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.

James Town Project

The key idea of this piece of reading can be narrowed down to forge the word “model”. As the title of Dr. Kupperman’s book reads, James Town, at some point can highly be regarded as a project.

I remember reading about the English Colonization of Ireland and how this boldness gave the acquired courage to the English in order to start their venture out of the old world; or at least it provided the concept. The logics is pretty clear. Once they got their hands dirty, they all got to know what it takes as well as what strategies to deploy if they wanted to reach the desired A.S.A.P.

The same goes with the story behind James Town. Kupperman believes the English were probing the whole area to choose the most appropriate coordinate to establish the brand new colony which was going to bear the name of the king who passed the charter. So they did; however, what had been destined to come was truly neither expected nor desired. As shocking as it is, the facts indicate the first settlers’, to boldly put, cannibalism. Kupperman imperviously jots down the true existing reality, the part of their history that most of Americans are likely to corner out and just start from the next wave of people setting foot on the America to come, if only they could. This should be the same reason, I believe, why Americans, deep down, have been going harsh on ethnic groups, because this is exactly where the spirit of American Exceptionalism clashes the issue of descent. Americans simply don’t want to be the offsprings of the first inhabitants’ “dog-eat-dog” desperation.

The truth, against their will, remains still, worn out and lived. The importance of this unpleasant experience is what Kupperman calls “project”. It, in every way, became to be held as a model for next generations of colonies which were to come and not repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Followers, moreover, learned how to erect institutions and make the most of councils. James Town also showed them the way that if they wanted to achieve utilitarian goals, which was the shared interest of both settlers and sponsoring companies, they would have to give the individuals “a share” from the profits. This would give the immigrants enough incentive to put their heart in what they were doing.

Nidal Malik Hasan

This case, Nida Malik Hasan, is the exact example of an American from a different descent who is not assimilated into the mainstream “American Beliefs”. Nidal Hasan, though born, raised, trained, and educated in America evidently as he himself asserted, is first a Muslim then an American. This priority of identities can be easily interpreted as the fact that some values and beliefs, other than that of Americans’ are more important for this individual.

Let’s not forget the inside Nidal Hasan who had to, for 39 years, go through a devastating conflict; the indecisiveness due to not knowing to which group he had to belong so that he could, with a boast in the chest, express his identity.

The last straw that broke the camel’s back came from the US Army which in spite of his will was determined to deploy him over in Iraq. This meant he had to actually stand, for the first time, on the opposite side, start fire on his belonging group and to a good chance kill some of his so called brothers.

So, here is when one can stand erect right between the two contradictory choices and choose one over the other, as we all witnessed its deadly evidence.

Voluntary Works In The History of America

Volunteering, according to recorded facts and statistics, has a notably old history which apparently goes back to the first colonies, when volunteers put their heart in everyday life activities helping others through different services especially during harsh times,"wartime and times of need".( Points of light Organization, 2005)

However, the first official Volunteer Bureau was established in Minneapolis, MN in 1919. Nowadays, Volunteer Centers feel themselves obliged to deliver resolutions to collective community problems. "The vision of the Volunteer Center National Network is to strengthen the nation by igniting volunteering and social action through Volunteer Centers in local communities. Reaching 170 million people in thousands of cities, this Network connects nearly 2.5 million people with over half a million opportunities to serve annually".

How volunteering began can be simply put this way: before 19th century few formal charitable centers were embodied to reach out to the poor. Back in the time the rich didn’t seem to have sympathy towards those in need. But this situation underwent an enormous alteration after The Great Awakening of the 1980's, which gave rise to the spirit of collective community work and voluntary works. This era is in fact a period of religious revival which led students "to community work through various religious groups".( Points of Light Organization, 2005). "As a part of The Great Awakening, people became more conscious of the disadvantaged." (Bennet, 2009)

Later in early 20th century America witnessed the foundation of several volunteer organizations including the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, and Lions Club among others. The next wave of volunteerism rose with The Great Depression when people gathered to mold the first coast to coast efforts for a specific need. "During World War II, thousands of volunteer offices supervised the volunteers who helped with the many needs of the military and the home front, including collecting supplies, entertaining soldiers on leave, and caring for the injured". (Bennet, 2009)

Volunteerism became more formalized after President Lyndon B. Johnson's declaration of "War On Poverty" when new organizations started shaping day in and day out. Over time, on the whole, post war voluntary works went through a transformation for Americans in the way it changed its focus to overseas.

Today voluntary works exist more than before while they have found their way to every aspect of human life such as religion, health, social services, arts, sports, politics and of course education.

This act surely is not allocated to only American society and communities. Iran has a proud history of volunteering as well, the most popular incidents of which happened during the Islamic Revolution when people from different age groups started the Islamic Mobilization. Or voluntary works of women behind the fronts during The Imposed War are worth mentioning too. There are still other voluntary institutions working and helping in Iran nowadays. Also, a lot of good-willing individuals have contributions to specific saving accounts that finally are spent on dowries addressed to the poor families; all these processes are supervised, conducted and accompanied by volunteer communities.

References:

http://archive.pointsoflight.org/downloads/doc/centers/resources/HistoryRevised22206.doc

http://www.ehow.com/about_5371469_history-volunteer-work.html

Voting Vs. Non-Voting Behavior (2000 & 2008 US Elections)

There is a remarkable increase in the turnout during 2008 Obama-McCain U.S. presidential election compared to that of 2000 Al Gore-Bush.

This paper aims to root this increase exploiting the statistics extracted from official American websites and implement voting behavior theory for Obama’s election while employing non-voting behavior theory for 2000 Bush presidential election.

For the starters, it seems to be of use to remind Ferdinand Tunis’ famous theory about two different types of societies: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, which later will come to be used in non-voting behavior theory on Bush election. Tunis’ theory suggests a transition for individuals dwelling in a traditional society, where relationships are highly strong and people are integrated and sympathetic, to a more alienated, remote, individualistic, and modern one. Putnam puts it in a fragile way when he contends “turnout is down in almost all established democracies.” He, then, maintains “compared to parents’ generation, we are less likely to know our neighbors, to invite friends home, to go on picnics or hang out in bars, to belong to trade unions and professional associations or simply to spend time chatting with acquaintances.” (Cited in: McKay, Houghton & Wroe, 2002: 41)Bearing this issue in mind, the American society, especially after 1980’s which coincides with the generation of people after “New Deal”, when there used to be a special bond among individuals, has shifted into being a more disconnected, sophisticated and therefore been caught in “a corresponding increase in solitary individualism.” (McKay, Houghton & Wroe, 2002: 41). So, this trend protected itself, with all its ups and downs,, up to 2000, when G.W.Bush’s presidential campaign won, and even onward. Consequently, America observed a low turnout contributed by some 105 million voters (whereas this number topped over to 131 million votes during Obama’s election).

There is also a retrospective voting approach to the Bush low turnout, which is the “Project of New American Century” put forward in the late 1990’s on the threshold of the coming 21^st century. G,W,Bush, being a member of this project, gave an insight of his program which approved the idea of “Iron Fist”, and moreover it shed light on Bush’s way which was carrying solid war intensions. Americans, weighing this, must have disapproved being under his reign and thus the disagreement evolved in the low number of participation on the voters’ side in 2000 presidential election.

When it comes to 2008 American election, the logical move has to be to use a voting behavior theory, for it was the biggest Democratic victory in a quite long, in 20 years second to G.H.W. Bush, that Democrats won the popular vote for the House of Representatives by 53% over 43% and expanded their majority to 257 over 178.

The statistics claims that about 60% of eligible voters participated in this election. “The fact that Obama won in 2008 with nearly the same 7.7-percentage-point margin in that gave George H.W.Bush his victory in 1988 has been cited by some scholars as further evidence that Republican era has been superseded by a Democratic era.” ( Barone M., 2009: 4)

The real reason behind Obama’s victory was the Democratic Party itself when it genuinely introduces its candidates, Obama- an African American and Clinton- a woman both for the first time in American history. This innovation brought a massive change in the number of turnout because besides the existing affiliation among Democratic Party approvers, there came a new wave of women, minorities, and youth attracted to Democrats. “The Democratic Party was divided along demographic lines. Clinton consistently carried older voters, downscale voters, Latino voters, and older Jewish voters, plus the Appalachian territory stretching from western Pennsylvania southwest through the mountains and west to Arkansas and Oklahoma. Obama consistently won younger voters, upscale voters, and African-American voters. The result was an odd-looking political map, with Clinton carrying most of the northeast and southwest quadrants of the country and Obama winning most of the southeast and northwest quadrants.”

Finally, it has to be mentioned that although sociopolitical non-voting incentive were supposed to maintain through 2008 presidential elections, just like it did in 2000, Democratic Party’s smart gesture moving its most appropriate pawns forward overshadowed the existing inclination and brought about a new mobilization resulted in the almost 6 percent increase in turnout (26 million increase in eligible voters).

References:

1. McKay D., Houghton D. & Wroe A., (2002), Controversies in American Politics and Society, US: Blackwell Publishing.

2. Michael Barone, (2009), Obama's America, US: National Journal, Saturday, July 11.