Damn Straight

Federal judge, Vaughn R. Walker, ruled that Bush's warrant-less wiretapping was illegal. Out of courtesy- or something- to the former administration, Obama's administration has made efforts to brush the policy under the rug. No such luck. The official opinion stated that the program violated a 1978 statute requiring court approval (aka a warrant) for all domestic surveillance. Under this policy, the National Security Agency kept tabs on international emails and phone calls despite the myriad American laws that deem such actions unlawful and the fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a warrant. Both the Bush and Obama administrations claimed that allowing lawsuits dealing with the program to continue would expose secrets. (Seriously? Since when did it become kosher to take advise from Nixon? NIXON?) The President, even during times of war, is not above the Constitution. Obeying the law is not optional. The current administration has taken steps to reduce the use of the "state secret" line. Now, senior officials must formally approve any assertion before it can be used in court. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler stated that this ensures the defense will be used only when "absolutely necessary to protect national security." Yeah, sure. Even I doubt that.

Fun fact: The New York Times exposed the NSA program. Maybe that's why they took the Pentagon Papers approach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html?hp

Sorry! I know everyone is sooo eager to do their gov homework...

Social Welfare Article-

Green Jobs:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/209073/page/1

The Best Part of Health Care Reform

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act was permanently reauthorized as part of national health care reform! The IHCIA, the cornerstone legislation for Native American health care, has been sitting in Congress for nearly twenty years. In that twenty years, the disparity between the health care available to Native populations and that available to the general population became unconscionable. Though funding was annually appropriated to IHS, it was less than half of what the agency needed and ran out half way into the year. Because of this severe lack of funding, Native Americans were faced with not only structural barriers to health care, but also substandard care that resulted in more severe disease symptoms, later presentation of illnesses, delayed treatment and diagnosis, less effective treatments, and higher death rates. Many IHS facilities did not even have the means to meet community members medical needs and many Native Americans were denied services at all. Furthermore, according to the United States Commission for Civil Rights, "Underfunding violates the basic tenets of the trust relationship between the government and Native peoples and perpetuates a civil rights crisis in Indian Country."

The IHCIA will not only eliminate health care gap and provide the funding necessary to bring the quality of Native American health up to a level parity with that of the general US population, it also allocates billions of dollars for new facilities, domestic violence programs, and preventative treatment programs.

Basically, this is absolutely wonderful and the best thing a president has done for Natives since... well, since IHS was created in the first place.

http://64.38.12.138/News/2010/019016.asp

Blah. They don't even understand the historical context of their name.

The Tea Party. It was a shining moment in American history. And now it has been totally tainted by a bunch of politically ignorant meanie-faces. The real tea party was in protest of taxation without representation. Do these people not vote? If they vote, they're represented. This is how the system works. They lost. And that's unfortunate for them. But they can't seriously claim that the government is violating their rights and ignoring their opinions. They didn't have the majority. And yes, minority rights are a vital part of any democratic system. But it is the majority that makes the decisions. And if the majority wants to stay the majority, it is necessary to listen to the minority. But it's even more important to do what is best for the greatest number of people. America voted for health care reform. America voted for liberal fiscal policy. America voted for Obama. He was not born in Kenya. He is not out to destroy America. He is OUR president. If these people are so madly in love with the country, they need to demonstrate at least a little respect for it. And sure, by all means, voice your unfounded, unwarranted opinions. Your government will protect you.

I'm not pissed that there is dissent. I think a healthy and lively opposition is vital to a health and lively democracy. I'm really just pissed that they're so wrongly exploiting an historical event. They should call it the Shay's Rebellion Party or the Whiskey Rebellion Party. Those were also angry groups of people who didn't really know anything about the government or politics. They just demanded that the government do stupid crap like print bundles of paper money or somehow cut taxes while simultaneously reducing the deficit.

And now there's even a Tea Party Express that is following Sarah Palin to Washington. That's another thing. What intelligent group of people would pick Sarah Palin to be their leader? Seriously. She resigned from executive office! She writes her speeches on her hand! More importantly, all of her talking points fit on one hand.

Arg. I am so moving to France.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28nevadaweb.html?scp=1&sq=tea%20party%20express&st=cse

Israel Sucks

Yes, the Holocaust was an awful, unprecedentedly tragic human crisis. Yes, its victims deserved retribution. But what about the Palestinians? Historically, the United States has stood behind Israel as they've expanded their borders and made homeless hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Obama seems to want to change that.

Israeli officials have been pushing for a new Jewish housing project- the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood- in East Jerusalem. The area where construction is planned is already occupied, but according to Israeli law many of the homes have been constructed illegally. For Palestinians, obtaining a building permit is nearly impossible and many ignore the regulations in order to provide their families with a place to live. This means that, technically, (even though most Palestinian families own the land on which their house is built) Israel can force them out of their homes to make way for Jewish settlements. It's basically a really, really terrible form of imminent domain.

After Israel's Prime Minister announced the plan, Obama immediately denounced it and has since been pressing Netanyahu to repeal it. A recent meeting between Obama and Netanyahu ended in an impasse, but both sides pledged to continue talks later. But Israel doesn't appear to be serious about ending the dispute; they began construction this week on another East Jerusalem project.

Hopefully, Obama's support for the Palestinians will be more than empty rhetoric.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/middleeast/25diplo.html?hp

Social Security

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this year, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it receives in taxes. This tipping point was not anticipated until 2016, but is apparently another impact of the recession. As unemployment rises, people are being forced to apply for social security sooner than they had planned. Furthermore, fewer jobs means fewer paychecks to tax. Alan Greenspan, who saved the program the last time it was in this sort of situation, said that the most important thing to do is to cut benefits. With unemployment still hovering around 10%, a solution will need to be found quickly or the administration risks a fast depletion of the social security trust fund. In my opinion, finding a solution really isn't that tricky. Raise taxes- mostly on large corporations; it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to raise taxes on individual and small businesses during a recession. But more importantly, expand and increase funding to temporary government jobs programs that help people get back on their feet and provide on-the-job training that they can take back to the private sector.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?hp

Student Loans

As heard in Obama's state of the union address, the White House is pushing Congress to introduce a bill that would end the subsidizing of private loan companies for student loans and expand a program that allows students to borrow from the government through their colleges and universities. The current system pads the pockets of private lending companies, but creates extra cost and complication for students.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the government could save $80 billion over the next ten years by moving to a direct loan system.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/obama-criticizes-banks-over-student-loan-subsidies/

Real Threat or Masterfully Formulated Justification for Invasion?

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog institution, received a letter from Iran detailing plans to enrich its uranium stockpile. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the US had done all it could to entince Iran to negotiate. Now, the US, France, and even Russia are calling for stronger sanctions. Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian Parliment, said that it is time to prepare the international community for "serious measures."

Though Iran claims that this uranium will be used in medical reactors (whatever those are), international leaders are skeptical. According to the Federation of American Scientists, "Uranium gun-assembled weapons are the easiest to build. The acquisition of significant quantities of U-235 or a facility in which to seperate the fissile material is an indicator that the acquiring state could be in the process of gaining a rudimentary nuclear capability." Despite this, it is still possible that Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful. It should be kept in mind that uranium must be enriched to 90% to be used for nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors have many other uses, like alternative energy and whatever the heck that medical business is. But does Iran really seem interested in being a leader in the fight against climate change or pioneering medical breakthroughs? Considering how vocal Achmadenijawhatever has been about his less-than-glowing opinion of Isreal and the West, that's not likely.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/img/iran_nukes.jpg

This isn't really news...

Shon Hopwood was a crappy bank robber, but apparently he's a pretty good Supreme Court practitioner. Though he doesn't have a law degree or any formal training, he spent basically a decade in a prison law library. In 2002, he prepared his first petition for certiorari for a fellow inmate. Of the 7,209 petitions the court received that year, Hopwood's was one of the eight heard. Some lawyer guy read his petition and decided to take the case for free. They talked about the best way to make a guilty person appear innocent and whatever else lawyers talk about. In 2004, they won. Hopwood plans on applying to law school next year. Richard Friedman, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, has already talked to admissions about saving a spot. What an American dream.

www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/us/09bar.html

Do Ask, Do Tell

Every year, 1000 men and women are kicked out of the military for being gay. Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen will meet with Senate Armed Services Committee to discuss halting this discrimination.

Homosexuality has always been persecuted in the American military. In 1993, President Clinton began the fight to allow openly gay men and women into the military. His efforts, however, only established the current policy, which was still a significant accomplishment. But as American society as a whole has become more open to the LGBT community, it seems tragically archaic and contradictory to our established values. Ending the ban was one of Obama's many major campaign promises that he reaffirmed in his State of the Union. Lifting this ban would be a tremendous step to ending discrimination against the LGBT community.

But opposition is strong. Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, argued, "Our service members wear the uniform to fight and win wars, not serve as liberal-social-policy guinea pigs. The sexaul environment the President is trying to impose upon the young men and women who serve this country is the antithesis of the successful war-fighting culture, and as such should be rejected." Apparently, Mr. Perkins has forgotten about the most cliche pillar of the conservative value system: Live and let live. Even if you do believe that homosexuality is the "antithesis" of the war aspect of our culture, I would argue that institutionalized discrimination is the antithesis of every aspect of our culture. Sanctioning discrimination against one group inevitably leads to discrimination against others. Gates, Mullen, and Obama seem to agree.

Lifting the ban would be a challenge. If Gates and Mullen are not successful in lifting it entirely, they at least hope to lessen its impact and prepare the way for the eventual overturning of the policy. However, the president and democratic leaders seem happy to allow the proposal to languish for at least a year- as neither view it as a political win.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal_n_510508.html

Obama in the House

Only two days after his state of the union, Obama met with House Republicans to discuss areas of partisan conflict, saying, "I'm a big believe not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity." He fielded questions about health care refrom, economic policy, and who is really to blame for the rise in partisan politics. In a rare occurence for American politics, the president debated with a stiff opposition for an hour and a half, even directly engaging Republican leaders. Seldom are events such as this made public and Republican strategists were concerned that televising the event might give Obama the upper hand- considering his skill in such situations. However, even in a toxic political climate, the debate was substantive and civil. Though neither side acquiesced much in terms of policy, both reaffirmed their commitment to working together in the coming years. Obama plans to hold monthly meetings with Republican and Democratic leaders to work through issues and incorporate both sides in developing solutions.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/obama-house-repulicans-debate-their-division

C-SPAN has the meeting archived:
http://www.c-span.org/

State of the Union

Though I'm sure people will, I think it would be hard to argue that Obama's address was anything less than excellent. He addressed essentially every major political issue, from creating jobs and regulating banks to making college affordable and reducing our nuclear stock pile. Critics have said that he tried to talk about too many issues, but, of course, they would have attacked him for leaving something out. Another interesting criticism is the fact that he didn't put healthcare first. However, I took that as a sign that he's listening to the American people and adjusting his policy agenda accordingly. He understands that health care reform isn't the biggest issue in the minds of the typical citizen- the economy is. Everything he addressed before health care- apart from education- had to do with the economy. Instead of criticizing this, we should welcome it as a sign that Obama is going to adjust his priorities to more closely match Main Street's.

My favorite proposals:

Job creation through public service employment to improve and green national infrastructure (it's so 1930s)

Passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill (which could also facilitate job creation and establish the US as a global leader for environmental sustainability)

Encouraging the decrease of college tuition

Reducing our nuclear stockpile and securing stray nuclear material

Requiring all earmarks to be published (if it's well enforced, I imagine it will drastically decrease them)

Creating a bipartisan fiscal commission (executive orders make for interesting politics)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-44th-president/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html?scp=4&sq=state%20of%20the%20union&st=cse

I'm Ben Bernanke, Spencer.

It's no longer clear if the Senate will confirm Ben Bernanke (Obama's pick) for a second term as the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Brown's victory in Massachusetts exposed public upset at policies that bailed out big banks but failed to decrease unemployment. Bernanke, in the minds of most Americans, is a symbol for those policies. During the crisis, Bernanke promoted unorthodox policies to avoid another depression. However, both before and now after the crisis, he has become conventional and complacent. So, by not confirming Bernanke, the Senate would be responding to the public's disdain of his policies and failure to create new ones to stabilize the economy. However, it could be argued that Bernanke's failure to create new policies is a response to the public's disdain for government regulation.

Equal paradoxically, even if Bernanke isn't the best choice, he's still the best choice. Any good alternative would be badgered to death by the Senate and any bad alternative could potentially destroy the economy. Bernanke may not be doing much now, but he knows whats going on. He is an established politician as well as a revered economist. He knows how to handle the commission and direct internal discussion, things that his colleagues could not handle.

The best course of action would be to confirm Bernanke, but let him know that we're not satisfied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/opinion/25krugman.html?scp=3&sq=january%2025,%202010&st=cse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfsb5HUFMQ0

Deficit

As he attempts to pass reforms to stimulate the economy, Obama faces an insurmountable foe: the rising deficit. Obama's agenda includes many sweeping reforms that could stimulate and stabilize the economy, but every debate comes back to cost. Republicans and democrats alike are wary of passing policy that would increase the burden on taxpayers- particularly with the upcoming elections. And taxpayers are thankful. However, at the same time Americans are expecting tax breaks and cuts in government spending, they are also expecting the government to do something about unemployment and inflation. Tackling the deficit means cutting government programs and raising taxes. But funding government programs means increasing the deficit and raising taxes. In his State of the Union, Obama is expected to propose bigger deficits now, with a promise for more budget discipline later.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122871473

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122466410&ps=rs

In an effort to avoid another financial meltdown, Obama is asking Congress to limit the size and activities of the nation's largest banks. The plan includes two components. First, expanding the limits on how larges banks can get. Second, encouraging banks to stick to basic banking and stop risking trading of assets and owning hedge funds. The first is simple. The second is a little more interesting. Banks can continue these activities- if they don't want to have the federal safety net, which includes deposit insurance, the ability to borrow from the Fed, and the knowledge that they will be bailed out if they fail. Form Fed chairman, Paul Volcker, has been proposing the same plan for months, but has been largely ignored. Now, Obama wants to send a signal to Main Street that he is tough on Wall Street. The fate of this proposal lies largely with Senate Republicans. They have the choice of siding with the president or siding with the "too big to fail" institutions that ruined the economy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843888

Thanks a lot, Martha.

Even after Obama's visit, Republican Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. It is being called a historic upset. But I don't think it was so much a triumph for Brown as it was a failure for Martha. You have to actually campaign for office. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat in the bluest state running for the "liberal lion's" seat. You still have to convince voters that you are going to represent their interests in Washington. After winning the primary, Coakley essentially stopped campaigning until days before the election. When she found out Brown has raised $1.3 million in 24 hours, she ran to a room full of lobbyists in Washington. In reality, hiding may have been the better strategy. When Coakley did come back onto the public's radar, it was with slanderous attacks against Brown that included some blatant lies. This, combined with her record of tragic misspeaks and misspellings, ruined her chances of winning. The only real reason she had any support was because she was the Democratic candidate and could be the 60th vote for health care. Obama certainly aren't lamenting the loss of Coakley, but the loss of his majority.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122557573

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/01/new_poll_has_brown_up_obama_wi.html

The Tea Party Movement

It started as a sort of political joke. A year later, it's still a joke, but one that people are taking seriously. The Tea Party movement, initially ignited when Obama took office, is gaining power. Initially anti-establishment, they are now trying to take over the establishment from the ground up. Many members are signing up to be Republican precinct leaders, giving them the power to vote for executives who endorse candidates, approve platforms, and allocate party funds. They've even created the National Precinct Alliance whose primary objective is to take policy gridlock to the local level. Oh, excuse me, they actually only want to take over the Republican party by forcing it to nominate ultra-conservatives instead of the moderates who are more representative of what the majority of people support. They view the Democrats as socialists and the Republicans as their enablers. If they fail in taking over the Republican party, there's talk that they'll run a third party candidate in 2012.

Fortunately, overall support for the movement is weak. They cater to the fringe of the very right. Their rally cry is "No more NY 23s." (in reference to a special election held in New York's 23 congressional district in which party leaders chose to field a moderate) How catchy. Furthermore, in a recent candidate forum, a great deal of incompetence was exposed. Candidates were asked to explain what the 10th amendment is and identify instances when the government has violated. Few could. One simply exclaimed, "It's my favorite amendment. I can't believe it." Believe what? Who knows. They exhibited a similar lack of knowledge on other key issues. For example, when asked about their stance on climate change, one candidate said that he doesn't believe in global warming, but couldn't explain why. Despite the fact that it is essentially retarded, the Tea Party movement has gained momentum and support from extreme Republicans as well as some radical Independents. If nothing else, it's not a bad way to let the public let off some unfounded, ill-informed steam. However, if the movement is able to accomplish its goals, it could severely undermine Obama's agenda and anticipated reelection bid. Even if the movement is not successful in taking over the Republican party or running a candidate, they still have the potential of stealing the support of independents- something that Obama desperately needs. Furthermore, they have the ability to misinform voters and manipulate public opinion- which has the potential to pose a significant threat to the president, particularly with the upcoming 2010 elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15party.html?pagewanted=2&sq=january%2015,%202010&st=cse&scp=5

http://www.resistnet.com/

Stalking the President: Part Five, or Obama is a bad ass

A new Congressional Quarterly study has given Obama a higher mark than any other president in terms of winning Congressional votes for policy. In just one year, Obama has tackled the issues of Afghanistan, Iraq, the expanding terrorist threat, a poor economy, and a heated debate over health care reform. Every president has demanded action of Congress, but not every president has received it. Obama's success rate is unprecedented- 96.7% on all votes on which he had a clear stance in both the House and Senate. Obama beat out some of America's greatest presidents including LBJ, who scored 93% in 1965, and Eisenhower, who scored 89% in 1953.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116

NPR also stalks the president:

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997775

Stalking the President: Part Four

Today, the White House (aka Obama) issued a statement saying that they are considering imposing a fee on banks in an effort to recover the taxpayer dollars used to bail them out. Such a fee could be well received by Americans who are still angry about the exploitation and mismanagment of these corporate finances- especially with CEOs in line to receive huge bonuses next month. no details have been released as to what form a fee like this would take. If it were implemented, it is expected to be included in Obama's budget proposal next month. Last fall, British officials suggested a bank fee, but Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner fervently opposed it. The Office of Management and Budget neither confirmed nor rejected the possibility of this fee, instead saying, "There are- and will be- a lot of rumors about what is in our budget-- most of them wrong. But we are not going to get into the game of ruling in and ruling out rumors about what is in our budget."





new.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100111/pl_nm/us_obama_bank_fees

npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/01/obama_mulling_over_new_bank_fees_to.htm

Stalking the President: Part Three, or What is the biggest challenge facing Obama at the beginning of 2010?

When we think about Obama's most pressing challenges, our minds turn immediately to the healthcare debate or the war in the Middle East. But behind everything on the president's place is a single demon. So what really is the biggest challenge facing Obama at the beginning of 2010? It's the economy, stupid!

First, with healthcare. As the Senate and House work towards a final bill in the conference committee, the most pressing issue on both sides of the aisle is cost. Even Democrats are wary of passing a measure that would augment the financial burden on the American people and the federal government. Republicans are refusing to support anything that would do so. Many analysts predict that the bill will ultimately fail. Thus, the slumping economy may claim its first victim. And with a single blow, it could cause catastrophic landslide of failed policies. Obama has lost a significant amount of political clout as deadlines have passed on the health care bill and 30,000 more troops have entered Afghanistan. As the shine wears off, it becomes less and less likely that he will be able to fulfill his ambitious campaign promises. Even now, there is rising skepticism among even Obama's strongest supporters. Many Democrats are threatening to either not vote or campaign for Democratic candidates in the mid-term elections. If Obama lost his majority in Congress, he will be lamed-up and wave goodbye to any chance at pushing his political agenda.

The economy is so deeply rooted in every aspect of American politics. Before he can address anything else, Obama has to tackle this beast.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/excise-tax-affordability-come-to-spotlight-in-health-debate/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704740.html

Stalking the President: Part Two, or Will Obama be able to reach a diplomatic solution to the impasse with Iran in 2010?

In his inaugural address, Obama told Middle Eastern nations, “We’re willing to extend a hand, if you’re willing to unclench your fist.” Obama’s election heralded in a new era of foreign policy and hope for peace in the Middle East. However, skepticism remains, especially when Iran is brought into the equation. Obama has already faced heavy criticism for his softer, more compromising approach to diplomacy. In the face of myriad challenges both abroad and at home, will Obama be able to reach a diplomatic solution to the impasse with Iran? Yes, we can. Or rather, he can.

First and foremost, Obama represents a new age in foreign policy. He is still focused on American leadership, but in a very different way than the Cowboy Diplomacy of the Bush era. He recognizes that force alone only exacerbates hostilities and will never lead to a permanent solution. His policy is to reach across cultural boundaries and recognize that lasting peace can only be founded upon mutual satisfaction. This brand of diplomacy has already brought him many important successes: chairing a United Nations Security Council meeting on the reduction of nuclear stock piles, leading peace talks between Israel and Palestine, and even implementing a new missile defense system in America. These accomplishments, among others, give him momentum in negotiating with Iran.

Furthermore, they bolster foreign support- which is key to success in the modern age. In his book The World is Flat Thomas Friedman discusses political globalization. He explains that politics are no longer limited to state and national levels, but have extended to an international field as well. For a single nation to advance their international interests, they must keep in mind the desires of other powerful countries. Obama understands this. The most important signal demonstrating support is Russia’s recent hint at enforcing economic sanctions against Iran. When Obama entered office, the apparent alliance between Russia and Iran frightened the international community. The fact that Obama has been able to persuade Russian leaders that sanctions are best for global safety and stability is a tremendous success. Beyond this, Iran is already subject to three UN sanctions as a result of their uranium enrichment program. This demonstrates unprecedented international support for a diplomatic solution between the US and Iran. Strong foreign support bodes well for Obama’s success.

Another important factor in reaching a diplomatic solution is demonstrating America’s commitment to and investment in peace. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that America is prepared to revive peace efforts in the Middle East and will follow through until our objectives are accomplished. But actions speak louder than words. Obama recently all but abolished a Bush-era policy that funded Iranian opposition. This has been the single most important action in reaching a middle ground with Iran. It shows that Obama is not interested in inciting a regime change, but simply in doing what is best for America, Iran, and the world as a whole.

Because of his new approach to foreign policy, strong international support, and demonstrations of genuine intentions, Obama is well on his way to reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSGEE5B023C20091201

http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/bookshelf/the-world-is-flat

Stalking the President: Part One

Upon returning from his holiday vacation to his native Hawaii, Obama immediately met with 20 high ranking officials in the Situation Room to discuss the underwear bomber incident. He has ordered two reviews: on airline passenger screening and on the US terror watch-list system. The underwear bomber was on the US terrorist watch-list, but was not prevented from boarding a plane bound for Detroit. Though current technology would not have been expected to pick up the chemical sown into the man's underwear, a review of the effeciency of airport security has commenced. Many critics believe that this incident will quell public fears about full body scans, which have been called "virtual strip searches." The TSA directed all airlines to give full-body searches to travelers from Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and 11 other countries that have been deemed to harbor terrorist cells. Obama is expected to update the public today about what the government will do to deter future underwear bombers.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/category/the-44th-president/

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/05/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Airline-Security.html?_r=1