NY Times Article Review 2

The article I read was published on 9-13-06 in the NY Times. This article demonstrated almost all aspects of government. The title of the article is, “Democratic Effort to Limit Surveillance Bill Is Blocked.” Though the title may give an idea of just about democrats; it’s much more than that.


This article described the Senate Judiciary Committee’s endorsement for a bill backed by the White House. The bill being backed by the White House is referring to a bill that would give the President of the United States of America more constitutional freedom to conduct warantless wiretaps. Now the controversy is that one of the loudest critics of Bush has been Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and he is the committee chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Critics of the bill, state that their concerns are seeing American’s rights abused. Senator Feinstein (D-CA) offered a competing measure that would reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the “exclusive” way that wiretapping could be ordered in an intelligence case. That measure in which Senator Specter himself voted for. The measure and the bill are not compatible, nevertheless Specter did vote for both to hit the floor for debate. Senator Specter claims that he has a compromise with Bush to bring his Bill before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and called this, “quite a breakthrough.”



This article relates to a couple topics on areas of government.

§ Constitutional Authority of the President; President Bush wants to be able to listen in on all communications with out having to obtain a warrant. Sighting that in wartime the president has the authority to do what ever necessary to protect the people. Now he’s faced strong opposition and his image has been tarnished, so being a president worried about his image, he is working with the senate to come up with a resolution. In so doing he’s come to an agreement with the Senate.

§ The structure of the congress; in trying to work with bush, a way of getting a resolution is to draft a bill. That bill was drafted by Senate Leadership in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A committee in the senate or the house writes a bill to their interpretation after there own debate and compromise and introduces it to the floor for debate. Should it pass, it would go to the House of Representatives. If we have the bill passing from both Senate and House then it would go to the President to sign into law.


Senator Arlen must not want a bill to pass at all. Considering the bill with the measure are contradictions. He must know that there are only a few days left in session to pass this bill, and it still hasn't hit the floor yet. So he comes off saying "I don't agree with the president", and yet behind closed doors, "Yes Mr. President, you can listen to whom ever you'd like even though it's against the LAW." WHAT KIND OF MAN CAN WRITE LAWS FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CAN ALLOW SOMEONE TO JUST DISREGARD THEM?

We Will Miss You Anne Richards.

(1933-2006)

Top Ten part 1

50hr work weeks make it difficult to blog but on my way to lunch I couldn't help but get upset at the current administration so here is my list of things I have been wanting to discuss: 1) It is a good idea to keep your views in check. You want to try to avoid the "group think" that has plagued the neo-conservatives in control of our government. It is quite refreshing to see the views on this side of the political aisle written about and supported by the scientific community. I read Science, Popular Science, Scientific American, and Popular Mechanics from time to time to learn about new technology and discoveries. Recently I have been surprised at the number of articles dealing with some of the more controversial issues of the day. Many times there are complaints about the politicalization of science. The opposition has there talking points on global warming, climate change and environmental policy, evolution vs intelligent design and other issues but what backs those views up? The articles you see here and in publications including but no limited to those listed above are from the scientific community. These aren't articles from the Nation, the Current, Mother Jones, or "Leftist Activist Monthly" . These aren't articles published by tree hugging, bleeding heart, secular liberal activist. These are scientists that often have to deal with the peer review and scrutiny of other scientist. When it comes to the battle between the misleading propaganda from the GOP and the data issued by the scientific community I'll take the science every time. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1906

2) Global Warming : Climate change effects everything. I think people often forget how fragile ecosystems are. Sure a one or two degree average temperature rise may not bother the human body but it can have drastic effects on other organisms and the environment they live in. What do you think was the cause of all those bottlenose butterflies flying around here? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/atmos

3) Religion in the public square and politics : At times religion mixing with politics seems unavoidable. The intermingling can help this nation when it brings us together or when it sheds light on social injustices. A prime example can be seen in the speeches of the reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. However, religion can be very dangerous when it is used to divide, exclude and persecute those who practice different faiths or don't follow strict misinterpretations of religious doctrine. Have we not learned the lessons from the Salem Witch trials, the crusades, and the inquisitions? Do you really want to gobble up scarce government resources enforcing and imposing religious doctrine? Then the question becomes whose doctrine? Some religions prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages in fact, the one major victory the "morality crusaders" won was prohibition, and it failed miserably. Our founding fathers had a reason for the separation. To wrap this entry up: a) Do not look to religion to answer questions that are for science. b) do not look to science to answer questions that are for religion c) If you don't want the government telling your church what to do, then don't ask your church to tell the government what to do.

4)Evolution: This hasn't been in the news lately but I came across this stuff. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5791/1197i http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/evolution

5) The one year anniversary of Katrina. Once the President declared New Orleans and other areas a disaster area FEMA's responsibility. It failed. I have seen several documentary type shows on what happened a year ago. One of the shows I saw talked about the exaggerations about the violence and chaos in the New Orleans dome. The National Guard arrived with rifle drawn ready for battle. They were told to expect the worse, to expect armed street gangs and crazy thugs in the dome. Instead they simply found hungry tired people. One of the guardsmen they interviewed said people cheered when they arrived and that there was a sense of calm once they started feeding people. I think it is interesting that this administration predicted military forces in Iraq would be greeted as liberators and cheered and loved and military forces sent to New Orleans would be attacked. They were completely wrong on both counts.
This conservative republican administration couldn’t deal with a disaster they knew was coming. They knew when and where the storm would hit and they did nothing. They didn’t do anything to assist the evacuation of hospitals, nursing homes or those without a winter lodge and transportation to get out of the city. After the storm they were clueless as to getting emergency supplies to the citizens in the dome. They had to call in the military! After that they blame government bureaucracy. The very government bureaucracy they are in charge of.
So here is the question: If the conservative republicans are in control of all branches of government and can’t deal with an emergency situation, one that they are aware of, that has devastating effects on a city, how are we supposed to believe they can handle such situations that they don’t know about in advance? Situations like a terrorist attack.

Top ten part 2

I'm working on a top 10 things I've been wanting to blog about. It is taking awhile so here is 6-10

6)International Linear Collider: The US will lose its position as the leader in high energy physics when the Large Hadron Collider opens in Geneva. Some are suggesting that in order to maintain that position the US should inject $500 million dollars into the ILC (international linear collider). This could put the US in a great position to be the host country. The project would attract top talent from not only the country but also the world. I say we do it. I believe it is in the best interest for the US to "promote the arts and the sciences" and fund such grand research initiatives. It also proves that the US actually embaces academia and intellectual stimulation (which is eroded everytime W makes a speech). Here is the article. http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/4e52af1f64fec010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

7) Pluto: no longer a planet. Scientist have decided that Pluto is no loger a planet. This debate involved issues of mass and orbit. This was a legitamate scientific debate. You know what scientist aren't debating: global warming and evolution.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa007&articleID=000BAB90-0894-14EE

8) Nuclear energy: I read an article recently. It is cleaner than coal in terms of emmisions and there is very little waste. The problem is what to do with the tiny bit of waste, because it will be around for a while. Once you find somewhere to store it you have to get it there. Oh yeah and you have to build the power plants. The power plant and the path to the waste storage site and the waste storage site itself all have one thing in common. Nobody wants it in thier back yard. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0000137A-C4BF-14E5-84BF83414B7F0000

9) Rummsfelds Comments: Facism? appeasment to Nazi Germany? It is simply amazing how he can speak with such arrogance. The left side of the political aisle is not calling for a withdrawal of troops in such a way that Iraq would plument into complete chaos. Actually with this administrations policy the probablity of that happening increases exponentionally with each flawed neoconservative decision. To stay the course with this administation is not only foolish but a sign of lunacy. Democrats are calling for a new course, one based on actual strategy.

10) The statement: The election of Lamont is a sign of weakness to terrorist. False. Why? Do you really think terrorist give a rats a** who repressents Connecticut in the U.S. Senate? Do you picture some terrorists in a hotel up all night watching the election returns to see if they will carry out their plan? Like one was going to turn to the other and say "Well, Lieberman won, so much for that trip to London". Please tell me the public is smarter than that.

New York Times Article

The article I read was published on 9-4-2006 and was titled “G.O.P. sets aside Work on Immigration”. Mainly the article highlighted several congressmen‘s remarks regarding this 109th congresses, in particular republicans, lack of getting things done. This proven even by Senator Arlen Specter’s (R-PA) comment, “If there’s not legislation with Republicans in charge, there’s going to be blame here, and justifiable blame, if we do not produce a bill.” The article explained that it would not be likely that something would get through with just 19 days that Congress is scheduled to meet before breaking for election.


This article like a sore thumb sticks out on demonstrating the structure of the congress. While there is debate between The Senate and The House Of Representatives; there is a much larger battle going on for power between Republicans and Democrats. The partisan politics are so presumably present that they have forced this Congress to do less than the famously labeled “Do Nothing Congress.”


That label was given by President Truman to the 80th Congress when they failed to produce much legislation; however the 109th Congress makes the 80th Congress look good. Though NY Times hasn’t written any articles on the subject of the “Do Nothing Congress” I felt it was an important fact that relates to the structure of Congress. If the Republicans don’t put aside their fear of losing seats and work with bipartisanship, then there won’t be much for Democrats to say other than “What have they done?”. There is more having not dones than have dones. Just to name some;
Have not:

• passed a raise on the minimum wage [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/28/06],
• provided any oversight of the Bush Administration’s commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq [The Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/16/06],
• done anything to help Americans facing sky-high gas prices [Energy Information Administration, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update 7/24/06; Los Angeles Times, 7/11/06; EIA Spot Prices for Oil 7/18/05 and 7/18/06],
• helped expand life saving stem cell research by overriding the President's first veto [CNN, 6/20/06],
• fixed problems with the Medicare drug bill forcing an estimated 3.4 million seniors to have additional drug expenses [USA Today, 7/26/06].

NY Times Article

I ask, what has the Repulican led 109th Congress done? Besides take vacations when important legistlation is needed. Has our system of government failed? As it appears to have turned a deaf ear on the American People. When Governements fail to protect the rights of the people, people have a right to overthrow that governement. Has it gotten to the point where Americans are fat and happy and just don't care about what goes on? I pray that America wakes up and elects a new government majority that is more likely to represent the people of America. I pray we mend all the bridges that have been blown away by this war driven dictator.