Bologna!  

How many times have older, seemingly “wiser” people come up to you and said that cliché line?  It’s been happening to me a lot lately, and I’m not buying it. 

What a grim outlook.  Why do these days have to be the best ones? 

As I sit here on the precipice of my (yours too) college graduation, I can’t help but engage in a bit of introspection.   

These past four years have been really good – great actually.  I’ve learned so much both inside the classroom and out.  The people I’ve met here are going to be friends of mine forever. 

I’ve made some good and bad decisions; I’ve learned from my mistakes and have ultimately become a different –  and hopefully better – person than I was when I checked in to Pacelli 310 four years ago.  

I’m done now. The $148,000 piece of paper is almost in my hand, and I’ve got to say that up to this point, these have been the best years of my life; but who knows what’s ahead. 

Sure, these are great days, but they’re not the best days. I’m about to start a completely new chapter in my life.  For better or worse, in a month, my life is going to be drastically different than it is today. I’m a big kid now, and you know what? I’m excited for it. 

I am going to make the next part of my life – whatever that may be – the best days of my life.  And after that, those will be the best ones.  Heck, by the time I’m done, JCU might be the worst times of my life.  If that’s the case, I’ll know I did something right. 

I don’t want to live my life dwelling on what was, I want to live it celebrating what is. If you live your life thinking about how bad it is now and how good it was then, you’ll never be happy. 

Go ahead, call me an idealist or a dreamer – or a socialist. But while you’re partying in the past, I’ll be pumped about the present! 

Alliteration aside, when I leave, I will hopefully be moving to a new city, getting a job, meeting new people and completely starting a new life.   Why aren’t more people excited for that? 

We are going to be college graduates. The world is our oyster! Yeah finding a job to pay for that oyster might be really, REALLY hard, but we stand to benefit from all this!

After the great days of my new life come,  something else will happen. Maybe American Idol? Maybe have kids? Maybe win the lottery! Maybe something really cool I don’t even know about!  But whatever it is, those will be my new best days. 

I think what I’m really saying is that you hold the power to make whatever you want the best days of your life. Now there’s an idea.  How cool is that! 

I don’t plan on choosing which were my best days until I’m on my deathbed – and hopefully, if I follow what I just laid out, it’ll be a tough choice.  

So, the next time someone tells me that these are the best days of my life, I’m going to tell them, “FALSE! I’m just getting started!”

A protestor shouts as he joins thousands attending an immigration rally in the capital of Arizona on April 25. (AP)

Across the country, tensions are high after the passage and signing of a new immigration law in Arizona. Last Saturday, from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., protestors were out in full force expressing their dislike of the new law.

According to The New York Times, the new law, passed by the Republican state legislature, makes it a crime to be present in Arizona without legal immigration status. It also requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents with them at all times, and allows police to question people about their status based on a suspicion that they might be illegal immigrants.

Supporters of the law say that the state was right to take matters into its own hands after waiting long enough for the federal government to act on the issue of illegal immigration.Opponents, however, say the law will no doubt lead to racial profiling, arguing that police will only stop and question Latinos.

Changes were made and signed in to the bill Friday that Jan Brewer, the Republican governor of Arizona, believes will eliminate the possibility of racial profiling. These changes clarified that police can only stop suspected illegal immigrants while enforcing some other law or ordinance. According to CNN, Brewer said, “These new amendments make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal and will not be tolerated in Arizona.”

However, according to John Carroll political science professor Dwight Hahn, “There is a civil war going on in the Republican Party. The Arizona immigration law is a hot-button issue that illustrates the divide.”

President Obama has also expressed discontent over the law. In a speech at the Rose Garden of the White House, Obama said, “Take, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

State Sen. Russel Pearce (R-AZ) was a main sponsor of the law. He told CNN, “Illegal’s not a race, it’s a crime … And in Arizona, we’re going to enforce [the law].” According to The Washington Post, the passage of this law elevates immigration reform to the spotlight of the 2010 elections.

“The law definitely has implications toward the November elections. The Latino vote is a large portion of the electorate and it’s possible that the passage of this law will take a substantial amount of those votes away from Republicans in November,” said Hahn.

According to a Pew Hispanic Center report from 2009, about 500,000 illegal immigrants were believed to live in Arizona in 2008, and 11.9 million nationwide. That number is up from 3.5 million nationwide in 1990.

A new breed of weapons system is currently being considered for deployment by the Obama administration. Prompt Global Strike is a missile capable of reaching any inch of the earth within an hour of launch with such accuracy and force that it would greatly reduce the possibility of having to use nuclear weapons.

This system would hurl a 1,000 pound conventional warhead that would create the same localized destructive power of a nuclear weapon. It is a part of Pres. Barack Obama’s pledge to reduce the United States’ reliance on nuclear arms.

Russia was so concerned about these weapons that the Obama administration agreed to decommission one nuclear warhead for every one Prompt Global Strike missile put in to service. This provision was buried in the new START agreement signed by both Obama and Russian Pres. Dmitri Medvedev a few weeks ago. The treaty will significantly reduce the nuclear arsenals of both countries.

According to The New York Times, Prompt Global Strike is designed for tasks like picking off a top al-Qaida leader in a cave, taking out a North Korean missile while it’s being rolled to the launch pad or destroying an Iranian nuclear site – all without crossing the nuclear threshold. The idea, however, is not purely Obama’s.  President Bush pondered these weapons as a possible replacement for nuclear warheads carried on submarines.  However, after Russian leaders complained that these would, in fact, increase the risk of nuclear war rather than hinder it, the former president put them on the back burner.

The key is to make sure that Russia, China and other nuclear powers know that the dot they see on their radar screen is not a nuclear weapon. Under Obama’s plan, this will not happen because it will allow inspectors from Russia or other countries to regularly make sure the system is not armed with nuclear warheads.

Another benefit of the system is the ability to control its flight pattern. Because it does not leave the Earth’s atmosphere, the military would be able to avoid restricted airspace such as allied countries or hostile territory. According to The New York Times, the system would most likely initially be based at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the West Coast and would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound. It would also have to be shielded with special materials in order to protect it from melting due to the heat it produces.

Planning for the new system is being headed by Gen. Kevin P. Chilton of the Air Force. Chilton told The New York Times that the system would give the president more choices.

“Today, we can present some conventional options to the president to strike a target anywhere on the globe that range from 96 hours, to several hours maybe four, five or six. If the president wants to act on a particular target faster than that, the only thing we have that goes faster is a nuclear response,” said Chilton.

The Pentagon has plans to deploy an early version of the system by 2014 or 2015, however, complete versions of the system are not expected to be ready until 2017 or 2020.

Last week, election officials extended the voting period by an extra two days due to voter complaints of technical issues. These include ballots being sent to the wrong polling stations and registers missing voter names. The elections were held for the positions of president, members of parliament, and local offices. According to CNN, about 750 international and 18,000 domestic observers monitored the process.

The process, however, has come in to question. According to BBC, former U.S. Pres. Jimmy Carter said, “It is obvious that the elections will fall short of international standards that are expected of advanced democracies … The people’s expectations have not been met.”

Carter was speaking not only of the irregularities at polling stations mentioned previously, but also of the fact that many of the opposition parties illegally pulled out of the election too close to the vote. 

This includes the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, the main party in the South that pulled out accusing the ruling National Congress Party of fraud. 

Carter, however, did maintain that the elections were the right step toward establishing democracy. 

This sentiment was echoed by Jen Ziemke, a professor of political science at John Carroll University. According to Ziemke, “Evidence shows that sham elections that are actually more window dressing or facade than anything else nevertheless sometimes help usher in openness and change in the political culture and climate of a community.”

The elections were held as a main part of a 2005 peace deal that ended decades of civil war between north and south Sudan – two million people were killed during this time.

Al-Bashir has ruled since he took over in a military coup in 1989. The International Criminal Court has charged him with committing genocide and crimes against humanity in the country’s western region of Darfur. 

According to Reuters, al-Bashir wants a respectable victory so he can claim to have support of the Sudanese people on the heels of his indictment from the ICC.

It’s what we’re expected to do when we graduate from this place. But do any of us – barring that overachieving Boler School graduate student – really know how to tackle it? 

We could tell you more than you care to know about Argentinean economic policies or the male XLR cord needed to power a speaker system. But, when we leave here in four weeks, will any of that matter?

Not really. Now, don’t get us wrong; John Carroll University is a fine institution and has taught us invaluable skills, which will no doubt help us in our professional careers or mold us into Jeopardy-dominating machines (I’ll take “Non-practical Information for $37,000 a year, Mr. Trebek”). 

Aside from the aforementioned awesome Boler student, do you know the differences between a W-9 and a 940-EZ tax form? Or how about actually understanding what it says in your first tiny studio apartment lease? 

Still blanking? We have a plan, more of a proposal, actually a marginal concept. 

We, the people (Joe and Craig), in order to form a more perfect graduating senior, would like to establish Last Year Seminar (LYS), or Life 101. We know what you’re thinking: How did Buzz Aldrin get booted from “Dancing with the Stars?” He’s an American hero! He walked on the moon! How many people do you know that have walked on the moon? Kate Gosselin, really?

But, we should really talk about our plan. If you think about it, it’s an easily comprehendible concept. JCU gives you a First Year Seminar to grow as a class and expand your horizons and all that tomfoolery. Well, how about a class to help you transition out of college and into the real world? 

First, the course objective: “To educate graduating seniors on the fundamental concepts of living an adult life. Upon completion, students will be able to more thoroughly identify and understand the necessary steps, including, but not limited to the following: financial responsibility, taxes, insurance, health and fitness, interview preparation, adapting to a new setting, governmental procedures, and dating (not that we need that part, but maybe other people; but definitely, DEFINITELY not us. We’re actually leading that discussion).”

Now, we realize that these components can all be currently learned at JCU; however, it would require a few more classes that we really can’t fit because of our precious core requirements. 

A major part of the class would be speaker-based. Professionals or professors with expertise in each of these fields would give a 50-minute talk about the basics – maybe with a handout of some sort to take home. Unlike FYS, it would not be a requirement because too many people wouldn’t take it seriously, and would waste the time and energy put forth by the speaker. This class would be held once a week and be worth one credit with no homework, yet attendance is mandatory (except in cases of death, kidnapping or Mexican drug cartel violence).

Now, some highlights of the course.

First, financial responsibility. These are things like paying off your credit card debt, buying a car, or actually, pretty much anything that involves a dollar bill. Finance majors can skip this day. What about a 401K … what is it? Is it just a shortened form of 401,000, or is it a financial investment program for employees to maximize their retirement benefits? No, definitely not the latter. 

Secondly, health and fitness day. Whether you’re working a 40-hour workweek or crashing in your parents’ basement, you’re not going to have Jeff’s cheese enchiladas to power you through the day. It’s a completely different lifestyle – we think – we read it in Cosmo. 

Finally, interviews. Do you know how to professionally present yourself? How much company research is necessary? Are you ready for that curveball question: “If you were an eagle that had to defend your un-hatched eggs, how would you creatively problem solve while maintaining your sales quota?” 

Look, all we’re saying is that if a class like this were available, you’re looking at the star pupils. Jokes aside, considering we are entering the real world, a class that taught you important adult-living concepts would really get us ready for being big boys. We’ll take, “Awesome Ideas” for 401K (Is that the proper use?).

Reform passed in a tight 219 – 212 vote after nearly a yearlong debate on the issue. No Republicans voted for the bill in addition to 34 Democrats who voted against.

According to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Republicans believe the reform is a government take over of the health care industry and it will be a “job killer.”

“Given this situation, the only responsible course of action is to scrap this job-killing monstrosity, and start over [with] sensible, step-by-step health care reform. The American people are watching, and they will be heard,” Boehner said.

Democrats, on the other hand, maintain that they have improved the quality of life for millions of American families and that this legislation is as historic as the creation of the Social Security and Medicare programs. Obama declared that, because of this reform, 32 million more Americans will now have access to affordable health insurance.

In an address following the passage of the bill, Obama told the American people, “We pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. We didn’t give in to mistrust or to cynicism or to fear. Instead, we proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things.”

According to Sara Schiavoni, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “It comes down to real ideological differences between the two parties. The size of government and the role it plays is one of the main distinctions.”

The newly signed reform is a reconciled version of the bill the Senate passed in a party-line vote on Dec. 24 of last year.  The bill is mostly the same except for the additions made by Obama at the end of last month.

After Obama signed it, the reconciled bill was sent back to the Senate to vote on the changes.

The Democrats need 51 votes to pass the bill. However, according to CNN, Republicans have indicated that they will do whatever they can to stop it. NBC News Senate Producer, Ken Strickland, said there are 19 procedural ways that Republicans can kill the bill. He admits that although a lot of them are not likely, it is possible. This includes a parliamentary procedure that allows for an unlimited amount of amendments and challenges to the reconciled bill before the final vote. This could stall the process for some time.

Before Sunday’s vote, Pelosi told CNN that she expects the reconciled bill to receive the Senate’s backing.

Also, in response to the passage of the bill, 10 states are planning to file a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of its stipulation that requires people to purchase health insurance.

According to CNN, the attorneys general from Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington filed the suit after Obama signed the bill on Tuesday.

“I think the states have an interesting argument. They bring up real questions about Federalism and what the federal government can mandate of the states,” said Schiavoni.

Though they claim the suits are not politically motivated, all 10 attorneys general are Republicans.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said in a news conference on Monday, “There’s no way we can do what’s required in this bill and still provide for education, for foster care, for the incarceration of prisoners, all the other things that are in this bill.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, health care reform will cost a total a $940 billion over 10 years, however, it will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion in that time.

Bayh, who Pres. Barack Obama was considering to be his running mate for Vice President in 2008 before he chose Sen. Joe Biden, attributes his retirement to the increasing partisanship that he claims is preventing the Senate from passing even basic legislation.

Dean Birch, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said, “I think Evan Bayh just got fed up with what he believes is a ‘do nothing’ Congress. However, it’s not just Bayh. Senators like Chris Dodd and others have decided not to run for re-election as well.” 

According to The New York Times, Bayh said, “I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the people’s business is not being done.”

He maintains that the filibuster is one of the main factors for the current partisan freeze in the Senate.  According to MSNBC, “The minority has rights, that’s important, but the public has a right to see its business done, and not routinely allow a small minority to keep us from addressing the great issues that face this country. I think the filibuster absolutely needs to be changed,” said Bayh.

Bayh claims that, in today’s Senate, 60 votes, or a supermajority, are necessary to pass anything and the filibuster is a tactic being abused by the minority. According to the U.S. Senate Web site, the filibuster became popular in 1850 as a mechanism to prevent a vote on unwanted legislation. To do this, senators in the minority take advantage of a rule that permits unlimited debate on an issue. 

In the 1960s, the filibuster was popular among Southern Senators to block civil rights legislation. In 1964, there was a 57-day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act.

Originally to stop a filibuster, the Senate needed 67 votes. This is called cloture. In 1975, the Senate lowered the number to 60 votes. Now, according to NPR, Sen. Evan Bayh believes that number should be lowered again to 55.

“The filibuster is a useful procedure that is meant to require the Senate to slow down and truly examine important legislation. However, a reform, like lowering the votes to 55, might not be a bad idea,” said Birch.

This announcement comes on the heels of the Munich Security Conference. There, Iranian Foreign Minister, Manoucheher Mottaki claimed his country was close to an international agreement that would ship its low-enriched uranium elsewhere in exchange for further enriched uranium to be used as fuel.

World powers – including the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – presented this plan last year as a means to prevent Iran from enriching uranium to a level that could eventually be used in a nuclear bomb. Mottaki said, “I personally believe we have created conducive ground for such an exchange in the not very distant future.”

However, on the same day, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told The New York Times that the U.S. and its allies were not close to a compromise with Iran regarding its nuclear program.

Jen Ziemke, a professor of political science at John Carroll University, said, “I feel there is always hope of averting crisis and reaching agreement in international affairs, even up until the very last moments when two countries are busy preparing for war. However, the window of opportunity and chance for cooperation narrows with every passing day of stalemate. The longer the crisis simmers or escalates, the more difficult it will be to strike a bargain acceptable to both sides.”

These developments are happening amidst numerous concerns over the intentions of the Iranian program. While the country has always maintained the program is for peaceful, civilian power, many countries fear that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons.

At first, Mottaki’s statements at the annual conference were seen as a breakthrough in the long-time debate over Iran’s nuclear program. Though, all indications from other world leaders and Iran’s actions on Monday suggest that a deal is nowhere in sight.

“Iran seems to be playing a mixed strategy of confusion, deceit, and seeming cooperation with the international community in an attempt to stall, confuse and gain time. The threat of an Iranian bomb – or an actual bomb, for that matter – could simply be the blackmail they need to force more favorable concessions at any future bargaining table,” said Ziemke.

The President said the United States did not wish to impose any form of government on another nation. However, he did say there are certain principles that all people must share.

Free access to information is one of those principles that the President believes all people should have. China’s government has control over the Internet in China and can restrict access to social networking and other Web sites that they deem controversial.

Brent Brossman, a communications professor at John Carroll University and director of the JCU debate team, said, “Ideas are liberating. They represent power. There are reasons why countries that fear their own people try hard to restrict the free flow of information on the Internet.”

According to The New York Times, however, Obama “tip-toed” around the controversial topic when he told students that a free and unfettered Internet is a source of strength, not weakness.

According to Brossman, “We need a free flow of responsible information – and that balance is tough to achieve.”

The President also said he was against censorship. “I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me; I actually think that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader, because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear,” he said.

The President took eight questions.  Four of them were from the student audience, the other four were selected from the hundreds submitted over the Internet

According to CNN, the President’s town hall meeting was not broadcast on any of China’s state-run television networks, though it was shown locally on Shanghai’s Phoenix TV.

In the United States, the event was streamed live (with Chinese language translation) on the White House Web site, as well as on the White House Facebook page. The town hall was a welcome change to the Chinese students who tend to not be used to such an event.

Yao Fei, a modern Chinese history student at Shanghai Normal University told USA Today, “I know the town hall meeting is traditional in U.S. political culture, but it’s not here in China. We students welcome events like this. I hope our leaders would do [town hall meetings] too.”

However, this town hall was somewhat different than what the President may have been used to back in the U.S.

Instead of a bustling crowd talking over the blaring rock music, the President was greeted by a nearly silent group of 500 students, most of whom were hand picked by Chinese leaders and had close ties to the Communist Youth League, which is closely affiliated to President Hu Jintao.

Once he completed the town hall meeting in Shanghai, the President flew to Beijing. His schedule included tours of the Forbidden City and Great Wall and several meetings with Chinese leaders to discuss pressing issues like climate change, stabilizing the world economy, and negotiations about the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

China has been hesitant to support stricter sanctions against either North Korea or Iran, a position which has frustrated the United States. China has also been hesitant to set a national emissions reduction goal even though it is one of the largest polluters in the world.

However, it has still taken a number of measures to make its economy more environmentally friendly.

According to CNN, Karzai won the Aug. 20 election outright.  However, a subsequent recount of the votes by a U.N. panel of election monitors voided nearly one-third of his votes because of “clear and convincing evidence of fraud.”

Dwight Hahn, a professor of political science at John Carroll University, said, “I don’t think the Obama administration could send thousands of troops to help out a country who’s leader just won a fraudulent election. That’s why a runoff is needed.”

This concession came amidst accusations of widespread fraud and heavy pressure from both American and European officials.

According to The New York Times, other pressures include veiled threats by certain American officials that Karzai’s actions could dictate troop levels in the country.

President Barack Obama, though, told U.S. Navy personnel in speech in Jacksonville, Fla., that he will not rush his decision to send them to Afghanistan.

“Because you deserve the strategy, the clear mission, the defined goals as well as the equipment and support you need to get the job done,” he said.

Some U.S. officials were suggesting that they should push President Karzai and his main competitor, Abdullah Abdullah, to come together to form a coalition government and avoid a runoff election altogether.

However, after a round of appearances on Sunday morning talk shows in the United States, both Karzai and Abdullah made it clear that they want nothing to do with any sort of coalition government.

The coalition deal that would have been most likely to occur would have required Abdullah to concede the election to Karzai, in return for a major role in overhauling Afghanistan’s Constitution to give the president less power.

“I don’t think Afghanistan having a runoff election will automatically  bring a transparent liberal Democracy like we are used to seeing in  America,” said Hahn. “However, I do think it is an important way for President  Karzai to legitimately gain back power if he is to win.”

In an interview with CNN’s John King, Mr. Abdullah reiterated his dislike for the idea. King said, “My trust in becoming a candidate was not to be part of the same government, part of the same deteriorating situation. Mine was for a change in this country…”

Talking to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Karzai said, “We must have a second round. If we don’t do that, we’ll be insulting democracy and a pledge to respecting the vote of the people.”

According to CNN on Monday,  Abdullah issued several conditions that he says need to be met in order to have a transparent and fair runoff election.

 One condition was that his supporters be allowed to monitor polling stations and observe vote counting. Another was for the chief of the election commission, Azizullah Lodin, to be fired along with over 200 staffers that he claims engaged in corruption during the first election in August.

Abdullah has long called for the removal of Lodin, saying he has “no credibility”. He believes that Lodin is aligned with President Karzai.

In a quick response to Abdullah’s demands, President Karzai told Reuters that he would not remove Lodin. Karzai said, “In this short period of time, we cannot makes these changes, this will not be for the benefit of the country and will also harm the country.”

This constant back-and-forth between the two candidates is sure to make for heated debate within the country leading up to the second election, which is set to take place on Nov. 7.

Pointing out a major source of the current problem, Hahn said, “Afghanistan is used to having a patron-client government in the sense that political bosses and people in office often times reward their supporters or clients with political favors as a way to hold on to   their power.”

Indeed, corruption in the Karzai government has been a major source of contention between not only Karzai and his citizens, but also Karzai and the United States.

President Barack Obama disclosed this information standing next to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a speech at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh last week.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the heavily guarded facility is buried deep within a mountain about 100 miles southwest of Tehran in the ancient holy city of Qom.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not deny the existence of the covert facility, but instead claimed it was for solely peaceful purposes. U.S. intelligence officials have been tracking the site since 2006 and say that, once operational, it would be able to enrich enough uranium each year to make one nuclear warhead.

One of the major issues with the facilities is the size: about 3,000 centrifuges. According to the Los Angeles Times, intelligence officials said this is not big enough to generate enough fuel for a civilian power plant. However, it is just big enough to produce nuclear bomb grade material.

This revelation came at a pivotal time, about one week before Iran met with the United States and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany, for nuclear talks in Geneva.

At these talks, Iran agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog of the United Nations, to evaluate the newly discovered facility.

Furthermore, they agreed to send most of their already declared enriched uranium to other countries, primarily Russia.

Jen Ziemke, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said, “Only time will tell whether Iran’s apparent move toward engagement with the international community represent genuine steps toward cooperation or whether these moves are a bluff, simply meant to buy Iran more time so they can further consolidate their power and nuclear capabilities.”

According to The New York Times, this concession by Iran is a victory for the West because it greatly reduces Iran’s ability to quickly produce a nuclear weapon.

“In recent days, both sides have made small but important steps toward compromise and resolution,” said Ziemke

“The international community, for its part, has agreed in principle to accept Iran’s right to develop nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes only. In exchange, Iran has agreed to inspections of its facility in Qom and to sending uranium abroad in order to prove its intentions are peaceful in nature,” she said.

Although Obama called the talks constructive, he also said, “We’re not interested in talking for the sake of talking. If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely.”

And recent actions by the Iranian regime seem to question its sincerity in negotiations. Only a few weeks previous to the start of negotiations, Iran test-fired its most advanced missiles, which are capable of reaching targets in Israel.

During the U.N. meeting in New York, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again called the Holocaust a lie.

According to The Associated Press, right after the first session of negotiations ended, Mehdi Saffare, Iran’s ambassador to Britain and a member of the Iranian delegation to the negotiations declared that the issue of sending Iran’s uranium out of the country had not been discussed yet.

Therefore, if negotiations fail, the Obama administration has made it clear that it will impose a harsh batch of sanctions on Iran, a move supported by a number of members from the international community.

The administration has been trying to persuade China and Russia, members of the U.N. Security Council, to support stronger sanctions. The two countries have historically been opposed to this move because of their economic ties with Iran.

In his first speech to the U.N. as President, Obama said that the world must work together to tackle major issues. He said, “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Dean Birch, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said, “He [President Obama] has presented to the body that ‘Yes, we are going to do things differently’ and they were happy that this administration is bringing other countries on-board and gotten away from the more unilateral approach of President Bush.”

According to CNN, Obama sought to distance himself from the more one-sided policies of his predecessor. These policies, the President maintained, generated distrust in America that often served as an excuse for the U.N.’s inaction.  

However, he responded, “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.”

The President also addressed a variety of issues that are facing the world today, including long-running conflicts, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. He specifically cited Iran and North Korea, claiming that their governments, “must be held accountable” if they continue to ignore international nuclear weapons treatises.

One victory gained by Obama came from his Wednesday afternoon meeting with Russian President Dimitri A. Medvedev.  

According to The New York Times, Medvedev admitted for the first time that his government would support U.S.-requested tougher sanctions on Iran if next month’s nuclear plans fail to make progress.

This encouraging news from the usually problematic Russian administration comes almost immediately after Obama’s decision to scrap its plan to install missile bases in the Czech Republic and Poland. 

Russia had been adamantly opposed to the missile bases, which it claims would have violated its sphere of influence and threaten its security.

Birch said of Obama’s meeting with Medvedev, “I think this was significant. I think it was a good move in terms of gathering international support to confront Iran.”

The U.N. meeting also achieved some progress on the issue of climate change. Most global leaders, including those of Japan, China and Europe, have promised to take serious action to combat climate change.

This cooperation comes at an important time in the climate change debate, as world leaders will meet in Copenhagen in December to try and hash out a global plan to combat climate change.

The United Nations, however, was not the only event attended by Obama this past week. The G-20 conference took place in Pittsburgh over the weekend as well. Here, representatives from the 20 leading global economies met to discuss economic issues facing the world today.

On Friday, the group agreed on a new effort intended to revamp the economic system and will lead to much stricter regulation over financial institutions.  

Shortly after the meeting, Obama said, “We have achieved a level of tangible, global economic cooperation that we’ve never seen before. Our financial system will be far different and more secure than the one that failed so dramatically last year.”

Global leaders vowed to change their economic policies in an attempt to reduce large financial imbalances.  

According to a New York Times article, the United States will be expected to increase its savings rate, reduce its trade deficit, and address its huge budget deficit, while other countries, like Germany and China, will have to curb their dependence on exports.

Other announcements coming out of the G-20 include a new “peer review” on countries’ economic policies and the requirement for institutions to keep bigger cash reserves to reduce risk-taking and serve as a buffer against unexpected losses.

According to The New York Times, Davies claims that Iran currently has “possible breakout capacity” should it continue to enrich its stockpile of uranium.

However, new intelligence gathered by the White House shows that Iran deliberately halted progress before it got to the last steps necessary to make a bomb.

Iran, which claims that its nuclear program is purely for civilian and energy use, recently issued a package of proposals to the United Nations regarding new negotiations with Western countries.

However, according to CNN, U.S. State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley deemed the proposals “not really responsive” to international concerns.  

He also said that Iran insisted the nuclear issue was closed, but he said, “That is certainly not the case.”

Iran claims that according to the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has the right to enrich uranium to produce civilian fuel. 

Many countries, however, do not think that Iran’s enrichment is solely for civilian use. 

Earlier this year, a U.N. report concluded that there were ‘military dimensions’ to Iran’s nuclear program.

According to Jen Ziemke, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “A nuclear Iran is just one component of what appears to be an ongoing and significant realignment of the balance of power and alliance formation across the Middle East.”

Another major player in the Iranian nuclear discussion is Israel. 

Iran and Israel have an adversarial relationship and there have been verbal shots between the two nations in the past. 

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in 2005 that Israel needed to be, “wiped off the map,” and Israel has sworn to defend itself against and Iranian threat.

This rivalry puts the United States in a precarious position between the two rivals. 

The Obama administration is pushing for diplomacy and is waiting for Iran to respond in order to begin a dialogue.  

The administration believes that Iran is acting harshly because it feels pressure and fear of further tough U.N. sanctions.

Ziemke said, “Time is of the essence and the Obama administration should make it clear to the Iranians that the longer they wait, the worse their bargaining or negotiating position will be with respect to the international community.” She continued, “there is no advantage to be gained from stalled or delayed negotiations.”

However, according to The New York Times, with the increasing threat of a nuclear-armed Iranian regime, Israel has been ramping up talks about military action against Iran. They are skeptical that any sort of U.S. diplomatic dialogue will work with the rogue nation. 

Ziemke said, “The goal of the international community at this point in the game, should be to offer convincing alternate conceptions about the future in which neither side finds it in their advantage to take that deadly first step. We must not allow the situation to deteriorate to the point where both sides come to view the conflict as inevitable or imminent.”

They are skeptical that any sort of U.S. diplomatic dialogue will work with the rogue nation. According to The New York Times, some Obama administration officials believe that Israel is creating worst-case scenarios as a method to put pressure on the White House to act.

The report released by Davies also predicts that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon between 2010 and 2015. However, all evidence points that the date would be closer to the latter.

On Sunday, Aug. 30, millions of Japanese voted to oust the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in exchange for Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) by a nearly 3 to 1 margin.

The LDP has held or shared power in Japan for 62 of the last 63 years.  

The DPJ was able to grab 308 spots in the powerful 480-seat lower house compared to the mere 119 now held by the LDP.  

Party leader and presumptive new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said in a New York Times article, “This has been a revolutionary election. The people have shown the courage to take politics into their own hands.”

This new election, however, is not necessarily the best scenario for U.S.-Japanese relations.  

Unlike the LDP, which has been historically dependent on the U.S., the DPJ has been more independent, and, at times, even critical of the United States throughout its campaigns.

One of these issues is in the area of foreign policy. 

Hatoyama has said that he may begin quickly by recalling the Japanese naval forces on a mission to refuel American warships in and around Afghanistan.  

Also, Hatoyama plans to reopen talks on a deal that will move the Futenma Marine airfield off the Japanese island of Okinawa to Guam – and require Japan to foot the bill.

Yet, the Obama administration is maintaining a positive outlook on the new situation. A statement released on Sunday said, “We are confident that the strong U.S.-Japan alliance and the close partnership between our two countries will continue to flourish under the new leadership.” 

The statement also said, “President Obama looks forward to working closely with the new Japanese prime minister on a broad rand of global, regional and bilateral issues.”

According to Pamela Mason, a John Carroll University political science professor, “The White House needs to realize – and I think it does realize – that Japan is a dynamic nation in a dynamic and fast-changing region, and that the Cold-War framework of U.S.-Japanese relations will need reworking.”

In regards to domestic policy, the LDP has adopted what is known as “trickle up economics,” which aims at putting money in the hands of the people.  

To combat the problem of a quickly shrinking and aging population, the LDP has pledged to pay about $3,000 a year per child to families in order to encourage women to have babies.   

Also, to stimulate the Japanese economy, the party has pledged to pay about $1,000 a month to unemployed citizens while they search for a job.

“Japan faces daunting demographic challenges and its export-focused economy has been hard-hit by the global slowdown,” said Mason. “Japanese people are looking for new ideas.  It remains to be seen how the new government will deliver.”

However, the news out of Japan isn’t all bad. 

On Monday, Yukio Hatoyama pledged to make good on a campaign promise to combat global warming. 

According to The New York Times, Hatoyama plans to make changes that will cut Japan’s green house gas emissions by 25 percent in the next 10 years.  

This change will put Japan at the forefront of the fight against climate change.

Methods such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping the face were chronicled in four memorandums released by the Obama administration last week.

The highlight of these memorandums includes Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as having been waterboarded a total of 266 times.

Zubaydah is a suspected leader of al-Qaida, while Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The report has led many to dismiss the Bush administration’s insistence that the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib had been the act of a few misguided soldiers.

Both Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama have said that CIA officers who carried out the interrogations would not be prosecuted because they were only following legal opinions developed by Bush administration officials.

Instead, the officials who developed the legal opinions are the ones being sought out.

According to The Associated Press, Obama said that if there were to be an investigation, an independent commission – similar to the one used after Sept. 11 – would be a better model to follow than congressional hearings.

However, Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are already moving towards congressional investigations.

Dwight Hahn, a political science professor at John Carroll University, said, “I think investigation of this issue is important because it says that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. And that is essential to maintaining a democracy. It’s not about looking at the past so much as it is about setting the limits of presidential power both today, here and now, and the future.”

However, such investigations threaten to create a split down party lines.

Already, Republicans are calling for the release of two confidential memorandums that they claim will show that Democrats had approved of the interrogation methods in question.

This would shift the blame from Republicans back to the Democrats.

Nonetheless, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California argued that her Intelligence Committee is already investigating the interrogation program.

Several senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, agree that many questions will be answered from this investigation.

“I don’t know a better way to get the facts than through the intelligence committee,” Reid told CNN.

Republicans, on the other hand, view the release of the memos as a purely political move by the Democrats.

Senator John McCain of Arizona told reporters that it was best for the country to simply move on.

According to CNN, McCain said, “If we prosecute individuals for providing their best recommendation to the President of the United States, it will have a chilling effect from now on.”

In fact, McCain, along with Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, wrote a joint letter to Obama urging him not to prosecute the government officials that provided the legal opinions on the interrogations.

Obama said the decision to prosecute is ultimately up to Attorney General Eric Holder.

Though it remains undecided whether or not these prosecutions will take place, Holder is adamant about solving the problem.

According to CNN, Holder said, “It is my responsibility as the attorney general to enforce the law. It is my duty to enforce the law. If I see evidence of wrongdoing I will pursue it to the fullest extent of the law and I will do that in an appropriate way.”