Obama: How Do They Justify This Outrage?

Dominating the news cycle this weekend was news that AIG had issued over $160 million in bonuses to its executives. What's the big deal? Well, the American taxpayers own 80% of AIG. (Image: Huffington Post) So it seems the American people are generally angry over this news. In fact, CNN recently ran a (censored) shock-profanity headline to represent the American people's sentiment on the bonuses.

Well, let's go over the reason people are annoyed:

• AIG invested in risky assets seeking a high return
• These practices contributed to everyone's market losses
• Taxpayers are keeping AIG afloat
• AIG is spending on vacation retreats and bonuses for execs

I guess I can see why people might find this more than a bit annoying. What can be done about it? Well, it seems not much. Some pundits have discussed attacking the bonuses by way of IRS-headed taxation to retrieve the funds or flat-out lawsuits, but none of the options seem to offer an easy, cheap solution.

AIG claims that it had no option but to pay the bonuses because it was contractually obligated to do so. Generally speaking, most people don't seem to care that it could have cost more to the taxpayer if AIG had to fight lawsuits from executives, if they didn't pay those bonuses. I understand the frustration, and I don't want to defend the mess that is AIG, but there is some reason behind their defense.

The mainstream media seems to care less about this and more about calling for AIG executives to be fired. I find it quite silly overall because, if I was one of those executives at AIG, I would know that I shouldn't take that bonus. No one working as an executive at AIG or any other major company needs a big pay-day right now. They're not the ones suffering in the recession.

Obama was willing to join the pile-on during a press-event today. At least he made it official that the government is on the case.
Read more...

And the winner is...

This week I was given the responsibility of passing along the MIT 2412 Best Blogging Week Award. I really watched the blogs closely and came to a conclusion that I believe answers the call of the Best Blogging Week. To me, the award is asking for the blog that put forward a great effort this week, but I believe the history of the blog factors in. When nominating three blogs on Friday, I made my decisions based on some strong weeks along with some good history. This week my selection really stood out, but it also has a really strong history...

I have decided to pass along the MIT 2412 Best Blogging Week Award to Single Betty. This blog has a really unique style that is great and expressive of Danielle's (the blogger behind the site) opinions and feelings. Through various font sizes, styles, and colours alongside many images, there's something really unique about the style that communicates more than just plain text.

Single Betty had a great week -- some posts really stood out in my news feed. The blog has a really solid concept and has been good throughout the entire term. I hope that you all agree with this pick and hope Single Betty can keep this blogging award rolling. For a recap of the rules, and to get the images, check out the post on Chef Nick's Flavour Fiasco that started it all.
Read more...

Cheney's Campaign for Torture Continues

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney appeared this morning on CNN's Sunday talk show, State of the Union with John King. Although he admittedly "doesn't follow the news as much as [he] once did" Cheney was quick to use some old tactics. (Image: CNN) During his interview with John King, the former Vice President insisted that President Barack Obama is putting the United States at risk of Terror attack. How? By not using "alternative" interrogation techniques...

In case that isn't a strikingly obvious statement -- maybe CNN and myself are making too many assumptions -- Cheney is advocating the use of torture (again). He also used the interview to dodge blame for financial instability, talk a bit of sense about regulation (in total opposition to what his administration did), and continue to argue Obama is creating big government.

Before moving on, I just want to say I would love to respond to every lie and misconception Cheney says during the over 30 minute interview, but I would have to write 2-4 sentence for every sentence he said. So I'm going to focus on, perhaps, his most controversial claim. Here's a YouTube clip in which he discusses torture (tune to about 1:20 in the video):



John King outlines the issue at hand by listing these steps Obama took to limit the use of torture by the government:

• Close Guantanamo Bay
• Close CIA torture "Black Sites"
• Make CIA follow the U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogation
• Ban Waterboarding by defining it as torture
• End Secret "Military Commission" trials (that follow no laws)
• Eliminate the "enemy combatant" label

By taking these steps, Cheney believes that terrorism will rise once again to threaten the United States. Personally, I can't see how treating people humanely by following some not-so-strict regulations is asking too much. Flying prisoners around to "Black Sites" (with no records kept) is not a good example of the values of democracy. I won't say that we should let suspected terrorists who may know something walk away, because that's crazy. What I will say is that the self-proclaimed leader of the free world needs to find a better way.

Here are the other segments of the interview:
Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 (Above) - Part 5

In closing, during this interview Cheney admitted love for Rush Limbaugh (see clip 5). I guess we know who he's endorsing to lead the Republican Party.
Read more...

Palin Annoyed With Facts

Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, dispatched her top communication aide to confront ABC News over their factual reporting. What did they report that had Governor Palin feeling "injured" -- as her communication director insisted? (Image: Huffington Post) Well, as I explained in my recent post on the top 5 earmarkers, the earmark debacle is not a purely Democratic or Republican problem. Palin is among the many Republicans who seek earmarks; ABC's report on her earmarking ways left her very concerned.

It's really something how aggressively ABC's Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper was in responding to the concerns of Palin's camp. In his article, Tapper chronicles his communication with the Governor of Alaska's director of communication, Bill McAllister. Tapper's blog-style entry discusses the defense offered by the Palin camp, claiming that the Governor had reduced earmarks between 2008 and 2009 from $256 million to $197 million.

Tapper spares no chance to take jabs at Palin throughout the post, making fun of many of her comments on the campaign trail. He claims that regardless of her supposed fisca conservatism l -- since she's reduced earmarks -- she is not. The fact that she takes any, Tapper insists, opposed to Senator McCain who requests none, makes it clear that she is hardly a real fiscal conservative.

The push-back from a media outlet is nice to see. Check out the entry and let me know what you think.
Read more...

MIT 2412 Best Blogging Week Award (Week 2)

Sorry for being a bit late posting this, I was a bit under the weather today -- though that expression doesn't work with such clear skies. I've been scouring the news feeds this week to pick out three blogs to nominate for this unique distinction. I must say, there really are a lot of great blogs coming out of this class. Over the past few weeks I've only been able to follow so many of them consistently, but looking at them all this week has been amazing. Without further ado, here are the nominees....

• Learning It All
• The Post Script
• Single Betty

So why have I selected these three? Learning It All really delivers consistently high-caliber observations and tips with a sense of humour that I can appreciate. It's hard not to find the stories interesting, though I may be a bit biased (as I am a technology writer, as well).

The Post Script has had a quiet week, but the posts have been really interesting. I have really liked the blog over the past few weeks and hopefully by the end of the weekend there will be some more content to give it a boost.

The last nominee, Single Betty, may seem a bit out of place given my other two selections, but I couldn't overlook its entertainment value. Single Betty has been a highlight of the week, especially the post on Will Smith's outlook on relationships and the discussion it sparked.

So, what do you all think?
Read more...

RNC Chairman On Thin Ice

Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican party, has done it again. Steele made headlines today by seemingly breaking message with his party on the controversial issue of abortion. (Image: CNN) The comments in question were made to GQ magazine, during a relatively run-of-the-mill interview. The Republican party describes itself as a "Pro-Life" party, meaning that they support a ban on abortions. So what did Steele say?

Here's the transcript from the interview via Politico:

GQ: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Steele: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
GQ: You do?
Steele: Yeah. Absolutely.

Soon after the story broke that seems to blatantly break from the party line, Steele was quick to eat his words and guarantee his party that he is Pro-Life. He claims he simply meant that it is a choice available to women now -- not that he supports it. I find that almost too crazy to be a lie, but this is the Republican party.

Unfortunately for Steele, he's losing the support of his party as quickly as he's issuing corrections after interviews. Former Republican Presidential Contender Mike Huckabee was among ranking Republicans calling for Steele to step down. This comes under a week since Limbaugh and Steele had a minor spat over another interview by the RNC Chairman.

The leader -- if you consider him to be -- of the Republican party may be on his way out soon. The bad thing about this is that as crazy as Steele has been, at least he wasn't party of the Old Man's Club. We might see the GOP follow Rush's call for another Angry-White-Man movement and nominate someone like Mitt Romney. What could be worse?
Read more...

Accessible Politics: Canada Edition

Alright, so let's get down to business. How does the Canadian Political system work? Who are the key figures? What are the main roles? Who really holds the power? (Image: Wikipedia) All of these questions have decent answers and I'll address them one by one. I should be clear from the start that the Canadian system has very little in common with the American system. Tomorrow I'll try my best to explain the American system, but it's far more complicated.

How does the Canadian Political System work? (Who holds the power?)

Canada has a very simple system because of how Parliament works. Unlike in America, we don't vote a person for Prime Minister. When we vote on election day, we vote for a member of parliament affiliated with a specific party. The party that wins the most members of parliament seats or the coalition that wins the most seats becomes the government. The leader of this party or group of parties is named Prime Minister. A government can survive if the Prime Minister steps down, but often an election is called in order to avoid angering the public.

Members of Parliament we vote for are part of the House of Commons. This group writes most legislation and has unopposed power, typically speaking. Their opposition could come from the Senate, which consists of individuals appointed for an unrestricted term by Prime Ministers. Though they have power to oppose, they tend to support the will of the House, acting in the same figurative role as the royal representative (the Governor General).

There are some more complex things, especially related to the royal involvement, but we won't get into that.

Who are the key figures?

• Stephen Harper - The current Prime Minister who had been leader of the opposition during the last Liberal government. His government currently has a minority of House seats, which means that it can be dissolved if the rest of the house votes to do so. Harper has yet to win a majority.
• Michael Ignatieff - The leader of the Liberal party (the official opposition party due to having won the second most votes). Ignatieff is relatively new to political life, as he spent many years teaching at universities such as Harvard and writing in the media. Ignatieff has avoided talk of a coalition government as he wants to rebuild the Liberal party without the NDP
• Jack Layton - Has been leader of the NDP for several election cycles. The party initially got a large boost under his leadership, but has since been in a slow decline. Layton was a proponent of a coalition government, but has yet been unable to convince Ignatieff.

There are of other figures, but these are the main power-players. Several historical figures that you should research if you are interested in this topic are: Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chrétien. All are relatively recent, but they are among the biggest names on the list of Canadian Prime Ministers.

What are the main roles?

• Prime Minister - Unlike the American President, the Prime Minister is elected as a member of parliament. The Prime Minister has theoretically more power than the President as Prime Ministers can order their party to vote as a group in one specific way.
• Leader of the Opposition - In a minority government, this role is very important as they usually hold all the swing-power needed to block legislation or vote non-confidence in the government (thus dissolving it). The leader of the opposition can also consolidate the other opposition parties in a minority government to form a majority government coalition.
• The Governor General - is the figurative head of state, representing the monarch of England. She holds authority over the formation of coalitions, the formation and dissolving of a government, among other things. Generally, the Governor General follows the direction of the Prime Minister, but theoretically is not bound by those recommendations.

There are many other key roles, including those of cabinet members, but we won't get into that detail. If you would like more information on the details of the Canadian government I would recommend using Wikipedia's article on the Government of Canada.
Read more...