Republicans have cited Obama’s rush to close down Guantanamo Bay without properly planning where to place the detainees as an example of his ineptitude on national security.  They have suggested legislation titled “Keep Terrorists Out of America Act,” which would disallow moving Guantanamo prisoners to a US facility unless the receiving state’s governor and legislature approved.

“Our constituents don’t want these terrorists in their neighborhoods,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio.).

Although most Democrats support closing down Guantanamo Bay, there is a great deal of disagreement amongst party members as to how to properly do so.

“You cannot close Guantanamo unless you have a plan,” said Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

“I wouldn’t want them, and I wouldn’t take them,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “I don’t see a solution.”

While the Democrats cannot get on the same page as to how to properly close down Guantanamo Bay, in typical Democrat fashion, they unite together to disagree with Republicans.  Democrats on the Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) that would ban the  use of any funding to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States.

To aid their case, Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, defended the relocation proposal, noting that a prison in Florence, Colorado already houses terrorist, including Zacarias Moussaoui, who has been convicted of conspiring to kill U.S. citizens as part of the 9/11 attacks.  Obey also emphasized that Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and other prominent Republicans had backed closing the prison.

Administration officials have not said where the detainees would go, but they rejected the idea that Americans would face any risks from closing the prison by January.  Obama announced his plan to close the facility on only his third day in office, immediately establishing himself as, to put it politely, very different from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was known for his aggressive stance on the war on terror.

“We are not going to put at risk the safety of the people of this country,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a hearing yesterday, according to the Associated Press.

God hope Holder is right.

Ramirez is by far the most high-profile star to test positive for a banned substance since the introduction of the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program in 2006.  While the news of his cheating is yet another tough pill to swallow for baseball fans worldwide, his suspension represents a new era in baseball, one which use of performance-enhancing drugs is not tolerated and players will return to playing the game the right way.

As a fan of baseball, I feel the best way to appreciate the game while recognizing the cloud of steroids is not to look at the past.  Forget about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire and all the other stars whose legacies have been tarnished by steroid use over the past two decades.  Yes, I know it sounds difficult to just forget about players whom you may have once loved, who you may have looked up to as a child, but if baseball is to move on from the steroids era, so must its fans.  

Well, knowing who not to cheer for does not quite solve the problem of who to root for, as in the back of every fan’s mind is the concern that their favorite hitter or pitcher is juicing up.  As a fan, you can only presume the athlete is innocent unless there is evidence indicating otherwise.  But if that answer does not satisfy your rightful desire to cheer for great players who are playing the game the right way, then my advice is to look towards the future.

As I said before, stop focusing on baseball’s past and present.  But in addition to moving on from the steroids era, we need to embrace the new young players who are shining examples of how to play baseball.  There are so many talented young players in MLB, guys who have entered the league since the introduction of the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program.  Guys like Evan Longoria, the 2008 AL Rookie of the Year, and Dustin Pedroia, the 2008 AL MVP.  These are not only great players who are exciting to watch, but they aren’t larger-than-life behemoths.  If you see these guys in person, you’ll realize that they do not look that different from you or me.

To use the cliche out with the old and in with the new, I am glad Ramirez tested positive, as it shows that the drug policy is working.  I am also glad to have the chance to watch exciting young players who are reinvigorating the game of baseball, whose idea of taking a short cut isn’t taking steroids, but rather, stealing second base.

This is the case with Sen. Arlen Specter, who, on April 28, abandoned the seemingly sinking ship known as the Republican Party and joined the Democratic bandwagon.  Right after this move, the media (as it always does) exaggerated the seriousness of the move, citing it as the end of the Republican Party and other absurdities.  

But if one really takes a step back to think about why Specter left the GOP and how his views were not in cohesion with conservative minds, he would realize that Specter’s swap does not hurt the Republican Party, does not help the Democrats (beyond the obvious additional Senate seat), and most of all, will not help Specter, whose political career is coming to a close.

Despite the fact that Specter has been serving as a senator for nearly 30 years, his loss will not impede the future of the Republican Party.  From day one, Specter was a moderate at best; never a true conservative.  The only thing that made him a Republican was the R next to his name on the ballot.  For a party looking to reestablish itself, having an old, middle of the road moderate as one of its biggest faces is not helpful.  The GOP needs to get rid of these old moderates who misrepresent the party and its values and rebuild by replacing them with new faces that exemplify conservative ideologies. 

By getting Specter, all the Democrats are obtaining is an additional Senate seat.  In no way does his presence give the party more strength or credibility.  Much like Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Specter will now be one of those “conservative Democrats”, who will ultimately confuse conflicted voters who can’t decide to vote based on party lines or the individuals themselves.  

As for Specter’s future prospects, they are little and none.  If he thinks changing parties this late into his political career will gain him new supporters, it won’t.  The simple fact of the matter is, when most people go to the voting booths on election day, they will see that familiar name, be confused as to why there is now a D next to it, and will not vote for him.  People have supported him loyally for nearly 30 years as an R, him changing to a D wont’ change the voters.

Michael, like so many college students across America, did not attend class on 20 April 2009, but spent the day celebrating an esoteric holiday known as 420, a day on which marijuana users celebrate their lifestyle by…well, smoking marijuana.  What is most troubling is how the illegal use of narcotics on college campuses has not only become commonplace, but is part of the college culture.

The idea that smoking a harmful drug is not only socially acceptable, not only praiseworthy, but celebrated among today’s youth is completely and utterly repulsive.  The same holds true for underage alcohol consumption, though at least the beer one typically drinks at a fraternity party has barely any alcohol in it (its primary ingredient being urine), whereas the marijuana kids smoke is unregulated, and thus possesses greater health risk, as well as legal ramifications.  

The simple defiance of laws against illegal narcotics is in no way directly going translate into the legalization of drugs; it is merely immature, foolish, rebellious youth looking for a way to waste their potential, whether they realize they have it or not, or perhaps they are just afraid of stepping up and prefer to chill down with a joint.

I am not advocating for stricter bans on drug use.  Quite the contrary, I am a libertarian and believe marijuana should be legalized.  But regardless of what one’s stance is on legalization, it is quite certain that the popularity of such narcotics stunts the potential of our youth, subsequently preventing the progress of civilization.  These anti-drug ads on TV are annoying and corny, and rational education doesn’t seem to work.  

Perhaps more invasive measures to check who is using illegal drugs would allow Universities to best utilize their resources on those students who truly give a damn and will be the future leaders of our society.  Now stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

Unless you have been isolated from society the past two weeks, you should be vaguely familiar with the whole pirate-porno fiasco.  Rather than redundantly summarize what my colleagues have already covered, or narrow-mindedly bash the supporters as filthy perverts or the opposition as uptight Evangelical Christians, I thought I’d objectively as possible try to set the record straight as to what the true issues at hand are and which ones are just smoke and mirrors for some group’s own agenda.

I’d like to begin by establishing one fact emphatically: I love pornography.  It has kept me company on so many cold, lonely, nights, warming me up with its soft, gentle touch.  I like all kinds of pornography; old school vintage porn, like 70s Ron Jeremy stuff (he was much better-looking back in the day, no homo), to today’s mindless “reality porn” (oh, don’t act like you haven’t been to MILFhunter.com).  I love it all, man.  Everything from Playboy to Animal Planet.

OK, I was kidding about Animal Planet (I love animals, just not in that way).  But in all seriousness, the above paragraph serves to dismiss any notion that my position on this issue is either right- or left-wing; it is simply my position. Don’t associate it with anything or anyone else.

Now that I have made it clear that I am not morally opposed to pornography, allow me to present the fundamental flaws with the presentation of Pirates II.  I haven’t seen it, nor do I really care what the content is: straight, gay, it makes no difference to me.  The fundamental issue is that the University of Maryland is a public university, meaning it is funded in large part by taxpayer money.  Nobody likes paying taxes, especially around this time of year, but we all have to do it.  What we do not have to do is pay for the distribution of pornographic material.

Now, unlike me, not everyone likes porn.  Yes, it is a sad fact, but some people in our society have different morals and values than those who populate this bubble commonly referred to as the University of Maryland, College Park.  We must respect the personal views of other Americans and understand why they might not be so enthused to fund something they are morally opposed to, especially for showing at a college, when said material has no educational merit.

Then of course there are the parties involved, all self-absorbed to the point where they might be completely oblivious to their foolishness (OK, might is a bit generous, but I am in a giving mood).  The Student Power Party, or STD, quickly gained popularity on campus as they vocalized support for showing the film. (We should rejoice that they did not capture any SGA executive positions.)  Their strong stance to show the film was not, as they claimed, to support First Amendment rights, but rather, to gain attention and votes.  It was nothing more than a smart, yet disturbing attempt to appeal to the generally mindless liberal student demographic.  Do you really think they would be so valiantly defending the First Amendment if Ann Coulter came here to speak?

This is not an issue of freedom of speech.  That is not my opinion; it is a fact.  Find me one legal document which states that the distribution of pornographic material funded by public money is protected under the United States Constitution and I will bend over and kiss my own @$$.  You cannot find one, because one does not exist.  There is no legal precedent for taxpayer money being spent to show porno.  It’s a fact.  Now swallow it and shut up.

Recently, the Washington Post printed an article asking students what they thought of police browsing Facebook profiles for evidence of crimes, such as illicit drugs, or for preventive measures, such as breaking up a fight.

Most students, at least according to the article, weren’t happy about it in the least.

“I think it’s an invasion of the student’s privacy,” said Sarah Steinberg, 18, a senior at Robinson Secondary.

“It’s not really [their] business to be looking at students’ profiles,” said Eleni Gibson, 15, a freshman at Robinson. “Because they might see something that students didn’t want them to see.”

Though privacy is an important right to have, the issue of how far we should limit privacy in the name of security has been an essential American debate for a very long time.

The Facebook issue is similar: police say they can use it to prevent crimes and help at-risk kids who are in gangs, while some students object on the grounds that it invades their privacy.

However, the Facebook case is a bit different. People should understand that if they post something on the Internet with little or no protection, it’s just as good as leaving it on the street.

If incriminating photos or text can be accessed without the use of hacking or other illicit methods, it’s functionally the same as leaving that same picture or note on the street outside your house.

If it helps police prevent a crime from happening, all the better.

The recent comments by President Barack Obama about his bowling ability has earned him reprimands from just about everyone and has sparked a national debate: is it ok to use the word retard?

But of course, this isn’t the first time we’ve had a referenduum on the appropiateness of a word: we’ve had similar debates about using “gay” to mean “lame” or “stupid” and because of Don Imus, we had a discussion about whether it’s ok to use the word “ho.”

So is the word “retard” offensive? Well, in a word, yes. Words that are meant as insults are just inherently offensive – even socially acceptable words like stupid or moron are offensive.

But other than being nice, is there a special reason why the word “retard” should be completely removed?

The answer, according to the people who support this, is that “retard” isn’t just insulting, it’s also discriminatory, targeting handicapped people.

But very rarely do we see people hurling insults at the handicapped at all. Even if someone did, we would be outraged regardless of whether this person was calling the handicapped person a “retard” or a “big poopy head.” It’s not acceptable regardless.

Banning the word “retard” is just going to make us go for a sillier, more complex word that’s “acceptable.” And then that word will become insulting. It’s happened before – the words “cretin”, “idiot”, “imbecile”, and “moron” were once considered legitimate ways of describing people with disabilities, but no more, of course.

The same is happening to “retard” and will likely happen to whatever word we have to use now – even “special” is becoming pejorative. It’s what we call the euphemism treadmill, and it points to the fact that we can’t really just replace words and make them not insulting.

So instead of focusing on using the right words, people should focus on changing people’s attitudes – showing people why disabled people shouldn’t be considered equivalent to a person making a mistake. Restricting speech is not an efficient way of going about this, and not a very honorable means to begin with.

I’d like to introduce myself.  My name is James, and I am a junior at our fine university.    I’m a transfer student from New York.  I haven’t decided yet what I’ll post most often on.  Since I am not a native Marylander, I think I may have a harder time getting excited about local politics than some of you.  (But I’ll darn well try!)   I know Nathan wants us to write about something.

I transferred to this school in my sophmore year, but have not gotten involved with the Terrapin Times (and College Republicans) until recently.  Perhaps if I’d gotten involved earlier, we may have avoided this Obama disaster. (Stop laughing, its possible!  I can be very persuasive.)  This means that I have only recently met our proprietor Nathan.  I have already been blown away by his commitment to the paper,  and his ability to express his beliefs in general.

I have no fantasies about surpassing him in terms of quality of posts, but maybe I can beat him on quantity.  I already know that I wouldn’t mind sniping the Diamondback when it seems appropriate, but what else would you like to see at this blog?  Perhaps a link round-up at the end of the day?   I guess we’ll just see how it goes.