News Today

I personally feel the same way Ron Paul does about the “war on terror.” When you look up the definition for terrorism you’ll find this:

Terrorism - Noun - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t fight a war against a tactic. Is there really an end to the war on terror? The threat of someone using a tactic never really goes away if you think about it. But I digress…

One of the things I was especially interested in with the new administration was how exactly President Barack Obama planned on handling the war on terror. So far it has started with a name change.

Only once since his inauguration has President Obama used the phrase “war on terror,” speaking to state department officials on January 22nd. This is not to say that the goals for the United States have changed dramatically. Obama is still steadily committed towards eliminating radical groups that wish to do harm to the United States, such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Still, the dropping of the name “war on terror” is a smart one for many reasons.

The phrase “war on terror” is, and likely will always be, associated with former President George W. Bush. In the Arab world, that association takes on a different meaning.

“[The “war on terror”] became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

The last thing President Obama wants is for the Muslim world to associate him with his predecessor. He has gone to great lengths already to extend an open hand out to the Muslim culture. He mentioned the religion, along with many others, in his inaugural address - a move which has brought criticism from some. His first televised interview as president was with an Arab network. President Obama has also already sent George Mitchell, head of the new United States envoy to the Middle East, to Israel to help hammer out a long-term cease-fire for the embattled Gaza region.

“One of the contrasts between the two administrations is the care with which Obama uses language. He thinks about the subtle implications,” said Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric. The Bush administration “didn’t set out deliberately to do things that were offensive but they liked to do things that showed how strong they were, and to use language almost in an aggressive sense.”

Not convinced of change yet? We never would have heard this out of Bush. Not in a million years.

Sorry to cut this short guys but my town, and all of the surrounding towns around me, are currently out of power due to an ice storm. So I’m going to try to be on here as much as I can - but some things are out of my hands. Have a good one today.com.

Hahaha. This guy is my hero.

Look I’m all for giving this guy a fair trial - but what does he expect when he’s parading around national television WHILE THE TRIAL IS GOING ON???

Today Agent Daniel Cain testified at Blago’s impeachment trial and told state senators that they payed special attention to making sure it was Blagojevich’s voice when they eavesdropped on conversations.

Cain testified under oath Tuesday that the quotes released when Blagojevich was arrested were actually what the governor said. Among the quotes are Blagojevich saying President Barack Obama’s senate seat was “valuable” and wouldn’t be “given away for nothing.”

House prosecutor David Ellis walked Cain step by step through each quote filed as part of the criminal charges against Blagojevich, with Cain confirming that each quote was correct.

I don’t care what anybody says. Let’s play a little game. Which of the following doesn’t match.

A. Pearl Harbor
B. Nelson Mandela
C. Ghandi
D. Blago.

My vote goes for D. Which in this case, stands for delusional.

Good morning today.com. Caught this last night on the tube before I passed out, thought I’d share it with you guys.

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(’http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}

And part two.

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(’http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}

Enjoy!

“Hypocrite,” a “killer of innocents” - No these aren’t disgruntled McCain supporters - these are the words coming out of the head honchos of the group that claimed responsibility for the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

-insert Blago-joke here-

“He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection,” an al-Qaeda spokesman declared over the internet this month.

Yes apparently the Gaza situation is Obama’s fault - nevermind the fact that the attacks began before he was in office, or the fact that the ceasefires began when Obama was in office (which I highly doubt is a coincidence).

“The leadership of al-Qaeda is very concerned about the wide support that Obama has been receiving from Arab and Muslim countries,” said Rita Katz, who runs an arab-translating website. “To combat this threat, al-Qaeda has embarked on a propaganda campaign against Obama, not only by linking him to the policies of the Bush administration, including the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, but also by accusing him of actions in which he had no part.”

Sounds like the actions of a desperate group no?

Courtesy of the St. Petersburg Times - President Barack Obama made numerous campaign promises this election season, from capital gains and dividends taxes to creating a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, even a vow to establish a credit card bill of rights. With so many campaign promises to remember - how do we know if our new president is keeping his word or not?

And so I present to you, the Obameter.

The good folks over at PolitiFact have compiled a list of over 500 campaign promises made by our president. There are six categories for each promise - Promise Kept, Compromise, Promise Broken, Stalled, In the Works, and No Action. So how’s Barry shaping out so far?

Promises Kept (5): Direct military leaders to end war in Iraq; Release presidential records; Require new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political affiliation or contributions; Ban lobbyist gifts to executive employees; and appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet.

Compromise (1): Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials.

Broken Promise (0): None yet :)

Stalled (1): Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs.

In the Works (14): Get his daughters a puppy; Modernize the nation’s electricity grid and use “smart grid” practices; Extend unemployment insurance benefits and temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits; Weatherize 1 million homes per year; Create White House performance team and chief performance officer; Double federal funding for basic science research over 10 years; Expand broadband’s reach; Encourage community service through online outreach and social networking; Develop an alternative to President Bush’s Military Commissions Act on handling detainees; Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center; Invest in electronic health information systems; Expand eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP); Create a tax credit of $500 for workers; Change standards for determining broadband access.

There are some 488 promises that have yet to be evaluated. It will be interesting to see how many of these promises Obama is able to live up to.

Editors Note: While listening to NPR today I found out that the Obama family has selected its dogs - chalk another promise fulfilled!

You’ve probably heard a lot of conservative complaints about the Obama administration and his plans economically. That was to be expected I suppose. Over the last couple days though I personally have noted a change for the better.

Obama has been staging meetings both today and yesterday - with more planned for next week as well - to go over exactly how the large stimulus package will be doled out to the American people.

House leaders on both sides are working with Obama to revise the package, and Obama is showing that he is willing to work with both sides to work out a deal for our people.

Huh. Our politicians working together to make our lives better. What a novel idea! Why didn’t we think about this before?

So far there has been mixed opposition on both sides to Obama’s proposal - but the recently re-sworn in President is showing a willingness to work with the collective minds of our legislature to make sure we’re doing all we can to fix this situation.

Part of the Republican proposals include more tax cuts - and in a bizarro-world turn of events, it’s also part of the Democrats proposal. The new proposal being put forth by House Democrats includes an increase in tax cuts that would make up over half of the bill (they currently make up about 40% of it).

Part of these tax cuts are already being pushed through and protected. $275 billion in tax cuts cleared the House Ways and Means Committee earlier today.

The tax cuts that won committee approval included a $500 credit for workers making up to $75,000 per year. Couples with incomes up to $150,000 a year would receive a $1,000 credit. Individuals with incomes up to $100,000 and couples earning up to $200,000 would qualify for lesser tax breaks.

While the breaks aren’t exactly what the Republicans were fighting for - it is a break from Democratic “tax and spend” ideas - and it does show inclusion of conservative ideals to get us out of this crisis. Now that’s change you can see.

President Obama meets with Congressional leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. From left are House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Photo by AP.

That’s how I’m beginning to look at this Blagojevich deal. Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up.

Earlier this week in an interview with the Associated Press the embattled Illinois governor compared his struggles to the struggle Americans had in Pearl Harbor. I know. The guy is delusional!

“Dec. 9 to my family, to us, to me, is what Pearl Harbor Day was to the United States,” Gov. Rod Blagojevich told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday. “It was a complete surprise, completely unexpected. And just like the United States prevailed in that, we’ll prevail in this.”

The governor added that he would fight these allegations until the end. I certainly hope he does. This is the story that never quits.

So I have to give a big thanks here to Harjot Singh who runs Anti-Terrorism here at today.com - Harry went above and beyond the call of duty with my survey I gave for him. He went out and performed it as an interview with multiple other random Indians to get a more well-rounded perspective on India and the United States. Once again Harry, a huge thank you.

As always, interview questions in bold, answers are not.

. . .

President Bush’s controversial stances in foreign policy have left a lot of foreigners with a bad impression of the United States. What is your perception of the United States now? Does the United States deserve the bad reputation that it has right now?

Person One: It really doesn’t matters to me.

Person Two: My Opinion is US Government has 2 faces. One is in which they behave like a Defensive warrior for every Country, very helpful. Another side is funding a person like Osama Bin Laden against the fight of Afghanistan Govt, wo that US can control the democracy of Afghanistan. Now when Osama can came against United States than they start battle against him.

Person Three: Like my friend said (number two) I totally agree with him & I think most of time US is not reliable.

Person 4: Hey its not fair I don’t think US deserve bad reputation at all they have developed economy & doing so many new discoveries for the benefit of whole world and also are supportive to every country who faces any kind of natural disaster’s.

Do you think the election of Barack Obama was a good or bad thing for the United States.
Why?

Person one: I think Barack Obama is really a good change not just for the United states but for the whole world because he is a people man and he has the ability to understand the problems very well of a common American & can take proper action according to needs.

Person two: According to my view he is a fighter & after Abraham Lincoln it’s a another revolution which changes the reputation of United states because this person is not in favor of war - unlike George Bush

Person three: I like him only because he will respect Indian Traditions and Indians Intelligence like he selected some of Indians 4 their team.

Person four: I don’t know. I m not sure about Mr.Obama because everytime a US presidents comes into existence they behave like earlier ones. I have a doubt on the creditibility of Barack Obama.

Person 5: It really a great news as I think that the color of your skin is not a test of any personal skills or intelligence or reliability.

. . .

Overall I think the results are fairly close to  how most Americans feel about Barack Obama. Sure none of us are fully confident of the guy - I mean he is a politician right? Yet overall there is a reassured feeling of optimism that our country has not had for a long time now with Bush in office.