Schemata

In order to grasp a better understanding of the subject, I would like to start our discussion with a proper and relevant definition of the word schema.

On the ethimology of the word, there is a sufficient rooting introduced by the Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia which reads: “The word schema comes from the Greek word "σχήμα" (skhēma), which means shape, or more generally, plan. The plural is "σχήματα" (skhēmata). In English, both schemas and schemata are used as plural forms, although the latter is the standard form for written English.” (Wikipedia, schema)[1].

Longman, Dictionary of Contemporary English, defines “schema” as:

“Sche.ma, n plural schemas or schemata [c] technical a drawing or description of the main parts of something.” (Longman, 2003:1465)

According to the definitions provided by the online Dictionary.com:

“Sche·ma (skē'mə)

n. pl. sche·ma·ta (skē-mä'tə, skĭ-māt'ə) or sche·mas

1. A diagrammatic representation; an outline or model.

2. Psychology A pattern imposed on complex reality or experience to assist in explaining it, mediate perception, or guide response.”(Dictionary.com, schema) [2]

Since this post is supposed to take into focus the two hot, controversial and alive schemata of Americans toward Iran and Iranians toward America, I would like to pick up the conversation with the latter pattern of schema.

What do Iranians thinks of America?

Basically in order to answer this question and finally find out the current schema that Iranians hold in mind against America, this should be clarified that normally in Iran we are facing with far right as well as far left wing people. Specifically following the 2008 presidential elections in Iran, which brought along with it a lot of opposition to the results of the election, new waves indicate that there is an increasing inclination toward left wing by the young generations, who of course are the building blocks of this young nation.

Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, based on the work of a global survey group at the University of Maryland, polled more than 700 people in Iran earlier this year with interesting results, offering an answer to the above mentioned question:

“Views of the United States are still quite negative. One of the most striking things that I found in both the poll and in the focus groups is a perception on the part of Iranians that the United States has extraordinary power over all kinds of things in the world. Large majority of the Iranians in the polls said that the United States controls most of the important things that happen in the world. And when I probed about this they even said in the focus groups that the United States controls Al-Jazeera, that the United States controls al-Qaeda.” .(Kull,16 April,2008) [3]

Now, the group of people contributing to the poll with this opinion about America is very much likely to belong to the far right. Again, there is a huge tendency to approve President Ahmadinejad’s presence at the office by the same group.

While on the other hand the face of the leftists is of more compassion toward the United States as Kull asserts:

“What's striking to me is that the - you get a different kind of nuance by doing focus groups because in the poll you just get a lot of, mostly a lot of negativity, except toward the American people. There actually 51 percent of Iranians say they like American people and that comes through when you meet them. They do immediately express frustration with America, but you can feel underneath it a real longing to have better relations and an appreciation that you're there and listening to them. So, by the end, they are actually projecting a real sense of warmth.” (Kull, 16 April, 2008)

What do Americans think of Iran?

Exactly the same trend exists in the United States dividing the results of the polls in two different directions. Steve Watson says, in this regard, on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 that: “According to a new poll by Gallup, Iran is top of the enemy list, with 25 percent, followed by Iraq at 22 percent, then China with 14 percent, and North Korea with 9 percent. A quarter of Americans believe that Iran now poses the biggest threat to the United States, confirming that a sustained neoconservative propaganda campaign to demonize Iran and its leaders for their own strategic benefit is having a significant impact.

Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to see Iran as the top U.S. enemy, while Democrats are likelier to name Iraq. Older people and those who say they closely follow world news are less likely to cite Iraq than the younger and less informed, reported the AP.” (Watson, 1 April, 2008) [4]

Bibliography:

1. Longman, Dictionary of Contemporary English, (2003), London: Pearson Education.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema, retrieved at: 12/14/2009.

3. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schema, retrieved at: 12/14/2009.

4. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89683583, retrieved at: 12/14/2009.

5. http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/010408Iran.htm, retrieved at: 12/14/2009.

U.S. Said to Pick Illinois Prison to House Detainees

In order to give a brief background of the subject, Guantanamo served as a detention center to house prisoners mostly captured through extraordinary rendition taken place by the CIA. The logic behind this act is mostly to transfer the prisoners to destinations where the international regulations regarding prison interrogation and treatment don’t apply. The most debated issue concerning the Guantanamo Bay detention center has been the harsh methods of interrogation, which are called torture by so many including physical and mental like waterboarding and eerie music.

After President Obama took the office, during his first months of presidency he, supposedly as documented, made an attempt to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility which was frequently used under Bush Administration to keep suspects involving terrorist activities. But dealing with the roughly 200 detainees at the prison has proved difficult, and he is widely expected to miss that deadline. The procedure has continued until on December 14, Washington claimed that the Obama administration is expected to announce on Tuesday, December 15, that it has selected a prison in northwestern Illinois to house terrorism suspects now being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in a major step toward shutting down that military detention facility.

An administration official said President Obama had directed the federal government to proceed with acquiring the Thomson Correctional Center, a maximum-security prison in a rural village about 150 miles west of Chicago.

Gov. Patrick J. Quinn of Illinois and the state’s senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, will be briefed about the plan at the White House on Tuesday afternoon. The officials, both Democrats, have been enthusiastic supporters of bringing Guantanamo prisoners to Thomson, arguing that it would bring jobs to an impoverished part of the state.

When talk of bringing Guantanamo detainees to Thomson first surfaced in late November, both Mr. Quinn and Mr. Durbin held a series of news conferences to promote the idea of turning over the empty state prison, which was built in 2001 at a cost to Illinois taxpayers of about $120 million, to the federal penal system.

Top Illinois Republicans — including Representatives Donald Manzullo, whose district includes the prison, and Mark Steven Kirk, a candidate for the United States Senate seat once held by Mr. Obama — have denounced previous talk of such a move, saying it could make Illinois a target for terrorist attacks.

But Obama administration officials argue that the prison would be secure and that it would enhance national security to close Guantanamo because it has become a global symbol and a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.

It was not immediately clear how the government would pay for the prison and upgrades, but seemingly the procedure is willing to repeat. Levy taxes on the state’s tax payers.

Apparently this course of action is going to bring up a lot of tension among Americans, because both ends of the deal are issues that mainstream American public don’t approve of. Americans during a number of cases, Mahar Arar being one of them, showed their objection toward government policies regarding prisoner detention and interrogation. On the other hand, if the government wills to collect the financing through taxes, another wave of opposition will come up.

We had the same situation after the 2009 Presidency election in Iran. A lot of news about Kahrizak detention center for suspects, arrested accused for distorting the public regulations and provoking opposition, revealing that the prisoners are harshly mistreated and tortured. The facility after so many scandals and debates all over the country, even by traditionalist party, finally got closed directed and ordered by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic revolution. Detainees; therefore, were transferred to another detention facility.

Jobs Report Is strongest Since the Recession (Headline From NY Times)

There has been an unexpected improvement, as officials say, on the domestic economic affairs of the United States; as the analysis of the last month’s report reveal there have been a kind of “rebuilding” in the American work force which had gone through a lot since/due to the last economic recession starting two years ago. In this regard, according to what government said on Friday, the report also demonstrated that only 11000 jobs eliminated last month and therefore the unemployment rate decreased 0.2 percent to a percentage of 10, the highest unemployment rate in 26 years, and that actually is the best news in two past years.

President Obama during his visit to Allentown, Pa, gave hope to his audience when he said: “there are going to be some months where the reports are going to be a little better, some months where the reports are worse, but the trend line right now is good.”

Now, there is prophecy which speculates March as the real turning point during which cutting jobs would replace creating or adding jobs. If by any chance this estimation is true “the beginning of a workforce recovery would come more quickly than after the last two recessions, in the early 1990s and 2001…”.

During the last month according to statistics 50000 temporary workers were hired as well as some permanent workers which are of course low in number. There have been remarkable increases in the working hours, even in manufacturing, and consequently weekly wages rose likewise by nearly two-thirds of a percentage point in a single month. “To $622”. In this regard Nigel Gault asserted: “many companies have reached the point that they can’t extract more work from their existing employees. That means they have to add hours for existing workers or add people. Just how many depends on how quickly the economy grows.” A major means to calculate unemployment, which includes those individuals who were forced to work part time and those who were too hopeless to search for jobs, decreased to 17.2 percent from 17.5 in October. Moreover, job losses in September and October turned out to have fallen to 250000 from preceding 409000.

Republican economist Kevin A. Hassett, director of Economic Policy Studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and chief economist for John McCain in his presidential campaign, who is in favor of tax cuts rather that public spending for job creation, contends: “even if you accept their analysis that we are creating jobs this year, when you remove the stimulus you are going to destroy jobs.”

Based on Louis Uchitelle’s opinion during the first months of recovery in the work force, with the hiring and all, 18 million individuals will be competing over vacant places and thus this will create a hot, hard situation, for even a healthy economy is capable of creating 300000 jobs within a month.

Given all these information, readers have to be careful not to miss the fragile point that there is one other condition to consider recovery and that is the degree of credit those who hold the capitals or big businesses are supposed to entrust to the awakening economy. This latter element will make a thorough and healthy circulation of money and refresh the economy.

Louis Uchitelle, 5 Dec, 2009, Jobs Report Is Strongest Since the Start of the Recession, NY Times.

Congress Vs President

Today’s United States of America enjoys a separation between the three branches of power. Originally this idea must have occurred to the father founders of America, during giving birth to U.S. Constitution, based on works and ideals of some philosophers such as such as John Locke and James Harrington as well as Montesquieu who was strongly in favor of separation legislature, executive and judiciary powers.

The logics supervising this separation is that it is, theoretically, going to help avoid power abuse through some checks and balances entrusted to all three branches so that each one can have an eye, simultaneously, on the other two. This is the utmost perfection a constitution can ever reach, as for its theory, at least.

Now, our concern begins here with the fact that based on the same overlaps in the powers entitled to, according to the focus of this paper, head of executive, President, and legislature, Congress comprising of House of Representatives and Senate, one of these above mentioned powers can, in some cases not always, corner the other pushing it to function along its pre-determined purpose.

Here is a list of what legislative and executive powers can do according to U.S. Constitution:

Legislative	Executive
Writes and enacts laws Enacts taxes, authorizes borrowing, and sets the budget Has sole power to declare war May start investigations, especially against the executive branch Often appoints the heads of the executive branch Sometimes appoints judges Ratifies treaties	May veto laws May not refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes Wages war at the direction of Congress (Congress makes the rules for the military) Makes decrees or declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgates lawful regulations and executive orders Often appoints judges Has power to grant pardons to convicted criminals

Legislative:

The House of Representatives initiate a charge of impeachment against the President, drawing up the articles. The Senate has the power to try impeachments; a two thirds majority is needed to secure a conviction.

Executive:

Article I Section 7, remarks that the president can veto legislation sent to him.

The President exercises a check over Congress through his power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto except for a pocket veto by a two-thirds majority in each house.

The President, as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent. He also has the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient.

The President is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. However, it is the Congress that has the power to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces, and to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Congress also has the sole power to declare war, and requires that all military officials appointed by the President be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate.

Congressional powers over President:

Having said that, according to a report by the Center for American Progress, there are several instances regarding the issue of Congress’ monetary power in funding wars in which Congress has put limitations over president’s domain of action: [1]

December 1970. P.L. 91-652 Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provides military advisors to Cambodian forces.

December 1974. P.L. 93-559 Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.

June 1983. P.L. 98-43 The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.

June 1984. P.L. 98-525 The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.

November 1993. P.L. 103-139 The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.

This sort of restrictions was practiced repeatedly during Clinton’s tenure by the Republican Congress.

From the CAP report:

In 1994, Senator Jesse Helms tried unsuccessfully to prohibit funding for any U.S. military operations in Haiti and the House attempted to cut $1.2 billion in peacekeeping and humanitarian funds for Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, and Iraq

In 1995, Sen. Gregg (R-NH) sought to cap the allowable number of combat troops deployed to Bosnia at 25,000 and House members sought unsuccessfully to prohibit any federal funds from being used for deployment in any peacekeeping operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Similarly in 1998, Senators Warner and Byrd sought to cut off funding for the Kosovo deployment unless the president sought and received explicit congressional authorization and developed a plan to turn the peacekeeping duties over to U.S. allies by July 1, 2001.

Sens. Warner and Byrd also sought to withhold a quarter of FY 2000 supplemental appropriations for operations in Kosovo until the president certified that NATO allies were fulfilling their requirements.

In 1999, in the House, Rep. Souder sought to prohibit funding for military operations in Yugoslavia.

Although Congress has this power and has indeed employed it several times, during national perils or when there is public unity over the approval of the President’s decision, Congress withdraws its legal rights and lets the President act as he/she wishes.

As Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, the president may also call into federal service the state units of the National Guard. In times of war or national emergency, the Congress may grant the president even broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States. These actions have been taken by presidents from Washington to today but are not powers granted by the Constitution to the president. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act to severely limit the ability of the President to conduct warfare without Congressional approval. Following the events of September 11, 2001, Congress returned some of the war power to the President.

During after 9/11, there is notably positive cooperation between Congress and the President. President Bush, then, issued many Orders to bolster America's security and the use of the military in Afghanistan received support from Congress. In July 2002, Congress approved of the largest expansion of America's military with a $34.4 billion increase in defense spending. The impetus for this came from the president and in many senses Congress could not refuse his requirements as President Bush has constantly played on America's security as being at stake. In convincing the Senate to pass in July what the House had passed in June, President Bush said:

"With our nation at war, it is imperative that we address the important priority of ensuring that our troops have the resources they need."

If Congress had not passed the presidential push for increased defense spending, then they themselves would have been blamed by the public and in November 2002, all House and one-third of the Senate are up for re-election. President Bush's increased budget (that will total $355 billion) was passed by 95 votes to 3 in a clear sign of unity between the White House and Congress.

In this regard, Pew Research Publications has done a precious work on public opinion over the Iraq war declared by President Bush, over four years from 2003 to 2007. As Scott Keeter puts it the war which began in March2003 gradually lost the public approval. The research coordinates are as follows: [2]

Presidential Powers over Congress:

On the other hand there are instances in which the U.S. Presidents have used their constitutional powers to reject Congress. [3]

“The first six Presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed twelve bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of Indian removal; he famously said, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!

“Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that Presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. “Andrew Johnson's struggles with Congress are particularly notable. Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." Congress, however, managed to override fifteen of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the Presidency by passing the Tenure of Office Act. The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

“Grover Cleveland worked to restore power to the Presidency after Andrew Johnson's impeachment. Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the Presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the President would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a de facto Prime Minister. Grover Cleveland, the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. During his first term, he vetoed over four hundred bills—twice as many bills as his twenty-one predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts ... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Thus, Cleveland's Administration marked the end of Presidential subordination.

“Several twentieth-century Presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the Presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the President was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the law—in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. Congress had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority; in Panama Refining v. Ryan, the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The aforementioned Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's Presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a “Court Packing” plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the President to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.

“Richard Nixon—whose Presidency is sometimes described as "Imperial" [4] used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight; furthermore, he impounded federal funds (that is to say, he refused to spend money that Congress had appropriated for government programs). In the specific cases aforementioned, however, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon, especially since a criminal investigation was ongoing as to the Watergate tapes, even though they acknowledged the general need for executive privilege. Since then, Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security or that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. Though such claims have in general been more limited than Nixon's, one may still conclude that the Presidency's power has been greatly augmented since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.”

After all, they are equal though. Separation does not mean eminence of one power over the other. These brilliantly arranged regulations in the Constitution have only led America to grow to be a more democratic system of policy/decision making. Through a well-thought connection of checks and balances, branches get to have a chance of supervision over others and this has brought along with it some limitations occasionally imposed by branches, as this paper has tried to share.

Notes:

1. http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9565.html , retrieved: 11/10/2009.

2. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/431/trends-in-public-opinion-about-the-war-in-iraq-2003-2007 , retrieved: 11/19/2009.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution , retrieved: 11/19/2009.

4. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040116.html, retrieved: 11/10/2009.

References:

1. McKay D. & Houghton D. & Wroe A., (2002), Controversies In American politics And Society, MA: Wiley-Blackwell publishing.

McKay D., (2005), American politics And society, MA: Wiley-Blackwell publishing

Film Review : Crossing Over (2009)

This film, made in 2009, is in every way well-thought. Wayne Kramer, director/ writer/ coproducer, himself coming from South Africa, must have felt the same hardship getting across the U.S. soil and getting legal as he, so delicately, highlights the devastating, full-of-worries process of gaining status once one steps into the land of dreams.

Before scanning through the plot of the movie Crossing Over I would like to mention my own impression over its technical features. First of all, the movie benefits from a notably rich cast led by Harrison Ford (as Max Brogan) and others such as Ashley Judd (as Denise Frankel) and Ray Liotta ( Cole Frankel) that perfectly passes on every single ripple of emotion inside of each character, caused by conditions of life, to the audience.

Though, there seems to be shortcomings in terms of cultural or behavioral study of ethnic families since there are self-contradictory instances, the Iranian family for example who has come to America long ago despite the fact that the head of the family is depicted to be pro-Islamic Revolution and a Khomeini follower. In spite of the associations of a religious person, this man serves liquor to his guests. Odd. Moreover, the outfits don’t match people with such profiles. You can’t tell whether it is due to the director’s lack of knowledge or the fact that families such as this one, to some extent, try to adapt to the American life. On the other hand Kramer is so close to put Iranian culture in the electric chair when he almost, wrongly, says this is what awaits Iranian girls who share similar circumstances with Zahra Baraheri’s: victims of honor killing. But thank God at the end of the movie the director removes the confusion by showing that this case was a mere mental condition of an older brother.

Secondly, camera angle and movements are flawless and so professionally managed in that the shots clearly drag the audience into the movie and make them feel the same as characters do, or in some cases see into their thoughts.

The setting, according to the nature of the plot, is brilliantly chosen; A very appealing, cosmopolitan Los Angeles which comprises of different ethnicities and attracts many immigrants.

The plot of the movie orbits around the hot, controversial issue of immigration and horrible phases individuals have to undergo to get to share the American Dream and enjoy the “promised opportunities”.

Some characters depicted in this movie reveal a paradox in who they are and what they have to do for a living, or mostly in this case, to get legal and grant a green card:

Max Brogan (Harrison Ford) who is shown, in his first scene in this movie, to be a caring, soft , and sensitive “human”, works as an ICE agent, who is constantly being mocked by his colleagues for his so called softness. The truth is this brand of job requires a stone-cold heart concerning what they face every day. Ford’s character is a lonely old man who catches illegal immigrants during sudden raids to workplaces, like Andasol Fabrics, then deports them, and finally runs after them trying to patch things up.

Hamid Baraheri (Cliff Curtis), is Brogan’s Partner at work who deports minorities while he himself comes from one of them!!! Another conflicting situation about this character is that he describes his culture as in Iranian families it is important to make the father proud, but did they? Is the father proud when his daughter is dead?

The rock-musician-to-be Gavin Kossef (Jim Sturgess) is a Jew claiming himself as an atheist, though, when need be, he does not hesitate to make use of his “Jewish Card” to get the American green card by trying to convince the clergies that he is a Hebrew scholar as well as preacher.

Claire Shepard (Alice Eve), Gavin’s Aussie girlfriend, who has come to the U.S. pursuing her dream to become an actress, but lacks the status to perform in the TV show in which she has already got a part. Eve’s character confronts severe disgrace plus deportation when the authorities find out she has been sharing bed with an INS official to get her green card.

Cole Frankel (Ray Liotta) is the INS official who is married to an immigration attorney, one trying to cut down the number of immigrants the other thriving to defend their rights and carry them into citizenship.

Denise Frankel (Ashley Judd), Cole Frankel’s wife, an Immigration attorney who is doing her best helping people. The touching trait about this character is her pendant of African Continent. It is most probable that it is to show how much she feels for the little Nigerian girl, who hopelessly waits for her parents to come and get her out of the penitentiary in which she is being kept for so long.

Zahra Baraheri (Melody Khazai) is the only American member of the Iranian family. Born and raised. She is the little sister to Hamid Baraheri. The problem about this character concerns his way of life which is considered shameful to the whole family.

Taslima (Summer Bishil), a fifteen years old Bengali high school student, who gets herself in trouble delivering a speech which results in her being accused of “eliciting sympathy to the 9/11 highjackers.” Though she pleads for the freedom of speech, while being inspected by an FBI agent she gets deported anyway. In her assignment paper she had written: “their voices were heard. You may not like what they had to say or how they got their message across, but for the first time we heard it.”

Mireya Sanchez (Alice Braga), an illegal migrant who comes to Los Angeles to work from Mexico by crossing the U.S. border. When she gets busted by Max Brogan she mentions her son and begs the agent to take care of him. Later she gets killed at the U.S. border trying to come back for her little son.

Yong Kim (Justin Chon), who is the elder to a Korean family whose father has brought them to the U.S. so that they could have a better future. He joins a Korean gang which later involves in an armed robbery. His friends get killed by agent Hamid Beraheri, who lets Yong get away.

There have been some comments on the plot of this movie blaming it for its contrived stream of coincidences that glue all the characters together. However, I believe everyone in their lives has had an experience or two of this kind; bumping into an old friend through a chain of acquaintances, for example. Small world!

Obama expects support for more Afghanistan troops

War commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal has explicitly expressed his worries over risks of failure unless with a large troop infusion. Gen McCrystal has been expecting a high number- around 40000, but according to military officials an infusion of more or less 32,000 to 35,000 troops are speculated to begin in February or March, which is “the largest expansion since the beginning of the war and one that could bring the cost above $75 billion annually.” (Anne Gearan, AP)

Officials said that the expected increase would be as broad as at least three Army brigades and a single, larger Marine Corps contingent.

“WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama expects Americans to support sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan once they understand the perils of losing, and he is preparing to make his case to the nation next week.” (Cited in: Yahoo News, Anne Gearan, AP, 11/25/2009)

President Obama denoted it as a national interest for America to "dismantle and destroy" al-Qaida terrorists and extremist allies. "I intend to finish the job," he added.

Obama’s decision on additional troops will be revieled after Thanksgiving. As military, congressional and other sources expressed the event would be a Tuesday night TV live speech disclosing his plans concerning the Afghan.

Republicans:

A number of the Republican critics have been cornering Obama to decide on a further order in Afghanistan, but the President asserted for multiple times that he wants to do it right rather than right away.

His Plan is expected, as a senior military official said, to cover “specific dates that deployments could be slowed or stopped if necessary”. (Anne Gearan, AP) As well as an explanation on the increasing number of US combat deaths during his tenure up to now.

During a White House press conference Obama said: "I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we're doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive, I can tell you, as I've said before, that it is in our strategic interest, in our national security interest to make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively. We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. And Afghanistan's stability is important to that process."

Moreover he contended his determined intentions toward ending what America has started.

This was something everyone could easily see it coming. Obviously there are reasons behind this disclosed decision, which do not seem out of place at the first glance.

There have been so many losses on both sides- United States and Afghanistan- which lead the officials to an inclination to end this war so that the gone would have been killed for a greater achieved goal not for a lost cause.

Given the history of American attitude toward the significant matter of security, it is highly predictable that the U.S. citizens will provide President Obama with a blank check, because it is now the situation has reached to a point which is ‘me against other’.

Plus, when we bring the grudge into attention, which is resulted by the 8-year of bloodshed and tension, both sides will continue their attacks every now and then, whenever the opportunity calls unless the war is over and one of the sides become the winner who terminates the other totally.

After all, the situation is a bit ironic. These courses of action are being constantly taken by a nation which is proud to represent itself with its humanitarian merits. Although to some extend the circumstances are tangible, it is impossible not to think about “what if there is another way?” in which opponents can gather and discuss over the shortcomings and try to come up with a “3^rd way”, from which no one would get hurt ANYMORE.

Report on Obama's Book: The Audacity of Hope

This book, simply put, claims that America, regardless of the nationalities, identities, and ethnic groups who are living in it, shows the light at the end of the tunnel to every individual. Then this book is trying to come up with ways to make it happen.

Chapter 1: Republicans and Democrats

Obama believes that if the party he is representing wants to have people’s votes it has to look for ways to interact with the opposite party instead of constantly quarreling over every sigle issue. This way, Democrats will find their way to people’s hearts.

Chapter 2: Values

The most important issue in this chapter is Obama’s complaint over the fact that the current political system of the US, itself, pushes every single politician, regardless of their party, far away from American values.

At the end of this chapter Obama asserts that for American polity to be successful the counterparts of the system must be cooperative. Then he says America is far from desired status quo right now, for its constituents are preoccupied.

Chapter 3: Our Constitution

In this chapter we see a lawmaker Obama whose opinion on the Constitution of the United States is that it has to perform a little stretchier so that it can reach out to every detailed need in the rapidly spinning world. Though, through the tone of this chapter one can easily grasp Obama’s true heart in the Constitution and its historical importance.

Chapter 4: Politics

Obama points to the root of corruption in the American political system which is the political system itself. He asserts it is as bright as sun that the politicians in order to win support or raise funds most of the times, unfortunately, promise too much and then they later on become, to harshly put, puppets for those interest groups which are providing them with the enough money for campaigning. So, they are forced to choose their interest groups’ benefits over that of their constituents'.

Chapter 5: Opportunity

In this chapter he sheds light on the fact that in America the odds are, most of the times, against the poor; they cannot properly benefit from country’s economic and consequently educational system.

Chapter 6: Faith

Obama reflects his own experience from atheism to faith and its efficacy on moral behavior.

Proven by polls, Americans are highly religious people. Using this, Obama suggests to his party members to make the most of this opportunity by adding a sort of easy-going with religious subjects.

Faith should be the common ground to stand on for both democrats and Republicans.

Chapter 7: Rcae

Obama, based on his family conditions has a multi-racial personality which has been the result of living in different places such as American Midwest, Hawaii, and Indonesia.

Obama believes people’s obsession with racism is not necessarily, and mostly, race based but rather it’s because of the constant insensitivity or indifference.

Chapter 8: The world Beyond Our Borders

US defense budget and military strategy is in some ways remote from that of rest of the world’s. Plus America, seeking multilateralism in foreign policy, is aiming to give a share in responsibility over the international regulations and checking to American allies.

Chapter 9: Family

For Americans in order to sustain, both parents of the family have to work and thus this fact leads to resulting in a very hard condition for American families. In that, family members do not get to see each other that much and therefore cannot spend time together. This is considered as an element which weakens the family relations and understanding.

Republican opinion over this issue is that they want to find a way to enable the previous traditional folkways which Obama strongly condemns.

At the end, Obama urges that specific political support is needed for American family foundation so that children can grow up in a healthy environment.

Obama’s political style and outlook is mild, like his perspective on the issue of race, and somewhere in between. He seems to stand on a reasonable and realistic ground, compared to the democratic beliefs which are idealistic and the Republicans’ extreme mottos.

This book, as its title reads, has been deployed to convey the message that America stands for hope and equal opportunities. Obama in this book expresses a profoundly stable personality; a person who resists ceasing no matter what the ups and downs in life would leave him with. Obama in a way represents the true spirit of America.

High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama genuinely observed to say he would NOT cut military spending while the US was involved in two wars. He then added it was of importance to bolster the intimidating condition in Afghanistan. And not before long he was in office, he approved sending an additional 21,000 soldiers there, making the total American force 68,000.

“The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.” (Cited in: High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War, Drew C., Published: November 14, 2009 )

Sending fewer troops would lower the costs but would also place limitations on the buildup strategy. Sending 30,000 more troops, for example, would cost $25 billion to $30 billion a year while limiting how widely American forces could range. Deploying 20,000 troops would cost about $21 billion annually but would expand mainly the training of Afghans, the officials said.

President Obama recently signed a $680 billion military authorization bill for fiscal 2010 that represented a 2.7 percent increase over the 2009 spending level and a 1.9 percent increase over President Bush’s peak budget in fiscal 2008.

The administration has projected that spending on Iraq would drop by $25.8 billion in fiscal 2010, to $60.8 billion, as most of the troops withdraw.

It also expected spending on the Afghanistan war to increase by $18.5 billion in fiscal 2010, to $65.4 billion, for a net savings on the two wars of $7.3 billion, if no more troops were added.

What do Democrats think of this?

Some liberal Democrats asserted if Mr. Obama approves of this, he is most likely to lose the support of those voters who were attracted to his against-war spirit.

“In the times we’re in right now, I just totally believe that the public that elected President Obama really wants to see something different,” said Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California. (Cited in: High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War, Drew C., Published: November 14, 2009 )

What is Republican idea?

Several leading Republicans are against Mr. Obama’s tendency to spend on domestic programs and are in favor of him to provide General McChrystal with the resources needed in Afghanistan.

“Keeping our country safe: Isn’t that the first job of government?” said Senator Christopher S. Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “If we have just a minimalist counterterrorism strategy, the Taliban will come back over the mountains from Pakistan, and they will be followed by their co-conspirators from the Al Qaeda organization.” (Cited in: High Costs Weigh on Troop Debate for Afghan War, Drew C., Published: November 14, 2009 ).

The debate was intensified last week after the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl W. Eikenberry, sent cables to Washington expressing his reservations about deploying additional troops, citing weak Afghan leadership and widening corruption

Such an increase in military spending is considered to be a politically unpredictable decision for Mr. Obama, especially when the government budget has hit $1.4 trillion, the economy is unbelievably weak and of course a notably costly health care bill is on the verge of passing.