No Labels: A Movement Promoting American Progress Irrespective of Individual Political Affiliation.

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg wearing a purple tie to support political compromise.

As a political scientist, I have constantly been asked what party I am affiliated with. I have always offered the same answer; None, I am an independent thinker and a pragmatist. I don't decide the answers to complex questions by looking through red or bluetinted lenses, instead I prefer an unbiased and unobstructed view by looking at issues through clear lenses. I have yet to meet many others that share my philosophy, which is why I was greatly surprised when I turned C-SPAN on before I went to sleep last night and learned of a movement supporting my philosophy. The link to the forum I watched can be found at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/event.php?id=188586 

Hyper-partisanship is an example of how people can allow political philosophies of a particular party to become a representation of their identity. This is dangerous, because individuals believe their identity is being attacked when arguments are made which are inconsistent with the basic principals of their party's political ideologies. They respond by viciously attacking the political ideologies of their opponents which leads to further attack upon the identities of the opposition. It is a cycle which promotes hatred, resentment and untrue myths of those that represent both parties. 

By not allowing party affiliation to define us or help form our identity we promote individualism and the notion of critical thinking. Let's not go Left, or Right, but Forward.

Challenge yourself to watch and listen to commentary offered by opposing news anchors, authors, radio personalities, and the like. I suppose you will see that commonalities exist between you and your opposing party, as well as expose ideological conflicts between you and your party. This may lead you to realize that siding exclusively with one party can be self-defeating. 

Law student accused of posing as attorney, friend arrested for DUI

Jenny Anderson News Published on April 17, 2010

NAPERVILLE (CHICAGOPRESSRELEASE.COM)  — It almost sounds like the set-up for one of those ubiquitous “lawyer jokes,” although it has Naperville police feeling anything but amused.

Paris A. Tsangaris is a resident of Naperville’s far northwest side and a law student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He served during the 2008-09 academic year as co-vice president of the UIC Pre-Law Society, a student organization, according to a university Web site.

Tsangaris, 24, and a friend were stopped by Naperville police after the other man was seen driving erratically west of the city’s downtown area. The friend, Phillip D. Hamiti, wound up being arrested on a felony charge of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol and seven other offenses.

And Tsangaris? He was arrested later that evening on a charge of impersonating an attorney, police Cmdr. Mike Anders confirmed.

The men’s misadventure began about 1:30 a.m. April 11, when a police officer on patrol observed Hamiti driving a 2005 Audi SR west on Aurora Avenue near Rotary Hill and Naperville Central High School, Anders said Thursday. Hamiti, 32, of Plainfield, was allegedly driving 51 mph in a 30 mph zone at the time.

Anders said the officer watched as Hamiti allegedly committed several more traffic violations. The officer then curbed the vehicle on Aurora Avenue near Wild Cherry Road.

Hamiti at that point allegedly gave “false information as to his identity,” although the officer ultimately discovered who he actually was, Anders said. The officer also determined Hamiti was intoxicated, Anders said.

Tsangaris lives on the 1500 block of Raymond Drive in Naperville’s Chantecleer Lakes neighborhood. He was sitting in the front passenger seat and “attempted to intervene on Hamiti’s behalf,” Anders said.

“He was questioning the officer’s investigation of Hamiti, asking why he’d stopped him and so forth,” Anders said of Tsangaris.

“The officer noted (Tsangaris’) statements and did a follow-up investigation that same day,” Anders said. “As a result of that investigation, Tsangaris was charged with false impersonation of an attorney, in that he knowingly, falsely represented himself to be an attorney licensed in the state of Illinois … with a law degree and a family practice,”

False impersonation of an attorney is a misdemeanor. Anders said Tsangaris posted bail following his arrest and is scheduled to be arraigned May 11 in DuPage County Circuit Court in Wheaton.

In addition to the aggravated DUI complaint, Hamiti faces trial on charges of aggravated driving while license suspended, obstruction of justice, driving without insurance, failure to notify the secretary of state’s office of a change of address, failure to signal, improper lane use and speeding, Anders said. He was also wanted on three warrants in DuPage County and Will County.

Hamiti remains in DuPage County Jail on a “no bond” hold stemming from a traffic-related offense in Aurora. His trial date is pending.

Social Security under attack

Social Security under attack

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

President Obama signs an $858 billion bill extending Bush era tax cuts for two years and reducing payroll contributions to the Social Security fund.

By Eric Kingson, Nancy Altman and John M. Cornman

Washington's policy elites just don't get Social Security. On Thursday, Congress passed the Obama-GOP compromise tax bill, replacing 15 percent of revenue dedicated to Social Security with borrowed money that will increase the federal deficit in 2011. On Dec. 3, a majority of the president's fiscal commission voted to support unprecedented cuts in Social Security benefits and changes in the structure of this program, which has served American families so well.

These actions reflect a lack of understanding about the way Social Security works and the values it promotes.

Today's debate is mostly dominated by long-time opponents of the program and federal budget experts. The former see federal deficits as opportunity to scale back Social Security's protections. The latter focus narrowly on gross savings to federal spending by cutting Social Security benefits, even though such saving can only be used to fund Social Security rather than to reduce federal deficits.

It has been left to program supporters to call attention to the program's core purposes -- providing widespread protection to all working Americans and their families against precipitous drops in income resulting from death, disability and retirement -- and to facts about the program. These facts include:

-- Large numbers of current and future retirees face potentially near-poverty retirements, contrary to the myth of the well-off elderly.

-- Social Security can meet all obligations through 2036 and, even in the absence of congressional action, could meet more than three-fourths of its ongoing obligations, thereafter;

-- A changing and volatile economy makes Social Security protections more important than ever.

Further, there has been little or no discussion of the values on which the program rests and of the importance of those values to sustaining a vibrant society.

A vibrant society depends on exchanges of knowledge, care and resources between and among generations. Older people pay taxes that support medical research, bond issues for highways and school systems, the outcomes of which will benefit younger people more than seniors. Grandparents and parents pass on knowledge, care and resources to children, who will do so themselves when they become adults.

Social Security, like almost every public program, involves an inter-generational transfer of resources, which benefit more than one age group. Adult children make Social Security contributions that mostly pay the benefits of older generations. One in 5 of the program's benefits go to children, persons with disabilities (including many wounded veterans), and to families surviving the death of a wage earner.

Far more than a benefit distribution system, Social Security is a trust based on broadly shared civic and religiously based principles -- concern for our parents, for our neighbor and for the legacy we will leave for our children and those who follow. The debate over the future of Social Security is about the choice between fostering a "you are on your own" view of the world and a "we are all on in this together" philosophy. Any changes in Social Security should reflect and strengthen the values embodied by the program, and recognize the program's powerful contribution to exchanges across generations so important to a vibrant society.

Eric Kingson, professor of social work at Syracuse University, co-directs Social Security Works (www.strengthensocialsecurity.org) with Nancy Altman, author of "The Battle for Social Security;" John M. Cornman, is former executive director of the Gerontological Society of America and of the American Anthropological Association.

Posted By: Lois Kazakoff (Email, Twitter) | December 17 2010 at 03:42 PMRead more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/opinionshop/detail?entry_id=79349#ixzz18VurZoQh

RESPONSE:

Social Security isn't necessarily a ticking time bomb which will destroy the American economy, however it does require changes to it's benefit payment and taxation structure to remain solvent for future generations. The program has rather consistently generated enough from the payroll tax to finance its obligations to beneficiaries. Given the trend of U.S. demographics, the solvency of Social Security cannot be continued without major structural changes being made.

The following imaged taken from the U.S. Census department illustrates the stress that the expected influx of the Baby Boomer generation will have on the Social Security system. 

What are your thoughts on Social Security, the taxation and benefit paying structure, as well as the problems arising from changing demographics in the U.S.?

A Court rejects Obama bid to stop wiretapping suit

Original article written by Devlin Barrett Associated Press Writerhttp://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1151/02-27-2009/20090227132001_039.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration has lost its argument that the state secrets privilege is a good enough reason to stop a lawsuit over the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has rejected the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed that national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the U.S. chapter of an Islamic charity was allowed to proceed.The case was brought by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a defunct charity with a chapter in Oregon.

Also see this article for more information: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F02%2F27%2FMNQI166PAV.DTL&tsp=1

RESPONSE

I presume the Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco has jumped on the "change" bandwagon which President Obama piloted on the campaign trail. It is ironic in this instance that President Obama is being defeated in court by his own notions of transparency, accountability, and constitutionality.

Firstly, this case is HILARIOUS as it's historical background will clearly show. In 2004 the government inadvertently sent classified documents to the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation which essentially informed them that they had been wiretapped in an investigation which led to their classification as a terrorist group.

Al Haramain returned the document to the government, probably after being compelled to do so, and has been barred from relying on it to prove its right to sue. Justice Walker ruled that Al Haramain had shown through officials' testimonies that it had probably been tapped, and was going to issue Al Haramain's lawyers security clearances to review the documents for discovery purposes. The justice department, in an act of insubordination,  withheld those clearances, and basically stated that Justice walker had "no authority for his order", and that allowing the document to be seen could possibly expose secret information that could harm national security.

The ruling; the three-judge appeals court panel, said it agreed with Walker that the government isn't entitled to appeal the ruling which granted Al-Haramain's lawyers access to the classified document. I think it is as embarrassing as it is funny that the government is more concerned that the documents could "possibly expose secret information that could harm national security".

The secrets are already out. Our government already packaged, paid for postage, and mailed the secrets directly to the ONLY people that they should not have, the alleged terrorist group. This is extremely embarrassing to the intelligence community, because there is nothing remotely intelligent about it.  It seems clear to me that whichever agent or agency responsible is more of a national security risk than the previously leaked documents being read by the attorneys of the alleged terrorist group, which presumably read and copied them prior to surrendering them.

by Paris Tsangaris on 3/1/09

Hello world, and welcome to my first blog! Be among the first to follow, and share your unique voice with the world!

I enjoy writing and began saving my work last year entitled "My 2 Cents". I will be formally publishing those stories as well as more current entries hereafter. I appreciate your time, support, but most of all your opinions! Enjoy!