Gun Control

Lawmakers began a new session of Congress with the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, still fresh in their minds -- inspiring a new push to pass gun laws that could prevent another tragedy. On Day One, lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced nearly a dozen bills related to gun violence. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, a longtime gun control advocate, led the fight on the Democratic side of the aisle. She's sponsoring legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales -- including at gun shows -- and ban online sales of ammunition.

 McCarthy is also co-sponsoring a bill to ban high-capacity magazine clips with Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colorado. DeGette's district includes Columbine High School, where two gunmen killed 13 people in 1999, and is next to Aurora, where a gunman killed 12 people in a mass shooting at a movie theater in July. "These assault magazines help put the 'mass' in 'mass shooting' and anything we can do to stop their proliferation will save lives in America," said McCarthy, whose husband was killed and her son critically wounded in a mass shooting on the Long Island Railroad in New York in 1993. "These devices are used to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible, and we owe it to innocent Americans everywhere to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people." Meanwhile, two Republican freshmen, Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have introduced bills that would allow more guns around schools.

In the Senate, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein plans to introduce a bill to ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 firearms. The bill would also ban certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine, and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. The assault weapons ban Feinstein helped pass in 1994 expired in 2004. Feinstein is in the process of gathering support for her bill in both chambers. Bills sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, to ban high-capacity magazines and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, to enhance background checks and close the gun show loophole already have counterparts in the lower chamber.

But gun control is a heated topic, and any push to restrict access to guns will be met with strong opposition from the 4-million-member National Rifle Association, the nation's most powerful gun rights lobby. The NRA has long blocked efforts to introduce tougher gun laws, arguing Congress cannot infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In a press conference a week after the Newtown shootings, the group's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre asked, "Since when did the word 'gun' automatically become a bad word?" He called on Congress to appropriate enough money to put armed police officers in every school in the country. The NRA has also questioned the effectiveness of gun bans, suggesting they could put communities in danger.

                Expect to see some heated debates within the next few weeks. Get your popcorn, lay back, and turn on C-Span to get a look at the action.

Online Education

In August of 2012 the online education company, Coursera, had drawn in a million users, a faster launching than either Facebook or Twitter. Coursera offers free college courses, all of which are taught by faculty members from 33 universities around the country. In less than a year, Coursera has attracted $22 million in venture capital and has created a ton of buzz. The co-founders, computer science professors at Stanford University, watched with amazement as enrollment passed two million last month, with 70,000 new students a week signing up for over 200 courses, including Human-Computer Interaction, Songwriting and Gamification.  

Other approaches to online courses are emerging as well. Universities nationwide are increasing their online offerings, hoping to attract students around the world. New ventures like Udemy help individual professors put their courses online. Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have each provided $30 million to create edX. Another Stanford spinoff, Udacity, has attracted more than a million students to its menu of massive open online courses, or MOOCs, along with $15 million in financing. All of this could well add up to the future of higher education — if anyone can figure out how to make money.

Coursera has grown at warp speed to emerge as the current leader of the pack, striving to support its business by creating revenue streams through licensing, certification fees and recruitment data provided to employers, among other efforts. But there is no guarantee that it will keep its position in the exploding education technology marketplace. For their part, Ms. Koller and Mr. Ng proclaim a desire to keep courses freely available to poor students worldwide. Education, they have said repeatedly, should be a right, not a privilege. And even their venture backers say profits can wait.

Right now, the most promising source of revenue for Coursera is the payment of licensing fees from other educational institutions that want to use the Coursera classes, either as a ready-made “course in a box” or as video lectures students can watch before going to class to work with a faculty member.

While there is currently no profit stemming from these online education ventures, the future is still looking bright ahead. Expect to see this trend become the norm.

Manufacturing Growth

U.S. manufacturing activity rebounded in December, according to a report released Thursday. The Institute of Supply Management's monthly reading on the U.S. manufacturing sector came in at 50.7 in December, moving the index off its 2012 low of 49.5 in November. The index is compiled from a survey of manufacturing supply managers, and any number above 50 indicates the sector is growing. The December expansion marked only the third time the sector grew in the last seven months. New manufacturing orders grew for the fourth consecutive month, even though some respondents worried about tax implications in the new year and global economic conditions. "We are seeing stabilization of orders and costs as well as production capacity for the first time in months," one of the manufacturers, interviewed for the survey, said.

Factories have continued to hire, a welcome sign ahead of the monthly employment report on the U.S. job market due out Friday. The ISM employment index increased by 4.3 percentage points last month. November's employment report showed that manufacturers cut 7,000 jobs. Most of the losses came from food manufacturing, which was not a surprise given that Twinkies-maker Hostess announced early in the month that it planned to layoff 18,500 workers. Global manufacturing reports have shown a mixed picture across the world. A separate report on Thursday showed that manufacturing in Europe ended the year on a weak note. The eurozone purchasing manager's index contracted for the 17th month in a row, as levels of production and new orders continued to wane in December. The sector declined even further this month in Germany, Spain, Austria and Greece, but eased in France, Italy and the Netherlands.

The news was far better in China, where factories continued their expansion in December, according to a key manufacturing index released Monday. HSBC said its Chinese purchasing managers' index, or PMI, rose to a 19-month high of 51.5 in December from 50.5 last month. The fate of manufacturing in China is considered a barometer of the global economy because of the country's role as a powerhouse exporter of manufactured goods. 

With manufacturing on the rise, is it safe to say that the economy will improve?

Why Should We Care?

            With the election coming up rapidly there has been a huge uproar of political talk at CCHS. Many students seem to have an opinion they have to say about either of the candidates running for office. During the debates, it was not uncommon to see hundreds of posts on Twitter about the candidates’ policies and how they were good/bad for our nation.

            It’s a wonder how there is so much involvement at our school yet only a slim percentage of students will actually be able to vote in this election. This raises the question for those who can’t vote this year: why should we care?

            Well there are a few reasons why you should care. Staying informed at an early age can help you make decisions later in life. By knowing your politics now you will be able to quickly jump right in once you come of age. Furthermore, by having a solid political base now, you will be less prone to conform to other’s beliefs in college. Once you go away to school you will be around a whole new crowd, biased professors, activist students, etc. It only makes sense that the politically ignorant will choose to simply agree with their peers at this stage. Don’t conform! Get involved with politics as soon as you can. Lastly, by being informed on the political issues, you can still help swing the election. Teenagers are being used around the nation to help with the political campaigns. From mailing letters to registering voters, there are tons of things that us teens can do to help influence the outcome of this election. If you are a politically involved student, you should look into becoming active in a campaign.

            Knowledge is power. This old phrase still holds true today, where the most educated people excel at life. Don’t miss out on knowledge because you believe that it’s not important. Go on political blogs now, start researching the candidates, read up on economic issues, it will only make you a stronger person. 

Defense

The U.S. Army is at the brink. Will budget cuts deplete its forces? Or could it wind up keeping thousands of soldiers? The answer is anyone’s guess. But it’s certainly a challenge for Army leaders, especially when the next big inflection point is out of their hands.

If President Barack Obama is reelected, it probably means the Army will keep up the drawdown already under way from its wartime peak of about 570,000 troops to an end strength in 2017 of about 490,000 — slightly larger than it was in September 2001. The Army chief of staff, Gen. Ray Odierno, has said the force must not wind up smaller than that, acknowledging that it’s “on a razor’s edge.” He is keen, however, on keeping a smaller force a high-quality force. “The thing we have going for us is that I believe the Army is in a position of strength,” Odierno told reporters Monday. It’s drawing down with the best-quality, most seasoned force it’s ever had, he said, and it’s doing so with a goal in mind. “The Army, in the end, will be optimized for a broader range of missions in support of the joint force,” he said. It’ll be a force “that can deploy at several speeds, at several sizes and respond to several different contingencies” — capabilities it didn’t have before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Nonetheless, Army leaders have talked about the need to take “an appetite suppressant” and push back plans to buy new helicopters, as well as taking care to fence off the areas they’d try to protect in a worst-case budget scenario: special operations, intelligence and reconnaissance, and space and cyberspace. But the campaign of Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has made big promises to support the Defense Department if he’s elected. He has said he’d devote at least 4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product to the Pentagon, an increase of billions — or even trillions — of dollars. Perhaps none of the Pentagon’s four services would stand to benefit more than the Army.

Romney campaign officials have said he would stop — or even reverse — the drawdown, with the goal of keeping the Army at around its Iraq-era “surge” peak of about 570,000 troops. The goal, they said, is to avoid what they see as mistakes the U.S. has made as it has demobilized after previous wars, shrinking the Army only to have to grow it again when the next conflict came along. Retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who’s backing Romney, said there was no way to know where the Army would end up but that Romney’s goal was for it to stay flat or grow. “You have seen reductions and planned reductions in end strength. … The number that people frequently toss around is 100,000 [troops],” Franks said. “I don’t know what in the final analysis [the Romney] number would end up to be, but the first thing you do is stop the bleeding and say, ‘In a time of war, what we will not do is have end strength reductions.’

Bogus Letters

The Florida Division of elections and state law enforcement officials are investigating "multiple" bogus letters sent to Florida voters to inform them that they have been flagged as suspected illegal, non-citizen voters. "I sat there and actually had to read it a couple times because I didn't understand what it said at first," Republican Charles Callaghan of Ponte Vedra recounted to Buzz about the letter he opened Saturday. It claimed to be from the St. Johns County elections supervisor, informing him that elections officials had been informed he may be ineligible to vote and "registering to vote under fraudulent conditions or swearing a false oath are both third degree felonies in Florida."

It's an interesting twist on Florida's noncitizen voter purge, which was led by Republican Rick Scott, and was more of a threat to Democrats and independents. But now some outside group is trying to use the GOP-led effort against the GOP. "We've received multiple reports of a fraudulent letter that impersonates supervisors of elections and indicates that eligible voters might be ineligible," said Chris Cate, spokesman for the Division of Elections. "We're working with the state's supervisors of elections as well law enforcement to identify the source of the letters and put a stop to them."

Cate said anyone receiving such a letter should contact their local elections office. The postmark was from Seatttle Washington, as were other similar letters received across Florida. The letters appear to be going mostly or entirely to Republicans in Florida. “Our campaign is concerned with this situation and we are monitoring it closely," said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams. "If anybody believes that they have received one of these letters, we urge them to contact their local election officials and the Florida Department of State.”

Every election year we always hear horror stories of how one party is trying to trick the other. There are always going to be radical extremist groups trying to influence the election in any way that they can. Make sure that you investigate any mail that you receive regarding the election! 

Privacy Clause

Supporters of Amendment 6 say their intentions are simply to ensure that Florida tax money isn't used to pay for abortions and to restore state laws that require parental consent before minors get abortions. But that's not all this proposed constitutional amendment would do, opponents say. Amendment 6 would modify a privacy clause in the Florida Constitution that for the past 32 years has helped protect citizens from government intrusion in their private lives. They say it's not just a woman's right to have an abortion that could be in jeopardy, but decisions regarding contraception, health care and personal choices. "To us, it's deeply concerning because in our Constitution in this state, there is a very explicit right to privacy that people should be free of government interference," said Deirdre Macnab, state president of the League of Women Voters, an organization leading the campaign against Amendment 6. "This is the first step in dismembering and overturning our Florida Constitution's right to privacy."

Of the 11 different constitutional amendments filling ballots this fall, Amendment 6 is the one that could have the most lasting unintended consequences, opponents argue. The measure, along with 10 others, require 60 percent of votes cast to pass. The proposal, which was placed on the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature, is primarily being championed by the Catholic Church. Religious institutions in Florida can support or oppose ballot initiatives without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. They are prohibited from supporting or opposing specific candidates. While state and federal law prohibits public funding of abortion, supporters want the ban written into the Constitution.

"We believe that people don't want their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions," said Sheila Hopkins, associate director at the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops. The church distributed literature touting the importance of Amendment 6 to parishes. Bishops and priests encouraged members to spread the word among friends and neighbors leading up to Election Day. In addition to making the state Constitution mirror federal rules that prohibit public dollars from paying for abortions (except in the case of cases of rape, incest or when the mother's life is in jeopardy), Amendment 6 also modifies a privacy clause in the state Constitution.

Florida is one of nine states that has specific privacy protections beyond the U.S. Constitution. Supporters hope that relaxing these protections will empower the Legislature to restore state laws that require parents to give permission before a minor receives an abortion. Current state law requires guardians of minors only to be notified. This radical change could change the way we define privacy in Florida. 

Separation of Church and State

In many ways, Amendment 8 boils down to this: When Jerod Powers, 38, left prison in Jacksonville, he had only a change of clothes, his release papers and pocket change. He went to Prisoners of Christ halfway house — an organization that receives some state financial assistance — where he got food, clothes, substance abuse counseling and help finding a job at a lawn care business. Powers also got spiritual guidance.

That case, now playing out in court, asks whether Prisoners of Christ violated a state constitutional ban on the use of taxpayer dollars for promoting religion. The New York-based Council for Secular Humanism, which is suing the halfway house and the state, contends the Department of Corrections' $22,000 contract violates the Blaine Amendment, a ban on state money for religious organizations.

Enter Amendment 8, which seeks to make the lawsuit, and other potential legal challenges, moot. It would repeal the Blaine Amendment and replace it with a law that prohibits the state from considering religious affiliation when it disburses funds. "We don't force anything on anybody," said Prisoners of Christ executive director Dan Palmer, adding that 11 percent of prisoners who get help from his program return to prison, compared with the state average of 35 percent.

Amendment 8, one of 11 constitutional amendments on the November ballot, revives a century-old battle of whether religious organizations should have the same access to state dollars as everyone else, said Tony Carvajal of the Collins Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank in Tallahassee. The U.S. Constitution would still ban states from favoring one faith-based organization over another. "Let's take two different food banks, two different nonprofits. The way the law is now written, one associated with a religious entity can't get government support, but the other could," Carvajal said.

Opponents of Amendment 8 contend that faith-based community service groups can continue to contract with the state as they always have. They say it's dangerous to introduce a law to change the way Florida defines the separation of church and state. 

Social Media and Politics

          As Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama spared during the second presidential debate last Tuesday, viewers sounded off on social media. In the moments before last week's much-anticipated rematch debate between President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, messages like this showed up online: "Let's skip the play-by-play on Facebook during the presidential debates tonight, folks. If you must, do it on Twitter with #debates. You'll reach those who actually want to be reached."
          Implicit in the post was that our civic, if not necessarily civil, discourse is now also very much a cyber one. America in 2012 fully expects to vent about and follow politics electronically. Not long ago, TV was the overwhelming voice in the political conversation. It consisted of campaigns talking at us, often in ways that drove us batty. Today, the television is but one of the screens battling for voters' attention. The explosion ofTwitterand its ilk -- played out on mobile phones, iPads, laptops and desktops -- lets the electorate talk back. "It's one part effective and one part distracting," said Sarah Wood, secretary and treasurer for theSocial Media Club of Kansas City. "You catch new and different interpretations of what presidential candidates have said, and you can fact check on the fly. "The downside," she said, "is the emotionally charged content and the satire is very distracting."
          Wood is part of the technologically savvy culture that lives to post reactions to the season finale of a favorite television program toFacebookeven while pulling up a weather radar on one screen and a Twitter feed on another to find out when it will rain. During last Tuesday's debate, Wood watched the YouTube live stream on her iPad, while using her iPhone to read real-time posts on her Twitter feed. "This tech-savvy generation wants to be involved in conversations to create a connectivity that a singular viewing of an event cannot produce," she said. "We want other opinions and interpretations to be part of our experience."
          Indeed, following the pattern from the two previous nationally televised debates, tonight's third and final debate between Obama and Romney on foreign policy will surely draw millions to their multiple screens. The debate last Tuesday drew 12.4 million comments on Twitter and Facebook, reported Bluefin Labs, a company that studies social media's reaction to televised events. Compared with other social media events, the debate followed this year's Grammy Awards and the MTV Video Music Awards as the third biggest event ever in social media. The first debate came in fifth. "The growth of social platforms like Twitter and Reddit (where users share links to news) are bringing a whole new experience to the election this year," Evan Conway, president of the Kansas City-basedOneLouder, which makes apps for mobile phones and tablets, said in an email.

Tea Party

              Ever since its emergence in 2009, the Tea Party movement has energized the political atmosphere and has changed the face of the Republican Party. Being staunchly conservative, Tea Party members strongly advocate strict adherence to the United States Constitution, reducing U.S. government spending and taxes, and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit. The Tea Party has even come up with a ‘Contract From America’ which lists their goals and wants. The contract is as follows:

1.      Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
2.      Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
3.      Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4.      Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%).
5.      Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%).
6.      Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
7.      Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: De-fund, repeal, and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
8.      Pass an "all-of-the-above" energy policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
9.      Reduce earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
10.  Reduce taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax, and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).

With this contract the Tea Party movement has seen some success. Since 2009 the Tea Party has aided in taking control of Ted Kennedy’s seat, bringing about the largest legislative landslide in U.S. history in 2010, and spearheading the election of 6 governors across the US. The Tea Party is not something to overlook, as the Democrats have quickly come to realize. Romney’s possible bid at the Presidency no doubt relies heavily on Tea Party involvement. 

Possible Compromise?

            Recently, there has been widespread doubt over Congress’s ability to create a compromise before the sequester takes effect. After months of deliberation, Congress has yet to forge a plan to avoid falling off the fiscal cliff in January, 2013. This lack of progress had led to many people to begin to fear for the impending economic collapse that would ensue if the sequester goes into action. The sequester itself calls for massive government budget cuts all across the board. This drastic change in spending would create a huge ripple effect across all areas of the economy. Thus the panicking.

            However, recent comments by President Obama have restored faith in many people over Congress’s ability to compromise. During the Monday night debate, Obama stated that the sequester “will not happen." This bold comment has many speculators believing that a compromise is already in the works in Congress. Senator John McCain said, in response to Obama’s comment, "I was astonished, I almost fell out of my chair when the president said, 'Don't worry, sequestration won't happen.' We've been begging the president to sit down with us to avoid what his own secretary of defense said would be a devastating blow to our national security. He just said, 'Don't worry, sequestration won't happen.'” Now Obama has to live up to this huge promise.

            This claim came to most people as a huge surprise. Obama had recently been using the upcoming sequester as a bargaining chip on the expiring Bush Tax Cuts. Senator Lindsey Graham called out Obama after the debate, remarking that “He’s using sequestration as a bargaining chip on the Bush tax cuts expiring. If he wanted it not to happen he should have been leading weeks ago, months ago. We’ve been begging him to come up with a presidential leadership. Saying it’s not going to happen in a debate and not lifting a finger to prevent it for weeks and months is disingenuous.  I think it’s going to happen unless there is some leadership and the president has done nothing to lead on this issue. Tonight he dismissed it with one statement. For months and weeks he’s done nothing to fix the problem. It’s going to happen in January and he’s the commander in chief.”

            Hopefully Obama will go through with his promise because if he doesn’t then we are all screwed. If you ask many mayors and local lawmakers how the sequester could affect their states and towns, you’ll hear about cuts to education programs, infrastructure bonds, and food stamps for children. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a Democrat who is currently the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said the scheduled spending sequester will depress state and local budgets that rely on extra funding from the federal government to provide security, nutritional or other basic services to citizens. If Congress doesn’t come up with a solution, then we may be looking at huge problems both locally and nationally. 

US and Climate Change

The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. According to a report by the Global Humanitarian Forum “Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our times.” The 2007 UN Human Development Program (UNHDP) report noted that climate change will bring about “unprecedented reversals in poverty reduction, nutrition, health and education” as the limited resources of vulnerable nations are used to mitigate the droughts, floods and other environmental stressors of climate change rather than dealing with social needs. Furthermore according to a report by the Global Humanitarian Forum, 300,000 lives are lost each year due to climate change, with an annual death toll estimated to reach 500,000 by 2030. It is imperative that the United States intervenes on the behalf of developing nations in order to mitigate these negative outcomes.

According to the Josephoninstitute, agreement is a source of moral obligation “even if an agreement doesn’t reach the level of an enforceable contract, there is a moral obligation to do the things we agree to do, especially if others are counting on us to do so.” In the 2010 COP new pledges have been made by developed countries (including the US) to jointly mobilize 30 billion dollars a year for the period of 2010-2012, and 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. Furthermore at the Bali conference, the US along with other developed nations agreed to provide financial and technological assistance to developing countries, to help them adapt to climate change. These pledges morally bind the US to provide assistance to developing nations in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.

According to the Journal of Ethics and the Environment, in our present circumstances, those who have contributed the most to climate change are those who are the least vulnerable and the best able to adapt to the impacts of climate change (with, for example, heating and air conditioning, dikes, irrigation, and increased health care), while those who have contributed the least are the most vulnerable and the least able to adapt to the consequences of climate change (e.g., drought, desertification, flooding, and extreme weather patterns.) Furthermore according to the Economist, even though developing countries account for 80% of the world population, their citizens’ carbon footprints are much smaller than those of citizens of developed nations. Based on moral reasoning, those countries that are proportionally the most responsible for climate change should also bear the proportional responsibility for mitigating the effects of their abuses. Since the United States has contributed greatly to the rise in carbon emissions, it has a responsibility to the rest of the world to help lessen the severity of the problem. 

Pelosi

By delaying House Democratic leadership elections until after Thanksgiving, Nancy Pelosi has created speculation about whether she is going to stay atop the caucus. On top of that, the delay raises the question of whether or not Democrats will retake control of the House. Pelosi’s move means one of two things: Either she’s getting out of leadership and wants to give someone else a chance to organize a movement against Minority Whip Steny Hoyer; or she’s simply buying time to consider her future if Democrats fall short of the majority. Either way, her surprising proposal is creating just the type of speculation about her future that Pelosi hates.

Pelosi and her associates are extremely secretive about what she might do if Democrats fail to win the House. All they will say is that Pelosi has stated that she won’t retire no matter what happens on Nov. 6. “It’s really up to my caucus who will lead the party next and my family as well, if they care to after all this time,” Pelosi recently stated. Yet some Democratic insiders see the potential for a December vote for the party’s leadership as aimed at Hoyer. Additional time between Election Day and leadership elections could give Pelosi time to run someone against Hoyer. This would basically mean picking her successor.

One veteran in Pelosi’s circle put it this way: she’s either trying to figure out who will fill the leadership table below her, or is looking to figure out who will succeed her. But such a move carries risks, and it’s not at all clear whether even Pelosi can make this happen as a lame-duck leader. In such cases, the leader giving up his or her post very quickly loses the ability to steer events in the direction they want. If Pelosi were truly staying put, delaying the election would be a perplexing strategy. Normally, incumbent leaders look to schedule leadership races as close to Election Day as possible, a move that prevents potential challengers from having time to organize a run for the top leadership job.

But Pelosi aides deny that is her intention. They maintain that members have complained about being lobbied by three Democrats campaigning for the vice-chairman post of the Democratic Caucus, and add that Pelosi is not angling to keep Hoyer from winning the post he has wanted for so long. 

LGBT Marriage

                In America, we have always prided ourselves in being the ‘land of the free’ and ‘upholders of liberty’. While these labels remain true in many aspects of our society, we have yet to extend these freedoms and liberties to certain minority groups. This being said, the LGBT community is currently being deprived of marriage rights. This fundamental freedom is being denied to the LGBT minority mainly because of stubborn politicians.

                In order to analyze the LGBT marriage issues we first need to gain a basic understanding of what marriage is. Marriage has its roots in religion. In the Judeo-Christian sense, marriage is the social contract between a man and a woman. Men and woman would get married through a religious ceremony which would, in theory, solidify their relationship for the rest of time. Many believe that this religious ceremony was developed over thousands of years because of the need for families to produce children in order to perpetuate. Without children, families would lose their power and/or wealth. Religious institutions adopted this ritual and have used this basic definition of marriage for thousands of years.

                Interestingly enough, states began to uphold marriage contracts. Governments became part of the marriage process. Now, marriage was not only a social contract but also a legal contract. Laws were created about the terms of marriage and specific tax codes were made applicable to married couples. If marriage remained solely a religious practice then there would be no controversy over it. But now that the government became involved, citizens want to ensure that these marriage policies do not discriminate against certain groups.

                It’s already established that the religious definition of marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. That’s all fine and dandy until the government gets involved. Since there is a separation between church and state in the US, the question is should the government adopt the religious definition of marriage? Well, let’s look at this logically. Marriage guarantees certain privileges among those who are married. If the government were to limit marriage to only a man and a woman, these privileges would be held from those who seek to marry others of the same gender. This is a classic case of discrimination. Thus, the answer to the previous question is no, the government should not adopt the religious definition of marriage. In order to promote freedom and equality in America, the government must extend marriage rights to the LGBT community or simply drop its involvement in the marriage process all together.  

3rd Party Stuff

Green Party candidate Jill Stein and her vice presidential running mate Cheri Honkala were arrested at the Hofstra University debate site on Tuesday as they protested their exclusion from the second presidential debate. According to Stein’s campaign manager Ben Manski, they were jailed for disorderly conduct around 3 p.m.  when they were blocked by police officers as they attempted to enter the debate hall. Manski said that it was unclear when they would be released, but they could remain jailed until midnight. The Nassau County Police Department said that it was unclear when Stein and Honkala might be released.

“The arrest was outrageous and shouldn’t be tolerated in a country that is a leading proponent of democracy,” Manski told ABC News. “They knew that there was the possibility that they would be arrested. Their intention was to enter the premises and bear witness to the mockery of democracy that is tonight’s debate,” he said. The Green Party has long complained that the Commission on Presidential Debates attempts to “rig elections” in favor of the two major political parties by excluding third party candidates from debates. Stein and Honkala also planned protests at the first presidential debate in Denver.

            This unorthodox demonstration raises the question of whether or not 3rd party political groups deserve more media attention. All we hear in the news is “Democrats this, Republicans that”. This biased coverage makes us more narrow-minded and almost forces us to conform to this two-party political oligarchy. Americans are a diverse group of people whose needs cannot possibly fall under just the Democratic Party or the GOP, yet we always vote blue or red in every election. If the media were to expand its coverage to other parties then perhaps things would change. Perhaps people will begin to realize that there is a 3rd party out there whose views considerably coincide with their own. Look at where the Democrats and Republicans have got us so far and make your own decision.        

Romney Gaffe

                Earlier today a video tape was leaked on the internet that shows Romney giving a speech to some political supporters in a private setting. In the video, we can clearly see Romney speaking at the head of a table. In this speech, Romney makes what may be the most horrific gaffe of his life. 

Here’s the text:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.” Shortly after this part Romney says “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

And the video:

                Even the most novice of politicians knows not to 1. Make harsh general statements, 2. Alienate large groups, and 3. Slander potential voters. IT’S JUST COMMON SENSE! Now Romney will have to spend most of his precious time and money trying to bandage up this blunder. He might as well just admit defeat now because it would take nothing less than a miracle to save his popularity.

                And think about what this does to the Republican Party’s image. Now many people will see the GOP as a bunch of elitist assholes who think that all Democrats are lazy welfare collectors. It’s stupid stuff like this that is making the Republican Party lose all credibility. Conservatives are supposed to stick up for the masses, not beat them down with cruel judgments.

                In the time that it took for me to write the three paragraphs above, I’ve already seen six references to this video on social networking sites. Holy crap Romney. If you’re betting on a Republican victory this November, you might want to check yourself. 

Gary Johnson 2012

                With the presidential election coming up in November, there’s been a lot of talk about the candidates. Turn on any news network and you’ll see political analysts talking about Romney’s most recent speech or Obama’s fiscal policy. With all this talk about the Democratic and Republican nominees, people have seem to forgotten that there are other candidates from other parties running in this election. In this blog post, I will talk about the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson.

                Gary Johnson served as Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003 as a Republican. During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to a stringent anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy driven by a cost–benefit analysis rationale, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together [1]. Also, as governor, Johnson fulfilled his campaign promise to reduce the 10% annual growth of the state budget, pushed for a school voucher program, and argued in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. After leaving office, Johnson founded the non-profit Our America Initiative in 2009, a political advocacy committee seeking to promote policies such as free enterprise, foreign non-interventionism, limited government and privatization.

                On May 11, 2011, Johnson decided to run for president under the Republican Party. After two successful debates and aggressive campaigning, Johnson still couldn’t muster up the popularity required to win a Republican primary. So, on December 28, 2011, Johnson withdrew his candidacy for the Republican Party and declared that he was running for the Libertarian Party.

                As a Libertarian candidate, Johnson holds fiscally conservative, socially liberal views, and a philosophy of limited government and military noninterventionism. Here are his positions on the major issues [2]:

·         Foreign Policy: Bring home all of the troops and strive for military noninterventionism.

·         Education: End the Department of Education and give local areas authority over the schools.

·         Spending/Deficit: Balance the budget, reform costly entitlement programs, and audit the Federal Reserve.

·         Economy/Taxes: Replace the IRS with the ‘Fair Tax’ and eliminate government involvement in the economy.

·         Civil Liberties: End the assault on individual privacy and create a neutral government that does not promote specific beliefs.

·         Immigration: Simplify the legal immigration process and create policies that will hinder illegal immigration.

·         Energy/Environment: Eliminate government subsidies for energy programs and apply a cost-benefit analysis approach to environmental regulations.

               As you can see, Gary Johnson stands in the middle of the Democrats and Republicans. Socially he is liberal while economically he is conservative. While the Libertarian Party still doesn’t stand a chance against the two major parties, it’s always nice to know that there are other options out there.

[1] http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17162855.html

[2] http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

On the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

                Back in 1994 Congress enacted a law known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This ban prohibited the production of certain assault weapons for a ten year period. When the ban expired in 2004, Congress decided not to renew it. Now, in the wake of the Aurora shooting and other crimes, many people are arguing for increased gun control. The question now is should Congress renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

                Well let’s look at the facts. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, between the years of 1994 and 2004 under the federal ban on assault weapons, there was a 66 percent reduction in assault weapons being linked to shootings [1]. The reasoning behind this being that criminals found it harder to obtain assault weapons under the ban. Furthermore, studies by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence show that if the Act had not been passed and the banned assault weapons continued to make up the same percentage of crime gun traces as before the Act’s passage, approximately 60,000 additional assault weapons would have been traced to crime in the last 10 years—an average of 6,000 additional assault weapons traced to crime each year [2].

                These stats prove that assault weapons were used less in crimes, but they don’t necessarily prove that lives were saved. According to Christopher S. Koper in his study entitled: Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, crimes will just be committed with other guns. The study points out that the decline in assault weapon use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs [3]. So if Congress were to renew this ban, then criminals will simply use other guns instead. Also, since the ban only prohibits the production of assault weapons, people will still be able to legally buy and sell previously manufactured guns. Though, one can argue that the rise in demand for these weapons caused by the ban would increase prices for assault weapons and thus make it harder to obtain them.

                In the end the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is inefficient because it still makes it possible for criminals to obtain assault weapons legally. If the government truly wants to regulate gun control, renewing the FAWB is not the right choice of action. 

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/gun-control-laws_b_1730567.html

[2] www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf   

[3] https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf 

Budget Control Act of 2011

                Last year Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 which, among other things, created a last-minute deal to raise the debt ceiling. Part of the deal included tasking a ‘super committee’ with finding a deficit-reduction plan by November, 2011. As an incentive, the debt ceiling bill included a spending cuts measure to encourage the committee to move quickly or face the self-imposed penalty of sequestration. Sequestration involves across-the-board spending cuts which would cut the debt by $1.2 trillion in the 2012 and 2013 fiscal budgets. This bill was created in hopes of solving the debt-ceiling crises once and for all.

                But sadly the success of the bill relies on bipartisan cooperation within Congress, something that will not happen anytime soon. Since the super committee failed to come up with a deficit-reduction plan last year, it’s up to Congressional leaders to accomplish this feat by January, 2013. As the bickering in Congress continues, the chance of sequestration occurring becomes more and more likely. If sequestration were to go in effect, cuts would be made to Medicare, military and intelligence agencies, education, and more. On November 14, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta wrote a letter to Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham [1] explaining the ramifications of the full sequestration defense cuts. “Should these cuts take place over the next 10 years,” he said, “the United States would be left with its smallest ground force since World War II; the smallest Navy since 1915; the smallest fighter force in the history of the Air Force; and the smallest civilian work force in the Defense Department's history.” The result of such cuts could be catastrophic.

 But with such a huge national debt, what other choices do we have but to cut spending? Some on the left propose that we lessen the budget cuts by raising taxes. They maintain that the current tax rate is too low, at least for the wealthy, and that by raising taxes the government would be able to keep major programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, at a functioning level. Opponents to this proposal, however, claim that raising taxes would reduce the tax payer’s average disposable income and hamper the already fragile economy. So basically, we’re all screwed no matter what we do.

The sequestration was meant to spur Washington to make a compromise and solve the debt crises in a timely manner. Now, it threatens to cause chaos. If you care about the wellbeing of our country, then I suggest that you write a letter to your congressmen and senators asking them to please hurry up before we lose all stability.

[1] - http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/opinion/bennett-sequestration-defense-cuts/index.html?iref=allsearch

Government Interference

                Recently, a major topic in the media has been the extent of the role of government in our personal lives. Some believe that government interference infringes on people’s rights while others believe that government interference upholds people’s rights. This topic has stirred up a heated debate in American politics and will definitely have an impact on the 2012 presidential election. The Obama administration supports big government and economic interference while Romney supports small government but with certain limits to personal freedoms. But how would these ideologies, if put into action, affect our lives? Which ideology would be best for America? How much government interference is too much?

When analyzing this topic we must first ask ourselves why we have a government in the first place. In the U.S., our government performs five functions:

                1. Establishing justice:  The government establishes a system of laws that we all agree to adhere to. This creates a foundation on which we can say what is right and wrong and dispense justice accordingly through the judicial branch.

                2. Insuring domestic tranquility: The government has the responsibility of keeping the country safe from potential threats. This is mainly carried out through the police force, National Guard, and Department of Homeland Security.

                3. Providing for the common defense:  The government has the authority to raise an army in order to protect the country from foreign threats.

                4. Promoting the general welfare: The government helps those in need with unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.

                5. Upholding freedom and liberty: Americans are ensured the specific rights outlined in the constitution.

Theoretically every action the government takes falls under one of these five categories. Every law that is enacted by Congress is purportedly designed to carry out one of these functions. However, certain actions/policies can be perceived as being harmful or contrary to these functions depending on one’s viewpoint. For example, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 the government stepped up security at the airports and used profiling to single out passengers and do extensive searches on them. Some say that the government was in the right by insuring domestic tranquility while others saw this action as a violation of the government’s function to uphold freedom and liberty.

What we must realize is that no matter what action the government takes, there will always be people in support of that action and people in opposition to that action. Since we can’t make each individual happy, we need to focus on the larger scale. What would benefit the U.S. as a whole?

Let’s look at the marijuana controversy. There is a large grass roots movement calling for the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. Proponents of this idea claim that the crackdown on marijuana is too taxing on our economy, that marijuana has excellent medicinal benefits, that private industry will expand with marijuana-oriented businesses, and that marijuana is not physically harmful. Critics, however, argue that marijuana impairs judgment and the senses, that legalizing marijuana will send a bad message to the youth, and that marijuana can cause long term physical damage. While the opposition to marijuana legalization bring up good points, it’s still debatable whether or not keeping marijuana illegal benefits the U.S. as a whole. Some argue that the government is performing its function to promote the general welfare by keeping marijuana illegal. Others say that even if marijuana is harmful, one would still have a choice to consume the product or not. Furthermore, supporters proclaim that the government should legalize marijuana because it expands freedom, which is the 5^th function of the government.

If we’re trying to benefit the U.S. as whole, then why not legalize marijuana? Why not let people smoke marijuana at their own risk? It will only make the users happy and will not affect those who do not use the drug. What’s the point of limiting freedoms for no apparent reason? In this case the government interference is limiting the rights of the people.

If we look at things logically and analyze the actions of the government in respect to the five functions mentioned above, we can help prevent the government from neglecting to look at the welfare of the U.S. as a whole.  

Political Ideologies

                Ever since the founding of our country in 1776, political leaders have struggled to create government policies that would please the majority. The problem is that no matter how hard a government body tries to create a law that suits everyone, there will always be those who oppose it. This is due to the fact that we all have different ideas of what’s best for our country. These ideas, when clumped together, create a political ideology. More specifically, a political ideology can be defined as a system of beliefs people have about the purpose and magnitude of the government. In modern times we generally recognize three major political ideologies that hold weight in society, these being conservative, liberal, and moderate.

                When we hear the term ‘conservative’ most of us think of traditional values, small government, and most importantly the Republican Party. But what does being conservative really mean? In general conservatives believe that a smaller government with less bureaucracy is more beneficial to the country. They believe that the less the government interferes with social liberties, the more freedom the people have. Political conservatives should not be mistaken for social conservatives, who firmly grasp onto traditional moral values and believe that the government should actively stem social progress.

                Liberals, on the other hand, constitute the opposite side of the political spectrum. Liberals generally believe that large government involvement in the economy and social services is necessary to maintain a healthy country. Liberals are usually socially progressive and support the funding of social welfare programs in order to help the disadvantaged. Like conservatives, liberals believe that the government should not infringe on personal rights and liberties.

                Lastly we have moderates. When someone identifies themselves as moderate, it does not mean that they are neutral or indifferent to an issue. Rather, a moderate is one who holds views that fall in the center of the political spectrum. Moderates should not be mistaken for ‘Independents’. There are many independent parties that hold conservative or liberal views. Also, just because someone does not affiliate themselves with the Republican or Democratic parties, does not mean that they are moderates.  

In order to better understand the current political climate in the U.S., it is helpful to analyze the general trend of the population. According to the most recent Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx), 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, 35% identify themselves as moderate, and 21% identify themselves as liberal. So if liberals make up the smallest percentage of the American public, then why do we have a president from the Democratic Party? The answer is simple, party affiliation does not necessarily correlate with political ideology. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. Furthermore, people often have different views of what it actually means to be conservative, moderate, or liberal. This should all be taken into account when studying politics. The clash of political ideologies is what shaped the U.S. and it will continue to be a driving force in the political arena. 

- Political Pimp