Hawaii Debates Same-Sex Unions

In an article in the New York Times, Hawaii has been debating whether or not to allow same sex unions like other states including New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont. The native state of President Barack Obama passed the measure in the State House and it now goes before the Senate for further approval.

I am personally not in favor of laws easing limits on same-sex marriage but I am not really going to be on the front lines supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Hawaii is the country's most ethnically diverse state and is a top vacation getaway as well. It has always been regarded, in my mind at least, to be a very liberal place where almost anything goes. I would not be surprised if the Senate allows Hawaii to allow civil unions. I feel this way because as I said before, Hawaii is a very liberal place and if any state is going to allow same-sex civil unions, it's going to be Hawaii that is thousands of miles away from the continental US. The democrats have an edge over the republicans in the Senate and that will help them pass this measure.

Groups in Hawaii have been working to shut down this attempt because of the belief that it would erode the strong and highly important conventional family values that Hawaii has. They are also worried about the influence it would have on the children. The fact that they are worried about children being influenced by this is absurd. There are more things on television that would severely negatively impact a child than seeing two men holding hands or kissing by the beach. Hawaii might want to embrace this because Hawaii would be the only nice, warm state to allow civil unions and that might boost their tourism rates. California reversed a decision allowing same-sex marriages over the summer.

Overall, the republicans are going to be distraught seeing that slowly slowly states are becoming more and more liberal allowing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The only way to stop all of this is either to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage or to regain control of the House and the Senate to further prevent states from "turning". It doesn't personally bother me but it would be different and shocking to see it starting to happen more and more often.

Metal Detectors

Metal Detectors
School security has always been an issue in many school districts. Depending on several factors like the location or the crime rate of a town, some school districts may be more prone to voice in favor of metal detectors. I read an article titled, “Metal Detectors in Schools?” which was written by Kenneth D. McDaniel II. The article talked about the pros and cons of a school having mental detectors.

Personally I am against the use of mental detectors in schools as the method of trying to eliminate school violence. Having metal detectors in schools does not fully eliminate school violence. Much of the violence and confrontations that occurs during school hours take place outside of the school’s walls. All schools have more then one entrance into the building, covering all of the entrances is also an obstacle.
This controversial issue has especially come more into the spot light since the unfortunate incident at Columbine High School. Preventing incidents like that one, is definitely at the top of the list of many school districts. Even though this is true, many schools are not jumping at the idea of having mental detectors, for several reasons. Schools tend to go from the other less costly but still effective alternatives for preventing school violence.
I read another article titled, “Metal detectors approved for Cleveland schools, will cost $3.3 million” written by Joseph L. Wagner. The title says it all. The article found at, http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/10/metal_detectors_approved_for_c.html, breaks down all the costs and who is going to pay the bill for this new security system. This school is a prime example of why many school districts tend to go for less costly security alternatives.
These two articles talk about mental detectors and school security and what should be done about school violence.

Medicinal Marijuana

The state of New Jersey has had numerous campaigns over the past several years affecting drug policy. There is currently a Compassionate Use Campaign initiated by the Drug Policy Alliance of New Jersey. This campaign hopes that people suffering from chronic illnesses will be able to use medicinal marijuana to alleviate pain from arthritis, cancers, and a number of other diseases.
Medicinal marijuana according to Drug Policy Alliance of New Jersey would be approved of by 86% of New Jersey citizens with a 4% margin of error. In 2006, the alliance ran a poll of 700 registered voters from New Jersey in different parts of the state. They found that a large number would be in favor of a new marijuana policy.
Those running for political office in the state should look to support the legalization of marijuana. The same poll showed that 62% of New Jerseyans would be more likely to vote for a candidate if they were in favor of legalizing the substance. 35% of people said they would be much more likely to vote for a candidate based on their marijuana stance. The poll did show however that marijuana was not a key issue for 21% of the voters and only 13% said that their support would not go to a candidate who was in favor of medicinal marijuana.
Does marijuana work? Many classes on drug use do not classify marijuana as a stimulant or a depressant, it is taught that marijuana will cause whatever the user believes it will cause. It is a fact that marijuana can dull the senses and often cause a blurred sense of reality. For this reason drug and alcohol abuse classes are misleading about the use of marijuana’s affects. Since smoking the product will dull the senses many people suffering from chronic diseases are looking to use it to heal their pain.

State Cell Phone Ban Laws

Although many may be accustomed to the legal policy of a ban on cellular phone use while operating a vehicle, it is currently still only mandated on a state level. Currently cell phone driving laws are only banned for all drivers in five states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington) and include the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. With the exception of the District of Columbia, these laws are primary enforcement policies, which means that law enforcement officers can stop a moving vehicle on the sole basis of using a cell phone. However, in the District of Columbia, it still remains a secondary offense and is only chargeable in combination with another primary offense. New Jersey also had an identical cell phone policy for the first few years that is was in effect, and has only changed it within the past few years.
Cell phone usage is currently defined as a handheld mobile device that is being operated while driving. Currently, no state completely bans the use of all types of cell phones and allows drives to opt to use hands-free devices in order to still communicate while driving. However, 17 states and the District of Columbia do prohibit all cellular use, both handheld and hands-free for certain segments of the population. These include novice drivers who have a limited or temporary driver’s license and school bus drivers. Furthermore, seven states (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey and Washington) and the District of Columbia have a text messaging ban for all drivers. Additionally, despite the growing popularity of cell phone bans while driving, eight states have preemption laws that prohibit local jurisdiction from enacting restriction of drivers. However, some of these states such as Utah and New Hampshire still treat cell phone use as a cause of distraction when a moving violation occurs.
These laws are based on statistical data that the use of a handheld device while driving causes one hand to be busy and therefore does not allow a driver to effectively react in a dangerous situation. This analysis is therefore adapted to current legislative policies that require drivers to maintain a certain 10 and 2 hand position on the steering wheel and requires the use of two hands. Furthermore, the argument for the ban results in the data that texting while driving actively engages a certain part of the visual cortex of the brain and therefore actively removes concentration from the road to the texting task at hand. This causes a great amount of risk and often leads to accidents.
Although, these policies might seem like a burden to many commuters, it is simply for the safety of the community. It does not prohibit the complete use of cellular technology, but rather requires that an additional hands-free unit be used so that the driver can have full capabilities to react in a dangerous situation. It seems like a reasonably sound and small request in order to save lives.

Death Penalty in New Hampshire

New Hampshire Legislators Eyeing Death Penalty

The Death Penalty is a very controversial topic not only on a state to state basis but for the country as a whole. In 1972 the Death Penalty was repealed with a citing from the Supreme Court stating that it was against the 8th amendment. They said it was cruel and unusual punishment. Just 4 years later, that decision was overturned by the Supreme Court and it was no longer cruel and unusual.

New Hampshire, like any other state has had its arguments over the death penalty. This article, coming off of the AP from a local New Hampshire newspaper. New Hampshire actually passed a bill in 2000 but it was veteod by then Governor Jeanne Shaheen. The now governor, John Lynch is also against a repeal of the death penalty.

Keeping or repealing the death penalty is always going to be something of a controversy because religious people will always cite that humankind does not have the authority, only God does himself, which they are arguing now. There are also people, like police officers, whose job it is is to uphold the law. To kill a police officer is one of only 6 crimes that is punishable by death in New Hampshire. Secondly, there has only been 1 other person in New Hampshire that has been sentenced, but not executed to death in 50 years. Nobody has been actually executed in 70 years.

New Hampshire is obviously one of hte strictest states when it comes to the death penalty and I am all for keeping the death penalty. There are circumstances, the killing of Police Officer Michael Briggs included, where the death penalty is needed. It should remain up to the states and up to a jury.

Julie Biondi: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace!





I have decided to switch topics over to Sexual Harassment in the workplace. I think this is a very touchy topic and something very hard to make a policy about. There are Sexual Harassment policies in every office that you go to but the problem is that these people feel a threat to their livelihood. Most sexual harassment cases are not only with women, but also with a co-worker that is higher on the work scale. These women and men feel as if they have no choice but to ignore the harassment and continue their day because if they don't, they may lose their jobs. Sexual Harassment laws are everywhere and they have to be respected, but there are still those people who know what they can get away with and because of them, there are hundreds of women afraid to complain about something that bothers them everyday. Statistics show that 31% of all women in the workplace are sexually harassed, whether its jokes or crude comments. Only 7% of men are harassed and that is still terrible. These women are working in jobs that are known to be more masculine then others such as, firefighters, coal mining, secretarial positions for a successful man etc. These women know that there are laws made so that these things will not happen, but these women also know that they need to make money and survive. I personally believe that these laws are a great thing to have, but if only there were a way so that the victim will not have to lose their job.

A Personal Opinion on the Torture Debate

The question on how prisoners of war and unlawful enemy combatants are treated has been a debate that seems to have no end. On the one side there are the people who believe that torture is affective and on the other side there are people who feel that torture is inhumane and cruel and should be outlawed. A 2005 article in the Washington Post that I found while surfing the internet spiced up my desire to discuss this issue. Many people feel that torture is justified when there is an impending danger. I agree with this statement but only if certain conditions are met. Before I go into my views and reasons for supporting torture I will first discuss the policy issues behind the debate. In 1984 the United Nations passed the U.N Convention Against Torture in 1984 which had a bunch of provisions. This act recognizes that all persons are entitled to select human rights and that protection from torture is such a right. The convention defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a pubic official or other person acting in an official capacity. It requires that each state that ratifies the convention must take legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. It requires that no state will send a person to a foreign country where it is suspected that the person will be tortured. It also requires that there be a Committee Against Torture created to monitor torture in the world and to review torture claims that are presented to them. they members of the committee are elected to 4 yr terms and can be re-elected. The United States ratified the convention in 1994. in times of crisis, the United States started implying methods known as CID (cruel, inhuman, and degrading) treatment, or “torture light.” These are methods that are still effective to an extent, but are not constituted as direct physical torture. Some of these methods include blasting prisoners with strobe lights and ear pounding rock music for hours upon hours, threatening them with snarling dogs, threatening to hurt their mothers, walking them around the detention center on a leash and making them do dog tricks, having female interrogators ride on their backs or contacting them in ways that their religion prohibits, stripping them naked in front of women, whispering to them that they have killed their comrades, placing a smelly hoof on their head and making detainees squat naked in a cold room for hours. These methods are considered CID treatment since no actual physical torture is being inflicted. Other tactics such as waterboarding (making a person feel like they are drowning), Palestinian Hanging (handcuffing a person’s hands behind their back and hanging them from the ceiling 5 feet above the ground for hours), and withholding pain medication for bullet wounds were classified as direct torture and were prohibited from being used. In October 2005, Senator John McCain proposed and had passed a bill that banned all methods of torture including CID treatment. This bill is known as the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and it states that “Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of anyone in U.S Government custody is prohibited, regardless of where they are held. It also requires that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations. The Amendment also says that there will be no immunity rewarded to anyone subject of violating the law. McCain says that with this law “We have sent a message to the world that the United States is not like terrorists. This legislation will help America repair an image that has been tarnished by prisoner abuse scandal. Even after the law was passed, interrogators at Guantanamo Bay still were using methods of torture in what they felt was an exception to the law, so in 2007 the House passed a bill that banned Waterboarding specifically from being used, one of the most effective tactics according to officials who wish to remain nameless. After all the legislation that has been passed, it is clear that the United States does not want to torture detainees, except Dick Cheney who argued against McCain’s bill furiously and pleaded President Bush to Veto the bill, with no avail. I myself am a firm believer in torture, but ONLY if the appropriate conditions are met. I do not agree with torturing a man who we just picked up off the street with no insights, but I do agree with the torture of proven leaders of a terrorist regime or proven suspects implicit in attacks on our country. This is the ticking time bomb argument, where torture is justified when an attack is imminent. Maybe I am brainwashed from FOX’s “24” where rogue agent Jack Bauer saves the country many times, but resorting to torture of suspects is a key in his success. Every official wants the suspects to be treated fairly but Jack Bauer knows that there is no time so he works out a way where he gets to interrogate the suspects and he tortures them and gets the information needed. He has shot suspects in the leg, broken a suspects fingers one by one, injected a solution that makes every muscle and inch of a person’s body feel like it is on fire, he has maid leaders of terrorists organizations believe that there sons have been killed by setting up a live feed and telling his team members to execute the children, even though the children were not executed, it looked like they were to the suspects. These tactics are obvious forms of torture but in the instance of the show, the ticking time bomb scenario is always the case. He justifies his action in the show by saying that “When are you going to learn that these people are not living by your rules! They do not care about our laws because they know that we have to abide by them and they can not be stopped! I don’t care about these laws, when the survival of this nation is at stake. I will do whatever means are necessary to get the job done!” I have to say that I agree with him. In the situation where we know that there is an immediate and impending attack on our country, than officers should do anything and everything that they can to try and stop the attack. If we have a person in custody that is complicit in an impending attack within an hour or a few, taking the proper procedures and treating them lawfully is only going to condemn the country. in the amount of time it would take just to draw up the paperwork on the suspect, the attack will have taken place. Also, in such instances, yelling at the suspect, blasting loud music, threatening the suspect with snarling dogs, these tactics will not make a terrorist tell you their plot. On the other hand, if you shoot him in the leg or you shoot his wife in the leg, it provides much more incentive for the suspect to give up what he is hiding for the fear that the interrogation might only get worse. John McCain has been tortured in Vietnam for 5 and a half years and fought this country for a ban on ALL forms of torture, and even he says that “”If Al Qaeda had hidden a nuclear bomb in New York City and a suspect involved is in custody, you do what you have to in order to stop it, but the key is that you take responsibility for it.” The people who are capturing our soldiers over seas are not treating our soldiers with dignity or respect or even human treatment, so why should we show any to them. there have been American soldiers who have been be-headed on film as prisoners of another country and we are worried about humiliating the prisoners that we have?! It makes no sense to me. There is no motivation to cooperate with us and there is no fear of consequence for anyone thinking of plotting against the United States by treating prisoners lawfully. It says that if you are planning to attack the United States and you get caught, keep your mouth shut because you will not be physically harmed or abused and eventually if they do not have enough evidence to try you, you will be released into America or back to your native country. In my opinion, that is not much motivation to not attack the U.S. the laws have been emplaced so there is not a whole lot that I can do about it, I just have to hope that when the situation arises, that the Jack Bauer figure in our government will step up and do what is needed in order to aver a catastrophe. The question is about morals and I say that when nation security is in jeopardy, safety trumps morals

Bailout for News Papers

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE4BU53T20081231?sp=true

By Robert MacMillan - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Connecticut lawmaker Frank Nicastro sees saving the local newspaper as his duty. But others think he and his colleagues are setting a worrisome precedent for government involvement in the U.S. press.

Nicastro represents Connecticut's 79th assembly district, which includes Bristol, a city of about 61,000 people outside Hartford, the state capital. Its paper, The Bristol Press, may fold within days, along with The Herald in nearby New Britain.

That is because publisher Journal Register, in danger of being crushed under hundreds of millions of dollars of debt, says it cannot afford to keep them open anymore.

Nicastro and fellow legislators want the papers to survive, and petitioned the state government to do something about it. "The media is a vitally important part of America," he said, particularly local papers that cover news ignored by big papers and television and radio stations.

To some experts, that sounds like a bailout, a word that resurfaced this year after the U.S. government agreed to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the automobile and financial sectors.

Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route.

Providing government support can muddy that mission, said Paul Janensch, a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and a former reporter and editor.

"You can't expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it," he said.

The state's Department of Economic and Community Development is offering tax breaks, training funds, financing opportunities and other incentives for publishers, but not cash.

"We're not saying 'Come to Bristol, come to New Britain, we'll give you a million dollars,'" Nicastro said.

The lifeline comes as U.S. newspaper publishers such as the New York Times, Tribune and McClatchy deal with falling advertising revenue, fleeing readers and tremendous debt.

Aggravating this extreme change is the world financial crisis. Publishers have slashed costs, often by firing thousands in a bid to remain healthy and to impress investors.

Any aid to papers could gladden financial stakeholders, said Mike Simonton, an analyst at Fitch Ratings.

"If governments are able to provide enough incentives to get some potential bidders off the sidelines, that could be a positive for newspaper valuations," he said.

NEWSPAPERS ARE DIFFERENT

Many media experts predict that 2009 will be the year that newspapers of all sizes will falter and die, a threat long predicted but rarely taken seriously until the credit crunch blossomed into a full-fledged financial meltdown.

Some papers no longer print daily, and some not at all.

Even as industries deemed too important to fail are seeking bailouts, most newspaper publishers have refused to give serious thought to the idea, though some industry insiders recounted joking about it with other newspaper executives.

"The whole idea of the First Amendment and separating media and giving them freedom of control from the government is sacrosanct," said Digby Solomon, publisher of Tribune Co's Daily Press in Newport News, Virginia.

Former Miami Herald Editor Tom Fiedler said that a democracy has an obligation to help preserve a free press.

"I truly believe that no democracy can remain healthy without an equally healthy press," said Fiedler, now dean of Boston University's College of Communication. "Thus it is in democracy's interest to support the press in the same sense that the human being doesn't hesitate to take medicine when his or her health is threatened."

Connecticut does not see trying to find a buyer and offering tax breaks as exerting influence on the press, said Joan McDonald, the economic development commissioner.

"It is what we do ... with companies whether it's in aerospace, biomedical devices, biotech or financial services," she said. "If a company is developing laser technology, we don't get into the business of what lasers are used for."

Connecticut's actions are not the first time government has helped newspapers. The U.S. Postal Service has offered discounted postage rates. Several cities have papers running under Joint Operating Agreements, created following the congressional Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 to keep competing urban dailies viable despite circulation declines.

But the press is not the same as other businesses, said veteran newspaper financial analyst John Morton. "You're doing something that has a bearing on political life," he said.

Marc Levy, executive editor of the Herald and the Press, said he would not let gratitude get in the way of reporting on local political peccadilloes.

"It's the brutal reality," he said. "You'd say, 'thank you very much for helping me with that, but now we have to ask you about this thing.'"

(Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoD46H7Syyo

This idea of extending the franchise of the bailout is becoming preposterous. Having

helped some industries that are deemed vital to the survival of the nation has opened up

the flood gates to what exactly the definition of the word “vital” means. It is not the duty

of our government to interfere with every company that has been running a poor business

model for the current business environment. It is understandable that the government

sticks their hands into some industries in an effort to try to stem a domino effect in the

markets, but not for something as trivial as a news paper, and a small town news paper at

that. Undoubtedly the designs of Frank Nicastro are aimed at bringing aid to his small

congressional district, but Mr. Nicastro should realize that there are much more important

matters to attend to than his local news paper. It is saddening to think that people in this

country are so unwilling to sacrifice any personal amenities to help the common good.

This isn’t an issue limited to congressmen and women but seems to trend in the common

population more than anyplace else. My question is where have Kennedy’s ideals gone?

Roland Burris...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-burris16feb16,0,6669760.story

As everyone that is mildly interested in politics knows, there has always been fishy business surrounding Illinois politics. This was evident in the Kennedy election, large numbers of deceased voters turned out to help swing the state, or when Sen. Moseley-Braun kept funds that were supposed to pay off a debt, or Rep. Rostenkowski’s mail fraud. Now we come to find out that Illinois’ Governor was looking to sell Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. The man who was appointed to that seat was Roland Burris. Governor Blagojevich was impeached over this scandal. If there was enough evidence that Governor Blagojevich was impeached, it would go to presume that the money he took would be from the person who he appointed to that seat, Roland Burris. This corruption is shameless and self centered. The downfall of Governor Blagojevich is a welcome and disserved one. It would help to restore faith if Roland Burris suffered the same fate. The implications, however, do not stop at Mr. Burris. Out of the rank corruption that oozed out of the Illinois state house, is one to presume that Mr. Obama was able to escape that unsaved? It surely would be a miraculous feat if he had. Only time will tell if Mr. Obama will lead this country with the same degree of indecency his peers have lead the state of Illinois.

Marijuana Legal In New Jersey

Drugs have played a major role in shaping society in the United States since its beginnings to present day. Drugs utilized in the medical and pharmaceutical fields have extremely wide range of positive effects and are an everyday part of American life. As many different kinds of drugs as there are that benefit life, there are also many drugs that can be harmful and are extremely dangerous. In the United States the government enforces strict laws and regulations concerning all different kinds of drugs. In 1937 the United States passed the Marijuana Tax Act, and in 1970 passed the Controlled Substance Act, which officially made criminalized the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana. Under this act marijuana is classified a schedule one drug, the highest penalty and most restrictive class of drugs. Despite the law, marijuana is the third most popular recreational used drug in the U.S with nearly 80 million Americans who have admitted to trying it and 11 million using it regularly. Recent efforts have forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a second look at the effects of Marijuana.
Some of the latest studies show marijuana has highly useful effects for the treatment of serious life-threatening illnesses such as glaucoma, MS, HIV/AIDS, and cancer. Marijuana alleviates many of the painful and uncomfortable symptoms of these illnesses, such as vomiting, nausea, muscle spasms, migraine headaches, depression, and insomnia. Also stimulating appetite and promoting weight gain. Many states have already made the step forward toward the decriminalization of marijuana and its legal use for medicinal purposes. The passage of Bill A-804 by New Jersey legislative committee will grant victims of serious illnesses the legal permission to smoke marijuana in order to ease pain or symptoms of their illness. I believe New Jersey is taking the initiative toward the decriminalization of marijuana that soon the rest of the country will follow. New Jersey is the fourteenth and most recent state to make this progress. President Obama told Rolling Stone Magizine in July 2008 his plan of policy on marijuana would begin with a “public-health approach”, and described the current U.S. policy on marijuana as “expensive, counterproductive, it doesn’t make sense”. As his presidency unfolds this country will hopefully experience a change in its view of marijuana, and take a positive approach towards the beneficial properties of marijuana.

Civil Rights Agenda

President Barack Obama has been trying to fight for many different types of civil rights, as a civil rights attorney. It seems only natural that President Obama would want to pass new laws involving civil rights as President of the United States. Many different topics on the Civil Rights Agenda include combating employment discrimination, expanding the definition of hate crimes, ending racial profiling, eliminating sentencing disparities, and restrictions on marriage, AIDS prevention, and many more.

I agree with the steps that President Obama is willing to take in order to make our society better and more comfortable for its citizens. However, these items on the agenda are controversial, difficult to change, and there are many different technical aspects that will require change of other laws and the people of The United States, to make these laws work. There are also some people who do not agree with this agenda (video below). Many of their concerns are valid, but it seems as though they are not looking at this agenda with an open mind and are judging these ideas before technical aspects are addressed. The definition of what is considered a hate crime can be difficult to distinguish with this item on the agenda. Careful consideration must be taken into account when passing this law. Huckabee mentioned that a woman with a sign that encouraged traditional marriage was punished, because it was considered to be a hate crime. Differences of opinion and actual actions can lead to discrepancies when defining a hate crime. It would seem logical that the President and other individuals in the government that help him to make decisions would try their best not to impose on ones constitutional rights to uphold another's. I think that before President Obama can be completely attacked on this agenda, people should wait to hear the details, not just a 15 word summary on the policy. Some of these ideas will be harder to change than others, but overall I commend President Obama for attempting to correct and address issues in this country.

Oil Industry Response to Global Warming

The Obama administration puts much more emphasis on the study of global warming than previous administrations. With new blood in Washington, oil executives who have long been skeptics the effects or even the existence of global warming are beginning to transition to the other side of the table to join the discussion for a solution. Under current regulations, which there are no penalties for excessive carbon emissions companies have no motivation to reduce operating emissions. The carbon tax would be a tax on the total amount of emissions by any given company. This policy is supported by oil giant Exxon Mobil. Under the cap-and-trade approach a carbon ceiling would be implemented by the government and permits will be sold to companies that outline their limits for a period of time. I do not think this is such a good idea because it is difficult to determine how much should be used and who should be able to use it. At the same time with just a tax the motivation might not be large enough for companies to change harmful behaviors. A ceiling firmly limits the amount of carbon that can be emitted and I think that is what we need. Recently released information by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that global warming or climate change could in fact be far more widespread and destructive than previously anticipated. If the research is proven to be true it is crucial that we take action to try to reverse some of the sources of the climate change as soon as possible. Any form of regulation on carbon dioxide emissions enacted I believe can be beneficial to the environment. Allowing companies to regulate themselves is not going to be effective enough to cause an impact. In Europe a similar cap-and-trade approach has been implemented. Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell believes both systems (carbon tax and cap-and-trade) can be effective or even coexist together since they both have the same end goal: pricing carbon dioxide to encourage innovation and environmental conservatism. He also notes that cars in Europe are more efficient largely to the considerably higher gas taxes. We witnessed the same effect this summer when gas prices were setting record highs and everyone scrambled to get more efficient cars. Only time will tell what policies are implemented but it is clear that the oil companies want their input to be heard.

College Board's 'Score Choice' Policy

In an article posted about two months ago by NEWSWEEK, entitled, The New SAT Score Policy: Tiny Loophole, Big Shock? a new policy is discussed which would take into effect September 2009 regarding the SAT scores sent to colleges.

Initially, regardless of how many times a student, high school junior or senior, would take the their SATs, every score would be directly sent to the college the student is applying to. However, with Score Choice, as College Board is proposing, would allow the students to make the decision on choosing which scores are sent to the prospective colleges. Essentially, the student could take the SATs multiple times without receiving a penalty of having scored very low one time or maybe mediocre another. College Board believes this implementing this new policy would help release some of the pressure and stress students face during the process.

I think all of us, being that this is a college course, at one point experienced the grueling College process and one of those factors was the preparation for the SATs. Just studying for the three hour exam was nerve wracking enough, but once the test date came on that bright Saturday morning, it was nothing but sweaty palms and whispered prayers hoping to just make it through the exam. In an SAT prep course, the instructors even gave advice to make sure we were ‘always hydrated’ to bring a bottle of Gatorade for the electrolytes and have a good hearty breakfast. Suffice to say the pressures and stress of taking the SATs were very real.

There are some opponents who argue, as the article states, that this is a mere strategy for College Board to gain more recipients to take their test, oppose to the ACT. If College Board wants to implement this new policy, why not? Some universities have already been contacted about this, and some have stated they would honor Score Choice. As I mentioned earlier, the numerous stress factors high school juniors and seniors face as they embark the road to college, if this could in some way help alleviate that stress or anxiety, why say no? Additionally, this is an educational policy that would effect students across the nation. Of the most tantalizing experiences one faces in high school, between gym class and the SATs, I think this just might make the latter a little more tolerable.

Stimulus Package

The very controversial $787 Billion stimulus has passed and will be implemented as an attempt to give our economy a boost. The fact of the matter is that these simulus packages only act as booster shots that only temporarily ameliorate the situation. The fact is that our market is functioning normally, well kind of. Economies go through 6-7 year periods of fluctuating growth and decline, people become afraid when we see the decline phases because we see a weak economy, the truth is that for an economy to exist it cannot have uncontrolled growth or decline. Imagine if we had a runaway economy that continued for an extended period of time, we would have incredible inflation followed by an economy that cannot support itself! What is happening now is only part of the natural business cycle, the extreme effects of this decline however are caused by the compounded effect of a crippled housing market, a corrupt and crippled lending market and a severely weakened dollar. To add to this dilemma we had to suffer through high oil prices thanks to a war in the middle east and increased global demand due to growth in China and India. These factors served to create a rather disastrous situation where our economy simply decided to take a dive as the problems spread onto other markets, including the stock market and the money market. This stimulus package will serve to temporarily aid the overall economy for a short period of time merely acting as a booster so as to buy time for the cycle to turn on itself and start the growth process again. The package will definately help with infrastructure spending as businesses will take adavantage of the tax refunds and indivduals will spend more of their money. The fact remains however that our credit market is suffering greatly and that many people will simply recieve the money from the package and save it rather than spend it which is what the point of the package was in the first place. An economy in downturn will have its people suffer the least if consumer spending stays high. Unfortunately with the other factors in our current situation this is harder for many people but it must be done in order to correct the situation. So when you get your check think twice before putting it into your savings account and look at that shiny new plasma tv or xbox 360 you've been looking at.
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/

Buy American Clause in Stim.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gO3kwNiyhM3SFXN16Y074FKRGPkA

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has warned that "Buy American" provisions in the economic stimulus bill could make the United States vulnerable to a trade war.
"The 'Buy American' provisions in the stimulus bill will signal to our trading partners around the world that the United States is returning to the bad old days of protectionism and economic nationalism," CEA president Gary Shapiro said in a statement.
"Rather than stimulate the American economy, these provisions will lead to retaliation from abroad and cost precious jobs in the United States," said the head of the association representing some 2,200 electronics companies.
"The promise that the 'Buy American' provisions keep with the letter of World Trade Organization commitments is a meaningless gesture -- it contradicts recent statements by both President (Barack) Obama and G-20 leaders to avoid protectionism, which exacerbate the global economic crisis," Shapiro said.
"If we close our borders to international trade and artificially prop up our own industries, we deepen the global recession and further make ourselves vulnerable to a trade war," he added.
The US House of Representatives on Friday passed a 787-billion-dollar stimulus package and the Senate was poised to follow suit.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was among those expressing concern on Friday over provisions in the bill that would require the use of US iron, steel and manufactured goods in public works projects funded by the bill. "


My Response:

By limiting ourselves to the "buy american" standard
laid out in the stimulus package, we open ourselves
up to multiple counter intuitive senarios
1. The first senario leads Obama to undermine his integrety. By accepting the "Buy American" clause, he will be going back on his word to the internationalcommunity. Part of the change Americans voted forwith obama was in his apparent honesty. Hopefully, Obama is just niaeve and is suddenly realising thatpolititions have to break promises, rather thanbeing a subversive liar.
2. One unfortunate part of the "Buy American" clauseis that this includes may raw materials that are minedin America. Why is this unfortunate? This is dueto the unions. Ther is nothing inherently wrong withunions, but rather their leadership. Much of the money that will go to union labor turns up in leadershipdues. Leadership dues in turn then go to support political candidates, which tend to be democraticcandidates. This is another issue which should beconsidered by the obama administration when focusingon the "change" in the business as usuial in washington.
3. The last few years, the United States' world oppinion has been quite tarnished. This was supposedlypolished up with the election of Obama, a trustworthyman of integrity and honesty. By discluding the restof the world, in an attempt to grow American GDP, andgoing back on his promise to the internationalcommunity, Obama has managed to show the world thatbusiness is in fact back to usuial in Washington.
4. By the United States passing this clause in the stimulus package, it will cause hostility in the international market. The freedom of trade betweeninternational markets is what will help bring us outof recession. This is not a national recession, but rather an international recession. It can not be solved only at home, and expect it to go away. Thisis something that needs international cooperation.This, also, is cause for other markets to passprotectionary measures as well. This could lead tointernational isolationisim.
This is not unlike the passing of the Corn Laws in Great Britain in 1815. At the close of the NapoleonicWars, Many continental farmers went back to work. A sudden influx of cheep grain suddenly was available on the international market. In an effort to protectBritish farmers, Parlement passed the Corn Laws, whichput a high tarrif on cheep grain from mainland Europe.This kept grain prices unnaturally high for may yearsin England, and led to the starvation of millions asa result the expense of grains and the failure ofIreland's potatoe crop.
Hopefully this is not the future for America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRKAmqENkQ

Obama's environmental policy reversal will have immediate impacts in Minnesota

Obama has wasted no time in trying to push "long overdue" energy and environmental issues. He has totally reversed Bush's policy for the environment. Policies like this one, tend to go in and out of the spotlight as a new party dominates. Bush actually denied climate change according to this source!
Obama's proposal wants to reduce carbon emissions and oil consumption. However, this that may cause problems for a company in Minnesota called The Big Stone II power plant in Minnesota.
I believe that Obama has to push the necessity to change the standards of vehicles as soon as possible. I figure we are going to have to make even more drastic changes than juct curbing CO2 emissions because the problem we are facing is intensifing at higher rate than it is decreaing.
The sooner he does it, the easier it will be for people and companies to adapt to the new technologies. These new technologies should no doubt lead to new jobs.
There is not one policy that affects people the in the same way and, keep in mind, that with issues like these, Congress has A.D.D. One party may take it seriously and the other may not. There will always be those who benefit from the policy and those that do not. That's is just how it is. As we have seen with the Bush Administration, the American people are completely polarized in their ideologies. What we need now is for someone to step in that can mediate the two kinds of people, meaning at least, the Republicans and Democrats, but is there even such a person? Obama's dreams of bipartisan unity are far from reality.

In Vitro Meat: Food of the Future?

Scientists have come a long way with things, such as in vitro fertilization, but are they going a little too far with in vitro meat? This article talks about how in vitro meat may be the next best thing for the world. In simplest terms, in vitro meat is meat produced by using "animal stem cells that would be placed in a medium to grow and reproduce. The result would mimic flesh and could be cooked and eaten." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (a.k.a. PETA) is currently offering a $1 million dollar reward to the first scientist that is able to produce and bring in vitro meat to the market. For additional information on the contest, click here. According to PETA, in the United States alone, there are more than 40 billion animals, which include chicken, fish, cows, and pigs, that are killed every year in the most inhumane ways. Therefore, in vitro meat is being introduced as an alternative.

There are several advantages of in vitro meat. One is that it would prevent the cruel treatment to animals that are being held in "animal factories." In vitro meat is "victimless" meat. No animals are harmed during the production of it. Another advantage is that no parts of animals go to waste. Through in vitro, only the desired parts are grown; ergo, nothing is wasted. Cultured meat also has the potential of being healthier than regular meat. New Harvest, an organization that supports advances in meat substitutes, stresses that "food-borne diseases - most commonly caused by contaminated meats - are responsible for more than 76 million episodes of illness, 325,000 admissions to hospital and 5,000 deaths each year in America."

I think the government should provide funding to the advancement of in vitro meat production. I do not see why anyone would be opposed to this idea. Scientists' aim is to improve the health of people by providing a healthier alternative and to stop the inhumane treatment and the slaughtering of animals. Cultured meat will lead to a healthier society and less animals killed.

Could in vitro meat be the food of the future? If it will look, smell, feel, and taste just like meat taken from a live animal, it is very possible that it will replace slaughtered meat.

Wall Post revised

Article

Hillary Clinton is the new Secretary of State and this is the first foreign policy that she is making. Obviously she doesn't want the Manas Air Force Base to be close but she'll have some work to do.

The base will be closed when its lease is up in 18 months. The decision by President Baklyev of Kyrgzstan came after his meeting in Moscow with the Russian President.

This policy will be a major decision in the fight against the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. General Petraeus, the man in charge of all operations in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, said that it would be a huge loss for the United States. With 30,000 more troops ready to be deployed into Afghanistan, it would obviously be a problem that has to be overcome. Without this base, The United States has to find another way to get supplies to Afghanistan as well as another fuel spot for planes. Those planes include the ones that carry the troops in.

Without this base, Foreign Policy in the Middle East is going to have to change drastically. Strategies to get troops into Afghanistan are going to either have to change, or be renegotiated. Obviously the best option for the United States, in my opinion, would be to keep things the same, just the way they are. It might cost the United States some money but its going to be worth it unless we can create another base in the next 18 months that is as safe as the one in Kyrgyzstan.

We'll see how it plays out in upcoming weeks/months and see if Russia plays a part in keeping the US out of Kyrgzstan.

Obama Reverses Bush's Emissions Rules

A few weeks ago President Obama ordered a directive to the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider California’s and thirteen other states applications for set stricter car emission laws and fuel efficiency laws then the national standard. The applications were submitted under President Bush’s administration but rejected when President Bush sided with automakers that more rules and regulations were going to become unenforceable and a drain on an already dwindling auto industry in the United States. President Obama is making great strides in his first few weeks as President by undoing what President Bush’s administration had done. With state’s being able to enforce stricter regulations, the auto industry will be forced to created clean and more efficient cars, which President Obama hopes will end our reliance on foreign oil. California has been leading the nation with environmental initiatives and if the EPA approves their application they will continue on that path. Auto makers are not happy with President Obama’s directive because they claim it is going to cause more economic stress on an already burden industry. The government has provided billions of dollars to the auto industry, and most likely they will see more stimulus money come their way, but President Obama stresses that he wants to see the cleaner cars of the future built right here in America today.
I would have to agree with President Obama that states should be allowed to enforce stricter regulations over auto emissions and fuel efficiency standards. The environment is a serious issue on the national agenda, and also on a lot of state’s agendas. If the nation as a whole is not going to take more progressive steps to curb our emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil than it should be the state’s right to enforce stricter legislation within their boundaries. Also, by multiple states wanting stricter regulations, the auto industry is going to have to produce more efficient cars and trucks to stay competitive in the market. These more efficient cars are not only going to benefit the states with stricter regulations, but also the other states the cars are sold in. I am proud that President Obama is living up to his promises and trying to accomplish so much in his first 100 days. Those in the auto industry have a right to be worried about how these changes will affect them, but until they become a leading force behind promoting more efficient cars our nation will stay dependent on foreign oil and will continue to increase our carbon footprint.

Stopping Destructive Public Policy

During my search for an article that I would be able to relate to, I came across a letter written to the editor of a newspaper in my area on my native Long Island. The letter was written in opposition to "destructive" public policy which instead of helping the public with various changes in laws and what not, is rather detrimental and hurts more than it helps. It is a letter by a disgruntled New York state resident who is in strict opposition to Governor David Paterson's proposed budget. The author states that currently there are only 2,400 licensed wine retailers in New York and with the passing of the proposed budget, any beer retailer would be permitted to also sell wine. That would increase the number of wine retailers in New York state by over 19,000 licensed retailers. Gas stations, supermarkets and corner stores would be included in the increase. The author then starts talking about how the increase in wine in such accessible locations will be dangerous to the youth by giving them more of the ability to purchase wine from locations that are not very strict. The point that the author made that really caught me and "spoke" to me was when he mentioned a website called www.lastmainstreetstore.com which, as described in the URL, is a place to defend Main Street stores which are in jeopardy to lose their businesses. The business world is not in a good place right now and it is very important to preserve small family run businesses that have been providing for the owners to run their lives for however long the business has been open. This law will hurt the retailers more than it could help them. The budget should be made to maintain the small businesses and not to hurt them. Sure the gas stations would be happy with such a change because they could possibly gain business that they have never had before but the stores that specialize in wine or have been earning their income for many years from wine sales may see a decrease in their income. The state should work to help these disenfranchised individuals. An increase of nearly 10 times in wine retailers will not increase the demand for wine in New York state, it will just create a much harsher competition between the retailers for customers.

One thing that I have to disagree with though is the reference brought in by the author regarding teenage drinking. One can of beer and one glass of wine are equivalent in their alcohol content so if the places selling beer start to sell wine, that would not increase the availability in stronger alcohol. Wine is more alcoholic than beer but if the teens can get the beer, they can get the beer and the availability of wine does not mean that wine is easier for an underage teen to acquire.

Aerial Wolf Hunting

Article Link:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/alaska.judd.palin/index.html

Ashley Judd has recently criticized Sarah Palin for supporting a wolf management program in Alaska. She released a video sponsored by the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund in which she attacks the program and Sarah Palin. The program allows hunters to shoot animals from aircraft in order to control their population. Judd claims that this program is extremely cruel and unfair to the wolves. She states that Palin is promoting the slaughter of wildlife. Palin was upset by the comments and referred to the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund as an “extreme fringe group.” Palin was also offended that they would call out her and her administration in order to gain publicity to help raise money for their fund. The reason this wolf management program has been created is to control Alaska’s wolf population, because they prey on moose and caribou. The program is only available to Alaskan residents who obtain a permit to first. This is simply done to control an increasing wolf population and decreasing moose and caribou population.

I agree that this wolf management program seems to have sufficient need in Alaska. This program was not intended to be cruel or cause the unnecessary killing of wolves. It is simply a matter of population control. There is an increasing population of wolves and a decreasing number of moose and caribou. One can make the argument that this program is beneficial to animals because of the moose and caribou population that is protected by it. In addition to this killing animals from aircraft is no crueler than killing them from the ground. It is simply an easier means of accomplishing a goal which is controlling the population of these animals.

I also agree with Sarah Palin that this is all a stunt to fundraise money for the Defenders of Wildlife Fund. In my opinion many of these animal rights groups can be pretty extreme and unreasonable. There were many other people who supported this program, but Ashley Judd calls Palin out by name. This clearly seems to be a ploy to gain national attention from the media. The widespread coverage of this story is sure to raise awareness of this wildlife fund. Overall I agree with the wolf management program.

Cigarette taxation in the United States

Article one
Article two




The public policy I am going to be discussing is cigarette taxation in the United States. I read two articles on the policy; the first one discussing why cigarette tax is so high and the second article discussing the unintended consequences of cigarette taxation.
The first article discusses how tobacco taxes are classified as an excise tax in the United States. The federal government imposes a nationwide tax of 39 cents per pack. After the federal government taxes cigarettes, individual states then impose there own tax on cigarettes. At the time this article was posted, which was December 2008, South Carolina imposed the lowest tax rate of 7 cents per pack, and New Jersey was the second highest in the nation with 2.575 per pack. Article one goes on to discuss how states higher their cigarette tax to try to make up for state deficit.
The second article is discussing the consequences of raising cigarette taxes so high. By making cigarette taxes so high, there is more smuggling of cigarettes in the United States. The article talks about how people were smuggling cigarettes from South Carolina to Michigan making a ten thousand dollar profit. The author goes on to say that the man making the ten thousand dollar profit had ties to Al Qaeda. The author goes on to say that he knows he is sounding extreme, but the smuggling of cigarettes could be helping to finance terrorism.
I agree with the articles. The first article is more informing about cigarette tax and how it is imposed. The second article discussing smuggling is agreeable. I know as a smoker I do not like to pay over seven dollars a pack. By raising cigarette prices to help pay off state deficit is not fair to the cigarette smokers. It is making one group responsible for helping to pay off the deficit. I know it is a person’s choice to buy or not buy cigarettes, but the point that it targets a group of people seems unfair. If states need help paying off their deficit, they should raise tax on everybody, not just cigarette smokers. I am not saying I want taxes to be higher, I am just saying that the government needs to come up with a better way to tackle deficit.

The Economy's Effects on Local Restaurants

Economy’s Effect on Local Restaurant
The economy is without a doubt affecting everyone. And the restaurant industry is no exception to this. From small local dining spots to top of the line fine dining, all types of dining are feeling the slow economy. Like in all tough situations, the people involved have to figure out ways to get ahead. The article I read, from The New York Times, titled “New Restaurants Adapt to Economy” talked about different local restaurants and how they are dealing with the economy and some of the things they are doing to stay a float during these hard times.
The local restaurants that were talked about in the article all had their own plans on how to keep the numbers up. For these restaurants, the costumer always comes first because restaurants understand that without their loyal and new customers, they would have no business. If they help make dining out more affordable then they can maintain their numbers and keep regular and new, potential customers, happy.
Many of the restaurants have redone their menus to make meals more affordable but still keep them at a fair price. Other restaurants have started something called a fixed price menu, so people can already know what they are going to pay when they decide to go out. Some have even created specials. These specials have been especially place on drinks and wines at the bar.
All those different types of solutions are making it easier for these local restaurants to stay afloat. January alone has always been a difficult month for the restaurant business without even having to add the pressures from the economy. Thinking about what is best for the business as a whole has been an important part of the way these restaurants are run.
Helping out small businesses, like these restaurants, is a great thing for the economy. We need all the businesses to stay open and keep people employed. We need to contribute any business to these local businesses. And spending money at these restaurants is made easier when they have good food, fair prices, and you get a feeling that they are looking out for what is in your pocket not just what goes into their own.

Link to article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/nyregion/new-jersey/25dinenj.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Abolish the Electoral College

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
Link for site

There needs to be a policy proposal to abandon the Electoral College and substitute it with direct popular vote for the election of the President of the United States. The Electoral College, though it is a provision of the Constitution, is a significant issue in United States public policy because it greatly affects the public in a negative way. The Untied States Government should have learned from their wonderful decision to abandon the method for electing senators and substitute it for direct election in the 17th Amendment. The system has been working for almost a hundred years now and there have not been any major disputes about the fairness in a senatorial election. A Presidential election, however, is different. Presidential elections are full disputes, favoritism, and unconstitutional guidelines.
The first major problem with the Electoral College is that electors, not the people of the nation, elect the President. I understand that back in 1783, the people of this country were not intelligent and well informed on politics and were too far away from the government to understand what was going on or even to have the slightest impact on how it operated, but the status of the country today is the furthest thing from how it was in 1783. Today, the majority of the population can simply turn on a news channel or go onto the internet to find daily updates about what is going on in the government. Also, the Government is a major subject that is taught at schools and universities, therefore, the majority of the population is informed on how it operates and should have a say in who is the leader of their country. The need for electors to make smart and educated decisions on behalf of the inferior public is no longer necessary. Every person has knowledge of the government and an opinion, and their opinions should be valued, not disregarded.
The second major problem with the Electoral College is that the Electors are not legally bound in their vote. They are elected as members who will vote for their party, usually party loyalists and campaign donors, but they are not legally obliged to do so. The people of this country vote for the party they want to win, and the electors are supposed to represent that vote, but if they chose, could abandon that trust and vote for whomever they please. This leaves the elector process open to corruption, since an elector can sell his vote for money or political favors such as backing a policy issue they are in favor of. There is nothing democratic about an unfaithful elector and such a provision open to so much manipulation should not be legal.
The next major problem with the Electoral College system is it is set up in such a way that the national popular vote winner can lose the election. This is possible because the system disregards all the votes of the losing candidates in a state. If 2,000,000 people voted for Obama in New Jersey and 1,990,000 voted for McCain, all the people who voted for McCain’s voted do not count. If there was a third party candidate and they received 50,000 votes, then more people voted for someone other than Obama, yet he would win the Electoral Votes for the state. This is a direct violation of the principle of one person, one vote, because millions of votes do not even matter. One person, one vote is also violated under the system because it gives a person in Wyoming more of an influence on an electoral vote than a person in California. Wyoming has around 160,000 people for each electoral vote and California has around 650,000 people for each electoral vote, so a vote from Wyoming has a greater value than a vote from Texas. This is also an extremely undemocratic guideline of the Electoral College system.
This process also sets up the flaw of state bias in a campaign. It makes the candidates focus on winning states, not votes. For a great deal of states, it is already assumed which candidate is going to win so candidates only spend their money in the battleground states and ignore around half of the country. A Republican will not win California and a Democrat will not win Kansas, so those states are practically ignored. The candidates care more about the votes of people in Pennsylvania than Texas and that is unfair to the people in those states.
Another major problem with the Electoral College is the fact that it can end in a dead lock. When there are 300,000,000 people in a country, there should not be a tie in an election, that is the first problem. The second problem is if there is a dead lock, the House of Representatives than votes for the president, making every vote from the public obsolete. The Contingent election in the House favors small states over large states. Each representative from their state votes and each state is allocated one vote. This means that the one House member of Wyoming gets to vote for the president and the 53 House members from California all have to agree and come up with ne vote amongst all of them. This guideline is probably the most undemocratic provision of the Electoral College.
With so many flaws and no significant strengths, he Government needs to propose the policy change of the Electoral College system to a direct election of the president. Direct election will eliminate every flaw the Electoral College has. There would be no deadlock in an election, therefore there would be no contingent elections. The national popular vote winner would always be the winner of the election and represent the majority vote of the people of this country. If it was a direct election, every vote from every person would count just as equally which would make each state just as important as all the others. There would be no need for electors and thus, there would be no problem with faithless electors. Direct election solves all of the election problems and makes every election as fair as possible. The sooner we adopt direct election for the President of the United States, the sooner we will be to becoming a true democracy.

Socialized medicine (video fixed)

The issue of socialized medicine is one with many shades of grey. I am in favor of socialized medicine for overall coverage for a number of reasons however many aspects are highly debatable. For that reason I will present my views on the matter with little prejudice towards the other side.
The key consideration for a number of people when it comes to socialized medicine is the amount of time it takes to receive surgery. In many countries with socialized medicine the waiting list for necessary surgeries can vary from weeks to months and even years. In certain circumstances however this is true of America’s health care systems as well. Try walking into a waiting room with kidney failure and acquiring a life saving kidney. A cousin of mine was on dialysis for a number of years, some of them spent at the top of the waiting list, because kidneys were unavailable. That is not to say that in every circumstance the two systems are equivalent in waiting time but often we can see that major surgeries require a long wait. Sources on both sides of this argument look at this idea with extreme prejudice. Washington Post
Another argument for keeping off of socialized medicine is that many people would be able to take advantage of health care without earning it. It seems that this point of view is in conflict with a general principle the country was founded on which is right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If people are refused general health care services for whatever reason they may not be allowed the ability to have a “normal life” or be able to pursue happiness. The argument is that the American tax payer would be paying into a system supporting people who have not worked their way into a position to pay for themselves. There would not be much of a difference in the long term though because instead of having money taken out of a pay check for the health care of the family a pay check would now have money taken out for the greater good of all the people.
Doctors in a socialized medical system would likely have a shortened list of clientele. Patients living in a certain area would be required to visit certain doctors based solely on proximity. This is something that makes sense in general principle but is one point that has become a prominent issue in the argument for socialized medicine. The reasons for this are that doctors and possible patients often see this as a negative. Patients believe that often times the closest doctor is incompetent and so they would rather travel the extra distance to see a better doctor. Doctors see this as a negative because the free market system would be ruined for them and the clientele would not be based on skill but proximity to patients. That means that doctors’ skill may deplete as they realize it is less important in the system. Patients may then receive worse treatment and the vicious cycle may spiral out of control. The question then becomes whether or not the system really serves the greater good or not.
The most important area, and the reason I believe that socialized medicine serves the greater good, is prescription drugs. If the government regulates the cost of prescriptions the American consumer/patient will pay less for necessary drugs. As far as health care goes the focal point should not be the “what if one day…?” but the fact that all people in America will likely need prescription drugs at some point in their life. Sometimes these people will need to be on drugs continuously and be unable to afford them. The free market system in health care has allowed for drug companies to essentially build a monopoly as they set minimum prices on different types of drugs. Cold and flu medications may only cost ten dollars but liver medication can run near fifty or more dollars for ten pills. The system at the very least needs more government regulations and could use full control from a government agency. The people need to be able to rely on their government to be able to give them the ability to pursue their inalienable rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Clinton: Kyrgyzstan base closure decision 'regrettable'

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/clinton.kyrgyzstan/index.html

Hillary Clinton is the new Secretary of State and this is the first foreign policy that she is making. Obviously she doesn't want the Manas Air Force Base to be close but she'll have some work to do.

The base will be closed when its lease is up in 18 months. The decision by President Baklyev of Kyrgzstan came after his meeting in Moscow with the Russian President.

This policy will be a major decision in the fight against the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. General Petraeus, the man in charge of all operations in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, said that it would be a huge loss for the United States. With 30,000 more troops ready to be deployed into Afghanistan, it would obviously be a problem that has to be overcome. Without this base, The United States has to find another way to get supplies to Afghanistan as well as another fuel spot for planes. Those planes include the ones that carry the troops in.

We'll see how it plays out in upcoming weeks/months and see if Russia plays a part in keeping the US out of Kyrgzstan.

Google Latitude Released

CNN Article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/04/google.latitude/index.html

Google Latitude:

www.google.com/latitude

Recently, Google has released a new application maintained by their corporation which will allow cellular phone users the ability to send geocordinates to friends and family in order for them to monitor their location at all times. This is done through the use of the same satellite signals used daily to make calls, and does not require any additional fees. Google Inc., already one of the major world-wide cyber corporations, has devoted an entire department to developing an application linking the common users cellular phone to a remote based server that will allow accessed users to track their exact global position. At the moment, this new application works in over 27 countries worldwide.

Although, privacy policies are an obvious concern for many people, Google has remained firm on assuring the public that it is a voluntary program in which the cellular phone and active computer need to both affirm participation before location can be traced. In addition, each user must approve each individual viewer’s permission to access the tracking monitors and can additionally adjust the level of privacy to restrict tracking to display only city or state, rather than the exact location.

However, this new technology being released to the public in turn is not new at all. It has been utilized by governmental organizations, such as the FBI and NSA, for the past few decades in the attempt to keep tabs on suspected terrorists. However, with the prevailing push of technology within society, the need for advancement allows for a wide range of opportunities. Yet as demonstrated through various public policies, the law within the United States concerning privacy and legal issues in regards to cyberspace has not always been consistent and at times can be easily manipulated by loopholes in stare decisis. Furthermore, the ease of a virus to gain simple information from personal computers, such as passwords, would allow unlimited access to large databases of tracking monitors and could potentially allow companies or organizations to monitor individuals whereabouts without their consent.

Yet, even though there are some possible privacy concerns, the main issue is that this release in technology to the public could actual result in a large amount of good. The ability for parents to be able to provide their children with cell phones with limited plans would be less costly but now allow for them to monitor their location from a remote location such as home or work. It would allow them the piece of mind that their child has arrived safely to school or in the case of emergency allow police to easily locate them in an efficient manner. A large portion of the population currently uses cellular technology and the adaptation of such an application without the need to pay for it would take little effort. Large companies, such as Law Firms in New York City, could easily keep tabs on their clients. Small local companies, such as pizza places, would be able to monitor their delivery drivers in order to promote business and give a more accurate delivery time. Even governmental organizations, such as police states or parole officers could monitor their charges in order to more efficiently manage responsibilities. Although it would be necessary for public policy to adapt to prevent problems or abuse of personal privacy as situations arise, the utilization of this free technology could enable a free stimulus to economic corporations, promote safety, and secure an advancement in our technological abilities.

MPG Standards May Hurt Automakers

Here are the two articles I used.
Cnet news: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9733435-7.html

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,477490,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/foxcarreport

Watching gas prices rise rapidly back in 2007 the U.S. government acted and proposed a bill to raise mpg standards drastically. The bill passed in the House in 2007 and then later through the senate. It was left for President Bush but he decided against doing anything with it and left it for the Obama administration to decide on. Though Automakers have until the model year 2011 to incorporate these standards into their cars, SUV’s, and trucks. This is a very short window considering most auto companies start planning future models several years in advance of when they actually go into production. It is the largest increase in fuel economy standards since 1975. By 2020 the average mpg for an automakers fleet of cars and trucks must be 35mpg; right now the standard is 25mpg. There was tax incentives included if automakers comply but they were taken off the bill. It is coming under much scrutiny from auto lobbyists from GM, Ford, and Chrysler also known as the big three as well as republicans. Lately with their financial troubles and the bailout, times are still hard on theses companies. Having to comply with such strict standards so quickly can possibly cause the company to collapse even further possibly even for good. It would have to be a huge turnaround I think may prove to be too much should the bill be passed. While I believe these standards are necessary in the long run I think automakers should have more time to be able to implement theses standards. Some companies may have a very hard time trying to meet theses standards. Models will need to be dropped in some cases and others totally reworked. In the long run theses will help our dependence on foreign fuel as well as help clean up the environment which is always a necessity we just need to give automakers a little more time.

No Child Left Behind

The information that is in the following video blog and summary is from:

Some Perspectives from Rural School Districts on The No Child Left Behind Act By: Ying Zhang, Center On Education Policy

The article I read about was on No Child Left Behind Act. This act was made so American students can work together and be at the same level and curriculum as everyone else in the country. This act seemed to be a good idea because of the high standards that were applied. All the teachers have to have bachelors degree and full teachers licenses. Since the teachers are smarter and have a higher level of education, government thought it would be a good idea and this would make the students smarter and able to learn more. As a matter of fact, this did the complete opposite. Because the teachers had to stay at the same pace and level of all the other classes, the teachers do not get the opportunity to help out students that are falling behind. This act is crippling our future because these students that aren't keeping up are being put into special education classes. These students don't need to be in these classes and it is only shooting down their self esteem.

Please enjoy the video blog below: