With the 2010 midterm elections rapidly approaching, politicians everywhere are doing everything they can to ensure they won't join the 6.5 million unemployed Americans. These past few weeks have seen an onslaught of political activity as legislators, governors and other elected officials seek to reassure voters they have not been twiddling their thumbs this past term. But one issue has especially triggered debates, protests, and passions from both Republicans and Democrats, more then the Goldman Sachs case or the Charlie Crist news - the passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070.

This bill, three-pronged in its approach to dealing with illegal immigrants, has drawn controversy over the provision that allows police to detain or arrest someone if there is probable cause that he or she is not carrying the necessary documents to prove his or her right to be in the country. Critics have charged that this law will be conducive to racial profiling. Even some Republicans, such as Representative Connie Mack (R-Fla.), have criticized the bill, with Mack calling it "reminiscent of a time during World War II" of "the Gestapo in Germany."

Last Wednesday The Hill reported that President Obama will decide on a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Stevens by May 26 at the latest. That same day, Obama met with Senate leaders from both major parties to discuss the upcoming confirmation process. Among other factors in his decision, the President has said he will choose a candidate based on that person’s attention to the rights of women and the privacy of women’s bodies. Careful not to commit himself to a specific policy, Obama also said he would not impose an abortion “litmus test.”

Included in Wednesday’s Oval Office meeting were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont and committee ranking Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama. While Senators McConnell and Sessions promised to give Obama’s candidate a fair hearing, the two conservatives said Republicans would reject any nominee with preconceived intentions. Senator Reid stressed the possibility of electing someone outside the judiciary community, possibly an academic like Elana Kagan, or another exceptional attorney.

Given Obama’s focus on women’s constitutional rights as the swing factor in this nomination, it’s entirely likely that he’ll pick a potential female nominee that lost out to Justice Sotomayor last spring. Potential favorites among political pundits include US Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood and private attorney Leah Ward Sears. Wood, unanimously confirmed to the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in 1995, was Obama’s first interviewee after Justice Souter announced his retirement. While her liberal record on issues like abortion makes her an ideal contender for this contest, some conservative opponents have attacked her for flouting previous Supreme Court rulings in her zeal for individual rights. This contentious background could result in a confirmation hearing far more controversial than last summer’s.

Sears, the first woman and youngest person ever nominated to the Georgia Supreme Court, could appeal to the black community, which feels out of touch with the Court’s sole black justice, Clarence Thomas. Sears’s record of overturning anti-sodomy laws and condemnation of the electric chair as cruel and unusual punishment will win her votes with liberals just as her close connections with Thomas, which could be seen by the black community as a sign of more disconnected leadership, could help win conservative votes as well.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Dr. Martin Luther King, from a Birmingham jail

The Columbia chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity recently sent out an invitation on Facebook for what promises to be quite a party. In celebration of Cinco de Mayo AEPi members invited Columbia students to "La Casa," and for one memorable night to go "below the border" to the "hottest, wettest, and spiciest venue in the world." Don't forget the "ponchos, sombreros, bandanas, or ...your best cholo/a." Fortunately for AEPi, someone watches the news, and the invitation was soon modified to a less offensive tone, soon followed by a mea culpa.

Cinco de Mayo is a celebration among Mexicans and Mexican-Americans commemorating the nineteenth-century Mexican victory over French imperialist incursions against overwhelming odds. AEPi is in the process of making amends for their mistake, and good for them. Conflating Latinos and crime is of course racist, and it is similar to assumptions underlying the anti-immigrant legislation recently passed by the state of Arizona. The question that I find interesting is how this quiet little controversy at Columbia relates to the recent events in Arizona.

The story begins with Paulson & Co., a New York-based hedge fund that manages billions of dollars, approaching Goldman about the possibility of Goldman creating a CDO portfolio with which Paulson could short- a investment strategy in which Paulson would profit from if the portfolio underperformed or defaulted.

As both a Muslim and a South Park fan, I found the reaction over South Park's 201st episode silly. Anybody who has ever watched South Park knows that its writers spare no one and nothing from the show's relentless satire. What's more, the two episodes in which Muhammad was featured were not in the same hateful vein of the Danish cartoon that aroused Muslim anger around the world a few years back. The shows used Muhammad to poke fun at censorship and celebrity anger over South Park's satire, but they didn't make fun of Muhammad. Considering that the same episodes in which Muhammad appeared featured Buddha snorting coke, the depiction of Muhammad was tame.

So, Revolution Muslim, the group threatened South Park's writers with death over the episodes (and was founded by a guy who used to be a Jewish settler in Israel ... weird), looks pretty dumb for reacting so vehemently. In addition, those on the internet who are now howling over the savage ways of Islam and painting America as the victim of Islamic intimidation look short-sighted and biased. They have forgotten that radical Muslims like those at Revolution Muslim are not the only - or even the worst - transgressors of free speech in America. As usual, America can learn a thing or two by watching South Park. There are two lessons to take away from this fracas.

Last Monday, Amnesty International held an event at Riverside Church to kick off their campaign called Deadly Delivery to fight the deplorable rates of maternal mortality both in the US and around the world. The event was a panel which included Larry Cox, the Executive Director of Amnesty International USA; Dr. Jennifer Dohrn, Assistant Professor at Columbia University School of Nursing; Silvia Rosario Loli Espinoza, Executive Director of Amnesty Peru; Yves Boukari Traore, Executive Director of Amnesty Burkina Faso; and Brima Abdulai Sheriff, Director of Amnesty Sierra Lone.

This campaign is part of a larger goal of Amnesty International's which is to draw attention to healthcare as a human right. While healthcare as a human right as been a point of advocacy for activist groups for a long time, it has shifted into the spotlight recently with the health care reform legislation debate. It is the question of if the ability to keep yourself and your family healthy with proper access to health care should be a reflection on ability to pay. In other words, should health be a luxury or a right afforded to every human being by their governments?

Last week, the New York Times released the first poll to measure the make up of the Tea Party movement. The results were surprising to say the least. Granted, we all knew that the Tea Party was majority white, old, and middle American. We also knew that they were ... let's say racially insensitive, which could be ascertained by observing their protests signs ("go back to Kenya"? Nice).

Who would have thought that, on the whole, the Teabaggers were wealthier than the general public? Or better educated? Or that they have weathered the financial crisis better than most Americans? The poll has essentially revealed that the Tea Party isn't bunch of unemployed rednecks angry at Wall Street elites taking money from average Americans. Rather, they're a bunch of retired, wealthy, well educated white Americans whose biggest concern is that Obama is doing too much to help poor people.

This new profile sheds light on the Tea Party's vision of America. They have been revealed as a regressive, backwards thinking group whose vision of America is not compatible with the diverse America of the future.

Questions for Stand Columbia

There are many policies that you plan to enact to the point that there are almost too many-they span everything from the drop deadline to "promoting community service" yet there are no detailed plans on how the Stand Party plans to implement policies. Let's use one of the subsections of the Academics section as a starting point. How will you go about implementing the Hamilton Hours section? Will you simply meet with administration to make it possible? Will you poll the Columbia undergraduate community to see if they actually would like extended Hamilton hours and then go about implementation? For the record, I am not questioning the Hamilton hours issue, but more interested in how the party will actually be going about implementation of policies.

For the final grade deadlines issue in the academic portion of your platform, you mention the students' anxiety and stress. However, there is considerable pressure on professors at Columbia to publish as well as other pressures to gain tenure-and we all know that Columbia administration caters more to the professors and research funding they garner than students. How will you actually overcome this obstacle in reducing the final grades deadline?

Can you give an example of a core event that you have had to pay for? Are students permitted now to reach out to their core professors or instructors to speak on their particular financial situation to alleviate this stress? Is working on this policy actually a valuable use of time if a student is allowed to ask a professor for alleviation of financial stress currently?

In your policy, it is stated that "a relatively small number of CC students actually smoke according to scientific surveys." What are these "scientific surveys?" I am aware of a survey conducted via e-mail during my time at Columbia, but what is the actual scientific validity of this survey-was there a high enough response rate for the survey to be a good sample (this is probably the only time I've used something I learned in econometrics/frontiers)? Also, what about occasional smokers like myself? I do not classify myself as a smoker, yet in the situation that I would like a cigarette (which is usually caused by stress that Columbia campus life induces), where would an area that is "easily accessible, yet without a negative impact on other students" be? Low Library roof? That would be awesome.

To see the rest of Sajaa's questions, hit the jump.

This week on Cubcast we discuss current affairs in gay rights on campus and around the country. How will Columbia's gender neutral housing policy affect your housing options? Is Obama dithering over the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell? Is the gay marriage movement ready for a Supreme Court battle?

Our round-table this week includes Columbia Queer Alliance president Sean Udell, CU Dems president Kate O'Gorman, CU Amnesty International co-president Joy Achuonjei, Cub Pub contributor Bruce Garro, and Cub Pub editor-in-chief and podcast moderator Ismail Muhammed.

You can read more about Sean Udell and the activities of the Columbia Queer Alliance at http://cqa1.wordpress.com/.

After the Treasury Department has spent more than $200 billion in tax-payer money over the last year and a half to prop up hundreds of banks including financial giants Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley, financial reform looks to finally make its way to the Washington’s agenda.