10 sheiks kidnapped in Baghdad

More bad news from Iraq:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071029/D8SIKJJO0.html

This looks especially bad after a U.S. commander said the threat from Al-Qaida has been "significantly reduced".

I really don't see how we can permanently solve the problems in Iraq. It seems that we only hear more and more bad news about the occupation of Iraq. I hope this situation can be resolved.

Why is Gambling Illegal?

I think gambling should be legal, and personally I don't think there is anything wrong with gambling in general.

I strongly disagree with laws like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UIGEA) that was passed about a year ago. It prohibits online gambling and made many online casinos refuse to take US customers. If people want to gamble in their own homes over the internet, they should be able to. I believe this act restricts people's freedom.

Illegal gambling is quite common and it is very difficult to enforce gambling's illegality.

Overall I think people should be able to gamble if they find it enjoyable.

Obama sponsers concerts with anti-gay singer Donnie McClurkin

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/27/obama.gospel/index.html

I think this issue could harm Obama in the Democratic primaries. Even though he issued a statement saying he disagrees with McClurkin (who thinks that homosexuality is a choice), some people may turn against him because he was involved with McClurkin at all. The article specifically states that John Aravosis, a prominent gay blogger, said that Obama was "sucking up to anti-gay bigots."

I really doubt that Obama can win the Democratic Primary, much less the presidency. Too many people dislike his "lack of experience" and issues like this one with McClurkin can only hurt him

Illegal Use of Campaign Money?

It is surprising how this current topic directly relates to what we were learning in class this week. Remember Idaho Senator Larry Craig, the guy who got busted during a sex sting in an airport (yes him AGAIN). Well this time, it is reported he spent $23,000 of his campaign money to pay lawyers to help him in court for the ethics investigation. If you were one of the individuals who donated money to him to help his election, would you be angered by this? Even though it is not directly affecting his campaign, doesn't using money to prove his innocence indirectly help his campaign? (Does that justify it?) FYI "Campaign finance laws generally ban using such funds on items not directly related to one's official duties as an officeholder or candidate". Post your thoughts!
More information at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/26/craig/index.html

Genarlow Wilson Finally Released

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/26/wilson.freed/index.html

Wilson's story is briefly recounted in this article. A more complete and detailed account is here http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

Basically, when he was 17 Wilson had consentual oral sex with a fifteen year old white girl and was sentenced to 10 years minimum in prison because of an archaic law in Georgia. Wilson had rejected a plea bargain of 5 years and registration as a sex offender. He lost in court and was put in prison.

Shortly after, Georgia changed the archaic law but inexplicably did not free Wilson from prison, specifically wording the law so that it would not be retroactive. In Georgia, the prosecutor has the power to basically pardon the criminal, but Wilson's prosecutor refused to do so.

When I first read this story on espn I was shocked. I can't even undertand how he went to prison with a ten year sentance in the first place, and then afterwords they changed the law and still wouldn't let him out. And the prosecutor repeatedly refused to let him go. I can't imagine how he must have felt.

Now, two years later, he has finally been released.

I have to think there was racism involved in this case. That so many people could have ruled against him or fought against him is really ridiculous. I personally don't think he did anything wrong, but even if one believes that he did, the punishment was still horribly out of proportion to the "crime".

The Heat Is On: SoCal Wildfires

One of the most televised subjects these days happen to be in our home state. I am talking about the widespread wildfires taking place down in Southern California. As the fires still blaze and thousands of acres of land are being destroyed, I can say I am proud of how our State and National government is handling the evacuations and sending the plenty of resources to deal with the fires in a timely manner. It is good to hear the Federal government has sent "12 Defense Department firefighting teams,... and more than 17,000 National Guardsmen are potentially available if needed" according to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, Paul Mchale. (Read more at http://www.newsweek.com/id/61533/page/1 ) California has shown its ability to handle times of crisis having effectively evacuated 800,000 California residents, with only seven deaths. As we well know, nobody (especially the Bush Administration) wants to see a repeat of a Hurricane Katrina crisis and luckily this situation has yet to escalate to that level yet. It is nice to see the government has learned their lesson and now try to act accordingly to deal with disaster. Do you believe these disasters should be solely state issues or should the national government intervene? (and to what extent).

BTW: Clever title is attributed to Mike Kuo

Eliminating Income Tax

One interesting proposal I recently heard is the elimination of income tax. Many people feel that the system of income tax, especially the idea of graduated income tax and tax brackets, is unfair. They say that it's unfair that the more affluent people pay a higher percentage income tax than the poorer people.
In one more specific plan, income tax would be replaced by a sales tax, like we have in California (although much higher). Like state sales tax, costs like food, medicine and rent would be exempted, so that poorer people would not be hurt by having to pay high sales tax on their basic needs.
I think this is a interesting proposal. One positive is that people who don't pay taxes currently (like drug dealers or other criminals) would be basically forced to pay taxes whenever they buy something. Less time would be wasted filling out and processing income tax forms. It would be easier to enforce tax laws. Also, the more people spend, the more tax they would pay, which seems fair. And everyone would have more money in their pockets.
While I doubt such a reform would ever happen, I think the idea has merit.