On Tuesday of last week, President Barack Obama, sitting at the same desk, declared the end of that same military operation: “I am announcing the American combat mission in Iraq, has ended.”

Lauding the men and women of the Armed Forces for serving with “courage and resolve,” Obama went on to say, “The Americans who had served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that terrorized its people.”

According to Obama, nearly a hundred thousand American troops have been removed from Iraq, as well as millions of pieces of equipment.

Hundreds of bases have been closed or transferred to the hands of the Iraqi government. He continued, “this completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security.” The President went on to credit the Iraqis for holding credible elections this past year, allowing a foundation for an “inclusive government that is just, representative and accountable to the Iraqi people.”

Obama promised that although the “combat mission is ending, our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.” Not all troops will be leaving Iraq; a “transitional force” will remain to guide and advise the Iraqi military in the counter-terrorism movement.

Sticking to his campaign promise, Obama pledged that all U.S. troops would be removed by the end of next year. Putting faith in the Iraqi people to be able to succeed on their own, Obama claimed the American role in Iraq will be to “provide support for the Iraqi people, as both a friend, and a partner.”

The speech turned to the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Al Qaida, which Obama claimed to be the most essential challenge to American security, is currently operating in the border regions between the war-torn country and Pakistan.

Obama promised to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida.” He went on to say because of the retreat from Iraq, supplies and resources are now available “to go on offense.”

Under the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, additional troops have been deployed for a limited time in Afghanistan “to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity, and secure their own future.”

Obama also spoke of a transition of power to the Afghans from the American military presence.

In an important summarizing quote, Obama said, “one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone, we must use all elements of our power, including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example, to secure our interests and stand by our allies.”

He also instilled hope for the new state of Iraq, saying, “Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.”

It’s time to turn the page on one of the most important chapters of American history.

Everyone – from the Arabs and Israelis to the U.S., U.N. and EU – agree that the two-state solution, or the creation of a separate Palestinian state made up of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is the only viable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But it’s those sticky “final status” issues – settlements, Jerusalem, borders, security and refugees – that have killed virtually every peace process since 1979.

And that’s exactly what Obama has to realize: this isn’t just a peace process. It’s a political game. And more than 60 years of violence have taken a psychological toll on the people of the Holy Land. So Obama’s going to have to crack some skulls and bust some balls – diplomatically speaking, of course – in order to knock some sense into the Israeli and Palestinian leadership. And he’s going to have to start with the issue of Israeli settlements.

On Sept. 26, Israel’s moratorium on settlement construction will expire, and Israel has shown no interest in extending it. Palestinian leaders, meanwhile, have warned that if construction continues, peace talks will end. But Israel has always argued that [most] of its settlements in the West Bank would eventually be swapped for an equal amount of land to Palestine.

So before that deadline expires, Obama needs to force the leaders to figure out exactly which settlements will be swapped, presumably those closest to the border with Israel. As for the rest of the settlements, especially those deep inside the West Bank and around East Jerusalem, they are going to have to be dismantled just as the settlements in Gaza were in 2005. It’s not going to be pretty, but it has to be done. After all, the settlements are a violation of international law.

Linked to the settlement issue is the status of Jerusalem. Many Israeli conservatives – including Prime Minister Netanyahu – insist that the city has to remain the “eternal and undivided” capital of Israel. But Palestinians want to make the predominately Arab east Jerusalem the capital of their Palestinian state, and their request should be honored.

Next on the list should be the issue of Israeli security. This is Israel’s primary concern. The more secure Israel feels, the more likely it will accept a peace deal. Therefore, Israel’s demands that it station Israeli troops on the borders of Jordan and Egypt to prevent weapons smuggling into Palestine should be honored, as should its demand that Palestine not have a national army.

With the issues of settlements, Jerusalem and security settled, the issue of borders would fall into place. The only issue remaining, therefore, would be the status of Palestinian refugees. Since 1948, violence has driven some three to four million Arabs from Israel. Arab leaders want Israel to recognize the refugees’ right of return – but that’s not going to happen. Such a decision would defeat the entire purpose of a two-state solution. Instead, financial compensation and citizenship to Palestine or another Arab country will have to suffice.

Speaking of financial compensation, recent articles in Time magazine and The New York Times have suggested that the one thing most Israelis and Palestinians may value more than peace is prosperity. When Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 and Jordan with Israel in 1994, all three states received billions of dollars in economic aid from the United States. So it should be in this case.

While six decades of violence may have made Israelis and Palestinians a little loony, it’s also made them stubbornly strong. So if peace talks fail and they have to endure another 60 years of intermittent violence, they can. And they will.

However, in the partially paraphrased words of Bill Clinton, if Obama is serious about peace, all he has to do is one thing: remind the Israeli and Palestinian leaders who the [expletive that rhymes with “sucking”] superpower is here.

So grab that big stick and swing away, Barry. Swing away.

But their subtle optimism was overshadowed by events from the night before and thousands of miles away. As four Israeli citizens – a married man in his 20s, a married mother in her 30s, and a couple in their 40s – were driving home in the West Bank, their car was ambushed by gunmen from Hamas, the Palestinian organization that controls the Gaza Strip. All four were killed.

And so it goes.

Every American president since Jimmy Carter has tried – and ultimately failed – to bring peace to the Middle East. In fact, the peace process has, at times, had the reverse effect, resulting in increased violence. The failure of Bill Clinton’s Camp David Summit in 2000, for example, resulted in the second Palestinian Intifada, or violent uprising, which killed thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. And the lack of success after George W. Bush’s 2007 Annapolis Conference eventually led to Israel’s war on Gaza in 2008.

But now it’s President Barack Obama’s turn to step into the ring. Obama will mediate face-to-face peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose secular Fatah party controls the West Bank. The talks will be aided by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordanian King Abdullah II. Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab states that have made peace with Israel.

The ultimate goal of this latest round of negotiations will be to establish a Palestinian state composed of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which Israel annexed in a 1967 war, that can exist peacefully next to Israel.

But that may prove difficult to accomplish with a divided Palestinian leadership. Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has been controlled by Hamas, which both the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization and, therefore, have excluded from peace negotiations. Although Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it still maintains some 10,000 Israeli troops and numerous roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank that render ordinary life virtually impossible for the area’s 2.5 million Palestinians.

Another obstacle facing Obama that may kill his peace process before it even gets off the ground is Israeli settlements. After heavy pressure was put on Netanyahu to cease settlement construction in the West Bank, which Palestinians considered a precondition to peace talks, he agreed to impose a temporary moratorium. That moratorium, however, is due to expire on Sept. 26 and – so far – Netanyahu has resisted calls to extend it. Abbas has signaled that he will end talks if Israeli construction in the Palestinian territory continues.

But despite these obstacles, there are a few encouraging signs that separate this peace process from its failed predecessors. Chief among them is the relative stability of the West Bank – a result of both economic growth and an improved security situation there.

Much of this success stems from the increasing competence of the Palestinian Authority, the administrative apparatus of the Palestinian territories. Salam Fayyad, the prime minister of the P.A., has played a crucial part in this process. His state-building initiatives have resulted in more reliable basic services, a number of new schools and housing complexes, and increased government revenue. The more capable the P.A. is, the more likely Israel will be willing to transfer control of the West Bank.

While all sides support the creation of a Palestinian state, there remain a number of issues, known as “final status” issues, that have plagued past negotiations and will be key points of contention in this round as well. In addition to the aforementioned issue of Israeli settlements, these issues also include Israeli security, the status of Jerusalem, the exact borders of a Palestinian state, and the status of the three to four million Palestinian refugees who fled Israel after 1948.

At their first meeting on Sept. 2, leaders restated their commitment to the two-state solution but failed to make any progress on the final status issues. However, all issues are to be solved in a comprehensive deal that will force the two sides to compromise and acknowledge the other’s compromises. Negotiators will also try to keep the talks under wraps so as to prevent any leaks that could prove politically embarrassing to either side.

Obama has also stated his intention to solve these final status issues within a year. According to Jen Ziemke, a professor of international relations at John Carroll University, “In order for the one-year deadline to be considered a success, progress must be made on the issue of settlements and the right of return. Ideally, a realistic but specific timetable will be set during this year that will mark the transition period toward the full establishment of the two-state solution.”

However, some sort of compromise on settlement construction will have to be made soon if talks are to continue. “The key to unlocking this puzzle is to find a solution in which both sides can return back to their constituents and claim that their side won. The precise details of any agreement matter very much, down to specifications about the how, where and when,” said Ziemke.

“Even more important, however, is the language used by both sides to describe the terms of the agreement. The precise language used in negotiations will help determine whether each leader is able to successfully frame the outcome as a victory to supporters back home.”

Netanyahu and Abbas will meet again on Sept. 14 in Egypt, and plan on holding face-to-face talks every two weeks until a final solution is reached. Filling in for Obama will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will mediate the talks.

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.

After college, he landed a job as a delivery man for a company that sold office furniture. Real cool, right? Wrong. But the company had a chair it dubbed “the ugly chair.” It was old, ugly, and no one could sell it. So one day my dad bet the sales team that he could sell  it. And he did. 

The next day, he was moved to the sales team. 

Point number one: I may get my good looks from my mom, but my killer work ethic definitely comes from my dad.

Point number two: Immigrants are the bedrock upon which this country was built. The blue-collar attitude they first brought to this country continues to spin the wheels of American industry even today. 

But while most Americans only have to trace their family lineages back a few generations to find relatives that made that first trip to Ellis Island, antipathy towards immigrants has always been present in American society. This antipathy has fed a persistent effort to keep our borders closed. Every year, tons of money and resources are wasted on policing our borders and building walls to keep illegal immigrants out. And yet every year, more illegal immigrants pour into this country. 

The controversial legislation recently passed by Arizona, which gives police the power to detain anyone they think might be an illegal immigrant, has thrust the issue of immigration back into the political spotlight. Hopefully, the Obama administration will finally put an end to this wasteful and ineffectual policy. But what policy can be used instead?

In 1984, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial that put forth the simplest, cheapest, and most effective way to deal with illegal immigration. It read, “If Washington still wants to ‘do something’ about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.”

The United States can complement this policy by addressing the social factors that lead people to immigrate to the United States in the first place. Mexico, for example, is plagued by gang violence, drug trafficking and a lack of economic opportunities. Open borders would free up resources to combat drug trafficking. Strengthening U.S.-Mexican political ties and increasing economic integration would also help.

This type of policy would treat immigration not as a single issue but as part of a bigger picture. It would uphold and respect human rights and embrace immigration as a proud and essential part of American society. And finally, it would improve the welfare of our neighbors, which would result in a more peaceful and prosperous regional community.

These talks, which the United States is set to mediate, are scheduled to resume this week. The announcement to expand Israeli control into East Jerusalem, which was made public while Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel, interrupted the initial plans to bring these two adversaries together. In protest, the Palestinians withdrew from the indirect discussions.

The United States responded to Israel’s bold declaration by insisting that Israel freeze its settlement plan. Despite U.S. pressure, Israel officially discarded this demand under the pretense that it should maintain control over all of Jerusalem. Contrary to this Israeli belief, Palestinians hope that East Jerusalem will one day serve as their capital, pending the creation of a Palestinian state.

Israel and Palestine have not engaged in direct peace talks since late 2008 when Israel invaded Gaza. Since this skirmish, which Israel says was prompted by hostile militant rocket fire over an extended period of time, Israel has advocated peace talks without preconditions. 

Palestine, however, firmly maintains that Israel must freeze settlement building inside Palestinian territories it acquired after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Although Israel still refused to accede to a total freeze, it did concede to a partial postponement in construction.  

Those like Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, have made it clear that for peace to prosper, Israel must cease their settlement plans. In addition to Palestine’s reservations regarding Israeli expansion into occupied East Jerusalem, the Arab League reiterated the need for an Israeli halt prior to direct peace talks.

Although concerns are still prevalent, the Arab League issued statements of support for the indirect talks to continue. The Arab League is a regional association composed of member states ranging from Southwest Asia to North and North East Africa.  

Even with such an endorsement for the proximity talks, those in the Arab League, such as the Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasim bin Jabir al-Thanistill, are hesitant to trust Israel.

However, regardless of any possible reservations, the Arab League’s decision provides the political clout necessary for Palestinian Pres. Mahmoud Abbas to protect his faction, the Fatah Party, from public disapproval. The United States is credited with aiding in this decision as shown by its continued diplomatic endeavors. Israel has also shown approval of such a backing by the Arab League.

These talks are anticipated to last several months and will serve as a precursor to any direct negotiations. However, before these indirect talks will take place, the political factions located in the West Bank will first have to approve the plan.

– A petition signed by a group of over 3,000 European Jews addressed to Israel. The group, known as JCall, considers the Israeli occupation and settlements in the Palestinian territories morally and politically wrong. (Al Jazeera)

“Just sort of a bigoted woman.”

– Gordon Brown, prime minister of Great Britain, after speaking with Gillian Duffy, a 65-year-old British woman. With parliamentary elections scheduled for May 6, the remark hurt Brown’s Labour Party, which is in a tight race with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. (The New York Times)

“Jack Bauer might have caught him in 24. But in the real world, 53’s not that bad.” 

– Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly after the FBI arrested a suspect of the attempted Times Square bombing only 53 hours and 20 minutes after the smoking vehicle was first spotted. (The Associated Press) 

“We’re definitely happy and a little bit surprised. Usually this type of thing goes in a different way.”

– Majid Al Kabban, the lawyer of a newly-wed couple caught by police having sex in a car in Dubai. The couple were released after Kabban argued successfully that the car was a private place so the couple’s actions did not violate Dubai’s strict public indecency laws. (BBC)

“We don’t shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing.”

– Glenn Beck criticizing Republican opposition to reading Miranda rights to terror suspects. (The Washington Post)

President Barack Obama called the spill “a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster.” The Pentagon said that 17,000 National Guard troops were called up by the Gulf Coast states to help battle the spill on Tuesday.

The potential environmental consequences, according to some experts, include ruined natural habitats and even perhaps fragile species wiped out of certain ecosystems. 

The shrimp and fish industries will have massive economic setbacks because of the spill. The spill could potentially reach all the way to the Atlantic due to the strong current coming out of the Gulf.

Edward B. Overton, an environmental science professor at Louisiana State University said, “People have the idea of an Exxon Valdez, with a gunky, smelly black tide looming over the horizon waiting to wash ashore, I do not anticipate this will happen down here unless things get a lot worse.” 

The infamous Exxon Valdez spill occurred in 1989 off the coast of Alaska and resulted in the contamination of 1,300 miles of untouched shoreline and killed a good portion of the wildlife in the region.

The chief operating officer for exploration and production at BP, Doug Suttles, said that BP was spending approximately six million dollars a day in clean up efforts. He said the company was planning on using some type of tent or dome to contain the oil, and was two to four weeks away from implementation. 

Overton said he was hopeful that BP’s containment efforts would succeed, but said the difficult task could potentially damage the underwater pipeage, and cause even more unchecked oil flow.

Engineers said the type of oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon is lighter than the crude oil from the Exxon Valdez spill, and is easier to break up with the use of dispersants, chemicals that break down the oil and cause it to sink. This oil though, when heavily mixed with water turns into a thick, slimy, buoyant substance that can float for many miles.

David Yoskowitz, the chair of the socioeconomics department at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico studies in Corpus Christi, TX, said that the damages  from the Gulf oil spill have reached an estimated $1.6 billion. 

“And that’s really only the tip of the iceberg,” he went on to say. “It’s early in the game and there’s a lot of potential downstream impacts, a lot of multiplier impacts,” said Yoskowitz.

What people do not realize, however, is that the Gulf is not the “cleanest” natural environment to begin with. Thousands of gallons of oil flow into the gulf every day from underwater seepage cracks, and hundreds of onshore plants and refineries dump large quantities of pollution everyday as well. 

Despite all the potentially catastrophic consequences, other experts said that there are many reasons to remain optimistic. 

“We’ve certainly stepped in a hole and we’re going to have to work ourselves out of it,” said Quenton R. Dokken, a marine biologist and executive director of the Gulf of Mexico Foundation.

“But it isn’t the end of the Gulf of Mexico,” Dokken said.

However, if the factors that lead to intrastate conflict could be identified, then perhaps future conflicts could be prevented and current conflicts could be brought to a peaceful end. Religious and ethnic factors are often cited as causes, as they are involved in many of the world’s most intense intrastate conflicts. But while these factors no doubt play a role in intrastate conflict, they function more like facilitators of conflict rather than causes of it.

Instead, the real cause of intrastate conflict is related to the failure of a state’s power structure. The power structure of a state determines how and to whom political power is distributed. For example, in a dictatorship, power is centralized in the hands of a dictator. In a democracy, power is given to elected officials and usually divided among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

To understand how failures in a state’s power structure can lead to conflict, the concept of power must be viewed as an economic good that’s governed by the laws of supply and demand. As long as the power structure can keep the balance of the supply and demand of power at equilibrium, peace can be maintained. But with only a limited supply of power available, if demand for power exceeds supply, then empirical observations suggest the probability of intrastate conflict substantially increases.

At times, the power structure of a state is divided along religious or ethnic lines. In Sudan, for example, a disproportionate amount of power resides with the predominately Muslim north. This unequal balance in the power structure led the predominately Christian south to rebel against the government in 1983, resulting in a civil war that lasted until 2005 – although violence and killings still continue today.

However, even power structures that are not divided along religious or ethnic lines are prone to intrastate violence. For example, in Somalia – home to perhaps the most violent conflict in the world – practically everyone is ethnically Somali and religiously Sunni Islam – but the power structure of the country is clan based, and clan rivalries are what plunged the state into civil war in 1991.

The reason, therefore, that many assume that intrastate conflict is caused by religious or ethnic differences is because the power structures of many states are divided along religious or ethnic lines. But the real cause of conflict is the failure of these power structures to maintain an equilibrium between the demand and supply of power, which then results in disproportionate balances of power. This leads groups that are marginalized to rebel against the government, resulting in civil war or, at the very least, intrastate conflict.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France, released a statement last Wednesday saying he will propose legislation banning the wearing of full veils in public by Muslim women, saying the “veil hurts the dignity of women and is unacceptable in French society.” He went on to say, via government spokesman Luc Chatel, that they “do not pose a problem in a religious sense.”

Sarkozy specifically singled out the wearing of the niqab, a type of veil that covers the face entirely except for a slit through which the eyes can be seen.

According to the BBC, Sarkozy’s party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) said, “[The bill is] a means to defend France against ‘extremists.’”

The Council of State, a body of the French government that is required to provide the executive branch with legal advice before important legislative measures, said in March that “a general and absolute ban on the full veil as such can have no incontestable judicial basis.” Despite the questionable constitutionality of the potential bill, it is a very popular proposal in France.

The Council said that making it a case of public security would have a better chance of passing, instead of a matter of “the dignity of women.” They went on to say that it would be a violation of the French constitution as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Francois Fillon, the prime minister, backed Sarkozy, saying, “We’re ready to take the legal risks because we think the game is worth the candle.”

The proposed bill is an advancement on an earlier proposal from the National Assembly, the lower house of France’s bicameral legislature, that would ban the full veils in public places only owned by the state and places that required high security. France had already banned head scarves in public schools, but at the same time banned all signs of religious affiliation in order to not single out just Muslims.

France is home to the largest population of Muslims in Europe, but it is estimated that fewer than 2,000 women wear the full veil in France.

The full veil is worn mostly by women who belong to a branch of Islam called Salafi, a branch that has a more strict interpretation of scripture than others. The ban is seen as a severe restriction on the rights of women by leftist politicians, whereas most of the women argue that the ban is an invasion of personal liberties and freedom of religion.

– Bakhtialy, an Afghan tribal elder, on the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. A number of Afghan civilians have been killed recently by military convoys at NATO and American checkpoints or in bungled Special Operations raids. (The New York Times)

“We spoke: ‘Ah! You! We made an agreement yesterday. Why do you attack us now?’ They said: ‘No matter how used you are to your chicken, it will not stop you [from] slaughtering it.’ That is the slogan they use.”

– Chief Ibrahim Choji-Dusu of Chwelnyap, a Christian town in Nigeria, on the nature of the town’s conflict with its neighboring Muslim villages. Nigeria is deeply divided along Christian and Muslim lines. (BBC)

“How can the U.S. President make atomic threats against Iranian people?”

– Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, on Pres. Barack Obama’s new nuclear policy. It promises not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states except North Korea and Iran. (The New York Times)

“I saw my classmates and my teacher collapse, and when I opened my eyes, I was in hospital.”

– Sumaila, a 12-year-old Afghan girl, who was one of at least 13 girls to have fallen ill after a suspected poisonous gas attack at a school in northern Afghanistan. The government has accused fighters opposed to female education of being responsible for the attack. While the Taliban outlawed education for girls during its rule from 1996-2001, it denied any involvement in the attack. (Al Jazeera)

In reference to its current pronouncement, cruelty to animals in various forms, including animal fighting, is already outlawed in the United States. However, this case, centered on a 1999 law that prevents the trafficking of portrayals of cruelty to animals, addresses how this law specifically criminalizes the depiction of animal cruelty rather than the action itself. This law, passed and signed by Pres. Bill Clinton, was designed to specifically target “crush” videos in which women literally crush small animals with their bare feet or high heels.

According to Sara Schiavoni, a political science professor at John Carroll University, “While this decision may make our skin crawl because of the content of the protected ‘speech,’ it’s not all that surprising. Nor is the justification novel, evidenced by the 8-1 vote. Since the mid-1960s, the Court has resisted trying to place a societal value on the content of speech, instead valuing ‘speech’ in and of itself.”

“Once the Court decides that the act in question is ‘speech,’ they begin with the presumption that it is protected by the Constitution,” said Schiavoni. Although originally meant to respond to a sexual fetish, evidence suggests that this law has been used more to prosecute individuals distributing dog-fighting videos. As a result of the broad use of this law, the Court struck it down. This ruling is in response to Robert J. Stevens, who was sentenced to a 37-month prison term for his work as a small-time film producer. Stevens never took part in any of the instances he later accumulated and distributed, but under the 1999 federal regulation was criminally responsible for trafficking even though some of the unlawful activity occurred outside of the United States.

In support of the 1999 federal law, the government defends that these exposés fail to contribute enough to the public to warrant protection by the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito, the sole dissenter, argued that the decision uses a framework of theoretical instances that safeguard this form of decadent amusement. Furthermore, while Alito finds fault with comparing depictions of animal cruelty with that of hunting, as Roberts argued, he sees the similarity between “crush” videos and child pornography.

Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the government does not possess the authority to limit demonstrations of speech on the basis of its subject matter, suggestions or implications.  Despite this, Roberts acknowledges certain exceptions to speech, such as defamation and slander, which are outside the protections of the First Amendment.

Although this ruling serves as a victory for civil libertarians, those in the Humane Society have requested that Congress enact a narrower law to combat “crush” videos and depictions of unlawful animal fighting.

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.

Eyjafjallajökull. No, that is not a misprint, but the name of a large volcano on Iceland’s southern coast that is spewing ash across Europe and has been halting air traffic for most of the past week. 

The volcano is believed to have had a minor eruption on March 20, followed by the much larger second explosion, which occurred last Wednesday and is responsible for the flight cancellations. The ash makes visibility almost impossible and, more importantly, can cause a plane’s engines to fail.

The gigantic cloud of ash, which can be seen from space, has been wreaking havoc on the airline industry in Europe. On Tuesday, the European Union began lifting air transportation bans set on the day following the eruption, last Thursday. 

But, just hours later, the British National Air Traffic Service reported that the eruption was still getting stronger and that a new cloud of ash is headed toward Europe that remains unpredictable. People have been stranded away from their homes and destinations. Some airline travelers visiting certain parts of Europe have been stuck in these airports for the past week or so. 

Some of these travelers include John Carroll students studying at Regents College in London, who were visiting Berlin this past weekend. Sophomore Sarah Schaner, studying in London, described her plan to journey back to Great Britain. 

She said, “They are telling us we will most likely not get a flight for about a week, so we are going to have to get a bus to Holland, which is nine hours, and then take a 14-hour ferry and then a two-hour train ride.”

Many world leaders had made plans to attend the funeral of Poland’s former president, Lech Kaczynski, who died last week with his wife and 90 others in a plane crash (unrelated to the ash) in Russia. President Barack Obama had plans to make the trip to Poland, but was forced to cancel due to the restrictions on air travel.

According to Giovanni Bisignani, the head of the International Air Transportation Association, the estimated economic impact reached $1 billion. Bisignani called it “embarrassing” and a “European Mess.” This surpasses the economic loss of the closing of the U.S. airspace during the three days following the attacks of September 11, 2001. 

However, there is hope on the horizon. Although the volcano continues to erupt, volcanologists say that the explosions are much less powerful than the original that occurred last Wednesday. 

The plume being sent into the air is now only three miles high, as opposed to the original height of eight miles, which would only affect Iceland and its surrounding waters. “There is no new material being added to the ash stream affecting aviation in Europe,” said Matthew Roberts, a scientist at the Iceland Meterological Office.

It’s obvious that Tea Partiers think there are a lot of problems with the country today. The debt, deficit, taxes, stimulus and health care reform all received their fair share of criticism at the rally. And according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, while 46 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy, that number jumps to 91 percent among Tea Party supporters. 

But amid all the criticism and complaining, what I didn’t hear at last Thursday’s rally were solutions. In fact, the Tea Party in general seems to be completely lacking in the solutions department, which is a shame because the problems they’re trying to highlight are some of the biggest issues facing the country today. 

With the economy in the pits and the deficit and debt at record levels, the Tea Party has the opportunity to bring a lot of fresh ideas to the table. But “fiscal responsibility” and “limited government” aren’t policies – they’re principles. And it seems as though the Tea Party is quite content on “Easy Street,” playing the role of Monday morning quarterback and criticizing the policies of both Democrats and Republicans alike.

But it takes a lot of guts to seriously take part in the political arena, particularly because putting forth a policy automatically makes you vulnerable to criticism. Perhaps leaders of the Tea Party have seen the way its members have torn up other government policies and are afraid to submit any of its own?

If that’s the case, then the Tea Party will remain nothing but a circus act that gives out free hot dogs and American flags on Tax Day. And you can be sure that as soon as the economy recovers, it will fade into the pages of history, just as so many other fringe political groups have before it.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be that way. Many Americans support the Tea Party’s principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government. If the Tea Party were to simply apply those principles to the way it confronts the problems facing the country, it could probably come up with a pretty solid platform.

So pay attention to what I’m about to say, Tea Partiers, because you’re going to have to make an important decision very soon. Your party is currently stuck at a fork in the road. One path leads to certain irrelevance. The other has no guarantees of success, but definitely has a lot more potential. According to the same poll mentioned above, Tea Party members are more educated than the average American, so you’re completely capable of making the right choice. You’re also capable of coming up with a policy or two.

– Jabbar Ali, a Pakistani man whose leg was wounded in a suicide bombing at a center for refugees displaced by a Pakistani military offensive against militants. The attack killed 38 people and wounded 65.

“I lost faith, everything, because people like you have done damage to me.”

– Lawrence Grech to Pope Benedict XVI. Grech was one of a group of victims of sexual abuse by priests that met with the Pope in Malta on April 18.

“I’m proud of you. I pray for you for your courage to come forward and speak out.”

– Pope Benedict XVI responding to Grech’s statement.

“We want to save lives. They see this tragedy as an opportunity to make propaganda.”

– Ga Tsai, a Buddhist monk, criticizing the relief effort of the Chinese government after an earthquake killed at least 1,400 people in Jiegu, a Tibetan city in China, last week.

“If he is still alive and walking around, that does not simply mean he has managed to survive. The Almighty is giving him the chance to find the strength to acknowledge the evil he has brought to people.”

– Yunus-Bek Yevkurov, the president of the Russian republic of Ingushetia, on Doku Umarov, a rebel leader who is said to have ordered an attack on Yevkurov last June.

It seemed like just another ordinary day for Police Mentor Team Viper. Enduring the scorching heat of summer in southern Afghanistan, the team was on its way to a village about 60 kilometers north of Kandahar, the country’s second largest city. The village led right up into the rugged Afghan mountains – the same mountains that the Taliban used as its hidden sanctuary to plan attacks against Afghan and U.S. forces.

Leading the convoy were two Afghan National Police trucks, followed by three U.S. Humvees, the workhorse vehicles of the U.S. military. Atop the second Humvee sat Pfc. Matthew Hoyt, a current freshman at John Carroll University. At his fingertips was a whole lot of firepower. Hoyt manned both an MK-19 – a machine gun that shoots grenades – and a 240B 7.62mm machine gun. As the gunner, Hoyt’s role was crucial to the unit. It also left him extremely vulnerable to an enemy attack.

During the final five months of Hoyt’s deployment, he helped train Afghan recruits for the Afghan National Police and worked side-by-side with the ANP to fight Taliban militants.

But on this day, PMT Viper wasn’t looking to engage the enemy. Instead, its goal was to simply make it to the village, where it would talk to the village elders and try to get a sense of where the village’s loyalties lied – not an easy job, considering that many Afghan elders are notoriously corrupt, often saying one thing while doing another, especially in the face of a growing Taliban presence.

After an uneventful ride on one of the country’s few paved highways, the convoy eventually arrived at its destination. But as the ANP trucks entered the village, a group of Taliban militants hiding in buildings opened fire. The convoy had been ambushed – and they were surrounded. So Hoyt took to his machine gun, unleashing a deafening drone of automatic fire on the militants. Faced with the convoy’s overwhelming force, the Taliban took to the cover of the mountains, followed closely by PMT Viper.

In a pursuit that lasted almost an hour, the convoy went as far as possible into the mountains. Then the air support arrived, first in the form of U.S. Apache attack helicopters, which strafed enemy positions from above the treetops. The thundering echo of F-16 Fighting Falcons could then be heard dropping bombs on where it thought the enemy was hidden.

But it was impossible to tell whether or not the aerial attacks were successful. The Taliban had melted away into the Afghan mountains. PMT Viper had restored the peace for the time being – but there was no doubt that the Taliban militants would eventually be back.

In one of the lighter moments of his deployment, Pfc. Matthew Hoyt, left, takes a break with roommate Pfc. Christian Weidman and a few Afghan children.

For Hoyt, this encounter with the Taliban was just one of several that he experienced during his nine months in Afghanistan. A Chicago native, he was first deployed to Jalalabad, a city in central Afghanistan, in Dec. 2008. In Jalalabad, he spent four months at a forward operating base (FOB) before he was transferred to Shar-E-Safa in Afghanistan’s southern Zabul province.

It was during Hoyt’s five months in Shar-E-Safa that he was part of PMT Viper, where he had the crucial role of training young Afghan recruits for the Afghan National Police. After multiple skirmishes with the Taliban, he earned his Combat Infantryman’s Badge, a decoration that is only awarded to soldiers who have personally fought in active ground combat.

Hoyt returned from the battlefield to civilian life in Sept. 2009, enrolling at John Carroll University, where he plans on majoring in marketing. A member of the Blue Streaks’ football team, he will battle for a starting position on the offensive line next season. Hoyt is also a passionate supporter of all Chicago sports teams. And if you can’t tell by his pictures, he’s an avid Notre Dame fan.

However, in the same month Hoyt left Afghanistan last year, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, released a report that warned that the U.S. and its allies were losing the war. Not only did he request more troops, but he also stressed the need for a revamped strategy to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban.

In December, Pres. Barack Obama expressed his commitment to the effort in Afghanistan when he announced his plan to send an additional 30,000 troops. So as the United States increases its troop levels in Afghanistan by the thousands, it’s likely that some of JCU’s own ROTC students will be deployed there – perhaps even this year.

However, many students at JCU still don’t know much about Afghanistan, a country we’ve been at war with for almost nine years. So The Carroll News brought in Matthew Hoyt to give an in-depth first-hand account of his experience in Afghanistan.

See the interview here.

The goal of today’s Tea Party is to promote a grassroots effort that gives a voice to the common person that is sick of high taxes and wasteful spending. Even though that’s a message that probably resonates with many ordinary Americans, people often identify the Tea Party as a conservative political movement.

But the words “conservative” and “liberal” should be completely removed from the country’s political dialogue. Why? Because they prevent Americans from thinking for themselves.

Often times, when a person labels himself as a “liberal” or “conservative,” it’s because a few of his or her most important views correspond with the stance of a certain ideology. For example, pro-life supporters often identify themselves as conservative, while supporters of gay marriage usually identify themselves as liberal.

What ends up happening, however, is that a person’s ideology will then determine the rest of his or her political views. The pro-life supporter who labels himself a conservative will automatically adopt the rest of the conservative platform.

What’s even worse is that since Americans identify the conservative ideology with the Republican Party and the liberal ideology with the Democratic Party, ideology also often determines who Americans vote for.

Furthermore, the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism in the United States are significantly inconsistent. How can conservatives be pro-life while supporting the death penalty, or advocate for small government while pushing for massive armed forces? And how can liberals argue for “freedom of choice” in the abortion and gay marriage debates and yet continually deny Americans the right to own a gun?

It’s almost as if the term “liberal” and “conservative” are nothing more than labels for arbitrary combinations of policy views.

So here’s a word of advice: don’t let yourself be defined by ideology. Instead, confront each issue individually and try to come up with a stance that’s consistent with your own principles.

The Tea Party will focus primarily on economic issues, specifically taxes and government spending. It will apply a consistent set of principles to these issues to derive its policy positions.

Even if its principles are different than yours, keep an open mind and remember that your principles are not set in stone but are constantly evolving – especially while you’re in college.

And whatever you do, don’t let the labels of “conservative” or “liberal” keep you from experiencing an opportunity to define yourself.

CN: What is your perception of the Afghan people? Were they different than what you expected?  

MH: Not really. In the north, the Afghans are more educated and less religious. And in the south, many of the Afghans are farmers who live day by day.

CN: What is the tribal structure like in Afghanistan? 

The tribal structure in Afghanistan is in a lot of ways more important than the political beliefs of officials in office. In the south, I am not so sure about the tribes. In the north, people would normally support a tribemate more than a person who believed in the same values as the individual person. Getting around that is difficult but not impossible. 

CN: What is Afghanistan like in terms of its climate and terrain? Did it have an effect on the way you carried out your missions? 

MH: [The conditions are] different all over the country, which is the size of Texas. In the north, winters are harsh and can last over several months. In the south, summers are very harsh and temperatures never dropped below 90 degrees, including the night temperature. During the day, there was no shade and it was usually 120 degrees and the desert had no water except for a few water holes. We were a team that normally carried out missions in HMMWV’s and would only go on foot once we got to terrain that would allow our vehicles to go forward. With that said, the climate didn’t really have an effect on the way we carried out missions.

 CN: How skilled is the Taliban as a fighting force? What kind of tactics does it use?

MH: The problem with the Taliban and many of its soldiers is the fact that they don’t have any military training, so they are limited in the way they fight the war. Their main tactics are “shoot and scoot,” which means they would shoot at us for a couple minutes and then retreat to fight another day, and “spray and pray,” which means that they would just shoot blindly under cover and hope that we get hit. Not all of them fight like that, but it is common to see this battle plan used. 

CN: Did you ever have to change your tactics to deal with the Taliban’s unorthodox fighting style? 

Pfc. Matthew Hoyt atop an HMMWV (Hummer) during a mission on one of Afghanistan’s many unpaved roads.

MH: Even though the Taliban fought guerilla style warfare, we did not change our tactics in fighting. We had superior weaponry and equipment, added with the fact we usually had numbers on them. We still continued firing on the target area and pushed through the objective until the Taliban were either KIA [killed in action] or retreated. 

CN: When you were on PMT Viper, how long did it take to teach an Afghan to become a police officer? Do you feel that when the recruits finished the training program, they were ready to take on the Taliban?

MH: When Afghan men volunteer for the ANP, they are sent to ANP Boot Camp, usually in a big city, for a certain period of time. When they finish that, they are sent to their posts, where it then becomes the responsibility of the PMT teams to make sure that cops are up to par and capable of doing the job required of them. 

For us, this meant we taught them how to become better marksmen, went on combat missions with them and, when possible, we taught them the proper tactics of fighting. Basically we taught them everything we could because they are going to be the ones fighting the Taliban after the U.S. leaves. 

CN: In general, did it seem as though Afghan civilians support the U.S. effort? What do most Afghans think of the Taliban? 

MH: Most of the Afghans support the American effort – for the sole purpose that we are better than what the Taliban did when they were in power. Many of the ANP cops that we fought with had family members who were killed by the Taliban, and women as a whole are very anti-Taliban because of the anti-women stance that the Taliban has. 

The Afghans will be happy when the U.S. is no longer needed in Afghanistan, but they are in no rush for us to leave. Just like I mentioned earlier, in the north the U.S. has complete support and in the south, there is not as much support.

CN: If you were asked to go back to Afghanistan, would you go?

MH: If I were asked to go back to Afghanistan, I would most definitely go. There are many reasons why I would go back. First and foremost, the mission is not over and I had many friends who did not come back with us. I do not want to see that their deaths would be in vein. 

Secondly, the friendships that I made in the year I spent over there are going to last a lifetime. It is true that when the bullets start flying, the only thing that soldiers care about is the guy next to you. We put the safety of our teammates in front of our own. 

Thirdly, even though it was tough being away from home, the time spent with the team flew by. As long as I could be with guys like the ones I was with, and doing a job that I believed in, I wouldn’t even think twice about going back to Afghanistan.

The signing culminates a frustrating struggle to reach a new agreement, including a visit made by Medvedev to Washington, D.C., and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visiting Moscow two weeks ago. The meeting held a rather amicable tone, despite other factors of the recent tenuous relationship between the two countries, such as Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008, which were not brought up at the meeting.

The two sides were only in accord with one another, though, on Thursday. Medvedev referred to the treaty as a “historic event,” and said, “What matters most is that this is a win-win situation. No one stands to lose from this agreement. I believe that this is a typical feature of our cooperation.” Medvedev also expressed support for the U.S. on imposing new restrictions on Iran in an effort to curb its nuclear efforts, saying that the two sides “cannot turn a blind eye to this.”

Obama agreed with his Russian counterpart, saying, “Together, we’ve stopped that drift, and prove the benefits of cooperation. Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for U.S.-Russia relations.”

Not everything was brought to the public eye, though. Medvedev said that limits had been outlined, but would not go into further details regarding the private conversations between the two presidents. Obama and Medvedev also strayed away from speaking about the missile defense system in Europe proposed by Obama, despite Russian threats of withdrawing from the treaty if the system did not reach their sanctions.

Under the proposed treaty, each side would be barred from expanding their arsenals by 1,500 warheads and 700 launchers. Neither side would actually have to deplete their current stockpiles by large amounts, though. This treaty could act as a building block for even further barrings of nuclear proliferation in the near future.

The most significant thing to take away from the meeting, though, would be the rare friendly negotiation that occurred between the two super-powers. Obama referred to the Russian president as a “friend and partner” and credited Medvedev with the allowance of such easy negotiations. “Without his personal efforts and strong leadership, we would not be here today,” said Obama. Medvedev responded by saying the two have “a very good personal chemistry.”

Other European countries expressed their disconcertedness over the whole agreement, though, including condescending commentary from Polish and Czech media outlets. On the cover of a popular Czech weekly newspaper, Obama was shown kissing former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, with the caption “Dangerous kisses with Moscow.” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk expressed his feelings on the matter, and said the pact “may affect the security of countries in the region,” and that he had received “assurances on the part of the United States.”

At the heart of this legislation, approximately $36 billion will be directed over the next 10 years to finance Pell grants. Pell grants are part of a federal program designed to provide funding to promote undergraduate and post-baccalaureate education on the basis of financial need. Students can then take these grants and select one of 5,400 different participating institutions to seek academic enrichment.

The passage of this bill will essentially minimize the role of private lenders, who currently receive payment if students default on loans. Instead, students in need can look to the federal government for direct loans that are designed to keep rates down. To determine the rates of these loans, “the government will look to the private market for guidance,” said Linsday Calkins, a professor of economics at John Carroll University. “But it also depends on what their objectives are. If they want more people to go to college, then they’ll charge a lower interest rate,” said Calkins.

“At the same time, that could result in more defaults, which would cost the government more money,” she said.

Those like Rep. George Miller of California, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, asserted positive sentiments alluding to the potential for America to keep jobs in the country. He also noted that the legislation will better prepare the nation’s youth to contribute to a global economy.

Although those in favor, such as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, view this  legislation as significant reform for middle and working class Americans to obtain the means necessary to fund a higher education, those opposed view it as superfluous.

Some estimates calculate that the United States taxpayers will save $60 billion over the next 10 years by cutting out these lenders, who had been profiting off of the old system.

“The banks profited because there was no risk involved in lending to students. Even if students defaulted on the loan, the government would have picked up where the students left off,” said Calkins.

However, critics worry that such a shift will be detrimental to those who work in the banking industry. For instance, the banking community has actively voiced dissent in reference to this legislation arguing against educational savings as a means to cover health care costs. Concerns have been raised about the potential loss of banking jobs and mounting, unprovoked government involvement.

In addition to these hesitations towards student loan reform, funding towards education is also a source of contention. In an original estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, savings were approximated at $87 billion.  This figure is significantly higher than what is available and has resulted in cutbacks from the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act passed by the House in October.

The consequence of such cuts has eradicated plans to improve graduation rates from community colleges; although, these colleges will still receive some assistance resulting from the legislation.

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.

– Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)

“Baby killer!”

– Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) to Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who was speaking during the intense health care debate on the House floor.

“It’s time to chill out, Republicans.”

– Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA)

“There is no downside for the Republicans. Only for Americans.”

– Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee

“He won, and the American public likes success.”

– Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) on Pres. Barack Obama.

“We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill.”

– Greg Abbot, Texas attorney general, on his intentions to challenge the constitutionality of the health care legislation.

If I’ve lost you already, here’s a hypothetical example to illustrate what I mean: imagine a representative who must choose between two bills. One would bring 100 new jobs to a neighboring district. Another would bring 50 new jobs to his own district. Which would better promote the general welfare of the country? The former bill, of course. But since the representative was only elected by the members in his district, it’s easy to see how he would probably place their interests above the interests of the rest of the nation and choose the second bill.

Unfortunately, this happens all too often in D.C. For example, despite the fact that solar power from Arizona and wind power from the Dakotas could provide the entire country with renewable electricity, senators from northeastern states have opposed proposals to build a national power grid that would make it possible to export that energy to other states that need it. Why? To protect their own local energy suppliers.

Then there’s the billions of dollars that could be put towards education, lowering taxes or paying off the debt, but are instead used to build more jets, aircraft carriers or missiles that we won’t need, all for the purpose of providing a few jobs for a district or two.

And don’t forget about the hundreds of “pork barrel” projects passed by Congress each year that result in thousand-page bills – like the health reform bill or last year’s stimulus bill – and billions of wasted dollars.

So is there any way we can make the federal government more efficient? Here’s a simple solution: remove the arbitrary district lines that divide the country. These districts not only make it easier for special interests to invade public policy, but also result in gerrymandering – a process that divides districts politically so they favor one party or another.

Instead, citizens should vote for political parties. Here’s how this would work: if a party won 20 percent of the national vote, it would be awarded 20 percent of the seats in the House of Representatives. Party leaders would determine who would hold these seats, which would make parties more ideologically disciplined. Republicans would probably promote more conservative policies, while Democrats would promote more liberal policies. This would also likely result in the creation of a third or fourth party that would embrace more moderate policies.

Without specific districts to cater to, parties would have to develop and carry out a plan that would benefit all of their supporters no matter where they are – which would result in a greater promotion of the public good.

In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington warned against the threat of political parties. But parties are here to stay. It’s time that we embrace them.