Can I be blunt?
I love Black Chicago and I hate Black Chicago.
Growing up...I lived in the intersection of the haves and the have-nots. I lived one block west of King Drive and two blocks north of 79th on the southside of the city. Although conventional wisdom would have you think that I lived in the "HOOD" the fact is that I lived on an uber-quiet block filled with bungalows owned by doctors, lawyers, teachers, and policemen. This 'utopia in the hood' provided me with an interesting perspective on life -where within my personal realm of reality I saw that anything was possible but early on I had to consider the kids just on the other side of King Drive that, for some reason beyond my understanding at the time, had a far more difficult mountain to climb to achieve their dreams.
But irregardless of where you start, Chicago has always represented a place where Blacks can accomplish things that were inconceivable in any other location in the world. To this day, the Black middle and upper-middle class is a large-yet-paradoxically small subset of the City's population that is highly accomplished, highly exclusive, but unfortunately becoming highly irrelevant.
…..Yes. Irrelevant.
The "new" upper-middle class of Black Chicago has become so consumed with "identifiers" of class, status, privilege, and wealth that WE have allowed kids to die in our schools, on our streets, and in our neighborhoods – merely recognizing the tragedy of it all when we read the “Murder-Tracker” section in Redeye on our way to work. We see “them” – the victims of these senseless crimes – as the underclass and/or people who are unlike “us”….but this disconnect will prove to feed the growth of crime and poverty within our community.
We will create a collaboration of doctors, investors, and lawyers to throw a party but not to start a foundation to help at-risk kids. We will throw parties in multiple cities at a time but not arrange mentorship opportunities in multiple schools in one city? We will combine resources to rent out party halls but not leverage each others resources to help many of our younger brothers and sisters who will likely not live to see the age of 21.
Is this really what we want our legacy to be?
In Illinois, Black males consist of only 2 percent of all college graduates but over 60 percent of all new inmates per year.
This year, there have been over 125 murders in Chicago, including 28 children in Chicago Public Schools, and 38 murders in the month of May alone.
In the grand scheme of things, we are literally a dying breed....and WE are not doing anything about it.
I’m willing to do SOMETHING….are you?
Murder Tracker-
http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-chicagomurders-map,0,2276.story
Thursday, April 8, 2010
(Not) Shocked, Appalled, Disgusted, and Dismayed…
As a Clinton supporter turned Clinton disappointee, turned Obama supporter turned reconciled Democrat, I have made a tremendous effort to take this presidential campaign in small bite pieces – Huffingtonpost for 15 minutes a day, Drudge Report for 10 minutes to and from work; Good Morning America from 7:00 – 7:30am (because I love Diane, Robin, and Chris) and Politico.com before I go to bed. Before today, my strategy had been successful but at 9:40 am a news alert sent to my Blackberry sent me into a fit of severe disgust….
“John McCain to taps Sarah Pilan for VP”
After several conversations with other amateur political pundits about the impact of McCain’s decision to pick “Woman X”, one thing became increasingly and apparently clear: This election will show us, as Americans, how much we are willing to allow our divisions blind us from solving the issues that affect us.
Whether you are Black or White, Latino or Asian, Rich or Poor – our failing economy will come to affect each of us in some way. Our failing schools will affect the viability of our workforce and hence productivity of our companies; And America’s loss of competiveness and respect around the world will become painfully clear that next time you try to exchange the dollar for the Euro, the Yen, or even the Canadian dollar.
After hearing news of McCain’s VP choice, I whispered “Jacka**” to myself and here is why…
McCain displayed a deep lack of integrity, connection, and understanding of the very people that he tried so manipulatively to court. It is my hope and assumption that part of the frustration of Hillary’s most stringent supporters is that there is a feeling of “IF NOT HILLARY THAN WHO?” If Hillary Clinton, who is ivy-league educated and has the political experience and collateral to move issues to the forefront of the US Congress and into the purview of the American people can’t be elected President, then what woman can be elected? This is logical and understandable argument and what is significant is that it is not be based on the point that Hillary is just a woman, but “a strong woman and a strong candidate.” One who deserving and rightfully made 18,000,000 cracks in the highest glass ceiling in the land.
However, what McCain’s choice shows is that he cares less about the issues, cares little about moving this country forward more united than divided – he cares about capitalizing on the divisions that have disabled this country from moving forward – all for his own political gain. Understandably, he tried to court Hillary’s most disgruntled voters – but did so in the cheapest way possible - -He did not care to find the right woman for the job – just any woman.
So, for all you PUMAs left out there – considering for a second that maybe the McCain-Pilan is the way for you to go…let me help to inform your decision about the type of woman she is …
A Crony Woman…
(CNN) She is under investigation for her firing of a state official, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. She has been instructed to hand over documents and recordings of telephone conversations as part of the probe, which grew out of allegations she sacked Monegan for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law from the state police.
A Good Ole’ Fashioned “Oil-Girl”
(CNN) She is known for her support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a position McCain opposes but many grass-roots Republicans support.
(CNN) She is married to Todd Palin, an oil production operator on Alaska's North Slope
A Trigger-Happy Woman (Literally)
Sarah Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association
A Random Woman
As a vice-presidential candidate for the highest position in the land, it’s terribly embarrassing when your resume is so shallow that reporters begin to list out your high-school accomplishments (she is a basketball champion!) and information about your kids (she has four) to validate the reason that they have to write about you.
“John McCain to taps Sarah Pilan for VP”
After several conversations with other amateur political pundits about the impact of McCain’s decision to pick “Woman X”, one thing became increasingly and apparently clear: This election will show us, as Americans, how much we are willing to allow our divisions blind us from solving the issues that affect us.
Whether you are Black or White, Latino or Asian, Rich or Poor – our failing economy will come to affect each of us in some way. Our failing schools will affect the viability of our workforce and hence productivity of our companies; And America’s loss of competiveness and respect around the world will become painfully clear that next time you try to exchange the dollar for the Euro, the Yen, or even the Canadian dollar.
After hearing news of McCain’s VP choice, I whispered “Jacka**” to myself and here is why…
McCain displayed a deep lack of integrity, connection, and understanding of the very people that he tried so manipulatively to court. It is my hope and assumption that part of the frustration of Hillary’s most stringent supporters is that there is a feeling of “IF NOT HILLARY THAN WHO?” If Hillary Clinton, who is ivy-league educated and has the political experience and collateral to move issues to the forefront of the US Congress and into the purview of the American people can’t be elected President, then what woman can be elected? This is logical and understandable argument and what is significant is that it is not be based on the point that Hillary is just a woman, but “a strong woman and a strong candidate.” One who deserving and rightfully made 18,000,000 cracks in the highest glass ceiling in the land.
However, what McCain’s choice shows is that he cares less about the issues, cares little about moving this country forward more united than divided – he cares about capitalizing on the divisions that have disabled this country from moving forward – all for his own political gain. Understandably, he tried to court Hillary’s most disgruntled voters – but did so in the cheapest way possible - -He did not care to find the right woman for the job – just any woman.
So, for all you PUMAs left out there – considering for a second that maybe the McCain-Pilan is the way for you to go…let me help to inform your decision about the type of woman she is …
A Crony Woman…
(CNN) She is under investigation for her firing of a state official, Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. She has been instructed to hand over documents and recordings of telephone conversations as part of the probe, which grew out of allegations she sacked Monegan for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law from the state police.
A Good Ole’ Fashioned “Oil-Girl”
(CNN) She is known for her support of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a position McCain opposes but many grass-roots Republicans support.
(CNN) She is married to Todd Palin, an oil production operator on Alaska's North Slope
A Trigger-Happy Woman (Literally)
Sarah Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association
A Random Woman
As a vice-presidential candidate for the highest position in the land, it’s terribly embarrassing when your resume is so shallow that reporters begin to list out your high-school accomplishments (she is a basketball champion!) and information about your kids (she has four) to validate the reason that they have to write about you.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Black Boys and Public Education: Special Ed, Social Promotion, and Cultural Bias
As discussed in last week’s class, the achievement gap between Blacks and Whites consistently indicates disparities in academic outcomes in regards to race in the US. These differences in academic performance are argued by many to justify many employers hiring of White applicants over Blacks. This rationale supports that hiring discrimination stems not from prejudice but from mere asymmetries in qualifications between the two groups. In the event that this argument is true, one must – in exercising good policy – look to question, answer and remedy possible ways in which this phenomenon might be reversed. Though various studies prove that the achievement gap is continuously decreasing for Black females when given equal academic resources, the gap for Black men continues to remain vast over the course of various treatments. The purpose of this paper is to discuss various reasons that could account for poor academic achievement in Black men.
In recent times, many social scientists have given attention to the propensity of teachers and administrators to put Black men in Special Education classes at astronomically higher rates than their female and white counterparts. As noted in a 2005 report of the National Association for the Education of African American Students with Disabilities, in many urban areas – at any given time, two-thirds of the students in special education classes are Black and likely to be male. As displayed in the frustration of parents at a rally at a Maryland School Board meeting in 2005, many teachers prematurely transfer Black males to special education classes as a response to behavior or emotional problems. As a consequence, academically capable Black students’ intellectual growth becomes stunted while their behavioral and emotional issues continue to worsen.
Even in Chicago, the process of transferring problematic children to special education classes has sparked noteworthy attention. More specifically, within the Chicago Public Schools, criticism has been raised in the system’s use of social promotion of Black males as early as the third grade level. In effect, the public school system’s inability or lack of desire to adequately educate young Black boys “undermines student’s [life chances] when they fail to develop critical study and job-related skills.”
Oftentimes, an examination of academic outcomes for Black males brings criticism to the “culture” of African-American families who are deemed as valuing education far less than their White counterparts. While much research has gone into measuring the effects of habitual tendencies within Black households as they relate to educational performance, many remain skeptical in saying definitively that African-Americans “value” education less than Whites. However, what has recently been discovered of equal importance is the “culture” of the school and mainstream society’s perception of academic potential amongst Black male youth. On February 1, 2007, The Chicago Tribune published an article, “Young Blacks Feel Hindered” where a University of Chicago study [facilitated by Kathy Cohen] revealed that young Black people “remain alienated and pessimistic about their place in society.” The survey further revealed that students do not believe that racism will end in their lifetime and feel that it hinders their advancement leading many of the nation’s leaders to not care about them.
The feeling of cultural displacement amongst Black males was further examined in The Journal News, a newspaper serving the Westchester, New York and White Plains area. In an article entitled, “Racism still seen as a serious obstacle for Black males in America,” research from the University of Chicago revealed that 61 percent of Black teens and young adults said they believed discrimination made it harder for young blacks to get ahead. A separate survey from the Opinion Research Corp revealed similarly that 49 percent of young Blacks said that racism is still “a very serious problem.”
In examining the potential reasons that result in higher disparities in academic achievement between Blacks and Whites, one must be sensitive to the underlying cultural biases that may stunt overall life chances of Black males. Because of a perception of low life potential in the earliest stages of their academic life, these individuals are merely passed along through the education system with minimal substantive attention given to social and behavioral problems that could potentially be overcame with time and effort. As a result, many young Black males reach a proverbial “point of no return” where incentives to perform academically do not appear to be worth their time.
In recent times, many social scientists have given attention to the propensity of teachers and administrators to put Black men in Special Education classes at astronomically higher rates than their female and white counterparts. As noted in a 2005 report of the National Association for the Education of African American Students with Disabilities, in many urban areas – at any given time, two-thirds of the students in special education classes are Black and likely to be male. As displayed in the frustration of parents at a rally at a Maryland School Board meeting in 2005, many teachers prematurely transfer Black males to special education classes as a response to behavior or emotional problems. As a consequence, academically capable Black students’ intellectual growth becomes stunted while their behavioral and emotional issues continue to worsen.
Even in Chicago, the process of transferring problematic children to special education classes has sparked noteworthy attention. More specifically, within the Chicago Public Schools, criticism has been raised in the system’s use of social promotion of Black males as early as the third grade level. In effect, the public school system’s inability or lack of desire to adequately educate young Black boys “undermines student’s [life chances] when they fail to develop critical study and job-related skills.”
Oftentimes, an examination of academic outcomes for Black males brings criticism to the “culture” of African-American families who are deemed as valuing education far less than their White counterparts. While much research has gone into measuring the effects of habitual tendencies within Black households as they relate to educational performance, many remain skeptical in saying definitively that African-Americans “value” education less than Whites. However, what has recently been discovered of equal importance is the “culture” of the school and mainstream society’s perception of academic potential amongst Black male youth. On February 1, 2007, The Chicago Tribune published an article, “Young Blacks Feel Hindered” where a University of Chicago study [facilitated by Kathy Cohen] revealed that young Black people “remain alienated and pessimistic about their place in society.” The survey further revealed that students do not believe that racism will end in their lifetime and feel that it hinders their advancement leading many of the nation’s leaders to not care about them.
The feeling of cultural displacement amongst Black males was further examined in The Journal News, a newspaper serving the Westchester, New York and White Plains area. In an article entitled, “Racism still seen as a serious obstacle for Black males in America,” research from the University of Chicago revealed that 61 percent of Black teens and young adults said they believed discrimination made it harder for young blacks to get ahead. A separate survey from the Opinion Research Corp revealed similarly that 49 percent of young Blacks said that racism is still “a very serious problem.”
In examining the potential reasons that result in higher disparities in academic achievement between Blacks and Whites, one must be sensitive to the underlying cultural biases that may stunt overall life chances of Black males. Because of a perception of low life potential in the earliest stages of their academic life, these individuals are merely passed along through the education system with minimal substantive attention given to social and behavioral problems that could potentially be overcame with time and effort. As a result, many young Black males reach a proverbial “point of no return” where incentives to perform academically do not appear to be worth their time.
Rock the Vote 2008: be informed...or watch from the sidelines
Whether you love or hate politics, it is difficult to ignore the excitement that has surrounded the 2008 Presidential Election. Over the course of 18 months, seventeen politicians across the ideological spectrum fought to have their ideas regarding the fate of America heard, and finally – after the longest primary election season in U.S. history - only two contenders remain. Now, two men – Barack Obama and John McCain – have been charged with the tasks of…..
…..reuniting America, halting a recession, providing universal healthcare, fixing a dysfunctional immigration system, protecting America from terrorism, simplifying the most complicated tax code in the developed world, saving social security, reversing global warming, as well as figuring out what do regarding Iraq, the mortgage crisis, the world food shortage, increasing violence in urban cities,
and Americans being ticked off that gas is expected to reach $8 a gallon in the next two years.
So what’s a voter to do? Be informed and let your voice be heard.
During the upcoming months, the primary election season is sure to be filled with debates, commercials, emails, you-tube videos, and propaganda trying to convince voters that one candidate is better than the other. While many of these will be informative, and some may be humorous, there are bound to be smear campaigns based in fear, ignorance, and manipulation. While we have seen the implications of these negative tactics from previous campaigns (ie.-the increasing polarization between parties and the inability of politicians to development effective public policy), we must take it upon ourselves to inform our decision of whom we will pick to become the next President of the United States.
To help you along the way, here is an oversimplified cheat sheet of where the candidates stand on the issues that will effect the next generation of leaders, movers, and shakers (yes, I am talking about YOU)...
On Iraq*:
McCain: Voted for the use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq. Believes that the U.S. must have a sustained presence in Iraq to ensure the region does not fall back into safe haven for terrorists.
Obama: Opposed the use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq immediately, and under the plan he introduced in January 2007, the US would have begun withdrawing forces engaged in combat operations on May 1, 2007. Believes the withdrawal of troops is the best leverage the US has to press the Iraqi political leaders to make the political compromises necessary to end their civil war.
On the Economy++:
McCain: Wants to ensure that money spent by Congress, and contributed by taxpayers, is used on legitimate national priorities, as opposed to special interest earmarks. Believes the federal government must respect the bottom line. Believes the practice of excessive borrowing and deficit spending in Washington must stop.
Obama: Wants to make strategic, long-term investments into American infrastructure to create more high-wage jobs. Plans to expand federal funding for basic research, make the tax credit for research and development permanent, and expand the deployment of broadband technology, so that businesses can invest in innovation and create high-paying, secure jobs. Has stated that he will make investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage entrepreneurialism to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy. Wants to fight against trade agreements that undermine American competitiveness and use trade as a tool to grow American jobs. Will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.
On Healthcare++:
McCain: Believes health care reform must put individuals and families, not government, at the center of the health care system. Wants to provide greater access to high-quality health care and end spiraling costs. Believes that the road to healthcare reform should not be a government-controlled process. Has stated that the best way expand access and controls costs, without hurting the quality of our health care, is to harness competition to offer more affordable insurance options for as many Americans as possible.
Obama: Believes that the benefits of the American health care system come at a price that an increasing number of individuals and families, employers and employees, and public and private providers cannot afford. Has developed an official healthcare plan which is estimated to save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on premiums.
On Immigration*:
McCain: Co-sponsored Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Obama: Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
On Energy and Oil++:
McCain: Promotes energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in American homes, businesses and automobiles. Believes that smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in our oil-dependent transportation sector.
Obama: Supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce dependence on foreign oil and nonrenewable, polluting sources of energy. Plans to dramatically increase federal investment in advanced clean-energy technologies and energy efficiency.
Taxes*:
McCain: Voted against 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cut laws, but later voted in favor of extending tax cuts through 2010.
Obama: Opposed extending 2003 Bush tax cut law through 2010. Supports eliminating marriage penalty and extending child tax credit. Supports scaling back capital gains and dividends tax cuts and re-examining tax benefits for the top one percent of earners.
On “sensitive topics”:
Same-sex marriage*:
McCain: Supports definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage. Belives that individual states should decide the issue. Says a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws. Supports legal benefits for same-sex partners.
Obama: Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions.
Abortion*:
McCain: Opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.
Obama: Supports abortion rights.
On the things that really matter:
Favorite Food#:
McCain: Baby-back ribs
Obama: Chili
Hidden Talent#:
McCain: Barbeque grill chef
Obama: Playing Poker
Music on IPOD:
McCain: Doesn’t have a computer, therefore can’t upload music.
Obama+: Jay-Z; Bob Dylan; Sheryl Crow; Stevie Wonder; Elton John; Howlin’ Wolf; Yo-Yo Mama; Bruce Springstein
Pimped out ride#:
McCain: Cadillac CTS
Obama: Ford Escape Hybrid
Sources:
* - CNN; Election Center 2008; Candidate Profiles
# - ABC News; Meet the Candidates
+ - NDTV.com’; “What’s on Obama’s ipod?” June 26, 2008
++ - Nationalplatforms.com; Presidential Candidate Profiles and the Washingtonpost.com
…..reuniting America, halting a recession, providing universal healthcare, fixing a dysfunctional immigration system, protecting America from terrorism, simplifying the most complicated tax code in the developed world, saving social security, reversing global warming, as well as figuring out what do regarding Iraq, the mortgage crisis, the world food shortage, increasing violence in urban cities,
and Americans being ticked off that gas is expected to reach $8 a gallon in the next two years.
So what’s a voter to do? Be informed and let your voice be heard.
During the upcoming months, the primary election season is sure to be filled with debates, commercials, emails, you-tube videos, and propaganda trying to convince voters that one candidate is better than the other. While many of these will be informative, and some may be humorous, there are bound to be smear campaigns based in fear, ignorance, and manipulation. While we have seen the implications of these negative tactics from previous campaigns (ie.-the increasing polarization between parties and the inability of politicians to development effective public policy), we must take it upon ourselves to inform our decision of whom we will pick to become the next President of the United States.
To help you along the way, here is an oversimplified cheat sheet of where the candidates stand on the issues that will effect the next generation of leaders, movers, and shakers (yes, I am talking about YOU)...
On Iraq*:
McCain: Voted for the use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq. Believes that the U.S. must have a sustained presence in Iraq to ensure the region does not fall back into safe haven for terrorists.
Obama: Opposed the use of military force in Iraq. Voted for war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Supports phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Opposed Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Supports the withdrawal of troops from Iraq immediately, and under the plan he introduced in January 2007, the US would have begun withdrawing forces engaged in combat operations on May 1, 2007. Believes the withdrawal of troops is the best leverage the US has to press the Iraqi political leaders to make the political compromises necessary to end their civil war.
On the Economy++:
McCain: Wants to ensure that money spent by Congress, and contributed by taxpayers, is used on legitimate national priorities, as opposed to special interest earmarks. Believes the federal government must respect the bottom line. Believes the practice of excessive borrowing and deficit spending in Washington must stop.
Obama: Wants to make strategic, long-term investments into American infrastructure to create more high-wage jobs. Plans to expand federal funding for basic research, make the tax credit for research and development permanent, and expand the deployment of broadband technology, so that businesses can invest in innovation and create high-paying, secure jobs. Has stated that he will make investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage entrepreneurialism to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy. Wants to fight against trade agreements that undermine American competitiveness and use trade as a tool to grow American jobs. Will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.
On Healthcare++:
McCain: Believes health care reform must put individuals and families, not government, at the center of the health care system. Wants to provide greater access to high-quality health care and end spiraling costs. Believes that the road to healthcare reform should not be a government-controlled process. Has stated that the best way expand access and controls costs, without hurting the quality of our health care, is to harness competition to offer more affordable insurance options for as many Americans as possible.
Obama: Believes that the benefits of the American health care system come at a price that an increasing number of individuals and families, employers and employees, and public and private providers cannot afford. Has developed an official healthcare plan which is estimated to save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on premiums.
On Immigration*:
McCain: Co-sponsored Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
Obama: Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
On Energy and Oil++:
McCain: Promotes energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in American homes, businesses and automobiles. Believes that smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in our oil-dependent transportation sector.
Obama: Supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce dependence on foreign oil and nonrenewable, polluting sources of energy. Plans to dramatically increase federal investment in advanced clean-energy technologies and energy efficiency.
Taxes*:
McCain: Voted against 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cut laws, but later voted in favor of extending tax cuts through 2010.
Obama: Opposed extending 2003 Bush tax cut law through 2010. Supports eliminating marriage penalty and extending child tax credit. Supports scaling back capital gains and dividends tax cuts and re-examining tax benefits for the top one percent of earners.
On “sensitive topics”:
Same-sex marriage*:
McCain: Supports definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage. Belives that individual states should decide the issue. Says a federal marriage ban might be appropriate if courts overturned state marriage laws. Supports legal benefits for same-sex partners.
Obama: Opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban. Supports civil unions.
Abortion*:
McCain: Opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.
Obama: Supports abortion rights.
On the things that really matter:
Favorite Food#:
McCain: Baby-back ribs
Obama: Chili
Hidden Talent#:
McCain: Barbeque grill chef
Obama: Playing Poker
Music on IPOD:
McCain: Doesn’t have a computer, therefore can’t upload music.
Obama+: Jay-Z; Bob Dylan; Sheryl Crow; Stevie Wonder; Elton John; Howlin’ Wolf; Yo-Yo Mama; Bruce Springstein
Pimped out ride#:
McCain: Cadillac CTS
Obama: Ford Escape Hybrid
Sources:
* - CNN; Election Center 2008; Candidate Profiles
# - ABC News; Meet the Candidates
+ - NDTV.com’; “What’s on Obama’s ipod?” June 26, 2008
++ - Nationalplatforms.com; Presidential Candidate Profiles and the Washingtonpost.com
Obama versus H(B)ill: What's a southsider to do?
In the multitude of discussions that I have had about Barack and Hillary, I am always surprised at the large degree of simplicity in which people choose who they will vote for. Universal healthcare, economic stimulus plans usually don't matter, instead it always comes down to very simple points; "Kirstin, countries in the Middle East won't respect a female President" or "Hillary will change things cause she is a female" are essentially the two summarizing points." For that reason, going into Super Tuesday (Feb 5th) I felt that as Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Females, and Men living in the calamitous circumstances in which the US now finds itself, we owe it to ourselves to go into our respective primaries with a "smig" more political savvy understanding the very real implications that our vote will have on our lives over the next 4 years.
In no way am I trying to belittle the voting preferences of anyone that I know, the first thing that any Political Science class teaches you is that people are politically socialized by their families first, the associates second, their school and/or church third, and life experiences forth. Which is to say that whoever you are voting for is likely the same person that you would have voted for when you were 4 years old, per your realization that you are a Republican or a Democrat, Liberal or a Moderate, from your parent’s conversations at the breakfast table. Sorry, I digressed...
...As far as the female versus male debate...
1.) Don't believe that just because H(B)ill Clinton has breasts that she will take a softer approach to foreign policy or hesitate in throwing Bombs over Baghdad. Her voting record shows that she is willing to bomb a country with the best of them and depending on your foreign-policy preference, only you can decide whether that is a good or a bad thing. In all, the assumption that Clinton will be more diplomatic by virtue of her anatomy is probably missing the mark.
2.) Although the President sets foreign policy, it is not necessary for a President to be the face of foreign policy. This is why there is a Secretary of State. Even with the foolishness of the "Coalition of Willing" that was derived after 9/11, Condi has been the face of foreign policy for the totality of Bush's term. Though Bill Clinton took a more active role in foreign affairs during his presidency, during the debacle of "Monica Lewinsky" Madeleine Albright stepped up and maintained the U.S.'s foreign policy presence during Clinton's impeachment trials. This is all to say that the foreign powers of the world have grown more than accustomed to dealing with a female figure of state and will likely receive a female President with the same respect, in the even that she chooses to play an active role in foreign policy.
...Political Will versus Political Capital...
Change versus Experience. Although this is the one element of each candidate's campaign that they truly can not change, it is probably by far one of the most important. The truth is, we still live in a painfully divisive country, and in order to move policy forward, regardless of how great it sounds, a politician needs political capital to harness votes from his or her party as well as across party lines. 30 years of the Clinton machine has enabled H(B)ill to ascertain a lot of political capital, savvy, and knowledge that allows for her to have the clout to move the policies in the direction that should would like them to go. However, part of her savvy means that she will only fight battles that she knows that she can win, which are probably not the most important battles for the average American. Enter Barack Obama: His ambition to inspire people across party lines in a good indicator that he is willing to be unconventional and push for those issues that truly matter to the average American. This alone sets him apart all of the Presidents that we have seen since RFK. However, the million dollar question and the gamble for voters is whether he will be able to move HOPE into ACTION. The answer to that is 50% out of his hands. Is the rest of the country really ready to unite? Or will Republicans stonewall his efforts? Noticing that the Republican candidates have done little to begin to court independents or moderate democrats should make Obama very suspicious of whether a united country or a united government is possible.
More of the same ole' same ole....a fast-forward version of their policies:
Healthcare: Obama - proposes subsidies to bring down the overall cost of health insurance (opt-in). Benefits everyone with lower premiums; however people who choose not to pay can still receive medical services at the cost of those who do pay.
H(B)ill - mandated universal healthcare (everyone pays, everyone is covered).
Foreign Affairs: Obama - prefers using diplomatic channels as a first option. Aims to meet with five leaders of hostile countries to bridge foreign relations in the first 100 days (I think) of his Presidency.
H(B)ill: Shoot first, ask questions last.
Taxes: Obama: Wants to roll back the tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. Roll back corporate tax loops.
Clinton: Wants to roll back tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. No roll-backs on corporate tax breaks. Instead wants to shore-up Medicaid tax breaks when no services are rendered and to make the healthcare system more efficient (merging patients’ records into an electronic system will save $77 billion/year).
Immigration and Jobs: Obama: (Unclear plan) wants to first improve the economy, fix infrastructure and increase investment (like education in poor areas and inner cities) and everyone comes out ahead - poor Blacks, undocumented citizens, poor Whites, etc.
Clinton: Believes that the exploitation of illegal immigrants does drive down wages. Wants to tighten borders, crack down on employers, and do more to help Mexico create jobs in Mexico. Aims to register illegals deport criminals, will give you a path to citizenship (pay back taxes, pay a fine, wait in line, learn English).
Iraq: Obama: Wants to withdraw a vast majority of troops in his first 60 days.
Clinton: Wants to withdraw most troops in the same timeframe, but also wants to keep some there to protect ambassadors, Iraqi translators, and allied forces.
So that’s it. Be informed. Go Vote.
In no way am I trying to belittle the voting preferences of anyone that I know, the first thing that any Political Science class teaches you is that people are politically socialized by their families first, the associates second, their school and/or church third, and life experiences forth. Which is to say that whoever you are voting for is likely the same person that you would have voted for when you were 4 years old, per your realization that you are a Republican or a Democrat, Liberal or a Moderate, from your parent’s conversations at the breakfast table. Sorry, I digressed...
...As far as the female versus male debate...
1.) Don't believe that just because H(B)ill Clinton has breasts that she will take a softer approach to foreign policy or hesitate in throwing Bombs over Baghdad. Her voting record shows that she is willing to bomb a country with the best of them and depending on your foreign-policy preference, only you can decide whether that is a good or a bad thing. In all, the assumption that Clinton will be more diplomatic by virtue of her anatomy is probably missing the mark.
2.) Although the President sets foreign policy, it is not necessary for a President to be the face of foreign policy. This is why there is a Secretary of State. Even with the foolishness of the "Coalition of Willing" that was derived after 9/11, Condi has been the face of foreign policy for the totality of Bush's term. Though Bill Clinton took a more active role in foreign affairs during his presidency, during the debacle of "Monica Lewinsky" Madeleine Albright stepped up and maintained the U.S.'s foreign policy presence during Clinton's impeachment trials. This is all to say that the foreign powers of the world have grown more than accustomed to dealing with a female figure of state and will likely receive a female President with the same respect, in the even that she chooses to play an active role in foreign policy.
...Political Will versus Political Capital...
Change versus Experience. Although this is the one element of each candidate's campaign that they truly can not change, it is probably by far one of the most important. The truth is, we still live in a painfully divisive country, and in order to move policy forward, regardless of how great it sounds, a politician needs political capital to harness votes from his or her party as well as across party lines. 30 years of the Clinton machine has enabled H(B)ill to ascertain a lot of political capital, savvy, and knowledge that allows for her to have the clout to move the policies in the direction that should would like them to go. However, part of her savvy means that she will only fight battles that she knows that she can win, which are probably not the most important battles for the average American. Enter Barack Obama: His ambition to inspire people across party lines in a good indicator that he is willing to be unconventional and push for those issues that truly matter to the average American. This alone sets him apart all of the Presidents that we have seen since RFK. However, the million dollar question and the gamble for voters is whether he will be able to move HOPE into ACTION. The answer to that is 50% out of his hands. Is the rest of the country really ready to unite? Or will Republicans stonewall his efforts? Noticing that the Republican candidates have done little to begin to court independents or moderate democrats should make Obama very suspicious of whether a united country or a united government is possible.
More of the same ole' same ole....a fast-forward version of their policies:
Healthcare: Obama - proposes subsidies to bring down the overall cost of health insurance (opt-in). Benefits everyone with lower premiums; however people who choose not to pay can still receive medical services at the cost of those who do pay.
H(B)ill - mandated universal healthcare (everyone pays, everyone is covered).
Foreign Affairs: Obama - prefers using diplomatic channels as a first option. Aims to meet with five leaders of hostile countries to bridge foreign relations in the first 100 days (I think) of his Presidency.
H(B)ill: Shoot first, ask questions last.
Taxes: Obama: Wants to roll back the tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. Roll back corporate tax loops.
Clinton: Wants to roll back tax breaks on people earning $250K/year. No roll-backs on corporate tax breaks. Instead wants to shore-up Medicaid tax breaks when no services are rendered and to make the healthcare system more efficient (merging patients’ records into an electronic system will save $77 billion/year).
Immigration and Jobs: Obama: (Unclear plan) wants to first improve the economy, fix infrastructure and increase investment (like education in poor areas and inner cities) and everyone comes out ahead - poor Blacks, undocumented citizens, poor Whites, etc.
Clinton: Believes that the exploitation of illegal immigrants does drive down wages. Wants to tighten borders, crack down on employers, and do more to help Mexico create jobs in Mexico. Aims to register illegals deport criminals, will give you a path to citizenship (pay back taxes, pay a fine, wait in line, learn English).
Iraq: Obama: Wants to withdraw a vast majority of troops in his first 60 days.
Clinton: Wants to withdraw most troops in the same timeframe, but also wants to keep some there to protect ambassadors, Iraqi translators, and allied forces.
So that’s it. Be informed. Go Vote.
A tree and the fruit it bares...
Everything about our identities is connected, directly or indirectly, to our parents. From our taste in music to our preferences in foreign versus domestic cars, our parent’s choices serve as a blueprint for the lives that we eventually build for ourselves. Whether we decide to emulate or deviate from their choices is likely to be contingent on the observed benefit of their decisions in comparison with the cost of deciding to act differently. Nevertheless, intergenerational correlations across various actions are large and consistent because the earliest cues of personal development learned from parents become the framework of every decision that any child will ever make.
Intergenerational correlations are most prevalent when observing wealth outcomes between parents and their children. Though various factors such as exposure to quality education, access to wealth, race and ethnicity account for much of this correlation, an interesting element to consider is the similarity in economic status of one’s marital partner to that of his or her parents. In the previous class, we discussed the prevalence of this occurrence and discovered that contrary to popular belief; the fallacy of a “Pretty Woman” [who is poor] marrying a rich man does not exist because trends show that rich men marry rich women, and poor women marry poor men. The persuasiveness of the evidence reviewed in class left me to wonder whether these tendencies were a result of individuals sharing the same social sphere or whether they proved that people marry mates of the same “pedigree” as themselves. Even more interesting is under what circumstances do individuals deviate from their own [relative] status quo and marry someone below their socioeconomic class?
Part of the challenge in understanding whether marriage choices are more dependent on social spheres or preferences is that the notion of “elitism” remains a faux pas in this country. Therefore, individuals who “seek out” mates of similar class status have an incentive to misrepresent their true preferences. Regardless of the stigma of this practice, it remains a practical tool in dating and ultimately choosing a mate for individuals across the class spectrum. Though many may debate the social appropriateness of this practice, most understand the inevitability of people to choose their companions in this manner. Rather than viewing the debate over “salad fork vs. barbeque” as two disparate trends, it is possible to view them as interconnected worldviews on socialization. For example, many reasonably argue that women do not necessarily disregard men of lower social status from their dating pool; instead, they only consider men with like experiences, interests, and goals. These attributes, most would argue, correlate heavily with education which subsequently correlates with income or economic status.
As mentioned earlier, considering the high propensity of both women and men to marry within their socioeconomic class, understanding the circumstances that induce deviation from this norm may provide compelling insight for further study. Various explanations could be applicable when considering race as a factor, such as the disproportionate amount of Black women versus Black men in the middle and upper middle class categories. The disproportionate effect may reasonably account for Black women’s higher inclination to marry men with a lower socioeconomic status than themselves. However, for white men or women who choose to marry someone who is not of the same pedigree, the reasons are less clear.
Choosing a lifetime companion is a very personal and intimate decision that most will face during the course of their life. In that light, if individuals decide to marry within or outside of their social class that decision should be above scrutiny. To the extent that further inquiry goes into this field other than for the purpose of explaining the prevalence of this trend is worrisome. Even if these trends disprove Americans notions of love having no boundaries, one must question whether we can remedy this phenomenon and more importantly, should we?
Intergenerational correlations are most prevalent when observing wealth outcomes between parents and their children. Though various factors such as exposure to quality education, access to wealth, race and ethnicity account for much of this correlation, an interesting element to consider is the similarity in economic status of one’s marital partner to that of his or her parents. In the previous class, we discussed the prevalence of this occurrence and discovered that contrary to popular belief; the fallacy of a “Pretty Woman” [who is poor] marrying a rich man does not exist because trends show that rich men marry rich women, and poor women marry poor men. The persuasiveness of the evidence reviewed in class left me to wonder whether these tendencies were a result of individuals sharing the same social sphere or whether they proved that people marry mates of the same “pedigree” as themselves. Even more interesting is under what circumstances do individuals deviate from their own [relative] status quo and marry someone below their socioeconomic class?
Part of the challenge in understanding whether marriage choices are more dependent on social spheres or preferences is that the notion of “elitism” remains a faux pas in this country. Therefore, individuals who “seek out” mates of similar class status have an incentive to misrepresent their true preferences. Regardless of the stigma of this practice, it remains a practical tool in dating and ultimately choosing a mate for individuals across the class spectrum. Though many may debate the social appropriateness of this practice, most understand the inevitability of people to choose their companions in this manner. Rather than viewing the debate over “salad fork vs. barbeque” as two disparate trends, it is possible to view them as interconnected worldviews on socialization. For example, many reasonably argue that women do not necessarily disregard men of lower social status from their dating pool; instead, they only consider men with like experiences, interests, and goals. These attributes, most would argue, correlate heavily with education which subsequently correlates with income or economic status.
As mentioned earlier, considering the high propensity of both women and men to marry within their socioeconomic class, understanding the circumstances that induce deviation from this norm may provide compelling insight for further study. Various explanations could be applicable when considering race as a factor, such as the disproportionate amount of Black women versus Black men in the middle and upper middle class categories. The disproportionate effect may reasonably account for Black women’s higher inclination to marry men with a lower socioeconomic status than themselves. However, for white men or women who choose to marry someone who is not of the same pedigree, the reasons are less clear.
Choosing a lifetime companion is a very personal and intimate decision that most will face during the course of their life. In that light, if individuals decide to marry within or outside of their social class that decision should be above scrutiny. To the extent that further inquiry goes into this field other than for the purpose of explaining the prevalence of this trend is worrisome. Even if these trends disprove Americans notions of love having no boundaries, one must question whether we can remedy this phenomenon and more importantly, should we?
F-in Republican Spin: "Freedom Fuel" - sure sounds good to me!
“Freedom Fuel”…Sounds Good To Me!
Freedom. Fuel. These two words separately invoke thoughts of liberty (in the case of freedom) and a financial burden (in the case of fuel). Put these two words together and FREEEDOM FUEL, or freedom from a financial burden, is born. To the average American, Freedom Fuel sounds like the winning plan. With the cost of oil fluctuating with every natural disaster and car bomb that takes place between Mexico City to Jacarta, Americans are feeling the very direct impacts of what foreign dependence on oil means for our pocket books individually and collectively and are sounding the alarms to Washington that the country needs a change. To know that Freedom Fuel can be homegrown, is sustainable, and essentially emissions free only solidifies how enticing it already sounds.
But wait…for purposes of clarity, an explanation of Freedom Fuel under it’s more commonly known framework may be necessary. Freedom Fuel is merely Nuclear Energy, and the key component to the Bush Administration’s “Freedom Fuel Plan 2010” proposed in 2002 to revitalize the nuclear industry after three decades during which no nuclear plants were constructed. The selling points of Freedom Fuel are simple, “Freedom fuel” is economically more competitive, with higher efficiency, lower cost, safer, and more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels and even last generation nuclear energy.1
Environmentalists and other opponents push to maintain the “Nuclear Energy” reference in hopes that this rhetoric reminds people of the dangers of nuclear waste and nuclear plant explosions that plagued that latter half of the last century. The emphasis here is on whether the cost of nuclear energy is worth the benefits. If there were ever an explosion in Illinois, which has the most nuclear plants in the country, it would single handedly result in thousands of deaths, casualties and latent cancers in almost a million citizens, and property loss would be in the billions of dollars. The “Freedom Fuel Plan” claims of new ‘Generation 4’ technology that will be cheaper, safer, and proliferation-proof are disavowed as bogus by environmentalists who assert that this technology will be even more disaster prone, because it recycles spent uranium as a cost-saving measure. This creates the ultimate danger of all because spent uranium contains high levels of plutonium that could be used in weapons if in the wrong hands.1 The takeaway point for environmentalist is clear; Freedom Fuel is just empty rhetoric that will endanger more lives in the homeland that any war abroad could ever do.
Freedom. Fuel. These two words separately invoke thoughts of liberty (in the case of freedom) and a financial burden (in the case of fuel). Put these two words together and FREEEDOM FUEL, or freedom from a financial burden, is born. To the average American, Freedom Fuel sounds like the winning plan. With the cost of oil fluctuating with every natural disaster and car bomb that takes place between Mexico City to Jacarta, Americans are feeling the very direct impacts of what foreign dependence on oil means for our pocket books individually and collectively and are sounding the alarms to Washington that the country needs a change. To know that Freedom Fuel can be homegrown, is sustainable, and essentially emissions free only solidifies how enticing it already sounds.
But wait…for purposes of clarity, an explanation of Freedom Fuel under it’s more commonly known framework may be necessary. Freedom Fuel is merely Nuclear Energy, and the key component to the Bush Administration’s “Freedom Fuel Plan 2010” proposed in 2002 to revitalize the nuclear industry after three decades during which no nuclear plants were constructed. The selling points of Freedom Fuel are simple, “Freedom fuel” is economically more competitive, with higher efficiency, lower cost, safer, and more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels and even last generation nuclear energy.1
Environmentalists and other opponents push to maintain the “Nuclear Energy” reference in hopes that this rhetoric reminds people of the dangers of nuclear waste and nuclear plant explosions that plagued that latter half of the last century. The emphasis here is on whether the cost of nuclear energy is worth the benefits. If there were ever an explosion in Illinois, which has the most nuclear plants in the country, it would single handedly result in thousands of deaths, casualties and latent cancers in almost a million citizens, and property loss would be in the billions of dollars. The “Freedom Fuel Plan” claims of new ‘Generation 4’ technology that will be cheaper, safer, and proliferation-proof are disavowed as bogus by environmentalists who assert that this technology will be even more disaster prone, because it recycles spent uranium as a cost-saving measure. This creates the ultimate danger of all because spent uranium contains high levels of plutonium that could be used in weapons if in the wrong hands.1 The takeaway point for environmentalist is clear; Freedom Fuel is just empty rhetoric that will endanger more lives in the homeland that any war abroad could ever do.
The Unconventional Path to the Patriot Act: The Badly Needed Bill That Noone Read
No Ordinary Bill
At 8:46 am the north tower was hit. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines flight 175 collided into the south tower. By the time the towers’ fall was seen by billions of people worldwide, the fate of the Patriot Act was sealed. Though President Bush would not sign the complete bill until October 26, 2001, there was a minimal opposition. The tragedy of September 11th served as the only needed evidence that by any means necessary, the life of America and her citizens was in need of protection. No polls needed to be taken, for a moment in time, all Americans were joined in one thought and one concern; life could never be taken for granted and everyone wanted to regain the security and safety they felt before that fateful day.
There is no conventional way to discuss the sequence of events that led to the introduction of the USA-Patriot Act to Congress. Unlike premeditated Acts of the past such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the Voting Right Act of 1965 before September 11th, there were no grassroots movements or coalition of interests that placed counter-intelligence on the forefront of American priorities. Prior to September 11th, the broad and extensive power given to the government through the USA Patriot Act would have surely been met with opposition from individuals across the full political spectrum. However, the stars aligned in such a way that in the wake of the deadliest act of terrorism to ever take place on American soil, Congress passed the most dramatic piece of “war legislation” in this country’s history.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA-PATRIOT ACT) passed through Congress with a vote of 357 to 66 in the House of Representatives and a vote of 98 to 1 in the Senate. Signed a mere six weeks after the September 11th attacks, the act broadly expanded the country’s law enforcement agencies’ power to impede terrorism. The power of the PATRIOT Act comes not in new tactics in fighting the “war on terror,” but in its drastic refinement of previous counter-intelligence laws. The PATRIOT act eliminated barriers in information collection that were prevalent by previous counter-intelligence acts such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the USA Act of 2001, and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, and the direct predecessor of the USA Patriot Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEPA). Each of these acts, in there own respect played a vital role at the time of their enactment in fighting the wars of their era. However, as the case was made after September 11th, these laws were not apt to deal with the ever-advancing technology that allowed terrorists to bring harm to Americans with greater organization and on a larger scale than ever before.
The Ancestors of USA-Patriot Act:
RICO, FISA, AEPA, FATA, and USA
RICO:
Robert Blakey, a former aid to Robert Kennedy wrote the RICO act as a “befitting tribute to Kennedy’s abhorrence of the Italian Mafia.” The goal of RICO was to eliminate the ill effects of organized crime on the nation’s economy by allowing persons financially injured by a pattern of criminal activity to seek redress through the state or federal courts, up to three times the amount loss by an individual. Key impacts of Rico were to define racketeering and criminal enterprises as well as including mail and wire fraud inclusively in those definitions. Significant to the future enactment of the PATRIOT Act, with the enactment of Rico, government authorities now had legal basis for wire and mail surveillance of individuals convicted or under suspicion of racketeering. A racketeering pattern was broadly considered as two or more violations of state or federal laws regarding murder, kidnapping, hijacking, extortion, fraud, and several other crimes.ii Moreover, previously convicted racketeers can now serve more jail time if they communicated or socialized with other previously convicted and connected members to criminal enterprises such as the mafia. Under this provision, the government is allowed to seize and lien all bank accounts of all individuals and or company assets before any trial could be conducted. This last aspect of the RICO Act highlights one of the most controversial aspects of the USA-Patriot act that restrict due process for individuals involved in organized crime, racketeering, and now terrorism.
FISA:
Since 1928, the autonomy given to the United States government in establishing warrantless wiretaps and surveillance through Olmstead v. United States had been persistently challenged and overturned maintaining that such practices were in direct violation of one’s Fourth Amendment right. Reinforced in Katz v. United States and the case of United States v. United States District Court (also known as the Keith Case), the court supported that the government’s warrantless electronic surveillance of a “target” violated his fourth amendment rights irregardless of whether the surveillance was being conducted as a result of national security concerns. Though the court’s reasoning behind rejecting warrantless claims focused on protecting citizens from domestic surveillance, the court implored Congress to consider the issue of foreign intelligence surveillance for future legislation.
Congress responded to this call to action with the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which produced legal guidelines for federal investigations of foreign intelligence targets. Of significance after the September 11th attacks, FISA also incorporated definitions of who could be investigated. Under the original law,
“ Only foreign powers or agents of foreign powers were to be subject to FISA investigations. Thus, targets [under this law] are primarily those foreign persons who are engaged in espionage or international terrorism.”
This was expanded in 2004 with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that permitted targeting of “lone wolf” terrorists who need not to belong to and be members of a terrorists group or an agent of any other foreign power.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996:
Enacted into law on April 26, 1994, The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 had been a decade in the making. Motivated by the bombings in Oklahoma City in 1995 and at the World Trade Center in 1993, AEDPA was a response to the victims’ families for redress for the loss of their loved one’s lives. The law was intended to “curtail the right of state prison inmates, under federal habeas corpus, to challenge their state convictions and sentences.” One of the most controversial elements of AEDPA that was later adapted into the USA-PATRIOT Act was a section that “bars federal courts from granting any habeas corpus writ on a issue that was raised in a state court.” AEDPA was the first step towards granting the government and law enforcement agencies close to complete legal autonomy in offensively combating what later defined as “domestic terrorism.”
Financial Anti-Terrorism Act:
Passed on October 17, 2001, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act was one of the immediate legislative responses to the September 11th attacks that “increase the federal government’s powers to investigate and prosecute the financial supporters of terrorism.” In essence, this act mandated:
• Criminals who were engaged in illegal money practices that directly or indirectly benefited terrorist enterprises to be punished.
• Gives procedural guidelines for Federal subpoenas for records of funds in correspondent bank accounts.
• Gives federal jurisdiction over foreign money launderers and over money laundered through a foreign bank.
• All financial institutions to be forced to form an anti-money laundering program.
This act and all components were “folded” into the USA PATRIOT ACT shortly after it’s signing on October 22, 2001.
USA Act:
The earliest of counter-intelligence measures after the September 11th attacks, the USA Act was passed on October 12, 2001 and subsequently folded into the USA-PATRIOT act as well. The primary difference between the USA act and FISA was the distinction that a “terrorist” does not have to be backed by a “foreign power” (often assumed to be a foreign government) as defined under FISA. Under this legislation, “a terrorist who was not an agent of a foreign power could be the target of a federal investigation of foreign intelligence.” This small distinction was a monumental declaration that laid the foundation of controversial domestic surveillance allowances provided under the USA-PATRIOT ACT.
The USA-PATRIOT Act
No Showdown at O-K coral…
The original bill of the USA Patriot Act was introduced into the House of Representatives by Congressman James Sensenbrenner (see Fun Fact #1) on October 23rd, 2001 and was passed the following day on October 24th, 2001 in the House of Representatives. The authors of the bill were Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh and the current Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (see Fun Fact #2). It passed expeditiously through the Senate and was approved on October 25, 2001. Fueled on the fear of another terrorist attack and the need for a sense of security throughout the country, the bill received little dissent from in the House of Representatives and received one “nay” vote in the Senate by Senator Russ. One of only three Republicans in the House to vote against the bill, Representative Ron Paul Texas commented on the speed in which the bill went through Congress. He stated,
“It's my understanding the bill wasn't [even] printed before the vote-- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."
The Power of the USA-PATRIOT Act – Defining “Domestic Terrorism”
The true scope of the power of the Patriot Act is in the immigration, banking, FISA, and money laundering laws that it amended. These modifications liberated law enforcement officials from various barriers in tracking terrorist targets as well as redefined essential concepts of the notion of “terrorism.” Section 802 of the Act created the new crime category of “domestic terrorism” which included activities that :
a.) Involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S or of any state
b.) Appear to be intended to
i. To intimidate or coerce a civilian population
ii. To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
iii. To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
c.) Occur primarily within the jurisdiction of the U.S
Much of the controversy over the Patriot Act stems from Provision 213 of that act that allow for “Sneak-and-Peak” searches. These searches allows,
“Surreptitious search warrants and seizure upon showing a reasonable necessity [not a preponderance of evidence] and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.”
Essentially, “Sneak and Peak” searches can be done without or with delayed notification of the owner of the property which previously was seen as a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Another controversial element of the PATRIOT act is presented in Section 215 that recognized the implied right of federal investigators to access email, library and bookstore records through “National Security Letters”. This part of the act, broadly affords FBI agents the authority to obtain a warrant “in camera” (in secret) from the United States FISA court of anyone “connected” to an investigation of international terrorism or spying [as vaguely defined through the RICO ACT]. The actual reading of the bill gives federal investigators unrivaled access to “business records and other tangible items in general” which civil libertarians argue is “unconstitutionally vague” and violates “patrons human rights.”
Why the USA-Patriot Act Trumped the USA Act
(And why the previous acts mattered)
The primary differences between the USA Act and the USA PATRIOT Act are :
• The Inclusion of the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands money-laundering abatement to international terrorism.
• Immunity against prosecution for the providers of wiretaps in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
• Request for a report on integrating automated fingerprint identification for ports of entry into the United States.
• Start of a foreign student-monitoring program.
• Request for machine-readable passports.
• Prevention of consulate shopping.*
• Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statue [which now prohibits the possession of a biological agent with “no reasonably justifiable purpose.”]
• Clearer definition of “Electronic Surveillance”
• Miscellaneous benefits for victims of the September 11th attack and extra penalties for those who illegally file for such benefits.
* “Consulate Shopping” is the practice of applying for visas at different consulate posts in the hope of finding one that will be less stringent or more sympathetic to the applicant in approving their visa.”
After the Sunset: Revisiting and Reauthorizing the Patriot Act
Written into the original bill was a sunset clause that stated that in four years, Congress would revisit the bill and proactively review elements of the bill that may need to be amended. The main challenges that in the reauthorization of the bill were to address the perceived civil liberty intrusions in the aforementioned sections of the legislation. Full reauthorization of the bill was met with bipartisan resistance led by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), and Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) when debate on the bill lasted for close to three months failing to meet the original deadline for renewal on December 31, 2005. The deadline for reauthorization was extended twice before it was finally approved on March 2, 2006 in the House, and March 7, 2006 in the Senate. The final vote made all made two of its provisions permanent. The authority to conduct “roving surveillance under FISA and the authority to request production of business records under FISA (sections 206 and 215) will both expire in 4 years Most significantly, the reauthorization contained 27 civil liberties protections which made many previously allowed warrantless surveillance practices illegal. The protections also instituted a need for authorization from one of three officials, a FBI official, the Deputy Director, or the Official in charge of Intelligence for most warrantless surveillance and wiretaps.
Before the reauthorization, several bills were introduced into Congress to counter many of the civil liberty challenges brought through numerous court cases. The most noted of these counter bills were “Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act,” “Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act,” and the “Security and Freedom Ensured Act” (SAFE). The courts consistently addressed constitutional challenges to the Patriot Act ruling several sections unconstitutional. Section 805, which classify “expert advice or assistance” as material support to terrorism was ruled “unconstitutionally vague.” Section 505, which allowed the government to issue “National Security Letters” to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet service providers and other businesses without judicial oversight were also ruled unconstitutional and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendment.
Despite the successful reauthorization of the USA-PATRIOT act, legislative and judicial challenges to the legitimacy and constitutionality of the bill are certain to continue throughout the future. As clearer understanding of the effectiveness of the law becomes available, whether the public will value the benefits higher than the cost remains to be seen. Regardless, the story of how the USA PATRIOT act came to be is interesting commentary of the true power of the government to respond to the needs of their constituency in the darkest of times.
At 8:46 am the north tower was hit. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines flight 175 collided into the south tower. By the time the towers’ fall was seen by billions of people worldwide, the fate of the Patriot Act was sealed. Though President Bush would not sign the complete bill until October 26, 2001, there was a minimal opposition. The tragedy of September 11th served as the only needed evidence that by any means necessary, the life of America and her citizens was in need of protection. No polls needed to be taken, for a moment in time, all Americans were joined in one thought and one concern; life could never be taken for granted and everyone wanted to regain the security and safety they felt before that fateful day.
There is no conventional way to discuss the sequence of events that led to the introduction of the USA-Patriot Act to Congress. Unlike premeditated Acts of the past such as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 or the Voting Right Act of 1965 before September 11th, there were no grassroots movements or coalition of interests that placed counter-intelligence on the forefront of American priorities. Prior to September 11th, the broad and extensive power given to the government through the USA Patriot Act would have surely been met with opposition from individuals across the full political spectrum. However, the stars aligned in such a way that in the wake of the deadliest act of terrorism to ever take place on American soil, Congress passed the most dramatic piece of “war legislation” in this country’s history.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA-PATRIOT ACT) passed through Congress with a vote of 357 to 66 in the House of Representatives and a vote of 98 to 1 in the Senate. Signed a mere six weeks after the September 11th attacks, the act broadly expanded the country’s law enforcement agencies’ power to impede terrorism. The power of the PATRIOT Act comes not in new tactics in fighting the “war on terror,” but in its drastic refinement of previous counter-intelligence laws. The PATRIOT act eliminated barriers in information collection that were prevalent by previous counter-intelligence acts such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the USA Act of 2001, and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, and the direct predecessor of the USA Patriot Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEPA). Each of these acts, in there own respect played a vital role at the time of their enactment in fighting the wars of their era. However, as the case was made after September 11th, these laws were not apt to deal with the ever-advancing technology that allowed terrorists to bring harm to Americans with greater organization and on a larger scale than ever before.
The Ancestors of USA-Patriot Act:
RICO, FISA, AEPA, FATA, and USA
RICO:
Robert Blakey, a former aid to Robert Kennedy wrote the RICO act as a “befitting tribute to Kennedy’s abhorrence of the Italian Mafia.” The goal of RICO was to eliminate the ill effects of organized crime on the nation’s economy by allowing persons financially injured by a pattern of criminal activity to seek redress through the state or federal courts, up to three times the amount loss by an individual. Key impacts of Rico were to define racketeering and criminal enterprises as well as including mail and wire fraud inclusively in those definitions. Significant to the future enactment of the PATRIOT Act, with the enactment of Rico, government authorities now had legal basis for wire and mail surveillance of individuals convicted or under suspicion of racketeering. A racketeering pattern was broadly considered as two or more violations of state or federal laws regarding murder, kidnapping, hijacking, extortion, fraud, and several other crimes.ii Moreover, previously convicted racketeers can now serve more jail time if they communicated or socialized with other previously convicted and connected members to criminal enterprises such as the mafia. Under this provision, the government is allowed to seize and lien all bank accounts of all individuals and or company assets before any trial could be conducted. This last aspect of the RICO Act highlights one of the most controversial aspects of the USA-Patriot act that restrict due process for individuals involved in organized crime, racketeering, and now terrorism.
FISA:
Since 1928, the autonomy given to the United States government in establishing warrantless wiretaps and surveillance through Olmstead v. United States had been persistently challenged and overturned maintaining that such practices were in direct violation of one’s Fourth Amendment right. Reinforced in Katz v. United States and the case of United States v. United States District Court (also known as the Keith Case), the court supported that the government’s warrantless electronic surveillance of a “target” violated his fourth amendment rights irregardless of whether the surveillance was being conducted as a result of national security concerns. Though the court’s reasoning behind rejecting warrantless claims focused on protecting citizens from domestic surveillance, the court implored Congress to consider the issue of foreign intelligence surveillance for future legislation.
Congress responded to this call to action with the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which produced legal guidelines for federal investigations of foreign intelligence targets. Of significance after the September 11th attacks, FISA also incorporated definitions of who could be investigated. Under the original law,
“ Only foreign powers or agents of foreign powers were to be subject to FISA investigations. Thus, targets [under this law] are primarily those foreign persons who are engaged in espionage or international terrorism.”
This was expanded in 2004 with the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that permitted targeting of “lone wolf” terrorists who need not to belong to and be members of a terrorists group or an agent of any other foreign power.
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996:
Enacted into law on April 26, 1994, The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 had been a decade in the making. Motivated by the bombings in Oklahoma City in 1995 and at the World Trade Center in 1993, AEDPA was a response to the victims’ families for redress for the loss of their loved one’s lives. The law was intended to “curtail the right of state prison inmates, under federal habeas corpus, to challenge their state convictions and sentences.” One of the most controversial elements of AEDPA that was later adapted into the USA-PATRIOT Act was a section that “bars federal courts from granting any habeas corpus writ on a issue that was raised in a state court.” AEDPA was the first step towards granting the government and law enforcement agencies close to complete legal autonomy in offensively combating what later defined as “domestic terrorism.”
Financial Anti-Terrorism Act:
Passed on October 17, 2001, the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act was one of the immediate legislative responses to the September 11th attacks that “increase the federal government’s powers to investigate and prosecute the financial supporters of terrorism.” In essence, this act mandated:
• Criminals who were engaged in illegal money practices that directly or indirectly benefited terrorist enterprises to be punished.
• Gives procedural guidelines for Federal subpoenas for records of funds in correspondent bank accounts.
• Gives federal jurisdiction over foreign money launderers and over money laundered through a foreign bank.
• All financial institutions to be forced to form an anti-money laundering program.
This act and all components were “folded” into the USA PATRIOT ACT shortly after it’s signing on October 22, 2001.
USA Act:
The earliest of counter-intelligence measures after the September 11th attacks, the USA Act was passed on October 12, 2001 and subsequently folded into the USA-PATRIOT act as well. The primary difference between the USA act and FISA was the distinction that a “terrorist” does not have to be backed by a “foreign power” (often assumed to be a foreign government) as defined under FISA. Under this legislation, “a terrorist who was not an agent of a foreign power could be the target of a federal investigation of foreign intelligence.” This small distinction was a monumental declaration that laid the foundation of controversial domestic surveillance allowances provided under the USA-PATRIOT ACT.
The USA-PATRIOT Act
No Showdown at O-K coral…
The original bill of the USA Patriot Act was introduced into the House of Representatives by Congressman James Sensenbrenner (see Fun Fact #1) on October 23rd, 2001 and was passed the following day on October 24th, 2001 in the House of Representatives. The authors of the bill were Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh and the current Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (see Fun Fact #2). It passed expeditiously through the Senate and was approved on October 25, 2001. Fueled on the fear of another terrorist attack and the need for a sense of security throughout the country, the bill received little dissent from in the House of Representatives and received one “nay” vote in the Senate by Senator Russ. One of only three Republicans in the House to vote against the bill, Representative Ron Paul Texas commented on the speed in which the bill went through Congress. He stated,
“It's my understanding the bill wasn't [even] printed before the vote-- at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."
The Power of the USA-PATRIOT Act – Defining “Domestic Terrorism”
The true scope of the power of the Patriot Act is in the immigration, banking, FISA, and money laundering laws that it amended. These modifications liberated law enforcement officials from various barriers in tracking terrorist targets as well as redefined essential concepts of the notion of “terrorism.” Section 802 of the Act created the new crime category of “domestic terrorism” which included activities that :
a.) Involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S or of any state
b.) Appear to be intended to
i. To intimidate or coerce a civilian population
ii. To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
iii. To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
c.) Occur primarily within the jurisdiction of the U.S
Much of the controversy over the Patriot Act stems from Provision 213 of that act that allow for “Sneak-and-Peak” searches. These searches allows,
“Surreptitious search warrants and seizure upon showing a reasonable necessity [not a preponderance of evidence] and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.”
Essentially, “Sneak and Peak” searches can be done without or with delayed notification of the owner of the property which previously was seen as a violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Another controversial element of the PATRIOT act is presented in Section 215 that recognized the implied right of federal investigators to access email, library and bookstore records through “National Security Letters”. This part of the act, broadly affords FBI agents the authority to obtain a warrant “in camera” (in secret) from the United States FISA court of anyone “connected” to an investigation of international terrorism or spying [as vaguely defined through the RICO ACT]. The actual reading of the bill gives federal investigators unrivaled access to “business records and other tangible items in general” which civil libertarians argue is “unconstitutionally vague” and violates “patrons human rights.”
Why the USA-Patriot Act Trumped the USA Act
(And why the previous acts mattered)
The primary differences between the USA Act and the USA PATRIOT Act are :
• The Inclusion of the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands money-laundering abatement to international terrorism.
• Immunity against prosecution for the providers of wiretaps in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
• Request for a report on integrating automated fingerprint identification for ports of entry into the United States.
• Start of a foreign student-monitoring program.
• Request for machine-readable passports.
• Prevention of consulate shopping.*
• Expansion of the Biological Weapons Statue [which now prohibits the possession of a biological agent with “no reasonably justifiable purpose.”]
• Clearer definition of “Electronic Surveillance”
• Miscellaneous benefits for victims of the September 11th attack and extra penalties for those who illegally file for such benefits.
* “Consulate Shopping” is the practice of applying for visas at different consulate posts in the hope of finding one that will be less stringent or more sympathetic to the applicant in approving their visa.”
After the Sunset: Revisiting and Reauthorizing the Patriot Act
Written into the original bill was a sunset clause that stated that in four years, Congress would revisit the bill and proactively review elements of the bill that may need to be amended. The main challenges that in the reauthorization of the bill were to address the perceived civil liberty intrusions in the aforementioned sections of the legislation. Full reauthorization of the bill was met with bipartisan resistance led by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), and Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) when debate on the bill lasted for close to three months failing to meet the original deadline for renewal on December 31, 2005. The deadline for reauthorization was extended twice before it was finally approved on March 2, 2006 in the House, and March 7, 2006 in the Senate. The final vote made all made two of its provisions permanent. The authority to conduct “roving surveillance under FISA and the authority to request production of business records under FISA (sections 206 and 215) will both expire in 4 years Most significantly, the reauthorization contained 27 civil liberties protections which made many previously allowed warrantless surveillance practices illegal. The protections also instituted a need for authorization from one of three officials, a FBI official, the Deputy Director, or the Official in charge of Intelligence for most warrantless surveillance and wiretaps.
Before the reauthorization, several bills were introduced into Congress to counter many of the civil liberty challenges brought through numerous court cases. The most noted of these counter bills were “Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act,” “Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act,” and the “Security and Freedom Ensured Act” (SAFE). The courts consistently addressed constitutional challenges to the Patriot Act ruling several sections unconstitutional. Section 805, which classify “expert advice or assistance” as material support to terrorism was ruled “unconstitutionally vague.” Section 505, which allowed the government to issue “National Security Letters” to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet service providers and other businesses without judicial oversight were also ruled unconstitutional and in violation of the First and Fourth Amendment.
Despite the successful reauthorization of the USA-PATRIOT act, legislative and judicial challenges to the legitimacy and constitutionality of the bill are certain to continue throughout the future. As clearer understanding of the effectiveness of the law becomes available, whether the public will value the benefits higher than the cost remains to be seen. Regardless, the story of how the USA PATRIOT act came to be is interesting commentary of the true power of the government to respond to the needs of their constituency in the darkest of times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
