Filibuster

The filibuster is an unnecessary loophole that allows a minority to obstruct the majority. It doesn't require any new ideas or logical arguments. To me, it seems like it is similar to having a race as extra credit for a math test. The content of the filibuster has no value to the discussion. All it does is waste time in Congress that could be used for something else. I understand that a representative may want to take a stand against a certain bill, but I don't see that as a reason to be inneficient. For another analogy, it seems kind of like yelling at someone to get what you want. They only give in to make you stop. I guess once in a while, a filibuster might happen to be against something that a majority of Americans oppose, but in general this is unlikely. The elected representatives passing the bill are usually concerned enough with how their votes will affect their chances at reelection to try to follow their constituents wishes. If something like that did happen, however, there must be a better way than relying on someone's ability to talk for hours. If the votes to pass a bill are not filibuster proof, then the people in opposition must have some reason to be in opposition. Rather than causing a complete waste of time, they could birng up their concerns. If those concerns still aren't resolved, but the bill can pass, then i guess it's too bad for them. Maybe they can keep the issue alive long enough to bring it back to Congress later.

8 roles

I think Obama's greatest strength as president will be in his role as chief diplomat. So far, it appears that even if he can't follow through on his promises, he is good at convincing people of his sincerity. Not that I don't believe that he's sincere. He is charismatic, and has already established himself as a more accesible president than usual to the rest of the world. His weakness in this list of roles may be that he is the head of his party. He can lead the Democrats into bipartisan deals, but as the head of the Democratic party, his efforts to bring both parties together are already weakened by his position. As head Democrat, he has some authority to influence stubborn members of his own party to try to compromise with Republicans. However, he has no such authority in the Republican party. Unless a strong Republican figure matches Obama's efforts and tries to lead his party into compromise, Obama's position as the leading Democrat will hamper his efforts.

Confessions of a Dove in Afghanistan

from descriptions like this, I see that we probably should keep troops in Afghanistan. Their focus needs to be mainly on building an infrastructure that the Afghanis can maintain themselves once we leave. there will still be attacks, and it will take a long time, but at the moment it seems to me that the most important job is to build up and protect the areas that we can, before trying to open new areas. If we can stabilize parts of Afghanistan, then they can become centers of spreading stabilization. This could happen on its own, but it would take a very long time and many more people would suffer. And by focusing first on the areas we can help now, we can learn how best to proceed with this help before trying to apply it to all of Afghanistan.

Environment

I understand that the environment is a big deal, and I understand that the US needs to help lead the way toward improving the environment. However, at this upcoming meeting on climate change, I don't think it is Obama's job to try to control the meeting and tell other nations what to do. America has been trying to lead through pure power for too long. Other nations have ideas, and if America stands back, then maybe these ideas can come out. I'm not saying that we shouldn't contribute to the meeting, just that we should show an effort to be accomodating to other countries. In the end, I think that it is most important that the US lead by example. No matter how strong of an argument we make to convince other nations to change, it is pointless unless we change ourselves. Rather than telling other nations what to do, I feel that we should do something ourselves, see how well it works, and then bring our results to the world. The most important change probably isn't going to come from the top down, so at every level we should be focusing on improving the environment from the bottom up.

Race and courts

While in theory, things like their race aren't supposed to affect judges, I feel that this is unrealistic. If everyone had identical lives, then it would be okay, but in reality, with variations between every individual, I think that it is good to have variety, especially in the Supreme Court. Once something has reached that level, it is clearly unsure enough to need careful examination. Just like with anything else, This examination works best when using multiple viewpoints to explore all of the facets of the issue. At a national level, it is good to have representation for minorities in this system. Even discounting things like differences in economic situations between groups, there is enough difference that someone from another culture might not fully understand an issue. Especially on the Supreme Court, that added viewpoint might not change the final decision, but it can bring up and clarify issues that other justices might not be able to see from their unique perspectives. Being of a certain race shouldn't bias a justice toward that race, but, as part of who that justice is, it affects his or her perspective on the case.

Executive privilege is meant to protect sensitive information from people who would use it to do harm to america. However, it can also be used to hide a president's actions from the public and the other branches of the government. Due to its nature, it is basically free from Congressional oversight. The president is the only one that decides what can be told and what can't. That the president can claim executive privilege to protect information from the general public makes sense. Without the full context, some of this information may cause citizens to misinterpret what they have been told, giving the government unnecessary problems. That the president can claim executive privilege to congress however, is a little less understandable. The decision not to tell everyone in Congress can still be defended, but not to tell anyone gives the president too much power of the distribution of information. As far as I know, this hasn't really been seriously abused yet, but it coukld just be that the attempts to abuse it have been successful. An option for placing a stronger constraint on this power is for there to be a committee in Congress, made up of some of the more experienced representatives, that would be there for the purpose of knowing what the president knows, and advising the president on these issues that are so sensitive to national security. Using elected officials would be better than those appointed by the president, and the members of this committee would be selected by people other than the president, meaning they wouldn't necessarily just be there for the purpose of confirming what the president wanted. This restriction of information has its uses, but for it to be reserved only for the executive branch is a little excessive.

Church and State

Today, I saw on the news that the Catholic Church is engaged in a conflict with Rep. Patrick Kennedy over his support of abortion and gay marriage rights. My first reaction was, "the church needs to stay out of government affairs." Then I stopped and thought about it. The church is an organization that represents many voters in the United States. While some of these people disagree with some of the church's actions, many are behind it completely. For this alone, the Catholic Church shouldn't be ignored or silenced in the government. As part of this country, it should have the ability to make its opinion heard. It brings up issues that are of major concern to many citizens, some of whom are not part of the Church. Without this large, generally respected organization, these opinions would have to come from smaller, less organized groups, which would be easier to disregard as extremists. If the public really cares that much about these issues, they can show their support or opposition through other groups, letters to their representatives, or their votes. If it appears that their representatives are caving in or opposing the church against the general will of their constituents, they can be voted out. The church is made up of concerned and not-so-concerned citizens. Those concerned citizens whose beliefs are aligned with those of the church should be allowed to express their opinion. And if those people happen to be priests or other leaders in the church, they still should not be denied the ability to express themselves.