Pointz of View

Intro to The Struggle

2013-07-20T22:49:00.002-04:00

Well, it’s here. After waiting for it for the past few years, the college application process is here for me.

I’m a relative newcomer to the game that is college admissions - I’m gonna be the first in my family to graduate high school, let alone apply to college, so to me and my family, this is all uncharted territory for us. Of course, I’ve been reading as much as I can about the process - books, magazines, blogs - but still, it’s gonna be an experience.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have help though. My parents are generally enthusiastic about it, and although they know the process of college admissions is gonna be exhausting at times, they’re generally excited about it. I’ve been on a few tours with them, and they have enjoyed it all. I have also have a few other people helping me out with the process, taking me on tours, and offering me to help me with my essays - help that I will definitely take advantage of as the process heats up.

My biggest fears is one, will I get into my top choices? Two, how will I pay for it all?

As of now, I’m still narrowing down the list of schools that I’m applying to - the only ones that I know for sure that I’ll be applying to as of this moment are several CUNY and SUNY schools, and the University of Chicago for Early Action. Besides that, the other schools are a toss up, depending on campus visits (if I can make it) and my own research. So far, I’ve visited Yale, Columbia, UPenn, and Swarthmore - and I was impressed by most of them (I’ll be posting up reviews of each respective visit soon).

My stats are pretty decent - my overall average hovers at a 90, and my AP Scores are pretty good - I’ve taken two AP’s so far, World and U.S. History, and I’ve gotten a 5 in both. My SAT II scores are also pretty good as well, with 800’s in World and U.S. History, a 730 in Spanish, and a 630 in Literature. SAT I wise, though, my scores are average, with Critical Reading being my highest with a 690 and Math being my lowest, with a 540. Writing is in the middle. I’m studying up to improve my scores, especially my Math scores, although admittedly, I’m not that good at Math. Extracurricular wise, I’m solid in that area, having done a good amount of community service at my local police precinct and holding internships at the City Council and at a non-profit, as well doing several activities in my school, such as Moot Court/Mock Trial and the history club.

The biggest fear I have, though, is being able to pay for it all. My family is generally poor - my parents combined make about less than $36,000 for a family of four, and being that we live on New York City...well, expenses can cut deep. I want to go to the school of my dreams, but I don’t want to put myself or my family in a hole of debt, of which we can’t pay ourselves out of. Already, I’ve already swore to myself that I’m not gonna take out any loans to pay for my education - and neither will my parents (despite my dad’s offer to do so), so that means I’m gonna have to be scrambling for financial aid. This means a lot of research, and maybe a bit of luck.

So there you have it! This marks the start of the struggle that is the college application process, but also, a new stage in my life and parent’s. This also marks the start of a new blog series on Pointz of View, The Struggle, in which I will periodically blog about my experiences as the application moves on, from start to finish. It should be a fun, yet whirlwind journey. Welcome along, and thanks for joining me on the journey that is the college admissions process.

Lincoln’s Response to the idea of secession in his First Inaugural Address

2013-07-02T23:24:00.003-04:00

In honor of the 150th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, Pointz of View, over the next two days (July 2nd and July 3rd) will be posting several blogposts in regards to the Battle and the Civil War. In today's post, it will discuss the idea of secession and Lincoln's response to it in his First Inaugural Address. This was taken from an essay I did for school as part of my application for it's We the People class, in the interest of full disclosure. The class deals with the We the People competition, sponsored by the Center for Civic Education, which challenges students to become expert in the Constitution, from its foundation, philosophy and current issues under debate. Students compete at City and State championships, demonstrating their expertise in a speech and answer a series of probing questions from rotating groups of judges. In the 2012-2013 school year, the school placed first in New York State and represented it in the National tournament in Washington, D.C.

In March of 1861, the United States was anything but “united.” By the time of the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, 7 states, all in the Deep South – South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas – had seceded from the United States and formed their own nation, the Confederate States of America. Sectional conflicts over slavery, perceived cultural differences, and a lack of faith that the new government would faithfully enforce existing laws regarding slavery all drove them to leave the Union. It is worth mentioning that some Northerners weren’t exactly shedding any tears at the departure of those 7 states, in fact, some of them actually urged Lincoln not to make any effort to force them back in, to just let the “erring sisters go” in peace.

It was with this in mind that Lincoln would deliver his Inauguration Speech, knowing full well that his speech would be analyzed in both the North and the South for his response to the question of secession. On that cold, windy day, in front of an unfinished Capital, Lincoln responded to both Northern and Southern advocates of secession by saying that the Oath of Office, which included the lines...

“to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,”

obligated him to preserve the Union, which he claimed was enshrined in the Constitution. As such, he declared that since the Oath of Office swore him to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability, any breakup of the Union under his watch would not be tolerated. The Union, ever since the States had agreed to ratify and accept the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (the Supremacy Clause), is perpetual. As Lincoln stated in his speech,

"In contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual."

Throughout his speech, he claimed that when the Founding Fathers established the Constitution and sent it out for ratification, they enshrined within it the right to change the government peacefully through the ballot box, but they did not proved a right to walk away from it. They did this “in order to form a more perfect Union,” in which all states would be investing in the success and well being of the nation as a whole, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.

The prospect itself of secession would potentially make the operation of a free government impossible, because the government, and the nation at large, would be held hostage to the demands of a bitter, determined minority. Think of it this way: if a minority could secede every time it disapproved of the outcome of the vote of the majority, the result would be a swift descent into anarchy. There would still be checks on the power of the majority, but secession would not be one of them. To give the minority a permanent veto over the majority, such as the prospect of secession, would be negating self-government completely. And although the founders established a perpetual Union, they also provided for a government that would be of the people, by the people, and for the people – for all the people. Participation in, and engagement with the government, not withdrawal from it (such as secession) is the cornerstone of American Democracy.

If states wanted to ensure whatever rights they had left after they ratified the Constitution and joined the Union were respected, they could look no further than the Constitution itself – Federalism and the 10^th Amendment. The 10^th Amendment itself states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Here, Lincoln claimed, was all the protection those states needed, and thus, why they needed to stay in the Union, because even if Lincoln wanted to do something about slavery in those states, he couldn’t because of the 10^th Amendment. Other obstacles, such as laws and U.S. Supreme Court Precedent (think Dred Scott) also stood in his way. Besides, the Ballot Box always stood at the ready for Southerners to make their voice heard. Secession, in essence, was unneeded.

The South major’s arguments to secede from the Union were the pretext of State’s Rights, and earlier movements in American History that although didn’t directly point to secession, that ultimately went in that direction. Coupled together, the South believed that they had a compelling argument for Secession. First and foremost was their belief in that they simply following in footsteps of those who fought in the American Revolution – they were breaking away from a government that they deemed to be oppressive and unresponsive to their needs. They pointed to the Declaration of Independence, which stated...

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The South viewed the North’s refusal to enforce existing pro-slavery laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, or abide by Supreme Court Decisions such as Dred Scott, as representative of the oppression directed against them and their way of life. They also resented the tariff, which in their view was just there to protect moneyed Northern Industrial interests, and Lincoln’s refusal to permit the expansion of slavery further West, as a violation and destructive to their rights to property (slaves), and closer to despotism then democracy.

However, they also argued that in their view, the Constitution was merely a compact between the States to unite for the common good and defense, and that at time the compact could be broken if the common good was not provided for. In the South’s point of the view, the federal government established for in the Constitution was, not providing for the common good for them, with all the “unfair” anti-slavery agitation directed towards them from the North. The Federal Government, in not permitting the unrestricted expansion of slavery to the Western territories and only half-heartedly enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, was not upholding it’s side of the compact. Thus, when the Federal government does not “faithfully” uphold the compact that led to its creation in the first place, the States have the right to dissolve it by secession. In the South’s view, that is exactly what they were doing – enforcing the compact by seceding when the Federal Government failed to provide for them.

However, this was not the first time that the South, or any state, for that matter threatened to defy the Federal Government. The theory of Nullification, or that of the power of state to declare an act of the Federal Government null and void within it’s borders as unconstitutional, was also used by secessionists. South Carolina, who started the whole secessionist trend, was also a pioneer of Nullification in the 1820’s in the fight against the Tariff of 1828, which imposed a high duty on manufactured goods entering the United States. This was the first tariff explicitly passed to protect the developing industry in the United States, as well as providing funds for internal improvements. Southern opponents of the tariff called it the Tariff of Abominations, for it’s perceived detrimental effects on the Southern economy, which relied mainly on imports for most of it’s manufactured goods. Although Congress lowered it slightly in 1832, South Carolina was still not satisfied, and led by John C. Calhoun (who just happened to be Vice President at the time) published the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which argued out the theory of Nullification. However, it also spelled out the theory of secession, with Calhoun saying that if worse comes to worse, South Carolina, as a last resort, could secede in order to protect the “liberty and sovereignty” of said state.

I disagree with the prospect that if secession on demand is unacceptable, a Union at all costs is also a “troublesome idea.” First off, a Union at all costs is what the respective states, in ratifying the Constitution before gaining admission to the country, agreed to. The preamble says it all –

“We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

In order to provide for the “common defense” and “promote the general welfare,” the States must stay together, in a country, United. To have them potentially secede at will, as Lincoln expounded upon in his inaugural address, would create chaos and a descent to anarchy. If the states, or the people, aren’t satisfied with the way the federal government is treating them, there are several remedies besides ending the Union to gain attention to their problems, either in the Courts or most notably, in the ballot box. If one wants to cause change, one must participate, not withdraw via secession. A Union at all costs is actually, a perpetual Union enshrined within the Constitution, one that provides liberty and justice for all – if, to use Ben Franklin’s words, people can keep it. As Lincoln stated in his address,

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

No successful government ever provided for a clause for it’s own termination, thus implying that a Union at all costs it is, for those who signed up for it, for those who now partake in it, for those who now depend on it. A Union at all costs is a small price to stability and peace, in order to provide “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to all it’s citizens.

DOMA is Dead. Prop. 8 is Dead. Pride Month is ending on a strong note. Still gotta deal with it, though.

2013-06-28T23:36:00.001-04:00

On Wednesday, June 26th, the Supreme Court, in a historic pair of decisions, struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), effectively rendering it moot, and via a procedural action, also effectively struck down California's Proposition 8, ruling that it's proponents do not have standing to defend the act if the state refused to do so. Today, acting under the instructions the Supreme Court spelled out in it's Majority Opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the stay it imposed on marriages while it was on appeal, clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume.

As a long time supporter for LGBTQ Rights, I was ecstatic when I found out about the decisions. I found out at work, and just settled into my desk after arriving from the last day of school when I received a notification on my tablet - the Supreme Court had just overturned DOMA and effectively struck down Prop. 8. As soon as I heard this, I have to admit, I shed a few tears - mainly because a huge stigma had been lifted on more then a few people I know. One of my closest friends is gay, and through my various jobs, a good number of my co-workers identified themselves as LGBTQ.

But for me, it's more then just knowing a few people that are gay that makes this a passionate issue for me. For me, it's just a basic principle of equality, freedom, and civil rights - "with liberty and justice for all." Love is a strong emotion, one of the strongest emotions there is, and to say that a few select group of people can deny attempt to deny that emotion, based on a book that was wirrten by a group of men over 2,000 years ago or through their own non-sensical thoughts is just a sad, sickening, maddening thought. Who are we, as imperfect humans, tell other whom they can love? If anybody claims they have that right, I'm sorry, but that is just plain bulls#!t.

My own mom, when we discuss this, often she says to me that she admires the LGBTQ community, because, as she puts it -

The LGBTQ people are a very strong group of people. To be able to withstand a lot, from people denying their humanity to people killing them solely because they love someone, they are very strong. I admire them, and I feel for them. Why do people treat like that? Why? There is no reason whatsoever that they should be oppressed spat upon, solely for whom they love.

Honestly, mom, I don't know. I wish I knew, but I don't.

Citi Bike sounds Good. Expand it shall! (Part 1)

2013-05-28T22:07:00.002-04:00

Those bikes! Photo of Citi Bikes outside of City Hall. Courtesy of NY Daily News

Yesterday, May 27, marked a groundbreaking day for New York City and the push to make the city a more livable place for everyone.

Citi Bike, the City's brand new and ambitious bike sharing system, debuted yesterday to those who signed up and received an annual membership key for just $95 - and over 15,000 people did, gaining access to just over 600 stations and 6,000 bikes all over Manhattan below 59th Street and selected areas of Brooklyn. Already, the number of people holding memberships has surpassed those numbers in cities where bike sharing systems have been established long before, such as Boston (which has 7,000 members and 1,000 bikes in 105 Stations), Miami Beach (which has around 2,400 members and 1,200 bikes in 100 Stations), and Minneapolis (which has around 3,750 members and 1,550 bikes in 170 Stations). Starting this upcoming weekend, weekly and daily memberships will be available to those who aren't inclined in purchasing an annual membership (at $25 and $9.95 respectively).

Already, Citi Bike is starting to show some early signs of resounding success. Within the first day of operation, Citi Bike reported that as of 5 p.m yesterday:

6,050 Rides were taken
The average duration of each ride was at 20.48 minutes
In total, over 13,768 miles were traveled with Citi Bikes.
They added 772 new members, for total of 16,463 members.

But really, what is Citi Bike intended to do? Besides being a new mode of transportation that New Yorkers can rely on, it is also intended to compliment the city's existing Mass Transit system of Buses and Trains. Especially so in Manhattan, where buses (crosstown buses being a noteworthy case) are often slow and caught up with soul crushing traffic, Citi Bike can provide a much needed alternative from slow buses or expensive cabs. The Lower East Side is another perfect example, as it has subpar subway access and relies heavily on buses to transport it to the nearest subway station. With this, the LES happens to have an abundance of Citi Bike stations, which would give them a reliable alternative from the bus to reach the subway, or in some cases, bike to work! Two quotes from Mayor Bloomberg and Janette Sadik-Khan, the Commissioner of DOT, tell as much (Courtesy of Streetsblog New York)

Question: Will this compete with transit and bike stores?

JSK: We look at this as a real complement to the MTA system, to fill in the gaps. And there are times when it’s just quicker to get across town in particular. We have the largest bus fleet in North America and the slowest bus speeds, so this a convenient, fast, affordable way to get around town.

MRB: Also you’ve gotta remember that a lot of people own bicycles and rent them to go for long periods of time. This is really more designed for getting from Place A to Place B in 30 minutes kind of thing. Some of the bicycle stores that are worried about their business, I think in fact if they think about it, they will sell an awful lot of helmets, that’s profitable, and the more people that ride the more people think about riding, and there’s no reason to think that business will go down. I think history shows it will go up.

The fascinating thing, however, is that this was originally expected to have over 10,000 bikes in over 600+ stations, however, due to technological glitches and the effects of SuperStorm Sandy, it started out with 6,000 bikes - still an impressive number, but 4,000 short. Now, the City is planning to work with sponsors and obtain a Sandy Recovery Loan to speed up the expansion to the original number of 10,000.

However, the prospect that has gotten me really excited is the potential rollout of Citi Bike beyond the initial start up zone to upper reaches of Manhattan and most of the South Bronx, as well as the far reaches of Western Queens - including the neighborhoods of Astoria, Jackson Heights/Corona, and Forest Hills. The DOT is actually committed in expanding the program to those areas, but the political support and will needs to be there. In Part 2 of this series, I will go into detail about the potential expansion of Citi Bike to the Outer Boroughs, the benefits and potential drawbacks of said expansion, and what one must do to support the extension. Until then, hopefully I'll be able to get my annual membership key!

This is Part 1 in a Series of posts detailing the start and potential expansion and benefits of Citi Bike, NYC's brand new Bike Sharing System. Part 2 coming up soon. Stay tuned!

Thoughts for a day: 11/7/2012

2012-11-07T22:21:00.000-05:00

Over here in New York City, Mother Nature hasn't been kind to us. We've been socked with a Hurricane (or SuperStorm, whatever you want to call it), and now a Nor'easter that is leaving behind a good amount of snow tonight.

Throughout these weather events, I've been having a series of thoughts - what type of person would I fear to be, if everything for me, hopefully not, fails in life.

I don't fear being stuck in jail - there, you have a least a roof over you head and food, as well as "protection". Similarly, I don't fear being poor - although it would suck, one still has money to at least buy the essentials. And there's always the social safety net to fall back upon if one is really poor.

What I really fear is being a bum. Why? Because frankly, I really feel that nobody gives a crap about 'em, even though in my opinion, they are one of most disadvantaged people there can be - even gay people and immigrants, for example, have some sort of rights (although they're limited, but should be expanded upon).

I fear being a bum because frankly, once you are one, society forgets about you. Forget about the charities, about the organizations that hand out food, forget about all that. Once you are a bum, all you really have is yourself. And when you have nobody to back up when you have absolutely nothing - no food, no resources, no shelter of your own - it's really hard to come back up. You start doing anything, and everything, just to barely survive. Whether it involves sleeping under the highway, or begging for change (~~and hope that one guy will give you at least a penny~~), and going for days without eating - sometimes eating what most people would never eat - or hoping that the charity food truck will have at least a piece of bread for you - being a so-called bum, in my opinion, is the one worst things that can happen to a person. Just think about it for a moment - even a guy stuck in a jail cell, as I mentioned earlier in this post, as at least a resemblance of a bed, food, shelter, and "protection" - and the chance to dust oneself off and get back on his/her feet. A poor immigrant living in Corona, for example, can still bring home more than a bum can.

And as bum, you lose everything that identifies you - because you live nowhere, you can't get ID, and without ID, you pretty much can't do jack-sqaut in this country.

In Pulp Fiction, for example, Vincent and Jules, two of the main characters of the movie, are having a conversation in a diner about what Jules would do after he finishes the job Marsellus, their boss, gave to them. It goes like this...

JULES That's what I've been sitting here contemplating. First, I'm gonna deliver this case to Marsellus. Then, basically, I'm gonna walk the earth.

VINCENT What do you mean, walk the earth?

JULES You know, like Caine in "KUNG FU." Just walk from town to town, meet people, get in adventures.

VINCENT How long do you intend to walk the earth?

JULES Until God puts me where he want me to be.

VINCENT What if he never does?

JULES If it takes forever, I'll wait forever.

VINCENT So you decided to be a bum?

JULES I'll just be Jules, Vincent -- no more, no less.

VINCENT No Jules, you're gonna be like those pieces of shit out there who beg for change. They walk around like a bunch of fuckin' zombies, they sleep in garbage bins, they eat what I throw away, and dogs piss on 'em. They got a word for 'em, they're called bums. And without a job, residence, or legal tender, that's what you're gonna be-- a fuckin' bum!

For those who prefer to hear Vincent say it (instead of reading it), here you go.

You're Going To Be A Fucking Bum

So yeah, just some thoughts on what's been spinning on my mind lately. The thought that in my opinion, being a bum is one of the worst things that can happen to anybody.

Stay safe in the nor'easter, everyone. And remember the bums who have nowhere to stay.

Law & Society: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary?

2012-03-17T22:24:00.000-04:00

In this latest installment of Law and Society, in which I have a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law class homework response, one of the questions I received was this: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? The following is my response to this question, and hopefully, it will cause some questions or debates to go off inside your head. Enjoy.

Question: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary?

Response: The use and effect of the Death Penalty has been debated ever since it has been used, in essence, form the beginning of time. However, as time progressed, opposition against the death penalty has grown, and today, there is huge debate whether to continue applying the penalty or to abolish it. Most states today have abolished the death penalty, or have not applied it to use in along time. New York State, for example, has outlawed the death penalty since 2005. Some states continue to allow the active use of the death penalty, and some take their relaxed restrictions to the extremes (see Texas). Globally, the United States is part of shrinking group of countries that actively uses the death penalty, and the countries we share company with in that group are the complete opposites of us, such as Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Indonesia, to name a few, and almost all have serious human rights violations.

The Death Penalty is an unnecessary, barbaric, and unjust way to punish crime and their results. As Justice William Brennan stated in his concurring opinion in the case Furman v. Georgia,

“Death is truly an awesome punishment. The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity. The contrast with the plight of a person punished by imprisonment is evident. An individual in prison does not lose "the right to have rights." A prisoner retains, for example, the constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, and to treatment as a "person" for purposes of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. A prisoner remains a member of the human family. Moreover, he retains the right of access to the courts. His punishment is not irrevocable. Apart from the common charge, grounded upon the recognition of human fallibility, that the punishment of death must inevitably be inflicted upon innocent men, we know that death has been the lot of men whose convictions were unconstitutionally secured….the punishment itself may have been unconstitutionally inflicted….yet the finality of death precludes relief. An executed person has indeed "lost the right to have rights." As one 19th century proponent of punishing criminals by death declared, "When a man is hung, there is an end of our relations with him. His execution is a way of saying, `You are not fit for this world, take your chance elsewhere.'”

In essence, while death is an extreme punishment, the very notion of the state planning the death of one person is virtually denying their humanity. And the death penalty isn’t applied equally. A study known as the Baldus Study has shown that minorities who have committed a violent crime and face the death penalty have a bigger chance of being punished with death the white and Caucasians criminals do. It also discovered that minorities who were accused of killing a white person also had a great chance of receiving the death penalty then did a white person who was accused of killing a minority. As Justice William Murphy said,

“Only by zealously guarding the rights of the most humble, the most unorthodox and the most despised among us can freedom flourish and endure in our land....”

Death as a punishment does not guard our freedoms- it revokes them from us, and we need to protect our rights, even if it means guarding the rights of the most violent criminals. And the death penalty doesn’t address the root cause of crime in the first place- most criminals come from poor, broken families, and killing the guy doesn't pull the person out of poverty. When people are poor, they will do anything to get out, and some will resort to crime. Instead of executing, we need to help those families who are poor and need assistance, to help receive a good upbringing, with a quality education, without the stigma of being poor. And the death penalty doesn’t do that. It doesn't solve anything- if one guy is executed, another will be there to take his place. It is barbaric, inhuman, and it is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime, even for murder. I therefore respectfully dissent against the use of the death penalty, and in favor of repealing it as a method of punishment.

Law and Society: This the second in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.

7 Line to Secacus? Nah, I'm not aboard.

2012-03-17T21:45:00.000-04:00

The 7 line, shown here approaching 33rd St-Rawson St, could soon be extended to New Jersey if Mayor Bloomberg has his way. (Photo by Brian Zumba)

Over the past couple of months, there has been a lot of buzz on transit websites and transit advocates on the news that Mayor Bloomberg is throwing his support behind the proposed extension of the 7 line to Seacucus Junction, and will soon begin to push for funding to jumpstart the construction of the extension.

It's the wrong way to go.

The 7 line, or the IRT Flushing Line (as it's known to transit buffs), runs from it's Northern Queens termini, Main Street-Flushing, to it's Midtown Manhattan termini, Times Square-42 Street. Coincidently, both Main St-Flushing and Times Square are among the Top 10 busiest stations in the whole system, #10 and #1, respectively. In between, especially during rush hours, it gets crush loaded with commuters looking for fast and easy service to Midtown Manhattan and points in between, and the 7 has seen increasing ridership, due to fast population growth on the line and the exploding gentrification of Long Island City, which occupy the first three to four stations on the line in Queens (Vernon-Jackson Aves, Hunters Point Ave, Court Square, and Queensboro Plaza). As a regular 7 line rider who, up until recently, boarded at Times Square and took the express all the way to Main Street, it can get extremely uncrowded, and if the U.S. Open is occurring or the Mets are playing, or if the line suffers a malfunction- forget it.

Now that I'm done giving my anecdote on the 7 line, let's get down to the point. The 7 line, at this point, is being extended as we speak to the Javits Center, where it will wait for the Hudson Yards Development to materialize. Some transit advocates, however, are calling the extension flawed and unnecessary, given the fact that it didn't include a crucial station at 41 St & 10 Ave to serve a neighborhood that's already there (Hell's Kitchen), and the fact that Hudson Yards is moving at a snails pace.

We're not done even with this boondoggle, and the Mayor wants to create another one. However, to find out why the Mayor wants to extend it to New Jersey, we must look no further then to New Jersey itself, where it gives a set of clues that includes a canceled megaproject, a former governor, the current governor, NJ Transit, and the federal government.

Access to the Region's Core (ARC) was a megaproject intended to benefit NJ Transit commuters, by alleviating delays and increasing capacity for NJ Transit for trains going to and from Penn Station. Planning began 2007, and groundbreaking held in June of 2009, during Jon Corzine's admnstration. It would have included new trackage, a new rail yard, and most importantly, a new rail tunnel for the exclusive use of NJ Transit,which would have doubled capacity for trains heading to and from Penn and NJ. A Federal Transit Administration document prepared in 2007 stated that....

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) is proposing to construct a new 8.3-mile commuter rail line adjacent to the existing Northeast (Rail) Corridor (NEC) between Secaucus, New Jersey and Manhattan. The Trans Hudson Express Tunnel, also known as Access to the Region’s Core (ARC), includes the construction of two new tunnels under the Hudson River; new rail tracks between Secaucus Junction and New York Penn Station (PSNY); a new six-track rail station underneath 34th Street in midtown Manhattan (with pedestrian linkages to PSNY); a storage yard in Kearny, New Jersey; and the purchase of specialized dual-powered rail locomotives (electric and diesel) and bi-level coaches. The NEC is the only Hudson River commuter rail crossing into midtown Manhattan. Already near capacity, the NEC currently experiences significant travel-time delays whenever there is a train malfunction incident; one train disruption of 15 minutes, for example, can delay as many as 15 other NJT and Amtrak trains. As passenger demand increases, congestion and service reliability are expected to worsen. In addition, commuter rail passengers on NJT’s Bergen County, Main, Pascack Valley, Port Jervis, and Raritan Valley commuter rail lines today must transfer at either Secaucus Junction or in Hoboken to reach New York City. The purpose of the ARC project is to double rail capacity between New Jersey and New York City, thereby relieving congestion and transit delays, while providing for more direct, one-seat service to midtown Manhattan.

It was project to cost anywhere from $7.2 Billion to $8.7 Billion, and once it completed and opened in 2017, it would've already had an instant 203,000 average weekday boardings alone, and by 2030, there would have been 254,200 average weekday boardings, or 24,800 riders benefiting from this project. Coupled with the projected growth of population and jobs between New York and New Jersey, this would have benefitted the region for a long time, and setting the stage for even more transit oriented developments. Plus, add the fact the federal government woud have funded the majority of the costs, it appeared to be a sweet deal.

It wasn't enough for Gov. Chris Christie, who canceled the project in October of 2010 due to concerns of cost overruns, of which New Jersey would have been on the hook to cover, which it simply didn't have the money to do so. In an instant, he give away billons of dollars of federal dollars, and the chance to redevelop and put NJ in a position for expansion was gone. In the midst of all the confusion, Mayor Bloomberg stepped in, promoting an idea to extend the 7 line from it's future termini at 34 Street & 11 Ave to Secaucus Junction as a more cost efficient, and a win-win for both states, saying it provided what ARC didn't- direct access to Midtown Manhattan, Times Square, Grand Central, and transfers to most of the other New York City Subway Routes.

No. Just No.

There are several problems I have with this current extension, but it's already close to being completed, so no point on being a whiner on that. However, there is everything wrong with this extension, and people, especially those who are residents of Queens and use the 7 line, should rise up and actively oppose this extension.

Why, you might ask, am I acting like a reactionary and rising in revolt against this idea? The root of the answer here lies in the fact that this plan is ill-conceived and and heads in the wring direction, completely giving a giant middle finger to the residents of Northeastern Queens, who have been pleading for better transit access for a while now. In one of my earlier posts, I talked about the IND Second System, which would have provided better transit access by expanding the transit system radically, which would have potentially transformed the city in a way much more different then the one we know of it today. Queens would have received the biggest benefit, with 52 miles of new track alone Included in that would have been an extension of the 7 line from Main Street to the far streched of Northern Queens, with the line splitting in two around Bayside to serve Colege Point and Little Neck, respectively.

Bloomberg, as Mayor of New York CIty, should be looking at extending and completing the subway system here, where wide swaths of the city, not just Northeastern Queens, suffer from a lack of subway access. Neighborhoods such as Flatlands, Utica Ave, Flatbush, the southern portion of Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn, Central Brooklyn, much of the Central Portion of the Bronx, and the vast stretches of Southern Queens suffer from lack of decent transit access. Staten Island is a notorious example, as it's the only borough without any subway access to the city, and there is no rapid transit access to LaGuardia Airport in any form. Why doesn't he try to resolve those problems first. Why doesn't he serve the constituents who elected him in the first place, which were the people of New York City, and the people of the state of New Jersey. NJ has PATH, in addition to NJ Transit. Why doesn't NJ take up expansion of those systems- since, after all, this 'proposal' is intended to benefit NJ more then it benefits New Yorkers. The system here urgently needs expansion and renewal, to help it advance and grow for the 21st Century, to keep it in pace with the demands of New York City, which are growing ever more bigger. I urge you, to oppose this expansion, to tell the Mayor of New York City to serve the people of the city of New York first, to improve the subways here first, before we ever think of extending the subway beyond NYC.

What does the High Line, an abandoned rail line in Queens, and the Rockaways & Ozone Park have in common? A lot, apparently.

2012-01-05T23:25:00.001-05:00

Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed building a 3.8 million-square-foot convention center in Ozone Park, Queens.(Image via Arquitectonica)

Yesterday was an important day for New York, and more specifically (and importantly) for Queens. In his State of the State address from Albany, Governor Cuomo talked about streamlining government, improving education, and creating jobs in a tough economy for New York State- a tall job after an amazing first year. A central part to his plan would the building of new convention center in Ozone Park, right next to the new racino constructed by Genting Corp. From his speech-

Our challenge for 2012 is this: How does government spur job creation in a down economy while limiting spending and maintaining fiscal discipline? The answer: We Will Build the Largest Convention Center in the Nation! Let’s begin by building on our economic strength....we must stay ahead of the competition. Convention centers are important generators of economic activity. New York needs a larger, state-of-the-art venue to be competitive for the largest tradeshows and conventions. The Jacob Javits Convention Center on Manhattan’s West Side is obsolete and not large enough to be a top tier competitor in today’s marketplace. The Javits Center is, in fact, 12th in the nation in size — behind the convention centers in Anaheim and Atlanta. This is not a new problem. We have talked about it for 7 years. But today is different, because today I propose we do something about it. I propose that we build the largest convention center in the nation. 3.8 million square feet—larger than McCormick Place in Chicago, which is currently the largest in the United States. This will bring to New York the largest events, driving demand for hotel rooms and restaurant meals and creating tax revenues and jobs, jobs, jobs. We are pursuing a joint venture with the Genting Organization, a gaming development company, to complete this vision at the Aqueduct Racetrack venue. It is a $4 billion private investment that will generate tens of thousands of jobs and economic activity that will ripple throughout the state. In addition to the new convention space, up to 3,000 hotel rooms will be developed. We will make New York the #1 convention site in the nation.

But the question is, the infrastructure there to support a brand new convention center at Aqueduct?

Sadly, the answer is no.

The proposed convention center would be 3.8 million square feet, and be located adjacent to the brand new Resorts World Casino at the Aqueduct Racetrack. It would a public-private partnership and be a benefit to the city, state, and the region overall. Again, not really. First of all, the city has spent billons of dollars to renovate the Javits Center, improve the area around it, starting the development of Hudson Yards at a huge cost, and extending the 7 line towards it in order to make more accesible. And now that's all going down the drain by tearing it down and building a new one in Queens? Second, the area lacks adequate rapid transit access. It's only connection to the rest of the city is the IND Rockaway Line, better known as the A train, and it's a long and slow ride to Manhattan, and passes through some rough areas. Currently, it takes about 40 to 45 Minutes to get from Aqueduct to Times Square, and with current headways, and you can add an extra 10 to 12 minutes on your trip- so in reality, it takes about a hour, and could be even more depending on delays. Sure, it's located right next to JFK Airport, but there is no direct access to Midtown Manhattan-where all the hotels and potential visitors to the center are located. As such, it's a potential boondoggle. As Ben Kabak stated in his blog Second Avenue Sagas,

....Transportation access to the Aquaduct area is subpar as it is. Only the A train to the Rockaways stops there, and those trains don’t run too frequently. It’s also a 45-minute ride from West 4th St. and a 50-minute ride from 42nd St. on the A train. While close to JFK, it’s not a convenient location for anyone else. A fifteen-minute walk from the Javits Center has conventioneers in Herald Square. A fifteen-minute subway ride from the Aquaduct stop drops a straphanger off at Broadway Junction in East New York....

The New York Times, in an article covering the proposal, stated-

Over the past two decades, many cities have built exhibition halls or expanded existing convention centers in the hope of attracting professional associations and similar groups, whose attendees typically spend four or five days in a city. But competition, the recession and videoconferencing have taken a toll.

Heywood Sanders, a professor of public administration at the University of Texas and an expert on convention center economics, was quoted in the same article as saying-

“The convention business is a disaster everywhere,” Professor Sanders said. “Simply building more space gets you nothing more than a big empty building. And to put it in a place where there aren’t any hotels, restaurants or amenities next door is to doom it to serving only a local or metropolitan market.”

The bold part is Aqueduct and the surrounding area in a nutshell. According the Crain's New York, part of the $4 Billion to be spent will be on transit, which includes a renovation of the stations in the area and a connection the JFK Airtrain- a waste, given that Airtrain is meant to be a and airport to subway connection, not to serve a neighborhood. A better way to spend part of those $4 Billion would be to reactive the abandoned LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch, which, for the most part, is intact, but outrun by vegetation. That's where the abandoned rail line comes into place. Taken out of service by the Long Island Railroad in 1962, but never formally sold or closed, it could be reactivated at any time, since the LIRR never formally filed the paperwork to abandon the line with the FRA. Why? Because it was intended to be connected with the IND Queens Blvd Line (E-F-M-R) to provide a quicker service to Midtown from the Rockaways, as per the plans from the IND Second System from the 1930's. Here is where the High Line comes in.

Given the fact that the ROW (right-of-way) has been abandoned since 1962, and the fact that vegetation has grown and very much taken over the ROW, there are proposals to turn it into a park, or a railtrail, modeled after the High Line. From the NY Daily News-

A plan to transform an abandoned rail line into a park in southern Queens is generating a lot of buzz, but a group of transit advocates has another vision.....They believe the tracks, which have sat idle for five decades, should be reactivated to give southern Queens residents an easier commute to Manhattan. “Certainly a quick trip to JFK Airport from the core of the city is something people have talked about from Year One,” said George Haikalis, a civil engineer who heads the Institute for Rational Mobility, a nonprofit umbrella group for transit advocates. “Nobody in the rest of the world would be so dumb as to let a valuable asset like that sit there.”

But the people for are pushing to turn the ROW into the park, known as the QueensWay, pushed back, saying-

Andrea Crawford, the chairwoman of Community Board 9 who also is a member of Friends of the QueensWay, said a park would enhance the neighborhoods and prevent future over-development. “No one disagrees that the Rockaways are underserved by public transportation,” she said. “But to say this particular right of way could be a viable rail of some sort does not have a basis in reality.” Aside from deteriorated tracks and infrastructure, the line runs close to schools and homes that did not exist when it was first constructed, she said.

That is BS. The neighborhoods that this ROW passes through, as Assemblyman Philip Goldfeder, who represents the Rockaways, noted that-

Those same communities that are pushing this proposal are privileged with commutes of 30 minutes or less to midtown Manhattan....I believe southern Queens and Rockaway would be better served if this forgotten track once again fulfilled its original purpose as a railroad."

The ROW, being that it was never formally abandoned, is MTA and city property, and they could reactive it at any given time, even if they (those at QueensWay) oppose it. Those who argue that the it should be converted into parkland, while admitting that the Rockaways, which would be better serve by reactivating the ROW, suffer from a lack of transit options, are being selfish and hypocritical. Compared to the construction of the Second Avenue Sagas and East Side Access, reactivation of this ROW is cheap and efficient. And there is room between the Woodhaven Blvd and 63rd Road stations for a spur to come off the IND Queens Blvd Line (it was made in anticipation of this) and serve the ROW (It has been discussed in numerous transit-related forums). And, as it was originally built for railroad, it was ballasted and built with steel and concerte underpinnings, it would provide a far quieter and more comfortable experience for those living around the ROW should it ever be reactivated. As per the comparison to the High Line, it's not a good one. First off, the High Line already had several advantages prior to it being built, advantages that QueensWay doesn't have. These are

The High Line was already located in a pedestrian heavy neighborhood, which was already a major tourist attraction (Chelsea, the Village, Meatpacking District). Where QueensWay (or the ROW) is located, it is less pedestrian friendly, and more car-friendly.
QueensWay doesn't really have a good location trasnit wise- the nearest subway stop from the proposed start is about half a mile away (Rego Park, Queens).
The High Line also had a dedicated corp of volunteers and had cash on hand to organize and clean up the Line.

Referring to the part that this park would prevent "overdevelopment," well, not really. When the High line opened up- it kicked off a real estate boom there-and raised property values around the area-the same thing would happen with QueensWay, but with a lesser effect. Why? Basically, it's not located in Manhattan.

Reactivating the Row with a subway, with fast and direct acces to Midtown, would better serve the area and raise property values more then a park would. It's been in the works for about 50 years now. Let's not waste the opportunity to do so now. Because once this chance is gone and the ROW converted to parkland, the city would lose a great chance to improve it's transit network, and finally bring better service to the Rockaways, something we've promised it to since the 1930's.

Have certain punishments been more effective then others? Has any punishment been effective at all?

2011-12-29T21:58:00.001-05:00

So, I'm taking a law class at my current high school, and we get homework everyday, in which we have to explore some of the current issues facing law and society today. As such, this gives me a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law homework response. One of the questions we got as an assignment one day was this: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why? The following is my response to this question, and this marks the beginning of new segment in this blog, titled Law and Society, in which I will periodically share my responses to certain homework questions I received in my law class. Enjoy, and I hope all you have a Happy Holidays.
--------------------------------------------
Question: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why?

Response: The goal of punishments is to achieve a perfect society in which rules and laws are respected, under the threat of severe punishment for those who break them, in order to deter people from committing crimes. If were to look at the question from that perspective, then all punishments, have simply put, utterly failed to reach that goal. If punishments really did achieve their goal, then there would be no crimes, no human being would ever be harmed, and there would be peace, love and equality (in all forms), all over, and we would be living in a utopia, or a prefect society. It can come close to achieving it, but we will never see it happen, because we, as humans, are imperfect. It is in our nature to skirt or break rules and laws to achieve some (and hopefully very few) of our goals.

However, if were to look at it from a different perspective, then punishments haven’t completely failed in the goal, and we could have a small glimmer of hope. From that perspective, then each type of punishment have widely varying rates of success. For example, some punishments, such as fines, deter most people from breaking laws because they are a nuisance to receive and shake off (think of traffic tickets), especially towards your wallet. Probation also is effective in most, but not in all cases, because it keeps the person in line while under the watch of a probation officer- if the person steps out of line, and if the offense is great enough, then the person will be given a more severe sentence, such as a hefty fine, a stricter set of probation guidelines, or some instances, even jail time.

Incarceration, on the other hand has a much more mixed track record. On one hand, the average citizen fears going to jail, and the threat of going to jail for most crimes is enough to deter most people from doing serious crimes. On the other hand, the U.S. has one of the highest incarceration and re-incarceration rates in the world, and the threat of jail is often insufficient enough to deter career criminals from committing major, and often violent crimes. Usually, only the threat of long and severe prison sentences (Life, life without parole, 20 to life, as such) serve as a determent to most people, and even then, some criminals continue committing crimes. We must also note that people are sometimes thrown in jail for (sometimes) ridiculously small reasons as well, and that has helped the prison population rate to explode to record levels. Some offenses, such as carrying very small amounts of marijuana or using very, very small amounts of controlled substances, are given mandatory (and often long) prison sentences, while in reality, it could be better suited to send that person to rehabilitation.

Lastly, there is the death penalty, usually used in extreme and violent cases (such as a violent robbery, murder, or an extremely violent sexual assault) and as such, in most states, it’s use is severely restricted, while in others, restrictions are more relaxed (for an extreme example, see Texas). Still, other states prohibit the use of the death penalty, calling it ‘barbaric’ and ‘unjust.’ New York State has prohibited the death penalty as a form of punishment. Some claim that this punishment, if used effectively, will deter people from committing serious and violent crimes under the threat of death, while others say that it is an ineffective and costly way to punish, stating that is applied unequally, and that there will always exist a small chance of error for executing a person for the wrong crime (it has happened), and that no life, no mater how despised, should be taken away, even if they are violent criminals. Still others point to it as cruel and unusual punishment, and point out that in societies where the death penalty is (or was) used commonly, the people there are disenchanted, oppressed, or both, and in most cases, the extreme use of it has led to rebellion.

In short, no punishment has ever completely reached it’s goal- but they haven’t completely failed either. Each have widely varying degrees of success, but we can safely say that all are on the varying levels in terms of progress. Some punishments are more widely used and more effective, while others are less used, and then others are rarely used but sometimes effective or ineffective. Yet, they have all made some progress in coming closer to achieving the goal of a well-regulated and a perfect society, but we still have a long way to go.

Law and Society: This the first in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.

Site Changes

2011-11-12T18:03:00.001-05:00

As viewers of this blog may have noticed, there have been some recent changes to the appearance and schematics of this blog, and I am happy to report that there will be more changes coming up. First off, appearance- the blog has been redesigned with a sleeker, more modern appearance that allows for faster loading on web browsers and less bugs, thus making your stay here more enjoyable. Post views have been reorganized to allow for easier reading, and the appearance of videos on Opinions has been worked out. Now, there will be two important changes on this blog that will take effect at 7:00 PM tonight, Saturday, November 12, 2011. First, the title of this blog will be changed from Opinions to Points of View, as differing points of view are being offered on this blog, and in the upcoming weeks, it won't just be me posting here- a number of new contributors will offer different perspectives and points of view on a variety of topics, and topics won't just be limited to politics- you'll see more posts not related to politics being brought for discussion here, such as sports, technology, culture, and more, but they will be related to the central mission of this blog- to provide differing points of view for you amusement and knowledge. But don't worry, my politically inclined viewers-politics will still be a central part of this blog. Lastly, and possibly the most important change to be made, this blog will be moved from it's current website, opinionsbz.blogspot.com to pointzofview.blogspot.com as we wrap up the numerous changes to this blog, all designed to make your stay here more comfortable, more enjoyable, and more informative. These changes might seem all too confusing, as they are all culminating at once, but I (and soon we) thank you for cooperating with us, as we move on and get ready to offer you a unique point of view on the upcoming election, and life in general.

So, how to deal with in regards to immigration?

2011-11-03T16:56:00.001-04:00

As we all know, immigration is one of the most controversial and divisive topics that out nation is facing right now, as well as being one of the hardest to solve- and inaction on this topic isn't helping. Some states, such as Alabama and Arizona, have tried to regulate this problem- by trying make immigration law themselves, yet these laws push the limits of civil rights. So in response, here is my basic framework in regards to immigration reform.

My Plan for Immigration Reform

For People Who Committed Major (Felony) Crimes- (Rape, Assault, Homicide, Robbery, etc.)

They must be deported, no questions asked. These people damage the reputation of immigrants everywhere, and letting them stay here won't help the problem. These are the type of people, along with gang members, that DHS should be concentrating on. Of course, they will be a given a hearing with their entitled rights, but if they are found guilty, the only punishment would be deportation.

For People Who Are In Good Social Standing

Must be living 7-10 Years in the United States or more.
Preference given if they have a family and/or kids who are under the Age of 18.
They must be paying their taxes, or be on their way to paying off their debt to Uncle Sam.
Must undergo a background check.
Pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).

A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

This makes the government money, and allows a difficult, but possible, path to citizenship for illegals who have been living here and on otherwise good behavior under the old and flawed system, and it is NOT a handout. This is different from the dud of 1986, which basically gave anyone amnesty. This also makes new, desperately needed source of revenue for the government.

In the case of military service, 5 years of service with an honorary discharge from any branch of Armed Forces would be satisfactory to establish citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived.
Children or people who came as very young children and managed to get at least an Associates or a Master Degree, or have contributed Military Service to this country would also be allowed to apply for citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived on a case by case basis, however.

This would be the basic requirements for the majority of immigrants here in the United States.

For People Who Committed Minor Crimes.

MUST have not committed any crime for 5 Years
Paid their taxes.
Must know English.
Must pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).
A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

Another aspect of this plan would also include on going after employers who use immigrant labor, mainly because they know that immigrants would work for whatever wages, as long as it is work. Usually, immigrants are exploited, because they know that immigrants usually fear reporting such abuses to the proper authorities because of their status. I would not mandate the the use of E-Verify, since it is still a work in progress, but employers would be subject to audits from time to time. This, in all, is my plan for immigration reform. Now, lets talk about those laws, shall we?

The proponents of the majority of these new laws in Alabama, Arizona, and other states say that because illegal immigrants, are well, illegally here, they are not entitled to any of the rights that U.S. Citizens are entitled to. The great majority also argue for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Well, looks like some people either aren't brushed up on their political history, don't care about Constitutional Law, or weren't paying attention when taking Political Science. Why do we call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select people and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people. Some people argue that...

"Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do."

To this, I say BS. So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? That they don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some really terrible conditions. Those who claim that immigrants don't contribute much to the U.S. and that their rights should be infringed might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize their position. Now, one of their favorite responses to this seems to be that since

"Illegals are not citizens, therefore they have not consented to the American government that provides these rights to those who, as citizens, have consented to the American form of government. Therefore the American government does not exist to guarantee illegal immigrants these rights, only people who ARE citizens, or who are here legally in accordance with the very rules of the government that would provide them with those rights in the first place."

Well, since, that would be a violation of human rights. Since they aren't U.S. Citizens, they aren't entitled to their rights, eh? So, let's say an immigrant has been accused of a crime- would he be given a fair and speedy trial, or would he be immediately assumed guilty, since as a non-citizen, he has no right to a fari trial and be sent to prison with due process of the law? That would be a violation of what America stands for- liberty and justice for all. Or if somebody committed a crime against an immigrant- would that person be prosecuted under the law, would he be let free without any sort of trial, simply because the victim is an illegal immigrant, and as such, has nor right to bring up a claim because he is not a citizen, and thus, not entitled to his rights? Now, the 14th Amendment. Many people are arguing for the repeal of that amendment, because it promotes immigration by allowing for so-called 'anchor babies," and since anyone born here is entitled to U.S. Citizenship, they are also entitled to the benefits that come to it. Well, first of all, the benefits are only for the child, not for the parent, and second of all, Why? You would be depriving a chance for the child to become a potential asset to this country, to allow that child to aspire for his dreams in the greatest country in the world. Look, I'm the son of illegal immigrants. I work hard in school (my grades show it), I read The New York Times, I'm deeply interested in law, politics, and history- and I was born here, thus I am a U.S. Citizen. What about the other kids who are just like me, or are similar to me, but yet wouldn't be citizens if the 14th Amendment is repealed? What would happen to them? Should they let their dreams die away? What about me? Would I get my citizenship taken away because I just happened to be the son of illegal immigrants? I already mentioned in an earlier blog post about the rights of immigrants under the 14th Amendment. Let's see, has the U.S. Supreme Cout affirmed other rights for immigrants? I'm hearing they have. Let' see..

Wow. All those cases that affirmed the rights of immigrants, and are still in force today. Man, leaves you something to think, eh? Yet, we must continue to fight these laws, and challenge these laws forcefully in court as the deprivation of liberties, using these cases as ammo. We can only hope.

Just a head's up.

2011-08-29T21:28:00.000-04:00

In a few days time, I will be writing a blog post about Alabama's new, and extremely tough immigration law that will encompass a very broad swarth, that will have me offering up a solution to the immigration dilemma. In the time, if you interested to see that exact provisions of this law, of you just have nothing to do, here is the whole text of Alabama's immigration law, cynically called the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. Yep, that's right, all 70 pages, the whole package. If you want a preview of what I might write, check out this older blog post from yours truly.

Stay safe, people.

Today & In response to Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

2011-07-24T23:32:00.004-04:00

I am living in a peculiar situation when it comes to gay rights. For those who read this blog, you most likely know that I am a supporter of gay rights, especially when it comes to the question of whether they should be allowed to marry or not. I am also a Catholic, albeit a very liberal one. On June 24, New York became the sixth state to legalize Same-Sex Marriage by a very close vote, 33 in favor to 29 against. While I cheered this decision, let us just say that Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, the leader of the Brooklyn & Queens Diocese (which is the Diocese my church is situated) was not. In an editorial which appeared in the New York Daily News, he slammed the decision, calling it a tragedy in which we

....we no longer understand the primary purpose of marriage as the institution by which a man and woman bring new life into the world and teach the child to become a productive citizen....Marriage is reduced to an empty honor....

The following parts of this post will be a reply to the Bishop in charge of the Diocese in which I live in, thereby indirectly challenging a superior. And so I begin.

He begins his argument by stating that society values it's young, no question about that. However, it is in the third paragraph in which he states that

Sociologists and psychologists agree that stable families where a mother and father live together in a loving union are a key predicator of a child's future health, well-being and success.

You may ask yourselves, Well, this paragraph is innocent, he's just saying that a children raised with both parents is crucial to success No question about that. The problem here is that when you dig deeper into the argument, he is implying that a child raised with a gay or a lesbian couple cannot have raise a child as well as a straight couple can. Not so, states the American Psychological Association, together with the California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association For Marriage and Family Therapy, in which it stated in a brief filed in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that there is no scientific basis to support the claim that Gay Couples cannot raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple, and in the case that they have children, their children are just as healthy or well adjusted as one raised with heterosexual parents. (Section IV, Subsection B.) In their brief, they state

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature....Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

With just this excerpt from their massive 57 page brief, it smashes the poorly disguised argument of my dear Bishop. I mentioned earlier in this post that the bishop claimed that marriage had been reduced to an empty honor. To address this concern- when has marriage has ever been completely respected- it has almost never been. Men have always cheated on their wives and vice versa. People have always divorced people, maintained other spouses, etc- if marriage was ever sanity, Henry VIII would never split off from the church over some pathetic divorce. Today, there is no doubt that marriage is not as respected, if it even was.

-------------------------------------

Today is July 24, 2011. Today was the first day in which we extending the meaning of "with liberty and justice to all" to a group of people who were being denied those rights for years- the LGBT community. For the first time, same-sex couples were given the right to marry in the state, giving them equal standing with straight couples. Yet not everyone greeted this with open arms, of course. We had the usual protesters- the National Organization of Marriage, State Senator Ruben Diaz, and evangelicals. Even though I disagree with them, I usually would get along with them, as they are very civil. And then we have those who feel the need to stoop down to the level and behavior of a spoiled five-year old child. Those people, as we all know, is the good ol' Westboro Baptist Church. Most people heard of them in the landmark Supreme Court Case Synder v. Phelps in which a father of fallen solider sued the WBC for damages following their protest of military funerals, in which they carried signs saying "God hates Fags" and "God hates America" and all. After hearing that New York State legalized same-sex marriage, they decided to come to protest, stating their reasons in typical language suitable of people who demeanor appears to be those of again, a spoiled five-year old child. Here they go.

WBC will picket the reprobates of fag-infested New York state to remind them that God defined marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman for life.That means NO fag marriage, no dyke marriage and no divorce + remarriage! For their defiance of their Lord, New Yorkers will suffer the wrath of God being poured out on them from the sky, just as others in history who have followed this path experienced.

Right. If I'm a fag infested person, as they call, for supporting equality and fulfilling the words of the pledge of allegiance, which state "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" so I'm proud to be one. If I am to be called a reprobate, so be it, and I'm proud of it, basking in the comfort that I'm being called this for supporting the civil rights of the LGBT community. These 'fags' as the WBC calls them, are real people, people who deserve the right to marry and love whomever they choose, who deserve the rights we all enjoy. If I'm defying the lord, so be it. If I have to suffer the wrath of god from the sky, I'll be happy to to, because I'm doing so to guarantee rights for all. I saw them today as I was going to the Brooklyn DA's office for my Mock Trial Meeting, and I just ignored them. Because that is what need to do. Ignore them, and take comfort at whatever names they call us, because we should be proud to be 'fags' if it means fighting for the rights of the LGBT community.

Just some food for thought. Enjoy.

Thoughts on Independence Day.

2011-07-04T21:02:00.003-04:00

Today is July 4th, the 235th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which formerly symbolized the independence of the thirteen original colonies from Great Britain. It contains some some of the most inspirational words in the history of man, and with oft-quoted words being

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These words have served as an inspiration for generations of people, from the French (see- French Revolution) to Germany, to Canada, and even Ho Chi Minh to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It represents a moral standard to which the United States of America must strive for, a ringing bell to improve the plight of those who suffer. Yet, when this was adopted, we couldn't completely say this phrase without keeping a straight face, because slavery was prevalent at the time, a stunning contrast to the phase that "all men are created equal." As time went on, we slowly began to push this phrase closer to reality, but we still couldn't say it with certainty. Jim Crow was still around, making men unequal among us. Today, Jim Crow is gone, thanks to the civil rights movement who struggled make sure that this famous phrase was applied to the South. But today, we still cannot say with utmost certainty that "all men are created equal." Today, scores of new laws passed in states around the nation are tailored to deny that immigrants are among the men that are created equal, when the great majority come here to work and respect this country- and grateful to it for the chances it gives. Most of these laws are copycat versions of the original law enacted in Arizona, S.B 1070. Some of the most draconian laws, such as the one in Alabama, which requires, in a blatantly and discriminatory manner, requires public school districts to determine the immigration status of it's own students and their parents and report them states. Furthermore, it provides a challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall. . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government...Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation...Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

As The New York Times aptly states,

The state’s law seems designed to challenge that ruling, as it turns school officials into de facto immigration agents and impels frightened parents to keep their children home.

We still have along way to go in order to ensure that "all men are created equal" and that all men are ensured with unalienable Rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet, we closer to reaching those goals than most of the countries around the world are. We have a long way to go, but let us remember that we must strive to uphold those goals and that statement with the utmost regard, to everyone who lives and resides in this nation, in the United States of America.

Happy Independence Day, people. Happy 235th birthday, America.

Yes, my opinions regarding misinfomation can be explained via The Daily Show.

2011-06-27T19:11:00.002-04:00

As a liberal, it often pains me when misinformation is spread around the American public, especially about American politics. Now, I could write a whole blog post about this (Looking at you, Fox News), but instead of going on and on and possibly boring you guys, I have decided instead to post two clips from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. You might ask yourself, why I am posting this? Well, it makes the same points I intended to make, only in a funnier and more charismatic way, and it will explain it more fully and more clearly. All credits regarding political points and jokes are attributed to Comedy Central & The Daily Show, as well as Jon Stewart.

For the first video, skip ahead to the 1:45 minute, and watch from there on if you want to see my point.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Fox News Channel - Fair & Balanced

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

The Second Video (below) gets straight to the point- and in a comical fashion.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Fox News False Statements

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

As Jon Stewart said at the end about Fox News, "They got a lot of f**king correcting to do."

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 4)

2011-05-14T14:30:00.010-04:00

To both parties, you are both wrong.

To balance the budget, you must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. It's just common sense. Sure, it'll involve make some tough choices, but when you have a growing deficit and debt, those choices are really necessary. Those who do make those tough choices and follow through with it display leadership, something we haven't seen from both Democrats and Republicans alike in a long time.

Taxes

Here comes the part in which almost everyone drags their feet, comes up with plans that really don't sound good (I'm looking at you, Paul Ryan) and where the most bitter and nasty political fights arise and occur. Ah taxes. We can always count on you for good old political rhetoric, political nonsense. But enough with the nostalgia. Let's get down to business. You may or may not note how aggressive I might be in this section, for better or for worse, it all depends on your opinion. Let us start with those estate taxes. I have three choices on the menu, and here they are (these come directly from the New York Times's Budget Puzzle)-

The Lincoln-Kyl Proposal- As we all know, there was no estate tax in 2010. This proposal by Senators Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, and Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, is the most moderate of the estate-tax options here. It would exempt the first $5 million from any taxable estate and index this level to inflation over time. Any estate value above $5 million would be taxed at a 35 percent rate.
The Obama Proposal- President Obama's proposal is more agressive than Kyl-Lincoln, but would still cut the estate tax when compared to the Clinton years. The Obama plan would exempt the first $3.5 million from any taxable estate. Any estate above $3.5 million would be taxed at a 45 percent rate. These are the same provisions that applied in 2009, as part of the 2001 Bush tax cut.
Return to Clinton-Era Levels- Under President Bill Clinton, the estate tax exempted $1 million from any taxable estate. This level would not grow with inflation over time, subjecting more estates to the tax. The rate would start at 18 percent and climb to 55 percent, as it did in the 1990s. The 55 percent rate would begin at $3 million.

The first one (Lincoln-Kyl) is not aggressive enough, so that's other of the shuffle. President's Obama's proposal is aggressive, but not aggressive enough. So, the rates would return to Clinton-Era levels. Next up- investment taxes. We have two choices, and here they are-

The Obama Proposal- Capital gains and dividends are now untaxed for couples with incomes below $68,000. For everyone else, the tax rate is 15 percent. This option, proposed by President Obama, would raise the rate to 20 percent for households making roughly $250,000 a year and above.
Return to Clinton-Era Levels- This option would return rates to their level under President Bill Clinton: 10 percent on capital gains for low-income households and 20 percent for everyone else, while dividends would again be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

Again, I would choose a return to the Clinton Era Levels (Wow. I seem to be going all 90's.) I like I said in earlier posts, we need to make need to make some tough choices if we want to close the deficit and put this country on the long road to eliminating the debt. Next up on my plate- The Bush Era Tax Cuts. Here is where things get even more tougher. We have the two options, which are among the subjects of the most heated debates that takes place in Capital Hill. These are-

Allow expiration for income above $250,000 a year- This option would allow the expiration, on the next time this comes up for renewal, of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or more. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.
Allow expiration for income below $250,000 a year- This option would allow the expiration, on the next time this comes up for renewal, of the Bush tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent or so of households on the income distribution – those making $250,000 or less. On average, the change would equal about 2 percent of a given household’s pretax income.

This was not that easy of a choice as I expected. I forced to think about it for a long time, to weigh it out. If I allowed the expiration for incomes above $250,000, I would have $54 Billion to add on for 2015, and $115 Billion for 2030. If I allowed expiration for incomes below $250,000, I would get $172 Billion for 2015, and $252 Billion for 2030. I'll take number one. Next up, I would subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax, because when the payroll tax – which finances Social Security and Medicare – was created, it covered 90 percent of all income. Today, with a ceiling at $106,800, it covers closer to 80 percent. This option would gradually raise the ceiling, until 90 percent of income was again subject to the tax. Next, I have again two choices for tax reform, and here they are-

The Bowles-Simpson plan- This would reduce tax breaks for companies and individuals, while lowering tax rates. On the whole, this plan would raise revenue. It would cut all tax breaks other than the child and earned-income tax credits and those for mortgages, health and retirement benefits. The corporate tax would then be cut to 28 percent, from 35 percent, while individual tax rates would be cut for all brackets too.

Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher- This option is the same as the previous one – except that tax rates would be cut less, raising more revenue to reduce the deficit.

Again, I'll go with the more aggressive and pick number two. Raises more cash to fight the deficit, and I don't want to see another headline that states that GE paid no taxes to the United States. I would also reduce mortgage deduction and others for high income, because the benefits of mortgage-intrest deduction flow mostly to those who make big mortgages, aka those of high income households. However, I have some limits. I will not impose a National Sales Tax, or a Carbon Tax, or a Bank Tax either. I know when enough is enough.

So far, together with the two previous posts in this series, $564 Billion of the 2015 projected shortfall of $418 Billion has been accounted for, and $2,027 Billion of the 2030 projected shortfall of $1,345 Billon has also been accounted for. Thus, it leaves me with a suplus of $146 Billion for 2015, and a $682 Billion suplus for 2030, all which will go to reduce the deficit. Here is a breakdown-

Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- $59 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $62 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Military- $61 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $107 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Health Care- $78 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $823 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Social Security- $19 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $301 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Taxes- $347 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $734 Billion of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.

For those who want see how I did it, and with the complete numbers, check it out here.

Next Up- Reflections.

Cutting & Taxing-This is the fourth in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit.

The Hypocrisy of Republicans

2011-05-13T17:21:00.001-04:00

When Paul Ryan's budget was released a couple of weeks ago, it included a proposal to change Medicare, to change it into a block grant that would radically change it, providing less for Seniors who have worked their entire life. Democrats seized on the movement, rightly denouncing it as a plan that would hurt seniors yet keep the Bush-era tax cuts for all levels, including reducing the corporate tax rate (which is already among the lowest in developed nations, and with tax breaks and loopholes, makes it even lower. Just look at GE.) Now, the Republicans are asking Democrats to "stop engaging in 'Mediscare' tactics", that is, to stop saying that the Ryan Plan, the Path to Prosperity, would end Medicare as we all know it, which all know. Hmm, that's interesting. Let me flash back to a year ago, when the Health Care Reform Act was being debated, the Republicans came out with true demagogy, by saying that Democrats were rationing Health Care, were creating Death Panels, and bunch of other bull. As Paul Krugman states in his Op-Ed piece in the Times,

Now, you may recall that the people who signed that letter got their current jobs largely by engaging in “Mediscare” tactics of their own. And bear in mind that what Democrats are saying now is entirely true, while what Republicans were saying last year was completely false. Death panels! Well, it’s time, said the signatories, to “wipe the slate clean.” How very convenient — and how very pathetic.

Those 42 Republican freshmen were elected last year in part by using demagogy are now running scared, as they fear that Democrats were will give a taste of their own medicine, but instead of using lies and myths, they are using the cold, hard truth. As I said last year in this blog post, it was ironic that these were the same people who opposed Medicare when it was first proposed, said last year that the Health Care Reform Act would destroy it, and now want to turn it into block grant program that would change it as we know it. Quoting lastly from Mr. Krugman, it is those Republican freshmen who

Last year, older voters, who split their vote almost evenly between the parties in 2008, swung overwhelmingly to the G.O.P., as Republicans posed successfully as defenders of Medicare. Now Democrats are pointing out that the G.O.P., far from defending Medicare, is actually trying to dismantle the program. So you can see why those Republican freshmen are nervous.

But the Democrats aren’t engaging in scare tactics, they’re simply telling the truth...and that’s something voters ought to know.

Checkmate, Republicans.

Bad Bargains (Guest)

2011-05-11T19:39:00.001-04:00

It is now been almost two weeks since Osama Bin Laden was killed by a U.S. Navy Seals raid in Pakistan. The post by Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times explores the effects of the ruling arrangement in Saudi Arabia and military aid to Pakistan on the United States Pardon me for not posting any recent posts, as I have been busy with schoolwork, but this Op-Ed that is full of reason and one you will enjoy. This Op-Ed first appeared on The New York Times. Please note this content is not mine- this passage comes from The New York Times. The links to the website where it was first posted are provided within this post.

--------------------------------------

So Osama bin Laden was living in a specially built villa in Pakistan. I wonder where he got the money to buy it? Cashed in his Saudi 401(k)? A Pakistani subprime mortgage, perhaps? No. I suspect we will find that it all came from the same place most of Al Qaeda’s funds come from: some combination of private Saudi donations spent under the watchful eye of the Pakistani Army.

Why should we care? Because this is the heart of the matter; that’s why. It was both just and strategically vital that we killed Bin Laden, who inspired 9/11. I just wish it were as easy to eliminate the two bad bargains that really made that attack possible, funded it and provided the key plotters and foot soldiers who carried it out. We are talking about the ruling bargains in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which are alive and well.

The Saudi ruling bargain is an old partnership between the al-Saud tribe and the Wahhabi religious sect. The al-Saud tribe get to stay in power and live however they want behind their palace walls, and, in return, the followers of the Wahhabi sect get to control the country’s religious mores, mosques and education system.

The Wahhabis bless the Saudi regime with legitimacy in the absence of any elections, and the regime blesses them with money and a free hand on religion. The only downside is that this system ensures a steady supply of “sitting around guys” — young Saudi males who have nothing other than religious education and no skills to compete — who then get recruited to become 9/11-style hijackers and suicide bombers in Iraq.

No one explains it better than the Saudi writer Mai Yamani, author of “Cradle of Islam” and the daughter of Saudi Arabia’s former oil minister. “Despite the decade of the West’s war on terror, and Saudi Arabia’s longer-term alliance with the United States, the kingdom’s Wahhabi religious establishment has continued to bankroll Islamic extremist ideologies around the world,” wrote Yamani in The Daily Star of Beirut, Lebanon, this week.

“Bin Laden, born, raised and educated in Saudi Arabia, is a product of this pervasive ideology,” Yamani added. “He was no religious innovator; he was a product of Wahhabism, and later was exported by the Wahhabi regime as a jihadist. During the 1980s, Saudi Arabia spent some $75 billion for the propagation of Wahhabism, funding schools, mosques, and charities throughout the Islamic world, from Pakistan to Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria and beyond. ... Not surprisingly, the creation of a transnational Islamic political movement, boosted by thousands of underground jihadist Web sites, has blown back into the kingdom. Like the hijackers of 9/11, who were also Saudi-Wahhabi ideological exports ... Saudi Arabia’s reserve army of potential terrorists remains, because the Wahhabi factory of fanatical ideas remains intact. So the real battle has not been with Bin Laden, but with that Saudi state-supported ideology factory.”

Ditto Pakistan. The Pakistani ruling bargain is set by the Pakistani Army and says: “We let you civilians pretend to rule, but we will actually call all the key shots, we will consume nearly 25 percent of the state budget and we will justify all of this as necessary for Pakistan to confront its real security challenge: India and its occupation of Kashmir. Looking for Bin Laden became a side-business for Pakistan’s military to generate U.S. aid.

As the Al Qaeda expert Lawrence Wright observed in The New Yorker this week: Pakistan’s Army and intelligence service “were in the looking-for-Bin-Laden business, and if they found him they’d be out of business.” Since 9/11, Wright added, “the U.S. had given $11 billion to Pakistan, the bulk of it in military aid, much of which was misappropriated to buy weapons to defend against India.”

(President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan plays the same game. He’s in the looking-for-stability-in-Afghanistan business. And as long as we keep paying him, he’ll keep looking.)

What both countries need is shock therapy. For Pakistan, that would mean America converting the lion’s share of its military aid to K-12 education programs, while also reducing the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan. Together, the message would be that we’re ready to help Pakistan fight its real enemies and ours — ignorance, illiteracy, corrupt elites and religious obscurantism — but we have no interest in being dupes for the nonsense that Pakistan is threatened by India and therefore needs “strategic depth” in Afghanistan and allies among the Taliban.

Ditto Saudi Arabia. We are in a ménage à trois with the al-Sauds and the Wahhabis. We provide the al-Sauds security, and they provide us oil. The Wahhabis provide the al-Sauds with legitimacy and the al-Sauds provide them with money (from us). It works really well for the al-Sauds, but not too well for us. The only way out is a new U.S. energy policy, which neither party is proposing.

Hence, my conclusion: We are surely safer with Bin Laden dead, but no one will be safe — certainly not the many moderate Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who deserve a decent future — without different ruling bargains in Islamabad and Riyadh.

This Op-Ed first appeared on the New York Times on May 11, 2011.

Homosexuals must be equals too.

2011-04-30T17:58:00.004-04:00

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was passed in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton as Republicans in the house held a gun to his head while preparing reforms in welfare and the eventual shutdown of the federal government. It defined marriage as recognized by the federal government between one man and one women (Wow. I thought the goal of Republicans was to lower the scope of the federal government, not expand it.), and that no state was required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in other state. This only strengthened the resolve of Bowers v. Hardwick, which effectively killed any chance of the Supreme Court giving rights to the LGBT Community in the 1990's (Note- the Court reversed itself in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas). In the majority opinion given Justice White, he attempted to justify the denial of rights to homosexuals by saying that

It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals...proscriptions against that...have ancient roots....

In Blackmun's dissenting opinion, which was joined by Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens, he scolded the other justices for relying on tradition to deny homosexual their rights. He stated that

...before Georgia can prosecute its citizens for making choices about the most intimate aspects of their lives, it must do more than assert that the choice they have made is an "abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians"...And so we protect the decision whether to marry precisely because marriage "is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects...The Court claims that its decision today merely refuses to recognize a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy; what the Court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations with others...The assertion that "traditional Judeo-Christian values proscribe" the conduct involved, Brief for Petitioner 20, cannot provide an adequate justification for § 16-6-2. That certain, but by no means all, religious groups condemn the behavior at issue gives the State no license to impose their judgments on the entire citizenry. The legitimacy of secular legislation depends instead on whether the State can advance some justification for its law beyond its conformity to religious doctrine... petitioner's invocation of Leviticus, Romans, St. Thomas Aquinas, and sodomy's heretical status during the Middle Ages undermines his suggestion that § 16-6-2 represents a legitimate use of secular coercive power. A State can no more punish private behavior because of religious intolerance than it can punish such behavior because of racial animus. "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." No matter how uncomfortable a certain group may make the majority of this Court, we have held that "[m]ere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty."

I could go on and on from Blackmun's dissent, but this section from his dissent demonstrates that anyone who argues that Homosexuality isn't allowed because of religion, or because it has never been allowed, this smashes those arguments. Also, if anybody brings up the claim of religion, or that homosexuals are representatives from the devil, I quote Pope John Paul II, who stated that homosexuals possess the same inherent dignity and rights as everybody else. Some may ask why I use a dissent, since that is not a majority opinion, so it carries less weight. A dissent is used to bring up debate by offering a differing view on the subject, and to hope that it inspires other courts later in the future to "correct the mistakes and nearsightedness of prior courts."

Now, I use my own words. Why do we deny the right to people love the person they choose? Why do we deny people to live life the way they want to, to love whom they want, be it a man or a women? If they love each other, be both men or women, gay or lesbian, transgender or bisexual, let them love each other. That, besides taking one's life, is one of the worst decisions or crime we can do- denying the people the right to love the person and live with the person they want to. Homosexuals are people. They are or neighbors, friends, family, classmates, workmates, everything. We must treat them every person person, as Pope John Paul II stated with dignity and respect, as every other person expects and should be treated, regardless of their sexual preferences.

Today, DOMA is being challenged by courts around the nation, and in most cases, the courts have struck down the law, saying it infringes on the rights of homosexuals. The Department of Justice has given up trying to defend the law (which it should have done a couple years ago) yet the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to continue to defend the law at taxpayer's expense. If the Republicans feel the need to defend this law, by all means let them do it. However, to do so at taxpayer expense, one at a high cost since they probably will hire an expensive, high-powered private firm that will charge a high rate is wrong, at a time when Republicans are butchering the budget while refusing to raise taxes on the high earners give us something to think about- Are they more concerned with defending inequality and injustice, or are they really concerned on the budget? If they are concerned about the budget, then Republicans should hire a law firm whose fees will not be astronomically expensive or just stop defending the law, and thus, end a great injustice and inequality.

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 3)

2011-04-24T21:09:00.009-04:00

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget battle between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any new regulation or taxes that is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

Heath Care and Social Security

Here is where things get tougher and more darker. These are, besides taxes, some of the hardest parts to enact cuts or increases in the budget. Here, I choose to make several changes that help reduce the deficit, such as capping Medicare growth starting in 2013, increasing the eligibility age of Medicare to 70 years of age, and reducing tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance. Let us begin with the cap on Medicare growth. This proposal would cap the growth of Medicare, which is one of the most rapidly expanding programs in the Federal budget, and consumes much of it as well. The more time passes, the more urgent is it to reform it. The problem will only exacerbate when the first wave of the Baby Boomers retire. It would be capped at the rate of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) plus 1%. Next up is raising the eligibility age of Medicaid to 70 years. This is simple- Americans are living longer, working harder and working longer. The current life expectancy for Americans today is roughly 78 years, much higher then it was in 1965 (70 years), when it was enacted as part of the Social Security Act of 1965. This would save $50 Billion more than raising the age to 68 would. The other thing that would be enacted is to reduce tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance by slowly adjusting the cap to match the rate of economic growth-not the growth of health care costs- which we all know that health care costs rise much faster than that of economic growth- yet another reason to reform Medicare. Over time, more employer spending on health insurance would be taxed. Lastly, Medicare is one most vulnerable programs when it comes to fraud and waste. Only 5% of Medicare claims is audited- a shockingly low number considering the number of claims that is made every year. Therefore, more and more claims, to the point of which at least 85%-90% of claims would be audited. Now up to Social Security. Here I would also raise the eligibility age to 70 years, again because people are living and working longer. This would help fix Social Security's shortfall, reduce benefits by encouraging people to work longer, thus paying payroll taxes longer that support Social Security. (For the record, I would also increase the payroll tax to it's earlier levels before it was cut in 2010.) Lastly, Social Security benefits would be reduced for those of higher incomes. Those who earn less would continue to see their benefits grow over time with average wage increases. Those who earn more would see their benefits grow slower with inflation, while those who earn less would see their benefits grow at a rate between inflation and wage growth.

So far, together with the two previous posts in this series, $217 Billion of the 2015 projected shortfall of $418 Billion has been accounted for, and $1,293 Billion of the 2030 projected shortfall of $1,345 Billon has also been accounted for. Here is a breakdown-

Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- $59 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $62 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Military- $61 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $107 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Health Care- $78 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $823 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Social Security- $19 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $301 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.

Next up- Taxes.

Cutting & Taxing-This is the third in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit.

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 2)

2011-04-15T12:47:00.007-04:00

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget battle between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any type of new regulation or taxes is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

Military

Here, I choose to cut, cancel or delay some weapons programs, reduce the nuclear arsenal and space spending, and reduce some noncombat military compensation as well the length of tours. Let's start with reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending. First off, the need for a bulging nuclear arsenal has diminished within the past 20-25 years, due to the end of the Cold War and the fact that there are more treaties and agreements on the size, use, and time of nuclear weapons has also diminished the need. The number of nuclear warheads would be reduced form 1,968 to 1,050. Funding would also be reduced for nuclear development and research, as well as for missile development, a space based missile defense system, and the number of Minuteman missiles. Next up is the cancellation or delay for some weapons programs. Where do I start? The F-35 fighter jet, and the MV-22 Osprey would be cut, being replaced with less expensive of similar quality. Some other purchases would be delayed, and spending for research and development would also be reduced. Lastly, noncombat military compensation will be cut and the length of tours would also be curbed. Veterans who have not been wounded in battle would see their premiums rise, and more veterans would receive health insurance form their employer. Pay raises and increases in benefits would also receive tighter scrutiny. The length and frequency of combat tours would also be reduced- no person would be sent to a combat zone for more than a year, and they would be recalled for duty only after spending two years at home or is voluntarily wants to stay. I understand the potential for benefits reduction is painful, but sometimes, you need to make some tough choices if we want to close the deficit and put this country on the long road to eliminating the debt.

So far, together with the savings mentioned in the previous post of this series, $120 Billion of the 2015 projected shortfall of $418 Billion and $169 Billion of the 2030 projected shortfall of $1,345 Billion in savings have been found. Here is a breakdown-

Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- $59 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $62 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.
Military- $61 Billion out of the $418 Billion shortfall in 2015, and $107 Billion out of the $1,345 Billion shortfall in 2030 has been sliced off.

Still more to come up in the next post of this series- Health Care & Social Security.

Cutting & Taxing-This is the second in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit.

How to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, from my point of view. (Part 1)

2011-04-14T13:13:00.012-04:00

As you many know, we are locked in a fierce budget between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats went to raise taxes on top earners and mildly cut spending, while Republicans want to cut, no wait, butcher spending and maintain and even reduce taxes on the top earners, claiming that if we raise taxes on the top earners, the economy will slow down because those are the people that produce jobs in this county. Thus, if any type of new regulation or taxes is introduced, a minute will not pass before they label it as "job-killing."

To both parties, you are both wrong.

To balance the budget, you must raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. It's just common sense. Sure, it'll involve make some tough choices, but when you have a growing deficit and debt, those choices are really necessary. Those who do make those tough choices and follow through with it display leadership, something we haven't seen from both Democrats and Republicans alike in a long time.

From my point of view, as I mentioned before, we need to cut programs and raise taxes. How do I this? With the help of an interactive from the New York Times called Budget Puzzle. I will start off with Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid. I chose here to cut and to eliminate earmarks, farm subsides, cut 250,000 government contractors, and I would cut pay of Federal Employees by 5% Why? The earmarks is a reason in itself, and the farm subsides are mainly used by big agricultural interests and disrupt the flow of the market. The cutting of 250,000 government contractors is due to the fact that may outnumber Federal Employees by millions- sure, they provide useful services, but their numbers are just too high. Again, a tough choice, but we need to make tough choices. Freezing and cutting wages is just what you have to do when you are in bad economy and have a large hole in the budget. I'm not saying government employees are overpaid- but in times like these, you need to freeze pay to balance things out. Already, $59 Billion of the $418 Billion shortfall for 2015 was been accounted for, and $62 Billion of the $1345 Billion shortfall has been accounted fo as well.

More to come soon.

Cutting & Taxing-This is the first in a series of articles that will examine how to balance the Federal Budget and in the long run, reduce the long term deficit.

150 years after Fort Sumter, forces that gave rise to the Civil War still plague modern America (Guest).

2011-04-12T22:12:00.005-04:00

It is 150 years since the fist shot of the Civil War was fired, and even today, we see that some aspects of it are alive. It may not be the obvious ones, but this Op-Ed by David W. Blight, who teaches American History at Yale, perfectly explains it below. Pardon me for not posting any recent posts, as I have been busy with schoolwork, but this Op-Ed that is full of reason and one you will enjoy. This Op-Ed first appeared on The New York Daily News.
--------------------------------------

In his "The Legacy of the Civil War," written in 1961, Robert Penn Warren declared: "The Civil War draws us as an oracle, darkly unriddled and portentous, of national as well as personal fate." While writing that book, Warren described his challenge: "to distinguish between historical importance" of the war and its "fundamental appeal to the American imagination." All the "attractions" Americans felt toward the Civil War, he concluded, were not "worthy." "Because the war made us great we like to look at it — as the dog likes to look at the icebox door."

Do we as a people gaze at the Civil War more than we actually understand it? Is this most pivotal event in our history still, at its 150th anniversary, a story we look at like rubber-neckers at a horrible car accident?

Or, have we finally matured to a stage of reasonable consensus on the war's causes and consequences?

And where is the Civil War's "oracle?" On Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg? Monument Avenue in Richmond? In the words on the walls of the Lincoln Memorial?

At Stone Mountain in Georgia? At Augustus Saint-Gaudens' masterpiece sculpture, the Shaw Memorial in Boston, dedicated to the African-American regiment, the 54thMassachusetts? Is it in a book, a favorite passage of prose by Bruce Catton or Shelby Foote, or poetry by Walt Whitman, or oratory by Martin Luther King, Jr., or an essay by James Baldwin? Or is that oracle simply in our minds, ready to burst into action when prompted by a modern issue, a fear — or a legacy that suddenly hits us between the eyes?

What indeed is the hold of our worst national nightmare and bloodletting on the American imagination?

The war's powerful hold on us is both deeply human and profoundly American. The many conflicts that expressed themselves through that single, great conflict are in many ways with us still.

The historical imagination is drawn to loss, to the withering story of the 625,000 dead American soldiers and the uncounted civilian casualties. Loss on a profound scale is the subject of some of the world's greatest literature, epic myths and national destruction and creation stories. As Whitman mused in "Specimen Days," it was "the dead, the dead, the dead, our dead — or South or North, ours all" that had unmade and might yet re-make America.

We are also drawn to epic history, that which invests us in what we innocently like to call a Homeric tale all our own, as though such is the test of peoplehood. If

Civil War enthusiasts admit it, they love this conflict because it is a great contest for world-historical aims, a fundamental rending, but one with a beginning, middle and, if we so wish, a tidy ending. As William Dean Howells once said, Americans "love a tragedy," as long as "it has a happy ending."

For some, the Civil War's seductions involve the sheer pleasure of military detail, the strategic and tactical fight on the ground, or in the mental battlefield, where winners and losers can be crowned and great warriors anointed as geniuses. On perhaps a deeper level, many are attracted to this event because they have learned that a "modern" America was somehow born out of that terrible time, an America that despite the sacrifice was to become a powerful, centralized, world power able to forge The American Century to follow.

And in searching for the origins of our modernity, we often insist on a story of national reconciliation — reached largely by the denigration of the humanity and the destruction of the rights of the millions of blacks freed in the war. Such a heroic reunion story delivers a Civil War that ultimately unified us. In all our vexing diversity, people often love to revisit the Civil War to find a time when we fought to the death in order, as the pleasing story goes, to find our greater destiny and unity. We love being the nation that freed the slaves, rather than the one that owned four million people as property and had to destroy ourselves in order to save ourselves.

Increasingly over recent decades, new generations of Americans may also have read or been taught that the Civil War and Reconstruction brought the end of the first American republic and the bloody rebirth of a new, second republic. If we listen carefully, "rebirth" is the central metaphor of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. What he was saying is that the republic founded "fourscore and seven years" past was interred in the fresh graves of the cemetery he dedicated. A new "nation" had to be forged, somehow rooted in the frightening but beautiful idea of human equality.

When we see the Civil War through this lens, then our oracle is potentially infinite in its lessons and wisdom. And then we also begin to see why this event really is the pivot of our history, as our first great racial reckoning, but also in the redefinition of what it means to be an American in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

If we can remember our Civil War as this kind of constitutional and moral transformation — rooted in the social revolution of emancipation — then we may begin to grasp not only why it has such staying power in our imaginations, but why so many of our roiling political issues of today can be traced to those graves of 1863 and the new nation they died to create.

Today, we live in a society not only polarized over race relations and the advent of a black President, over the rights of immigrants, over religious tolerance, over who and what is a legitimate American and whether they shall be accorded "birth-right citizenship" as enshrined in the first line of the Fourteenth Amendment. But we have a political culture riven by a near war over federalism — the ceaseless debate about the proper relation of federal to state power. Yes, the Civil War is rooted in states' rights. But the significance of any exercise of states' rights is always in the issue to which it is employed. And in 1860-61, "state sovereignty" was exercised by some Southerners as an act of revolution in the interest, as they said themselves over and over, of preserving a racial order and a system of slavery.

Today, states' rights doctrines are advanced by many governors and Republican-majority legislatures in the very language of "secession" and "nullification" made so infamous in antebellum America.

A short list of examples among many tells us just how alive some Civil War legacies are in our culture. Kentucky has a bill pending to make that state a "sanctuary" from the Environmental Protection Agency. Arizona Republicans want to exempt products made in their state from federal interstate commerce laws. Montana is considering a bill to "nullify" the federal Endangered Species Act. The same state's legislature has a bill pending that would require the FBI to get a local sheriff's permission to make any arrests. Utah passed a bill authorizing the use of eminent domain to seize federally-protected land. And many Republican governors and attorneys general have tried to use the courts to nullify federal health care reform. Some state legislatures have tried to pass bills declaring their residents "exempt" from the health care reform law.

This is nullification by any other name, and it is happening, unfortunately, in too large a vacuum of historical perspective. We have a history with this idea, and it had a terrible result in 1861. Either the United States born in slave emancipation and that second American republic of 1865-68 is based on a social contract, forged and reforged by the new historical imperatives of industrialization and urbanization in the Progressive era, by a horrible economic Depression in the 1930s and a civil rights revolution in the 1960s, all of which for real and good reasons necessitated the increased exercise of federal power to protect human liberty, welfare and survival, or it does not.

The conservative movement in America seems determined to repeal much of the 20th century, and even its constitutional and social roots in the transformations of the 1860s. The Civil War is not only not over; it can still be lost. At its sesquicentennial, as much as ever, we should journey to our oracle, not to seek its "attractions," but to listen carefully for its "historical importance."

Blight teaches American history at Yale University, and is the author of "Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory," and the forthcoming "American Oracle: The Civil War in the Civil Rights Era."

This Op-Ed first appeared on the New York Daily News on April 12, 2011.

First do this, than you can have that.

2011-04-04T20:57:00.000-04:00

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or the MTA, is vital to the City of New York, and to a varying degree, the State of New York. It provides twenty-four hour subway service around the city, as well as operating countless bus routes in and around the city. It is one of the big selling points the city and the state has to offer to tourists, new residents and businesses alike. It provides rail service up to the outer reaches of Long Island of the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and bus service with Long Island Bus. It also provides rail service into parts of Upstate New York and Connecticut with Metro-North Railroad.

However, for all the benefits the MTA provides, it gets constantly shortchanged by the State of New York and for the services it provide to Nassau County via Long Island Bus.

Every year, when the state has a budget gap to fill, it always takes a swipe at the funding it is supposed to provide the MTA, giving it less and less every year, not realizing that it is putting the economic health of the city and the state on risk- forcing the MTA to do what must do with much less- thus forcing it to cut back service like it did in 2010, when it cut two subway lines, reduced or completely eliminated 110 bus routes and scaled back service on the Long Island Railroad and Metro-North. All of this would have been avoided had the state met it's financial commitments to the MTA- and when the MTA had to these cuts, since by law it must have a balanced budget- lawmakers blasted the MTA, either completely forgot they were responsible, were clueless, or were just being opportunists- in other words, hypocrites. Now, when the MTA needs funding the most, they want to eliminate the payroll tax at exactly the wrong time- thereby forcing the MTA to possibly make even more cuts. So, if they want to take away the payroll tax, they are going to have to give up something in return. So here they are....

Create a transit "lockbox" to protect dedicated state aid toward the MTA from the hands of the state legislature and senate- by law or preferably, amending the State Constitution.
Introduce Congestion Pricing or 'Traffic Pricing' to the city- A fee would be charged on all non-emergency cars entering Manhattan below 61st Street, either $6 in both directions or a flat out fee of $12- or install it on all the 'free' East/Harlem River Bridges- in effect raising the area up to Inwood- and provide some much needed cash to the MTA-be it for the Capital Budget or the regular budget. Either way, this money would be for the sole use of the MTA.
Re-introduce the Commuter Tax- This would also provide a dedicated source funding to the MTA and would be applicable only to jobs here in the city.
Reduce, but not completely take away the payroll tax- reduce the the areas affected for example, or the tax by 4-9 cents to 30-25 cents out of 100 dollars-still a tax reduction either way.
Or adopt a mixture of all four.

Some will most likely bring up the statement "Privatize the MTA!" To all those who say that- it's not possible. No private company will be able to run what the MTA runs without massive public subsides or by raising fares drastically, as well as reducing services. If anyone volunteers to run the MTA without raising fares, scaling back services and requiring massive public subsides- in short as a private company- please let me know, let the MTA know, and let the city and state know. Oh, and let us know if you can turn out a profit. 'Cause if that happens, then we can talk.

Stupid Ignorance

2011-04-04T17:37:00.002-04:00

Before I begin this post, let me offer my condolences to the 7 United Nations workers who killed Friday in volent protests in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif.

Now, let us discuss the person who incited the protests, and that is none other the Pastor Terry Jones. You might all remember him from last year, when he set up plans to burn the Koran on the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, only to back down at the last minute.

He completed his promise on March 20, 2011. Because of that, it incited those protests in Mazar-i-Sharif that killed seven UN workers. Sure, that doesn't mean that he could feel a bit remorseful. Yet he's not. As he told the AFP news wire services, "We don't feel responsible for that." What is going to make him responsible, when more UN workers are killed? Mr. Jones calls the Koran "the book of the devil" but he himself states "We are not Koran experts." How is he then supposed to know that the Koran is the book of the devil? Has he even read it? Last time I checked, the Koran preaches tolerance, and is very similar to the Bible and the Torah- since they all preach the existence of one god and as in Christianity, it holds Jesus in high regard, not necessarily as the son of god, as Christians do, but they give him a high standing nonetheless- as a prophet of god- as well as Moses, Elijah, Abraham and many other prophets that are held high in Christianity. Lastly, before I go into teaching religion class- all three trace their ancestry to Abraham. Oh, one last thing I would to like quote from Mr. Jones, "I would not consider myself an expert on the bible." Hmm, that's interesting. Need I say more?