The American Drug War

Lately, there has been some increased attention to the drug war. USA Today ran a front page story about decriminalizing marijuana when California allowed its citizens to vote on the issue this November. With these issues in mind, OTB thought it would be a good idea to review the documentary film The Last White Hope (2007), about the drug war and its implications in American society.
One of the core aspects of the film revolves around the social and political circumstances surrounding the Iran-Contra affair of the eighties. Last White Hope explains the events that lead up to Richard Nixon first declaring a "war on drugs" in 1971 and the creation of the Drug Enforcement Agency in 1973. It then follows the movement until the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was president and the politics at the time of Iran Contra. The film turns on the story of "Freeway" Rick Ross. Ross was the biggest drug dealer in the United States in the 1980s. He owned several pieces of property which he used to convert cocaine into crack and employ dozens of people in the areas around Watts and South Central Los Angeles. Ross was buying his cocaine from Danilo Blandon, who had close ties to the Contras. Ross would spend almost 20 years of his life in prison for his trafficking activities. Blandon would do less than 24 months and was given a job at the DEA upon his release. Those at the top, those responsible for the logistics and funding of this operation, such as Oliver North, were free to pursue a political career or become failed television host.
The film goes on to examine why these laws are kept in place, especially the prohibition of marijuana. A litany of interest lobby to keep these laws on the books. Producers of liquor and cigarettes are some of the biggest donars to the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Private contractors, who are paid billions of dollars to run penitentiaries, and pharmaceutical companies lobby congress to educate them on the dangers of marijuana. Consequently, the DEA's budget has ballooned from $100 million in 1973 to almost $20 billion today. Meanwhile, of all those who use illegal substances in the United States, 85% use only marijuana, meaning that the decriminalization of marijuana would necessitate massive budget cuts to law enforcement and corrections, which, while politically unpopular, would generate billions in taxpayer savings, and, when combined with the tax revenue that such a product could create, would almost single-handily solve state budget issues.
The film almost makes the point of our children. Won't somebody please think of the children!? Well, they have. Unlike alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana, and even much harder drugs, are easy for teens to obtain because drug dealers don't ask for ID. When governments prohibit these substances instead of regulating them, they essentially cede all control over to criminals.
The main focus of the film is, although prohibition is couched in language about saving our communities, it is actually tied into the same political games that allow lobbyist and huge corporations to deny us common sense legislation on issues such as global warming, financial reform, and other issues that make Washington favor Wall Street over Main Street. Until the population stands up to policies that incarcerate non-violent drug offenders and demand that we treat this problem as the medical and psychological condition that it is instead of criminal issue, we will continue to throw money at an un-winable war (sound familiar?) and deny our citizens the rights to do what they want with their bodies and minds.

XX Breakout

On Friday, English "chillwave" band the XX played Sonar in Baltimore. The XX are one of the biggest new bands on both sides of the Atlantic. The album made several top ten list for 2009, including Rolling Stone and NME.
Consequently, the buzz awaiting the band was pretty intense at the sold out show. XX, however, are not exactly a rock band, and it took several songs for the crowd to settle in for the laid back sounds. Once they had, everyone seemed to enjoy the show, and XX played all the songs from their debut album plus one cover.
Many dance/alternative bands from the UK have tried to find success in this country in the last few years, but something about XX feels different. They seem more popular and accessible than previous bands, and will have a chance to win over many more fans this summer when they play several major festivals in the United States, including Bonnaroo, Lollapalooza, and Coachella.

Chessmaster

Last week, President Barack Obama managed to anger politicians and constituents all over the political spectrum when he announced his energy plan, and his proposal for off-shore oil drilling. As energy prices continue to climb, and global warming continues to threaten us, energy policy has been an important issue, both inside and outside of Washington, for a long time. Obama's drilling plan is actually two fold. First, he has lifted the ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic coast for all states south of New Jersey, except for Florida. Florida bans drilling by statute and that cannot be lifted without legislation by congress. Also, and this was widely under-reported, it reinstates a ban off of Alaska's coast that was lifted under George W. Bush.
With this action. Obama has pissed off progressives and conservatives alike, although, really, those guidelines don't really work for this discussion. Both of Virginia's Democratic Senators are for it, but Democratic Senators from Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and Florida are against it. Also, both of Alaska's Senators, Democrat Mark Begich and Republican Lisa Murkowski, are for it. Of course, this thing gets a little more complicated as soon as one digs just a little.
Obama is doing this to lay the ground work for energy and environmental legislation. Some Congressmen, notably of Virginia, want that plan to include a revenue sharing agreement between the state and federal government that would allow the states to take some portion of the tax monies that come from the oil being taken out of the ground. These are lawmakers who might not be inclined to vote for the energy bill at all, but more state revenue would make it a lot easier to swallow. And, of course, there has to be oil coming out of the ground to create revenue to share in the first place! However, some Senators, notably Democrates Jeff Bingamen of New Mexico and Byron Dorgon of North Dakota (both on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee), are for offshore drilling but against the revenue sharing agreement. Then there are the Republicans, who shouted "Drill, baby, drill" for months, and are now chastising Obama for not going far enough. What was that they were saying about Obama playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers?
Obama has managed to anger environmentalist and pro-business conservatives, and divide the Democratic party. Is this just smart politics, or is there some policy substance here? Has Obama flip-flopped? Maybe the best thing Obama has done here is outsmart the Republican talking point machine. Obama has come up with a nuanced plan that cannot be demonized in a 10 second clip by the right. Now, he can just sit back and watch their heads explode.

Fever Pitch!

Thursday marked the beginning of the 15th season of Major League Soccer. "First Kick" took place in Seattle with the Sounders taking on the expansion Philadelphia Union in front of more than 35,000 vocal fans at Qwest Field. Many were worried that this game would not happen. As of a week ago, the players were still threatening to strike.

That threat turned out to be a non-issue, and negotiations were concluded last Saturday. Players had voiced concern over their ability to change teams within the league, and over the lack of a guaranteed contract. Although they did not get true free agency, like the rest of the football world has, they did get some concessions. Players whose contracts have expired will be placed into a "re-entry" draft, similar to how some league run a waiver wire. Also, contracts will now be guaranteed, also like in the rest of the world. Meanwhile, MLS itself is starting to resemble some of the high profile leagues around the world. The league system is now a true round-robin, with every team playing the others home and away.

There was both a sense of relief and anticipation in the air before kick off on Thursday; relief at the collective bargaining agreement and anticipation of the newest MLS team to begin play. The game did not take long to live up to the hype. With the wet and wild conditions in the northwest, Union defender Danny Califf earned a yellow card in the first minute of his teams first game. It did not take the Sounders long to put a damper on the Union enthusiasm, however, when Brad Evans scored in the twelfth minute. Later in the first half, Union defender Toni Stahl (of Finland) picked up his second yellow card and was sent off. What seemed a tall task for Philadelphia became impossible just before the half when Fredy Montero scored to make it 2-0. Both teams seemed reluctant to attack in the second half, and that scoreline became the final.

The biggest problem for Philadelphia in the first game was discipline. Playing a man down against a team as talented as the Sounders is never easy, but Philadelphia picked up a total of four cards, while Seattle had none. This, despite Seattle actually committing more fouls, 10-8. This can be attributed, really, to the home crowd. Studies have shown that officials are affected psychologically by the crowd, and a big roar can turn a simple whistle into a yellow.

Major League Soccer, Philadelphia Union, and Seattle Sounders can all be proud of this game. Seattle, obviously because they won, but also because of the passionate home support they received, probably the best in MLS. For Philadelphia Union, just putting a team on the pitch is a big deal, and the front office should be pleased. This was a fitting start to what should be an exciting year of soccer.

Settled?

Health care reform, which has now become law, has been the major focus of the media this week, and rightly so. However, it has been an important and fascinating week for US foreign relations. Israel is one of our strongest allies, and we are by all measures theirs. Our unique relationship with Israel started after World War II, when many Jewish people fled racism in Europe by moving to the United States, and others to a renewed Jewish homeland, Israel. Since, Israel has been the motivation (along with oil) for many of our foreign policy decisions in the region over the last 40 or so years. This week, though, has seen our relationship with the Jewish state fall to it's lowest levels in decades.

First, one must understand a partial history of this conflict. When Israel was created after WWII, many Palestinians were displaced and became refugees. Arab states in the region, who accepted these refugees, were naturally hostile towards the state. In the Six Day war of 1967, Israel fought back the aggression of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, but then took land from these countries in the aftermath. These areas became East Jerusalem, the West Bank (both formerly Jordan, and named for the captured western bank of the Jordan river), The Golan Heights (from Syria), the Gaza Strip, and the Sinia Peninsula (Egypt), which Israel eventually withdrew from in 1979. Then, Israel started building Jewish-only communities in these areas, which are known as settlements, and are generally regarded as illegal under international law, not only because they are being built on land which was captured illegally, but also because of the discriminatory nature of the settlements.

Fast-forward to a few weeks ago when Vice-President Joe Biden was visiting Israel on a "good-will" trip. The Administration had been hoping to end settlements as a pre-cursor to peace talks with the Palestinians. Yet, immediately after Biden left the country, Israel announced the building of 1,600 news settlements in East Jerusalem, considered the most sensitive of the Palestinian areas. Israel was seen as "thumbing it's nose" to the Obama Administration. Then, on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the influential IAPAC meeting. This is an Israel lobby conference, and American officials are usually greeted with a warm welcome. Although the speech might have seemed plenty pro-Israel enough to an outsider, it was meet with a luke-warm response at the conference. "As Isreal's friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed," said Clinton.

Then today, President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Unusually, there was to be no press coverage of the event. Netanyahu met with Obama for 90 minutes, then for over an hour with his staff, then again with Obama. The White House has refused to comment on what was discussed, and Press Secretary Gibbs would not classify the meeting as a negotiation. All in all, the White House seems to be handling the issue very sensitively.

It is true that when Obama was elected, there were some who promised he would be no friend of Israel, but more to the point, Netanyahu was never a friend of the Palestinians. He got elected to his position by promising not to agree to a two-state solution. These new settlements only set that possibility back even farther. So will Obama decide to go against the powerful Israeli lobby, and put his foot down with Netanyahu? The United States is Israel's only ally, and they receive over $3 billion dollars a year in aid. Many will say to do so would be political suicide, but Obama has shown a willingness for tough fights. Either way, today's, er, not-negotiations certainly appear intense. Are our interest aligned with Israel's? How long can Israel continue to ignore the world community on these issues?

Obamacare!

This weekend has marked the beginning of the end of the health care reform debate. Late Sunday night, the House passed the Senate version of reform, plus an additional packet of amendments that must be passed through the Senate, possibly this week, by reconciliation. Obama plans to sign the bill into law tomorrow, and it will be the law of the land.
Many parts of this bill are phased in over time. Immediately, however, a few major things will take place. First, no one can be kicked off the insurance they currently have because they get sick. Second, no one under 18 can be denied new coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Also, it will end the "donut hole" for seniors and require insurers to pay for preventative care.
So, of course, the conservatives are freaking out. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), he of the infamous "Waterloo" comment, has already promised to repeal the bill. This is laughable! It is a long shot that Republicans could take over both houses of congress this fall, but even if they did, would Obama sign legislation to repeal his own victory?
Many conservatives, and "tea-party" people, have cried about the creep of socialism into this bill. Hardly! There is no public option, or any other government run health care plan. Yes, Medicaid eligibility has been expanded, but Medicare has not (and was a popular idea.) However, the government has put in rules regarding what the insurance companies can offer you. Mostly, these amount to a floor that insurers must meet, and most are good for the consumer. In Washington, these are normally called Regulations.
Will this be a big issue in November? It depends on what Republican party shows up. Will it be the corporatist one, the party that ran up huge deficits under G.W. Bush and backed any giveaway of taxpayer money to a company? Or will it be the populist one, the tea-partiers who loath taxes and government of all types. We will not find out until after the Republican primaries decide what candidates will be on the ballot. If it's the Republicans, they will know that they cannot re-open the donut hole, and allow insurance companies to kick people off just for getting sick. In other words, although they do not like it, they will swallow the medicine and allow this bill to stand. If it's the Tea Party, they will only accept absolute ideological purity, and this bill must go down. They may win a lot of seats like that, but they will not get anything done. Then the Tea-Partiers will learn what progressives have known for years; Ideological purity feels great in the moment, but it doesn't earn you a governing majority and makes it impossible to get stuff done.

Racism; A Funny Note

Mother Jones Magazine, a bastion of liberalism, is reporting on a case racial discrimination at a Louisiana based Wal-mart. The twist here is that the person being discriminated against here is a Barbie doll.

In the Wal-mart store portrayed in the story, two Barbie dolls sit side-by-side on the shelf, identical in every way expect for two. First, one Barbie doll is white, and, secondly, that doll cost almost twice as much as its dark-skinned counterpart.

Teresa, as the darker doll is actually named, is marketed by Mattel as part of the Barbie series, and was first introduced in 1988. According to the Barbie story, Teresa is actually Barbie best friend, but she is not getting the appropriate respect.

This is sad, but should not be totally surprising. The fact of the matter is, most young white girls, or more to the point, their parents, actually prefer white dolls. These prejudices, whether innate or created in childhood, continue into adulthood. As reported in a recent Time magazine article, African-American women are less likely to receive request on popular dating sites.

This means that the reported death of racism in America is premature. Yes, we have elected a black president, but suspicion of others, or even just a desire to surround oneself with one's own race, is still prevalent in America. This is mostly a humorous story about a child's toy, but we should not ignore it as such. These are the little lessons that we must all take about the United States today, and about how we can create a more perfect union.

Iraqi Democracy

Yesterday marked a major stepping stone for the government of Iraq, and, consequently, for the United States and our armed forces that are deployed there. Sunday was the fifth major election in Iraq since the invasion in 2003, and only the third since the Iraqi constitution was drafted in 2005. It is also likely to be the final vote before the expected withdraw of coalition troops, scheduled to take place in the summer of 2011.

Security had been an issue leading up to the vote, but violence turned out to be lower than expected and had no impact on the election. Only three serious attacks occurred, killing 38. The largest on, an attack on an apartment complex in Baghdad, killed 25. Turn-out, although down from a high of 76% in 2005, was impressive, with experts predicting it to be about 60% this time around, a total that should make an established democracy like the United States blush.

It will be a few days before preliminary results are in, probably by the end of the week. It may be until the end of the month before the results are final, and then possibly a few months of negotiating to form some sort of coalition government. Based mainly on the areas and demographics of the turn-out, it is expected to be a good day for the current government of Nouri Al-Maliki and his "State of Law" coalition.

So this can be counted as a win for the United States and it's allies in the region. First, with less violence than expected, it seems as though the insurgency, and therefor our rationale for staying there, seems to be losing legitimacy. Also, with those already in power seemingly retaining that power, some sense of stability may finally be coming to the country.

The real question is what does this mean politically in the United States. Progressives, including the one that was recently elected President, have spent years saying that Iraq was a mistake, a lost cause that required us to get out sooner rather than later. Republicans, or more accurately, neo-cons, have spent years telling us to "stay the course." Now, with no "leaving Saigon" moment to remember this conflict, how will Americans feel about Iraq? Can the Republicans claim some sort foreign policy victory, here? What will happen next time a President wants to take us to war? Will Iraq be remembered as the quagmire it was for most of the past decade or as a symbol of what the United States military is capable of when we are willing to spend limitless amounts of blood and treasure?

MLS' New Deal?

The 2010 season on Major League Soccer is scheduled to begin at the end of this month, complete with the newest expansion team, Philadelphia Union. However, fans can not get too excited for the new year, yet, as rumors have been swirling about a possible work stoppage, and this labor dispute might get much more complicated than any we have seen in a major American sport.
First off, there are many differences between the way MLS works versus the rest of the "footballing" world. In virtually any other soccer league in the world, players can sign contracts of any length, and with any team. Additionally, those contracts can be voided only at the agreement of the club and the player. In other words, if a player wants to leave the club or the club wants to sell that player to another team, both the club and the player must agree to it. This gives the player much more say over the direction of their career than in any league in the United States. Alternatively, Major League Soccer acts as a single entity, so players do not sign contracts with individual teams, but rather MLS generally. So only MLS decides what club that player will play for, and for how much. If a club wants to trade a player from San Jose to Toronto, the player has no say. This structure also allows MLS to impose a salary cap, unheard of in world football.
So this basic structure of MLS in under threat. The owners, for their part, have promised not to lock the players out. And why would they? This system is working perfectly for them, almost guaranteeing profitability and allowing even the smallest payrolls to compete. It is not working for the players, however, and they have threatened a strike.
What the owners are trying to accomplish here in nothing more than posturing. They set this system up, in direct violation of FIFA rules at the time, to try to ensure the viability of the league. At present, the league appears viable, adding expansion teams almost every year, but a strike could quickly turn that around. Now that players feel secure enough in their jobs to care that they are getting screwed, they want something done about it. The owners are hoping that fans will blame the upcoming strike on greedy players, but don't they just want what blue-collar fans want for themselves; the ability to negotiate with an employer and walk away when one's needs aren't met. Sure, these guys are making good money to play a game for a living, but they are getting a raw deal compared to colleagues around the world. If MLS owners are not willing and able to improve the ground rules for everybody, it will eventually be the fans that lose out. Be it from a work stoppage, or by just having a third-rate domestic league. Or possibly, by not having a domestic league at all.

Presidential Reunion

Funny or Die's Presidential Reunion from Will Ferrell

This week, Funny or Die made news with a short featuring comedians playing each of the last seven presidents. Of course, Fred Armisen resumed the role of Barack Obama that he plays on Saturday Night Live. Perhaps the greatest G.W. Bush impersonator, Will Ferrell, made an appearance. Other notables include Jim Carrey as Ronald Reagan, and Chevy Chase as Harold Ford.
The skit is actually a political message meant to inform the public about the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Currently, congress is crafting legislation to create CFPA, which would help to regulate banks and credit card companies and, hopefully, limit the boom and bust, bubble economy that we have seen for the last few decades.
Truthfully, Funny or Die's skit is, well, not that funny. FoD has done other skits, most notably with Jack Black as Jesus (Vote No on Prop 8), that contain a political message, but always with the intent to make us laugh. However, one has to wonder if that was the aim here. Besides seeing all seven presidents together and blaming each other for the problems, there is very little worth watching in the first 99% of this video. The important part is at the end. Viewers are encourage to visit Main Street Brigade and write their congressmen about the importance of the CPFA, because "nothing annoys them more than having to do their job!"

Harlem Globetrotter

Today, Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) announced that he would be taking a leave of absence from his position as Chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee in light of an ongoing ethics investigation based on trips he took to the Dominican Republic and unpaid taxes on income he received from renting his estate there. Ways and Means is one of the most important House committees based on, ironically, it's role in creating tax laws and generating income for the federal government.
Rangel is a hero among many in the progressive community. However, he is by no means a saint. Having been in congress for almost 40 years, Rangel has had plenty of time to learn the ways that Washington works and to take full advantage. He has been involved in numerous ethics investigations, and is listed in CREW's list of the top 15 most corrupt congresspersons.
The news coming out of the press conference today was big, Rangel is one of the most senior and visible members of congress. There does seems to be another shoe to drop here, though. First, House Minority Leader John Boehner has questioned the legality of taking a temporary leave of absence, and many Republicans continue to call for his full resignation. Also, corruption may be one of the big issues come November. In 2006, Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi promised to clean up the corruption issues that had plagued the Republican congress. Pelosi, however, seemed reluctant to take this action in regards to Rangel, having had this opportunity months ago. With a large anti-incumbent mood growing in the country, can Republicans win back control of the House or Senate based on a fear of corrupt big-government liberals spending your hard-earned tax dollars?
Whatever eventually comes from today's news, this most be counted as a win for the American people. Yes, even for progressives! There are no progressive values that condone congressmen taking money from corporate lobbyist so they can have a nap on a tropical beach. We all remember the outrage that was felt when Tom Delay took golfing trips to Scotland, and we can be no less vigilant here. A corrupt member of congress is a corrupt member of congress. Period. It makes no difference if that member of congress has been fighting for liberal causes longer that some of us have been alive.

Iraq War Thriller For Best Picture

The Hurt Locker is probably a front runner for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, which are coming up this Sunday. The film is a war thriller about a bomb squad in Iraq and takes place shortly after the fall of Hussein's government. The movie has received critical acclaim for it's writing and direction, but also for the political message behind the plot.

In the film, Bravo company receives a new squad leader when the previous one is killed by an IED. The new squad leader is a bit of a cowboy, and tensions mount between him and his team as his methods continue to put their lives in danger.

The real star of the movie, however, is the war, or more to the point, the bombs. Several scenes involve Sergeant James calmly trying to disarm a bomb as threats start to increase around him and his frantic team. During these encounters, the soldiers have some heated conversations with Iraqis, who represent varying degrees of danger. It should be obvious to any neutral observer that some of these situations are just misunderstandings, and perhaps the United States Army should take a more friendly posture with the hearts and minds we are trying to win. Other times, however, the viewer really feels the danger that these soldiers are in and wants them to take dramatic defensive actions. With this push and pull of emotions, revolving around the safety of both the Americans and the Iraqis, director Kathryn Bigelow highlights the difficulty in conducting a war in which it is hard to tell friend from foe.

The Hurt Locker is a great movie, probably the best to be made about the Iraq war so far. It ask important questions about how much positive influence we can have in a place with such a different culture and language, and it has explosions, sniper battles and just enough suspense to keep anyone entertained.

Health Care Summit

On Thursday, President Obama held his anticipated "health care summit." Although Republicans initially suspected a subversive plot to embarrass them on national television, they did indeed show for the debate and most were well-mannered and polite.
The substance of the debate centered around Obama's health care bill that was announced at the beginning of the week, and focused on issues such as cost containment and coverage. The debate highlighted the main philosophical differences between the Republican plan and the one favored by the Administration, which is close to the bill that has already passed the Senate. Democrats favor comprehensive reform, meaning that they want to pass a complicated bill that will affect one-sixth of the United States economy. Republicans would rather work at the margins, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and limiting damages for malpractice lawsuits, which is truly putting a band-aid on the Titanic. Also, the debate showed the distinctions between the parties when it comes to the role of government. While both sides agree on expanding competition, always valued in a capitalist society, they disagree on how those markets should be controlled. Basically, Republicans believe in the market as a form of self-regulation and want little or no government control. Democrats, on the other hand, want to set base line rules for the market and allow competition within those guidelines.
This was a fascinating piece of American political theatre, if not much else. Normally, with parliamentary procedures, ground rules in campaign debates, and the talking head culture, our elected officials can memorize talking points and biased think tank studies and never actually have to defend their statements or positions. What occurred here, however, was an honest political disagreement with little or no ground rules and a lot of uncomfortable looks.
This is what our democracy needs more of. With both sides locked in their partisan rhetoric, and with a scorched-earth battle for the independents, it is important that these representatives have to look each other in the eye and defend their inflammatory statements. Hopefully, President Obama, and perhaps other presidents, will use this type of forum to advance our discourse in the future.
So did we get anywhere? It's still hard to tell. There were many Republican ideas presented at the discussion that are perfectly legitimate, and should be incorporated into the Senate bill, but will the minority be happy to improve a bill that will be counted as a Democratic victory, or are they more interested in political posturing than progress?

D9 Pushes Boundaries With A Message

District 9 has received much attention since it's release last year, and for many good reasons. It's the directorial debut of South African filmmaker Niell Blomkamp, and has been nominated for several Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Visual Effects. However, it has also received attention for it's political message involving the treatment of ethnic minorities.

The story revolves around a spaceship that has stranded itself in sky over Johannesburg, and the alien race, derogatorily referred to as prawns, that have come to live in the slums of the city. The film follows Wikus van de Merwe, played by Sharlto Copley, as he does his job at MultiNational United and attempts to get the prawns to consent to forced evictions out of District 9 and Johannesburg.

And the treatment of the prawns at the hands of MNU is not kind, but it is not unheard of in human history. First, of course, are the evictions. Military forces, dragging aliens, adult and children alike, out of shacks at gunpoint is reminiscent of Palestinians being forced off of their land in 1948. Prawns have medical experiments performed on them, like Jewish people in Nazi Germany, including one called the Pain Tolerance Exam, which involves a power drill. When prawns are suspected of crime, they are tortured for information, not read their Miranda Rights.

Blomkamp challenges your notions about these types of movies. It is hard not to feel angry for the prawns when they are beaten or killed, but when they lash out and kill a man with one swipe it is understandable why the humans react with fear. Blomkamp does a great job forcing us to feel sympathy for the aliens. It is obvious how intelligent they are, but they also have a different moral code, so different, in fact, that to an outsider it may seem as if they have none at all. In this way, he uses the aliens as a stand-in for some native people that colonial powers might have met hundreds of years ago, maybe in South Africa.

Obama Steps (Lightly) Onto Field

This week is starting to seem like the most important one in months for the health care reform bill. Obama had already announced plans to hold a televised "summit" with congressional leaders of both parties, which is scheduled for Thursday, and today he released his most concrete proposal yet. Obama's plan was taken mostly from the Senate bill, the more moderate of the two chambers, with a few key changes.
The most notable, and newsworthy, part of the bill was actually not part of the bill, at all. Obama decided not to include a public option as part of his bill. The administration has hinted, however, that Obama would back congressional Democrats if the wanted to include a public option in the final bill, even supporting reconciliation as a means to do so. The bill does create an insurance exchange, though, which would require insurance companies to disclose all fees and allow consumers to shop and compare plans side-by-side. Obama has also raised the Medicaid funding that would go to states, to help them cover budget shortfalls and insure more people. The bill also closes the "donut hole" created in Medicare "part-D," and raises the amount that any plan would have to be worth in order to qualify as a "Cadillac plan," and therefor subject to increased taxes, from twenty-three thousand to twenty-seven thousand. Most of these changes should satisfy progressives, expect of course for the failure to include a public option. The "Cornhusker Kickback," in which Nebraska received all of it's Medicaid paid for by the federal government in exchange for the support of Senator Ben Nelson has also, thankfully, been removed.
So this is a good jumping off point for this bill, and for this debate on Thursday. Although the bill coming from the Administration is not what most progressives would have wanted, it is something that can get widespread support, just not in the US Senate. And that is what makes Thursday so important. Will this bill be a starter for both parties to add to and improve, or will this be something for the Republicans to tear down?
A bill that is called "Health Care Reform" will pass the congress and be signed by the President, but what that bill will contain is still up for grabs. It is important that we end "pre-existing conditions" clauses, that we create competition among the insurance companies to give the consumers more power, and it is vital that we make sure no American ever goes bankrupt from medical bills. And we can do all of this without adding to the national debt, but we need leaders who are willing to stand up for the American people ahead of the insurance companies.
Obama has made a habit of saying, "I am not the first President to take up this fight, but I am determined to be the last." Well, sorry, but that's not going to happen. The lobbyist in Washington are too powerful to allow that to happen. We will not get single-payer. We can, however, get a good bill for the American people. One that levels the playing field, and gives the customer the power to make informed choices when it comes to purchasing a vital product. One that does not allow insurance companies to change the rules in the middle of the game, and make huge profits from people who are more afraid for their bank accounts than they are for their lives.

Fili-Busted

Last week, Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced a bill to reform the filibuster rule, in which sixty Senators are required to end debate and pass a bill. In the bill, the first cloture vote on any bill would still require sixty votes to cut off debate. However, if such a vote failed, the number of votes required for cloture would gradually reduce over time, eventually needing only fifty-one votes, or a simple majority.

The filibuster rule, which has been in effect in it's current form since 1917, has become much more prevalent in the last decade, and has exploded in this congress. In the last congress, cloture votes were invoked almost 140 times.

While filibuster reform probably is a good idea, it is not totally necessary. Yet. Where is the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moment? Why hasn't majority leader Harry Reid required these Republicans (and let's face it, some Democrats) to stand on the Senate floor and read the telephone book, or Shakespeare? Or "My Pet Goat"!? It doesn't matter, really. But if Harry Reid is the progressive that he claims to be, if he is an effective majority leader, if he is a Democrat, why can't he get tough with the minority?

In 1957, a Republican Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, conducted the longest filibuster in American history, 24 hours and 18 minutes. What was he fighting against? For what did he take this grand principled stand? He was filibustering the Civil Rights Act. What if we had had a majority leader like Reid in 1957? Would African-Americans still be sitting in the back of the bus?

As it is, 45,000 Americans will die in the next year because they lack health insurance. And Harry Reid is allowing this to happen because he does not want to appear uncivilized, or upset the Republican minority. The American people elected Barack Obama because they were on board with his agenda, but we are allowing the Senate to derail it. If Harry Reid refuses to use the rights of his position to push thru that agenda, then we need to get a majority leader that will.

On Wednesday, President Obama gave his first official State Of The Union address. Obama's first year since coming into office has not been what progressives, and many moderates, would have hoped. He still has many of his major initiatives, such as health care reform and cap and trade, on life support. To forge ahead with his agenda, Obama needed to hit the reset button in this speech.

His first focus was jobs, and he managed to frame many of his issues, including education and climate change, around this topic. He also called for a new "jobs" bill, one of the few nuggets of actual news. Obama even ceded ground to Republicans while boasting about how his administration has cut taxes on millions of Americans, which led to one of the more awkward moments of the night when Republicans failed to applaud for tax cuts. Obama seemed genuinely disappointed, saying "I thought I would get some applause for that one." But this is the Republican party in Obama's America. Although they have been preaching from the gospel of tax cuts for generations, if Obama did it, it must be BAD!

He called, again, for health care reform, saying it was needed to ease the burden on American families. "I took on health care because of the stories I've heard," said Obama. He listed the failings of the insurance industry, even for those who can afford it. He claimed health care reform as a fiscally conservative issue, saying that the bill would cut the deficit by a trillion dollars, and forecasted what would continue under the current system, saying" I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should this chamber."

The biggest news to come from the address is the proposed budget freeze. This is also a gift to Republicans, as a budget freeze was part of John McCain's platform in '08. The freeze would take place in '11 and last three years, until after the next presidential election. Obviously a political calculation, but a good one at that. If Obama can address the deficit in his first year by convincing voters that it saved the country from falling off a cliff, then this move will help paint him as fiscally conservative, which is not only politically popular, but also responsible in a time when the country has trillions of dollars in debt.

Finally, Obama tried to relaunch his presidency with the same kind of straight talk that got him the job. Thankfully, he did this with his progressive bona fides, "Let's invest in our people with out leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's met our responsibility to the citizens who sent us hear. Let's try common sense! We face a deficit of trust."

Obama ended on national security. He talked about how we are building up the Afghanistan army so that they can defend themselves from Islamic extremist, and about getting all combat troops out of Iraq this summer. He mentioned the US military mission in Haiti, and how it's this America that the world needs. He promised to strengthen the military by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly.

Obama's biggest political gift has always been his ability to communicate, but in the last year, he has utilized this skill all too rarely. Hopefully, this address will mark the start of a new administration. On one hand, it has too. With the "super-majority" in the Senate gone, he will no doubt have to scale back his goals. If, however, he can clearly explain those goals to the American people like he did yesterday, than congress will have no choice but to follow. This is the leadership that we elected him for.

Of Montreal

On Monday, January 25th, indie-rock band Of Montreal played the RamsHead Live club in Baltimore. Of Montreal, who are actually from Athens, Georgia, have been around the indie rock scene, really, before there ever was one. The band has become known for their energetic and visual live shows. While there are officially five people in the band, there were four more on stage to create the visual effects. Of Montreal is primarily the work of front man Kevin Barnes, and have undergone many line-up changes in their history.

In fact, the opening act was former Of Montreal member James Husband, and his band included many musicians who are currently in Of Montreal. Husband's act was more straightforward than his former mates, with more of a bluesy kind of rock sound.

Of Montreal, however, have spent years honing a kind of dance pop sound. They have a tendency to write lyrics with vaguely depressing or dramatic undertones, but that are buoyed by upbeat melodies. The Baltimore crowd seemed to enjoy the mix, and there were definitely some instances of pogo dancing.

The band's breakthrough, into the indie world, was cemented with 2007's Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer?, which made several critics' year's best list. In 2008, they followed that up with Skeletal Lamping, which did not do as well. Now, they are touring to support this years upcoming album, tentatively titled False Priest.

Of Montreal have found a sweet spot when it comes to pop song writing with experimental sounds and interesting visual shows. Hopefully, they will continue to be a successful indie band well into this decade.

McCainiac

Arizona Senator John McCain appeared on Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer today. McCain was scheduled to talk about the Massachusetts special election.

However, McCain began by attacking the Administration for their handling of the Christmas bomber, and their decision to give Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab his constitutional rights, "He was cooperating until he got a lawyer. That makes it impossible to follow the leads."

Next up was the topic of Fed chairmen Ben Bernanke. President Obama has re-nominated Bernanke to chair the Fed, despite, as McCain puts it, "he was in charge when we hit the iceberg." There are congressmen and both sides of the aisle who have doubts about Bernanke, and McCain said that he is "leaning towards voting against" him.

Finally, McCain was asked to comment on the Supreme Court ruling on the law that he sponsored, McCain-Fiengold. "I don't believe there is anything we can do," he said. He lamented that many conservatives on the court have no history of running for office, and said that that limits their understanding of the political process.

When the Massachusetts election came up at the end, the topic immediately turned to the health care bill. McCain advised the Democrats to abandon the bill that they have and sit down in a bi-partisan fashion to write a bill that everybody can agree on. He then went on to mention tort reform and selling plans across state lines. The problem is these are not solutions that everybody can agree on. Democrats will never go for tort reform, some might say because trail lawyers are a big contributor to the party. And selling across state lines? Well, that was already supposed to be in the bill in the form of an "insurance exchange," but Republicans have spent the last eight months railing against that plan with shouts of "death panels!"

McCain still has a reputation as a moderate in the Republican party. Although he has moved to the right since becoming the Republican nominee for president, so has his party. So, McCain still deserves his reputation as a moderate, but he is facing a primary challenge from his right, and the direction of the Republican party is still torn between moderates and the "tea-party" crowd.

You Say You Want A Revolution?

On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down one of their biggest decisions in decades. With a vote of 5-4, the court struck down the campaign finance reform bill known as McCain-Fiengold. The challenge resulted from a documentary about Hillary Clinton that was produced for the 2008 election, but was never shown because McCain-Fiengold classified the film as a political ad.

The ruling continues the court's push to grant rights to corporations. Now, campaign finance will resemble the Wild West, with no limits at all on what corporations can spend to endorse (or destroy) a candidate.

For their part, the authors of the law had mixed reactions. Democratic Senator Russ Fiengold was angry, "Their decision was a terrible mistake." McCain seemed more disheartened, if not disconnected, "I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court... " President Obama was also upset, "The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics." Not every lawmaker in Washington felt the same, however. Senator Mitch McConnell was almost jubilant, "For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process." Yes, Mitch. It is about time that somebody stood up for Exxon and Goldman Sachs!

In truth, corporations have always had too much sway over the political process. Most citizens can't take their senator out to lunch for a wonky discussion on health policy, and even fewer can afford to fly their favorite congressman to Scotland for a little golf outing. This decision just levels out the playing field a little less.

Election Night Redux

Since the news was announced last night that Massachusetts had elected the first Republican to the United States Senate since 1972, much has been made about how this was a referendum on the Obama Administration, the health care bill, and "run away government spending." Where have these people been?
First of all, Obama carried Massachusetts by twenty-some points, and remains more popular there then he is in the rest of the country. Second, Massachusetts already has the most progressive health care system in the country, covering about 97% of it's residents, meaning that most of their citizens need not worry about whatever the United States Senate wants to do about the problem.
Finally, anyone who has been paying attention for the last thirty years knows that Republicans are no more fiscally responsible than Democrats. Ronald Reagan was the first to pile up massive debt, in his bid to cut taxes and, simultaneously, bankrupt the Soviet Union through military escalation. Bill Clinton, in the prosperous 90s, managed to leave a surplus for his successor, George Bush. With Bush came another Republican in the White House, more tax cuts, and more out of control military spending. In truth, there is no party of fiscal responsibility in the 21st century United States (unless you want to count the Libertarians), and anyone who thinks that the Republicans are going to control spending and steer the economy back to sanity has been drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid.
Actually, most Americans probably don't think about party affiliation, at least not to the extent that the mainstream media (and bloggers) does. Sure, Massachusetts is a liberal state, but winning there requires more than a D next to your name. With both parties trying to win over independents, most political campaign are aimed towards the center (even if it's only the center for that state, like Massachusetts.) This is why most races are decided by only a few percentage points. Therefor, Martha Coakley did not lose because of some conservative backlash in Massachusetts. She lost because she is an ineffective campaigner, who was almost openly contemptuous of her electorate.
So this should be a wake-up call for Democrats, but not in the way that every other pundit would have you believe. Democrats do not get credit for not being Republicans, politicians (of all parties) get credit for standing up for what they believe in! When Obama refuses to take a stance on the public option, when Ben Nelson will only vote yes if his state's Medicaid paid for by the government, these are signs of politicians playing politics, which is kind of like your parents having sex. We all know that it is going to happen, but Please(!) don't let us hear about it!

Special Election Special

Today, in Massachusetts, was the special election to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy. Democrat Martha Coakley had held as much as a twenty point lead up until the last few weeks, but her challenger Scott Brown has run a good and aggressive campaign.

State Senator Scott Brown has become a favorite of the tea-party movement, and has promised to kill the health care bill if elected. For her part, State Attorney General Martha Coakley has not made any friends, at least not tonight, in the Democratic party. She, reportedly, took several weeks off from the campaign after winning the primary. Certainly, both the national and state Democratic party took this race for granted.

Much will be made in the aftermath of this election about how this is a sea change in American politics. That can be true only if sea changes happen every 18 months or so. It is certainly interesting that, in an election year, a Republican can win in a blue state such as Massachusetts. However, all politics is local, and in a year when the biggest issue on the national stage is health care, one can hardly draw parallels between Massachusetts, where less than 10% of the population goes without coverage, and the rest of the country. What has probably contributed to the result tonight is the personalities of the two candidates, and the hubris of the Democratic party. With the country in such turmoil, and an anti-incumbent mood sweeping politicians of all stripes out of office, it was a mistake for anyone to assume that the race was over before it started.

Haiti, Quakes, and History

On Tuesday, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck the Caribbean nation of Haiti. The quake was the biggest in the region for 200 years. The tragedy has left hundreds of thousands dead and over three million homeless and hungry.
The outpouring of grief and aid into Haiti has been reassuring. Haiti is a country of poverty and corruption. While millions lived in shantytowns before the quake, the devastation has only made the situation worse.
President Obama mobilized the United States military almost immediately. Everyday citizens from all over the world have donated to the Red Cross and other NGOs. Yet, not all of the reaction has been so heartwarming. There was the case of Pat Robertson, who said that the Haitian people had made a deal with the devil. "They said we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story."
Actually, in 1791, inspired by the French Revolution, the African-majority in Haiti started demanding more rights. In 1793, France went to war with Britain, and Britain invaded the colony. Six months later, partly in an attempt to gain favor with Africans over the British, France ended slavery in all colonies. Soon, emboldened by new freedoms, Haitians began to call for their independence. Then, Napoleon sent his brother-in-law Charles Leclerc, to quell the rebellion. After achieving military victories, the French were not able to defeat yellow fever, and Haiti became the first and only nation to be born of a slave rebellion.
So inspired by the rights of men, and with a little help from yellow fever, Haiti was born of an underdog story. If that if a deal with the devil, then Pat should take a look at his own nation. Instead, Haiti's historical problems could be seen as a result of a vulnerable geographical position (look at 2008 hurricanes) and exploitation of the island by colonial powers (see the United States occupation of the 20th century.) Therefore, it is important that the United States, France, and all first world nations come to Haiti's aid.

Getting Tough On Wall Street?

Monday marked the start of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The commission was created in response to the financial collapse of 2008, and its job is to find out what led to the failure of the United States banking system.
On the first day, four chairmen of the biggest financial institutions in the country were called to testify; Chairmen Blankfien of Goldman Sachs, Chairmen Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Chairmen Mack of Morgan Stanley, and CEO Moynihan of Bank of America. All expressed concern and understanding when it comes to the pain that the crisis has created for the country, but none were willing to take (or give) any blame.
Meanwhile, President Obama has called for a tax on those same huge Wall Street firms. The tax would be .15% on liabilities on firms with over $50 billion dollars in assets. "My determination to achieve this goal is only heightened when I see reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at the very firms that owe their continued existence to the American people," said Obama.
When the TARP monies were first made available, first by President Bush and then Obama, there was, rightfully, much public outrage at our tax dollars being used to rescue Wall Street executives. However, it is probably true, based on pronouncements from economist on both sides of the fence, that these measures were necessary. Now, it's payback time! No, literally, it is. These are funds that are desperately needed as this country tries to fight two wars, pay for the health care bill, and rebuild our roads and infrastructure (not to mention the infrastructure of Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti ... ). While we rely on banks to build our worth and maintain our livelihood, they, too, rely on us. It's about time that we had a President who realizes that, and who is willing to tell Wall Street the hard truths.

Guantanamo On Facebook

Last week, the BBC reported on a story that is should give Americans pause in considering what we have perpetrated in the name of the "war on terror." Yet, it's an emotional story that should give us hope that the damage can be repaired. Finally, it's a story about Facebook.

Brandon Neely was a prison guard at Guantanamo Bay when it opened in 2002. Americans had been told that the detention facility there was going to house "the worst of the worst", according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Mr. Neely had believed it. Yet, gradually, he began to suspect otherwise. He saw instances of prisoner abuse, and eventually bonded with inmates Ruhal Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul over a shared love of hip-hop, namely Emimen and Dr. Dre. " I thought, how could it be somebody is here who's doing the same stuff that I do when I'm back home," said Neely. He eventually left the military in 2005 to become a police officer, and has since been an advocate for closing Guantanamo.

Most people use Facebook for keeping up with family, friends, and co-workers. Or maybe to find an old crush. But normally, not to find ones former inmates. Yet, that is exactly what Neely did when, on a whim, he searched for Shafiq Rasul. Rasul had been released in 2004, and was living in his the UK. The pair exchanged emails, and, with the help of the BBC, eventually decided to meet face to face, again. Surprising to both, and really to the rest of the world, the meeting, which was recorded by the BBC, went well. "He realised that what he did was wrong," says Ahmed, "and he's living with it and suffering with it and as long as that he knows what he did was wrong. That's the main thing."

This story is surprising on so many levels. First, that we are putting people who listen to Eminem in Guantanamo for being Islamic Fundamentalist. Then, that Brandon Neely would have the idea, not to mention the courage, to contact his former inmates and want to apologize, and that Rasul and Ahmed would actually accept it. It shows that, despite the gulf of understanding between Whites and Muslims, personal contact can go a long way to bridge that gulf. Finally, although Guantanamo has done much to damage the image of the United States, both home and abroad, Facebook can be a major asset in repairing that damage. Who knew?

Religulous

Bill Maher, controversial talk show host and libertarian, released his documentary on religious belief in 2008, titles Religulous. He focuses on many different aspects of world religions, as well as fringe religions such as Mormonism and Scientology. The documentary is meant to inspire debate, and, according to Maher, answer his own questions about belief and organized religion.
Maher claims that he is selling "doubt." He makes the point of religion as a product by showing televangelist selling DVDs. He also goes to religious tourism sites like The Holy Land Experience in Orlando, Florida and the Creationist Museum.
Maher also spotlights how these beliefs manifest themselves in our political discourse. The United States his the most religious of the industrialized nations, and it is reflected in our leaders. By now, everyone knows the story of Ted Haggert, televangelist who bought Meth from a homosexual prostitute. He also interviews Senator Mark Pryor, who doesn't believe in evolution and says there is no "IQ test" to serve in the United States Senate. Later in the movie, Maher talks about Islam and how politics and religion have become intertwined. Maher travels to Europe and the Middle East to discuss religious killings from thousands of years ago up until the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Van Gogh, who was killed several years ago for a anti-Islamic film he made.
The problem with most of the documentary is that Maher interjects himself into every interview, and they become much more like a debate. This is not how most good documentaries are filmed, but Maher manages to maintain some likability. He never claims to have the answers, more so that he is searching for them, although it's obvious that he does not believe in organized religion. Maher's main goal is to separate religion from our political process. He cautions us to use reason, and is persuasive in his idea that doubt can be our true savior where belief has only led to our death.

Harry Reid In Hot Water

Nevada Senator Harry Reid came under fire this weekend for remarks that he made during the 2008 presidential campaign. The remarks will appear in a new book being released tomorrow by journalist Mark Halperin and John Heilemann titled Game Change.

Reid was referring to the electability of then-Senator Obama when he called Obama "light-skinned," with "no Negro dialect." Reid believed that the country was willing to embrace a African-American.

Since the remarks were made public, reaction has been very mixed. Reid immediately apologized, while many Republicans called for his resignation and compared his remarks to those made by former Senator Trent Lott, who endorsed the segregationist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond, in 2002. Many liberals and African-American activist have said that the remarks, while awkward, are not offensive, only typical of a certain viewpoint held by many Americans that African-Americans who are light-skinned and "act white" are favorable to dark-skinned ones who speak with a "dialect." Obama has said that he is not offended by the comments, and his attorney general Eric Holder, who is also African-American, said, "He is a good man and has done an awful lot in his leadership position to advance the right of people of color in this country."

Eric Holder is a important figure in this discussion, and not only because he is the first African-American attorney general. Shortly after being confirmed, Holder said that the United States is "essentially a nation of cowards," when it comes to open and honest discussions on race. And that is what the "conservatives" don't understand about this issue. When Trent Lott endorsed the Thurmond, he also endorses decades of votes, made by Thurmond and himself, that have systematically limited the opportunities of all minorities in this country. Reid, on the other hand, has a record of supporting rights for all peoples, demonstrated by his support from the NAACP. Most people, if they are being honest with themselves, will tell you that Reid's comments are probably accurate. This nation is not about to elect 50 Cent. By chastising Reid, Republicans are dumbing down what should be an important discussion that this country needs to have. Should Reid step-down as leader, if not resign? Well, those are questions that only Harry Reid can answer. In the meantime, all Americans need to check their attitudes in mirror, and decide if they are accepting of other races only if they follow a stereotype that we already approve of.

Governator!

This week on Meet the Press, David Gregory interviewed Arnold Schwarzenegger, the world famous governor of California. Schwarzenegger is truly a fascinating figure in American public life. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria in 1947. He moved to the United States in 1968. A former Mr. Universe, Schwarzenegger wanted to use his success in bodybuilding to pursue a career in acting. His first role came in 1970, as Hercules in Hercules in New York. He would go on to become the top action star in Hollywood. He married a Kennedy, and in 1990 gained his first political appointment to the President's Council on Physical Fitness. In 2003, when governor Gray Davis was ousted in a recall election, Schwarzenegger became the unlikely governor of California.

Although he considers himself a longtime Republican, Schwarzenegger came to office to be "the people's governor." He has carved out an interesting place in the Republican Party. A fiscal conservative at heart, he is also socially liberal, which has been to his benefit in a state like California, and, some might argue, also to the benefit of California. California is a state with many problems, both financially and socially, and is a difficult state to govern. Electing a Hollywood actor, an immigrant, to the executive position could have easily proved disastrous, but Arnold has exceeded most expectations and has become a legitimate politician.

In the interview, Schwarzenegger proved his non-partisan bona fides. He backed President Obama on many issues, including the stimulus package. He defended Obama (and all Democrats) on national defense. One issue where he did differ from the administration was health care. Although an early supporter of reform, Schwarzenegger blasted the bill for the extra pressure that it puts on state's budgets. He became visibly angry when discussing Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson and how his state received extra Medicaid money in exchange for his vote, calling it "illegal".

Schwarzenegger's is a "uniquely American" story. He immigrated to the new world in hopes of finding fame and fortune. His life story has taken turns that he never could have imagined in 1968. Now, with only one year left in his term, Schwarzenegger says that he has yet to make up his mind on what he will do next. He certainly has a future in politics if he wants it. He has a record of reaching across the aisle to work in a non-partisan way. The question is, where does he stand in the political spectrum? Will the Republican party move towards his brand of reform, or will they become more ideological? Either way, Schwarzenegger will continue to embody the one word that Republicans have fallen in love with; Maverick.

Draw Good To US

This year is a big one for US Soccer. First, the domestic league, MLS will add the newest franchise, Philadelphia Union, when the season kicks off in March. Then, this summer, the US team will travel to South Africa to participate in the first World Cup held in Africa. The draw took place late last year, and the result was encouraging for the United States.
The US was drawn into a Group C, with England, Algeria, and Slovenia. England, ranked 9th in the world, are obviously the powerhouse of the group. The United States, however, are favored to finish second and advance out of the group stage. Algeria and Slovenia, ranked 26th and 31st respectively, have earned their spot in the World Cup and are serious opponents.
The winner of the draw was probably France. Not one of the seeded teams, France lucked into one of the easiest groups, with Mexico, Uruguay and host South Africa. France, ranked 7th, defeated Ireland in a controversial playoff after under-performing in the qualifiers. France is favored to win the group, and could threaten to win the competition in a wide-open year.
The loser of the draw could be the Korean peninsula. While very different countries in politics and football, it was one country for centuries. South Korea has come along way to be one of the strongest teams in Asia, while North Korea, as with so many international duties, is still a backwater. South Korea was drawn into Group B with former winners Argentina, and tactical workhorse Greece, along with a strong African team in Nigeria. North Korea was drawn into an equally difficult group with Brazil, underachieving Portugal and Ivory Coast. While North Korea certainly has a better chance to advance out of the group, neither holds much hope for representing Asia in a World Cup knock-out game.
So with groups set, anticipation will begin to build steadily until June, when all eyes of the football world will be on Africa for the first time. Until then, the European season will wind down, and MLS will start up. Look for many a meaningless friendly in the meantime, as players compete for positions on their squads.

New Year; New Blog

Welcome to the New On The Border Blog. In 2009, OTB started with the idea that everyone can influence the political system, and therefore, the history of the entire world. In addition, with the invention of the Internet, it has never been able to communicate with friends, family, or someone you've never met halfway across the world.
New to OTB in 2010? Well, we will continue to bring news from around the world to your desktop. Also we've introduced a few new features to the blog. Once a week we will bring you Reviews Day Tuesdays. Every week we will review a film with political or cultural overtones, maybe an obscure documentary or perhaps the latest DVD release that has all the social conservatives in a tizzy. This week (1/12) we will be reviewing Religilous, from libertarian provocateur Bill Maher. Also coming (starting tomorrow 1/9) will be Soccer Saturdays, which will bring you all the news from the world's most popular game, with an Ameri-centric viewpoint.
We also hope to start updating the blog more often, hopefully bringing guest columnist in to discuss cultural stories with a new frame of reference. So check back here often for new stories about politics, music, movies, sports and everything else we can think of. Your patronage is very important to us!