OP-ED; IRAN (HIGH SCHOOL)

Iran: The New Frontier

The people of the United States are bored with Iraq. Troops are dying at a slow, agonizing pace, and their deaths are relegated to the back pages of a newspaper. David Kay, chief weapons inspector in Iraq, declared that there were no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq since 1992. The war was built upon a lie, an assumption. It is time for something new.

Iran, which is Iraq’s proverbial next-door neighbor, is next on President Bush’s Axis of Evil list. Iraq and Iran share a 1,000-mile border. Suspicion has been rising about the nuclear capabilities to build weapons in Iran. It has been an ongoing problem.

Two years ago, the Iranian government kicked out the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It was widely seen as an opportunity for the Iranians to start atomic weapons production. Later, it was reported that the Iranians had highly processed uranium, a necessary ingredient in making an atomic weapon. The Iranian government insisted that the uranium was being used for civilian purposes, for example, nuclear power. This appears not to be totally true.

Seymour Hersh, a reporter for The New Yorker magazine, broke the story that the United States federal government has secret forces scoping out nuclear weapons facilities in Iran. This has been happening since the summer of 2004. “The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen and perhaps more…targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short term commando raids… The civilians in the Pentagon [Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld] want to go to into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.”

The Bush administration is at civil war over the problem with Iran. The State Department has been winning the war thus far. Bush cannot afford another mistake like Iraq. Therefore, publicly, Bush announced a new faith in diplomacy. Privately, he has sided more with the Defense Department by signing executive orders allowing the use of covert missions to execute regime change.

A consultant with close ties to the Pentagon spoke with Hersh. He believes that he United States should launch a limited attack on Iran, claiming that the US should take out the religious leaders in Iran. “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered…the Iranian regime will collapse.” Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz share this view. This is a farce because the mullahs shut down the reformist movement already. Any attempt to take out religious leaders will start an Islamic uprising that will create Bin Laden’s dream Islam v. the West in a third world war.

Rumsfeld has two key deputies in this commando brigade: Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary for Defense for Intelligence, and Army Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin. The problem with this is that Cambone was a central force in the rush to war with Iraq. He and Wolfowitz convinced Bush of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda alliance. Boykin took major fire for a speech he gave in front of his own church congregation about the Islamic religion. He is a devout evangelical Christian. Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told his audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

The United States had an opportunity to support the formation of a Western style democracy in Iran, but the United States failed again. Earlier, I spoke of the mullahs shutting down a reformist movement. The movement was an immense group of educated young people between the ages of 15 and 30 who protested the rule of the mullahs. They sought the support of the United States, but the Administration only gave a lukewarm response. As a result, the movement lost its legitimacy, and was shut down by the mullahs.

The country of Iran poses a unique threat to the interests of the United States. For ten years, Tehran has received nuclear technology, and is speculated to be three to five years from a nuclear weapon. Right now, as reported by Seymour Hersh, there are secret US commandos on the ground in Iran. Do we fight another war? Can we restart the reform movement? The actions taken by the Bush Administration suggest that they have already decided that war is always the answer.

OP-ED; NUCLEAR OPTION (HIGH SCHOOL)

The Nuclear Option

BOOM! And there goes the Senate. One issue is dividing the Senate like never before. The filibuster, a parliamentary tool to stop a vote, is about to go the way of the trolley and the five cent subway fare. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), will use another parliamentary tactic that will do away with it on judicial nominations, but this can have many unintended consequences.

This whole fight began in 2001, and is coming to a head now. The President has the power to appoint judges, as written in the Constitution. The Senate, as a check to executive power, has the capacity of “advice and consent.” The Senate confirms or denies the nominees by voting upon them. President Bush has nominated 205 judges, 195 of which have been confirmed. Three were denied, and seven have not received a vote.

Democrats have filibustered the nominations of these seven judges. A filibuster is a parliamentary weapon that can be used by a minority in the Senate. It involves the use of unlimited debate to obstruct the business of the Senate, essentially preventing a vote on a bill. The Senate doctrine of “double tracking” allows the Senate to continue other business as a filibuster goes on.

The filibuster originally became popular in the 1850s. In 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson had problems with the Senate, it agreed to have the opportunity to stop unlimited debate. The Senate adopted Rule 22, a “cloture rule,” which allowed a two-thirds vote of present Senators to stop the filibuster (Senate.gov). The cloture rule was amended in 1975 to force a solid 60-vote majority to end all debate.

The fight was timid and quiet until recently. Frist, in an obvious power grab, went on a television special called “Justice Sunday,” sponsored by the Family Research Council, an evangelical Christian right-wing interest group. The program was a “rally to portray Democrats as being ‘against people of faith.’ Many of the speakers compared the plight of conservative Christians to the civil rights movement,” (thenation.com). This was seen as Frist courting the religious right in his presumptive run for the White House in 2008. He called for an up or down vote on all judges.

Frist plans to “set a precedent” (Washingtonpost.com) in order for a simple majority (51 out of 100) to end debate on the Senate floor on judicial nominations. This is different than amending the Senate rules, which requires a two-thirds vote (Washingtonpost.com). He can do this by what is known as the “nuclear option.” Republicans call it the “constitutional option,” but the concept is the same.

The scenario most widely expected among senators in both parties is that he [Frist] would seek a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Cheney, if it looked as if the vote was going to be close -- that filibustering judicial nominations is out of order. Assuming the chair agreed, Reid would then object and ask that the ruling of the chair be tabled. Most Republicans would then vote against the Democratic motion, upholding the ruling. Then the Senate would move to a vote on [one of the judges], and a precedent will have been set that it takes 51 votes, not 60, to cut off debate on a judicial nomination. (WHOLE PARAGRAPH: Washingtonpost.com)

This action, will, in turn, stall the Senate to a total standstill. Democrats, in response to ridding the body’s ability to hold unlimited debate, will resort to other parliamentary options to slow all business of the Senate. One example is the call for the full reading of all bills proposed on the floor of the Senate. The budget for fiscal year 2006 is over 2000 pages long, imagine how long that would take!

The Senate is the only true deliberative body of the government, and stripping this right from the Senate will definitely be setting a precedent. The precedent will be further cutting of minority rights. This is only on executive nominations, but next, it could be the entire business of the Senate. The public will see the shredding of the Constitution for partisan gain as political opportunism and rid the Senate of the Republican waste currently housed there.

The Republicans decry obstruction, but of course, we all know this is hypocrisy. During President Clinton’s two terms, over 60 judges were neither confirmed nor denied for various reasons. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided not to hold hearings. He decided not to call votes. He did not allow the full Senate to vote on the judicial nominees. See the parallel?

The collegiality of the Senate is long gone. The ability for compromise may soon go along with it. This fight does not have to happen. Moderates are trying to negotiate a solution to this situation, but they will be reduced to good-willed roadkill. Both parties are playing to the extremes, and the polarization of the Senate is the result. The filibuster may not be perfect, but it is the only thing left protecting the country from the tyranny of the majority.


NOTE/ADDENDUM: The moderates of the Senate, fourteen of them, reached a deal. The Senators agreed to hold votes on three of the more controversial nominees, while ignoring two of the others. The Democrats keep the right to filibuster judicial nominees and anything else they desire. Think it’s all better? Not so fast. If one/both of the other two nominees are filibustered, the nuclear option may still be used. Frist sums it up in one sentence, “All options remain on the table.”

OP-ED; 2004 ELECTION (HIGH SCHOOL)

America has spoken to the World: We are Religious Idiots!

On November 2nd, America spoke to the world by reelecting George W. Bush. We said, “We love God, Guns, and Country. We hate the world, reason, and rational thought.” This assertion is proven in a myriad of ways. The NBC News exit polling said that 22 percent of the country’s vote was concerned with “moral values.” Churchgoers overwhelmingly voted for George Bush. People with only a high school education voted devastatingly for Bush.
The result of the 2004 election was a victory via electoral and popular majority for incumbent President George W. Bush. The official electoral count was 286-252. He won 51 percent the popular vote and a clear majority of counties in the United States. Six new Senators and four more GOP House members rode his coattails.
Exit polling taken by NBC News says many things about the attitudes of voters in this election. The polls said that 22 percent of voters voted on the issue of “moral values,” making it the most pressing issue facing the electorate. 78 percent of these voters chose Bush on their ballots. Karl Rove is spinning this number to say it was the third concern behind national security and the economy. Do not buy a word of it.
The level of religiosity was asked on the exit polls as well. The section of the electorate that said that they attend church at least once a week voted in favor of Bush by 64 percent. The voters that said that they attend church less than once a month voted in favor of John Kerry by 62 percent. It was a battle between religious versus secular. Religion won out.
The level of education was a factor in voting. Those with only a high school degree voted Bush over Kerry by 53-47 percent. The college graduate voted for Bush as well by a similar margin. The voters with a postgraduate degree, or with the highest degree of their field, voted for Kerry 55-44 percent. Amongst all voters with a degree in higher education, the margin was exactly even at 49-49.
As once can see, a distinct group of people voted for Bush in this election. The typical voter for Bush was religious, uneducated, and moralistic. They believed that their America was being taken away from them by a “liberal élite.” They have faith in this president, and have a disdain for openness to new ideas. They want their traditional lifestyle to remain the same, not improve. They made their opinions known, and the nation will suffer because of it.

OP-ED; TERRY SCHIAVO (HIGH SCHOOL)

Terry Schiavo’s Death: Does it really Matter?

It depends on whom you ask.
This issue, the life of Terry Schiavo, has been uncertain for 15 years. She had an enormous heart attack that left major portions of her brain without function. She has been in a coma ever since. Over the last few years, a mounting court battle between her parents and Terry’s husband has grown in publicity.
According to the husband, Terry said that if she were ever in a vegetative state, that Schiavo would want her husband to end her life. Her parents dispute this, and have received injunctions in their favor. The husband fought back by appealing to the Florida Supreme Court, and the state’s highest court granted the husband the opportunity to remove her feeding tube, thus killing her. The tube was removed at 1:45PM on Thursday, March 17.
During a Congressional recess, and a Presidential holiday vacation at his Texas ranch, whirlwind legislation was written, passed, and signed in a matter of three days. This legislation can have a powerful effect on the agenda of future administrations, despite its limited intended scope.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) took up the cause for Schiavo, and wrote a bill granting a federal appeals court the opportunity to intervene with the case. Debate was limited during an emergency Sunday Night session of Congress, and the vote occurred at 12:01AM on Monday, March 21. The vote was 203-58 in favor, with 174 not voting.
There are many problems with this. First, it is a conservative crusade based upon the foundation of a “culture of life,” a statement used frequently by President Bush about his policy on social issues such as abortion. Second, the measure is hypocrisy of the highest order. The President has stated that he intends to have only strict constructionist judges on the bench, and detests activist judges. Why would he sign a bill specifically giving them more sway in ruling over social issues?
In addition, there was political motive in proposing this bill. The Washington Post reported that a memo was circulated amongst Republican members of Congress in competitive districts that this vote can help them in the 2006-midterm elections. Their vote also gives action, instead of just lip service, to the religious right. Tom Delay deflects media attention away from his improprieties with the House Ethics Committee. Lastly, this bill creates a bad position for the opposition party, the Democrats. If they do not vote in favor of this bill, they can be seen as anti-life, and out of touch with Americans. Democrats split on the issue, 47 in favor, 53 opposed, with 102 not voting.
The law passed will be full of unintended consequences, and can only be a bad thing for the nation. This issue is a private matter that does not belong in the public sector. Would you want the government to decide for you in a matter that is as personally emotional as this one?