Entry 6

Clinton Suggests Link to Qaeda Offshoot in Deadly Libya Attack

New York Times, September 26, 2012

Summary

Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of the States, made a remark that it is highly probable that Al Qaeda was involved in the terror happened at Libyan U.S. embassy in this September 11. Even though there are no qualified evidence that explicitly proves the involvement of Qaeda in this terrorist attack, her remark of casting the possibility of Qaeda's involvement is extremely impacting not only the U.S. diplomatic/defense actions but also that of other countries, making all the world to be alert about the terror of "international" and "Islamic" terrorists. While the investigations are carried out throughout the Libya and other neighbor countries, the U.S. and other major world powers are suspecting of the retaliation of Muslims on the U.S. assassination of Osama Bin Laden, their spiritual pillar

My thought

Even though I learned that the power of Cabinet members on government decision is exclusively influential, I was surprised at the power of Mrs. Clinton's remark impacting not only the United States but also the entire world. Her remark made the political officials to fix their eyes on Qaeda's involvement on this terror though there is no verified evidence proving that. Likewise, her authoritative remarks is positive in that they suggest the direction for finding out the source of problems; however, it can be negative in that her remarks are almost converted to be "true" even though it is still an unproven assumption. For the most part, as an authority of foreign affairs, it is better to make a remark after a long consideration rather than expressing one's assumption to the audience indiscreetly. It only provokes the enemies.

Entry 5

Republican Objections to spending in veterans jobs bill blocks election-year legislation

Washington Post, September 20, 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-objections-to-spending-in-veterans-jobs-bill-blocks-election-year-legislation/2012/09/19/d3acf5dc-02b7-11e2-9132-f2750cd65f97_story.html

Summary

Republican and Democrat senators are struggling for passing a bill for supporting veterans in a way of curving the unemployment rate of veterans. Democrats favor this bill since it is obviously valid for the government to support the veterans who worked for the nation, while Republicans worry that this bill requires too much budget that it would not be able to support veterans in the next year due to the lack of budget. Even though it would be impossible to be passed in the House of Representatives, Democrats are still raising their voice that veteran support is imperative regardless of budget problem, and even some of republicans tend to support this bill in regard for their glorious feats. 

My thoughts

Even though veteran support is one of the necessary social security service that the government must provide for the veterans who worked in the war field for national security, it is too excessive to pour budgets on this year support even by reducing the budgets for the next year support. The Democrats ought to realize that there is a limitation in budget, and both parties as well as the House need to find out the most effective support agendas using that limited budget efficiently. In addition, since veterans are usually not able to earn for living as they do not have a constant income source, the support must be sustainable though it is meager. As a matter of fact, Democrats ought to rethink about the best solution that is able to be implemented rather than the high-cost employment agenda. 

Entry 4

Deal on a Farm Bill Appears Unlikely

New York Times, September 12, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/congressional-deal-on-a-farm-bill-appears-unlikely.html?ref=us

Summary

The Congress finally passed the Farm Bill that has been stuck in argument for several months. The House and the Senate constantly failed to meet the common point they were looking for. While Senate promotes 5 year long farm bill, the House aspires short term farm bill contrasting to the Senate's position. However, since it is necessary to carry out the actions about farming as soon as possible, the congress decided to pass the law even though it is unsatisfiable for both. Still, some Congress members are skeptical about the decision that did not fully satisfied all the factions of the Congress.

My thought

Farm Bill struggle exactly shows the gridlock happens due to the division of Congress into the House and the Senate. Even though bicameral Congress is needed in order to provide equal and fair representation of people, it is undeniable that the efficacy of the Congress passing bills gets much lower due to the division and clashes between the houses. It is important to create factions for various representations of people's opinions; however, it is also imperative to find the common point between the two houses and compromise to formulate the decision that satisfies all people in certain degree (but no always perfect). Therefore, for some critical issues like farm bill, the Congress must meet the common demand of each house and pass the bill in short amount of time not to cause disturbances to people due to unnecessary delay.

Entry 3

Judge upholds 'papers' provision in Arizona immigration law

CNN, September 6, 2012
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/05/us/arizona-immigration-law/index.html?hpt=us_c2

Summary
This article discuss about block or permit the provision of the immigration profiling law so called "show me your paper" passed in Arizona state. For 2 years, several civil rights activists and even some judges in the federal court raised their voice on blocking the provision since racial profiling infringes upon the Constitution. On the other hand, the court is trying to justify the validity of the law and enforce to pass it, the civil activists are fiercely opposing against the law, and even some judges are worried whether it it too impetuous to enforce the law without concerning its effectiveness.

My thought
Since I am also one of the immigrants who will going to stay in the states, racial profiling on immigrants is not a good news for me. Even though it is important for keeping national security and prevent the violent assault by Islamic terrorists, it violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution that upholds "no seizure or search of individual's property without owner's consent." For the most part, though the court claims it does not infringe upon the Constitution, I believe that immigrants also have the rights to pursuit their natural rights in foreign soil, and such kind of archaic and stereotyped laws should not be passed.