Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

The College Republicans Club at California Lutheran University screened a movie titled: Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West. It is important to note that it says "Radical"- this means that it is not talking about the entire Muslim nation; only the radicals. This movie is very interesting and thought provoking. It speaks of how the radical Muslim's have waged jihad (holy war) on the West. They do not like our culture, they think that we are trying to take over the world (although that is precisely what they are trying to do) and they want us gone...forever. It showed how they indoctrinate their children from a very young age and teach them that jihad is what Allah wants them to do. It talked about how they had created a new type of terrorism, that is not bounded by geography. The "magnificent nineteen" who hijacked the planes for the 9/11 attacked, came to America, got American drivers licenses, and learned how to fly planes here in America and turn them into weapons of destruction. The movie has Muslim commentators that are ashamed of what the radicals are doing to the way the religion is viewed. Nonie Darwish, author of Now They Call Me Infidel is a Muslim Shahid's (martyr's) daughter and she says that America is strangling itself with its political correctness. I agree with her.

It is important to note, and the movie makes this distinction, that radical Islam is bad for the peaceful Muslims, its bad for everyone. The radicals are filled with hatred of America and England. There are not just radical Muslims in the Middle East though, they are all around London and even here in America. The problem is that they can no longer be solely classified by their ethnicity, so it makes it harder to identify who is a radical Muslim. One of the strongest arguments in the movie is that it drew connection with the Nazis and Radical Islam, and they cannot be ignored. Altogether it is a very thought provoking movie and if you would like to find out more you can go to obsessionthemovie.com. There they provide clips to watch the movie and it is five dollars to watch the entire film, which is approximately sixty minutes long.

The Republican Debate

Last night on CNN the You Tube Republican debate took place. I thought that it was very interesting to watch and that all of the candidates made very well points-perhaps excluding Ron Paul. I noticed that this debate was different than the Democratic one, not just because it was a You Tube debate, but also because there were more questions asked that dealt with “smaller” topics, while it seems as if the Democratic debate only focused on the large topics and wedge topics. I personally thought that this debate was also much more exciting than the Democratic one- and I do not say this because I like the Republicans, this is what I genuinely think. There are four candidates that I was impressed with: Mike Huckabee, Mit Romney, John McCain, and Fred Thompson. I thought that they all made very good points and I was impressed with all of them.

Mike Huckabee gave some great answers, one dealing with if he believed every word in the Bible and also if he would accept the support of gays or lesbians. Mit Romney Always formulated his answers very well- though there was a few times where it seemed that he got nervous on questions that involved the fact that he used to support abortion- but he admitted that he was wrong. John McCain is very straightforward, and I like that a lot. He is completely against abortion and he got angry with Mit Romney for the way that he answered one of the questions dealing with torture saying that he cannot comprehend how America could act that way. And then there was Fred Thompson- it seemed that he said the right things at the right times- thus making the whole crowd laugh. He seems like a straight shooter and I loved his answer to the question about what type of guns he owns, which he replied he wasn’t going to say what type of guns he own and definitely not say where they are at. The topics of gun control, abortion, gays serving in the military, space exploration, Guantanamo Bay and other important issues were discussed. All together the Republican debate was a very interesting one.

The Political Compass

Many people are not sure whether they are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, Authoritarian or Libertarian and everything in between. Luckily there is a reliable source on the web called the Political Compass that can help one figure out his placement on the political spectrum. I took this test and was surprised by the outcome. First of all, while taking this test I did not understand all of the questions, so I had to use the handy dandy Wikipedia to explain some terms and look up quotes. Therefore I can justify my outcome via the fact that I responded to questions that I had to learn through very quick and most likely not the most efficient means. I identify myself as a conservative, yet on this test I fell into the left and even more so into the Authoritarian area.
I highly recommend that you take this test because it is very interesting to find out where you fall. It has made me want to do more research to find out exactly where I stand. My parents are conservative and thus I was instilled with those values, but perhaps I have some unknown liberal tendencies- or maybe not. Here is a picture below that explains how to read the Political Compass- The vertical line is the Economic Scale and the horizontal line is the Social Scale. Also, the two graphs below it show where the most famous political figures of our times and recent past have fallen. Then, the last one is mine. So take the test and see where you lay in the political spectrum.

Note- If some of the names are hard to see, take the test and when you finish it will show you all of the graphs.

Democratic Debate

The Democratic Debate that was shown on CNN and held in Las Vegas last week was very interesting. There were many issues that were covered such as the immigration problem, the removal of troops in Iraq, the methods of future diplomatic encounters, election of Supreme Court Justices and other important issues. There were many responses that candidates gave that I did not agree with, not just because I am a Republican and decided that everything any of the presidential hopefuls said was wrong, but because I strongly felt that their convictions were incorrect. I was eager to hear from Obama. He has become so popular today and he such a well spoken person that he is engaging to listen to. But, surprisingly the obvious tension between him and Clinton made some of their arguments less appealing. He says that he wants to have diplomatic relations with our enemies, well fine but I highly doubt they want to talk to us, I think they would rather see us all…gone. So I don’t know how Mr. Obama would, with efficiency produce his desired effect.
One person that I actually agreed with on the immigration problem was Governor Bill Richardson. He made some great points that I really liked, and some I did not completely agree with concerning illegal immigration. He does not agree with putting up a fence around the border. Why? Its not that he would not want to, but it is that he does not believe it would work. I see his point. What type of “super fence” would we have to build in order to keep the illegal immigrants out? Would it even work? Also, he believes that the people of Mexico need a better path to citizenship. Perhaps it could be changed, but for now I believe that they need to come here legally or not at all. And, people should not get angry at the US for this belief or believe that the US is being too harsh, but Mexico needs to better provide for its poor. The main point that Richardson made that I agree with is that we should not give all of the Mexican illegals amnesty. This is just ridiculous and it would undermine one of the duties of a citizen, which is to obey a law.

The Second Amenment

The Second Amendment is topic that is surrounded by much controversy. The syntax of the sentence is something that lawyers and politicians and the Supreme Court argue about. Different people have different interpretations to this supposed ambiguous sentence “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” According the Interactive Constitution, the “right to bear arms” belongs to an individual person… “the people” also appears in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments. These rights apply to individuals not states, they argue, and so does the Second Amendment.” Yet, there is still much argument.
One of the key elements to this argument is that the second Amendment does not allow an “absolute” right to bear arms because “no right is absolute.” “Just as free speech does not protect obscenity, they say, the Second Amendment does not include an unlimited right to own guns.” Just because we have free speech, doesn’t mean that we can shout “Fire!” in a crowd. This same condition could be applied to the Second Amendment. I am a member of the NRA and do believe that individuals should be able to have guns. I happen to agree with this statement by Wendy Kaminer: “The irony of the Second Amendment debate is that acknowledging an individual right to bear arms might facilitate gun control more than denying it ever could.”

Family Jewels

On June 26, 2007 the CIA released its “family jewels” report “detailing 25 years of Agency misdeeds”. The entire 702 page report can be

found in the National Security Archive

(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/index.htm). This “dirty laundry” is very interesting to read. One such interesting “family jewel” is the “Plan to poison Congo leader Patrice Lumumba”. If you click on this link (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/top06.pdf) you can read how Mr. (blank) was direct by Richard Bissell to kill Patrice Lumumba via poisoning. Patrice Lumumba was the first legally elected Prime Minister of the Republic of Congo. When I read this it was almost exciting (not from a sick standpoint), but that it was akin to reading a Hollywood movie script about the CIA. But, this is actual documentation of a covert operation that has been revealed! It is very interesting to read and search through the contents; there is a Top Ten list of the most interesting Family Jewels that, indeed is very interesting to read.

My Representative

Many people do not know who their representative is in the House of Representatives. My Representative is Howard (Buck) McKeon of California. He began his work in the House of Representatives in 1993 and has consecutively been active since. He is a Republican and the ending of his term is going to be in 2008. At opencongress.org if you type in the name of your representative, you can find out whom he or she is and if their beliefs parallel yours. Buck’s “recent voting history” has been on issues like the SCHIP Extension Bill, which was a “Nay”, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which he abstained and a plethora a others which range from terrorism and taxing on mechanic’s work gloves. Buck votes most often with Rep. David Dreier (R, CA-26) and least often with Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D, NY-22). It also has a section from opensecrets.org which lets me know what donations have taken place.
I learned more about Buck McKeon from browsing all of the bills he has or has not supported and looking through his voting history. It’s great that I can who votes most and least like him because I can see where they are from. I find it very interesting that he votes most like David Dreier, and not some other Republican from another state. This may mean that McKeon and Dreier have a relationship and thus are voting on the same issues in the same way, but how Conservative is McKeon? After all, California is a liberal state. I got a better idea of the networking that can go on from each state, and thus, maybe there is a certain level of skewed voting. I recommend that anybody reading this find out who their Representative is at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ find out who your rep is and then go to opencongress.org.

The Interactive Constitution

There are many things in the Constitution that may be confusing for numerous reasons. Sometimes the way in which a sentence was written in 1787 may not parallel with our modern syntax, or the topic that is being addressed doesn’t make sense and the list goes on. Fortunately there is a website that can clear up many misunderstandings of the Constitution. Here the National Constitution Center offers an interactive Constitution. You can go through the whole Constitution and click on the highlighted parts (every sentence is highlighted) and it explains what the Framer is conveying. I clicked on this sentence: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” This may seem vague, so here is what I got from the explanation that followed.
The Vice President is a member of the executive and legislative branch, thus he is a member of two branches and the only person who enjoys this duality. He is also the Senate’s “presiding officer” and has the ability to be a swing vote for when the House is divided. This “is one of the checks and balances the executive branch has over the legislative branch.” Now, read the selection from the Constitution. It should make more sense the second time through. I believe that this site (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/constitution/) is very useful and beneficial to the understanding of American government and of the document that binds a nation together. So next time you hear a reference to the Constitution, or have some research or just want some clarification, visit this website and it should be immensely helpful; it was for me.

Choose Your Candidate

The 2008 presidential election seems closer than it actually is. Candidacy has already been announced for the presidential election and we have over a year before we get to vote. With all of the candidates already competing, it may be difficult to “sort out” all of the messages that each candidate is giving. A fun quiz to take to see what candidate suits you best can be found on http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460. It consists of eleven questions, each question also have a part that asks you how important the given issue is. At the beginning of the quiz, it asks for some background information such as age and your zip code “Basic Demographics”. The quiz only takes a few minutes to complete and the questions are fairly narrow and pertinent to the issues of today. I was a little surprised by the outcome.
The quiz gives you the list of candidates that suit you from best to worst. The candidates that it gave me that suited me from best to worst went from Republican to Democratic candidates. My number one match was John McCain. I agreed with him on every issue except marriage, where I favored an amendment that would define marriage between a man and a woman. Here is the list of candidates that followed in order from which ones suited me from best to worst: John McCain, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Mit Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dod, and Mike Gravel. As you can see, the list is comprehensive and although my listing of every candidate that fit me may seem superfluous, it is to demonstrate that this quiz can be very useful.
I am a Republican and knew that I was going to have a Republican candidate that fit me best. But, I did not expect it to be John McCain. I was thinking more along the lines of Mit Romney, or Fred Thompson as my number one. For certain candidates, I thought that I would agree with them on many issues, but I was very wrong. I disagreed with Mit Romney on Stem Cell research, abortion, social security and many others, but I thought we would have more in common. Not only did this quiz give me an idea of who suits me, but it also let me know that I need to do more research. I highly recommend if you want a better idea of who you should vote for (though you should not use this as your final decision maker) that you take this quiz, and if you are unsure about a question that you find information about the given topic.

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 became official legislation on October 17, 2005. This Act was formed to make it more difficult for people to claim bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in which all debts are relinquished. Instead of making it so simple for people to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7, harsher requirements for claiming bankruptcy were issued such as: Increased attorney and liability costs, Mandatory credit counseling and debtor education, Increased attorney liability and costs and many other requirements. According to opensecrets.org the top lobbying spender of this bill was the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce is “the world’s largest business federation, representing over 3 million business of every size, sector and region”. Why would the Chamber of Commerce have such an interest in lobbying for the Bankruptcy Act?
The Chamber of Commerce helps to promote trade in its city, prevents unnecessary competition, and collects statistics that are beneficial to its members. So why would it be interested in the Bankruptcy Act? R. Bruce Josten Executive Vice President, Government Affairs of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to the House Of Representatives that stated “bankruptcy reform will prevent wealthy debtors from using bankruptcy to wipe out the debts that they can afford to repay, and from passing those debts on to the millions of businesses and consumers who cannot afford to pay someone else’s bills.” How did this Bankruptcy Act help the Chamber of Commerce? One would assume that there is a reason that the Chamber of Commerce spent the most money on getting this act passed. As stated before, the Chamber helps to promote trade in its city. If someone files bankruptcy when they can actually afford to pay their bills, how can the Chamber promote, or even facilitate trade when others are left to pay for debts? Also, this would result in unnecessary competition because any extra money that businesses and consumers had would be spent on bills rather than furthering their business or personal wants and needs, thus their competition would have an unfair advantage.

FOOD Share

Participatory and pluralist democratic models are polar opposites of each other. The former wants all citizens to participate in some type of political construct. Whether it is for the Neighborhood Watch or the Kiwanis, Participatory adherents believe that being involved in these institutions will make people more democratic. In other words, people will be more likely to be politically involved, thus having more control of factors that can greatly affect their lives. Pluralist democracy takes a different stance, it purports that not everyone needs to be involved in politics and goes so far to say that not everyone will be involved in politics. Yet, this is fine because there is someone else, usually an interest group who is representing your own interests.
So what does this have to do with FOOD Share? My Theory and Practice of American Government Professor asked the class to get involved in the campus’s Service Day. So I signed up to help FOOD Share for the day. Located in Oxnard, it is part of the Nation’s Food Bank Network and it “gathers and distributes food, serving those in need through a network of charitable agencies.” (foodshare.com) Along with about fifteen other people, we took food that had been damaged during handling and packaged it into cardboard boxes. There were three main boxing areas for Cereal, Crackers and Cookies, the rest of the food went into a separate bin. The jobs were divided up: some sorted the cookies from crackers from the cereal, while others took the ripped and torn packages and taped them up. Others then boxed the food and put it in its proper area. I had none of those jobs. See, the food had already come in boxes, some were the typical corrugated shipping boxes while others were the open cardboard boxes with handle slots (like the ones that are used for produce viewing in markets or the boxes you put your food in after shopping at Costco) and there were many other boxes that I do not know the names of. All of these boxes needed to be put in the dumpster to be recycled. Our project leader wanted to maintain his reputation of using the least amount of dumpsters to be filled up with the greatest amount of cardboard boxes. I enjoy doing manual labor, and it was the most demanding task that was offered so I volunteered. For approximately three hours I unfolded, stomped on and ripped apart cardboard boxes and put them in the dumpster. Then I would hop in the dumpster and jump on the boxes to compress them as much as my weight would allow me. I have never in my life had such a dynamic relationship with cardboard boxes and will never look at them the same.
Besides what we did that day, or why we did it, who it was done for is the most important aspect. There are hungry people, who with their own economic resources could not afford to buy themselves or their family a meal and now, (in small part because of what we did) they will be able to eat. But why volunteer? Why take the time out of the day to work for no monetary profit when there are other things that are needed or wanted to be done? Whether it was for ethic, religious, moral or other reasons the fact that there was participation is what is important from a political point of view. Now, can this help someone become more democratic? Does being involved in this activity or other ones like it mean that someone is therefore more likely to become politically active because they are active in their community? From personal experience this is usually the case. But, does everyone need to be politically active? Does everyone need to vote, or do people not need to worry about voting because there is an organization that already is pushing for their interests? This is something that we have been discussing in my Gov class and is an issue that many political theorists and scientists still debate.

The Ethicist

In the podcast at www.nytimes.com by Randy Cohen, AKA, The Ethicist, Mr. Cohen addresses two queries of John from Washington and K.C. from Denver. John was the witness of a sexual harassment crime at his workplace. One of his colleagues used the camera of his cell phone and filmed under a female colleague’s skirt while at a company meeting. Later, John then saw his male colleague download the material from his cell phone onto his computer and then continue filming! Surprisingly, John does not know what to do. Cohen, after explaining the legal implications such as sexual harassment and invasion of privacy violations that this man committed, says that “ethically” John cannot ignore this and should have related the problem to an authority immediately. It is blatant that John should have, without any reservation, reported this pervert to someone who could have properly handled the situation. Having to write to Cohen to ask if he should report a sex crime is agitating and shows the ignorance of the concern for other citizens that we should all have.
The second question, which may actually have the need of an ethicist, deals with a contractor working on a project for which a client has allotted a week to ten days to finish, but K.C. the contractor believes that he can finish it within a few days. The question K.C. asks is if he should finish the project in three to four days and “suffer the loss of pay” or drag it out for the allotted time and receive more money. Cohen offers a great solution, which once again as with the first problem should have been executed at the time of the dilemma: tell the client that he can finish the project in a few days, but ask for more money due to his higher expertise, require a “flat fee”, or a “bonus for early completion.” This way the client won’t be paying more money than expected and K.C. can receive the same amount of money without carrying any guilt.
It is always comforting and reassuring to have a person, especially an educated and qualified one, to help you with your problems whether they are small or large. There are many problems, that with the tool of common sense can easily be solved and with no external help, leaving you with the residual feeling of accomplishment.