Give us your analysis of that. Theres no question that he is not only mysteries but a president and an autocrat at the same time. Clearly, this is a very, very difficult situation. How do you remove a president who has functionally no term of office and the power of the state behind him, the power of the military behind him . That is a conundrum that we have not yet managed to figure a way out of. I would like to see a system where the International Community could in fact joined together to bring about a change in the regime such as assad. We are not there yet. We dont have a United Nations or any multinational contract in any fashion that has been able to successfully do that. That is really a major hole in the International System today. Is he being propped up by some of the most imperial president s currently in office, namely mr. Putin and the iranians . Certainly the iranians have helped out. We have a new regime in iran that is trying some kind of agreement with the west, or dem
It does not look bleak to me at all because what all of this the dominantthat strategy that we have used for a decade is not the strategy that is going to kick the door open to help all children succeed. It is just like the strategies that we used in the 70s and 1980s. You see incremental grains. Gains. In the 1960s you see bigger games and you did in the 1970s, 1980s and, 1990s. With the war on poverty we focused on equity. Im giving kids that have the least creating a more level playing field. The you saw in the terms of 1970s, 19 80s, 1990s, and now, is that we actually didnt do . We did some programs that help some kids, but not all kids. In the last 10 years with no child kind is that we said that testing and sanctions are going to be the dominant strategy. The countries that outcompete us do not use that. What they do instead is that they actually focus on ensuring that kids get really good teachers and really good teaching and have a real focus on equity as well. I am optimistic
Modernizing conservatism. Here is a brief look. In 2001, before september 11, one of the big issues that the new president faced was whether and how the federal government should fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research that involves the destruction of human embryos. To all of us, this means of the taking of a human life. Whether it was moral to spend money on that public research. The president made a decision that said you could spend money on cells that already existed but not new ones, you would not be using federal dollars to encourage the further destruction of human embryos. He said these kinds of issues are going to stay with us, they are not going away and we need help in thinking about them. He called together the bioethics commission, a group of 18 scholars, almost all of them academics. They would come together several times a year and consider a bioethical question with how it Public Policy applications and provide advice to the administration and the country in the form of repor
President obama discusses issues he would like to focus on now that the shutdown is over. He would like to see honks pass a budget, work on Immigration Reform, and the farm bill. Our first 35 minutes is devoted to what you would like to see congress focus on now that the shutdown is over. You can pick up one of the president s topics or maybe you have topics of your own. Here is how you can reach out to us what would you Like Congress to focus on now that the shutdown is over. If you want to reach out to us is oural media, cspanwj twitter page. You can send this email to act journal cspan. Org. That hell has a part of that weekly address l refers to that weekly address for our first 45 minutes we would like for you to give us a sense of what you would like to see and for congress to focus on. Here is how you can do so. If you want to give us a call tweets are always excepted. As always you can give us an e mail. From georgia on our republican line. Good morning. I am really excited thi
With the full dna. You are saying that california can take that dna, hold it in only look atand the john dna, but they have it in their custody, and there is a marylandecause versus king. By law, california can only look at discrete portions of identification dna. That is it, nothing else. Whats wrong with the proposal by ms. Haskell recognizing what king does restrict, to simply say go to the Supreme Court decision, it talks about a valid arrest supported by probable cause. Says we cancouncil draw the line with a judicial determination of probable cause and therefore am a free reign under the california statute. What is wrong with that line in terms of did interpreting how king applies to this case . Nothat interpretation would be consistent with king, which recognizes that the identification information am a whether it is fingerprints, photographs, or dna, informs the charging decision. Scalia role does justice how would this respond to . Udge mcewens for whatever reason, they got it