Dr. Amy Castillo’s three children could and should be alive today.
 
Dr. Castillo, a pediatrician, spent the first days of 2008 in Maryland District Court trying to get a protective order against her abusive husband Mark Castillo. Amy testified that her husband had been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital for a suicide attempt and manic-like destructive behavior.  On January 10, 2008, the court, despite hearing further testimony about Mark Castillo’s threats to kill his children, refused to grant a permanent protective order on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Congress may be gridlocked on a number of issues, but the World Trade Organization (WTO) is positively stuck when it comes to advancing global trade liberalization. Today, the National Foreign Trade Council proposed a way to get beyond the diplomatic logjam that has plagued negotiations for a Doha Development Round in a new paper, “A 21st Century work program for the global trading system.”
 
Acceptance is the first step to recovery, and in the case of ongoing WTO negotiations, it is past time to admit that there is a problem. Trade Ministers acknowledged the Doha negotiations were at an impasse in Geneva last December at a WTO ministerial conference, leaving the door open to fresh ideas for advancing broad-based efforts to open markets and modernize trade rules.



Two lengthy and devastating wars separated by three decades.

 One fought in the jungles of Vietnam and one in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan.

 In Vietnam, American forces peaked at 535,000 troops. In Afghanistan, over 140,000, including international forces.

 One of us served in Vietnam in the pacification program designed to win the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people. The other worked in Afghanistan and Iraq in both a military and civilian capacity. We both resigned from our posts because of objections to U.S. policies in the country and because we witnessed conditions on the ground that disproved the rosy view expressed by America's military and civilian leaders.

America’s leaders have difficulty admitting to bad news in major overseas adventures.

Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Earle Wheeler told the Economic Club of Detroit in 1967:  “I am convinced . . .we are winning the war in Vietnam.” General William Westmoreland, who commanded American forces in Vietnam, argued “Militarily, we succeeded in Vietnam. We won every engagement we were involved in out there.” 

By 1975, American military forces had departed the region under the guise of "Vietnamization" and the South Vietnamese forces were soon routed thereafter, with the last American helicopters leaving the roof of the American embassy with panicked Vietnamese left behind.

History is repeating itself in Afghanistan.

Whether we care to admit it or not, 2.8 million more people were still out of work in January 2012 than the 12.8 million officially counted as unemployed.

Our labor force should not be shrinking because people stop actively seeking jobs. It should be increasing because, like 243,000 other Americans this month, there are new payroll jobs for them.

On Friday, February 3rd, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced that the unemployment rate for January 2012 had dropped to 8.3%, down 0.2% from December 2011. While commentators jumped at the opportunity to post the good news that 243,000 new payroll jobs had been created, there seemed to be a missing link. How could just 243,000 new jobs cut the unemployment rate by 0.2%? Creating jobs is a step in the right direction. When we include a few more numbers, the story is not as bright.

235 years ago, a brave group of patriots signed their names to a piece of parchment declaring that all individuals are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
 
Today, we find these rights endangered by vague language passed late last year in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which if interpreted incorrectly could allow the indefinite detention of American citizens.
 
I will not stand for such a degradation of our rights. I can’t. On January 5, 2011, I placed my hand on a Bible and swore before God to defend the Constitution against “all enemies both foreign and domestic.”

On Monday (2/13), the Obama Administration will submit its fiscal 2013 budget to Congress.

Belt-tightening is the order of the day. And the Defense Department is
expected to announce the cancellation or down-sizing of a number of
high-profile weapons programs.

One of the projects about to undergo major reconstructive surgery is the
development of a new "Joint Air-to-Ground Missile" or "JAGM" -- high-tech
ordnance designed to be deployed from helicopters, fighter jets, and
unmanned aircraft systems.

In recent days, Americans of every faith and political persuasion have mobilized in objection to a rule put forward by the Obama administration that constitutes an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country.

This rule would require faith-based employers – including Catholic charities, schools, universities, and hospitals – to provide services they believe are immoral. Those services include sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and contraception.

While I would have voted "Yes" on a clean FAA reauthorization, I was one of 157 Democrats and 12 Republicans who voted "No" on H.R. 658, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.  Why?
 
First, language in the bill dates back to the Railway Labor Act (RLA) which was originally passed in 1926.  It was amended during FDR's New Deal in 1934 and 1936 and has governed the railroad and airline industries since - for the past 75 years. Not just the transportation unions, but a total of 19 unions opposed H.R. 658 because it set about to rather dramatically rewrite a labor law that has served the transportation companies, the unions and the country well. Why the sudden need to radically change the law without prior notice, without any apparent need to change it and without congressional hearings? If changes were needed, what was wrong with a more deliberative process that involved the affected parties?

In his State of the Union address, President Obama proclaimed that he would not cede the solar industry to China through a lack of commitment. Unfair Chinese trading practices demand that he keep this pledge immediately or risk surrendering the industry to China.

The United States created the solar industry and its technological leadership ensured its development. Bell Labs’ researchers invented the first silicon solar photovoltaic device in 1954 and government researchers furthered industrial development. Despite the 2009 recession, the U.S. government invested $7.1 billion in solar R&D, compared to $1.32 billion from the E.U., and nothing from the rest of the world, including China. Yet today, China accounts for three-fifths of the world’s solar-panel production and exports 95 percent of its production, much of it to the United States.

Against this backdrop, an epic battle is now occurring. Seven U.S. manufacturing companies, the Coalition of American Solar Manufacturers (CASM), filed antidumping and countervailing duty complaints against China with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and Commerce Department. CASM has argued that imported, illegally subsidized Chinese solar cells and panels are destroying U.S. manufacturing jobs and injuring the U.S. industry. Almost immediately, Chinese exporters and some U.S.-based assemblers and installers challenged the U.S. manufacturers, arguing that reducing subsidized Chinese imports would reduce U.S. jobs, through higher consumer prices and dampened demand for solar panels. They have warned of a “trade war” and have telegraphed threats of retaliation. So far, preliminary rulings from the ITC and Commerce have favored the U.S. manufacturers.