White House Meeting Ends in Kind Words but No Deals

This article discusses the meeting that Obama had with the Republican Congressional leaders earlier today. The meeting was said to have "pledges of cooperation" but thus far, there have been no agreements on the two major issues that currently divide Democrats and Republicans: national security, and more importantly, fiscal policy. At the moment, the most relevant issue up for discussion is whether or not to continue Bush-era tax cuts that will soon expire. The large debate on these tax cuts is not for how long they should be extended, but rather who should receive the tax relief. The Republicans believe that everybody should get the cuts, while the Democrats think that they should only go to citizens with income under $250,000. In order to settle this debate in a timely manner, two Republicans and two Democrats (one from each party in each hous eof Congress) will discuss the matter with Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner. Furthermore, Obama personally apologized to the new Speaker of the House, Boehner, and the minority leader in the Senate, McConnell, for not reaching out to them at all to find some common ground in the past two years. Obama is promising them that this time around, he will do much to promote bipartisanship in Congress. However, both Boehner and McConnel feel that the outcome of recent midterm elections were not only a cry for bipartisanship, but also a "rejection of Obama's agenda." Despite their beliefs, Obama's announcement yesterday of a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers was meant to show the Republicans in Congress that he is indeed serious about eliminating as much deificit spending as possible from now on.

A skeptical view of power of technology

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act

I thought this article was similar to the example Justice Souter gave in his speech.

The rent's too damn high for new members of Congress

President Obama and GOP leaders finally to meet

Obama Proposes a Pay Freeze for Federal Workers

Obama has decided to address the huge federal deficit by initiating a two-year freeze plan for federal employees. This plan would take away the raises that federal employees were expecting to receive for the following two years. While this plan is not expected to take care of the national debt, it will make a small dent. It may also be the beginning of several future proposals that tackle the debt. Republicans are satisfied with Obama's plan, their only critique being that it is not aggressive enough. This may be a good sign that Republicans and Democrats will be able to work together to help solve this monumental issue.

Ex-Justice Criticizes Death Penalty

Two years before his retirement from the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens announced his belief that the death penalty is unconstitutional. This came after years of supporting capital punishment, indicating a fundamental reversal in his beliefs. In 1976, Stevens felt that the death penalty could be implemented fairly; however, statistical evidence since then indicates racial disparities in the system. Along with racial discrimination, there are several other valid arguments against the death penalty. Aside of moral implications, evidence suggests that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime and, in some cases, costs more than incarceration. All of these issues should be carefully examined by the states before they choose to implement the death penalty.

Liberal Groups to Propose Routes to Smaller De

Liberal Groups to Propose Routes to Smaller Deficit:

The federal budget and deficit have emerged as the nation’s foremost political issue. In fact, President Obama and his administration must determine a plan to shrink the national debt within the next week. With time expiring, liberal organizations propose fewer reductions in domestic spending, more cuts in the military, and higher taxes for the wealthy. They understand that immediate action is needed and both military spending and health care should face the financial “cutting table.” Although liberal organizations are facing the deficit reality, Washington remains ideologically divided over how to approach this growing problem. It will be interesting to see what the Democratic Party comes up with and if their plan compensates any liberal values.

At a 2008 Stop, Obama Promotes His Policies

President Obama and Vice President Biden had a trip to Kokomo, Indiana, a manufacturing city last week, emphasizing the importance of the resurgence of auto plants. President Obama claimed that it is important to save the automobile industry in order to solve unemployment. This effort is seen as a privotal step for his reelection. President Obama has put aggressive effort to save General Motors, President Biden introduced his own manufacturing background in Indiana, a Republican state, according to New York Times.

I agree that manufacturing sector is very important for unemployment and that President Obama is heading to a new and effective direction. It has been an old discussion that President Obama neglected the middle class, and that losing people in the middle, which is the majority in a country, is one of the major reasons his approval rating decreased. He is now becoming more realistic and effective, carrying out policies - saving manufacturing sector - that can lead to short-term effect and can create economic growth immediately. The figures of revenue from manufacturing sector and of unemployment rate will speak louder than any of the speeches he has ever made.

The Palins Ensure They Stay in the News

Sarah Palin has formed a media empire by appearing at different TV shows, publishing two books, shooting for major magazine covers, delivering speeches actively, and being on promotional trips for her books. She has published her second book "America by Heart" ranked No. 10 on Arizona's best-seller list, according to New York Times.

We can see that Palin is casting much public attention and has become an iconic politician. However, I worry that her huge media effect is disproportional to his political impact. Even though she has been active with donors for Election 2012, her public image has insensibly transferred from a politician running for president to a supporting role in politics mentioned by people at their leisure. Her image as a female political warrior in the center of American political stage is admirable, but I think her effectiveness stays stable since Election 2008. She has been casting much attention, but always lost the stage by a slim margin. When she was almost there, she didn't make it. We have been used to this, and we start to take her less seriously as a leader. We can always come up with topics about Palin, but these topics are always of less seriousness and real respect. I do not think she should keep promoting herself through media, continuing her current trend. Instead, I think she should consider presenting herself through a new way, a new way that brings something fresh to the audience. We are tired of radical speeches, her opponency to current current government, and her advocacy of her deep love of country. We are are used to seeing her, we will regard her as a long-term participant/ actress on political stage instead of a strong candidate for presidency.

Remake of Obama Economic Team Broadens Scope

President Obama is going to bring in new blood to his economic team. A number of his economic team officials are departing, which provides him with a broader scope, suggested by New York Times. Michael S. Barr, the Assistant Treasury Secretary, Diana Ferrell, the deputy director of National Economic Council, David Axelrod, the sernior adviser of the oval office, just to name a few, are leaving by the end of next year. The major problem, according to Los Angeles Times, is the ineffective communication in White House. Administration officials of Obama's economic team lack of agreement on economic fundamentals, admitted by President Obama to Los Angeles Opinion writer Wolffe. Wolffe suggested that this lack of common ground in West Wing led to the question whether today's high unemployment rate structural or cyclical remain unsolved.

I think even though the answer to this question is important, but having a common comprehension/ answer to this question is even more important, no matter what the answer is. A unified answer would allow the government to make policies under a same base and belief. Every policy takes time to show results. Even if we implement a policy to not accurately subject to the problem, if we draw the wrong answer to the question, it will still solve minor economic problems. In addition, if the number of people benefiting from these minor economic growth is large enough, a big impact on domestic economic improvement will emerge. However, if we leave the question controversial within the central government, there will be no way to make a policy targeting at a unified problem. Policies will be scattered, and what's worse, these policies might even counteract with each other.

Health Law Faces Threat of Undercut From Courts

Although it is safe to assume that the majority of Americans are still skeptical about the health care laws, it seems as though that the opposition of some federal judges to this law is simply a microcosm of the disagreement between the left and right, rather than an issue with the law itself. It is clear that judges trying to oppose this law may only be able to declare (barely) some but not all provisions of the law unconstitutional. It would easier (I believe) to prove the constitutionality of the provisions instead of the opposite. I think that the bigger question here is should ideology precede the courts' attempts to contain the already-out-of-control political turmoil surrounding this issue?

In Los Angeles, Mayoral Aide Weighs Bid for Higher City Hall Perch

Austin Beutner, the duputy mayor of Los Angeles, is running for mayor in 2013. This is another example of business executive running for a government position. Mr. Beutner previously worked as an investment banker at the Blackstone Group. His business experience could provide him advantage financially. However, Mr. Beutner claimed that financial strength is not as important in order to present himself in front of voters. He is prepared to be vetted by the public, which he believes is more important. So far, Mr. Beutner is not a high-profile public figure yet, he does not a Wikipedia page, and his strength remains to be seen, as suggested by New York Times.

I think we are becoming stereotypical when voting for government executives. We haven conventional expectations, such as, a Wikipedia page, a candidate's previous career experience, and his financial strength. However, what we have neglected is whether a candidate can transfer his previous career experience in another sector to the government sector. Even though a candidate could be a business executive, there might be a disconnection between working purely for financial gains and rebuilding economy politically. Therefore, I think what we ought to do is to analyze a candidate's responses, ideas, and methodologies carefully, instead of visiting his website and reading his resume. Websites and resumes could be modified, but it is much harder to prepare instant responses to questions from the public and interviewers. Hence, I think how a candidate responds to questions is a mirror reflecting his real mind.

Obamacare in the courts

Proper form for bibliography/works cited

Proper form for footnote/endnote

Proper form for parenthetical citation

Obama for America

Those of you writing about 2008 Obama campaign will find this useful.

Politics and social networking

Interesting piece for those of you writing paper about technology and politics

Reverse pork barrel?

Interesting piece for those of you discussing power of incumbency in your paper.

Obama’s Thanksgiving: Two Meats, Six Sweets

Happy Thanksgiving from the White House :)

Proposal to limit filibuster

Effort for Liberal Balance to G.O.P. Groups Begins

The Democratic effort to retool and fundraise for the 2012 elections has begun. Democratic political operative David Brock plans to set up an independent-expenditure-only political action committee called American Bridge. He claims to have already amassed $4 million dollars for the PAC, which he hopes will serve as a viable counter to Republican groups that helped propelled them to victory in 2010. Brock has already garnered the support of many major Democratic donors, and hopes to solicit more of them over the next two years. Establishing a centralized Democratic PAC seems to be the best way to unite against Republican efforts. To gain back seats in the next election, Democrats need to strategize and present a united front. Even President Obama, who opposed groups such as American Bridge in 2008, signaled support for the idea. This is trench warfare; Democrats must mobilize early and effectively, or suffer losses similar to those of 2010.

What Gender Gap?

So does this mean that in the 21st century (thanks to the republicans), paying women lower wages than men is not only legal, but barely frowned upon? Really?

Does White House need a governor on staff?

Blago is tanned, rested, and ready.

The Case of the Missing Voters?

Which Obama surge voters dropped out in 2010? What does this mean for Dem strategy?

Is the 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal DOA?

A little sidenote from the article which mentions the current battle for DADT repeal:

While I don't usually have many opportunities to hope, pray, depend and root for the dry, half-asleep looking, 2008 Democrat traitor that is Joe Lieberman I find myself applauding his efforts now to repeal the discriminatory practice of DADT. Whereas he is the only senator that I have seen on national television bringing up the issue and discussing his efforts to repeal, I have been hard pressed to find another who is willing to even mention it without the prompt of a tv personality. While other senators have been more concerned with how much money we will be giving back to rich people instead of the middle class with the Bush tax cuts which Democrats are whimping out on, Lieberman has been presenting his case and fighting hard on the front lines fighting for the human treatment of our LGBT service members. Bravo sir, keep up the good work and I hope you succeed.

How Sarah Palin Could Beat Obama in 2012

I find it very disturbing that people are actually considering Sarah Palin's victory in 2012.
Despite how bad things are looking, I think America is still a decent enough country to realize that Sarah Palin did the BEST that she POSSIBLY could in 2008.

Is the presidency too big a job

Newsweek piece related to our discussion of the presidency. This cover offended some for depicting President Obama as an Indian god.

Discussion about 10th amendment

From the recent meetings of the Federalist Society.

Obama to win easily in 2012?

Proposed "Repeal Amendment"

Summary of exit polls

Remix of yawn outburst

A must for your ipod.

Counterpoint to Krauthammer

Center for American Progress urgues President Obama to take full advantage of administrative presidency.

Is early voting a bad idea?

Arizona Becomes 15th State to Approve Medical Marijuana

In the recent election, the people of Arizona voted for Proposition 203, which only ended up winning by a slim margin of around 4000 votes despite losing by almost 7000 votes at one point on Election Day. The campaign manager for the Arizona Medical Marijuana Policy Project says that this winning outcome now allows the state to set an example to the rest of the country "on what a good medical marijuana program looks like."Arizona's specific measure will be providing marijuana to any patient with cancer, AIDS, hepatitis C, or "any other chronic or debilitating disease" that meets the guidelines to grow plants or buy two and a half ounces every two weeks. All of Arizona's sheriffs and county prosecutors, the governor, the state attorney general, and many other politicians opposed this measure because they believe that it will increase crime around the areas that marijuana is dispensed and that more people will now drive while impaired. I thought that this article is relevant because medical marijuana has been on the rise since the first state, California, approved it in 1996. Though the measure of legalization of marijuana in California lost in the 2010 election, I feel that this is an issue to watch in the future, as the Marijuana Policy Project is trying to achieve its ultimate goal of national legalization.

Soul searching at the White House

Federalism anyone?

No need for iPad: Obama has human apps

This is FUN to read!

Just a thought:
As suggested in Here Comes Everybody by Shirky, and Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas Friedman, the power of Internet is expanding so rapidly that some political traditions are being challenged. But I don't think the Internet and technology can cause mainstream change on political stage. Internet is more of a means of how people approach each other, how people exchange feedback, and how people have a greater access to the authority. However, I think executives and authoritative offices tend to preserve traditions in order to keep their work formal and trustworthy. They would not make everything internet-based, e-documents, e-meetings, e-signatures, and e-everything will never dominate an executive's office and they have no way to alter many of the old traditions.

Looking to 2012, Republicans Vie for Big Donors

Perspective runners of the next presidential election in 2012 started raising fund for the money race even before the Election 2010 ended. Several candidates have already put up a financial apparatus, such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. However, compared to Election 2008, the pace of commitment to the next presidential election is slower because of much political uncertainty, suggested by New York Times.

Since the Supreme Court made the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, politicians can receive as much funding as they will. The election cost has tripled over the last decade. Here are the figures of the ever-increasing election cost of 1998-2008, compiled by Open Secret Org.

Cycle Total Cost of Election
2008* $5,285,680,883
2006 $2,852,658,140
2004* $4,147,304,003
2002 $2,181,682,066
2000* $3,082,340,937
1998 $1,618,936,265

I think the increasing importance of fundraising in elections leads to a polarization of power. It induces donors to be more profit-driven, because they use money in a way that forms a coalition with politicians, especially, the chief executive - the highest unilateral power of the nation. They use money as a vihecle to manipulate the business industry, monopolizing power of the labor market and policy-making process. As a result, people at the bottom of the power hierarchy lose their voices, interests, and even rights.

Disappearing middle class jobs

I think anxiety about this trend helps explain 2010 election.

Sarah Palin's reality show trailer hits the Web

Freshmen Head to Washington

What would the founding father's say about new elected representatives taking classes on how to become good members of congress? This exemplifies how being in congress has become a job rather then a place where common men go to further spread democracy.

Bipartisan deficit proposal turns partisan

A deficit proposal to cut spending by $100 billion and raise taxes by $100 million was disapproved by republicans as they called for larger spending cuts and were not happy with the tax proposal. Even during this lameduck session of congress, the Democrats are struggling getting some of their agenda passed, as seen with health care and the stimulus package as well. This could be a sign for a huge gridlock once the new congress arrives with two divided houses.

Obama Pledges Expanded Ties With Muslim Nations

In light of the recent presentation on the presidency this story seemed germane. Obama's attempts to improve ties with Muslim nations was mentioned in the going public part of the presentation. Obama's dedication to public appearances in these Muslim nations will hopefully foster a growing trust that will hopefully replace the current tension.

Washington Worries About New Power Couple

Washington is concerned that John Boehner, the next speaker of the House, and President Obama have too little in common. New York Times compared another two former power couples - Clinton and Glingrich, and Reagan and O'Neill. Different from Obama and Boehner, these two former power couples shared much in common.

Because both President Obama and Representative Boehner tried to undermine each other during the election, New York Times raises concerns that it would be challenging for them to consolidate their relationship.

However, I don't see it as a problem because we have many more examples that election rivals cooperate with each other. For example, Hillary Clinton mocked President Obama that he has a character problem during the campaign rally in 2008, but they are united partners trying to best serve the country. Therefore, I do not think the past would be an obstacle for President Obama and Representative Boehner to build a strong relationship, but what I think would matter is how much effort they currently put into this relationship, because "Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is mystery. Today is a gift. That's why it is called the present."

Pros, Cons of Pelosi as Minority leader

There are definitely two sides to the argument. For one side the "San Francisco liberal" label that Pelosi had seemingly stitched onto the front of her jackets by the Republicans led, in part, to the GOP takeover that happened just a week ago. Her voting record and how often the incumbents voted with them was a potent point that brought down several Democrats. Mike Arcuri, the Democrat to be replaced in January by Richard Hanna was the result of attack ads like this. In a future 2012 environment where new blue dogs like Arcuri will be running for the same purple districts that were lost in 2010 the effects of having her once again to tie these candidates to might cause another upset. Of course this all depends on the political climate of the future which none of us can foresee as of now. With that as a possibility what might wonder why not replace her with a more moderate Democrat? People point to Pelosi's leadership of the caucus and her being a great speaker during her tenure but that does not mean there is no one else up for the job. Surely there is someone up for it like a James Clyburn or Steny Hoyer who are currently in a petty fight for caucus whip. So let me make an analogy to wrap things up, would it be easier to hunt a peacock or a snipe? Meaning Pelosi, an obvious target, or a moderate Dem, a bland and hard to hit target? The results of that remain to be seen as no one has stood up to challenge her thus far...

New generation of urban leaders

Newark and Detroit will rise again.

It could have been worse for Dems

Two Democrats call for delay in Nancy Pelosi vote

After the democrats losses in the 2010 midterm election and the extreme partisanship that both parties displayed during the last session of congress who should the Democrats elect as House minority leader. Some House Democrats are calling for the minority leader to be postponed till December to give challengers a chance to run against former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. What would be the best choice for the Democratic party? What would be in the best interest of the nation?

Divided Democrats Look Ahead

This article brings up a lot of questions and expectations for how the Democratic Party is going to comeback from the midterm election. I find it interesting that Nancy Pelosi is vying for minority leader after she was such a decisive figure in the Democrat's loss of 60 house seats. If she does stay on it will signify the Democrats inability to change, causing only further damage to the party. The article expects that Obama will distance himself from the House of Representatives as Clinton did after the 1994 elections. After this election it will be interesting to see how Obama finishes up his first term, and the course of action his campaign for re-election takes.

Republicans May Yet Have Upper Hand in Senate

I found this article interesting because it explained that although the Democrats have Senate majority (51 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 47 Republicans) after the recent mid-term elections, the Republican party may really end up having more control. This is due to two reasons. One being that some Democrats will naturally will lean rightward on some decisions. The second being that in two years 23 Democrats will be up for re-election and after these past mid-term elections some will feel inclined to satisfy Republican's in order to increase their chances of holding their seat.

The Crossroad Nation

I like this article because it offers a more upbeat and encouraging view of American culture and politics. So often we read about the political, economic, and environmental problems (just to name a few) that our nation faces. It’s refreshing to read something that has positive overtones and is encouraging for future generations. America has yet to “define” the 21st century, however if history is a plausible guide, David Brooks believes that America has the diversity and openness to be a “crossroad” nation. Yet, Brooks explains that while many countries are on the rise, nearly 2/3rds of Americans believe that their country is in decline. And really, who can blame them? Many people my age wonder if our current financial situation means no social security when we’re older and the media paints such a dreary picture of our political disputes and economic downturn, it is no wonder Americans are little wary. Like Brooks, I believe that America offers the freedom and resources to “create the thickest and most expansive networks” and eventually become the “crossroad nation” of the 21st Century.

Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Faces Struggle in Congress

Repealing of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has become tougher during the lame-duck session of Congress. The repealing of homosexual military service ban will be even harder next year as the Republicans take control of House of Representatives. The Defense Department will respond to this repeal by providing a study on December 1.

Don't Ask Don't Tell, enacted during Clinton's administration, once seemed to be repealed by the end of this year for sure, is now encountering uncertainty because the active-duty forces and their family do not care about it and Senator John McCain needs to keep his promise that service members should keep their sexual orientation secret.

I think the debate over Don't Ask Don't Tell has become a power struggle in Congress and a safeguard for politicians' votes. However, this debate of repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell should be conducted on the ground of its real pros and cons, because the repealing of the Don't Ask Don't Tell might bring a cultural, disciplinary, and moral shift to the U.S. military. In addition, I don't think it is a favorable situation for homosexuals if we over-politicize Don't Ask Don't Tell. We are very likely to overlook their real needs and impacts, and more importantly, we are allowing politicians tussling with each other at an expense of minorities' interests and even dignity!

Obama Must Get His Mojo Back

Eugene Robinson describes the president as "uninspired" at this point in time, just following the 2010 Election. This word seems to describe Obama exactly. While he has not given up and remains optimistic about the future, he has not done anything especially noteworthy in quite some time, and does not seem to have the same motivation. I think it is interesting that Obama admitted that he has gotten discouraged and that the economy has not improved as much as he was expecting. Whether or not this is a good thing for a president to admit is a tough question to answer. On the one hand, some may believe that the United States president should not admit to weaknesses. On the other hand, humility can often be a good characteristic for a person of such high power.

Former BP CEO Tony Hayward has no regrets

It is disconcerting to see how Tony Hayward does not feel any remorse over the BP spill. BP needs to stop blaming other people for the companies wrongdoings. When Hayward said that "“BP’s contingency plans were inadequate. We were making it up day to day," but "I'm not certain I'd do anything different" anger began to fill me. It was BP's ignorance and lack of planing that caused the spill which killed thousands of animals, destroyed various industries and harmed many shorelines. BP need to step up and start accepting the fact that mistakes were made and it is there job to help clean up the mess and prevent another spill from happening in the future.

GOP Showcases Transition Team

This article discusses the House Republican Transition team’s intentions to include the newly elected freshmen representatives in leadership positions. Tim Walden, the Republican Congressman from Oregon, was chosen by party brass to lead this transition team. Walden spoke about the high quality and dynamic nature of the freshmen senators, and how their voices will be heard when they take office. A new GOP leadership position is being created for a freshman senator that will have significant power.

The GOP’s decision to create a new leadership position for a freshman representative is very important at this time because of the shift in political climate. The incoming class of Congressmen represents a distinct point of view that is unique to the Election of 2010 and the issues at hand. Also, it is crucial to infuse party leadership with new blood that have fresh ideas and a lack of Washington insider experience.

Mama Grizzlies Die Hard

No Second Thoughts

I laughed out loud several times reading this satirical criticism of the Democratic party's response to growing discontent. Still, David Brook's witty humor couldn't mask the hypocrisy in his blaming the Democrats for the simple and unavoidable nature of political parties. Sure, no party likes to admit they're wrong. Furthermore, political parties do tend to focus on the weakest members of the opposing party in order to strengthen their image. None of this is ideal behavior, but if Brook's is trying to argue that only the Democratic party is guilty of this sin, I'm not buying it.

Pentagon Openings Give Obama Options

President Obama is going to name several top generals and a new defense secretary of the Pentagon, which is seen as an opportunity to reshape the Pentagon's leadership by the New York Times. Perspective Pentagon leaders are John Hamre, Michele Flournoy, and Ray Mabus. The New York Times points out that it is important for President Obama to "create a team of insiders who assure that his policy decisions will be executed the way he wants".

I think influence of the change in Pentagon's leadership is profound for the following reasons. First, it will direct the U.S. foreign policies in terms of military power. Given the fact that the U.S. is currently involved in the Afghanistan and Irap War, new leaders of the Pentagon will not only work on particular military strategies but also the big picture of how to distribute this nation's military power and how to take the most advantage of it. Second, if Pentagon leaders are going to be Democrats, this will ease the shellacking defeat of the Democratic Party. Third, new issues on government expense will emerge. Because the U.S. is facing "wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the threats from Iran and North Korea, and the challenges from Russia and China", military budget is symbolic about the U.S. attitude toward foreign countries. However, limiting government budget has been one of the different believes between the Republican and the Democratic Party. I think there might be another battle between these two parties if the Democrats gain most of the leadership position. Third, the image of a "big government" is likely tolast longer is President Obama appoints his insiders as Pentagon leaders. Therefore, the Republican Party of the Congress bears more burden to carry out their believes.

President Obama isolated ahead of 2012

This article explains that President Obama has distanced himself from Democrats and Republicans, which will inevitably make it more difficult for him to "change Washington." The article brings up debate that Obama needs to change up his staff and take a different approach to the job. This is all being raised on the Democrats losses last Tuesday.

Propositions 23 and 26: one step forward but two steps back for California's environmental policy

One of the propositions we examined for our elections project--California's proposition 23--was defeated in Tuesdays election. This ostensible victory for California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), however, is counteracted by another ballot measure, Prop. 26, which requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the state legislature to pass any fee. This new requirement will significantly effect AB32, which relies on charging these fees on polluters in order to create incentives to invest in cleaner energy technologies. Requiring such a large majority to pass such fees will make the implementation of California's Global Warming Solutions Act nearly impossible.

It is sad to see such progress for the environmental movement in defeating Proposition 23 only to be shut down by Proposition 26. I believe that this was mainly a result of an electorate that lacked knowledge of the lesser-known Proposition 26 and its implications. While 26 seems like a good idea on the surface, promising an end to "hidden taxes," many voters were unaware of its devastating effect on climate change policy. If the campaign against Prop. 26 had done a better job of linking a vote for 26 to a vote for 23 as well, I think many voters would have behaved differently at the polls. As the article suggests, once environmentalists fighting Prop. 23 realized the danger of Prop. 26, it was too late to make a significant impact on the electorate. Unfortunately, the events in California prove that lack of information about lesser-known ballot measures can lead to contradictory election results.

Conservative Leaders Rally Around Jim DeMint: We Have ‘No Patience’ For Moderate Republicans

The Fall (and Rise?) of Christine O’Donnell

Dan Coats For Filibuster Reform: Incoming GOP Senator Embraces Change

Impressions from a historic election

Interesting article about how the midterm elections could indicate a swing to the right in the Hispanic-American population.

GOP Hopes Increased Diversity Attracts New Voters

Latinos have contributed critically to the Democratic Party in the Election 2010. Latino voters turned out to be decisive in several races and even pushed a turnout on the election night. For example, majority leader Harry Reid won the Nevada senate seat by a slim margin because of a Latino turnout. Both California Sen. Barbara and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet's victories are attributed to Latino voters. Learning a lesson from the Election 2010, the Republican Party is now trying to increase its diversity in order to attract minority voters.

However, the Republicans' stance on immigration reform has kept them from more Latino voters. Particularly, in terms of the Arizona immigration law, Latinos are the targets of SB 1070. Therefore, the Republicans started allowing African American - Tim Scott- to join their party, targeting at another minority group other than Latinos.

I do not think the Republican Party could win over the minority groups by adding one or two African/Latino Republicans. Even though the Democratic Party lost a large number of women, independent, young, and African American voters in the Election 2010, polls from CNN show that a majority of non-white men and non-white women voters are still in favor of the Democratic Party. 75% of non-white men voters and 78% of non-white women voters voted for the Democratic Party in this election. However, non-white men voters and non-white women voters together only occupied 20% of the entire vote, much less than the percentage of white-men voters, that is 40%. Interestingly, white women voters is the majority voters in the entire election, even compared to white-men voters, who occupied 39% votes.

Therefore, I think it would be more practical for the Republican Party to strive for white-women voters. Because, in addition to the aforementioned percentage in the election occupied by white-women voters, the difference of white-women voters' preference in this election is very slight: 49% of white-women voters voted for the Democratic Party and 50% of white-women voters voted for the Republican Party.

Can Obama Emulate Reagan and Clinton -- and FDR?

This is a very pellucid comparison among FDR, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. In this article, Cannon points out several parallels among these presidents: 1) they became presidents when the nation was having an economic hard time; 2) their popularity faded because their economic plan did not efficiently improve the economy; 3) they have been regarded as "socialized" or "overreaching". However, FDR, Reagan, and Clinton's temporary unpopularity did not keep them from winning the reelection because they all had created a robust economy by the time they were reelected. Therefore, Cannon thinks that the economy status will compass President Obama's reelection.

I think we should take the historical background into account when comparing these presidents. We should not merely pull out independent facts. Also, even though they all experienced economic downturns, the global economic environment and the level of globalization make everything harder. We should renew our standards when evaluating our current president and think what would work the best for the United States in a long run.

U.S. Vote Could Derail Russia Ties

The United States' emerging relationship with Russia could be at risk due to our newly divided Congress. To forge this relationship with the Kremlin, Obama needs to sign off on an arms control treaty, a civilian nuclear agreement, and a retraction of cold war-era trade constraints. Nevertheless, these policies would have been difficult enough to pass through the 111th Congress: now, it seems nearly impossible with the Republican gains made in the recent House and Senate elections. Obama is attempting to appeal to both parties by stating that this potential improvement with Russia is a matter of national security, not a Democratic or Republican issue. I think this article is interesting because it focuses on the international repercussions of the midterm election results. Right now, most people are interested in how the Republican takeover of the House will affect our domestic policy; however, it is also important that we think about how our foreign affairs will thrive or suffer due to our voting decisions.

G.O.P. Plans to Use Purse Strings to Fight Health Law

The Republican Party plans to use purse to repeal the health law. Two possible proposals are 1) Republicans will propose limiting the money and personnel available to the Internal Revenue Services; 2) Republicans plan to use spending bills to block federal insurance regulations to which they object. In response to GOP's stance on the health law, President Obama will explain how the law protects consumers and it gives consumers more control of their insurance. The different believes on the health law is the biggest obstacle to cooperation between President Obama and Republican in Congress (New York Times).

On November 3, President Obama held a press conference in the East Room of the White House. He showed his willingness of cooperating with the Republican Party, especially on issues of education, tax, clean energy, and technology. He tried to weaken the discordance between the two parties by saying that "As I’ve said before, no person, no party, has a monopoly on wisdom. That’s why I want to engage both Democrats and Republicans in serious conversations about where we’re going as a nation."

I think this cooperation will be hard because the health law is related to one of the most fundamental different believes of the two parties. Everything takes time, as President Obama said on the Daily Show on October 27 that "It's not going to happen overnight". As long as the benefits of the health law do not show, there will be endless interrogations, doubts, and complaints. I don't think the cooperation on education, clean energy, and tax will soothe the tension between the Republican and the Democratic Party, because the top priority of the nation is the economy. Only when the economy starts to resurgent could the other issues be real issues.

Useful source for those doing election paper

Nancy Pelosi to run for minority leader

This comes in one sense a bit of a surpise for me and in another sense it is not. I assumed that after Pelosi's connection to numerous members caused their downfall in this tuesday's election she would take a temporary retirment from leadership and head back to the backbench. Her toxicity as an entity seemed to be something that would probably stand in the way of her being elected to any leadership position. But Nancy Pelosi doesn't make a move unless she knows that she is gonna win. She must know something that we don't apparently. Maybe there is enough support to see her elected as minority leader despite the oppostion of Heath Schuler . This is why in the other sense it is not surprising, for once one has seen the trappings of power it is difficult to turn away from it. Pelosi will miss the power of the speakership but I have no doubt that her run for minority leader will be motivated by a desire to return to that position in the nearby future. How the race will go remains to be seen...

Tea Party Pushes Republicans for Acknowledgement

After winning a surprising number of races, the Tea Party looks to the G.O.P. to recognize their contributions

Democrats find common ground: It's the White House's fault

In the aftermath of the elections it is only natural that the democrats will look for a scapegoat. It's not surprising they've focused upon the White House.

“Be a Man, Man!”-Old Spice guy

Although the concept of “being a man” has been engrained in the minds of young boys for ages, the definition of what it actually means to “be a man” in today’s society, is vague to say the least. Nevertheless, it is the goal all males are supposed to achieve.

Society’s view of manliness usually includes:
1. being aggressive,
2. having a facial hair
3. showing dominance through physical feats, such as fights and seeing who can spit the farthest.

And who can blame us when the “MEN” we look up to are Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Captain in “Mulan,” and the guy advertising deodorant in the new “Old Spice” ad.

What rang true about Waller Newell’s argument, is that kids will aspire to achieve manliness as it is defined in our society. Therefore, if our on-screen role models are men like the cutthroat, womanizing James Bond, kids will aspire to be egotistical jerks that objectify women.

It is our task to try to define manliness in the best way possible, without taking it to an stereo-typical extreme. By doing so, we will change the way kids think of what a “real man” is. Kids will realize that they can be chivalrous, respectful and courageous without being a barbarian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSS5dEeMX64

Interesting graphics on NYT website

Big GOP gains in state legislatures

Underreported but important, especially for redistricting.

Waller Newell Lecture

Waller Newell’s lecture on “The Crisis of Manliness” addressed the important and alarming shift in our culture’s perception of masculinity. I thought it was interesting how he traced the meaning of “manliness” to its roots in classical Greek literature and suggested we try to instill young men with a sense of chivalry and courage instead of macho aggression. It is astounding how positive qualities like courage and chivalry have morphed into violence and aggression. It is clear the main problem is how society defines manliness today. It allows men to use their gender to justify barbaric behavior. Newell’s reference to “Fight Club” shows how the two definitions of manliness have become increasingly polarized. I liked that Newell wasn’t afraid to point out psychological differences between men and women, but still recognized the flaws in society’s view of masculinity.

The Crisis of Manliness Response

Walter Newell's essay on "The Crisis of Manliness" was thought very provoking. Young men a driven to become overly aggressive and dominant today by the world around them. We must change the way that we portray males in the media if we do not want young men growing up and becoming drains on society through violence and preventing progress. Violence can no longer be tied in with masculinity if we want to change the way young men are brought up in the world.

Reaction to Waller Nudell Lecture

Nudell's lecture about the origins and modern-day role of masculinity was very thought-provoking and interesting. During his discussion I was reminded of an article ("Would World Affairs be More Peaceful if Women Dominated Politics?") that I read for another class by historian Mary Caprioli that debated the implications of women in positions of power. Caprioli and Nudell followed the same basic line of argument; that although men have traditionally behaved in aggressive manners (such as declaring war) and shown a propensity to violence, this fact is not enough to form a sweeping generalization about men in general. I believe that Nudell was trying to base the somewhat recent move towards "machismo" in a greater societal movement towards embracing, rather than rejecting, excessive aggression. He cited a number of sources, including movies like "Fight Club" as highlighting this increasing polarization between the old (and considerably more chivalrous) gentleman of ancient texts and the aggressive and prideful man that he sees today.

Where I think Nudell failed, however, was in providing a reasoning for this shift. Women have truly begun to challenge the solidarity of the male role (particularly in the last century) in the household and as the lone provider of income. As women increasingly challenge the necessity of the male role and themselves gain more power, the need for masculinity will subsequently decrease. It is a zero-sum game, as I see it, and as women increasingly adopt "traditional" masculine roles, men will see the need to push back against this affront to the established norms in gender relations.

Waller Newell

I found Waller Newell's presentation about masculinity incredibley informative. I believe that the media and our culture drive young males to aspire be the barabaric male he talks about. There must be a change in the way males are portrayed in commercial media if we want to prevent young males from growing up and being the physical and aggressive. Over the past 50 years violence and masculinity have become synonomous with each other, which has proven to be very damaging as male incarceration rates are on the rise.

It Takes Two to Tango

Growing up, I went to an all male K-9 school that placed an emphasis on being a gentleman. Waller Newell’s lecture reminded me of that aspect of my childhood and added another layer of importance to it. He mentioned that men couldn’t achieve their full potential without out the help of women. Hearing this brought me right back to my childhood, a time that seems lost and forgotten today. The implication of a symbiotic relationship between the two genders is very refreshing compared to some of the polarizing rhetoric that often dominates this issue. As the genders continue to define their true essence I hope that they realize the importance of the other in their quest and remember that it takes two to tango.

The Crisis of Manliness

After reading Waller R. Newell’s article, “The Crisis of Manliness,” and listening to him speak on the subject, it became clear that Newell’s central argument was based in the idea that the increase in divorced homes has led to increase violent men. Newell claims that boys will learn to be honest and brave if they have positive male role models in their households. I do not necessarily agree with this accretion. When parents get divorced it does leave a deep scare on the children, but I think that fighting and unhappiness in the parent’s relationship will have the same effect on young men. Yes, it is important for children to have male role models in their lives but it does not necessary need to be a father. The idea of a traditional family has to be replaced by the idea that children can get the love and attention they need from outside figures like a coach or a teacher. Teenage and adult men need to stop blaming others mistakes for their own shortcomings. It is the responsibility of each person, male or female, to take control of their own lives and develop into the people they want to be.

Reaction to Waller Newell

I found Waller Newell’s lecture interesting and unique. The most interesting point he brought up was that if we define manliness to young men as barbaric, these same young men will act barbaric. I found this point so interesting because it means that men have potential to change. If we stop telling young men/ boys that being manly means being barbaric and macho and start telling them that being manly means being chivalric and courageous, we will raise better men for the rest of our lives.

A Solution or a Hypocrisy? (Reflection on Waller Newell's Lecture)

Waller Newell delivered a speech on masculinity at Hamilton College on October 31. Vewell suggested that there is a resurgence of manly behaviors in our current subculture: Hollywood movies and rock music, but we should improve masculinity by using our intellectual potential and make it compatible to the modern world. I my view, Newell's thesis is a hypocrisy leading to inequality between males and females.

Newell suggested that men become civic when conducting manly behaviors, but he did not mention the power struggle between men and women and his suggestion would make this power struggle more severe. For centuries, our society has been dominated by males. Even though feminists have been working to achieve the equality between men and women, they are marginalized. Men have always been depicted as aggressive and bold. This has been men's prvilege. Newell thought men should become more civic, but he made his argument based on an assumption, an assumption that men are dominating the society and it is justifiable. If all men follow his suggestion, they will be more flexible, gentle, but keep their pride and the fundamental trait of being aggressive. They will appear to be flawless, so that more women would be disguised by their appearance and become submissive to them. This is very dangerous for women because men only will change the way they present themselves but they do not reevaluate their roles in a men-women society. They will not let go their power, instead, they will empower themselves more by perfecting themselves with modern social codes. This will provide them with more privileges and enable them to gain more power.

In my point, Newell's argument provided a strategy for men instead of providing a progressive idea that may improve our society. Therefore, I think it is a hypocrisy that men should improve masculinity by developing reasons.

The Modern Man

Waller Newell gave an interesting critique of modern masculinity Sunday night. Newell believes that man’s modern performance of masculinity has become a form of machismo. Traditional masculinity valued the stoic reserved individual who was a sound protector and provider. However, in recent years masculinity has malformed into a state of complete machismo. Men are expected to display their masculinity through aggression and physical confrontation. Newell blames popular culture and the media for this departure from traditional masculine values. He believes that popular novels and movies like fight club pressure men to become aggressive and confrontational, where as traditional literature instilled the stoic and reserved form of masculinity. As a result, man’s new methods of asserting one’s masculinity has attracted a negative connotation, and has thus made it difficult for the modern man to establish his masculinity in an acceptable manner.

Manliness

I thought Walter Newell's lecture on modern manhood was interesting and thought provoking. It is true that the notion of the modern man is becoming more like that of men in "Fight Club", that is, men who are violent, aggressive, and ruthless. However, the notion of what it means to be a man has changed over time. In the past, manliness and manly virtues represented chivalry, family values, and courage. It is interesting to see how the notion of manliness has changed from positive to negative over time. Hopefully, the chivalrous, courageous manliness that Newell advocated for will become the norm as we live out the rest of our lives. Lastly, I thought it was interesting how Newell referred to men in classics such as the works of Homer. Although Newell claimed that the chivalrous values of manhood existed in Homer, he admitted that in many major classic works there was always a man that embodied rage. As important as chivalry was in the ancient world, the rage and aggression associated with modern manhood still existed.

Waller Newell Lecture

What does it mean to be a man? According to Waller Newell, there is a crisis of manliness. It is apparent that men have to choose in our modern society between being a whimp or a beast. Newell's classical example comes from the movie, Fight Club. Men have become more and more tyrannical, which Newell notes that this "Macho" behavior has only turned into a recent phenomena. How can we relate these characteristics of men to politics? Well clearly male politicians are going to want to portray themselves as more "Macho" if this has become the new reformed modern culture. Not necessarily to the extreme of violence and aggression, but political candidates in particular by no means want to appear weak and appear subordinate to their position. Only tomorrow will we find out which candidates could hold this role to seek a win for their party.

Who should Obama blame if seats are lost?

Reaction to Waller Newell

Newell discussed the idea of masculinity and how it has dramatically changed over time to incorrectly represent the virtues of men. Nowadays, society expects men to suppress their emotions and portray a “tough guy” mentality defined by aggression and physical confrontation. Stereotypes of men in the media perpetuate and encourage their bellicose nature, such as in the film, Fight Club. Newell stressed the necessity of courage but also claimed that it is the lowest of mankind’s virtues. Society overstresses courage as a tenet of masculinity. In the past, masculinity had a different meaning, in the context of the family. It entailed protecting one’s family, and performing necessary masculine tasks to preserve their safety and well-being. Today, men utilize their masculinity merely for the purpose of reputation and social status. As a result, the term “masculinity” tends to carry a negative connotation.

The change in the view of 'manliness' across time periods and cultures

It was really interesting to hear how different generations and cultures view manhood and the responsibilities it entails. Of course, as stated in the presentation, our generation has most definitely been conditioned to believe that men have to be aggressive and barbaric in order to fit the stereotypical male. This is a shame, but it can be easily solved because this idea of aggressiveness and hyper-masculinity is simply a warped and exaggerated view on the chivalrous stereotype of males that existed in generations in the past.

As it was stated throughout the lecture, the examples that come from Greek mythology display how the view of masculinity in the west has changed over time. Furthermore, the professor of Asian art who spoke at the end of the lecture, presented a good point as the oriental view of the roles of males and their relationship to females in social, political, domestic, and economic situations differ greatly from those of the west, and those of the past.