Both of the letters were intercepted long before they reached their intended recipients. The letters containing the ricin, which is a toxic substance if ingested, mark the first such incident of such a scale since 2001 anthrax mailings. At that time, letters containing anthrax, also a toxic substance, were mailed to several people, including then NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw and former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle.

This new poisoning case has led authorities to arrest James Everett Dutschke, according to The Wall Street Journal. Dutschke, 41, was arrested on Saturday, April 27, in Oxford, Miss. This came only a few days after police released Kevin Paul Curtis, the man originally believed to have been behind the letters. The new suspect was reportedly arrested in his home without incident, according to CNN.

Dutschke’s background is still being looked into, but authorities and investigators have learned some information. According to The Wall Street Journal, he was apparently a one-time Republican political candidate in Mississippi, although it is unclear what office he ran for. Aside from that, he is also a martial arts instructor and was previously employed as an insurance agent. In addition, he published a newsletter in the mid-2000s.

This arrest is not the first for Dutschke. Back in January, he was arrested for molesting three 16-year-old girls. This recent arrest is now causing a stir in his neighborhood.

According to CNN, Dutschke is being held without bond. This order is expected to stand until he goes through a preliminary hearing set to be scheduled within the next few days.

What has been causing a bigger stir among many is how authorities managed to arrest the wrong man before apprehending this new suspect. From what has been discovered so far, it is believed that Dutschke may have framed the original suspect, Kevin Paul Curtis. This belief was also echoed by Curtis and his lawyer. If this was the case, it seems that the mailing of toxic letters was nothing personal against the intended recipients, but rather a means to set up Curtis, although the motive remains a speculation.

Dutschke and Curtis have apparently been engaged in a feud that has lasted since at least 2006, according to CNN. This was when the former was employed by the latter’s uncle. Nevertheless, the circumstances behind the cause of the issues remains unclear to authorities.

Information from CNN and The Wall Street Journal was used in this report.

The night of Thursday, April 18 proved to be start of a 24-hour drama. It began with shoplifting at a convenience store. Next was the murder of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, Sean Collier. Then came the carjacking and brief hostage-taking of the car’s foreign owner, to whom the culprits identified themselves as the Boston Marathon bombers. This proved to be a mistake, since the hostage was either released or escaped and alerted the police.

This series of events soon led the police on the trail of two brothers, Tamerlan, 26, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19.

The violence continued later that night in Watertown, Mass., when a police officer found himself pinned down in a firefight with the two brothers. Before backup arrived, the Tsarnaevs shot at the officer, firing up to 200 rounds, according to The New York Times. Several explosives were also used, some similar to the ones used in the Boston Marathon bombing. Even as more policeman arrived, the fighting continued.

Eventually, a car chase  ensued between police and the two brothers. At some point, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was out of the car and firing until wounded and out of ammunition, during which time police successfully tackled him. Just then, the younger brother Dzhokhar tried getting away in the stolen SUV, forcing police to scatter as he ran over his brother before driving out of sight. The result of this first encounter left a police officer wounded, Tamerlan Tsarnaev dead, and his younger brother still on the run.

Americans woke Friday morning learning what had transpired during the night and where the situation currently stood. The city of Boston and surrounding suburbs were placed on complete lock down in order to help the search for the remaining suspect.

A dramatic part of the day came from the Tsarnaevs’ paternal uncle, a Maryland resident named Ruslan Tsarni. He attacked the actions of his nephews, calling them “losers” and saying that they brought shame to their family and their Chechen ethnicity. He then directly addressed his wanted nephew, stating “Dzhokhar, if you are alive, turn yourself in, and ask for forgiveness!” according to The Wall Street Journal.

As the day progressed into night, authorities had no success. Finally, around 6 p.m., they announced that the lock down was lifted, leading to the second and final break in the manhunt. A Watertown man who stepped out into his backyard noticed blood on his boat. It was here that he discovered a bloody Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, then proceeded to call the police. After a 30-minute standoff, police successfully apprehended the seriously wounded suspect, according to NBC News. At last, the people of Boston were able to breathe a sigh of relief.

For residents of the Boston area, there was a strong sense of relief at the news of Tsarnaev’s arrest. People lined the streets to cheer all the authorities who were involved in the manhunt.

The two suspects were Russian-born of Chechen background and had immigrated to the U.S. with their family a decade ago, according to The Wall Street Journal. Both brothers seemed to have normal lives  until a few years ago when the elder Tamerlan became an increasingly devout Muslim. Once a promising boxer, he quit in about 2009, believing it did not agree with his faith.

As for the younger Dzhokhar, most friends and observers claimed that he did not seem to share his brother’s extremist views. By all accounts, he was very sociable and acted like a normal college student. Several have expressed their belief that he was put up to the bombing by his brother, according to The New York Times.

Authorities may not know for a while the true motive behind the bombings, at least until Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is able to respond after being critically injured in the throat. The suspect had begun to communicate Monday morning through writing, after which he was charged for the bombing, although it is still unclear if he will receive the death penalty. It can be expected that the next several weeks will be critical in learning information.

One of the biggest questions that the authorities have is what Tamerlan Tsarnaev did during a six-month trip to Russia last year. One fear that they have is that he may have received training from a terrorist group, such as al-Qaida. The other big question is whether more attacks had been planned, and if there are other suspects who may have been involved, according to The Wall Street Journal. Nevertheless, these are just speculations remaining to be addressed.

As of Tuesday, Tsarnaev’s condition had been updated from serious to fair. He also continued to provide answers through writing for authorities. He claimed that both he and his brother had no association with any kind of international terrorist group. Instead, Tsarnaev claimed that they drew inspiration from terrorist websites, according to The Wall Street Journal. Despite these confessions, authorities are still trying to verify their legitimacy.

Information from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and NBC News was used in this report.

If you have not figured out yet what I am referring to, it is the nuclear threat coming from Kim Jong Un and North Korea. This is something definitely worth noting, because there is no telling when we may see something like this again. Now understand that I am not necessarily trying to glorify events such as this, because they are worthy of cause for concern, especially if innocent soldiers and civilians are involved. But at the same time, history has convinced me that we have had far greater crises that have ended well, so I would not recommend dropping under your desks quite yet. I am only trying to point out what is happening.

So yes, it seems that this is just another day in the world of threats aimed at the United States and its allies. Not quite. As I mentioned earlier, this is a conflict between two governments. Lately, most of the enemies the U.S. has dealt with are terrorist organizations. That is not very good on any level. These are often groups from humble backgrounds who are able to gain members by pointing to American actions that led them to such a cause. They also blend in much easier with the civilian population.

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un has none of those factors going for him. Here is a leader of a state whose government brutally suppresses its people. They censor and punish them when they step out of line. Then they threaten their neighbor without being provoked. Good luck on obtaining sympathy and support!

Now I must apologize if it sounds like I am treating this lightly, but there are other reasons that this situation is fascinating as well as entertaining. First of all, it’s nice to see a change in media coverage. Of course I would prefer that we had no enemies to cover, but since that is not the case, why not switch it up? I am tired of the Middle East!

The terrain makes it far more different to fight our enemies. North Korea, being a peninsula, makes it so much easier. Not to mention if we did go to war, we would be fighting identifiable soldiers.

Kim Jong Un himself makes the conflict what it is. A spoiled, silver-spoon-fed (pun-intended), chubby dictator.

Finally, the best things to get out of something like this is all the comedic observations. Whether it is Jon Stewart having a field day with mocking North Korea being completely out of date with the rest of the world, Saturday Night Live, or the many memes you can find on Google, it’s all hilarious! Just think, if only they had that kind of technology or Stewart’s mentality during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it would have been over in six-and-a-half days instead of 13. Well maybe not, but we are not dealing with anything like we did half a century ago.

So in the meantime, just kick back and enjoy this political melodrama reflecting the 20th century before it draws to a close.

The Irish in America have been a group who are unmatched by any other ethnicity that has set foot in this new world. This is not meant to express any supremacy over another ethnicity, because they have all contributed to the creation of this country. But the fact is that the Irish were very vital to the U.S. energy.

This could be understood by briefly reviewing Irish history. Coming out of Western Europe, the Irish were probably the only nationality that never colonized any other country. In fact, the Irish represented those who were oppressed in the region. British armies who invaded in the 17th century made sure that their neighbors to the west were treated with as much disrespect as the rest of their colonies.

Almost 200 years later, when the Irish were struck down by both famine and oppression, they set sail for America. It would be a choice greeted with hardships and success.

Arriving in both East Coast cities before branching out to the Midwest, the Catholic newcomers from the Emerald Isle were met with mixed reactions. Many of the feelings were harsh. Protestant natives of British descent were strongly against supporting such a group. Signs such as “Irish need not apply” were present in windows. This feeling was so strong that they were the one ethnic group sometimes treated worse than slaves.

But the Irish were not ones to let other peoples’ opinions put them down. They began investing in a country they soon hoped would accept them. This ranged from infrastructure, business, education, entertainment and politics. Half a century after the first wave of immigration, Americans realized the Irish were a people whose recognition would shine from sea to sea.

As the 20th century progressed, the Irish became the second-largest ethnic group behind the Germans. Their influence was very visible in many fields. The only gate that was unopened was the presidency.

But by 1960, Irish-American John F. Kennedy overcame this challenge with victory. Although his tenure was relatively short, his influence and accomplishments were some of the highest for a president.  Twenty years later, another Irish American, Ronald Reagan (a Protestant but the son of an Irish Catholic father), was also elected president. Reagan also has grown to become warmly regarded as an important leader by many Americans.

These two presidencies demonstrate that even in the nation’s toughest job, the Irish have prevailed.

So next time you take a look at something genuinely American, there is a good chance that the Irish had something to do with it.  Facts like this make me proud to be an Irish American.

His resignation from the papacy has led to many questions all over the world. These range from simple ones, such as how the soon-to-be ex-pope plans to live out his remaining days in retirement. But there are other serious questions and speculations, such as the true reasons for the pope’s resignation, as well as several scandals that have plagued the Catholic Church, according to CNN.

When Benedict announced that he planned to resign, the 85-year-old claimed it was due to his advanced age, according to The Wall Street Journal. To many observers, this appeared to be somewhat plausible, since they believed the pope appeared tired. Nevertheless, it still surprised many due to the fact that the pope traditionally serves until death.

Darker rumors have begun to circulate, particularly in the Italian media. According to CNN, there were speculations that his decision was the result of a sex scandal regarding other church figures. These still remain as speculations.

Other rumors which have persisted appear much more viable. Many link the pope’s resignation to the growing priest abuse scandals within the Catholic Church. Although these scandals had been prevalent before Benedict XVI, their prevalence increased through greater media coverage. Many have accused the pope of not doing enough to bring the issue to the table. Others agree that he has addressed the topic but has done little to stop the spread of such activity.

Most agree that the next pope will have a lot more work to do when handling the abuse scandal.

Upon finishing his final sermon, the pope recited the Angelus prayer. His papacy will officially end tonight, Feb. 28.

According to a Vatican spokesman, the pope plans to lead a reclusive life in a monastery in the Vatican, under the title of

Information from The Wall Street Journal and CNN was used in the report.

Now there was a time where I briefly flirted with this theory. As I got older I realized that this was only true in a few cases. Unfortunately, this consensus also seemed to spread to others my age and older.

What shocked me was that these people were not all Republicans, but also Democrats or apolitical. Why on earth were so many against the media? Many of them seemed to express their belief that the media just searches for any story and attempts to inflate its worth. Sorry to inform all those who believe this, but this idea is just pure ignorance. This is not a sign of downfall for the media, it is progress!

Just look back to the days of the 19th and 20th centuries. These were times when large-scale news stories appeared as though they were coming off an assembly line. Nevertheless, it took days, weeks, sometimes even months for journalists to report the entire story. Even then, there was only so much of the story that was allowed to be reported.

Historical facts can inform us of these realities. For example, just imagine how many people would question the conduct WWII if our current style of media been around in the 1940s.

In a way, I can understand why viewers may feel the way they do about the media. The truth is, big news stories do not happen as frequently as they once did. We can all be very grateful for that, because big news stories do not always cover sunny stories.

Of course, there are times when big news stories still happen in clusters, just like we saw last week. These ranged from the multiple-day coverage stories such as Christopher Dorner’s cop killings or the Carnival cruise ship being stranded in the Gulf of Mexico. While it was unclear how these events would end, the media was there to keep viewers wondering and worrying aimlessly.

Then there were the sudden shocker stories such as the Russian meteorite or Pope Benedict XVI announcing that he would be the first to resign the papacy in 600 years.

Regardless of the news story, it was clear that the media did the job of reporting every new detail, minute-to-minute. Sometimes the news may not be good to hear, but it is available. At the end of the day, people who are informed are the ones who begin to make our world a better place.

So to all of my friends and acquaintances out there who believe the media is just a load of rubbish, I say, grow up! I am glad that I can be a part of this great outsource of information, no matter what the circumstances are. Hopefully you too will one day understand.

Throughout each presidential administration, there are times when either a new cabinet is being appointed or there is the change of a member. In order for the new member to be approved, he or she must first be approved by the Senate. For the most part, the hearings are quick and rather unremarkable. Sometimes, however, this is not the case. There have been some rejections over the last 30 years, most notably John Tower in 1989.

Reasons for such denials can range from questionable political actions to pure spite from members of the Senate (as was the case in Tower’s situation). Likewise, I would not be surprised if the latter was the case in Hagel’s situation. But what for? We have seen this pointless bickering growing within the Republican Party, and it now moves on to members of their own party.

Watching the confirmations last week, I was disgusted with some of the questions I heard. Here is a man who shares almost all of the same political views as the rest of his own party. Yet, because he disagreed on one or two issues, the party immediately concluded that he has committed political heresy. Perhaps the worst was by a Senator who I once admired but now believe needs to get out of the game: Arizona Sen. John McCain and his inability to treat Hagel kindly just because he opposed the troop surge in 2007. Alas, that is just the new rules of the Republican Party, of which I will always be a member despite my growing frustration with a number of its actions.

Now I should probably get back to my main objective, which is supporting Chuck Hagel for the role of Obama’s secretary of defense. His record is indeed one of the best that has come up over the last few decades. A Vietnam War veteran, Hagel is thoroughly aware of the devastation that war can have for the United States.

Like the  Vietnam era, the U.S. government finds itself in conflicts abroad where we are not sure who our enemy is.  In the past, several politicians had misunderstood this underlying factor. As a result, we have been led into senseless wars where we have had no idea what it is we are looking for or who we are fighting. Someone like Hagel already understands this and would know where the U.S. should pick its battles.

After these notes, I cannot see why anyone would have any doubt as to why Hagel should be the next secretary of defense of the United States. I always respect the decisions of our Senate when they have legitimate reasons to be concerned. But we all know that this is not the reason for the trouble.

Of course, it seems to be the growing trend in U.S. politics, so maybe it would be foolish to hope for better.

That being said, it is evident that the see-saw that is American politics has shifted back to the left. Yes, it is true, the era of Reaganism is indeed over.

In a way, there is not necessarily anything that should be shocking, because this has been developing for several years. To those who did not pick up on the signs, then Obama’s speech would have been the official diagnosis.

He discussed several issues that were previously taboo in presidential inaugurations. Gay marriage would have been unthinkable to mention less than a decade ago. For the next 20-30 years, Americans can expect to take the leftward approach to the way government solves problems in the U.S. Of course, there will be a loyal opposition, because one is truly necessary to the success of the state. But it can be expected that this will be the case for several decades to come.

Upon mentioning this, there will be several who hold different political views (such as myself) who may find this news rather horrifying. Yes, it is a little disappointing. But take my advice when I say that there is no need to worry. These political changes, better known as realignment, are as American as apple pie. This has happened several times beforehand and will indeed happen again. The two most recent shifts occurred first in the 1930s, when the Great Depression ushered in a wave of New Deal Democrats. Then, beginning in the late 1960s and cemented with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, conservative Republicans made their mark. Now, the latter group realizes that its time has begun to dwindle.

Although it may appear as though our country is now plagued by chronic political polarization, it will not last much longer. As the old guard of the Republican Party begins to fade, the newer ones will gradually give way to a more liberal agenda, while nevertheless maintaining some basic party principles. It is also likely that we will see the rebirth of the so-called middle class we once had, more socially conservative while fiscally liberal.

In time, maybe around 2040, the liberals will find that their ideas have grown stale and are no longer popular. Many of the Hispanics that they once courted will now be much higher up economically and will be looking to keep what they believe does not belong to the government. Then, the conservative ideology will be renewed, just as it had been before. But until then, Americans can expect to experience another recycled ideology for years to come, through good and bad.

Yafe, 25, began his two-year stay in Cleveland as Israel fellow in September. According to the Cleveland Jewish News, his job focuses on “empowering area Jewish students to advocate for Israel and help unaffiliated students identify more closely with the global Jewish family.” He said his job is to work with Jewish students attending Cleveland-area colleges and universities.

Here is a portion of the transcript of the interview The Carroll News conducted with Yafe:

The organization was formed around 2004 and he said it has continued to grow in support since.

On Monday, Dec. 3, Burnat spoke to Mona Debaz’s political science course, U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East. In addition, The Carroll News interviewed Burnat about his work with the movement.

Below is the transcript of that interview and his responses to our questions:

The Carroll News: How does the Bil’in Popular Committee stand in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what exactly is the goal you try to carry out?

Iyad Burnat: I am Iyad Burnat, head of the Popular Committee in the settlement of Bil’in. Bil’in is a village 16 kilometers west of the city of Ramallah. We started our non- violent resistance when the Israelis started to build the wall and settlement on our land. So this wall and this settlement has affected the farmers in Bil’in and most of the people in Bil’in are farmers. It is a small village, 1,900 people live in this village. So when the people saw bulldozers destroy the land – destroyed all of the trees, it is the life of the Palestinian – they started to have demonstration every week. But the bulldozers tried to stop them, so we used our non-violent ways in our struggle. [For the past] eight years, we have demonstration every Friday. We have International support with the movement, Israeli activists who are civil with us every Friday with our actions. So our goal, Bil’in is the same of other villages and cities in the West Bank under occupation since 65 years. They are suffering from the occupation; their first goal is to have the freedom like all the people in the world. Also the farmers in the village want to have their land. So this is the first goal that the Bil’in people started to fight against the bulldozers and fight against the Israeli army to have their land.

CN: Do you feel like you have sympathies with organizations such as the PLO even if you may not agree with their tactics, or do you feel that they are completely going off from what you are trying to achieve?

IB: To understand, after Oslo agreement, the Palestinian Authority control Area A. So we have Area A, Area B, Area C in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority controls just Area A. We are living in Area B and C and this is under control of the Israeli security. So they can raid the villages, they can raid the houses. Sometimes in our demonstration we invite the people from everywhere to participate with us in our demonstration. But we are not under the control of the Palestinian Authority, we are a grassroots resistance: farmers, the people who are on the ground who resist by this way. There is also no support from the Palestinian Authority to this area. So there is no contact between the PA and the people who are fighting against occupation.

CN: How has the movement grown in the last eight years? Has it been a gradual increase in supporters or are you guys generally stable in the numbers you have?

IB: [For the past] eight years, we have had many succeed us in our non-violent struggle. We have had many villages now and areas start to do the same of Bil’in. So now we have 20 places in West Bank doing weekly demonstration in non-violent way. So from the beginning if we talk about the violence they use against us in all of the West Bank, they kill 40 people in violent struggle. The Israeli army has tried many times to break us because they know that this way has affected the Israeli’s army, affected the Israeli’s economy, affected the Israeli’s media, so they try to break us anyway. In Bil’in village for example, they killed two of us. We have 1,300 people who were injured, 150 were arrested, many of whom were children. They tried to break us because they know that this way is against them, in all of the war and in the media and in the ground. But we succeed to start in other places. For example, we started to succeed in Nil’in village; they also used violence against these people. In Nil’in they killed five in one year. So the non-violent does grow and not just in Palestine. So if you are talking about for eight years, there is no more people knowing about what’s the war or what is occupation because the Israelis are very strong, as you are aware in the United States and Europe.

But now we have a lot of groups, a lot of people who know about the situation in Palestine, and what is the meaning of occupation, what is the mean of the war, of the settlements. So because of this we continue, and continuing is very important for the people of Palestine to have it in their weekly demonstration.

CN: How do you feel about the Western Media? When they report what is going on do you feel that it is completely one-sided, favoring Israel or do you feel that it captures some of the truth in regards to what is going on? Is there much more to the story than what many people in the Western World do see?

IB: Yes, I think, well all the Palestinian people are thinking that the Western media is controlled by the Israeli’s media, in the United States and Europe. So we have to work against this media. Not just in media, but also in political things.

We find America supports the Israelis and occupation in weapons. We find a lot of weapons and they use it against us in non-violent demonstrations that are made in the United States. They spend $300 billion a year to send it to support the Israeli’s and occupation and it goes to the army. So the people here didn’t know, or most of them didn’t, know that. So because we are working against this media by our friends and commission who are coming to this country to buy our media and it is important to have the international [media] in our village because they are our messengers outside. They can show what is happening on the ground.

Also, the Palestinian people feel, believe, that America is part of the occupation. When you have a child in the demonstration find a weapon that says made in the United States, he think that it is part of the occupation, that they send the weapons to kill us. So the American people have to understand the message from the Palestinian is that they are a peaceful people, they like to live in peace.

But they are suffering everyday under the occupation, they suffer every minute. Everyday we have people killed, people injured, people arrested. But you didn’t show this in your media here. Your just showing that they Palestinian is a terrorist and he is going to kill the Jewish, and we are not against the Jewish, we are against the occupation. So the media I think is very bad in the United States, in Europe. We are working a lot to change this media and we have a lot of people understand what is going on now. So before eight years, you didn’t have people marching against the Israeli’s embassy or against the governments in London. But now you have 100,000 people at the last demonstration against the Israeli’s embassy in London. So it grows and grows and the people are starting to understand the situation in Palestine.

CN: What were your feelings on Camp David 2000?

IB: I think it was a lot of agreements, not just Camp David, we have for example [Resolution] 242 in United Nations [and] the Security Council.  It is a lot of agreements. But the Israelis did not care for all of these things. They continued to build settlements, they continue to build the walls. In West Bank you have 600 walls between the cities. There is no contact between the Palestinian cities and villages. For example I cannot go to Jerusalem, I have never been in Jerusalem and it is 25 kilometers from my home. I can not go to the city, it is easier for me to go to London than it is to go to Janin city, and that is one hour by car. So they cut everything and they didn’t care for any agreements. As we are as Palestinians on the ground, we didn’t believe in all these political things, because we wanted to see some things change on the ground. So we have a lot of speech. Mr. Obama comes to Cairo and he was speaking about the peace and the hope, but after this we didn’t see anything on the ground. Now the Palestinian authority goes to the United Nations to have a member, but what about the Palestinian who is suffering everyday? It doesn’t mean too much so we need to see change on the ground.

CN: How do you feel about what is going on in the U.N. right now and trying to recognize Palestine and Israel’s arguments against it. Is it any progress or is it not going to make to much of a difference?

IB: No, after the United Nations treatment, I called my family and they said the occupation is still there (laughs). It’s still the same, nothing has changed. It is still the same and nothing has changed that I believe in nonviolent resistance. It is just the way there will be change.

CN: What would you like to see the Israeli government do?

IB: Israeli’s goal is to transfer all the Palestinian people from this land. If you want to wait for the Israelis to do something, they didn’t, but we hope to have our state, Christian, Muslim, Jewish together in one state. [We want] to have this and equality.

CN: On one final note, there are a lot of people in the Western world who are not to familiar with political matters; they tend to get mixed up and associate Palestine with the rest of radical Islamists. They consider them working hand-in-hand with the likes of Al Qaeda, which is generally not the case. Would you say that – what you said about being one secular state – that is something the Western world should know about the Palestinian cause?

IB: Yes, this is the message of the Palestinian people, to have one state, or two state. But we want to decide for that we have to back the Palestinian people to vote for that, not to government or to other people. So we believe that one state you have more power because it was Christian, Jews, Muslims living in Palestine before the occupation and so if you look to Bil’in now and to other places in West Bank, you find Christian, Muslim, Jewish, everybody working together against occupation, so we can live together in one state, we can live in peace, we can do it.

Burnat is a Palestinian and member of what he called a grassroots, non-violent movement originating from the village of Bil’in. Burnat visited campus on Monday, Dec. 3 to speak to Mona DeBaz’s U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East.

Yafe, 25, began his two-year stay in Cleveland as Israel fellow in September. According to the Cleveland Jewish News, his job focuses on “empowering area Jewish students to advocate for Israel and help unaffiliated students identify more closely with the global Jewish family.” He said his job is to work with Jewish students attending Cleveland-area colleges and universities.

Yafe told The CN that programming he has organized at Case Western Reserve University has included collaboration with the Middle Eastern Cultural Association.

“We are trying to build bridges, not walls,” he said.

Here is the transcript of the interview Editor-in-Chief Dan Cooney and World News Editor Sam Lane conducted with Yafe:

The Carroll News: You read the responses to the questions that we posted to Iyad Burnat, who kind of described himself as the leader of this peaceful movement, and he gave his perspectives on the situation, from where he sat and what he considered peaceful. What are your responses?

Lior Yafe: First of all, I saw so many lies on the interview. The first one for example at the beginning, he said Israel is an occupation state, it is an apartheid state. So I wanted to ask him or you guys, what do you think about that we have an Arab-Israeli member of the Israeli parliament? We have an Arab judge in the Supreme Court of Israel. In those videos you can see that some of them and some of the Israelis from the left side of the political map is participating in this peaceful and social gathering in the area. And I am saying is how is it even possible that we have all of that, we have someone in the parliament, we have someone in the Supreme Court of Israel. Think about that if you are going to have that is it really an apartheid state? Do you think that we really want to push or kill every Palestinian from our area? No, definitely no, we want to have them. The Israeli government said four years ago loud and clear that we want to have two state solution. We want to have two states for two nations, for the Palestinians and the Israelis. You can still see that, for example, you can read Resolution 181 of the United Nations that says in 1948 [that] we want to have two states for two-state solution. The Israelis celebrated in the streets, believe me we were so happy to have our own country, our own Jewish state. What has the Arab side done? They started the war against Israel, the independent war. I am just amazed on the interview because it was only one side and he could not bring even any objectivity into the interview and I have so many other things to say. For example, he was saying “the Israelis is to transfer all the Palestinian from their land.” It is funny because I am not sure if you heard about it but in 2005 we had the disengagement from the Gaza strip. So we transfer almost 20,000 people from their houses from the Gaza Strip area only to have a peaceful agreement with the Palestinians. We have the security fence because 75 percent of the suicide bombing attacks came from the West Bank from Judea and Samaria, 75 percent and from Bil’in specifically. So why do you think we have this fence, you think we need to separate ourselves from the Palestinians? Absolutely not, we want to secure ourselves and not to have suicide attacks in Israel. More than 300 people have been killed and murdered, and it is really in specific numbers. And more than 2000 people have been injured from the suicide attacks from 2000 until 2003. You know what was happening from 2003-2004 when the first segment of the security fence being built? Ninety-five percent of the suicide bombers in the area of Israel, there was a claim of 95 percent. So the faster of saying the specific idea that we are claiming all the time. The suicide attacks – we want to stop them.

Think about it from your perspective. Suppose the Mexican border of Tijuana every other day will go to San Diego to bomb and to have a suicide bomb attack in the street of San Diego. What is going to be the response of the American government? What do you think are supposed to be the American response, how are they going to react? They are going to build a fence and say no more, we are not going to have any suicide attacks from Tijuana or from the Mexico area, and (joking) I have no problem with Mexico I think it is a great country. I am just saying think of the perspective.

We have no problem with the Palestinians, we are doing so many efforts in order to have a peace with them. For example, 2008 in Annapolis or in 2000 at Camp David. Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Omert have done such  far reaching peaceful agreements with them; we offer them so many things in order to have peace with them. But they are not just declining us. They are not just saying that they don’t want any peace with Israel. They are not even recognizing the state of Israel as a Jewish state. Think about it they are not even recognizing the state of Israel as a Jewish state. Think about it, they are not recognizing us. So how can we reach a hand to them in order to have peace?

CN: Now going off of that just recently Palestine became a non-state observer? What do you think of that?

LY: I have no problem with that, they can do whatever they want. But think about it. How do you want to solve a 70 year conflict in one resolution, that is not even happening in Israel, it is happening in New York. I am saying that if the President Abbaas want to have peace he does not need to go to New York, he should come to Jerusalem. He should shake the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu, our Prime Minister, and start negotiating about the real things. You know that you can’t just have peace in New York, it does not make any sense. Just come and negotiate, it is so simple. How do you want to solve either one side resolution, it just does not make any sense. What do you think about the numbers for example? The ones that I told you 75% of the suicide bomb attacks came from the West Bank? He never told you about it right? That more than 300 people were killed because of those suicide attacks.

CN: Iyad Burnat did mention to me at one point that there were Israelis that join in with the Bil’in protests. Is that accurate?

LY: Well, there are some Israelis who participate in peaceful movements because we are a Democratic state. If someone wanted to demonstrate, not against Israel, or not against the policy, but if they want to show a respect, or a mutual respect with the Palestinians in the area. They have their full right, because we are a Democratic state. We are not an apartheid state, we are not an occupied state. Everyone can do whatever they want, we have the same set of values, the same as the United States. If someone wanted to demonstrate, they have fundamental right. He never mentioned that. It is funny, I think that I am just opening your eyes because it is becoming so clear that there is two different narratives to the same story.

CN: Basing off one of the questions Sam asked in the original interview, often what we see in Western media is just pictures of violence all the time related to this conflict. What is Israel actually like, because I do not quite believe that this is an accurate depiction of what life is really like in Israel. Is it?

LY: Yes I think you’re right. We have a normal, peaceful life in Israel. You can see that in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem, in the North, in Galilee, in every area in Israel. We are having the same life as you have hear in the states. You are seeing Israel maybe on CNN as being attacked by the Palestinians from the Gaza strip or from the West Bank because that is the headline. You are not going to see the innovation of Israel or that we are having the highest innovations in the world. You are not going to hear about that, you are going to hear about the attacks in Israel.

CN: You mentioned Camp David once before. They could not broker a full peace at the Camp David accords. How do you see this conflict ending?

LY: Well, I think the same as the Israeli government said, and that is the narrative in Israel. We are going to have two state solution. We are going to have two states for two nations. The Palestinians are going to have a nation in the Gaza strip, in Judea and Samaria. Meanwhile, Israel would have a state in the rest of the area. It is funny because we mentioned the U.N. resolution before the one that we had last week, and today there is a huge difference between the Gaza strip and Judea and Samaria because Hamas which is defined by the American government as a terrorist organization controlling the Gaza strip and Fatah, who are the PLO, is governing the area of the West Bank. The President Abbaas can’t really go to the Gaza Strip, well he cannot really go there because there is a rival between Hamaas and Fatah. But he is claiming for an independent country for both of those areas even though Hamas, which is a terrorist organization is still attacking Israel and they are still confronting us on so many levels. From one side we want to let them build their own country and their own state because they have the civil right such as everyone of us. But from the other side, if he can control them, if the PLO can control the Gaza strip or he cannot even go there by himself, how would he want to claim an independent country?

CN: What would you say is a common misconception about the entire conflict?

LY: Well, I think that people don’t really know the full perspective of the conflict. I’m not sure if people can really define between Hamas or Fatah or the areas themselves with who governs each area.

The misconception is just that people don’t have the full knowledge about the conflict. No one understands it. We disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005, or no one is reading about the Camp David in 2000, or in Indianapolis in 2008, what we offered to the Palestinians to finish this conflict. Believe me, just read more about it and you’re going to see who is in the good side and who is in the bad side. I’m not saying that were always right, but we’re trying all the time to have a Palestinian state to stop this.

CN: I’ve been to Europe and I’ve talked to European students here. When Israel is brought up in conversation, they seem to indicate that they feel Israel can be too aggressive in its actions in general. How accurate is that? What is your reaction?

LY: People always like the underdog. No matter what. If you’re seeing an underdog and you’re seeing an established state, you’re feeling is going to go toward the underdog. But when the underdog is biting you all the time, what can you do? In which way can you try to engage him? And, you have to read more, we are always trying to engage him in a peaceful way and we’re trying to give them a state. Read for example, what happened in Camp David, the Palestinians said they were going to dismiss all of the weapons that they have and they’re going to stop terrorism. After ten years, you can see there is more terrorism in the area. At first you are sitting with him, you are shaking his hand, you are trying to have peaceful agreement, and then what happened after 10 years? Nothing. It’s getting even worse.

CN: President Bush and Ariel Sharon seemed to have a very good relationship. The relationship between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu has not been as positive.

LY: I am not sure about that. There is more collaborative work between the ideas of the Israeli Defense Force and the American Army than in the last 20 years. I’m not sure you need to mix the personal aspects of the two into the story, but from the country perspective, there is more collaborative work.

CN: How do you feel the Arab Spring has affected things?

LY: It’s funny that you are calling it an Arab Spring, some of the Israelis are calling it an “Arab winter.” because you can see what’s going on in Egypt for example. At first everybody thought that was great.

I traveled in Egypt for two weeks just before the revolution happened and I lived in Tahrir Square. It was two months after, they started the revolution.

Everyone was so optimistic, because now that this crazy guy is down, they’re going to have a democratic state. They’re going to build their own country with the civil rights and everything is going to be good. It’s good for Israel. It’s good for the area because Egypt is such a strategic country in the area, and we said it’s amazing. But after a while, the Muslim Brotherhood took control of the country. You can see the ramifications of that. In the last two weeks, there is a pool, and the president doesn’t want to have a pool there. Think about all of the civil rights that people thought they were going to have, and now they don’t have them. From one side, from an Arab Spring which is supposed to be a great thing for all of the area, not only Egypt, it became an Arab winter. It’s not fulfilling. It’s not really happening.

Look for example what’s happening in Syria. Look at how many people are dying every day because of the Syrian regime. Look at what the opposition is doing to stop Assad from being a dictator, so to speak.

People my age appear to understand what affects their everyday lives. Generation Y (the label we have been given), is one that has a strident urge to obtain stability. We want to find a good job, not so much because we are passionate about it, but because it is the key to a low-risk lifestyle. In education, students are both pushed and work harder than in previous generations. Even in athletics, every adolescent seems to be pushed as if they were training for the Olympics.

On the surface, these factors appear to be all well and good. Today’s youth is a group of hardworking people who not only love their parents and respect their elders, but wish to be far more serious than them. But as we often hear, too much of anything can be bad. Personal experience has led me to believe this is a very truthful statement.

By the time I had gone home for Thanksgiving, I was pretty strung out. Everything was on my mind, and I could not seem to relax. My parents noticed and decided to give me some seemingly simple advice: “Just relax and don’t take everything so seriously.” I was puzzled; did my parents just imply that I should be nonchalant about everything? With a little more clarity, things did seem to make more sense. It is true that many from our generation face a unique set of challenges, but in reality there are some things that remain the same. My parents also attended college during a recession while hearing bleak news. But they realized the fact that they were still young and had plenty of time for things to change.

For those who may still be wondering what I am trying to get at, it is to realize that we are still very young and need to learn how to live that way as well. Yes, we are far more advanced technologically and focused, but we seem to be cashing in on other useful tools as a result. One would be many of our basic communication skills. Generation Y seems to struggle carrying out much dialogue without the interference or influence of technology, which makes a lot of social experiences less enjoyable. Let’s face it, I am sure a number of people would agree that their dating lives would be much better if they could meet face to face rather than depending on texting. The job world is no different. Many employers choose not to hire younger applicants because of their poor communication skills.

Fortunately, all is not lost. All our generation has to do is take a step back and recognize that we are human again. Next time you feel that everything is too much, relax and realize that this is the only time that you will be young. Success will come to you if you want it; just give it a little time and enjoy the ride.

First off, I will just briefly clear up what has been already spoken of: the fate of the Republican Party. The 2012 election was much more of a Republican loss than a Democratic win.  It was incredible that the GOP was able to receive as much a percentage of the popular vote as they did!

Truthfully, the party brought about its own troubles with the 2008 financial crisis, which occurred under a Republican administration. The only benefit they had was that a Democratic Congress was also in power at the time. Republicans would have been wise to be a little more cooperative. Instead, the 2010 midterm elections proved a curse disguised as a blessing for the party, leading to more blame being directed on the party than President Obama. During a similar Democratic re-election scenario, Woodrow Wilson was asked why he did not retaliate against attacks from his Republican opponent Charles Evans Hughes. Noticing the trouble Hughes was bringing to his own cause, Wilson responded, “Never murder a man who is committing suicide.” Indeed, 96 years later Obama could have easily said the same for the Republicans.

Now, the Republicans should consider but not devote their time to figuring out what they did wrong, at least for the remainder of the year. It is true, they have been struck with a serious setback. But they have been in situations like this before (Democrats too). Eventually, they will find their way back to success. However, I would suggest that they find a GOP version of Bill Clinton before they find the next Ronald Reagan to lead the party.

Both parties are going to have to come together over the next few months. This is not for the sake of looking good to the American people (though it would not hurt), but for the sake of the country. Normally, I am not too fond of government intervention. But this is a situation that leaves no better option on the table. The Republicans will simply have to realize that they are going to have to concede on tax hikes and military spending. Democrats are not innocent either. If the Republicans move half way, they will then have to cut heavy spending on programs such as social security. Some of these actions may come across as harsh, but it is reality for the United States.

Let me just finish by saying that the American public has a responsibility as well. We were the ones who elected many of these men and women into office. It is their job to reflect the views of their constituents. If you disapprove, you need to let your voice be heard, not just sit back and say that all politicians are corrupt. Just think: are our leaders really doing what I sent them to do? If the answer is yes, then consider if this is what is best for the country. If you disagree, do not hesitate to speak up before it is too late. We have done this before, and we can do it again!

When it comes to determining the leader of the United States, what do Americans look for? We hear a similar belief from a lot of voters, something along the lines of a candidate who understands the issue of the day (in this case the economy). That seems very plausible; who wouldn’t want a candidate that fits these qualifications? However, the American people often seem to use this as a cover for other factors.

In America, charisma tends to be king. Likability is what the voters really crave, someone who can really get the crowd going. Voters got a taste of this when Barack Obama first ran for president in 2008. His youthful image was an inspiration of hope to millions listening to his campaign promises. As he has been moving through his reelection bid this year, he presides over a mixed record topped with a poor economy. By traditional standards, Obama should be in way over his head. Instead, he has continued to lead his less-fascinating opponent, Mitt Romney. Although, in reality, Obama also has far more political experience than Romney, it has been his style more than substance that has so far carried him through this campaign. Likewise, Romney’s approach to his candidacy has probably hurt him more than anything else.

When it comes down to this matter, there are two methods candidates use to woo the public. One is the attractive celebrity image, such as those exemplified by the likes of Dwight Eisenhower (a former-WWII general), John F. Kennedy (a young senator) and Ronald Reagan (a former actor). These men used their popularity and colorful backgrounds to help draw voters to the chance for something exciting and new. These kinds of leaders not only managed to use their skills to get elected, but also managed to erode the burdens of scandal or other political mishaps during their presidencies. As far as legacies go, all of these men are still highly looked upon today as examples of great modern American leaders.

If a super-candidate fails to come along, there is the next best option: the ordinary guy. Unlike the other kind of leaders, the ordinary guy is not always as lucky or as easily remembered, but they are electable. This helped to get men like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and, to an extent, Barack Obama, to overcome great odds and go on to defeat more experienced political candidates. In the case of Clinton and the younger Bush, they used their folksy attitudes and approachability to convince voters that they could relate to the everyday American. In recent years, where many Americans feel that elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils, it would be helpful to be the candidate with whom a voter identifies their beliefs.

Well, here we are in another election year. Seeing that there seems to be no super-candidate, that means the latter option could be prevalent. Whether this is what is right for America is questionable, but it is nevertheless what the American people want.

After getting accepted for a trip sponsored by The National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, Kisthardt found herself beginning her journey to the Middle East.

In June, Kisthardt started off attending an orientation in Washington, D.C. before the trip commenced. Afterward, she arrived in Lebanon, starting her journey throughout the country.

One of the issues emphasized during her trip was women’s rights. As a result, she was able to meet several influential women, including a princess, Hayat Arslan and a pioneer for women’s rights, according to the Hudson Monthly.

Kisthardt explained, “I’ve always been interested in travelling to other countries and experiencing new cultures. This love for travel is what drew me to study political science at John Carroll and then what led me to be involved with the Model Arab League.” Kisthardt participated in the Model Arab League during the spring of 2012 while in Professor Debaz’s class, comparative politics of the Middle East course. “I really enjoyed this class, and we had a great time at Miami of Ohio for the Model Arab League.”

The delegation from John Carroll represented Lebanon and was awarded Honorable Mention for Outstanding Delegation. All Model Arab Leagues across the country are run by the National Council for the US Arab Relations.

Each year, the National Council hosts a study visit to a country in the Middle East for MAL alumni to learn first-hand about the countries they represented. Debaz nominated Kisthardt and she applied for the study visit.

“I wasn’t sure of my chances, but I dreamed of how life changing travelling to Lebanon would be,” Kishardt said.

Although Kisthardt was greatly fascinated with her trip, she did not leave her passion back in Lebanon. She recently started a blog documenting her time in Lebanon and her experience since returning to the U.S. She continues to post on her blog, laurakisthardt.com, and includes pictures and feeds about her travels.

There is no doubt that the performance by the candidates in a debate is influential to the voter perception. The real question is, just how much effect will it really have? Debates first burst onto the national scene during the 1960 campaign. For those watching television, it was a momentous occasion. It was a chance to see the next potential leader of the free world discuss policy with their opponent. These forums during the campaign soon became commonplace from 1976-present.

In terms of trying to find comparisons with last week’s debate, the three that come to my mind are 1980, 1984 and 2004. The 1980 debate was perhaps the most effective in terms of election outcome. Hosted a week before the election, the race between Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan had been neck and neck, with Carter slightly ahead. However, Reagan proved to project an image as a strong, confident leader throughout the debate. Suddenly, the lead switched to Reagan over that one week and became a landslide victory.

Four years later, Reagan seemingly put himself into a hole of his own when he appeared aloof during the first debate with challenger Walter Mondale. Fortunately for Reagan, unlike four years previous, there were more debates, which allowed for him to rebound. The end result was another landslide victory for Reagan.

In 2004, George W. Bush’s scenario seemed to feature a blend between Carter in 1980 and Reagan in 1984. Like Carter, Bush faced a difficult re-election campaign and stumbled during his first debate. Unlike Carter, Bush was able to win the tough race rather than lose after performing better in the next two debates. The second and third chances allowed Bush to come out with a narrow victory rather than the defeat that Carter had met.

So what does this mean for Obama and Romney? For Romney, it is excellent to have performed well as a challenger, but he also faces the fact that there are two more debates to go, which gives Obama plenty of time to bounce back. Furthermore, Romney now has to get past the daunting town hall debates that tend to be friendlier to Democrats.  His surge after the debates could quickly evaporate, just like Mondale’s. Obama’s case has its highs and lows as well. He can still bounce back, like Reagan, but does not enjoy his huge lead.

Overall, the candidates can conclude this:  Results change from election to election. It will all depend on factors such as early voting (pro-Obama), the lack of viewers during the next two debates (pro-Romney) and the level of voter turnout (pro/con for both). So those will be the last three weeks. Should be fun!

Jeff Kirwin is a senior at John Carroll University who has closely followed the presidential election. Kirwin found himself very busy during the summer when the presidential election came to his home state of Ohio.

On July 5, President Barack Obama was campaigning through Parma. During, this time, Kirwin had the privilege of meetings Obama personally. At the end of the meeting, Obama even autographed Kirwin’s ticket to the event. Reflecting on his meeting with Obama, Kirwin stated, “It was a great experience seeing President Obama up close. This is something I will remember for the rest of my life.”

Another senior, Greg Petsche, also had a similar experience to his classmate. For Petsche, he was given the chance to meet Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Petsche went with friends and won the VIP tickets from a Cuyahoga GOP Twitter contest. Although the rally was thrilling enough, Petsche enjoyed another opportunity: getting a picture with Romney. He said, “Gov. Romney was doing a ‘Meet and Greet’ after the rally,” “My friend, Dan Imfeld said, ‘Mitt, you have to get a picture with Greg.’ Although the Secret Service tried to get him to leave, Romney instead hopped off the stage to get a picture with a few of us. It was the best experience of the year for me!”

With the general election just a few weeks away, it is not surprising to see Obama and Romney making these kinds of appearances.

With polls indicating that the presidential election will be close, Ohio is a crucial battleground state. Obama narrowly carried the state four years ago, and has a slight lead again. For Romney, victory is even more dire, considering that no Republican has won the presidency without the Buckeye State.

Likewise, appeal to youth voters is also crucial to both candidates in the election. This is due to the fact that they have been affected the most by the current state of the economy. It is their turnout on election day that can very well determine the outcome. Obama’s victory in 2008 was largely carried out by the high turnout he received from youth voters.  This year, much of this support has dwindled. While he still leads Romney, many of his supporters lack the enthusiasm to go out and vote. Romney is trying to sway some of these dispirited voters over to his camp.

To many, the three days in Tampa appeared to be nothing more than a run-of-the mill convention. There were the keynote speakers, political tributes and the closing with the presidential candidate’s speech, which is exactly what makes the difference as well.

The first look is at the speakers:  Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and even the vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan. These men had certain qualities that were rather obscure when compared to past conventions. These men were either in their first terms of their respective offices or were not statewide officeholders. Furthermore, all three men were under the age of fifty and non-WASP. Although this has not been a first for the Republican Party, it is uncommon for the party to host this demographic. In fact, it was just four years ago that many coined the Republican Party as one made up of old, white Christians. Well, the party may not have strayed completely from this label, but they certainly have made progress in terms of their image.

Convention rhetoric has begun to change as well. During previous conventions, there had been strong emphasis on conservative social issues, support for military strength and strong displays of patriotism. Ironically, economic issues, despite Reagan’s influence, were only highlighted as a status-quo issue for conservatism. This time, there was almost a complete reversal. Fiscal issues were dominant; the rest was clearly just taken from the standard script. The biggest sign of this was when Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called out support for the military, indicating that a strong military contributes to the country’s financial burden. It is unlikely that this claim would have been welcomed under John McCain’s “Country First” slogan in 2008. Taking all this into account, it is apparent that the Republican is moving toward the party of economic ideals, a party that aims to keep watch on the nation’s fiscal issues.

The party is also beginning to become a youthful party. This may sound odd, considering the fact that this is the party that supports policies that are not always beneficial to America’s youth. But when looking at the Republican roster in congress, there are younger members than the Democrats. In some ways, this is just timing for some, but the bigger picture is in regards to the fact that fiscal issues appeal much more to this generation than the previous one. Young people who wish to enter into politics also have some desire to gain financial perks along with their service, which Republicans highlight more than Democrats.

So in the end, one question is: Will these changes be beneficial to the party? Not immediately, but it is progress. There is one thing that this tells voters, it is that the party is not as out of touch as it seems to have been the last 20 years. Sticking to the situation of the economy rather than social issues demonstrates clear understanding of the tasks at hand. If it doesn’t work for 2012, 2016 could certainly be a good year.

As I attacked the lack of concern for the political awareness among the youth, I acknowledged that many were too busy to pay attention. Listen to the second part. It is true, young Americans are too busy today. In some ways they are ambitious, but not ambitious in the sense of achievements beyond extraordinary means. Instead, it is all a matter of trying to keep their heads above water. Everyday, the focus of college-educated students is where and when can they get a job. Those below this level of education can almost forget about any career beyond mediocre. What happened to those bright American days, President Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill”?

It is still unclear what some Americans are looking for today, because they are mostly preoccupied with getting through it. I have found myself being told by some older Americans to not be in such a hurry, to simply stop and enjoy life. That sounds great! Personally, I would love to be in the mid-1980s and 1990s (excluding the outdated music). Many of the youthful worries were minimal: you could get a job, sometimes not even high-stress ones, make a reasonable-to-great living and still enjoy a fun social life. It is true that a lifestyle like this cannot last forever, but when you are young and foolish, it is quite complementary. Now the social life you have is your job, and the benefits are not all that rewarding. If you take a little time to relax, you suddenly derail. So that is what my generation, unfortunately, has to say to that piece of advice.

In that case, it is a curious matter when it comes to determining what will become of this next generation of Americans when it comes to their country. It does appear evident that pride has gone down, but not in a matter of disgust with the nation as it was 30 years ago. Instead, it is more along the lines of pure indifference. To this next generation, the U.S. is just the country in which they were born and will continue to reside. The glory days of joining traditional patriotic causes such as the armed forces out of pride are gone, replaced by those who have no other outlet. Perhaps the youth of today will be a lot like the people of post-war Britain – just getting on with their lives, and electing representatives who serve their best interests. Yes, these could be the signs of American austerity.

I am by no means saying that America is leaving its heyday behind. That may have already happened, depending on how you look at it. Our technology-driven society has definitely cut down on our more genuine gifts.  The aspects that have made us Americans are beginning to fade away.  Many would claim that this is a bad thing, but the truth is this was bound to happen one way or another.

So this is where I leave you off for the summer, and hopefully something can spark in the next few months. But for now, it seems young Americans are just trying to make it through one day at a time.

The fighting that started almost a year ago exists between the government led by President Bashar Assad and rebel forces opposed to his violent and oppressive regime. These rebel forces consist of political activists, grassroots organizers and armed militants. According to The New York Times, “The conflict is complicated by Syria’s ethnic divisions. The Assads (the president) and much of the nation’s elite, especially the military, belong to the Alawite sect, a minority in a mostly Sunni country.  Alawites constitute about 12 percent of the 23 million Syrians. Sunni Muslims, the opposition’s backbone, make up about 75 percent of the population.”

Despite numerous calls for a cease-fire and an end to the fighting, the current situation of the nation still sees armed combat from both sides. In early April, President Assad signed an agreement to a six-point peace plan which outlined the strategy for implementing a cease-fire. Shortly after the plan went into effect, the violence was reported to have dropped significantly. In not pulling back the armed militants, the government sends a clear sign to the rebels that the government is not willing to withdraw completely, allowing them to continue their rebuttals.

Last Thursday, as reported in The Times, a large number of Syrian civilians died in a poor neighborhood of Hama after their houses crushed down on them. The opposition activists called it a massacre, saying intensive government shelling collapsed a row of cinder-block shanties, killing around 70 people.

The opposition continues to respond to these acts of violence as, on Monday, the rebels were reported to have fired antitank rockets at the office of the Central Bank in Damascus and detonated two bombs close to a military compound in the northern city of Idlib. More than 20 people were killed in these acts of violence.

With the threat of a full-scale civil war looming closer every day, the United Nations and the Arab League have teamed up to intervene with a solution to the tensions. Their consensus was to send an envoy of observers to Syria to observe the situation and see to it that the six-point peace plan was fully implemented.

According to The Press Association, “The joint UN-Arab League envoy said the speedy deployment of the 300-strong UN observer force authorized by the council on Saturday was ‘crucial’ to verify what was happening on the ground and potentially ‘change the political dynamics.’ The observer force would also provide the international community with ‘incontrovertible’ information to increase pressure for a ceasefire by the government and opposition.”

It is designed to help maintain stability among the people. There are supposed to be no barriers according to the book. Everyone is eligible to be liable and no one, or case for that matter, can be overlooked. Of course, this may not always be the case for all of the world’s citizens. Just ask the African Americans in the South during the 1960s or Catholics of Northern Ireland. It was cases like these where the law chose to play favorites and treat these individuals with less respect. In University Heights, Ohio, while maybe not as extreme as my previous examples, there is a group that faces this same injustice: the attack on college kids.

Students experience interference with the University Heights Police Department 24/7. During the week, they zone in like vultures on the smallest of parking violations, slapping ridiculous fines on the struggling young scholars of John Carroll University. Their biggest prey is on the weekends. It is the time when we go for those lovely happy-go-lucky strolls on the streets in search of a little relief from our long weeks of unpaid work. Once again, they are there, stealthily waiting for the proper moment to strike. They are interested in the contents of your backpack, just assuming that these containers of learning material suddenly are cloaks for mischief. There is no need to discuss the legitimacy of UHPD’s accusations. What matters more is that they must realize what is important and stop singling out JCU students.

It is true, by Cuyahoga County standards, University Heights has a lower crime rate than other cities. But there is still other crime that must be given notice. For one example, I have noticed several adult drunk drivers out on the road on the weekend nights. The vast majority of these actions are given the blind eye, all because the police are in a big rush to catch the next house party. Another time, I remember a buddy of mine had his car broken into and was later mugged. Not only did the police fail to take action, but they also claimed that he was exaggerating the whole story. Of course, if a JCU student so much as stumbled on a sidewalk, they would rush to him and give him a Breathalyzer test.

The police may hold this notion that because it is a relatively safe suburban town, college parties are the biggest problem. Let it go! Who cares if the taxpayers yell at you for your minimal level of work? I have friends who go to a school almost identical to JCU in Connecticut, in a town that makes University Heights look like Detroit. However, the police there realize that they look pathetic spending their time harassing college students. Plus, it should be wise to remember, the more you tell kids to not do something, the more likely they will do it, far more recklessly as well. Leave us alone, and the trouble becomes far more contained.

All I can say is, I will be living in an off-campus house next year. Of course, there is the strong possibility that I will throw a few social gatherings every now and then. Likewise, my house-mates and I would be sure to keep our affairs contained inside our house. If this is successful, why would the cops opt to bring these activities to the neighborhood by raiding through and kicking everyone out?

All I am saying is, UHPD can start acting like real police and not overbearing parents to JCU students.

President Barack Obama has gone through several transformations during his political career. He started off as an Illinois congressman. Next, he gained recognition as a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. At the time, he was running for senator, a seat that he would easily capture. I remember watching him when he made this speech, with an emphasis on the need to evaporate what he felt to be a divided America.

I had to admit, he was quite an orator.  Somewhere far back in my mind, I may have registered that this man had the potential to win the presidency. On the other hand, I would have never predicted it to be a mere four years later.

By 2008, the first-term Illinois senator suddenly captured the nation’s eye. His election that November allowed the American public the chance to meet the man and candidate Obama. Now all that was left to do was meet Obama the president.

Now we fast forward another four years, and the American voters have met the president. The record has been observed and reactions remain mixed. According to a recent Gallup poll, his approval ratings stands at 41 percent.  At first glance, this seems to be bad news for the president.

This is by no means great, but at the same time it can be absolutely obsolete by November. Generally, these ratings are typical for incumbent presidents in office over the last 50 years at this time (Johnson & Reagan being exceptions). All of this means that now is the time for the president to determine what he will be up against.

First of all, he will want to know who his opponent is. Although he may benefit from a divided opposition, it is also vital for him to know the character of the man, which was a trait that certainly was beneficial four years prior.

Best bets are on Mitt Romney, who holds a significant lead in delegates. Running through the checklist, any character attacks are most likely out, as well as past history votes referring to national decisions, which was beneficial in attacking John McCain. There will be the questions regarding Romney’s understanding of common America and his ability to reach out to all ideologies.

Furthermore, the potential of Romney’s proposed fiscal conservatism will be brought to light, with Obama trying to make clear that his liberal economic goals are far more official. It is through efforts such as these that will bring back the candidate Obama. The other half will have to be based on his record as president until November, which would help to determine.

As for now, all that can be done is sit back and watch.

Still, the Republican nomination is undecided. There is a chance to defeat an incumbent president and the opposition still cannot choose whom to get behind. This is the worst thing that can happen in politics, right?  Depending on how you look at it however, maybe there is an upside.

In recent years, politics has seemed to lose some of its flair and excitement. Sure, we have politicians who behave in bizarre mannerisms and voice absurd rhetoric unseen before, but that is not what draws me.  Where is the competitiveness, the months of long anticipation?

Presidential nominations always seem to get wrapped up so quickly nowadays.

United States election history reveals facts about famous conventions that could not pick a winner. When a decision was not reached, they chose dark horse candidates. These were relative unknowns, some of whom would eventually win and become famous presidents.

Now, I seriously doubt that this will reoccur, but there are lighter examples to take from. Trying to gain an understanding of events such as these, I turned to my father.

He recounted his only memory, when he was 12 years old watching the 1976 Republican Convention with my grandfather.  Their support was split, my grandfather bolting for Ronald Reagan, my dad remaining loyal to President Gerald Ford.

Although my dad’s choice won, he nevertheless concluded that it would have been just as thrilling had the outcome been different.  Taking away my personal partisan feelings or candidate preference, I must say that I could feel this same way today.  The closest I could remember was the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton contest, but even that drama never fully bloomed.

As I said earlier, there are a couple ways of looking at this.

One way is that a potential open convention would be fascinating for my generation of political junkies. On the other hand, this does have the potential to perhaps reinvigorate the Republican Party and its image for voters by November.

Another example is from 2008, when the Democrats fought until June to finally decide on a nominee. This left time for the Americans to already learn of the Republican nominee and grow tired. Meanwhile, when the Democrats did finally decide on Obama as the nominee, it brought a fresh face to the election. By the time November came along, the American people still had not had enough of Obama.

History has a chance to repeat itself again in this election year, only this time it could be for the other side. That being said, as it may not be good for the Republicans at the same time, it is a pendulum that tilts two different ways.

But regardless of what this could potentially do for the outcome in November, I cannot deny that this could be what makes politics fascinating, right into the 21st century.

The last few weeks of this campaign, the American people have really seen Santorum take charge in the polls.

But during this same time, they have been able to witness the politician side of him as well.

Some Republican voters in the primaries may welcome this, but it will not carry out to the general election.

On the campaign trail, Santorum, 53, has been the biggest advocate for social issues. In my opinion this has been the biggest mistake of his campaign. I have stated this in my previous column and will probably have to state it again, but the issue of campaign 2012 pertains to fiscal matters.

It does not do any good to campaign in states such as Arizona and Michigan, talking about birth control when these citizens are more interested in which candidate is going to give them an opportunity to work. Constantly referring to issues such as this often comes across as if the candidate does not understand what the common American individual has to go through.

The few times that he does make the economy an issue, it goes along with the status quo rhetoric common with conservatives. When I listen to him speak, it seems as though his thoughts on the economy are obsolete. What he says regarding these matters are what he believes the Republican Party voters will want.

Knowing that Santorum will probably not change the tune of his presidential campaign anytime soon, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to address what he does stand for.

In my opinion, what he wishes to see is a return to a time that cannot be brought back. It is a simpler time, one that was not necessarily awful when it came to the structure of the American family.

Those days have long past, and now we are in the 21st century. Yes, perhaps in some ways the things he preaches may be better. Quite frankly, I am too young to know and I have no interest in finding out for some time.

At the same time, I do feel that perhaps these feelings can only be shaped by personal experience, so it would be wrong for me to pass full judgment. Nevertheless, this would still fall along the lines of my argument that it is irrelevant to the issues of this election.

The one criticism that I do have with no regrets is Santorum’s attack on John F. Kennedy’s opinion regarding religion.

When Sen. Kennedy made his speech on this matter in September 1960, he was not advocating for complete a complete elimination of faith from politics. Instead what he meant was that no officeholder should implement a state-based faith. The fact that a man supposedly as smart as Santorum believes this makes me sick.

That being said, this is not a plea for the former Pennsylvania senator to change his emphasis to the economy. While I disagree with most of the words Santorum speaks, I can nevertheless respect him for sticking to his beliefs, no matter how absurd and outdated they may be. Despite this, the choice of Santorum would surely be devastating to the Republican Party.