So we all know that Bernanke got elected for the chairman of Federal Reserve again. The article says that the opposition was unusually high.. 70 to 30? Well, yeah of course, people needed someone to blame for this economic crisis. In fact, I don't really like him either. I know he's got education (B.A. in economics from Harvard and a Ph.D. in economics from M.I.T., and so on..) and experiences (a member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System (2002 to 2005) and as chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers (from 2005 to 2006)). He seems to be a smart guy and all from what I hear. What I don't like about this whole issue is that Mr. Bernanke is trying to make the Federal Reserve much stronger than it is now. Well, why does that matter? Let's see...

Ever since the United States founded and depended on Bank of United States and all others, the United States always has been in some sort of economic crisis. The national debt, for instance.. Except for once when Andrew Jackson got rid of the bank and cleared all the debt, the United States had to deal with money issues because of those bankers. Many presidents knew and tried to fight back with those powers who had money. Let's see if I can remember any... Abraham Lincoln is one good example. He knew not to borrow money from those big banks because obviously debt = slavery.. Big banks got mad at the United States and decided to do something. That's when the Civil War happened. Lincoln needed money for the war, but he didn't have much. He ended up borrowing money from those big banks and won the war.. He later said that he shouldn't have ever borrowed money from them. Lincoln's hating on rich bankers and then what? He was assassinateed.. The killer goes free because he had mental illness. Really? Ha. Kennedy was a young and bold President. He had his own voice against Fed Reserve. Didn't he die? Shot by someone who had mental illness again? What about James Garfield? Yeah, some crazy dude shot him too.

Why are these happening? Federal Reserve is not a system running under our government or anything; it's ran by rich bankers who seek for private benefit. No wonder it's gone wrong badly. Rockefeller family, Morgan family, Rothschild family and all... Very famous bankers. How can United States get out of hard times when it has to depend on such big bank that works for private benefits? Seeing things that way, I can only wonder what Mr. Bernanke is trying to do with his power and control now.

Now, of course I know that my opinion may be somewhat or very biased. It's because I don't know much about the basic concepts about what goes on today. I've been reading this book called 'Currency War' and that book talks about how Fed Reserve and bankers keep making money from countries by lending money and become stronger individuals than a country. That influenced me a lot, but I do keep in my mind that this is only one of many perspectives of the situation. I'm willing to hear other opinions and what not. Maybe you can leave a comment so we can talk about it?



http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ben_s_bernanke/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=ben%20bernanke&st=cse

Merchants want Congress to take a swipe at 'swipe fees'

Merchants are quite upset about the continuation of credit card fees that swallow a certain percentage of profit whenever customers use the card for purchases. Keith Lipert, owner of a small gallery business in Washington, explains the problem that comes with the convenience of card swiping: whenever a customer uses the card as a form of payment, the store owner needs to eventually pay about 2 percent for a precessing fee. According to the National Retail Federation, those processing fees brought in between 38 and 46 billion dollars of revenue in the year 2008. While business owners have their fair shair of complaints, the credit card industry has fought equally as hard to defend the reasoning behind the fees. They argue that the their credit card services benefit businesses and effectively attracts a considerable amount of customers to the marketplace.

As if the burden on business owners is not heavy enough, a new bill will go into effect this week that will most likely increase the interchange fees even more. This has caused several merchant organizations to actively rally against the new law. However, antitrust laws make it relatively difficult for owners to effectively discuss this conflict and negotiate a reduction of fees. The lowering of interchange fees can possibly lead to a decrease in the prices for goods and services. Although some business owners acknowledge the benefits of credit cards and the reason behind the interchange fees, they are fighting for the right to negotiate and have their voice be heard.

The business owners' admirable determination to win the right of negotiation reminds me of the first amendment, more specifically the right to free speech. These merchants are currently facing an obstacle which impedes their opinions from affecting the credit card bill. As a result, they will use the same spirits that built the foundation of democracy to gain their basic rights. I believe that credit card companies have a legitimate reason to increase the fees, knowing how valuable their service is to the U.S. economy. However, this absolutely does not support the notion that buuisiness owners should not be part of the decision to raise fees. They are the ones who take the most direct impact from these fees, so they should be given some power to determine it. In order to have the voice of owners be heard, there needs to be trust in them. Similar to the relationship that exists between citizens and the government, trust is critical in achieving certain "inalienable" rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/swipe.fees/index.html

White House caves -- could 9/11 terror trials move from Lower Manhattan to a town near you?

One of the biggest ongoing topics brewing in the political landscape is the awaiting trial of the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. His trail was set to occur in the very New York City he brought devastation to, and obviously, tremendous issues were present. Foremost, the cost of having the trial in the city of New York would be outrageously high, and most likely New York tax payers would have some sort of problem with that. However, the biggest issue lies in the fact that they would try him in civil court in the very city that suffered at his leisure. Not only would this uproot hateful feelings in the inhabitants of New York, but this would give an unfair public show to the man responsible for thousands of American lives lost.

I have a problem with this whole trial from the very basis of it. I think, for starters, that it is a ridiculous notion that the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks is being tried in CIVIL court, as if he engaged in any old misdemeanor or felony. For him to be behind an attack not only on our people, but our nation as a whole, and to be given the same rights as an American citizen would be given, to be tried in a civil court, is a slap in the face not only to those lost in the World Trade Center, but to their families and all Americans as well. With this, I agree more with the Bush administration in considering his actions as an act of war, and he should be tried accordingly as a prisoner of war.

To top this off, there is already a show being made about the whole trial situation. It seems that instead of handing out punishments like the terrorists deserve, we are giving them a stage for them to become "popular" and make a joke out of our country. The press surrounding this man's trial, and all of the buzz going around, only makes this a bigger and juicier issue than it should be. Mohammed should be tried in a military court already, like he deserves, and all this controversy should die down and be kept a secret. Why should America serve as the platform for these terrorist's show room?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/white-house-caves-could-911-terror-trials-move-from-lower-manhattan-to-town-near-you.html

Gay Marriage

While many conservatives and liberals argue on whether or not Gay Marriage should be legalized within their own states, the very recognition of same sex marriage from other States should not be up for debate. Very few states have already allowed for same sex marriage, but the majority of the United States denies this privilege to homosexuals.

Among many reasons why gay rights advocates fight for the approval of gay marriage, one of the most important is the very decisions that a homosexual's partner should be allowed to make if the other is not able to make the decision such as burials or health issues. If a married gay couple while in ,for example the state of Nevada, and they are in a tragic car accident where the other is in a coma, the one that is able to make the decision would not be allowed to have a say in their partners life, because their partnership is not recognized in that state. When a hospital has to make a major decision, they require someone to approve of it, and without the person's partner being allowed to make the decision, the person's life is left in jeopardy without anyone to make the decision.

It should not be a question of whether or not one believes that gay marriage is right or wrong, but an obvious recognition that they we're allowed to marry, they gained rights, and should be treated with them. I strongly believe that if two people love each other, as much as any heterosexual couple does, they should be allowed to marry. Why should a man who brutally beats and rapes ( marital rape is a type) his wife have more of a right than two people of the same sex who have been together for years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25marriage.html?scp=2&sq=gay%20marriage&st=cse

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/24/blackwater.afghanistan/index.html

"We need to know that our contractor personnel are adequately screened, supervised, and held accountable -- because in the end the Afghan people will hold us responsible for their actions."- Sen. Carl Levin

February 24, 2010, many U.S. senators tore into the private contractors of the Blackwater Company. Blackwater was being accused of endangering the U.S. mission and flouting regulations. The main issue that arises here is the fact that most Afghans have a particularly difficult time telling the difference between U.S. Military and U.S. contractors. With this foggy perception, it is a lot harder to gain their trust. Since the contractors are making major mistakes, this definitely puts the relationship between the Afghans and the U.S. in jeopardy. According to many politicians, we will not get anywhere in the war if we don't do something about who we hire as contractors. The screening process must be improved in order for any progress to happen. Senator Carl Levin warned that if “if we don't fix the problems of oversight and make sure contractors like Blackwater play by the rules and live up to their commitments -- we'll be doing a disservice to our troops by making their already difficult and dangerous job even more so." Blackwater, which is now called by the name Xe Services, reported that their company is currently reformed and has admitted to the past mistakes it has made in Afghanistan. However, how is anyone to know that they are actually going to be efficient, and not cause anymore harm? Senators singled out Paravant, which was one of the contractors. Levin cited that December 9, 2008 a Paravant program manager accidentally shot a trainer on his own team with an AK-47 while riding on the back of a truck. He was the only one to get lose his job from the team. This incident didn’t seem to have been actually investigated. Numerous other shootings have also occurred. When it comes down to it, we really need to know who we are hiring as contractors. Until then, it will just be like hitting a brick wall.

“Bickering continues as health care summit nears”

From Deirdre Walsh, CNN Congressional Producer

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch

This article is about the on going argument over the healthcare bill. There is going to be a summit on the 24^th of February to try and get things moving. Both sides had a meeting on Wednesday to plan out what they were going to do. The democrats met in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office and she said they were only going to talk about substance and she felt very optimistic about the meeting. The democrats did talk about reconciliation, which is a process to solve debates on budget-related bills. It bypasses the need for 60 votes in the Senate and only majority vote is needed. The democrats do not want to do this but they believe it must at least be considered because this is a big deal and it needs to gain steam. Many warn that there could be a very large backlash without the full support. The Republicans have already showed disapproval of this. The number 2 House Republican Cantor of Virginia says, "Their endgame is clear: Demand support for their approach, or go it alone using reconciliation. This partisan tactic -- once soundly rejected by Democrats -- now appears to be a foregone conclusion. That's a sad statement for bipartisanship and for America." Senate Leader Harry Reid though pointed out that this tactic has been used more than 20 times since 1981 by both sides. This ongoing battle is very interesting. The Republicans want the Democrats to rewrite the bill but the Democrats won’t budge. This though is what the Republicans want, they want nothing to happen. It is also interesting what lengths Democrats are willing to do to get the bill passed, if they use the reconciliation process they will be on their own because no one will support them. Then the way republicans react to the idea of democrats using that process is also interesting because they spin it. They make it seem like a negative thing that is horrible and sleazy but both sides have used this process plenty of times within the last 29-30 years.

Loosening Gun Control Laws?

Some may believe that the outcome of the Virginia Tech shooting could have been prevented or perhaps “softened” if there had been an armed individual at the scene of the crime. While this may prove to be the ideal situation, I see a different situation in my mind. If gun control laws are to be weakening, I see a situation where Person #1 draws his gun and starts shooting. Then Person #2, hearing the commotion, draws his gun and shoots Person #1. Persons #3 and #4, seeing #1 and #2 with guns blazing, shoot them both, and so on. I believe that there is good reason as to why SWAT teams and other police organizations undergo special training. Why do all those pro-gun activists out there think that they can do what cops do? The cops undergo a LOT of training, and even then, the cops do not always like the odds that are presented. They know how to react and to intimidate, keys to bettering your odds in gun play. We the gun buying public do not, except for maybe a small minority. I sincerely believe that an armed public will result in an influx of accidental shootings/deaths which will vastly outnumber the potential lives that could have been saved.

When pro-gun activists say that “if everyone was carrying a gun, everyone would be able to defend themselves,” I am not sure if they fail to realize cases of mental illness and domestic violence. In these cases, I believe that it is far better to have no guns around. They become a greater source of temptation to the desperate. Any mentally ill person or person with a criminal background can walk into a gun show and buy a firearm with no questions asked.

The problem with gun control laws is that criminals do not abide by the law, whatever those laws happen to be. Carefully crafted administrative procedures will have absolutely zero effect on the propensity of a person hell bent on committing a violent crime to procure a firearm. Law abiding citizens however, will usually abide by those laws and will have their access to firearms restricted. We are left with a society with easy access to firearms that have armed criminals and unarmed law abiding citizens. However in these types of situations, we should place our trust in our police force, as an armed public is more dangerous than an unarmed one with several criminals running around.

The Second Amendment was a product of the 18th century - just as "bleeding" to get rid of bad blood was a product of their medicine. We would be horrified by anyone foolish enough to practice that kind of medicine today. In the 18th century there was reason to think a "well regulated" militia might have to depend on private ownership of guns, like to fend off a foreign invasion. That concept is obviously no longer valid - just as bleeding is no longer good medical practice.

What I do not understand is why anyone would need to purchase more than one gun a month, in the USA, no less. I cannot even begin to fathom the thought of a person thinking he needs to purchase multiple guns within a month. Would you not be frightened by someone coming into a gun store demanding multiple handguns (from the perspective of both the store owner and a random civilian)? Sure, maybe it might inconvenience someone who needs a gun for himself and his son to go out hunting, but all this means is an extra month of waiting.

Two Supreme Court cases which greatly influence our current era of gun control are District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In essence, District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. However, the decision did not address the question of whether the second Amendment extends to the states. This is when the “to-be-decided” McDonald v. Chicago court case comes into play. The purpose of the lawsuit is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It will be interesting to see how this Supreme Court Case plays out and how it will completely redraw the lines between pro-gun activists and gun-control proponents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24guns.html

More health care drama

With the senate seat won by a Republican Scott Brown, the health care bill looked pretty grim. Obama now revised a new bill that will challenge the old bill with a new $1 Trillion price tag. The 10 year bill does not include a public option, but will cover 31 million Americans who are not insured. This bill will also give powers to federal regulators to regulate the insurance industry and premiums.

I find that the bill would not possibly work since Republicans will most likely block the bill again as it had in the past year. The health care bill will probably become even smaller before it even passes both houses and the President signing it. In my opinion, I believe that a health bill right now is not a good option because of the price tag attached to it. The cost of the bill is $1 trillion and we have a deficit at $13 trillion. I would more likely to buy in to the health care bill if there is a reasonable solution to first paying off the debt before mounting more debt on tax payers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35520064/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

Social problems are for society not government

It is ironic that most people are sick of the health care reform debate. The issue is not whether our health care system is efficient or fair but whether we want big government or small government. The only true health care reform would be creating competition between insurance companies. From what I see you have a choice between a crappy insurance or a crappy insurance with a different name. But this is not any situation the government should intervene, people should intervene after all we are the market.

It is my personal belief that social Darwinism should rule our society. Social Darwinism however is much like the principle of a free market, if there are obstructions to the natural flow there will be negative effects. Take for example social welfare programs like Unemployment or Welfare. These programs in the short run put a band aid on a social problem but in the long run they do not promote self accountability. Government run social welfare programs create somewhat of a dependency and can be misused. It is this dependency and misuse that can create a sustainable lifestyle while still allowing de-construcive behavior.

America does not promise equal results but equal opportunity. Health care is not a promise the United States Government should promise. However, much like public education public health care should be given to children. Equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness should guarantee that children should be as healthy as possible no matter their families financial situation. The reasons for universal health care for minors are the same a the reasons for public education. Healthy workforce would increase output, healthy students perform better.

The question is not should government intervene in health care the question is when does government intervention get in the way of natural forces that balance our society.

news article: "Comprehensive health bill may be no-go" MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35539047/ns/politics-health_care_reform

Repealing 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

The New York Times article discusses President Obama's promise to repeal 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', which keeps gay men and lesbians in the military from openly discussing their sexuality. When it comes to the issue of gay people in the military, Obama's decision to repeal the act is definitely the best choice. Religious Americans believe being homosexual is immoral, and while religion plays a factor in politics, it should not be one of the deciding factors for who can be in the military. The First Amendment of the Constitution includes freedom of religion, which gives the right of Americans to practice any religion they choose. If Americans choose to go against the word of God and be homosexual, the government has no right to stop them from practicing that nor should they stop them from hiding it while they are in the military, for it violates the first Amendment.

Bumiller (author of the article) also points out, that by not allowing homosexuals in the military, many desperately needed translators are being discharged. One example is Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and an Arabic linguist. He served a very important role in the military, and is now being discharged for openly announcing that he is gay. With Obama's promise to "end the war in Iraq" not being kept, and his decision to send more troops to Iraq, the most logical decision for most would be to keep as many options open as to who can serve in the military. With the discrimination against homosexuals, America is simultaneously risking losing resources while pushing away some bright and talented people just because of their sexuality. In fact, the article points out that recent polls show most Americans support openly gay service.

The final fact is; sexuality does not play a factor in the ability of a person to be a soldier, character and personality do. The politicians and citizens obstructing the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' are just showing close-mindedness, and their inability to see what is best for the country. 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was a thing of the past, even Bill Clinton regrets passing the policy. President Obama and the Pentagon have already met to discuss the repealing of the policy. I think this meeting shows that the policy being repealed is inevitable, the only question that is left to answer is: When will Obama, Congress, and American citizens push to have it repealed?


http://http//www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/us/politics/01military.html

Obama's New Education Proposal

With the competing world powers like Korea hoping to out-educate Americans, Obama proposed a plan to have a higher standards for reading, mathetmatics, and science on Monday February 22. In a meeting with governors of the country Obama stressed the importance of having higher education standards to keep up with worlds competitive marketplace. Obama's proposal calls for states to a “college- and career-ready standards” in reading and math. This enables states to retrieve money and aid for students that cannot afford education. The no child left behind policy that is in place right now gives the states the power to define what is "challenging and academic" for schools to teach. This causes different states to have different standards to what "challenging" is. Massachusetts for example is an example of a state who possesses challenging academic material, who ranked 9th in reading and 11th in math for its eighth graders. But with the no child left being, 11 states have actually lowered their standards in 2005 and 2007, which is not a good thing for the economy, and American education as a whole. Obama intends to revive education for the next generations so the United States can remain at power. Democrat or Republican Obama intends to work with everyone as to achieve this proposal to strengthen the United States and its education.
I think that it's definitely good that Obama wants to improve the education of Americans, I mean I do think that most Americans ar e unintelligent as it is. The no child left behind is a good policy in theory but i think that there should be a stricter and more challenging standard for all Americans, so we can all be on the same page. I mean wouldn't that make more sense than to have some states be "smarter" than other states when we can all be an intelligent nation as whole? Counties for all over the world are inching and hungry for american jobs, i know it, and many countries are taking our jobs because we are not educated enough. This needs to change, and Obamas proposal is a step towards something better, i guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/education/23educ.html

Example of Blog Entries

Example Blog Entry

Here's an example of a post that would receive full credit. Here's some criteria for a good blog post.

1) Review an article that is of some relevance to the AP Government & Politics course (ie. Congress, Supreme Court, Presidency, etc.)
2) Use a credible source, not rantings of a deranged lunatic who regularly posts his own blogs.
3) Do not copy and paste an article. Provide a link, and perhaps a portion of the article, but do not just copy and paste the contents of the article to your post.
4) Feel free to express your opinion: conservative, liberal, libertarian, authoritarian, but do not say anything disparaging about members of the class or use profanity.

Good luck!