Guns should be banned by states in the USA

While in class I thought that this topic was very interesting, and I had a lot to say about it. When my Pro analyzed the 2^nd Amendment it caught my attention because he was right in what he said. In the 2^nd Amendment it says,

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

There are three commas in this statement, each either being a pause or maybe even a mistake. When I say mistake I don’t mean a fault in text, but instead a, not too sure agreement. The founding father of this Amendment was uncomfortable with his proposal to the first congress. He was also uncomfortable with giving power to the militia back to the congress. The entire Amendment was to strip congress of power over the militia and give it to the states, where people can bear arms.

That was back then, when crime was not an issue in the USA. But today where most of your killings are due to guns; why should we still be able to bear arms? In a society were guns are easily purchased, and then I can totally see why people would feel it is necessary to be armed. If gun control was more strict having personal weapons banned and severe penalties imposed for illegal possession, I think it would create a society with less of a siege mentality. You will never stop gun crime, but you can reduce it greatly. I know you will find more murders with knives etc, but these will still be less because it’s harder to kill someone when it’s up close and personal. Guns make it too easy. Even suicides among the young in particular will decrease because yet again it is less convenient and does not require much effort, and with a gun there is less thinking time needed.

Impact of NYC's Cigarette Tax

NYC calls to 311 to quit smoking triples
NYC Cigarette Tax climbs to highest in the nation

In June 2008 the cigarette tax in New York City became the highest in the nation, over taking New Jersey. New York City is allowed to levy their own taxes that are separate from the state. Im June 2008 the tax went from $1.25 a pack up to $2.75 a pack. This is expected to bring in $265 million dollars a year into the budget. As expected many people in the metro area are outraged at the idea of a pack of cigarettes costing about $10. Store owners are afraid they are going to lose business because of the tax increase. NYC smokers are also outraged that they have to pay the highest amount of money in the nation for a pack of cigarettes. The part of the issue that goes unnoticed the most is the amount of people that are quitting because they simply can not afford the amount that they cost. According to the ABC News article it is estimated that 140,000 people will quit smoking and even more astonishing it will keep 243,000 minors from smoking because of the price. Even more astonishing was that within in a month of the tax being raised the calls into 311 to quit smoking tripled. About 2,700 people called in to quit that is up from 850 from the previous year. So the price is forcing people to give up smoking.
This issue brings two different schools of thought to my mind. The first is that I am against smoking in the first especially in public areas where other people are now forced to withstand others cigarette smoke and its health hazards. I applaud the ban of smoking in restaurants and bars and I beleive that was a very big step to help decresase health hazards to the public. This tax also helps decrease the health hazards even more by reducing the amount of people smoking. On the other hand it seems like it is an infringement on peoples rights. It should be someones right to smoke if they please but when tax is rasied so high and people are forced to quit it is an infringment. The tax seems to not only be used for revenue purposes but also so make people quit. This just does not seem right, people should still have a choice.

Cut in Federal and State Funding for Zoos

In a comical video created by the New York Environmental Society, an appointed public official announces that there will be a cut in funding and in response a need to create necessary layoffs to stay “afloat.” However as the personal conversation between the elected official and the “individual being laid off” continues, it becomes clear that the cut will be handed to a porcupine and subsequently the amphibians. Although meant to be humorous, the message clearly portrays that the lack of funding granted to these zoos are not necessarily affecting the population in a majority, but rather the attempt to provide adequate habitations for the wildlife within them.
One of the largest struggles in the contemporary “green” society is that of protecting the world’s wildlife from harm and extinction. Although there is internal debate among the environmental groups over the “morality” of zoos, the position stands that in a society where natural habitats are disappearing due to population growth, there needs to be a safe haven to protect the endangered species. Zoological efforts have time and time again proven to be extremely beneficial in preventing the extinction of species. For example, the rehabilitation of the bald eagle, which is the symbol of freedom in the United States, or the timberland wolf that was recently successfully repopulated into the Yellowstone National Park.
Between the Bronx Zoo and the New York Aquarium, there will be a cut in funding during 2009 that will total over 3 million dollars. This lack of funding translates into a cut in over 30 staff positions at both locations. According to John Calvelli, director of external affairs at the Bronx Zoo, "We thought they'd use a scalpel to cut, not an ax…Where exactly are we supposed to go?" Additionally, according to Time Magazine in 2009, over 80% of the United States population currently lives in urbanized areas. These zoos provide a prime opportunity to allow for children and adults alike to visit an animal sanctuary to find a glimpse of the worlds plethora of wildlife that they would otherwise not have the chance to see. As Calvelli states, "This is where you go to learn about the natural world…We're living museums." “"You can't cut back on the food an elephant eats," says Jane Ballentine, the director of marketing at the Maryland Zoo, which has been forced to close for four additional weeks this winter. "If something needs to be fed, it's going to be fed."”

The Banning of Junk Food

Ban on Junk Foods in New Jersey

My blog is about the controversial topic of schools banning “junk foods” for their students. I read an article on this very touchy subject titled, “New Jersey first state to ban junk food in schools so kids may live long and prosper” that I found on the Bnet network. New Jersey became the first state to ban junk foods from their schools on September 1, 2007.
But what exactly is considered a junk food that falls under this ban? Junk food is anything that has sugar as its primary or main ingredient. Eliminating these foods from the schools would not be enough of an effort. Schools have also put a heath education program that will educate all students on how to be healthy and how to make good eating choices. This health program will affect students for grades K-12; during those crucial years eating habits are formed for the majority and have a great influence on the rest of their lives.
The major reason for all this health frenzy is because the numbers for obese and children with diabetes are just too high. One study was taking on 6th graders in a school in NJ and 20% were obese and 18% were overweight. Schools are also banning vending machines, snack bars, and school fundraisers that sell candy.
There are pros to the banning of junk food in schools. The health education is a good thing that teaches children really early on to make healthy eating choices. Also by banning these foods in schools, there is no temptation for students to eat the junk foods while they are in school. Students are in school for several hours during their day. The schools are also help with childhood obesity and diabetes. The intention behind all this is very good.
Just as there are pros there are also cons to this matter. Many feel that healthy eating habits should lie on the shoulders on the student’s parents and not in the school’s hands. Fundraisers also took a hard blow when selling candy was banned. But the major con on the matter is the past standing tradition of bringing in cupcakes for your birthday to school. The whole class would enjoy a treat on anyone’s birthday.
I personally am for the ban on junk foods. Even though I have many great memories of bring in treats for my class in elementary school for my birthday, I am siding with the ban. The numbers on the other side are just too dangerously high. The ban will help get kids at an early age to think healthy. Making healthy choices is a life time of choosing healthy and helping kids get into the habit of eating healthy young will help them have a long life.

Colleges should allow for Genderblind Housing

Allow 8 seconds for video to show after pressing play

Due to this video, and an article i read on Genderblind Housing in the Daily Pensylvanian Newspaper, I am addressing the issue of whether colleges should allow students to room with whomever they choose, gender being a non-issue. It has always been the policy of colleges to forbid a male and a female from rooming together, unless the students were married. This point of view is supported by many claims. People feel that allowing a male and a female to room together may increase the amount of rapes on campus. It is no secret that college students drink alcohol and a male is much more likely to rape under the influence. In accordance with this claim, people also feel that co-ed dorm rooms would increase the chances of promiscuity on campus. That is a logical claim since promiscuity is significantly more likely among co-eds than among same gender rooming, unless the roommates were gay. The homosexual roommate issue brings up a valid point for the argument for co-ed housing. If the idea behind making the same gender room together is to reduce promiscuity and sexual tension in the rooms, than it should be the policy for homosexuals to have co-ed rooms. There is obviously no sexual tension between two straight men so logically there is no sexual tension between a gay man and a woman or a gay woman and a man. However this is not the case, since it does not matter if the students are gay or straight, they have to room with the same gender. Seton Hall University is a good example for this kind of housing policy. No only are the opposite sex not allowed to room together, but the opposite sex is not even allowed to stay overnight, visitors of the opposite sex have to be off campus by 12:00am. Most schools at least allow for the opposite gender to sleep over if signed in, but not Seton Hall.
The National Student Genderblind Campaign originated in Yale University and now has members and activists nation wide. This is a movement to call for colleges to allow students to room with whomever they choose, regardless of gender. The movement is spreading, and it is not just the NSGBC who is fighting the issue. There is a lot of support coming from the National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuals. The NARTH has joined in the fight due to the extreme call for genderblind housing from Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender students. These students face ridicule and even possible abuse from their same sex room mates, and from the straight roommates perspective, they may feel uncomfortable living with a gay or transgender student. Wesleyan, Swarthmore and Haverford colleges and Columbia University all offer co-ed housing as an option in their schools and it looks like a plethora of other universities are leaning that way. The argument is supported by the claim that whoever a student lives with should be up to the student, not the parents. Parents are against the co-ed housing mainly if they are a parent of a college female student. Most parents do not want their little girl to live with a college male unsupervised. It kind of relates to the idea that if a man has sex with ten women he is considered to be “the man” and if a woman has sex with ten men she is considered to be a slut. The parental worry in co-ed dorms comes mainly from parents of college females.
I feel that genderblind housing should at least be an option at colleges and universities in order to avoid all claims of a heterosexual bias, unfair treatment of gays and transgenders and to give the students one less reason to protest their school policies. The NSGBC found that schools that have genderblind housing as an option rarely have students pick a student of the opposite sex as their roommate. So far, out of the schools that do offer it as a choice, the administrators report that only 2-3% of students choose to live with a student of the opposite sex. With a number so low, there is no harm in giving them the choice. I feel that this country is constantly evolving from historical views into a more modern society. Think about it. 100 years ago women could not vote, 160 years ago slavery was legal, and as little as 55 years ago it was legal to separate black citizens facilities from white citizens facilities and even the schools for their children. As the country evolves, so do it’s beliefs. It is only a matter of time before co-ed housing is an available option at all universities. I feel that it should be an option because all of the opposing reasons have not been shown in the schools that currently have it. Currently there are roughly 91,000-95,000 forcible rapes per year in this country and until that number goes up due to college rapes at the schools that allow co-ed housing, there is no logical argument that increased rape would be a result of co-ed housing. Maybe rape and violence would result in co-ed housing if it was made mandatory and your co-ed roommate was chosen randomly just as the same sex roommates are chosen today, but the policy proposal simply calls for allowing co-ed roommates to be an option, not a necessity. Those that do not want to live with a student of the opposite sex are not forced to like they are forced to live with the same sex in contemporary university policies. I say allow the option and have hundreds of social scientists do research like they love to do to find out if it makes college life for students more pleasant or if it is in fact much more dangerous. Until the latter is proven, the universities should give the students the choice.

Medicinal Marijuana Public Policy

Medical marijuana legalization has taken a front page position recently with the postponement of the sentencing of a Los Angeles man convicted of running a medical marijuana dispensary. The owner of the medical marijuana shop, Charles Lynch, was arrested at his Morro Bay, California shop in 2007 and was charged on 5 counts including a charge for selling medical marijuana to customers who were under the age of 21. Federal law forbids the sale of marijuana and other narcotics to minors under 21 years of age. The Federal court that was trying Lynch postponed the hearing until April 30th so that there can be clarification on the laws since Attorney General Eric Holder said that medical marijuana dispensaries should not be convicted under federal law if state and local laws were being adhered to.

There have been debates and arguments on the subject of marijuana for recreational and medical uses for decades after its prohibition in the early 20th century. There have been so many discussions that in Barack Obama's internet town hall meeting on March 25th, he was asked many questions regarding marijuana and the topic took over the spotlight of the internet question session.

My personal opinions on the subject are slightly liberal but there are capitalist ideals behind it. I believe that marijuana should be legalized but highly and strictly regulated and sold by the government. The government would open "marijuana shops" or "cafes" and have the marijuana sold there at highly taxed prices. Whoever that wishes to purchase marijuana for recreational use must be of a certain age and must apply and go through a strict process to obtain a license/card allowing the person to purchase recreational marijuana. The user must use the card to purchase the marijuana and they are allowed to purchase only a certain set amount per month. This way, the amount of "legal" marijuana that is out in the world would be monitored and there would be a great revenue for the government. The other parts of the cannabis plant can be used for other things as well such as paper or rope.

The Obama administration seems to be taking a less conservative stance on the legalization of marijuana. I am not sure how Obama feels about completely legalizing marijuana but there have been talks of the taxation idea given the state of the economy. I don't think that we should do the legalization and sale at a time when we are tight for money because it can't be thought of as a way for the government to make a few extra bucks. It needs to happen at a time when everything is going smoothly for the plan to be able to develop well.

Is California's legalization of recreational marijuana inevitable?

In the recent past the California state assembly has put forth a bill that would allow distributors to sell marijuana legally. If this bill is passed it would mean that anyone above the age of 21 in California could purchase and use marijuana for recreational purposes. The argument in favor of it, for the state’s purposes, is that there is money to be made in times of a financial crisis. If the state is willing to do this the bill allows for distributors to be charged, by the state, a start up cost of $5000 with an annual re-licensing fee of $2500. Marijuana would then be taxed to a large degree which would make the cost about $50 an ounce.
The bill forbids the use of marijuana in public parks and school zones and also disallows the practice of cultivating it in public; no one would be allowed to grow it in a vegetable garden in their back yard. The arguments for are mainly focused on what this will mean for non-smokers. Those who disagree with the bill say it will still be allowed in public places. If this is true than it seems like bars and restaurants would allow the use of marijuana.
The arguments for it focus on the lack of harm marijuana seems to cause. It will ease the state through the financial crisis and make things easier over-all for increasing the state’s funds. Also, it is believed that local law enforcement will be able to focus their attention on more severe crimes in California rather than trying to arrest “potheads.”
The health risks again come into play. The problem though is that the health risks are not too high, it seems, for users of marijuana. Often times there are no critical health problems stemming from marijuana; and due to the likelihood of it being smoked in some kind of bong cuts out the idea of throat cancer. Mouth and throat cancers with the use of marijuana seem unlikely. People also claim that alcohol is more dangerous to both one’s own health and the people around a user. Alcohol can cause aggressive behavior much more so than is seen with marijuana.

$250,000 Families get taxed 90% on bonuses

There are multiple issues I can find with this legislation, but I will only discuss three of them. This is an unfair taxation of a large portion of Americans, this tax increase is not directed specifically at misallocation of resources by executives, and lastly this is another example of fear allowing government officials to have a free hand to collect more money.

The legislation that was passed is designed to make a tax of 90% on any bonus that a family receives in a year if that family’s combined income is more than $250,000. It is very difficult to believe that many of the targeted executives are making $250,000 combined earnings after bonuses. This impacts a much larger portion of American than seems to be indicated by an arbitrary number. Not only does this legislation apply to companies who receive more than $5b in bailout money, but it also applies to any company who does business with that company!

Any legislation specifically targeting executives; CEO’s, CFO’s, Chairmen, etc, would not be designed starting at such a low salary. Americans are not upset with Mr. John Smith Vice President who makes $150,000 a year, they are concerned about AIG executives and other executives with low moral standing like that of the Enron scandal. Because some top executives agreed to take pay cuts in order to gain bailout money does not mean all managers and lower ranked executives should. Executives have much more riding on the line than the average worker, as one can see by the heat that is being drawn by them currently. They are responsible for the decisions of the companies, divisions, regions, and teams. Without good leadership not much gets done in this world. It is appalling how in times of chaos leadership is the first to be attacked no matter what position it may be.

The fear that is being pumped into the American public each and every day has been ripening. For government officials to take the eyes off of themselves they use Wall Street as a scapegoat. Fear is an amazing tool to accomplish policy, but it is not the proper tool. The use of fear is very Machiavellian, and from an administration that is supposed to be for change and hope there is not much hope I see for change. The Obama administration needs to help quell the fear first before Americans can feel safe again. When Americans feel safe again they will start to function like regular consumers which will hasten market stabilization. This is the ultimate goal, stabilization. The current administration is doing this country great and perhaps irreprible harm by instilling fear into the hearts and minds of the average citizen. The only possible goal of the Obama administration in using this tactic is to solidify his political power and to gain more tax revinue to pay for stimulus spending, graft, and social projects.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/031909dnnataigtax.4e6f99cc.html

Can America's Pot Industry, if legalized at the federal level, help stimlulate the economy?

Absolutely!

America's pot industry is thriving like never before and ranking in what is estimated to be billions of dollars nationwide. CNBC went "behind the scenes" to see how the industry works. The major focus was in the marijuana capital of the U.S., which is Northern California's "Emerald Triangle" or Mendocino County to be exact. In California, with 12 other states, marijuana is legal in most of its county for medical purposes, along with laws that state that it is not a crime to own small amounts of the drug. The website has a poll that asks whether marijuana should be decriminalized or not (97% yes, 3.3%no). It is not a scientific survey but it is interesting none the less.

This CNBC documentary reported by Trish Regan took us into a "one-stop-pot-shop." Here is where owner, Richard Lee, sells a wide menu of all sorts of marijuana products (things like brownies, plants, and a binder full of bagged budds). However, Lee pays about $500,000 in taxes to the federal government. If the government legalizes pot, they could make billions of dollars in tax revenues, which would ultimately effect the economy is a positive way, even if they only put one pot shop in every state.

Richard Lee's Coffeeshop Blue Sky pot shop is extraordinary. For example, as a "patient" walks in, they enter into a modern cool cafe with snacks and drinks for children or any one else would wait fo the patient. The patients proceed into hallway with numerous rooms (much like a regular doctor's office) to visit the shop's "bartender." LOL ... He will serve you as long as you have a doctor's note. After all, marijuana helps people with cancer, gluocoma, anerexia, nautiousness, the list goes on...

I did notice, however, their were moments, more often than not, that the documentary had a negative bias view on marijuana. Ms. Regan interviewed a couple that had moved into their "dreamhouse" nine years ago in Mendocino County and are getting ready to move out. They blame the marijuana business that surrounds them and their children.

The pot industry in Mendocino County accounts for 2/3 of their local economy, bringing in billions of dollars. Almost all the citizens in the county grow pot and sell it. This activity is legal at the state level, but not at the federal level.

The website offers slides, pictures, and more info...youtube also has more videos.

Food Stamps in Hard Times

Mayor Bloomberg food-relief policy is outrageous with our economic situation. As our country continues to suffer from the recession the reduction of giving out food stamps is harmful to us as taxpayers. As soon as we continue to fall deeper into debt our country will have more hungry people and this is only in New York. In this piece the editorial group truly explains the necessity of food stamps and its ability to jumpstart the economy. The Mayor feels he is making people earn there dinner plate but forcing them to find these jobs to be eligible is counter productive. They should be out searching for real jobs instead of worrying about Bloomberg’s eligibility laws. There was 19 percent increase in New York in 2008 alone and 750,000 dollars annually have been cut out of what they have been getting from D.C. Unless this policy gets removed and food stamps begin to circulate New York is going take a turn for the worse.

New Findings in Stem Cell Research

The debate for Stem Cell research has long been hotly contested in the United States political system. Stem cells are unique from other cells and are characterized by the ability to renew themselves which has the ability and potential to regrow any form of body tissue. Embryonic stem cells are the most efficient of these cells in that they are the building block for new life. The potential for the furthering of medicine is tremendous. Instead of individuals waiting on a long list for organ donors the organ could be specially made for them or severe burn victims being able to re-grow damaged skin cells and live an aesthetically normal life or even cure paralysis. The possibilities are endless. I believe that stem cells are the future of medicine and that many of the world’s health issues can be solved by mastering the use of these cells. Stem cells have enormous potential in health and medical research but to fully harness this potential, scientists are studying how stem cells transform, or differentiate, into the diverse range of specialize. Most of the controversy is surrounding the need to use embryos that have been aborted to study for scientific endeavors. Common sense would state that most individuals who are not in support of abortion will more often than not be opposed to stem cell research. Cells are extracted from embryos and used for the benefits of science. Ethical issues arise from this practice, but as science improves the process can become more efficient. Former President Bush was harshly opposed to stem cell research and as a result the science lost government backing in the United States. Currently, President Obama is in support of stem cell research so the science will continue.
Recent studies suggest that skin cells can be used to safely make stem cells. This can eliminate the need to use aborted embryos. “It is the first time that scientists have turned skin cells into induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells -- which look and act like embryonic stem cells -- without having to use viruses in the process.” In the past iPS cells have been created using skin cells but viruses also had to be used in the process which is problematic because these cells are more prone to become cancerous in the process. Now that no viruses or embryos are required I believe the process will advance greatly under the current administration. Like I previously stated these cells have the potential to have an enormous impact on medicine and science and humanity as a whole.

Soldier from Union Beach dies in Iraq from vehicle explosion

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/soldier_from_union_beach_dies.html



On Thursday, Kara Connelly gazed at her husband for the last time. Four hours later, he was killed when his vehicle was struck by an explosive on a Baghdad Street, the Department of Defense said today.
Brian Connelly, 26, is at least the 106th member of the armed services with ties to New Jersey to die in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When I read this article the first thing that came to my mind was; why are our troops still, not only dying but fighting in this war? I still cannot see why it is 8 years down the line and we, America, are still fighting this war. Well what is it for? What are we being “rewarded” by continuing to fight? We are not receiving anything, but we are losing much. We are losing the precious lives of brave hearted men and women, and their families who are victims of this war.
In this article, the parents of Brian Connelly said he really was not interested in school. But when he graduated he became a part of this unemployment era, just after being laid off his previous job. When this happened all of Connelly’s hopes and dreams went out the window. He later contacted the army recruiter whom he remembered from coming to his high school. Not knowing that this so fretful phone call would end his young life so soon. His mother stated that, “they (army recruiters) shouldn't be able to talk to our kids in high school”.
I’m still unsure of why America is fighting this war still. But in closing I want to say that I notice America’s main problem, my brave country is too worried about other countries problem, before handling its own first.

Wall Street: Teetering on 12-year lows

Wall Street: Teetering on 12-year lows
As the Dow and S&P 500 hover near '97 levels, investors brace for a barrage of economic news and watch for the latest from Washington.

As the month of February ends we look at dismal numbers amongst nearly all of the

indices including the DJIA, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq. Reasons for this decline range from the

poor housing market, the credit crisis and the unfortunate banking troubles that our economy is

facing. President Barack Obama has created plans for an attempted rescue of the economy by

infusing the economy with 750 Billion dollars worth of tax relief money, subsidies and

government spending in the hopes that the economy will enjoy a temporary boost from the

infusion of money. The stock market itself is flailing around in an attempt to rectify itself but has

only been able to stabilize itself before plunging once again all the way to numbers that it was

posting back in ’97. As new news comes out about company forecasts and overall economic

status we hope that this allows the ticker to go into the green. What traders and technicians are

hoping for is a rally to form soon as the numbers that were previously thought to be the bottom

of the Bear Market are now looking good in comparison to the current market.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/01/markets/markets_weekahead/index.htm?cnn=yes

Buy American Clause

The whole world is talking about the recent US stimulus package which totaled close to $800 billion to stimulate domestic production and create jobs. In the US, there are mixed feelings about the economic boost. While many citizens are terrified over the future of their social security, others are rejoicing over the funding that will aid thousands of struggling families. But abroad, most of the controversy is about a particular clause that the Senate incorporated into the deal, and the House unanimously supported. The ‘Buy American’ clause was added to the package as a provisional demand to incorporate only American-made steel and iron for any bailout projects that are funded by the stimulus. According to a CNN report, buy American provisions have been included in public procurement provisions for decades and have always been trade agreement compliant. Leading democratic senators for the clause insist this one is no different and shall be treated in no other manner.

Yet many in the international community feel the clause is too protectionist and violates standing trade agreements. China and partners in NAFTA feel especially threatened by the legislation and have even gone so far as to advise their intent to file complaints to the World Trade Organization for the US’s non-compliance with standing agreements. Supports in the US argue that the provision says nothing about breaching current trade commitments, and refers only to non-related stimulus funded projects. President Obama referred to the concept saying “it is not protectionism, it is common sense” and stated the he supported “Buy American” provisions as a model for boosting the domestic economy and focusing on providing jobs at home.

Critics of the clause are concerned that historically strong trading partners will view the policy as a "slap in the face" and feel hesitant to supporting US trade goods in return. Another cause for concern is the high costs of American-made materials in many cases. Those expressing dis-support for the policy claim that the clause will only waste American dollars where they could be spent elsewhere. In the long run, many worry the situation might actually be worse for the economy than the jobs it might temporarily create in the US.

With the passing of the clause last week, the WTO and others expressed uneasiness over the very real potential of trade-wars arising between Canada, the EU, and others. I agree with their concern and think that the goal of the clause could have been achieved without such a bold statement to the international community. An intention to use stimulus purchasing power to prioritize American-made goods is definitely a reasonable one. But before the language was softened, the clause very bluntly implied more than just an American priority. The current wording leaves room to "approve" otherwise cheaper foreign options, but by discluding the clause all together the exact same outcome could have been achieved without further tainting the "selfish American" image to the rest of the world - who is also facing economic hardship.