As we creep towards the seventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, the question of why we are still there has yet to be answered. Most likely it never will, unless you follow the no-bid contracts and oil company profits being reaped there. These were the only true winners in the war, at least on the American side. The losers undoubtedly were the American people, specifically tax-paying citizens and the troops.

We all know our national debt has steadily grown over recent years, and now we face the prospects of higher taxes and reduced social services. The hidden cause of this is the American war machine, which receives more national government spending every year than China and Europe combined. Some of the more "enlightened" readers may be thinking "but military spending only takes up 20% of the national budget, about as much as Social Security or Medicaid and Medicare." At best this is misleading, and at worst it is a lie.

President Obama's bipartisan healthcare summit was an opportunity for the Democrats and Republicans to come together in front of the American people and show us that they can put politics aside in favor of practical compromise. After spending over six months in the Senate negotiating with Republicans like Chuck Grassley, you would think that the Democrats would be in a good position to peel off some Republican support. The current Senate healthcare bill has been so diluted by compromise that very little actually separates Democrats and Republicans when it comes to reform. The Democrats worked to bridge the negligible gap by offering moderate (read: lackluster) ideas based on Republican ideas and complaints.

On the other hand, all we got from Republicans was political posturing and flat-out lying. Many members of the Republican delegation came with a prop - the entire healthcare reform bill. They forgot to bring their dignity, though. The summit has taught us three things about the Republican approach to the reform fight, and Republican politics in general.

Every year, thousands of young conservative activists gather to mingle, network, and see their idols up close and live while seeing who can come up with the best zinger against the Democrats. This year, there were the expected attacks against and jokes about the much-reviled trio of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but they also turned their guns towards a surprise target – the Republican Party.

Despite the fact that almost all the speakers are currently Republicans or have lost an election as a Republican (that would be you Rick Santorum in case you forgot in your diversity hating delirium), someone with limited political knowledge could have easily mistaken conservatives as a third political party in the United States. In fact, some speakers did call for a third political party while giving the middle finger to the GOP. Glenn Beck, in his keynote address, absolutely slammed the Republicans and compared them to the Democrats, which would be like comparing someone to George Bush at Columbia.

Does a definitive American style still exist in the 21st century? New York Fashion Week took place last week in an America that was still recovering from the economy, still trying to assert its authority amid foreign competitors while appeasing the increasingly divided public. In response to such an identity crisis, many American designers attempted to adapt quintessential American fashion to the modern age, from Derek Lam’s cowboy inspired fall collection to Tommy Hilfiger’s classically preppy designs. Most notably, perhaps, was the reemergence of voluminous, extravagant fur on the runways. One year ago, at the peak of the economic crisis, no sane fashion designer would dare include fur in their collections, for fear of being accused of disregarding consumer demand and violating animal rights. But this year, to the dismay of animal rights supporters, lavish fur coats, fur dresses, fur tops, and even fur purses were proudly and freely presented down the runways. Does this surprising trend represent a disjunction between the fashion-forward artistic crowd and Middle America, or are designers signaling towards an optimistic future, one where the United States is able to revert to its prominent, relatively luxurious past?

The 2008 Presidential election was supposed to be a highlight of my political life. I had just turned 18 and couldn't wait to see George Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney out of the White House. But it soon became obvious that I didn't have a dog in this fight. You see, I didn't like Barack Obama, from the time he was only known as the Senate's lone Black Ranger, even until much of the world thought that he was the Messiah reincarnate. I wasn't voting for Hilary or Joe or John Edwards. My friends and family didn't understand: surely I could have found someone to vote for amongst this diverse group of candidates? But I couldn't. You see, my problem with all of these politicians was that they were all federal Legislators (Senators to be precise); and they had all let me down. (Now many people pointed out to me that Rudy Giulani could possibly be a good President, after all, he did manage to clean up New York after the grimy '70's, '80's, and '90's. I, however, found his "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" campaign strategy less than convincing).

Edwards, Obama, Clinton; these were legislators that failed America. As legislators, what had either of them done for me, or any citizen, lately? I wasn't impressed with their cowardly and calculating habit of refusing to speak out against Bush Administration policies until it became politically convenient to do so. Even if these policies directly contradicted their party's ideology or their campaign promises. Even when the masses displayed their collective frustration with Republicans and the Bush Administration in the 2006 midterm elections by giving Democrats control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, President Bush did whatever the hell he wanted.

Though the Democrats held 49 seats in the Senate and 202 seats in the House, the Republicans were still able to hold the entire Congress hostage. The Bush Administration was still able to torture terrorists, gain additional funding for shady contractors in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and mushroom the powers of the executive branch. Its almost as if Democrats confused their position with a fly on the wall. But now that Democrats have control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, why are they still so afraid of the Republican party? And don't mention the upcoming midterm elections to any Democrat, or else they might just start to cry.

The details of yesterday's tragedy in Austin, Texas were nerve rattling, if for no other reason than that it resembled the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Joseph Stack, a disgruntled computer software engineer, flew a small plane into the IRS office building in Austin, killing at least one person and setting the building aflame. The attack bore all the marks of a terrorist attack: Stack left behind a note detailing a cogent political philosophy and justifying the use of violence to uphold that philosophy. He excoriated the government for serving the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class, and expressed political views in line with those of the populist tea-party movement and certain elements of the left. If we're comparing this to al-Quaeda, Stack's attack definitely qualifies as terrorism.

However, yesterday found the media reluctant to label this incident an act of terrorism. What's the difference between this attack and the radical Islamic ones that inundate the news everyday?

Well, for one, the guy wasn't a Muslim. The media's delicate handling of this story demonstrates that "terrorism" has become disentangled from its true definition, and has come to characterize only Islamic related violence. It says a lot about how America views the legitimacy of Muslim resistance to Western geopolitical hegemony, and Islam in general.

"Private: intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class."

President Obama's Race to the Top education plan has not been in the headlines very much because most of it has yet to be implemented, but from recent trends in education reform one can see where it is heading. At the heart of this movement is the effort to privatize the nation's public schools in the form of charter schools.

Perhaps the biggest news coming out of the Tea Party Convention held last week in Nashville, TN was the fact that Sarah Palin wrote notes on her hand during her keynote speech. While criticizing President Obama for using a teleprompter. While being paid $100,000 to speak at the convention.

But Palin jokes aside, the conference marks a huge turning point for American politics and especially, the Republican Party. A recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll found that two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with the federal government in D.C. With the spendthrift Democrats attempting to plow ahead with their agenda against the wishes of the American population and the Republicans doing little to stop them, many Republicans and right-leaning Independents have turned to the Tea Party movement to express their anger.

The smoking ban poll that was conducted last year was finally released last week and had some interesting results.

Although students from Columbia College opposed the ban by a wide margin of 56% to 37%, students overall at the University supported the ban in reverse fashion with 38% opposing and 51% supporting. It sets up an interesting dilemma for CCSC, the student government organization of one the main undergraduate schools at Columbia. Last week at one of CCSC's weekly meetings, members conducted a straw-poll in which it seemed to narrow its choice to looking to ban smoking within 20 feet of doors at Columbia's campus.

However, this proposed response would be inconsistent with the role of a governing organization. CCSC would be hedging its own position-both wanting to satisfy the desires of its constituency and wanting to appease students of the University as a whole. CCSC, however, is not accountable to anyone besides students of Columbia College. Yet, it is willing to allow the campus-wide opinion- as opposed to the opinion of Columbia College- affect its choice about how it should move forward. If a clear majority of Columbia College opposes a ban, then why does CCSC even consider a half-measure ban on smoking?

Governing boards from other schools are responsible for representing their own constituencies and voicing their support for a ban, but CCSC has no such responsibility. A final decision concerning any ban will be made not based on the decision of CCSC alone but on the consensus of all schools and their students. However, CCSC has either arrogantly or ignorantly decided that its decision will have the only impact on final outcome.Therefore, by tilting itself toward a ban, the governing organization of Columbia College only surrenders political weight to those who look to ban smoking on campus.

Questioning the bonuses and threatening to ban prop trading are not only annoying Wall Street but in return, hurting the Democratic Party. Before, the players on Wall Street were always donating to politicians; Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was a friend of President Obama, making JPMorgan a huge donor to the Democratic Party. Executives at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other major firms have also found themselves in similar situations. However, after constant attack on the ‘Wall Street Fat Cats,’ JPMorgan Chase decided to skip out on solicitations from the Democratic and Senate campaign committees, giving $30,000 to the Republican Party instead. Many of the financial regulations are not only not helping the economy, they are beginning to piss off a lot of big Wall Street firms, who are some of the Democratic Party’s biggest financial supporters. Who are these financial reforms helping? Wall Street is getting ticked off, the Democratic Party is losing money, and it seems as if Main Street is still suffering with a 17 percent real employment rate (adding on discouraged workers). Perhaps the best quote that sums up how the players are feeling comes from Thomas R. Nides, a Morgan Stanley executive as well as chairman of a major Wall Street trade group, “I am a big fan of the president. But even if you are a big fan, when you are the piñata at the part, it doesn’t feel good.