Civil rights leader, Gary Locke, is asking the government to better count the African-American population in the United States during next year's census. It is an understandable arguement since reapportionment and redistricting are based on the count. However, from what I could wean from this article, it sounds like an issue the government does not have much of a hand in. According to some lady, "many of those communities show a "general distrust of government" that has hindered participation." I believe Locke just needs to work on letting the African-American communities aware that it would benefit them to participate.

Ah American justice. I guess there wasn't much a person could do thirty years ago when DNA was not used in a trails for evidence. A man who has been in jail for thirty five years should be getting out of his life sentence in the next couple months. He was imprisoned for kidnapping and raping a young boy. The evidence against him? The boy choosing that particular man's picture out of four others. Didn't matter it was night when this occurred or that the man's sisters insisted she was watching tv with him at home during the time of the attack. It would be interesting to know the specifics of the trial. Innocent people do go to jail, it happens. But this was a nineteen year old and he was sentenced for life! When courts began to allow cases to be reopened for DNA evidence, this man, now over 50 years old, was refused four times. Lady Justice really is blind.

Innocent Project

Happy Holidays from Citi! They are going to halt foreclosures for a month so people can "spend their time with their families during the holidays as opposed to worrying about their homes." It's a nice gesture. Too bad it'll end as of January 17. For those in the process of being evicted, I'm not sure this will help the families celebrate the holidays with any more cheer. If I were one of them, I would probably spend the month worrying about what I would do when my free time was up. It is hard to live in the moment with something like that over your head. But again, it's a very nice gesture.

In another one of my posts I talked about the corruption in Afganistan. I think. Or else I just talked about that in a extemp speech. Either way, I just read an article about the continued corruption in the region. Some Mr. Galbraith decided it was necessary to go around and discuss a plan about removing the Afgan president, Mr. Karzai, from office. This occurred after the recent attempt at an election which was deemed corrupt or something and a run-off election was scheduled. Unfortunately the man running against Mr. Karzai dropped out. Because of the corruption. Huh. But I agree with all those who were outraged by Galbraith's plan. The United States has to right to make those sorts of changes in a foreign country. Just look what happened when we basically put Saddam Hussein in power.

Info
Other plans?

Go team!

The international climate summit in Copenhagen goes from December 7 through the 18th. Instead of going this week, President Obama will be present on December 18th, the final day of the conference. According to some MIT professor this is good because "The closer to the end of it that he attends, the more he's connected to whatever the outcome is." It's a political move. By being present at the time of the agreement it will somehow make it look like Obama had a role in this crucial outcome. Kind of like someone showing up at the Second Continental Congress in time to sign the Declaration of Independence and taking credit for the document. But hey, at least we seem to be making headway. India and China are going to slow down the amount of increasing emissions they are emitting into the atmosphere. That's right, they are going to continue increasing emissions, just at a lower rate. Wow. Go team! But hey, the US is actually going to lower emissions 17% so we get a few brownie points. That's only if we ignore the fact that scientists say we need to lower emissions by 25% to 50% "prevent the Earth from warming 2 degrees Centigrade (3.6F), the maximum to reduce the worst risks." Aren't we supposed to aim high rather than low?

Gordon Brown
Headway, yay!

Kind of Like Running on a Track

A bit of light reading!

I think it is interesting that President Obama only met with a group of Democrats to "rally support for a sweeping health care bill undergoing a heated debate in the chamber." It is true if all 60 Democrats choose to support the bill it can overcome a filibuster. However, there are two issues that come to mind. First and foremost, not all the Democrats support all parts of the bill. No Republicans support it. Put two and two together. This means the bill cannot pass. It's nice that Obama is trying to get all the Democrats to support the bill, however, what about the Republicans? Wasn't this presidency supposed to be about bipartisanship? (this is me going on to the second issue with a subtle transition that I thought might be confusing and merit a paranthesis thing like this) Not going to happen if the Republicans are "excluded" so to speak. The group Reid put together is all Democrats. True, having Repulicans present would increase the number of issues that would have to be put to the floor for compromise, but we have to remember the US is made up of Democrats and Republicans. Blah blah blah blah blah. Basically it seems pretty hopeless to me. Because no one wants to agree. And the views are contradictory of each other. The end.

TAXES! AHHHH!!
Link #2