Introduction to Public Policy

Decline In Teenage Smoking

2009-04-28T21:17:00.003-04:00

A recent article in the New York Times discusses the decline of teenage smoking. It was reported to have been a significant one in that the article attributes this change to the harsher enforcement of laws with policies being more strict regarding the age of purchasing cigarettes and the fines that would be affiliated with any obstruction of said laws.

The article specifically references a federal law known as the Synar Amendment which went into effect in 1996. Over a decade later, a study conducted in the University of Mass. shows that the amendment proved to have significant effects on the number of minors who smoke and the store owners who sell cigarettes to minors. The amendment was cited as having severe penalties within state law if an operating store was caught selling to minors, hence the decline in the average teenager who smokes and begins at a fairly early age.

While the article was rather short and remained more of an informative one not alluding to any particular or even possible implications for say tobacco companies or even individuals who do smoke, it is interesting enough to explore. For instance, one can could argue that this new trend of increasingly stringent enforcement of laws banning solicitation to minors could eventually rub tobacco companies the wrong way, in that most of their customers are smokes who began the habit at an early age (being a minor.) On the other hand, this should be good. For example, educational programs like D.A.R.E, which begin early as middle school, more or less have a solid foundation to fall back on when their students reach high school. Most advocates who are anti-smoking or are in favor of continual enforcement in limiting the amount of people who smoke would applaud the results of this amendment.

Additionally, what was most interesting about this article, is that the issue of how successful or being able to judge the success of a policy of initiative is identified. After a semester of learning about the various characteristics of public policy and the process, essentially the ins and outs of it, this article best emulated a policy gone right. Most importantly and note worthy, is that the results were not fully noticeable until over a decade had gone by. With most policy agenda, one reason that usually prevents any real action from being taken is the inability to determine effectiveness in a short amount of time. People want to see results as soon as possible, although not at all pragmatic or realistic, it unfortunately deters real work going into a project or halts work in progress. Whether you are in favor or opposed to the findings of the research study conducted, it should at the very least, represent what is possible when real policy and dedication (enforcement of said law) takes place.

Higher Education for all!

2009-04-27T18:14:00.005-04:00

The American Association of State Colleges and Universitys' main legislative priorities are higher education issues at the Federal and state levels. AASCU has a strong commitment towards every student has an opportunity to receive a higher education. They, as well as I, believe that higher education benefits society, as well as the individuals themselves and truly represents democratic ideals. Providing higher education for its citizens is just something a democracy should do. Most importantly, the AASCU fights for those who are held back from getting a higher education because of their financial situtation. Of course there are loans, but one takes a chance on graduating into debt and paying it back. Many Americans consider the cost of college as one of their major worries.
America was founded on the belief that one has an opporntunity to go from rags to riches. However, with the high cost of college tuition, that is becoming more and more difficult for Americans. Any type of government assistance is beneficial and has become a God send in the past year and a half because of this current global recession. School attendence always seems to rise during recessionsand it truly has become more evident today. Many people who have made a career on Wall St. but have lost their job in the past year, have been re-enrolling in colleges, in the hopes of beginning a new career. In order to recover from this recession, new jobs need to be created and what's a better way to do that than putting people in schools to teach them new technologies and more.
One of the major priorities this agency has is to amend the Higher Education Act to augment the maximum Pell award to benefit the lowest income students and revamp the current student financial aid model. The agency is also pushing for accountability on public colleges and universities to make sure students are learning and that these schools are regulated by what they charge for tuition.

Connecticut Allows Gay Marriage

2009-04-26T19:48:00.008-04:00

After ten years, the General Assembly legalizes gay marriage in Connecticut. The Governor of Connecticut, M. Jodi Rell should be signing the bill in to law on Wednesday, even though she believes marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Connecticut's previous law accepted gay marriage as a civil union and gave them the same rights as a man and a woman, but this new law will recognize gay marriage. The state law in Connecticut now defines marriage as the union between two people.
Connecticut is the fourth state to allow gay marriage, along with Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Now, Connecticut must make sure that gay couples also follow the same laws as straight couples.
To make religious followers happy the government has made it legal to deny any service to gay couples such as goods, receptions, and other religious services to gay couples. The government wanted to not only ensure the rights of the Constitution for gay couples, but they also wanted to make sure that they maintain the free exercise of religion as well. An executive director at the Family Institute of Connecticut is happy that this addition has been made to the bill because it does not only address one group of pepople on ne side of the problem. This bill also changed the language of a 1991 anti- discrimination law from not condoning any homosexual, bisexual, or any other related activity, to the teaching of and establishing a quota for gay individuals.
Although I do not agree with gay marriage and I think that it is against the intended purposes of marriage and most religions, the government and other individual who are only mere human beings as well, should never have the right to determine what someone can and cannot do in their life, especially if it makes them happy. There are some people who do not believe in religion and think that Christianity is a man made religion. Why should someone else suffer because another human being has made a rule that gay marriage is not right. I think that on matters like gay marriage, abortion, and death, the government has no right to tell someone what they can and cannot do. The major issue with gay marriage is that it goes against most religions, well I think that the consequences of someones actions should be left up to them, because it is their life, and they are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences in the present and after life.
I also think the Perez Hilton's response to Miss California's Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

">question was immature and completely uncalled for. Miss California was asked a question and did exactly what she was supposed to do. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I do not think that there was anything wrong with what she said. The great thing about America is that we are allowed to express our opinions and as long as she gave her opinion in a respectful and non- judgmental way,I think that there was nothing wrong with what she said. For Perez Hilton to call her various disrespectful names was immature. It has also been said that she most likely would have won Miss America if she would have answered the question in a way that the gay community would have liked. I think that if she would have gave the answered that certain people would have wanted her to give, just to win the crown she would have been fake and not true to herself and her values. I would rather stick to my values and morals than to say what someone else wants me to say. I think that Miss California is a very strong woman for giving her opinion and sticking to it.

Should Illegal Immigrants Pay In-state tuition

2009-04-26T14:35:00.001-04:00

Immigration issues have been on the public policy agenda over the last few years. In the Nytimes.com article, “In New Jersey, Bills Offering In-State Tuition to Illegal Immigrants Face a Fight,” the recent bills that would provide in-state tuition at public colleges for illegal immigrants who attended at least 3 years of high school within the state. This bill as brought much controversy from opposing sides, and is unlikely to pass in an election year. However, there is still hope, because it has the backing of Governor Corzine and other states including New York have passed similar legislation. It will be a tough battle though because the Governor and entire Assembly is up for reelection this year and the recession has the public more focused on helping the middle class and a negative feeling towards illegal immigrants.
Both sides have well rounded arguments and should make a good debate. Proponents of the bill stress that it will lead to a more educated workforce that New Jersey will need to boost our economy. It is not these children’s fault for being here illegally, and they should not be punished for what their parents have done. If they excel and push themselves in high school, we should give them the same chance to succeed in college. Most illegal immigrants drop out of high school because they know how little their chances are at affording college, this bill would help foster a more determined and educated work force to take on the challenges of tomorrow in the state. Those on the other side claim that we should be focusing our energy on the middle class during this recession. By giving illegal immigrants the same rights as state citizens we would be taking away spots in our college for actual residents and loosing valuable income. They feel we do not owe anything to these people and that exceptions should not be made since they are illegal immigrants.
In all, I believe legislation like this is important. Yes, we are in a recession but we can’t forget about all other public policy issues. There are an estimated 28,000 illegal immigrants in the New Jersey public schools and New Jersey has one of the top foreign-born populations. We need to help these kids become better students and help them succeed. By giving them the right tools and the right outlets they could be the future doctors, scientists and lawyers that help create and shape a better New Jersey.

"NJ tags new drivers with decal"

2009-04-24T12:30:00.003-04:00

This piece of public policy that I read about on Yahoo News via AP was very interesting and intriguing. New Jersey will require new drivers who are under the age of 21 to display special decals on their cars identifying their vehicles. Governor John Corzine signed the law and it will go into effect next year so that the police can enforce restrictions on younger drivers who can not drive in certain circumstances. There is support for the law across the state because it could make the roads safer.

Personally, I think that this is a good idea because in my hometown on Long Island, kids who just got their driving permit drive all the time alone and with friends when by law they are required to have a parent or someone 21 years or older with them while they still have their permit. I understand that it is the parent's responsibility to not give the 16 year old a car to drive but sometimes parents aren't always there or they just don't care. The decals might make some cops less hesitant to pull the car over but that may not be the case all the time. I wouldn't mind getting a $20 ticket instead of crashing and possibly people dying. There are ways around this, some kids don't have their own car and they drive their parents' cars which would not have the decal. A student was killed while she was in the car with a teenage driver and that tragedy spurred the law to be passed.

There is only so much regulating that a state can do and this is a simple start to making sure that kids don't drive when they're not allowed to do so. Hopefully there will be less accidents and a sharp decline in teenage car accident deaths. The whole idea might fail but the state needs to make sure that the sticker is on every car that a teenager can drive because it only takes one person to crash a car.

Rice, Cheny OK'd CIA use of waterboarding

2009-04-23T12:32:00.003-04:00

- High ranking officals of the Bush Administrationin including vice president Dick Cheney, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, attorney general John Ashcroft, and their legal advisors provided thier executive apporval as early as July of 2002 regarding interrogation policies that according to their official report, "the principals reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy". In reality, top U.S. government officals gave the CIA permission to legally preform toturious methods on accused terrorist prisoners . The most controversial method of torture made permissable was "waterboarding", a method in which the victim is laid flat on thier back starpped to a board which is inclined so that thier feet are raised above thier head. Water is then poured onto the victim which unevitably streams down into the nose and breathing passages. This stops breathing and causes choking along with the intense sensation of being drowned.

President Obama declared the waterboarding interregation technique as 'torture' and has banned this method under his administraion. The Senate intelligence report released a series of memos on interrogation tactics from the Bush administration era. One memo provided classified information exposing that CIA interrogators had used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Mohammed, al-Qaeda terrorists involved in the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11th attacks. Condoleezza Rice who was the national security adviser, and who later became secretary of state, said the CIA could proceed with "alternative interrogation methods," including waterboarding, when questiong suspected al Qaeda terrorists. According to the report, Attorney General John Ashcroft had determined the "proposed interrogation techniques were lawful,". The same torture methods were again endorsed by the Bush administration in spring 2003 when the CIA asked for a "reaffirmation of the policies and practices in the interrogation program."

Dick Cheney has been quoted defending the controversial technique, stating, "Did it produce the desired results? I think it did,". Cheney also said that the Obama administration are withholding memo's which provide information proving the waterboarding technique had succesful results, and provided information that prevented more terrorist attacks. Cheney stated, ""They didn't put out the memos that show the success of the effort, and there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity.. They have not been declassified".

Rising expectations of Cuba

2009-04-19T19:34:00.000-04:00

President Raul Castro of Cuba was the only president and country not invited to the fifth Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago on Saturday. Obama and Castro exchanged dialogue and are now playing who’s going to make the next move. Obama and his staff have made up a list of things that Cuba can do in order to amend their relationship with the United States and open the doors to the country. In doing so, Obama has stated that he is working to reverse Bush’s restrictions and allow remittances by relatives of Cuban-Americans in Cuba. America is eager to trade with Cuba especially with the way the economy is in the United States right now but with Castro still holding strong to the embargo it is impossible. A radio host in Miami, Ninoska Pérez Castellón, blames the Latin-American leaders for the embargo with the United States and not Cuban government against its people. During the Summit of the Americas meeting, it was hard for Obama to talk about other issues except for the embargo with Cuba due to allied countries bringing up the topic. On the other hand of the meeting, the United States had Mexico, Brazil, and the Organization of Caribbean Nations set up and provide their services as to be intermediaries between the United States and Cuba.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/world/americas/19diplo.html?ref=politics

FBI: DNA analasyt

2009-04-19T19:31:00.000-04:00

For many years the Federal Bureau of Investigations would collect DNA samples from people who were convicted of homicides or sexual offences in the United States. The DNA was usually stored in a database for the FBI to keep on file in case it was needed again. Starting this month the Federal Bureau of Investigations will be collecting and cataloging DNA from people who have been arrested and awaiting trial and also detained immigrants. This is being done to help solve more crimes but at the same time many concerns are surfacing about the privacy of people who have committed minor offences and people who are alleged innocent. The DNA database currently contains about 6.7 million profiles and with this new procedure in effect there will be an estimated 80,000 new entries a year and by 2012 will increase to an estimated 1.2 million new entries. Collecting DNA from every person who has been arrested will help convict guilty criminals and rule out the innocent ones because DNA is stronger than any physical evidence. Law enforcement officials are saying that taking a DNA sample is no different than being finger printed upon arrest because no two people are alike. Rock Harmon, a former prosecutor for Alameda County, Calif., and an adviser to crime laboratories, said “DNA demographics reflected the criminal population. Even if an innocent man’s DNA was included in a genetic database it would come to nothing without a crime scene sample to match it.”

Freed Captain

2009-04-19T19:30:00.001-04:00

Captain Richard Phillip who last week was recued by the U.S. Navy when he was held hostage by Somali pirates last week off the coast of Africa. He arrived back in the states reassuring everyone that he is fine and the hostage situation as indescribable. He also wants to make clear that he should not be recognized as the hero but the military should receive these accolades for the swift action and proficient rescue tactics.
Since his ship the Maersk Alabama had been boarded by pirates the brave captain had offered himself to ensure his crews safety. After being held captive for seven days in a confrontation with the U.S. Navy a sharpshooter killed four pirates and the fourth was taken into custody. Since both the Captain and the military had both executed there duties flawlessly there was no civilians harmed.
As a result from these events I am starting to take these pirates very seriously. They are increasing in numbers and they work together quite well. This is becoming organized and more aggressive. We as a nation must allow these seaman to carry weapons and be properly trained for this growing issue. The enemy is well equipped with automatic weapons and we must be able to defend ourselves because next time we wont be as lucky.

Afgani Law allows Men to Rape Wives

2009-04-19T19:21:00.001-04:00

Women in Afghanistan face daily discrimination and violence. However, President Hamid Karzai has taken it to another level by signing a law that allows men to rape their wives. Recently, President Hamid Karzai put into place a kind of Muslim personal law for the shiat of Afghanistan. This is a law that many regard as quite reactionary. This law requires that wives ask their husbands permission before leaving the house. This law, as stated before, also allows the husband to forcibly rape their wives without any consequence. President Obama, just like most Americans who read this story, is appalled and disgusted with this so called 'law.' President Karzai has let it be known that he does not want any westerners interfering with this issue and could care less as to what President Obama has to say. However, Afghan women are now marching in opposition to this law. When asked why he passed such a law Karzai responded saying, "This law was signed without the knowledge of the articles in it. This law has so many articles. No one knew that this law had these details. I have asked that any article in this law be devised and any article that is not within Afghan constitution must be removed. My country is aware of this and we will deal with it appropriately." As a president of a country how do you sign a law that you dont fully understand? And if the Afghan people are 'aware' of this, as he stated, why are Afghan women protesting all around the country? Why are other countries voicing thier disgust to this law?

President Karzai also talks about his disagreements with the Obama administration.

link http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/04/19/gps.fareed.intv.afghan.kazai.cnn?iref=24hours

Obama to take aim at credit card abuses

2009-04-19T19:04:00.000-04:00

Credit cards are as much a part of American culture as apple pie. Unfortunately, many of these companies’ deceptive and often predatory practices have left many Americans dependent on these small pieces of plastic and in more debt than they can afford. Credit cards are mini quick loans by the provider, in most cases they receive payments in the form of installments at the end of the month. Some cards like many American Express cards require payment in full every month. Many of these cards start with a great introductory rate then after six months or a year depending on the period they often jump up to over 20%. If a payment is missed or late these rates often increase further to loan shark like rates. Many times these rate increases occur without warning or disclosure to the holder of the card. At this point making the interest payments alone can become difficult if the balance on the card is high enough. Taken directly from the article, “Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, said the administration is concerned about practices that result in consumers being "deceived into paying extraordinarily high rates that they wouldn't have paid if they knew they were getting themselves into…We need to do things to stop the marketing of credit in ways that addict people to it." President Obama has begun to take steps to crack down on these types of practices that hurt American consumers and the economy as a whole. Most of these lending associations are the same companies that are receiving bailout money so they have a responsibility to stop causing direct harm to the consumers. Credit card terms are often worded in a way that the average person will not be able to decipher what they are reading, these are said to be done on purpose. The House of Representatives and the United States Senate are considering enacting a credit card “Bill of Rights” which would make a set of rules that must be followed by credit card companies. Just as recently as December the rules around credit cards were tightened by the Federal Reserve and if it is passed this will further the scope of the regulations, and hopefully protect some future users from crippling debt that credit cards can bring.

No Child Left Behind

2009-04-19T18:10:00.002-04:00

In 2001 No Child Left Behind was passed by congress in hopes of bringing American public schools to the standards of other countries. It has a number of holes in it as the law originally had in 1964 when it was passed and was altered in 2001 to provide for, among other things, the testing of teachers prior to hiring. This is one area I focus on when looking at the issue as one that is self defeating because the law reinforces teaching to the test as students learning to become teachers know that the only thing that really matters at the end of their college career is passing the Praxis exam because it means that a job will likely be available.
The other big issue is the state testing requirement. The government determined that requiring states to make their own qualifications for students was a good idea. Each state now has to have testing for each grade level that determines the skill level of their students. These tests allow for teachers to teach to the test along with the state core curriculum content standards. Teachers are given little leeway and so are the students affected by the lessons built using the content standards. In order to make the system better the state should mandate interaction between students and teachers and test these teachers on their abilities to make the classroom a warm and comfortable environment. Instead the test of knowledge tests solely knowledge.
The Praxis can also serve as a deterrent to some and a saving grace to others as people looking into the education field may realize that the only thing that truly matters in the end is passing the test. It does not mean that the best teachers get the job as the best teachers may have backed out in fear of the Praxis or decided that since their scores on the Praxis are lower they will not pursue a teaching career. It is not a good idea to let one test determine anyone’s life whether they are an educator or not. It is especially hypocritical in the teaching profession as teachers are supposed to keep giving extra chances to students who do not test well. The idea of No Child Left Behind is to provide better teachers to make better students. It is a good intent but the way the government mandates that is not a good idea.

Response to Legalization of Marijuana

2009-04-19T14:33:00.003-04:00

This entry is in response to the multitude of postings in favor of the legalization of marijuana to provide some issues and concerns for thought and response. I have yet to be convinced that the legalization of such a negatively portrayed substance by the federal government is "actually not that bad for society and can be beneficial." However, I am open to hearing sound arguments that can put forth factual information to prove this true.

To start, I find that the argument to legalize marijuana on the foundation that it might stimulate the economy to be hilarious. Not only the defining of marijuana as "a stimulant" of any kind, but the basis for resorting to allowing illegal substances as a way of saving our economy. If this is the route that is to be taken, then I am positive that we should add prostitution and human trafficking to the list. Although morally wrong, ethically unjust, and detrimental to a society on the whole, they surely would be taxable industries and create federal funds. I'd be interested to see the reaction of the international community to such a proposition.

Anyway, in terms of the argument for the legalization of marijuana, I would like to present a few thoughts for consideration. Although marijuana brings in a large amount of funding and potentially taxable industry into the United States each year, it is still considered an illegal substance on the federal level and has been documented as being detrimental to a society. This argument can be historically compared to the British empires trafficking of opium for the past two centuries until the early 1900s. Over 1/4 of India's total revenues were steadily based on the growth and sale of opium. However, as repeatedly shown, for example during the multiple Opium Wars in China where at one point 4 out of every 5 adult males were addicted to the substance in Southeast China, it completely devastated the society and its economic system.

Similarly in the United States in the past century, and arguably still occurring today, Southeastern states such as Florida, were experiencing large illegal operations of cocaine and similar drugs. Although these drugs can me biologically argued to be at a higher degree of reaction and detriment to society than marijuana, in legal terms it becomes a slippery slope.

If marijuana, a currently federal banned substance is allowed to be grown, sold, and used for even medical purposes to alleviate pain related symptoms, then legally so could cocaine, ecstasy, etc. Stare decisis would need to be completely altered and a can of worms would be opened for individual interpretation until it reached the Supreme Court Level. However, individual differences in cases would eventually overwhelm the Supreme Court to a level in which Congress would have to officially pass some sort of blanket legislation on the issue.

Furthermore, this blanket issue would need to be defined by agencies to individualize certain drugs, etc. This is the exact process that occurs today. So in essence, the battle would come completely round circle with the hope that marijuana would become legal without the implications that other similar affecting drugs would not be included. Therefore, the argument to allow marijuana to be legal just because it "has the potential to raise taxes" is one that I feel is extremely limited and falls flat without the bases of support by additional arguments on why the growth and distribution is beneficial to the community as a whole.

This is not only an economic battle, but a legal and philosophical battle as well. It is not simpler than allowing for gay marriages to occur. However, arguably the allowing of gay marriages does not carry the same detrimental possibilities to society as the legalization of marijuana. However, that is a completely different arena for contemplation.

The legalization of marijuana is a topic that is thrown around by many without a large amount of support outside of the realm of gaining popular support. I find that many times, the argument for legalization of such as substance is not fully supported by factual information but rather personal desires. In instances when the legalization of marijuana is compared with the overturning of prohibition, I find myself asking individuals whether they realize that one of the largest factors in overturning prohibition was because of the lack of federal funding and popular support to fight a domestic battle against a substance that is ingrained in the countries heritage. The same argument can directly be applied in the response to why tobacco is shown to be detrimental to society but is not made illegal.

However, marijuana cannot be factually argued to be ingrained in the roots of this country and has for the most part successfully been banned for several decades. Additionally, in response to the argument that there still is a "war on drugs" to demonstrate that it is not beneficial to continue to classify marijuana as a legal substance, I put forth this statement. There is also currently a "war" against gang violence, racism, etc. occurring within this country. To allow such things to be legal simply because they are present in society, is an argument that lacks both logic and justification.

In conclusion, I find there is more responses to arguments against the legalization for marijuana than there is in favor. Of course, I sympathize with those in pain from terminal diseases. However to allow them to detriment the overall population of society, I feel that I cannot allow to happen without proper justification. I have yet to find the means of factual contention to allow for this justification. However, I look forward to the opinion of those who claim to be able to provide it.

direct opposition to banning the teaching of evolution in schools

2009-04-19T00:28:00.003-04:00

In my search of public policies that I feel strongly about, I came across the debated issue of whether or not it should be allowed for schools to teach the theory of evolution. The American Institute of Biological Sciences did a report that really fueled this debate for me. The issue is whether or not teaching evolution should be legal or not. In my opinion, this should not even be a question, but many other people do not agree with me. States all over the country have been trying to have bills passed that ban the teaching of evolution and instill the teaching of creationism as the theory of life. In 2006, anti-evolution bills failed to be passed in Alabama, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah. Still to this day, states are trying to pass legislation to ban the teaching of evolution and replace it with the teaching of creationism in schools. The problem with this is that creationism is purely religious and there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. It makes no sense how the pledge of allegiance could not be recited in schools because it mentioned God, but making it illegal to teach students the origin of life was anything different than creationism is ok. That is like saying it is illegal to smoke marijuana but smoking crack is required. Obviously it is two different extremes but the values are the same. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are states that are trying to ban the teaching of creationism as well. In 2006 Wisconsin tried to pass anti-creationism bills and in 2003 West Virginia endorsed evolution education. Why can they both be legal? There are people in this world who believe in God and there are people in this world who believe in science and no law should dictate which one is correct. Let people decide for themselves what they want to believe. Charles Darwin is not a famous scientist because he had an idea that he made up and Jesus Christ is not an international savior because some guy said he was. There is empirical evidence to support both claims and I feel that both theories should be taught. There are different theories for how the universe started and different people believe God to be different in all religions so there is no absolute truth as to which theories are correct. Maybe everyone who is religious is just being led on by a persuasive force and what they believe is completely wrong. Maybe evolution makes sense due to some coincidence that a scientist discovered. There is no way to prove either claim which is why they are theories, not truths. I feel that it is unconstitutional to try and dictate which of these theories is correct and will be taught because teaching only evolution and banning creationism is violating the freedom of religion and vice a verso is violating the separation of church and state. people have dedicated their lives to discovering evolution and complexities of life and to have a bill be passed that states that it was all a waste of their time because they are wrong is completely, well, wrong. I was taught both theories and I believe that evolution is how life started and evolved, but that doesn’t make me right, it just means that that is what I believe. There is no harm to anyone or myself for believing it so there is nothing that justifies banning its teaching. The religious want to ban the teaching of evolution and the realists want to ban the teaching of creationism, but religious people exist as well as realists, so let both theories exist. People are smart and are fully capable of deciding things for themselves, so I say let them. Let them believe what they want to believe because in the end it hurts no one whether they are wrong or right and making one side be wrong or right hurts many.

New NJ Drivers May Get Decals

2009-04-17T20:29:00.005-04:00

NJ Drive Decals

New Jersey law makers are considering adding new security measures to warn police and other drivers about new drivers on the road. The proposal is to have drivers under 21 years of age to have a small decal somewhere on the car indicating they are a new driver. Decals may be place by velcro so other drivers who use the car can remove them. They are not sure yet what type of deacal will be used yet. There are many differing opinions on the issue at hand. Many people believe it is a necessary precaution and it also helps police enforce the passenger laws and curfews that are placed on teen drivers. Others believe it will let police target teenage drivers just because they will know. Teens already feel harassed by the police and feel it will add to it even more. Other people also believe the decals will be distracting to other drivers. Authorities said they will not use the decals to target young drivers.

I believe that this idea is basically ridiculous. Having a small decal on the back of someones car is not going to make them drive safer. Bad driving is bad driving, no decal will stop that problem. What would be a better idea is to have longer more mandatory driver training that will teach the correct way to drive. Even though authorities say they will not target teens I believe that they will, it makes them easier to be identified and as it is people get pulled over for no reason this may just increase this. The idea that the decals will be placed on with velcro also makes no sense. These kids will just get down the street and take the decals off its just that simple. Why would they leave it on identifying that they are younger. Placing a permanent decal will not work either because parents or relatives may also use the car as well. In short i believe this is a terrible idea that will do nothing short of fail. New jersey law makers should look into using the tax payers money for something more constructive and effective.

2009-04-15T17:03:00.001-04:00

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.

15 Year Old Girl May Have to Register as Sex Offender for 20 Years

2009-04-07T22:38:00.007-04:00

A 15 year old girl from Licking Valley High School may have to register as a sex offender because she sent nude pictures of herself to her classmates. She is being charged with the "illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second-degree felony; and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony." Her "criminal tool" was obviously her cell phone. The judge can decide if he wants her to register as a Sex Offender for the next 20 years. The teenagers who received the photos be charged as well. The fifteen year old was in jail for a week awaiting her arraignment and bond hearing.
Many teenagers are guilty of this action and the question has been why she is the only one being charged. Some people think that since she is a foster child with no parents and resources for good defense, the prosecuting lawyer can make a good exmaple out of this girl and can earn a name off of this case.
I do not think that a 15 year old girl should b charged or get in trouble for sending pictures of herself to other people her age. Although it may not be right, many teenagers do this. For minors, who have neither harmed nor taken advantage of someone that is not younger than they are, it does not make sense that they may have to register as a sex offender. I also do not think that it should be up to the judge's discretion, whether or not they have to register as a sex offender, especially if the law is not the same for everybody. It also does not make sense that the recipients of these messages have to be charged, especially if they did not ask for the pictures in the first place. A minor that makes such a mindless act and to not know the consequences should not have to suffer for the rest of their lives. We could say that it was the child's fault, if there was a strict law with its actions and punishments defined, and then child knowingly "broke the law."

OBAMA ON NORTH KOREA and IRAN

2009-04-05T19:24:00.000-04:00

The time for celebration for our new president comes to a close and the fear of nuclear threats becomes a harsh reality. President Obama had stated many times that North Korea had violated international rules when the allowed testing of long range missiles. President Obama has lost tolerance in North Korea’s misbehavior in building these weapons of mass destruction. He called upon the U.N. to take action on North Korea. He demands the Security Council is going to put an end to North Korea who has been flirting with the idea of acquiring more arms. Iran on the other hands has no intentions of using a smoke and mirrors technique that North Korea has been doing. Iran has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons to attain leverage over neighboring states and the United Stated as well. President Obama and his administration have devised a plan to locate a defense shield in Poland and radar system in the Czech Republic. This idea has been strongly opposed by the Russian President Dmitri Medvedev who believes if we can successfully disarm Iran and keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons there would be no need for these defensives in Eastern Europe. Obama respectively disagreed and felt it was vital to have these defenses up and ready in fear of Iran’s next move. Obama states “Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies,” Mr. Obama said. “The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” (NYTimes)
Obama has traveled to Prague where he proposed his idea to the Czech president and the public. He received a greater welcome than the Czech president Klaus. This was great for our president since he received a lot of support in his plan and was able to prove himself in front of Czech president who had doubted his policies. In fact many people had been pleasantly surprised in President Obama’s understanding and urgency in foreign affairs where many thought he was inexperienced and naive. The movement for change has spread beyond our country’s borders and has become infectious throughout the world.

New Jersey High School to Use Drug-Sniffing Dogs

2009-04-05T17:51:00.011-04:00

In an article written in the New York Times, Tina Kelley reported on the new wave of alcohol and drug use prevention among New Jersey schools concerning their students.

The conflict here lies between the student’s rights versus the overall safety on the school campus. In an effort to promote security and assurance to its students, Millburn High school along with the superintendent have enlisted the help of county and local police along with police canine presence on their school campus regarding alleged alcohol and drug usage among students.

“We seek to discourage illegal substances from being brought into school and to show unequivocal support for those students who do ‘just say no,’ ” the principal of Millburn High, William S. Miron, and the district superintendent, Richard Brodow, wrote in an e-mail message to parents and students Friday afternoon. “I willingly risk student trust if it saves a single life."

This article hit home for several reasons. One Seton Hall, while a college university not a high school, is within Essex County that I currently attend. Secondly, Millburn is only a few miles away from our campus. It asks the question, if Millburn cops find it necessary to carry out such practices or implement changes in the name of public safety, what about neighboring towns also within Essex County? Will the new school policy adopted by Millburn and West Essex have a domino effect on other towns within Essex County? Moreover, will it affect colleges and universities also within the county, such as Seton Hall or Rutgers?

I for one am a New Jersey native and attended high school in Bergen County. Like most high schools, there were both a drug and alcohol presence on campus, but if anyone was suspected of doing or participating in that sort of activity they were simply ushered across the street, essentially off school property/campus and therefore were no longer subject to the school’s authority. Suffice to say, much, if any alcohol or drug use, was more or less practiced outside of school or off school grounds. While the idea or intention may be in good heart, in theory; however, in practice, the idea of having large police canines trotting up and down school hallways, around lockers or in and out of rooms is rather obnoxious distracting. School is suppose to be an academic atmosphere and place setting; to have such ‘props’ if you will, parade around a campus, is to alter the overall atmosphere: it is no longer comfortable grounds for learning, but rather, a scene which attracts attention and not the good kind.

According to the article, since the 2002 Supreme Court ruling, other New Jersey schools have taking such safety measures just as seriously utilizing random drug testing, especially if students participated in sport related activities.

The argument can be understood two-fold: while there should be a strong sense of awareness regarding drug and alcohol activity, awareness should at one point materialize into action essentially forming a solution towards said problem. However, at what expense? As stated before, the environment in which a student learns in and pretty much spends most of their day, their week and practically their year should not be compromised by the presence of large police canines (which are almost always associated with a problem and therefore will be greeted with tension, paranoia and anxiousness) that is not a comfortable environment or learning atmosphere, especially, if such activity occurs mostly off of school property or is just ‘ushered’ off of school property anyways. The problem still exists but in this capacity it is no longer a matter of just school policy or enlisting harsh school policy, rather an issue that the town and/or county needs to look at it.

Obama Sets out Plans for Nuclear Free World

2009-04-05T16:58:00.002-04:00

In response to a recently launched missile in North Korea, President Obama spoke with urgency regarding the matter of nuclear proliferation. Even though it was just a test it shows the North Koreans devotion to getting a weapons system fully functional. He urged the United Nations to punish North Korea and Pyongyang for violating the laws with their missile launch. The matter will be discussed by the United Nations Security Council later this week. This is said to be president Obama’s biggest national security or foreign policy since entering office earlier this year. President Obama gave a speech in the Czech Republic capital Prague, on the current state of nuclear weapons in the world. Obama states, “The United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons," and "To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same" in the speech which was given in front of 20,000 onlookers in the city symbolic of the Cold War era. The United States is taking steps to encourage the world to end the nuclear arms race and stand down. President Obama is encouraging the world to get past cold world thinking of stockpiling nuclear weapons. Also Obama states that the United States of America have a moral responsibility to lead the effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons because we are the only ones that have ever actually deployed one on an enemy. Currently the amount of nuclear missiles in existence has enough firepower to wipe out every major city in existence. Should such a conflict ever arise where their use is needed the results could be catastrophic. They also announced that if Iran would not cooperate that a missile defense system would be put up in Europe, either in the Czech Republic or Poland. These locations have been criticized from their close proximity to Russia and are viewed as acts of aggression towards the country which could be counterproductive to the plan issued today. The Obama administration recognizes removing all nuclear weapons could take longer than a lifetime and may never be met. To reduce arms he plans to introduce a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia who has the second largest stockpile of warheads next to the United States.

They're back: Representatives reveal their earmarks

2009-04-05T16:42:00.004-04:00

In the convoluted world of politics one thing that has been drawing a lot of attention lately is earmarks. As policy makers make their decisions they include "earmarks" a way of creating projects in their home districts and bringing money to their home districts. As this process evolved it became more and more transparent as the public began to demand information on what their taxpayer money was funding. The most recent step in this was President Obama requiring policymakers to post the earmarks they are requestion money for on their indivual websites and a House Appropriations commitee website where the information will be openly available to the public. The issue that continues to nag at earmarks is that policymakers to not choose their earmarks on project merit but instead choose to flex their respective political muscles to push earmarks into being signed into play. It is interesting to note that many of the policymakers that ranked in the highest amount asked for last years earmarks also rank among the ones that are asking for the most money this year.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/congress.earmarks/index.html

Can Congress Produce Answers to Real Public Policy Issues?

2009-04-05T15:13:00.002-04:00

Instead of choosing to focus this post on a specific public policy issue, I choose to focus on national public policy in general after reading an article in the New York Times. Over the last several years through the Bush Administration the legislature did not much produce substantial legislation about important national issues. There were the bills that scratched the surface of issues such as health care, education, energy and the environment but a serious effort to address and solve the issues did not happen.
In the article “Policy Agenda Poses Test for Rusty Legislative Machinery,” it addresses the question if Congress is up to the challenge of producing legislation that will begin to address the major issues our nation is facing and that the Obama Administration is asking them to address. Before Congress was more focuses on national security and narrow majorities in divided government, but now legislators need to remember how to politic and gain support from within to pass legislation across partisan lines. In the past year, Congress could not even pass a budget on time, so now it will take a true leader to step up to the ranks in the legislature. Among the issues needing to be addresses health care reform is at the forefront and Nancy Pelosi and making sure committees and Democrats and Republicans are working together from the beginning so legislation does not just die on the floor of the legislature like the immigration bill from 2007.
I’m not sure is Congress is ready to step up to the plate and actually do their job and solve important issues for our nation. They have gotten to use to sitting back and watching the process happen and be more concerned about reelection and moving up the ranks within their own parties. Now, citizens must push their legislators to achieve greatness, but also I believe leaders need to emerge from within Congress that are not afraid of crossing partisan lines and that will stand up for the good of the whole nation and not just themselves or their constituency. Issues regarding health care reform, education, energy and the environment can not be left unanswered and I think it will be the Obama Administration who pushes and persuades Congress to begin taking serious steps at addressing these concerns with serious legislation.

The American Criminal Justice System: In Need of Reformation?

2009-04-05T02:46:00.000-04:00

In this article entitled, "Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations," it talks about how the United States had the most amount of prisoners in the world. Each day, there are Americans that are being imprisoned for things, such as illegal drug use and other minor crimes. The United States has about 2.3 million people in prison, as opposed to China, which has 1.6 million prisoners. But the difference between the U.S. and China is that China has four times more people than the United States. There are approximately 751 people in prison for every 100,000 in the population. One of the reasons why there are so many people in prison is the fact that American prison sentences are generally lengthier than those of other countries. For example, in the United States, burglars are given a sentence of 16 months in prison, while those in Canada serve 5 months and 7 months for those in England. Sentences are often out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense. It is clear that the United States has quite a different approach to crime and punishment. A researcher at the prison studies center in London said that the incarceration rate has made the U.S. "a rogue state, a country that has made a decision not to follow what is a normal Western approach." Many people question if incarcerating people for longer periods of time actually affects the crime rate. Specialists have noted that, "Rises and falls in Canada's crime rate have closely paralleled America's for 40 years. But its imprisonment rate has remained stable." Therefore, the article comes to a conclusion that the cause of the high incarceration rate in the U.S. is democracy. In the United States, most state court judges and prosecutors are elected. This means that there is a lot of political pressure put on them by the public that is "generally in favor of tough crime policies," according to several opinion polls.

The second article, "Reviewing Criminal Justice," discusses how Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has introduced a bill in March regarding the need for a national commission to review the criminal justice system from top to bottom. The commission will be responsible for examining policies and recommending reforms. The bill has strong bipartisan support.

I agree with the second article that by keeping people in prison for longer than they need to be there is unjust. It is also extremely expensive. Money that could be used for other needs, like unemployment, education, and hospitals, are going to prison costs instead. A Pew Charitable Trusts report says, "state corrections spending soared 127 percent, while spending on higher education increased only 21 percent." There is currently no bill in the HOuse, but the article states that since there is bipartisan support in the Senate, there is a national consensus that the criminal justice system is broken and is in need of reform. Hopefully, the criminal justice system will be reformed.

Guns should be banned by states in the USA

2009-03-29T21:37:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-29T17:27:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-29T14:19:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-29T11:55:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-27T17:52:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-26T16:44:00.011-04:00

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?

2009-03-22T17:29:00.002-04:00

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

2009-03-22T16:57:00.001-04:00

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?

2009-03-15T16:38:00.003-04:00

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

2009-03-01T19:32:00.000-05:00

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

2009-03-01T19:13:00.000-05:00

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

2009-03-01T18:32:00.003-05:00

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

2009-03-01T18:25:00.001-05:00

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

2009-03-01T17:08:00.002-05:00

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.

Obama's Double Standard with Earmarks

2009-03-01T16:05:00.002-05:00

In the Times.com article, “Does Obama Have a Double Standard on Earmarks?,” President Obama is criticized for proclaiming at the join session of Congress last Tuesday night that he would eliminate earmark spending from the stimulus bill, but the next day on Wednesday Democrats passed the rest of the fiscal budget for 2009 with over 9,000 earmarks in it. Most likely Obama will sign this bill into law to keep the government running and to finish out this year; however the bill will spend an estimated $7.7 billion on earmarks. Some Republicans have asked President Obama to put a freeze on spending and to eliminate these earmarks, but these pleas are going unanswered. The argument against this double standard is that this legislation is from the old administration and President Obama is focusing on the 2010 budget, which the framework for will be released in the next week. In this budget he will keep his promises to bring earmark spending lower than it was in 1994, which was about $7.8 billion. Even though President Obama’s focus is on the 2010 fiscal budget, if he signs in this current legislation he will be putting his signature on over 9,000 earmarks and will be continuing with Washington as usual.
Earmarks effect most legislation, and get put onto spending bills all the time by legislators. Some projects are worthwhile for their communities at home and others are just plain ridiculous. President Obama campaigned on cutting earmarks from legislation and not playing the same game as Washington. He said he believes every dollar should be spent with the best interest of Americans in mind and not on special projects of legislators. I think it is a very risky move at this point for President Obama to sign 9,000 earmarks into law. This would just be going along with Washington as usual, and not holding true to his promises. If we don’t see real change by his 2010 fiscal budget, it might be too late for President Obama to stick to his promises and make a true change in spending. A change needs to happen, but he can’t wait three years to make that change.

Poverty in Appalachia, Kentucky

2009-03-01T15:16:00.003-05:00

The issue I will be discussing is poverty, specifically that of Appalachia Mountains in Kentucky as portrayed in an ABC Documentary and report.

The Video clip I will be using as an additional resource was found on YouTube.

In a recent report done by ABC’s Diane Sawyer, the people of the Appalachia Mountains were followed and closely studied for two years prior to the documentary being aired on television. A day before the documentary was aired; Sawyer was a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s segment, ‘Unresolved Problems’ to discuss the poverty issue and living conditions of the children in Appalachia.

In her documentary, Sawyer highlights a few prominent problems if not factors to the increasing poverty situation in the area of Kentucky. In doing so, she interviews approximately five children and teenagers on their lives, their family and their status two years ago and then currently in 2009. Of the most significant problems is prescription drug addiction, toothlessness due to the addiction of sugary soft drinks such as Mountain Dew, and more importantly, Sawyer’s assertion that America has forgotten about these ‘people of the mountains;’ more importantly, its children.

Even before Sawyer is introduced from a previous episode showing, O’Reilly states that poverty is unsolvable; there is nothing to be done. While much aid is given to the poor domestically and abroad, in the form of contributions and monetary aid, poverty cannot be resolved. During the actual discussion, O’Reilly raised the question, why Appalachia? Such living conditions and numbers of people living in poverty are not seen in the Rocky Mountains or the Sierra Mountains, so why Appalachia? Furthermore, he draws on the explanation that people, who live in an area that does not produce any source of productivity in terms of money or success or basically a future, usually move out and go elsewhere; rather, than remaining in an area that has seen poverty for almost 200 hundred years.

That is an excuse, Mr. O’Reilly, not an explanation.

Without spoiling too much of the documentary for those who have not watched it, Sawyer’s piece only highlighted about five children and their families, much of which were extended families. So you’re talking about at least seven people under one roof. Additionally, the purpose of the documentary was to show how in midst of all this drug abuse, poverty stricken place, there are children willing, ready and able to get out of Appalachia to become something successful, contrary to what O’Reilly stated.

Some of the families are getting better and have increased in bettering their lives and solving their domestic problems. But once again, they are just a tiny fraction of the larger amounts of people and children who are struggling and living each day with still such poor conditions.

Protecting the NJ Coastline

2009-03-01T15:00:00.003-05:00

The NJ coastline is a place where many people from the tri-state area go for a day "away." Two hours away from NYC down the GSP, you can walk on a sandy beaches and fish of the side of a canal into the ocean, where a divider could go get a handful of starfish. There are other things as well than its recreational activies that its known for. It is the home of all its weird NJ facts, Atlantic City, The Sopranos, and the home of "Watch the tram car, please!" Whether you are locals or new comers, the NJ shoreline offers that day away.

However, after my years of going to Seaside for prom weekends and what not, the shoreline has lost its popularity because, well lets face it, it has been going down the drain. The pollution is getting worse; the trash is flowing to the shore by rivers and streams from all over. "According to the US EPA, only 15% of New Jersey's coastal waters are of "good" quality. So, Environment New Jersey has filed a petition with the State to formally protect the Toms River (Ocean and Monmouth Counties). To read more about the petition and see pictures of the shoreline visit the site!

The site offers a great way to Take Action, to help and get involved to save the shore, protect NJ's parks and wildlife and clean up the pollution. For a local like me, I'm glad that more is being done to help save the shore. I've been going to the shore since I was a baby, taking those weekends to visit my grandma who lived in Toms River's Holiday City at the time.

American Opportunity Tax Credit

2009-03-01T14:47:00.007-05:00

President Barack Obama has proposed a bill (section 1004) called the American Opportunity Tax Credit to "make college more affordable by directly reducing the amount of money a person owes in taxes." This Bill will make Community College tuition almost free and will try to cut at least two thirds of a Public College debt. Obama is proposing a maximum of $4,000 for a tax credit and possibly rewarding this credit to families even if no taxes are owed. This tax credit should be "immediately refundable," which means that these fund will be available at the time of enrollment for school.

This Bill is basically replacing the Federal Hope Scholarship. This tax credit will start to be applied to expenses paid in 2009 and after. This credit will be applied to 100% of the first $2,000 of expenses paid and 25% of expenses paid on the next $2,000 (the maximum will total $2,500). Students are eligible for four years instead of the original two years and will also be able to be applied to books and course materials. For a single tax filer the adjusted gross income has been raised to $80,000 and $160,000 for joint tax filers.
I think that bill is very good idea. I think that individuals who are motivated enough to take on the challenge of attending a college or university should be rewarded. Many students do not get a chance to attend a college of their choice and some do not make it to college because they do not have sufficient funds to do so. Those who attend college will be making future decisions and helping our country in the next five to ten years. I think that the future of this country relies on educated and qualified individuals and that out country should help support them, since we will be the ones who have the power to help this country's future.

Bringing Down the Cost of Energy or Raising Economic Distress?

2009-03-01T14:23:00.026-05:00

The article entitled, "Obama's Greenhouse Gas Gamble," discusses President Obama's proposal of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases that are linked to global warming. There is an estimated amount of $645 billion in emissions trading revenue over the next 10 years. Much of this will be paid by oil, electric power, and industries that are heavy contributors of gases that are blamed for global warming, such as carbon dioxide.

Supporters of Obama's cap-and-trade plan claim that the benefits of this may outweigh the costs of pursuing this goal. Scientists say that by steadily decreasing emissions, the risk of climate catastrophe will be reduced. The White House does not only allocate money for reduction costs. Obama plans to set aside $15 billion a year from the sale of emissions permits to further advance the development of new sources of clean energy.

However, many argue that this program may just put the nation in more economic distress. By reducing emissions, people who are dependent on coal will now become more dependent on electricity. Thomas Williams of Duke Energy has predicted that "electricity rates would jump as much as 40% in states that are reliant on coal for much of their power."

Obama hopes to have the program up and running by 2012. What is the nation more inclined to do: pay more money every year in order to prevent the advancement of global warming or stick to sources of energy like coal and contribute to a climate catastrophe? In my opinion, even though it would add more weight to the nation's economy, it would certainly be more beneficial in the long run, not only for the United States, but for the rest of the world arena.

Hawaii Debates Same-Sex Unions

2009-02-25T14:17:00.011-05:00

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

2009-02-22T19:01:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-22T17:41:00.008-05:00

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

2009-02-22T17:07:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-22T16:53:00.004-05:00

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.

Another look at Marijuana

2009-02-22T16:47:00.004-05:00

Legalization of Marijuana

Legalization of marijuana has been a topic that has been long discussed, proposed, and usually rejected. It is a banned substance that many people, especially younger people use all the time. It is considered a “soft” drug but that still does not help its cause because of the gateway theory. The Gateway Theory says that soft drugs like marijuana will eventually lead people to open up and try harder more addicting drugs because of their enhanced effects. This is still just a theory and is relatively unproven yet law makers and legislators continue to use it as one of their primary defenses. Marijuana was first taxed in 1937 by the Marijuana Tax Act which required sellers to have a license in order to sell marijuana. Later it was said that marijuana had detrimental effects on people and a law was quickly passed to ban the now considered drug; there was little argument or opposition to the law. The stand the government has taken now is that they can not distribute marijuana because it is a drug and that would be immoral of the state to sell something that can be harmful to the people’s health. They also say it will not stop drug trafficking and it will send a message to the people that drug use is just fine. I disagree with these points. For one the government regulates cigarettes and tobacco products which have been shown in many studies to cause problems such as cancer and heart disease. Yet the government continues to allow the distribution of the product even knowing the harm and thousands of death it causes every year. As part of the moral issue who is right to say what is moral and what is not. As the article says” immorality of marijuana use can only be based on one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs.” It is deemed immoral just because of its classification as a drug yet when you compare its effects with alcohol use they are not that much different and there is no physical dependence that can form with marijuana unlike alcohol. The biggest part that can be argued at this point in time because of the economy is the tax revenue that the government could get if it was legalized and regulated. Just like cigarettes have a tax so could marijuana. It could become much needed money for our country. It would also be able to help put the illegal marijuana market out of business because prices are so high through the black market. If distributers grew and sold the product it would be much cheaper and people would not have a reason to go to the illegal sellers anymore. I do not think the reasons to not legalize it outweigh the reasons to legalize marijuana. It makes a lot of sense and there would be many positive aspects if it was legalized. It would give the government extra revenue and control over the substance and best of all it would out the illegal growers and sellers out of business because they will not be able to compete.

2009-02-22T00:39:00.005-05:00

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

2009-02-21T23:17:00.003-05:00

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

2009-02-21T23:05:00.001-05:00

Bailout for News Papers

2009-02-21T18:01:00.002-05:00

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...

2009-02-16T21:55:00.002-05:00

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

2009-02-15T18:56:00.003-05:00

Civil Rights Agenda

2009-02-15T18:19:00.011-05:00

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

2009-02-15T17:44:00.003-05:00

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

2009-02-15T17:25:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-15T16:44:00.005-05:00

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.

2009-02-15T16:15:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-15T15:14:00.002-05:00

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?

2009-02-15T14:54:00.014-05:00

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

2009-02-15T13:28:00.007-05:00

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

2009-02-15T12:43:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-13T14:46:00.008-05:00

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

2009-02-08T19:10:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-08T19:05:00.004-05:00

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

2009-02-08T18:49:00.001-05:00

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

2009-02-08T18:45:00.004-05:00

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)

2009-02-08T18:39:00.008-05:00

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'

2009-02-08T16:36:00.001-05:00

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

2009-02-08T14:32:00.005-05:00

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

2009-02-08T12:17:00.006-05:00

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

2009-02-07T13:37:00.003-05:00

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:

Phelps Pot Charges

2009-02-05T16:07:00.003-05:00

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1876678,00.html

Here's an ongoing interesting topic: Michael Phelps being photographed taking a hit off a bong. Something thousands (if not more) of Americans do every day, but because of Phelps's international superstardom, public officials are discussing incarcerating Phelps. Lots of pictures and videos of people smoking pot surface every day, is it really fair for him to get this treatment?

Ground Water and Public Policy

2009-02-03T23:37:00.002-05:00

I found this interesting video describing some of the problems facing Texas when it comes to water supplies. They have problems with high demand, low supply, and contamination. I think this is an issue that is really going to evolve into a major problem if action is not taken to prevent it. I had also read an article a while back about Colorado and Utah dealing with similar problems. The increasing populations in these areas has lead to diminishing water supplies. At this point I think the best option is water conservation and preventing contamination. It says in the video they can work on increasing supplies by pumping in water from other areas, but I don't think this is a viable solution. The demand is going to continue to increase across the country so taking it from somewhere else is not going to be an option forever. The video mentions great results that were reached in San Antonio with water conservation laws that led to the drop in overall consumption. I think that is the best approach for now while we try to figure out ways to increase supplies in the long run.

Superbowl & Clean Energy

2009-02-02T15:10:00.003-05:00

Budweiser, Doritos, E*Trade, Sobe, General Motors, Heineken, Coca-Cola, Pedigree... no surprise that these big brands dominated the million dollar superbowl commercials during yesterday's game. But much to my satisfaction, somewhere after the commercial where the singing insects ditched the plastic pop bottle in the perfectly clean environment, and somewhere before the super fuel guzzling truck made its flaming appearance, these two rather revolutionary commercials made their way to the big screen. Props to GE for making the environment a headline at Superbowl XLIII - even it was only for the investments.

New Jersey & Stem Cell Research

2009-01-28T13:56:00.001-05:00

This website is from New Jersey's Commission on Science and Technology to further advance efforts in stem cell research.

http://www.state.nj.us/scitech/stemcell/

Milestone in Research into Stem Cells

2009-01-25T17:29:00.003-05:00

The New York Times had an article in last Friday's paper claiming that the federal government will allow the world's first test in people of a therapy derived from human embryonic stem cells. As we all know, the Bush Administration placed restrictions on any type of federal funding for stem cell studies because the creation of these cells cause the destruction of human embryos. This decision coincided with President Obama's inauguration. Obama has pledged to remove some of those restrictions that were placed. Many top officials involved in the stem cell program have different opinions as to why the go head took so long. The chief executive claims that this decision had nothing to do with the change of the administrations. The FDA first said no. The chairman, however, said "the approval is directly tied to the change in administrations."

The process is really a type of therapy. It would be injected into the spinal cord taking into account the amount of time that has passed. The test includes 8 to 10 people. "There would still be years of testing and many hurdles to overcome before the treatment would become routinely available to patients."

Within his first week, Obama has been making many changes. I think it's great that Obama has an open mind with issues like this. As we progress with our technology, we should use it to better ourselves.

However, it seems there are many risks that come along with the therapy. For instance, it raises the risk of cancer. Like I said, it's great to be open minded about these things but when many people who are involved with this research are skepitcal about whether the therapy would work or not.

Is this a chance worth taking?

from the phone

2009-01-21T16:55:00.000-05:00

hey

New Hampshire State Public Policy Blog

2009-01-21T16:05:00.000-05:00

http://freestateblogs.net/node/5329

Barack Obama vs Stock Market

2009-01-21T16:01:00.002-05:00

On the day of the inauguration the United States was in disunity as the nation was split into seperate factions, with part of the nation backing our new president and the other part criticizing him before he even entered office. As a result of this negative idea about President Barack Obama's economic policy we saw a decline in the DJI and Nasdaq due to consumer sentiment. I personally do not believe that this is fair at all as we cannot have a negative sentiment before he has enacted anything! As long as people view politics with a bias we will always approach anything that has ties with our ideals with a pre-made idea... this leads to unfounded fears and hopes. Hopefully our economy will rectify itself, its only a part of the business cycle and our new president has nothing to do with it yet.

Immigration Policy Blog

2009-01-21T14:32:00.002-05:00

In my search for policy blogs I found this one that had to do with the more recently overlooked subject of immigration. Several years ago this was a hot hot topic in America and this past election had a much smaller focus on it. Blog posts on this site seem to be made weekly and the topics obviously focus on immigration but seem to actually talk about immigrations strategies and legislation that is coming up, current laws, etc.

http://www.nationofimmigrators.com/

Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered?

2009-01-21T11:37:00.002-05:00

This website is a piece that was written in the Star Ledger. The title is "College Leaders call for drinking age debate". I feel that there are great points on both sides regarding whether the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18. This webpage shows how torn college leaders and parents are when it comes to this issue.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/college_leaders_call_for_drink.html

Education Policy: Is it really thought out?

2009-01-20T23:58:00.000-05:00

I have chosen to blog about the education policy in the United States. First I had to look up what public policy truly was. In the book it states that public policy is the sum of government activities, whether pursued directly or through agents, as those activities have an influence on the lives of citizens. There are three separate levels of policy. First there is policy choice which is their decisions that will affect the lives of citizens. Secondly is policy outputs and there are the policy choices being put into action. Lastly is policy impacts and this shows the effects that the policy choices and outputs have on the citizens.

After finding out what policy means and really looking into what policy entails, I decided to look at what the government is doing with the education policy, considering I’m becoming a teacher. Throughout the past 100 years and even before that, education has always been a topic with the United States. The education system can be a very important topic for a few years, than it will be dropped and not picked back up again until the national scores come back in. In 1989 our schools scored a 1.99 and that’s a C+ for our nation. In Europe they were scoring in the range of a 3.5 to a 4.0 which is a B+ to an A. This made out nation think strongly about what’s happening in our public schools.

Every time the taxes rise people always ask why and what is this extra money going to do or what is may be going towards. Most of these policies give our school’s the ability to purchase new books, pay teachers overtime for extra curricular activities, well educated teachers and new technology.

One of the policies for education was held under George H. W. Bush and this was titled “America 2000: An Education Strategy.” This plan had four parts to it. First was National Testing, this is for communities so they have the ability to test their students and see if they are reaching their school standards and the national standards. Secondly the federal government would open 535 new schools which would make class sizes smaller and there would be more teacher student time. Thirdly he wanted to improve the teachers and make sure each student is getting the correct education for their schools curriculum. Lastly, George Bush wanted parents and students to have a “choice” to be able to choose what level of difficulty their children can handle or which level of difficulty they want their children to be dealing with. Even though this policy was very thought out and seems to be the perfect education system, like many other policies, not much of this policy has worked.

The education system needs more work to be done and will need new policies because as technology and other new fundamentals for the changes constantly occurring throughout education, we will need money and policies passed to help support our future generations.

Julie Biondi

Factory Farms and our Climate

2009-01-20T22:24:00.001-05:00

"According to the 2007 report by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), livestock generate a whopping 18 percent of human-related greenhouse gas emissions—that's even more than the gas-guzzling transportation industry."

Has anyone else heard anything similar to this? Its the first I have heard of this issue.

The Environment and Public Policy

2009-01-20T19:03:00.006-05:00

This website discusses several options the government has regarding environmental issues:

curbing pollution through sensible regulations
putting environmental protection in perspective
preventing further environmental destruction.

According to the chart below, in 2007, the government only spent approximately 1.2% on natural resources and the environment.

Is the government spending a fair amount on the environment or is the environment being neglected?

Animal blog

2009-01-20T11:31:00.005-05:00

My sister is vegetarian and this blog has a lot of tips for vegans and vegetarians. It also focuses at many points on animal rights.

http://www.animalrightsblog.com/

This video is a somewhat graphic account of a PETA investigation at an American turkey farm. This is not directly referenced in the blog however things like this were the original reason for creating the blog.

The House of Representatives Youtube Channel

2009-01-19T21:39:00.002-05:00

I'm not sure if this is something known but I just found that members of the congress have their own youtube channel saying that they are trying to make the government more transparent by video logging, I think it's a good idea...http://www.youtube.com/user/househub

interesting blog

2009-01-19T16:40:00.002-05:00

I am mildly obsessed with Iran and Russia, so I found this blog very interesting
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/. Its a blog written by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself. Unfortunately, it doesnt appear to be updated often, but I still think its really cool.

Women Impacting Public Policy

2009-01-19T12:56:00.001-05:00

This blog is a bi-partisan blog focused on empowering women and giving them a common voice to impact public policy change and to show how women have been changing the public policy of this nation. Their main focus is on women in business and women business owners, but they also focus on a variety of issues affecting women. Their page also looks at state issues in comparison to national issues.
If you look at the blog, the main focus right now is with the change of power to President-elect Obama, and the hope and change people are hoping to see. The blog is putting out an optomistic message to all people, not just women, to band together behind Obama and make America the kind of country we know it can be.

http://blog.wipp.org/

Public Policy with Marijuana

2009-01-19T00:20:00.002-05:00

This site discusses policies and the desired changes in concern with marijuana.
The sites opinion is in favor of decriminlization of marijuana.

Public Policy and Abortion

2009-01-18T19:28:00.004-05:00

I found a site that talks about many different public policy issues. This direct link deals with the American Public policy on abortion.

US Economy Public Policy

2009-01-18T19:15:00.002-05:00

I found a site that talks about the United States public policy on the economy. The site is http://uspublicpolicy.com/home.html.

Supreme Court to Decide Rights of Students

2009-01-17T23:43:00.002-05:00

According to the Washington Post and CNN, the US Supreme Court decided on Friday to hear the case involving a strip search of a thirteen year-old (eight grade) student who was suspected of possessing illegal substances. A Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco has previously ruled 8-3 that the search of students by School Administrators is unconstitutional. The family of the student argues that children have the same inherent rights as that of adults. However, if stare decisis is to prove anything, the courts have continuously demonstrated that the classroom is a medium in which the facilitation of education is to be safeguarded for the good of society and the protection of the nations children is of the utmost importance. In order to accomplish this, it is often necessary to create tightened security and a heightened sense of "non-tolerance" to disobedience in the classroom environment. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the School District, policy will be upheld and administrators may be given too much power which may lead to corruption. However, if the Court where to rule in favor of the student and seize the power from the hands of those entrusted with the education of today's youth, we may see an even greater degree of change in educational policy. In a society that strives to excel in a world marketplace and rise above its competitors, a higher level of education is a necessity to which the future of our nation depends. The need to grant individuals a level of leniency in order to administrate in an effective manner, is key to the success in preventing crime from flowing from the local streets into a school that is expected to be a safe-zone for learning. Although the school system in San Francisco might not be considered a "high-risk" area in which strip searches are necessary, an area such as local Newark certainly is. If the Supreme Court establishes policy to make such practices unconstitutional because of a individualized school system, it could very well lead to an unintended negative impact that will only need to be reversed in the court systems in the future.

Just some thoughts to get responses. For further reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011603287.html

CITIZEN'S SURVIVAL KIT

2009-01-16T17:03:00.001-05:00

Here's a great site took look at. http://www.publicagenda.org

Feds try to kaput cows?

2009-01-16T11:40:00.003-05:00

Whats up Doc.?

An article in Watertown Daily (online) I was reading made me laugh at the utter clueless-ness (if that is a word) of the Federal Legislature, or perhaps complicity. One could draw the conclusion that either they are so inept that they shouldn't have the right to vote on any bills or they are purposelessly trying to sink different markets in our teetering economy. What I am refering to is the attempt to add an earmark to stimulus package regarding the "retirement" of dairy cows in an effort to raise the price of milk. This is dispite the "no earmarks" ground that the stimulus package was initially passed. They also tend to not recall history. The last time the feds tried to "retire" dairy herds they sent the beef prices through the floor, as they introduced a spike in beef supply, and the effects were still temporary.

I sure hope this "Change" comes soon...because it looks like the same old characters are making the same short sighted decisions they have always made.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090115/NEWS02/301159967/0/FRONTPAGE

www.spokeup.com

2009-01-15T12:44:00.003-05:00

Hey guys, www.spokeup.com is a new social website that is devoted to people talking about what they think about all different kinds of subjects. Its "motto" is "A site for those who speak up". People are constantly posting on there about different news headlines and blogging about how they feel about what's happening in the US and around the world. It really is a great place to stage your thoughts.

Just wanted to share. =]

Strengthening the Department of Homeland Security

2009-01-15T10:58:00.002-05:00

Dr. Taylor,

I was surfing the web and I came across this website called "CSIS: Center for Strategic and International Studies." This website is a very good source public policy issues because it examines all of the programs and policies that have either been set into motion or are being discussed in the government. This site can also tell you policies and programs in other countries around the world, though other countries do not really apply to this class, it is good to have the information available in case any students want to know what is going on in the other countries or if any of the students are taking either comparative politics or international relations.
The section I was looking at was the Department of Homeland Security which can be found at the bottom of the website. There was a report published on September 18, 2008 titled "Homeland Security 3.0" and the purpose of the report is to recommend ideas for strengthening Homeland Security not just as a department of our government, but as a national enterprise. Thought this report is from September, it still applies today in January, especially now that we are on the eve of a new Administration. The report reiterates the importance of Homeland Security and addresses the significance of the matter in the plans of the new Administration. The report requests the new Administration to "urge completion of the most urgent task at hand, which is establishing a national homeland security enterprise that integrates all elements of society to protect America against catastrophic events." I think that strengthening Homeland Security is a great idea, since personally I feel that with a new President and the first African American President, we are a little more prone to attack in the eyes of our enemies, strengthening Homeland Security can only benefit us, not hurt us. Hopefully, Obama will make good decisions for this country and one good decision would definitely be to strengthen Homeland Security on a national level.

to access the website click http://www.csis.org/
to view the full report click http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080918_homeland_sec_3dot0.pdf

RSS in Plain English

2009-01-14T15:49:00.006-05:00

from Common Craft

For more on RSS, click here.