Obama Sees More Pain Now but Hope Later on Economy

David Stout of The New York Times posted an article titled "Obama Sees More Pain Now but Hope Later on Economy." President Obama is saying that there are signs of recovery in the economy but there is more pain ahead and he is urging America to help. March's reatil sales were very disappointing. That is proof that the economy isn't going to get much better any time soon.
Obabma has made it known that he is determined to lower healthcare and social secuity. He sees the future with better better jobs and rising incomes. That won't happen anytime soon though.

I like this article. I hope the economy gets better sooner rather than later. Obama has good ideas but I hope those ideas become real soon.


This post is a few days late.

Gay Marriage in...Iowa?

Ari Berman of The Nation wrote an article titled "Gay Marriage in...Iowa?" Gay marriage is now legal in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and now Iowa. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on 4/3/09 that the state can no longer ban gay marriage. The Republican Party in Iowa has been taken over by social conservatives, which is the main reason why Democrats have had a lot of success there recently.
"Now it is the Iowa legislature's responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court's latest experiment in social engineering."
A February 2008 poll found that six in ten Iowans believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman but the same number supported civil unions for gay couples.

Everybody has their own opinions about the same sex marriages. Both sides give good points. People think it should be legal because its their right and they're not hurting anybody by doing it. Other people think it should be illegal because it says it in the Bible. I think there's nothing wrong with it. If it makes them happy then why stop it? You can't stop people from being gay. Whats wrong with giving them a marriage certificate? Yes it might look "wrong" but this world might be a better place if people stopped caring about how people look and just treat everybody equally.

The Woman Who Could Nail Bush: Are the Worst of the Torture Memos Still to Come?

Scott Horton, The Daily Beast wrote an article in AlterNet talking about the women who could nail Bush. The GOP is threatening an ugly fight over an Obama Justice Department appointee who wants to disclose more Bush-era torture memos.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, often considered the "brains" of the department, has been known mostly to legal experts, until recently. But for the past eight years, it was the epicenter of allegations of political manipulation. In tapping Eric Holder as attorney general, President Obama has promised to restore standards of professionalism to the department. On March 19, the nomination of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the OLC was endorsed by the Judiciary Committee with every Republican voting against her and Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) abstaining. The nomination was to have been brought to the Senate floor for a vote on Monday and then again on Wednesday, but it has been held back. Republican leaders, it appears, are playing with the notion of making Johnsen the target of their first filibuster. Johnsen is committed to overturning the Bush administration’s policies on torture and warrantless surveillance, which would clip the wings of the imperial presidency. The controversy surrounding Johnsen provides a flashpoint for President Obama’s nominees for administration legal posts. Unsurprisingly, they look an awful lot like Barack Obama—strong legal credentials, an academic bent, and liberal attitudes balanced by a strong commitment to political pragmatism.
Obama’s top picks start with a couple of well-known Washington names. Eric Holder, the nation’s first black attorney general, was a career Justice Department attorney who spent his formative years as a prosecutor in the department’s Public Integrity Section. Obabma's picks are mostly people that have a law degree and are "smart." A scan of the names involved makes clear that Obama is not looking for any particular ideological line—the candidates tapped range from centrist conservatives to traditional liberals. But he clearly is seeking individuals highly regarded by their peers who are on top of the issues for which they will have responsibility. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars and Supreme Court advocates, and Obama’s former teacher, is often mentioned as an adviser in the background, a gray eminence, counseling Obama on appointments and policy choices. Another legal academic said to figure in Obama’s inner circle is Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, who until recently was a colleague of Obama’s at the University of Chicago Law School. Sunstein has been appointed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, while his wife Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, serves as chief on the National Security Council as head of international organizations.
Unlike Obama, a professor of law, George W. Bush was noted for a sharp disdain for lawyers. The Bush administration’s overriding concern was for political loyalty. It demanded individuals who would unquestioningly implement the White House’s directives. The Obama nominees, presenting the sharpest possible contrast, have drawn sputtering fire from Republicans in Congress and have come under broad attack from religious-right leaders who previously had strong influence in Justice Department picks. Dawn Johnsen is an interesting test case. If the Republicans opt for a filibuster or move to line up a unanimous GOP vote in opposition, it will be a shot across the bow of the Obama Justice Department.

This article should have gave more detail about the Dawn Johnsen and about other women who could nail Bush. I think there are a lot of men in the government that are sexist. They don't have enough faith in women and they should. Women could do great things to help the government but some people won't even give them a chance.

Obama Reversing Stem Cell Limits Imposed by Bush

David Stout and Gardiner Harris posted an article in The New York Times titled "Obama Reversing Stem Cell Limits Imposed by Bush." President Obama will announce Monday that he is reversing Bush administration limits on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research as part of a pledge to separate science and politics. Obama has spoke out in favor of stem cell research while he was running for president so his intention to to undo what Bush had placed was not surprising.
Mr. Obama’s announcement is not likely to lead to any immediate change in government policy, since it may take many months for the National Institutes on Health to develop new guidelines for research. Many scientists believe that they may one day be able to provide tissues to replace worn-out organs or nonfunctioning cells and offer powerful new treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and other diseases. Some researchers say the stem cells may even be used someday to treat catastrophic injuries like damage to the spinal cord.
Many people have a moral problem with embryonic stem cell research because creation of the cells means destruction of human embryos. A lot of people are wondering whether Obama would seek to undo the Bush-era restrictions through legislation or by executive order. Many of the people that are opposed to the research say the embryos are nothing less than tiny human beings, with souls, and that destroying them is just like murder.

I think there are both good and bad things about stem cell research. If it helps find cures for diebetes, heart disease, and other diseases then I think it is a very good thing to do. Diebetes and heart disease run in my family so this is very personal to me. I do understand why people are opposed to it though. They think it killing embyos, potential life forms. If I had to pick a side, I would want more stem cell research done because it really hits home for me.

Obama Calls His Budget Needed Change

Peter Baker of the New York Times posted an article titled "Obama Calls His Budget Needed Change." President Obama described his budget proposal as “a threat to the status quo in Washington” but has special interests to expand health care, curb pollution and improve education.
The president said, “I came to provide the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November. That is the change this budget starts to make, and that is the change I’ll be fighting for in the weeks ahead.”
There is a $3.6 trillion budget for the year 2010. Obama wants to extend health coverage to the more than 40 million uninsured, revamp industry so that it stops producing so many emissions that cause climate change, develop alternative energy sources and invest billions of dollars more in education.
He also wants to restructure the tax code to shift more of the burden from lower- and middle-income workers to the rich to reverse the widening income gap. And he promised to bring the federal deficit, projected to reach $1.75 trillion this year, under control by 2013. Obama says that banks, insurance companies, and oil companies won't like his idea.
Republicans think that Obama's plan is a "job killer." Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina argued that the Obama plan represented out-of-control spending that would drive the nation deeper into debt.

I think there are both good points and bad pints to Obama's plan. I hope it works but everybody's going to have to wait and find out. I don't think the plan is a "job killer" like most of the republicans think so. The banks and insurance companies probably wn't like it but there are a lot of people that are not involved in the banks and insurance companies that are going to love this plan if it actually works. It would benefit more people than it would hurt.

Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan

Charlie Savage posted an article in the New York Times titled "Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan." The Obama administration has told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team. The Justice Department said that the new administration had reviewed its position in a case brought by prisoners at the U.S Air Force base at Bagram, just north of the Afghan capital. The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release. The detainees argue that they are not enemy combatants, and they want a judge to review the evidence against them and order the military to release them. The Bush administration had argued that federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear such a case because the prisoners are non citizens being held in the course of military operations outside the United States. The Obama team was required to take a stand on whether those arguments were correct because a federal district judge, John D. Bates, asked the new government whether it wanted to alter that position. The power of civilian federal judges to review individual decisions by the executive branch to hold a terrorism suspect as an enemy combatant was one of the most contentious legal issues surrounding the Bush administration. For years, President Bush’s legal team argued that federal judges had no authority under the Constitution to hear challenges by detainees being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s legal view for prisoners held at Guantánamo in landmark rulings in 2004 and 2006. But those rulings were based on the idea that the prison was on U.S. soil for constitutional purposes, based on the unique legal circumstances and history of the naval base. After becoming president last month, Mr. Obama issued orders requiring strict adherence to antitorture rules and shuttering the Guantánamo prison within a year. He also ordered a review of whether conditions there meet the standards of humane treatment required by the, and a review of what could be done with each of the 245 detainees who remain at the prison.

I think this artice gives very good detail. I think Obama should keep some of Bush's plans and also make plans of his own. They should keep the prisoners. They were there for a reason and should be punished.

Is the Government Off Our Backs Yet?

John Funiciello of the Black Commentator posted an article titled Is the Government Off Our Backs Yet?

For decades, politicians on the right has been: “Get the government off our backs.” An anti-government, anti-tax advocate said, "I want to halve the size of government in 25 years and get it down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.” The current economic meltdown in the U.S. and around the world is proof enough that they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Deregulation and wild speculation with other people’s money that came with deregulation are the main reasons for the financial crisis in America, but the problem goes back far beyond that. There has been a recent salmanella outbreak that killed about 8 people and made hundreds ill. The reason why corporations were not inspected before the outbreak was because there were not enough inspectors. The reason for not having enough inspectors? Budget cuts that reduced staff. This reduction of government oversight goes back many years, but a shocking example was the explosion and fire at Imperial Foods, a chicken processing plant in Hamlet, N.C., in September, 1991. Twenty-five workers died and more than four dozen were seriously injured, many never to completely recover. The reason for the catastrophe? Many of the doors were locked, some from the outside, to prevent the theft of chicken. Some workers knew the danger of the closed doors, but the jobs were so valuable to them that they didn’t complain in that community of less than 7,000. Ronald Reagan was elected president and one of his main themes was: “Don’t look to government to solve your problems. Government is the problem.” With that kind of attitude about the efficacy of government, where could workers go but down? Mortgages, savings, and investments of ordinary citizens were going to be affected by this mass deregulation that took place over so many years that it all seemed normal. Wage workers didn’t recognize that their welfare was tied to the government operating on an even ensuring that the institutions of the private sector were functioning in a fair, efficient, and honest manner. With deregulation of banking and finance - and with two wars of choice that drained the economy even further over the past eight years - the U.S. economy has gone into a tailspin and it has taken the rest of the world with it. If America is to recover from this assault, it will be the people who will be the instrument of the recovery. Predatory capitalism will have to retreat to its cave for the foreseeable future and let a naturally industrious people prove that local and regional production of the goods necessary for life is possible. Finally, the people will prove that they can govern themselves, without the controlling hand of corporations and their lobbyists.

I very much agree with this article. The government doesn't do enough to help the U.S. and protect them. They're always worried about money and they only think about themselves and not about the health of the U.S. The economy is important but health is more important.