Effective, not Affective Campaign - Philly

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/us/23philadelphia.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Newly elected mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, is making a difference. This article reported on his recent actions to fight crime in Philadelphia, which at 407 homicides this year, has a higher per capita crime rate of any major city, even more than New York, which has six times the population.

What is even more interesting about Mr. Nutter is where he stood 12 months ago.

Just 12 months ago, Mr. Nutter, a 50-year old former city councilman, was a little-known candidate with a controversial plan to reduce crime who was working 20-hour days, handing out Nutter Butter cookies to voters in a desperate effort to climb out of fifth place in a five-man race.

Now, he has been called the Seabiscuit of this year’s urban politics, having beaten two congressmen, a veteran state legislator and a billionaire businessman in the Democratic primary in May before taking the general election on Nov. 6 by a four-to-one ratio, the largest the city has seen since 1931.

His campaign showed clear policies of declaring crime states of emergency in certain neighborhoods in Philadelphia, allowing police to institute curfews and stop and frisk any suspicious characters.

Responding to concerns by opponents about the risk of civil rights abuses and racial profiling, Mr. Nutter said bluntly, “My view is that people also have a civil right not to get shot."

Mr. Nutter is seen as an antidote to the political malaise that plagued the city for many years, and his campaign of effective and assertive policies got the people of Philadelphia behind him.

Where do we see this in the presidential campaign? Not at all, by my watch, and probably not in the future...

Backlog of Immigration

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/us/23immig.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Thus US Immigration Agency releases a report that they have the biggest backlog of applications for citizenship that they have ever experienced.

n July and August alone, the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency received 2.5 million applications, including petitions for naturalization as well as for the entire range of immigrant visas. That was more than double the total applications it received in the same two months in 2006, said a spokesman, Bill Wright.

This backlog is evident that the US is still a place where people want to come for lower wages and better living conditions, and that our appearance and public perception has not been severely negatively impacted by the actions of the Bush administration.

Also, most of these new citizens are Latin Americans, and who will this demographic be voting for in the next election? are a large part of the 20, in the 40-40-20 electorate?

Bush's support of a dictator in a vital region

Gen. Pervez Musharraf has done far too little to drive Al Qaeda and the Taliban from its Pakistani sanctuaries over the last six years, but President Bush still insists on linking America’s interests to the general’s erratic and authoritarian whims.

Musharraf's dictatorship should not be supported, nor should currently under house arrest Benazir Bhutto be receiving such criticism from Bush, as she is the main proponent for democracy in the government.

The problem with our foreign policy is glorifying candidates who strive to serve our interests, even though it may hurt the government and equity of the country.

We promise to help Pakistan with special forces units and other military support even before the country shows that it is effective in fighting terrorism and supporting democracy.

Politcal Stunting, or genuine discourse?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/world/middleeast/22diplo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice makes another strong stance in defending her promise to establish a peace initiative by the end of 2008, yet at the same time many are critical of how sincere she is in her remarks.

Ms. Rice has encountered a lot of hectoring from critics at home and abroad who say that the administration is engaging too little and too late, or in ways that are ultimately insubstantial.

“We don’t want a conference that only repeats what’s already been said, or a conference where only pictures are taken,” said Muhammad Zolfa, a member of Saudi Arabia’s Shura Council, an advisory body to King Abdullah.

None of the 40 countries that are attending the countries are entering with a statement they can all agree on, so how can Rice be so optimistic? Is she just naive about the political reality of how difficult a peace negotiation is, or is she simply playing dumb, under a mask of ignorance and idealism?

Surge of Diplomacy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/opinion/21friedman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Condoleeza Rice's priorities have become more and more evident over the past couple months and will continue in this trend for until the end of her term next year.

This op-ed piece provides interesting insight into her actions as of late, in putting more attention in achieving piece in a much more stable region, Israel, than in Iraq.

"Watching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice making repeated trips to Israel to try to broker some kind of deal between Israelis and Palestinians, while Iraq remains politically unresolved, leaves me feeling like my house is burning down and the fire department has decided to stop along the way to get two cats out of a tree."

Clearly, the word 'surge' comes to mind when thinking of suppressing violence in Iraq. But what about 'diplomatic surge'? Where is this in a) our current actions in Iraq b) media coverage of Iraq?

Israel is a valuable ally, with political, military, and economic power, but with Iraq in the total state of political disarray that WE put it in, isn't our responsibility to see that the political situation be restored?

Sweet, sweet Turkey... and irony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20bush.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Once again the president's idealistic rhetoric makes him again appear as a fool. On a national holiday, Thanksgiving, the unfavorable 'leader of the free world' spoke at a historical site about the ideals that Americans live up to.
The president, in his speech, was thankful for:

“farmers and ranchers who provide us with abundant food,” “entrepreneurs who create new jobs” and “devoted teachers who prepare our children for the opportunities of tomorrow.”

Ironically -- as our heavily subsidized corn industry makes our crop essentially worthless, so that farmer's lose money by selling their corn rather than storing it in giant storehouses, and as our economy with failing credit begins to turn towards recession, and as the 'no child left behind' turns its head away from schools in desperate need of help.

Mr. President's 'call to action' was directed at the public, when it is he who truly needs to act on the complacency that America has taken in so many vital foreign policies: global climate change, the crisis in Darfur, monks being prisoned in Burma. So who is it that needs to act?

Death Penalty working?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

New studies out of Louisiana State University attempt to prove that the death penalty is statistically a deterrent for homicides, and that "For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented."
However, the current studies have gone under severe criticism from scholars, economists, sociologists, and political scientists discussing the veritability of the isolated deterrent effect.
Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in the Stanford Law Review in 2005. “The existing evidence for deterrence,” they concluded, “is surprisingly fragile.”
And with the Supreme Court's new moratorium on lethal injections, these studies play a key role in determining the ethical purpose and place that lethal execution has within our legal system.
What role should it play?