Federal judge rules 2 Patriot Act provisions unconstitutional

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/patriot.act/index.html

A federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.

"It is critical that we, as a democratic nation, pay close attention to traditional Fourth Amendment principles," wrote Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in her 44-page decision. "The Fourth Amendment has served this nation well for 220 years, through many other perils."

Awesome! Let's just see how long it takes the Justice Department to 'review the court's decision'.
I'm starting a pool... how does 10 months sound?

Taking one step forwards...?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/washington/25health.html?th&emc=th

A bill that is set to pass in Congress, but has to get by a threatened veto by President Bush, is an example of how skewed our government's priorities are. The bill would cover four million children, in addition to the 6.6 million already enrolled. The overwhelming majority of those on the rolls are in low-income families.
Yet some how, Bush calls it “an incremental step toward the goal of government-run health care for every American." The reason that somehow seems logical in Bush and other replublican lobbyist's heads is that the bill itself is 'too expensive'. Yet we have the money to invest in our military and not the health of poor children in America? We say we're protecting ourselves by investing in this 'war on terror' (which I am skeptical even to consider a war), and these are the ramifications.

Clinton vs. the Democrats?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/us/politics/23dems.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

As Hilary begins to gain more popularity and strength in the polls, as this article indicates, her rivals begin to focus their attention less on their own image, and instead on derailing that of Hilary's. Even advisers and campaign leaders for the other candidates, such as Edwards and Obama, say that she is beginning to pull away.
Is this campaign for the democratic candidate going to become Hilary vs. the rest? How credible is this article in predicting the next 10 months of the campaign, and will we see it reflected in the news. Keep your eyes open... bullets will fly.

Definition of Democracy

There has been much controversy in Louisiana over the Jena Six and the huge gathering of 10,000 protesters, marched through the small town in defiance of the way these six teens had been treated. Racial issues are said to have been the reason why these six black teens were charged with attempted murder and conspiracy of one white teenager. All types of celebrities and activists have been involved, once again showing that the civil rights movement is still going on.
I would like to draw an interesting parallel to another protest going on halfway across the world, in Myanmar province, in southeast Asia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/world/asia/21myanmar.html?th&emc=th

1,000 monks line the streets in protest of what was a sudden 500% increase by the government in the fuel prices, with no explanation to the public. The Buddhist Clergy, the most organized and powerful organization next to the military, led the protests with monks walking through the largest cities in Myanmar. Some were sprayed with tear gas, but for the most part the government allowed the protests to take place without much interference.

I enjoy the act of protesting, voicing concern for civil rights and liberties, and taking a stand against any injustices. The true heart of democracy is seen in these two separate stories, and there's nothing "Americanized" about it. It is simply a belief, a right, and an act that defines this style of government, and defines this way of life.

Democratic Fundraiser Committed Fraud

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21hsu.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

So in trying to stray a little from the overwhelming bias of my blog, I'll share a few comments about the article stating that Norman Hsu, a major donor to democratic candidates and causes, is under investigation from the FBI. He has been charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and violating the Federal Election Campaign Act. Conviction on all counts could bring 45 years in prison.
This is a serious offense, and clearly this guy is a serious criminal, having been a fugitive avoiding another fraud charge dating back 15 years (he fell violently ill in September and federal agents finally got to him).
Only one candidate has been confirmed, and that's Hilary Clinton, who's campaign staff is cooperating with the FBI in the investigation.
However, it's hard to overlook such corruption, such deception, and injustice in the campaign fundraising today. I'm not surprised to see this in the democratic party, just as I'm sure it occurs in the republican party as well. A little shocking, but I guess this is the way it works here.

Another downer in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

So ironically, a contract on oil law in Iraq (essentially going to divide up the oil contracts, one going to Hunt Oil company in Dallas) has fallen apart. I say ironically because oil (a.k.a. 'liberty') was the reason for going into Iraq, in my opinion, and now it should be at least another six to eight months until American TNCs can get a piece of the pie.

The central element of the compromise was agreed to in February after months of difficult negotiations among Iraq’s political groups.

The main parties in those negotiations were Iraqi Kurds, who were eager to sign contracts with international oil companies to develop their northern fields; Arab Shiites, whose population is concentrated around the country’s southern fields; and Arab Sunnis, with fewer oil resources where they predominate.

And now, because of complicated company policies, the proposal has essentially fallen apart.

*snicker*

Congress finally does something right...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/washington/08loan.html?_r=2&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1189433534-KZY8ZOen/Otc7oiaKR4VGg&oref=slogin

So Congress was finally productive and passed a bill that sharply cuts funding subsidies to lenders and transfers those funds to student grants. Its terrible how students get so far into debt so early in their lives, what they need is more grant money. The final bill, hammered out this week in a House-Senate conference committee, "alters many of the ground rules for financing higher education, offering forgiveness on student loans to graduates who work for 10 years or more in public service professions like teaching, firefighting and the police, and limiting monthly payments on federally backed loans to 15 percent of the borrower’s discretionary income."

Finally, some of the $12 billion that the Republicans took out from federal student aid programs last year is beginning to be put back.
Furthermore, the lower half of the article reveals corruption in the student loan industry, with one expert saying “I don’t know how we can treat banks as credible arbiters of what appropriate subsidies should be.” The violations that are being investigated show the corruption and greed with these lenders, and how so many students have become victims deep in debt.

Gates Plans Speech to Detail The Roots of Security Policy

So Defense Secretary Robert Gates will attempt to "bridge the idealism and realism among Republicans". The pragmatism that has dominated Bush's foreign policy, and changed the way America is viewed by the rest of the world must be changed. This ideal of 'democracy for all' has translated to a sort of arrogance on America's part in attempting to imbue a democratic ideal in a Muslim world.
This just isn't feasible. Gates knows it, hopefully Bush knows it, and the American people know it. Muslim culture, the Islamic faith, and the general ideology doesn't gel with the constitutions that we write 'for them'. Gates will argue that in weighing the "competing impulses in US foreign policy: realism vs. idealism, freedom vs. security, values vs. interests - the country must incorporate both".
Finally, steps taken towards change. Hopefully this controversial speech will translate into action. Probably not, but I'm optimistic.

Mexican President Assails U.S. Measures on Migrants

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/world/americas/03mexico.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"The Bush administration has stepped up raids on factories and farms suspected of hiring illegal workers, imposing heavy fines and deporting a record number of illegal immigrants in 2006". Last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents deported 183,431 people after raids nationwide.
Felipe Caldéron's criticism of Bush's treatment of illegal migrants shows an important development in international politics. Even suggesting "that the deportation of undocumented immigrants bordered on a violation of human rights", Caldéron's fierce comments show that some countries aren't afraid to take a stand against the US for their rights of their citizens. Paralleling Hugo Chavez's need for "his own democracy, free of American influence", the Mexican President's national address is one of hope for the developing world. This opens the door for other nations such as Honduras, whose entire economic center is controlled by United Fruit Company, Pepsi, and Coke, can fight for governmental and economic sovereignty.