TOUGH LOVE

I don't think I am catching anyone off guard with this statement: I am supporting Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

However, my support is not bent on my absolute love for Obama. I also suspect that the majority of my peers/readers of this blog recognize the criticism I have provided over Obama's first term in office; specifically concerning his lack of overall legislative leadership, his handling of the economy and the national debt, and the result of the ludicrous healthcare debate.

But despite my quarrels with first-term Obama, I still believe his ideological standards are superior to Romney's heading into the future.  However, as the weeks of campaigning progress, I am becoming more and more concerned with the route Team Obama is taking heading into November.  The issues they are concentrating on as well as their overall tone, to me, seems to be off-base and frankly ineffective.

To win in November, Obama must accomplish three things (besides creating a solution to the electoral equations any presidential candidate faces): ignite the liberal base and ensure their participation in the election, spark the interest and initiative of the youth vote in similar terms to 2008, and convince independent voters that he can handle the economic future of this country better than Romney.

So far, he is only doing one of these - igniting the liberal base.  Spending vast amounts of time trashing Romney's record at Bane Capital and as Massachusetts governor gives uber-liberals a rush; however, it does not persuade the independent base of this country in his favor.  What independents and disgruntled Democrats are looking for is a plan for our country's future. And right now, Obama doesn't have one.

Although it is the wrong plan, Romney does have core elements he is running on.  If Obama wants to pull ahead, he needs to do the same.

So, Mr. President, it's time for some tough love. If you want to continue leading this country, you must convince us that you have goals and missions for our economy, society, and foreign policy throughout the next four years. These plans cannot just be the Buffet Rule or bashing Romney; rather, a strategic outlook towards boosting economic growth, reforming our government, lowering our debt, and setting new standards and policies that will drive our societal and foreign matters for the next decade.

For the next few months, Obama should show his commitment to lowering our national debt by embracing the Simpson-Bowls proposal, create a bold strategy for rebuilding our economy by demanding investments in infrastructure and education, working towards tax reform, and establishing a long-term energy plan, and setting new foreign policies that reshape our role in international affairs by reducing our military presence abroad.

A simple, yet bold movement forward needs to be the Obama campaigns strategy - not blatant attacks on the Romney camp.  Though it's true the hope and change rhetoric of '08 will not work, simple policy measures (similar to those he presented in 2008) will place Obama far above the GOP.

So, Mr. President, are you up to the challenge? Are certainly hope so, because President Romney is just something I don't think I could ever fit into my vocabulary.

EDUCATION RANT VLOG

Sometimes you just need to rant. Austin discusses student loan interest rates and the importance of education to society as a whole, and guest host Nathan Stewart gives a rant about the current state of education majors and the education field as a whole.

THE SIGNIFICANCE

As anyone who is tuned in knows by now, President Barack Obama announced earlier today he has

"concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married ... "

This has already sparked a firestorm among both supporters of marriage equality as well as endorsers of efforts like DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Leaving personal beliefs and preferences aside, I would like to briefly comment on Obama's remarks, the political ramification and significance of thus remarks, and what it means for the future of America's policies.

Here are my random, sporadic thoughts.

Everyone believed Obama supported marriage equality. Although candidate Obama did not endorse the measure in 2008, his administration's commitment to further gay rights and to the gay community has been unprecedented. His recent "coming out" doesn't really politically help him (it will rally some of the liberal base and further the support of the gay community - which he already had; however, that's about it). In fact, in many ways, it can potentially hurt him.

Conservative Democrats as well as moderate Independents who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage may drift away from the President (if it is in fact an important issue for them). Many believe the announcement could very well cost Obama North Carolina, Virginia, and possibly Ohio in the fall. It could rally the youth vote around him (the demographic polling on this issue shows major support for it among young voters), a base the President will have to carry in order to win.

It is a historic announcement for the fact that it is the first time a sitting president has endorsed marriage equality; however, as far as policy goes, it really isn't that significant. Obama did not state he would propose a constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage; in fact, he claimed the decision should be left up to the states. The exact same stance he had before today. All he was really clarifying was his personal views.

However, the shear fact that Obama made this announcement can pose significant. A national leader supporting this kind of measure can have an enormous effect on the progress of the movement - even if that leader does nothing more than raise support for it.

I personally think - regardless of where you stand - you have to give the President credit for speaking from conviction. Whether or not you agree with a person, you have to respect them for standing for what they believe in - even if it is politically damning or unpopular. The fact that Obama showed his support for marriage equality even though it could cost him some key electoral votes shows he is a man of integrity and leads from conviction - which are characteristics I think all Americans want their President to have.

So, is it significant? For the progress of gay rights - yes. For federal policy - no. Will Obama gain or lose support for is stance - difficult to say. Was it the right move - absolutely.

Glad we've had this talk.  Now we can return to the issues that will most likely face both candidates in the general election - like jobs, the economy, wealth disparity, and the national debt.

:)

THE VLOGOSPHERE :: ELECTION TALK

UNCONDITIONAL

If the economic recession of late has brought light to one thing, it has been the ever growing wealth disparity that exists in America.  As more and more slip into the decay of unemployment and poverty while the richest one percent of the world continues to benefit from the capitalistic endeavors they pursue - and while economic growth continues to dwindle even when the wealthy and fortunate make record profits, the reality that a fundamental flaw exists within our society becomes evident.

This flaw is not the product of failed public policies, entitlement programs, or tax codes (rather these political mechanisms are products of the flaw), but the result of a societal mindset that has evolved over the past century.  As a debate concerning the growing lower class begins to unfold, discussions involving welfare, taxes, healthcare coverage, and upper/middle classes' roll in helping poor are constant.

And, as we've seen time and again, those hoping to avoid a "welfare state" approach these discussions with the same conditions: those in need of assistance need only to pull themselves up from their bootstraps, work hard, and reject any assistance given.  To them (who generally hold themselves to the right of the political spectrum), giving to the poor is not taboo; however, it must be met with certain conditions. Many have no gripe with giving the church fundraisers, soup kitchens, or homeless shelters - which is noble in itself.  Yet when it comes to providing for the welfare of those simply less fortunate (the lower class), these "fiscally conservative" members of project America close their pocket books without a second thought.

The O'Reilys, Hannitys, and Romneys of the world believe that giving should be met with conditions - and if they believe you are capable of working or providing for yourself, they refuse to concern themselves with the payment of your living.

And here lies the flaw within American society.  For far too long, America has touted the idea of the individual, claiming that we need only care for the interests of ourselves and that, above all, our own personal well-being is to be looked after.  Rather than holding to the foundations of community that is the basis of a pluralistic society, Americans choose to make excuses for not sharing what they believe to be theirs.

The problem with the mindset of deciding who is and who isn't worthy of receiving our generosity boils down to the idea of empathy.  Without empathy, one can never truly recognize the needs of others.  Politicians and big-wigs can debate marriage equality, poverty and welfare, and healthcare coverage all they want; however, until they are forced to live without or face persecution, they will never understand who is worthy of what.

Perhaps that's what this economic doomsday is showing us. As more and more are forced to live with less, society's empathy towards one another is progressing - and the prospects of building an American community is becoming possible, allowing discussions of fairer taxes, expansion of healthcare coverage, and improvement to entitlements to begin.

But this switch to a society based on community will never truly unfold and these political changes will never come to fruition until those within the middle/upper class recognize the importance of empathy.

If the conditions and barriers to giving can change, there will no longer be a lower class in the country. If those with wealth can choose to love unconditionally, removing the qualifications associated with their giving, welfare will no longer be necessary, those needing a leg up will have it, and our economy will thrive - not through harsh business practices or forced government takeovers, but because of an idea of community - and societal belief that we're all in this together.

An unconditional way of living with others.  That is the key to solving the American crisis that exists today.

A MESSAGE TO ALL THE SANTORUMS OUT THERE

The recent revival of the culture war has pushed the conservative wing of the Republican Party even further to the right and has introduced a new effort to combine personal, religious beliefs with national, political policy.

Although the debates on contraception, gay marriage, and abortion are at the forefront of this new battle for America's soul, they aren't the main catalyst for this post; rather, the new syncretism of spiritual ideology and political message - or better put, the talking heads and politicians that drive this new orthodoxy of political buffoonery.

The current leader of this message is Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum.  Santorum is largely popular because of is rightwing social views and, more importantly, his mixing of personal convictions and public policy messages.  Santorum's catholic faith is his drive to lead a public life.  He has been intermixed in essentially every social debate of the past year, and has openly expressed his desire to mix faith into our country's governing system.

His faith, not faith in general. 

Santorum's methods are nothing new.  Anytime a politician driven by right wing, christian-social beliefs gallops into the limelight, they attempt to convey the skewed message that America is built on faith - and therefore our laws and policies should reflect that.  Although it is true that many of the white, middle-aged, straight men who built the foundations of America were religious in a certain sense, it is extremely problematic for Santorum to assume that their biblical interpretations were the same as his.

In fact, it's also extremely arrogant, and doesn't fit with the message of love, tolerance, and forgiveness - which is the way I interpret Christ's message.

And therein lies the problem with Santorum's push for faith and government.  Right-wing social activists love to push their biblical interpretations into public policy; however, they fail to realize that they are taking a big risk in assuming that their interpretations are completely accurate.  And if we are going to make national laws abiding by those interpretations, I would think we would want to ensure their authenticity.

The problem is we can't.

I have personal beliefs that would make many on the right convulse and foam at the mouth, and I recognize that those beliefs may very well be inaccurate - in fact, they probably are.  Because of this, although personal conviction will drive my reasoning for supporting many political efforts, my beliefs will never be the basis for national policy.

The Santorums of the world need to represent this mindset as well - not for me or for the betterment of the country, but for the sake of their own spiritual endeavors.  Keeping a humble perspective on your religious ideology is the only way faith can work.  Believing in it so strongly that you forcably push it down others' throats puts you in the position for evangelizing falsities - which I'm sure none of the Santorums of the world want to do.

So, to those that wish for the rest of the world to believe as they do, please remember this simple fact:

You may be wrong.

Do you wish to guide the largest country in the world if you are in fact wrong?  I would think not.

But then again, I could be wrong.

THIS WAR MUST END

By now I'm sure you've probably seen this video (it has been all over Facebook); however, if you haven't, please take 30 minutes to view it.

I know there is some discrepancy in the nonprofit world over the legitimacy of Invisible Children and their handling of funds; however, I do feel that this video sheds some light on an issue that has yet to be resolved, points out some major changes that need to come to America's foreign policy, and gives an excellent portrayal of the significance social media is playing on an international scale.

So, if this video hits you like it's impacting the rest of the digital world, I would encourage you to take part in its movement.  I certainly will be.

I understand the politics behind many nonprofits and the falsities behind the funding of said nonprofits - which is why I always focus on supporting a movement or cause and not an organization.  However, I also feel that as long a few cents of my contribution goes to fighting what I believe in, it's completely worth it.  I'd rather a small portion of my money go to helping people make a difference in the world than all of it going towards another app for my iPhone.  But that's just me.

This cause, to me, rings particularly true because, although it does involve the U.S.'s military to an extent, it does not promote a violent pursuit of the rebels, but a peaceful resolution through the international courts.  Therefore, it not only propagates the ideals of helping those in need, but also the belief in a non-violent resolution to help the world - a message that needs to be further expanded.

So take some time to watch the video, possibly give money, and gain a broader perspective on the world outside of the American bubble.

IMMERSIVE

Well, after revamping this blog just a few short months ago, I've already been slacking on the posting front.  I apologize for this.  My political focus as of late has been focused on elections ... a bit more local.

More on that at a later date.

As most probably know, I am taking a different approach to higher education this semester.  Along with a few business classes, I am jumping out of the typical college atmosphere and throwing myself into - what Ball State has termed - an "immersive learning" experience.

For this semester (and a following summer semester), I am working with a group of twelve students at the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library in downtown Indianapolis.  The overarching goal of this project is assemble and construct a new, long term marketing plan for the library as well as accomplish four major projects.  To complete these projects, the group has been divided into four teams.

The first three teams work relatively congruent to each other.  The first team, known as the "Archives Team", is collecting a variety of rare Vonnegut manuscripts, letters, etc. from various libraries and collections across the country.  They will be digitizing these archives after they are collection.

The next team, the film team, is doing - you guessed it - film editing and collecting. Their main mission is to find interviews of Vonnegut, film adaptations of Vonnegut works, etc. and assemble short video clips with the footage found.

Both the archival and film collections will be digitized and placed on a touch-screen TV as well as a 27-inch iMac in the Vonnegut library with an interface that will be designed by us as well.  These montages will also be placed on an iPad interface (also designed by our teams) to be used on a traveling Vonnegut exhibit, which is being envisioned by our "traveling exhibit team".  This exhibit will recreate Vonnegut's home study, display his works, and integrate iPad presentations to give prospective viewers a museum experience away from the library.

The final team (my team) is the products team.  Our main objectives are to create and produce new, innovative products for the library gift shop and boost e-commerce sales for the library by redesigning essential components of their website.  We are also working to restructure the layout of the physical gift shop within the library.

(the first t-shirt designed for the KVML, based on the Pamela Bliss's building size mural located in downtown Indianapolis)

Supplementing this project is six credit hours of class - an English class, where we are reading the majority of Vonnegut's works, and a marketing class, where we are developing the marketing plan for the library as well as studying national marketing trends.

So far, this has been an amazing experience.  Being thrown into a real world business scenario, in my opinion, provides me with an incredibly grounded educational experience.  I felt that,  rather than solely focusing on politics and social change, I would share some of my experiences with you throughout the duration of my college life.

Hope you enjoyed.

HOW HELPING AMERICA HURTS AMERICANS

This past Tuesday, President Obama delivered a surprisingly moderate, uneventful State of the Union address where he, like most expected, called for tax reform, a commitment to higher education, infrastructure investments, and a commitment to bringing jobs back to America.

For a while now, the new political trend of working to bring recently outsourced manufacturing jobs back to our shores and promotional tag lines like "buy American" have engulfed the economic debates.  To help boost American job levels, many (on both sides of the aisle) have made commitments to creating a climate that allows manufacturing to return, giving the starving middle class of this country another chance.  In his speech Tuesday, Obama added to this rhetoric, calling for new taxes on companies that ship jobs overseas.

But if true economic theory is taken into consideration, these calls for the rebirth of American manufacturing are detrimental to our economic health.  Like many know, manufacturing jobs have moved overseas because, among many things, labor is much cheaper in other parts of the world.  In the grand scheme of things, outsourcing and moving manufacturing to cheaper locations creates more competitive prices for the American consumer; if these jobs were to return to America, more people would be employed, however, prices would be a great deal higher.

The same goes with the whole 'buy American" concept.  Passing trade laws and taxes that "encourage" consumers to buy American rather than foreign products affects competition and therein forces the consumer to pay a higher price for goods.

If we really want to build a strong workforce in this country, we need to drop our love for manufacturing jobs.  Our economy is in a transition from a manufacturing economy to an information based economy (which is why manufacturing jobs have moved overseas). While most of our workforce is trained in manufacturing, these kinds of jobs are gone.  The only way to create pure growth is to innovate; mainly, move to the next economic step.

So how do we put a manufacturing based workforce back to work in a new information economy?  Promote and invest in education, allowing the workforce to learn skills in broadband internet, new energy technologies, and high speed rail. If the government really wanted to create jobs, they should be revamping our education program, invest in clean energy research and technology, and invest in new infrastructure.

Obama and the rest of the country need to get a grip on this.  It's time for our government to invest in the future, not live in the past.  

A REMINDER

In a time plagued by arguments of wealth and poverty, free markets and socialism, and greed and redistribution, let us take a moment to reflect on the happenings of the financial collapse.

Since the birth of "Reaganomics", the government has been deregulating the financial sector of our economy.  With this new power to reign free, Wall Street gave rise to large financial firms, also called investment banks.  These firms are not like commercial banks; rather than accepting deposits and distributing money, these investments banks concentrate on issuing securities to its customers (individuals, corporations, and governments).  Their main business is centered around issuing securities and insuring pension funds, hedge funds, etc.

Because they mainly focused on securities, financial firms handled the insurances behind most mortgage loans issued by commercial banks. When the deregulation faze was at its highest, many investment banks began to bundle these mortgage-backed securities to trade and sell to investors.  After this trading proved to bring an impressive return, financial firms began to encourage banks to issue more mortgage loans so more trading could take place.

So, banks began issuing risky home loans to just about anyone.  Rather than only granting mortgages to customers with good credit and a down payment, banks now allowed customers to take out mortgages to buy houses that were way out of their price range.  Because these loans were much more volatile, the financial firms and investors collected even higher profits from them, and the investment banks grew larger and larger.

There was no reason to suspect system to collapse; housing prices continued to go up; therefore, everyone would eventually be able to pay back their loan (or the bank could repossess the house at a higher value).  However, like we have all come to know, the housing bubble eventually busted, and the market plummeted.

Home owners across the country began to default on their loans, and banks began pull from the insurances set up in the investment banks.  This immediate and sudden pull of money caused the financial firms to embark on a downward spiral, and, to kick things off, Lehman Brothers (one of the main investment banks) collapsed, causing mass panic on Wall Street.  After more firms like AIG began showing signs of failure as well, everyone began to panic.

Because everything from home loans to pension funds is insured through these firms, their collapse would equal a global economic catastrophe.  The federal government knew this.  So, in an effort to prevent economic Armageddon, the government passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which provided a capital injection (aka free money) to investment banks to stop the bleeding and continue the flow of credit.

However, rather than using this capital injection to continue lending money, the investment banks used it to raise their management's salaries and issue historic bonuses to their employees.  Rather than punishing the people who single handling made the economy tank, banks gave them raises, and the country slipped into the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression.

People are confused as to why the Occupy Wall Street protesters are so pissed at corporate banks.  Let this be a reminder.

THE NEW OBAMA

A few hours ago, President Obama asked Congress for the powers necessary to restructure the executive branch of the government.  These powers, according to Obama, would be used to create a leaner, more effective government for small businesses to work with.

By streamlining many government hurdles through combining and eliminating many government entities, the processes by which businesses in this country work under would become less burdensome and more effective in combating the recession.  On top of this request for power, Obama announced the Small Business Administration would be promoted to a cabinet level position, ensuring the voices of small business owners would be heard.

This is just the most recent of the President's attempts to woo businesses in this country - and it's working.  For the past month, Obama has focused his efforts on the economy, jobs, and creating a safer, consumer-friendly environment for businesses to participate in.  With a renewed commitment to the Consumer Protection Agency,  the passage of the payroll tax holiday, future cuts to the defense budget, and a call for "leaner" government through merging agencies, Obama is positioning himself as a new kind of liberal in an effort to gain popularity in an election season.

Obama's new policies aren't all expanding or shrinking government; they are creating a smarter, more effective government that will help drive the economy in the 21st century.  With all of the hoopla on the right involving his massive expansion of government, Obama is showing his true colors: he is not committed to a larger government or less freedom, but to creating a government and economic system that is fair, productive, and ready to combat the future.

I have personally been impressed with the President's performance in the new year.  With the GOP preaching about extreme measures that would radically impact the way this country operates, Obama is providing common sense solutions that will have huge implications.

This much is clear.  After spending the majority of his first term in healthcare battles and continual staff debacles, Obama is finally regaining his mojo, focusing on what needs to be the top priority for this country: creating a 21st century government model for a 21st century economy.

A VLOG OF EPIC PROPORTIONS

This vlog was produced directly following the results of the New Hampshire Primary this week.  It features opinions regarding the final polling numbers, and the GOP race overall.

FYI: all vlogs will be posted on The Vlogosphere, which is located above this page on the navabar.  The page should be updated frequently, so be sure to check it out if you wish to see my pretty face.

PACIFISM, NOT ISOLATIONISM

In a time of massive federal deficits and economic collapses, America's fiscal future rides of the brink of Armageddon.  Yet the unsoundness of the country's current economic state pales in comparison to the degradation of its moral standing in the world.

After a spending almost a half a century lusting for war, America is at a pivotal point in its foreign policy.  Standing in the face of terror enemies, Arab springs, and new growing superpowers, we must evaluate our strategy moving forward on a global scale.  In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has laid the groundwork for this evaluation with the announcement to draw down military levels across the board through significant cuts to the defense budget.

The economic and fiscal impacts of this measure are profound: almost half a trillion dollars will be removed from defense spending - a bloated budget that accounts for one-fourth of this country's overall spending - in an effort to scale down our ever-growing national budget deficit.

Yet the moral implications of the draw-down are even more significant.  Ending the ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan provide a benchmark in American history; one that ends the policies of "nation building" and aggressive defense.  Since the days of Vietnam and the beginnings of the Cold War, America violently pursued a mission committed to conquering in the name of capitalism and killing for the sake America's best interests, creating negative connotations towards democracy that led to the formation of modern day terrorism and religious extremism.

Libertarian leaders like Ron Paul realized the encumbering importance of scaling back our military efforts; however, they have missed the mark in many respects.  The true, conservative approach to foreign matters (as proclaimed by Ron Paul) is isolationism, a belief that America should only focus on herself and not mettle in global matters.  This, although providing a simple answer to our fiscal dilemmas, does not conquer the moral imperative that exists.

We are a blessed nation, and, as of right now, we exist at the top of the world's powers.  Our moral obligation does not stop at resisting the temptations of war.  With our abundant wealth and overwhelming power, we have the duty to promote peace throughout the world.  Rather than completely turning our backs on the rest of humanity, it is our time to set a new course in America's foreign policy.

With an emphasis on economic growth and equality, human rights, and religious freedom, America must continue its commitment to spreading democracy, not through military means, but through the measures of foreign aid, economic sanctions, and social business.

Pacifism, not isolationism, should be our future.  A desire to see a world without war, without poverty, and with abundant equality and freedom can be the new doctrine leading into the next generation.  And, like so many times in the past, America can be the head of this movement, leading through example.

My hopes are that Obama's small, simple effort to reevaluate America's military can be the right catalyst to spark this flicker of hope into a roaring fire.

Only time will tell.

EVERYONE'S A TERRORIST NOW

If your holidays consisted of caucus results, Congressional recesses, and secret legislation viewing, then this post will most likely not surprise you in the least bit.  However, if your news proficiency was lacking over the past few weeks, don't you worry, Uncle Austin is here to fill you in.

In recent weeks, Congress passed the Defense Authorization Bill, continuing the efforts to fight terrorism on a global scale with tactics including enhanced interrogation and the elimination of Habeas Corpus for suspected terrorists.  We've seen bills like this before: efforts to combat our enemies that completely violate the dignity of "suspected" criminals and tarnish our reputation of standing for equality and freedom.

But the neo cons needed more to fulfill the lust for their ultra-heavy militaristic addictions.  To really give the terrorists a kick in the crotch, they added that these measures can be applied to anyone; however, instead of knocking the gonads of terrorists, they missed their mark and racked the American people.

Now, according to this new bill, the military will gain the right to detain any U.S. citizen without the proper warrants if that person is suspected of being a national security threat.  Ergo, if Grandma spews hateful jabber about elected officials at the supermarket, it's off to Gitmo for her.

But wait, the hero of this story, Barack Obama, will save Grandma, won't he?  Actually not.  Obama signed this bill into law, stating that he did not support the bill and will not use it's power.  The problem: even if Obama doesn't use his new authority, the next president probably will.

This new source of power for the Commander and Chief and the military is easily one of the greatest violations of the Bill of Rights in recent history.  Now, our protection against the powers that be in this country are no longer guaranteed. Like so many measures before, the government is using this defense bill to slowly strip away our God given dignities in an effort to combat an unspecified, undefined enemy.

Yet even with its evident problems, this bill highlights a larger issue that is at hand in our government and in our society.

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  When Ben Franklin uttered those words, it was as if he knew our country would seek to limit the rights given to its citizens in the means of "protection" and "security".

Ever since its creation, America has always needed an enemy to face.  First, it was the British.  Then, the Germans followed swiftly by the Japanese.  The Soviets, Communists, and Chinese followed, and now, it's Muslims and "religious extremists".  The problem with our enemies now is the same one we've faced in the past: they are generally not as bad as we make them out to be.

Locking Japanese citizens up in internment camps and arresting communists simply because of their political beliefs, at the time, seemed necessary to protect the country as a whole.  But as we face this country's next great rights battle, a battle I suspect will be used to lock up Muslims and supporters of Islam, we must stop to address what drives this need to always be fighting a villain.

The catalyst: fear.  Fear drives our foreign policy and causes us to act irrationally.  9/11 angered this country and drove us to find a new enemy, even if that enemy was unjustly accused.  Because of the actions of a few select people, we have demonized an entire sub-sect of the global population to feed our ever-growing fear.

So, instead of attacking this bill because of its contents (which should be done), perhaps we should instead look at the reasons for the passing of such bills, and look to solve that reasoning.

We face major security problems in this country, but the only way they can be solved is through negotiation, understanding, and a willingness to admit that America isn't the center of the world.