Daily News Roundup: National Politics

[Editor's Note: I know it's been a while since I've updated. I'm making it my personal mission from now on to update this daily. I mean, this IS the daily injection.]

So, according to the Washington Post, President Barack Obama has lifted some of the restrictions against Cuba. He's allowing U.S. telecoms companies to operate there. But, what does that mean? Is the shadiness of these American telecoms companies mean that spying will be harder to detect? Is this some ploy to make it harder to get information? What is going on with all of that?

From the article:

A White House aide said the president believes that democratic change will come to the Cuban nation more quickly if the United States reaches out to the people of Cuba and their relatives in the United States.

I'll stay on the story.

In other news, PIRATES! Or rather, dead pirates. Apparently, Captain Richard Phillips, the captive of pirates off the coast of Somalia, was rescued safely. However, three out of the four pirates who captured and help Captain Phillips hostage are now dead.

Though the rescue was called "textbook" (in an American Forces Press Service Article) the issue of piracy is likely to worsen in the absence of a systemic solution, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today.

The pirates were killed by snipers, according to the article.

So, what are we going to do in the future? Officials are looking into it. Within the last year alone, there have been over 11 incidents involving pirates along the coast.

More on this story to come.
Check out my other blog for economic issues. I talk about national issues as well as mid-michigan issues. Stay tuned for more.

Insomnia vs. Polyphasic: Is there a difference?

Note: I'm getting a little personal today, so please bare with me.
---
As a college student, it seems like most people will accept that it's okay when college students don't get the sleep they need. But, personally, my inability to sleep has gotten out of control in a bad way. I stayed awake for a day and a half, unable to sleep. I finally was able to lay down for a full 8 hours, but when I woke up that night, I was up the whole night talking to a friend of mine on messenger services.

When I tried to lay down again this morning, I was only able to for two hours.

So, taking a personal issue in the matter, let's explore what it means to be an insomniac and see if I can consider myself in that category. I wonder if I do because I do get a small amount of sleep here and there.

Let's start with a general definition from dictionary.com:
in⋅som⋅ni⋅a
–noun
inability to obtain sufficient sleep, esp. when chronic; difficulty in falling or staying asleep; sleeplessness

Well, I think the most important word is sufficient. When I wake up, I don't immediately feel exhausted or tired. I will feel worn out, but I wouldn't characterize it as tired (or that I could go back to sleep if I laid back down). I do feel more and more tired throughout the day, but I keep going as though I weren't tired at all.

The Wikipedia definition:
Insomnia is a symptom[1] of a sleeping disorder characterized by persistent difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep despite the opportunity. It is typically followed by functional impairment while awake. Insomniacs have been known to complain about being unable to close their eyes or "rest their mind" for more than a few minutes at a time. Both organic and non-organic insomnia constitute a sleep disorder.

Under this definition, I fit more into this category because I do notice that I have a harder time functioning than when I would get a full 8-9 hours of sleep every night. However, upon further examination, I could be a polyphasic sleeper as I will go through several periods of waking and sleeping (two-three periods of 2, 3, or 4 hours comparatively):

Polyphasic sleep, a term coined by early 20th century psychologist J.S. Szymanski,

[1] refers to the practice of sleeping multiple times in a 24-hour period—usually, more than two, in contrast to biphasic sleep —and does not imply any particular schedule. See also Segmented sleep and Sleep (Optimal amount). The term polyphasic sleep is also used by an online community which experiments with ultra-short napping to achieve more wake-time each day.

“Whether such patterns are simply a response to the relatively static experimental conditions, or whether they more accurately reflect the natural organization of the human sleep/wake system, compared with that which is exhibited in daily life, is open to debate. However, the comparative literature strongly suggests that shorter, polyphasically-placed sleep is the rule [my emphasis, rather than the exception, across the entire animal kingdom (Campbell and Tobler, 1984; Tobler, 1989). There is little reason to believe that the human sleep/wake system would evolve in a fundamentally different manner. That people often do not exhibit such sleep organization in daily life merely suggests that humans have the capacity (often with the aid of stimulants such as caffeine or increased physical activity) to overcome the propensity for sleep when it is desirable, or is required, to do so.” (The nature of spontaneous sleep across adulthood. Journal of Sleep Research)

The problem with this is that it says that most polyphasic sleepers are those who adapt their schedules accordingly. Maybe the distinction isn't as clear as we may think.

It isn't beyond belief to think that not everyone reacts the same way to everything. That is to say that no two people always live the same way, and bodies react to certain situations differently. Maybe college demands a certain amount of restlessness or polyphasism. Alternatively, maybe the stress from classes and the college lifestyle create sleeplessness associated with insomnia.

Ah well. I have time to figure out the answer; I'll probably be up for the next 12 hours anyway. A great thank you goes out to those who allowed me to step into the realm of personal vested interests. If you are unable to sleep, try these recommended changes before you go looking for sleep medications from doctors [according to helpguide.org]:

-Regular day exercise can help sleep
-Get some light to set your body clock
-Napping can interfere with sleep
-Alcohol reduces overall quality of sleep
-Caffeine can cause sleep problems up to ten to twelve hours after drinking it
-Smoking causes sleep troubles in numerous ways. Nicotine is a stimulant, which disrupts sleep. Additionally, smokers actually experience nicotine withdrawal as the night progresses, making it hard to sleep.
-Keep the noise level down.
-Keep your room dark during sleep hours.
-Most people sleep best in a slightly cooler room.
-Reserve your bed for sleeping [and sex].
-Keep a regular bedtime schedule, including weekends
-it’s wise not to eat a large meal within two hours of bed.

Pleasant dreams, children!

News Update: Economy

This week brought some very interesting occurrences on both the national and the local levels as far as the economy and jobs are concerned.

One of the most obvious events that happened this week was the inauguration of President Obama on Tuesday. After his first speech declaring that the economy is going to be one of the top priorities, the president set forth the next day on his first executive orders including an order that begins with a freeze on all white house staffers earning more than $100,000.

Also in national economic news, Treasury-designate Timothy Geither apologized for not paying $34,000 in taxes earlier this decade at his confirmation hearing.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker introduced Geither during the hearing, and was also quoted as making several remarks about the future, stating that the government would have to rescue the whole system and ultimately the economy.

Volcker was directly quoted as saying, “To put it starkly, we are in a serious recession with no clear end in sight.”

He went on to say that several trillion dollars would need to be committed.
Though last week Obama’s Administration were granted the left over $358 billion left over from the leftover financial industy bailout funds, the plan as to what the money will be used on won’t be delivered for several weeks, Geither said on Wednesday.

The DOW rose 279.01 points (3.5 percent) on Wednesday after having fallen 332 the day before.

Private companies are suffering because of the economy as well, interestingly Microsoft which has decided to lay off 5,000 workers even though C.E.O Steven Ballmer was still looking into buying Yahoo’s search business to compete with Google.

“Even though we’re removing 5,000 jobs, we’re going to add a few thousand back into areas like search.”

Comerica Inc., which originated in Michigan before moving to Texas in 2007, announced Thursday that it will cut back 5% of its work force, about 570 of the banks 10,000 ranks. In Michigan, already 100 employees are already affected by layoffs, and this new decision will put hundreds more out of a job. The company is also not expected to open any new centers in Michigan for 2009 either.

This week also saw the release of Michigan’s unemployment numbers for December 2008, and they were not a very pleasant. The rate was the highest it’s been since 1984 the Department of Energy, labor, and Economic Growth reported at a staggering 10.6 percent, up from 9.6 percent in November 2008. This is well above the national level for December’s rate of 7.2 percent.

Even more depressing is the news that Michigan’s employment fell every month of 2008. It shouldn’t come as a surprise as Michigan has had the nation’s highest jobless rate for much of the past three years.

The worst affected area of Michigan is Mackinaw which has an unemployment rate of 19 percent. Worse than being unable to just pay for mortgages on homes, citizens are now having trouble paying other bills. People have complained about the Michigan Automated Response Voice Interactive Network (MARVIN) as being unreliable and not giving them the unemployment benefits they so desperately need to survive.

The national weekly average for unemployment is at $296.17 which varies by state with a standard length of payment in 26 weeks. However, last June, congress had extended the benefits for an additional 13 weeks.

However, in the $825 billion stimulus package that’s in congress would pump $2.6 billion into schools, roads, and bridges creating 158,000 jobs and give tax breaks to 3.5 million residents, an analysis reported Thursday.

The jobs created would keep unemployment at least 2.5 percentage points lower than it would without the stimulus.

Note: the contents of this post were assembled from several news sources.

Today's the day... look out below.

The economy is still failing. The price of a barrel of oil is $34 on the stock market. Moral is low. But, lo! A new captain now comes to take hold of the ship. It should be a day of celebration and reverie and majesty. This doesn't happen every day.

But, there's this nagging feeling. Talk on Rachel Maddow's inaugural watch talked about a criminal investigation of war crimes against now former president George W. Bush. However serious, one has to wonder what the implications of this might be. What would the world see? Would this make our leaders feel more responsible?

A worry that cropped up was about the mythical land of Gitmo... where P.R. escapades showed reporters the sunnier side of a camp that could possibly be called the torture satellite outside the states. A reporter from Michigan Radio discussed the possibilities of President Obama shutting down the internment camp. This would seem ideal and what the general public of the states has been asking for, but the reporter noted that the story would be buried. What would happen to the prisoners who were on hunger strikes? Who would really know what exactly had gone on there?

When gitmo closes (to the press, to the residents/prisoners, to the thoughts of Americans), so does the truth, the woman reporter asserted. [She was the gitmo correspondent for the Miami Herald.]

On a more personal level, a friend of mine had a conversation with me about this shadowy government tentacle that moves under a watchful eye of some leaders that we may or may not know about.
"I think the last great president was John Kennedy. He talked about these agencies as arms of a a massive entity. And look where that got him."

This could just be another hippie's conspiracy, but then he said something that made me wonder, worrying about the future.

"I think I don't know what's worse: the possibility that Obama works against these entities to make real change and he gets assassinated; or he lives on because he's only another puppet for this giant machine just like all the other presidents and leaders before him."

Do we as a nation expect our new leader (a man of change, a new icon of the younger generation) to die in some horrible attempt? Are we as a people so fatalistic that we actually think this is possible?

I worry they do.

What will the next four years bring? What challenges will this new president face? How will he be different from the Obama that campaigned? How will America change?

Take a deep breath, America.
It's all about to start.

A new year, a new start, a new president

Resolution time has come and gone, and as a writer, I am committing myself to this blog. The daily injection will become daily. I'm sorry if this has been a let down to someone up until this point, but let's start over because that's what we do best as humans.

That's why we constantly make these resolutions of losing weight, saving money, quit smoking. We go out and buy exercise equipment, nicotine patches, weight lose food, and book after book of simple steps we can take to change our lives.

But, enough of that tangent. Let's talk the new year and our president-elect... soon to just be president: Mr. Barack Obama.

Chances are, you're just as excited as I am about this change over. But, the biggest question that keeps cropping up around the edges seems to be "Will Barack Obama really bring the change America is looking for?"

Standing in line at Borders, I caught sight of Foreign Policy Magazine(check out their new website, www.foreignpolicy.com). The title brandished the very dynamic black and white of Obama and the cover, "YES, HE DID (But what if he can't?)"

It's the propoganda machine churning once again. I'm not saying that as a society we need to be completely accepting that the Obama Administration, but the man hasn't even been sworn in yet, and already pundits are speculting and backbiting. They say the man won't be any different than George W. Bush (that came from the article, "The Making of George W. Obama" by Christian Brose).

It's hard to trust the contents of the article, especially with the knowledge that the man writing the article was a former Condi Rice speechwriter. Despite whether or not it is an election year, people who come from different parties (in this specific example, the possibly republican leaning former speech writer for Condi Rice against Barack Obama) tend to bad mouth the candidate. When a pundit can really dig their claws in (and work on public perception of a leader before they start leading), then it makes it easier at the end of the leadership.

In America, this seems to be the case from my perspective. Only in election years do they majority of people come back to attention about politics.

So, don't expect the man to be a superhero, but don't expect him to be the worst president in history (we've already seen that... and don't let the rosy glasses of history make that any less visible that George W. Bush is considered one of the least beloved presidents ever). I expect this to be a marginal presidency like learning a new dance or bike riding for the first time. I think that this man might even be a natural talent, and could possibly be popping wheelies and riding with no handlebars by the end of his term.

Because honestly let's let the old adage in mind: don't count your chickens before they've hatched. And don't pop wheelies before you've learned to ride your bike.

For the Lulz?

Everybody in the media is talking about Governor Palin. If you want Palin, and all the buzz that's with her, turn on your TV and pick a news network. They're swooning over her right now. Let's ignore her for now in order to turn our attention to something a bit more laughable. Just so you know, this is for the "lulz" as the kids are calling it these days. Or laughs, if you're old and getting older.

Cheney Condemns Russia's 'Illegitimate, Unilateral' Aggression

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=51035

Now, the very idea that Cheney would condemn anything is analogous to Satan, Lord of Darkness, saying, "Let's think about the children! Won't anybody think of the sweet, innocent children?!?!?"

Yeah, right.

But, apparently, according to a DoD article (link at top), he did. Of course, it is Russia, and I'm pretty sure in the morning glory before old Cheney pulls himself out of bed, he still has playful dreams of going "toe to toe with the ruskies" (sorry, I'm quoting Stanley Kubrick films now). Perhaps he forgets that the cold war is over.

Whatever the case may be, Cheney is condemning the actions of Russia for invading Georgia. I mean, what were they thinking, those silly Russians? Invading a country without thinking, or not even caring what the international community thought? (Maybe they were looking for weapons of mass destruction.) No, actually, it's better than that. There was more of a legitimate reason than any the American government could concoct. (There's a link for the time line at the bottom*.)

In fact, the whole thing seems really hypocritical of Cheney and the government because of what's happened in Iraq. At least in Afghanistan there was a reason why we were over there. But, Iraq, come on. They used a credible source (or at least, a person who came off as non-partisian) such as Colin Powell to start this military action which has claimed (any guesses as to the death toll right now? No?) 4,151** (as of September 4h, 2008) U.S. coliation troops.

Enough of that. It's not funny. We're talking about Cheney, and why he's condeming Russia for it's military action. What could possibly be our reason for giving $1 billion to Georgia? What could we want with Georgia?

Take a look at a map sometime. Where does Georgia lie? Obviously, south of Russia, but also just north of Iraq AND Iran. Okay, so it's not lying RIGHT NEXT to these countries. But, it's within the vicinity. I bet it might not be in the frame of American perspective right now, but the U.S. signed a missile defense agreement with the Czech Republic***.



This has caused some worry from countries such as Poland who feel this "missile defense" into a "first strike" system. Perhaps they do have something to worry about. Doesn't anyone feel like with $1 billion worth of aid that this country might actually be willing to set up missile "defense" against those mean old Russian bullies? And, hey, if American wants to use it sometimes for personal reasons, why not? They foot the bill, right?

It seems strategic, cold, calculating. I wonder how hard Cheney's laughing about this one.

Until we meet again, dears.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war
** http://icasualties.org/oif/
***http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/07/08/2008-07-08_us_czech_republic_sign_missile_defense_a.html

Joe talks trash.

In response to the article:
"Print media report that Lieberman attacked Obama at RNC without noting he had pledged not to"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809030007


Are you freaking kidding me? I'm surprised about this, but maybe that's just because of the misconceptions attached to Joe Lieberman. Maybe this is a wake up call our stereotypes associated with candidates (that is, how they present themselves to the public) should be re-examined and (possibly) forgotten at the door.

What was I thinking... an independent democrat who was the vice presidential candidate in 2000 (at Al Gore's side) not only criticizing but outwardly attacking Barrack Obama after he said he wasn't going to. Talk about two-faced, but keep your anti-semitic jokes at home on this one. Everybody knows that's not cool. Moving on.

I don't understand why he wouldn't support Obama; why did he even go to this convention? What could he possibly stand to gain? Is it all political intent; that is, does he just pander to whomever is around to get more power over them? Is he a blood sucking lawyer who doesn't actually have a stance on a political party line? Is he just waiting for the "war in heaven" (that's what I've come to refer to presidential elections because people in this country treat our president as though he's god... or, at least, ordained by god) to choose a side?

Even though I'm not a particularly religious person, I get the bitter iron taste of a betraying Judas on the issue. That means he risks losing snap points with democratic voters... this could reflect badly later on (but people often forget about these things that were said years down the road).

Joe Lieberman leans to the liberal side, and that could be the only reason why he would do something like this. He wants to even things out by winning the hearts of some republican party members (as well as voters).

Actually, now that I think about it, Sen. Lieberman has a history of being in bed with republicans because of the infamous presidential kiss during the State of the Union Address?

Joe Lieberman is dangerously close to coming off as an opportunist who only hopes to advance his own political career with people who are willing to play dirty (and downright lie about the issues) to get what they want.

And that is why it's poopy.
Poopy on you, Sen. Lieberman.