Thoughts on the misguided use of phrases like “Take our country back” by politicians…

It’s been hailed as the official rallying cry for the Republican Party in 2010, most recently used by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, at this week’s Annual NRA convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, when he stated "We can't wait 'til 2012 to start taking our country back," as he addressed the crowd of gun owners and advocates for Second Amendment rights who have gathered for their yearly homage to gun rights. At the same event, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a common user of this kind of incendiary verbiage, pushed a similarly misguided message that would make it seem as if government agents were holding random gun search and seizure operations aimed at disarming common citizens. Claiming "all they do is take them away from law-abiding citizens and we use them responsibly," a statement which is simply overstated and false. These blatant, irresponsible attempts to rouse an audience that is both armed and angry at the government, are shameful actions taken by desperate politicians who only stand to gain from divisive, deceiving, and obvious fear tactics.

Both Palin and Barbour know that they can easily anger the mainly conservative NRA crowd by implying that the current administration is out to take away their Constitutional freedoms. They can play to the biggest fear of Second Amendment advocates, feeding their ears with falsehoods about the intentions of the parties in charge that most advocates will not verify for soundness. In addition, as they speak to mainly single race audiences, many conservative politicians are searching for ways to bring down the increasing minority population around them, including the President of The United States. Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in states such as Arizona has been brewed by politicians who seek to gain from further dividing Americans who live amongst immigrants. In ignoring their own immigrant backgrounds, and putting the troubles of our time on the backs of the most vulnerable populations, these kinds of politicians are part of the problem, not the solution to a better, more united America.

Unfortunately, even those conservatives who sense the wrong in the anti-minority rhetoric are unwilling to speak up because of fears of being alienated by their party or social group. The phrase “take our country back,” in particular, is one of the most divisive statements a politician can make. It implies that those who are in power are un-American, inferior, or unworthy of the respect of the office they have been democratically elected to. This phrase, and others like it, can also be used to imply that someone who doesn’t belong is infringing on our rights or space. In reaction, those who are inclined to promote such thought are most inclined to do so at the expense of the masses that they alienate by doing so. The indisputable facts are that no one has taken this country, constitutional freedoms, or opportunity away from anybody living in America. It’s an illusion funded by the RNC and others to win big in November.

President Obama, Congressional Democrats and Republican, and Supreme Court Justices are not going to take guns away from law abiding citizens any time soon. Immigrants are not trying to take over the state of Arizona, or any other part of the United States. Still, even in 2010, listening to the speeches at the NRA Convention would make it seem like an invasion of our rights is under way. Politicians nationwide should take note of these mistaken tactics. We are a nation that needs momentum in the direction of unification, and our better days can be ahead of us if we put this divisive behavior on hold. This idealistic view can only become a reality when we as citizens stop supporting such intolerant nonsense. We are a nation of immigrants and laws, and NRA members, Tea Party Members, and others must understand that the two can surely coexist without having to take back something that was never taken away; our granted freedoms and our great country.

Thoughts on Arizona banning ethnic studies in public schools…

Following the signing of yet another controversial law in the state of Arizona, this time banning the teaching of courses in public schools that advocate ethnic solidarity, are designed primarily for students of a particular race, or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group, there are some concerns about the greater message that such a law sends to both the students of Arizona and minorities who take pride in their unique heritages. Though the laws proponents point to these kinds of classes as divisive in consequence, students are given the option, not a mandate, and can choose to learn about other cultures if they so choose. It could be argued that a better understanding of each other is what is needed for all races to ultimately cooperate and get along with one another. The fact that the class demographics may skew in favor of the race that is being studied is no reason to ban the inclusion of such elective classes from the elective palette of inquiring young minds. Proponents of this law come off as fearful of the inevitable mix of cultures that comes with immigration from Mexico and elsewhere. This law sends that exact message, and has already had a significant economic and societal impact in the lives of minorities and businesses in Arizona.

In a melting pot society like ours, where we deem each other equals no matter what race, sex or religion we are born into or choose to follow or not follow. These kinds of laws send a message to our next generation that it is ok to pick and choose what races and religions are acceptable to Americans. This thought process goes against our constitutional ideals, and goes against the realities of the nation we live in and strive to become. We should be encouraging students of all backgrounds to learn as much about each other as they possibly can, in order to make our society a more inclusive and cooperative one. Some Arizona lawmakers have scared themselves and their constituents into thinking that they are being taken over by illegal immigrants and that they are the source of the tensions and discontent of the non-minority population in the state. This is simply not the case. Crime was higher when the illegal immigration population was far less of a factor in the state, and much of the discontent has been fueled by outside groups and Tea Party advocates, who see Arizona as a prime target to launch fear campaigns against minorities and immigrants.

Nonetheless, Arizona is once again under the microscope, and the constitutionality of yet another questionable law is sure to come into question. Going forward, it will be of great interest to see if these recently passed laws will hold up over time. The debates are already heated, and the tensions that have been heightened because of these measures are partly to blame for the increased violence seen towards law enforcement and border officials. The perception from the outside is one of disbelief that in 2010 there is so much resentment towards immigrants, legal and illegal, when there is no proof that they are the root of the fiscal or social problems facing Arizona. This law is also further proof that the conservative legislators who drafted these laws in have lost touch with mainstream American thought as it relates to race relations. Bottom line, the removal of ethnic studies from public schools is a preventable step back in time, not a way to move Arizona into the 21st century.

Thoughts on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act…

Upon the introduction of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, or S.1733, by Democratic Senator John Kerry and Independent Joe Lieberman, it has become apparent that Senate Republicans, such as Lindsey Graham, who are in favor of the proposed legislation, are not willing to take a vote on what should be a nonpartisan bill before the November election comes to pass. In addition, for political cover, these same politicians are using the BP oil spill as the excuse to delay debate on the issue, which is ironic because the bill should be amended to contain provisions to address the prevention of future spills through investment in alternative energy resources and better standards for protecting our oceans and fishing communities. Therefore, let’s take a closer look at the details and the prospects of the bill becoming law this year.

The bill contains numerous provisions aimed at reducing US greenhouse gas (GHS) emissions by 20% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, while also setting up a cap and trade system to set standards for GHS emission allowances. In addition, the bill sets up several new offices to develop new technologies and methods to harness power safely and to advocate on behalf of consumer’s energy needs. These include the creation of the Carbon Storage Research Corporation, an Office of Consumer Advocacy within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment, a Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel, and a National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center within the United States Geological Survey. These new offices and panels will work with the guidance and framework of new target programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Incentives Program, to create the foundation necessary to implement a complex set of new environmental policies.

Despite the grim prospects of Republican cooperation in the passing of the bill this year, the formal introduction of the bill by two Senate power players will undoubtedly put the spotlight on the environment precisely at a time where oil is spilling uncontrolled into the Gulf of Mexico. This legislation, despite desperate calls for comprehensive immigration reform, may end up taking precedent in light of the disaster at hand. Americans have received a wakeup call; we are not doing enough to regulate potential hazards to our natural food sources, specifically our oceans and forests, and the greater environment we depend on for survival. Though the debate may be delayed until the full nature of the BP oil spill is determined, the fact that this bill has been proposed at this particular time is itself significant. Republicans have a tough pill to swallow if they want to be seen as caring about the impact of our human activities. It will take real cooperation with a President and Democratic Congress who they refuse to give a legislative victory to, no matter how much or how little they may agree on the pressing matter at hand.

As the oil disaster makes it way ashore in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Texas, and elsewhere, pressure is sure to mount in favor of passing legislation, aimed at curbing, and eventually ending our dependency on international oil sources. Obviously, it is not in the interest of big oil, or its investors and workers, to be left out of the future energy markets that will inevitably transpire as time passes. The inclusion of provisions aimed to help direct these companies into a more efficient, cleaner, and greener future, will be of the utmost importance with regards to the cooperation of all players in moving forward our national environmental policy. The provisions in this moderate bill go beyond any one spill or the implementation of cap and trade laws. This legislation will once again put America on track to become a worldwide leader in the developing industries of tomorrow, and the energy solutions we must develop, test, and begin to implement today.

Thoughts on the effectiveness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the US approach to his visit…

Upon the arrival of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the United States today, it is obvious that the State Department and The White House are taking a decidedly more tolerant approach to working with the controversial, narrowly reelected leader of Afghanistan. Following months of critical verbiage from the United States and its NATO allies in the region, Karzai has stayed firm in his own, time tested, ways. He continues to reject the existence of Iranian influence in his country, despite the fact that a plethora of Iranian weapon caches have been seized within the Afghan borders, and the continued condemnation by Iran’s regime of the US mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He is guilty of openly accusing the United States of wanting to make a “puppet” out of him, and most recently claimed that western influence had led to fraud in the latest election, which he won when his opponent dropped out (ironically on claims of fraud and corruption by Karzai himself). Then there is the added tension created by Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, and his alleged connection to drug trafficking and poppy production, which further complicates the efforts of US and Afghan forces to root out the money lines used in large part to fund outside terror organizations and the Taliban. Our criticism has ultimately led to a situation where we must re-attempt to reach common ground on critical areas going forward in order to bring a meaningful end to nine years of war in Afghanistan.

We have learned that in criticizing, and essentially backing the opposition to Karzai in the 2009 Afghan Presidential Election, we have proceeded to further alienate ourselves from our most crucial partner in a war we have invested so much life and treasure into. Though his intentions have often been questioned, Karzai has proven time and time again that he is a capable politician in his own right, and frankly he worries more about pleasing his potential voters in Kabul than in conceding positions to the United States or any other country for that matter. Therefore, as he visits the United States at this crucial moment, we must acknowledge that although we may not agree on some of the fine details of how Afghanistan does its business, we all share a common goal of disarming the Taliban, and rooting out the Al Qaeda presence in the region and worldwide. Karzai understands this, and he has known since 2001 that truthful cooperation with the United States and NATO is essential to his hold on power, and essential to his ability to avoid his fragile government from being overrun by the Taliban and Al Qaeda influence in the region.

As the meetings in Washington DC unfold, it should come as no surprise to see all of the parties involved projecting a much more positive, united tone with regards to the nature of the discussions which took place. With the withdraw of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq looming in the coming months and years, we can be certain that the fixes we make to this timid relationship will be pivotal in the execution of the lofty foreign policy goals and wartime objectives of all parties involved.

Thoughts on the Pros and Cons of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan…

Before the much anticipated confirmation hearings take place, it is useful to consider the pros and cons of President Obama’s second appointment to the Supreme Court, current Solicitor General, and former Dean of Harvard Law School. Elena Kagan. In replacing the iconic Justice Stevens, the appointment of Kagan would set the balance of the court at six men and three women, along with a religious distribution of three Jewish and six Catholic justices. There would no longer be a protestant on the Supreme Court, and the court would arguably no longer have a justice who is firmly liberal in ideology. Given these conditions, here are some of the main arguments that are sure to arise in Elena Kagan’s upcoming questioning.

The Pros…

1.) Solicitor General of the United States
As the “tenth justice,” as the position is often referred to, and the first female Solicitor General in United States history, Kagan’s main office is located in the Supreme Court building, and she has the immense responsibility of arguing the Government’s position on constitutional matters and her office oversees the governments appeals process. This key position assures her vivid understanding of the inner workings of the High Court, and should make one of the primary opposition arguments, that she has never been a judge at any level, weaker in light of her firsthand experience within the institution.

2.) Dean of Harvard Law School/Work as Professor/Education
While at Harvard as a visiting professor, Kagan was an award winning contributor to the Harvard Law Review, writing extensively on the President’s role in administrative and regulatory matters, and in 2003 was selected as the first female Dean of the Harvard Law School. She has served as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and she also worked alongside Barack Obama at University of Chicago Law School, where she became a tenured professor in 1995. She attained her J.D. from Harvard in 1986, and holds an undergraduate degree in History from Princeton and Masters in Philosophy from Oxford University. Nonetheless, her record as a student and an educator is widely viewed as exceptional.

3.) Nomination to the Court of Appeals
In 1999, President Clinton nominated Kagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee under Republican Orrin Hatch failed to schedule her hearing, and her nomination was withdrawn. Then, President Bush appointed soon to be Justice Roberts to the seat. To her supporters, this fact should serve as evidence that she had the confidence by the President to become a judge nearly a decade ago, and the subsequent years and her experience should make her an even better candidate at this point.

4.) White House Counsel
As the Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Kagan was directly involved in the day to day legal activities of the Clinton White House. She served from 1995 to 1999, and her tenure ended gracefully with the previously mentioned nomination to the US Court of Appeals.

The toss up…

5.) Independent Thinker
In his announcement this morning, President Obama referred to Kagan as “one of our nation’s foremost legal minds, an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law.” She is known to be an independent thinker and a consensus builder (code word for centrist). For this reason, many in the center and the Right feel she will be strong intellectual addition to the High Court. This, however, marks the point where we begin to look at potential cons that could hinder her nomination. Some, especially to the left of center, believe that her independence makes her undependable as a liberal vote on the court; therefore, it is likely that her opposition will highlight her unclear record (she supported the Bush Administration’s policy on interrogating terrorists on foreign soil) on matters of executive power and the trial of foreign born terror suspects. She also tried to ban the attendance of military recruiters at the Harvard Law School in a protest of the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The Cons…

1.) Never a Judge
The first glaring weakness in the minds of some is Kagan’s lack of judicial experience. Though she has worked in the courts, she lacks the paper trail that judges accumulate during their tenures. Therefore, her opponents point to the lack of clarity in her stances on critical positions that most judges would have written on at this point. This point of contention will clearly be raised during her confirmation hearing.

2.) Application of Battlefield Law
As mentioned earlier, Kagan’s opposition from the left is likely to highlight her support of President Bush’ s policy for indefinite detention without a trial for terror suspects caught on foreign soil. This position is viewed as a Right leaning ideology on matters of battlefield law. Those who are weary of Kagan’s reliability as a liberal vote will point to her statements on this matter as proof that she will not replace Justice Steven’s as a voice for the left.

3.) Lack of a Protestant on the Court
Some will argue that the court needs more religious balance, and that the addition of a third Jewish judge skews the court in this department by marking the end of a protestant prescence on the bench. This argument, while factual, is weak in relation to the reasoning behind picking a judge in a country where church and state are separated. Kagan can point to her record as an independent thinker to counter arguments that her religion will seriously impact her decision making.

4.) The Unknown Factor
Because Kagan was not previously a judge, and because her current job calls for her to act in accordance to the requests of the Obama Administration, it is largely unknown exactly where she stands on the political spectrum. If previous nominees are used as a model of comparison, the issue becomes even more complicated due to the fact that many Justices, such as John Roberts, appeared to be centrists but changed their tones once they reached the bench. Will a Justice Kagan stick to the centrist Democratic ideology which she has represented under President Obama, or will she make a move to the left or the right upon reaching the Supreme Court?

Conclusion…

In the end, the unknown factor could make for the most fireworks at Kagan’s confirmation hearing. The fact that she has no paper trail other than cases she has argued on behalf of the government makes it difficult to put a finger on a exactly what kind of Justice she would ultimately become. In my opinion she will most likely become a center left Justice, much in the mold of her predecessor Justice Stevens and the Democratic President she works for. Her calls for more transparency in the Supreme Court confirmation process should place her in a position where she will have to answer the most pressing questions on her ideology in adherence to her own stated standards. Based on the nature of the process, initial reaction, and the large Democratic majority, it is KTT’s feeling that Elena Kagan will become the 112th Supreme Court Justice of the United States.