New Governor, New Feel

According to the Los Angeles Times, although Jerry Brown officially took the governor’s seat just yesterday, Sacramento already feels different.

The new governor’s inauguration on Monday morning must have been old hat for him, seeing as Brown is now taking control of California for the third time. Unlike former governor Schwarzenegger, who liked to run the Capitol as if it was the White House, playing a part in the national government, Brown aims to use his seat to reach out to local California governments. Although he did speak about Californians needing to make sacrifices in order to bring about change, his methods are pretty relaxed - especially when compared to Schwarzenegger’s attitude, with his motto of “action, action, action.”

But Brown isn’t only relaxed when it comes to making public policy. Unlike Schwarzenegger, who encouraged fanfare, entourages, and the like, Brown creates little to-do. “Where Schwarzenegger plotted to entertain and astonish, Brown appears to wing it, as he did throughout most of his career.” Brown’s administration wouldn’t even commit to stick with a schedule for the new governor’s first day in office.

How does our government deal with these drastic changes from one leader to another, especially when “it’s like watching a case of bipolar disorder?” (Barbara O’Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Sacramento State). Did Schwarzenegger plan too much, or is Brown coming into office too relaxed?

As a side note – I guess when you schedule everything down to a tee, you have time to both be a governor and a movie star. The other day at Blockbuster I saw a movie with Schwarzenegger on the cover. When did it come out? 2007. Enough said.

New years resolution...for the Senate?

As the new year begins, the Senate is wasting no time in trying to pass new legislation. Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, first-term Democratic Senator, is trying to create support for modifying (but not banning) filibusters--obstructions of legislation through things such as long speeches and debates. Currently, most filibusters require a super majority, or a 2/3 vote of the Senate to override filibusters. But with this new resolution, a simple majority of only 51 senators will need to vote 'yes' on a filibuster in order to end it.

Now, this resolution has four key proposals, aside from the 51-person majority rule. The first would hinder filibusters from taking up a bill, but would still let filibusters end the debate on a bill. A second would prevent "secret holds"--a method for senators to secretly stall legislation or a nomination from being brought up. A third would force senators leading a filibuster to have to stay on the floor during the entire filibuster. The forth part of is supposed to satisfy Republicans from feeling left out from the method.

Obviously, this proposal has sparked quite a bit of controversy in the Senate. While many Republican Senators, aside from other reasons, argue that changing legislation on the first legislative day has never been done, not all Democrats are supporting this suggestion either. Many senior senators simply feel that it's unjust to weaken the power of the minority party in the Senate. Even Senate leaders will not decide on this piece of legislation as they are negotiating possible compromises from both sides.

With the Democrats only holding a 53-person majority in the Senate, I feel that they're just trying to regain their power in the Senate, seeing the Republicans have taken over the House and almost all of the Senate. What do you guys think of this new legislation? Should it be passed or not? If it is easier to overrule filibusters, how will this affect new legislation?

Changes To The White House Staff

It's a new year and Obama is preparing himself and the people of America for his re-election. While some would assume that Obama will have an easy win, perhaps it is simply safer to say that we can only hope that Obama will bring his very best, and more, to the table. His re-election run will obviously consist of enthusiasm, major campaigning, promises (that we hope he will keep), and overall, massive changes. With 2011 just getting started, already there has been talk about changes to Obama's staff members.
As of current, Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, is expected to leave his stressful job to go and manage an investment company. Pete Rouse, Obama's interim chief of staff, is said to leave as well. Along with these two, William Daley, a "banking executive and former Cabinet secretary under President Clinton", will most likely take over Rouse's job (since he has no competitors for the position). The job is "considered the most important gatekeeping job in American politics," thus Daley will most certainly have a lot of pressure on his shoulders. Furthermore, Gene Sperling, a Treasury official and a part of the Clinton administration, is thought to change his title to the president's chief economic advisor. Jim Messina, "the deputy chief of staff who juggles operations, politics and legislative roles," is understood to also leave Obama's re-election campaign. Alyssa Mastromonaco will most likely take Messina's place. Lastly, Mona Sutphen, Obama's deputy chief of staff for policy, is said to be leaving as well.
I believe that changes can be for the better and I'm sure that Obama would not bring anyone on board who was not overly qualified for the job. Let's just hope that these new members are prepared for what is to come in the upcoming years.

Questions for you guys:
What do you think these new changes of staff will bring? How do you think the new members will affect Obama's campaign?

[All quotes come from the link that you can be redirected to by clicking the title of this post. The same goes for all other posts that come from me.]

"Class, please take out your iPads!"

As a follow-up to Zoe’s post about the iPad:

Some schools in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Virginia, and other states are buying iPads for students to use in the classroom as part of a pilot program. They are being used by kindergartners and high school students, special ed students, and high- and low-achieving schools alike. The iPads are being used as replacements for textbooks, for turning in assignments, for learning material through different kinds of media, and other diverse purposes for all subjects, from math to history to science to English.

The effectiveness of the iPads as an educational tool is largely debatable. The schools that are experimenting with them believe that the iPad is the technology “they have been waiting for;” they think that not only will the learning process be aided through apps (applications) on the iPad, but the rate of homework completion will rise because students see the iPad as a “cool new toy.” They also believe that the iPads, in the long term, will be cost-effective, though they individually are expensive at $750 apiece. Opponents argue that the benefits of multimedia on learning are not proven, and that the money spent on these iPads would be better used recruiting and training teachers.

Though I do think it is important for schools to use updated rather than outdated technology, I think they have jumped too quickly to spend enormous sums of money on the iPads. It is likely that a better version of a tablet computer will come along soon enough, and I do think that relying on apps on the iPad will affect the quality of teaching from real, live, actual teachers.

So, take a stance! Do you think this is a good idea or not, and why?

Pakistani governor assassinated

Salman Taseer, the governor of the Pakistani province Punjab, was assassinated today by one of his own bodyguards. His assassin, named Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, reportedly shot him because of Taseer’s opposition to the blasphemy law in Pakistan that prohibits (and provides strict punishments for) blasphemy against Islam. Taseer was calling for amendments to the law, especially in response to the death sentence of a Christian woman who insulted Prophet Muhammad. Taseer’s positions angered many Islamic extremists, including Qadri, who commented that "Salman Taseer is a blasphemer, and this is the punishment for a blasphemer.” Taseer’s positions were not supported by his party (the Pakistan People’s Party), which is also the ruling president’s party. However, he also called for rights for women and for minorities and was a charismatic national figure.

Those who remember the 2007 assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the Prime Minister at the time, know that violence has rocked the already unstable nation. It is especially disturbing that Taseer was killed by someone who was supposed to protect him, and tragic that Pakistan had to start off their new year this way. This event, throwing the Pakistani government into further instability, also represents a grim start of the new year for the U.S.; the turbulence prevents the Pakistani government from fully aiding the U.S. in its fight against terrorism, especially in Afghanistan, and the killing of an important official who was friendly with the U.S. is not promising.

Thoughts? Do you find it discouraging that a politician who had the courage to speak up was shot down? Authorities are also investigating whether or not Qadri was acting alone or if he is part of a group – which do you think is the truth? What do you think is in hold for the future of Pakistan?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/04/2000634/top-pakistani-officials-murder.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12111831

Revisiting Huck Finn

This will sound familiar to all of us who were in Mrs. Johnson’s English class last year; I believe that we even wrote a Synthesis Essay on a topic similar to this one. It concerns Mark Twain’s satirical masterpiece, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” Since the time of its publishing in 1885, controversy has surrounded the novel. Throughout the years, numerous people around the country have fought to have it taken off of shelves and out of curriculums, only to have a number of others scrambling to get it back in the public school system. Arguments have gone on for years over whether the book is appropriate – with its use of words that are no longer politically correct – for students (or anyone for that matter) to read.

It’s now apparent that attempting to ban the book simply won’t fly. But Twain scholar Alan Gribben believes that something can be done to tone down the novel’s harsh language. With the mindset that the book be "updated for today’s times" (Yahoo News), Gribben, in partnership with NewSouth Books, plans to publish a version of Huck Finn that takes out both the “n” word (replacing it with “slave”) and “injun,” a derogatory term for Native Americans.

Response from sources all over the web have flared up; cries of “huck finn censored” are all over the internet. However, some support the change, claiming that it will make the novel easier to teach in the classroom by eliminating feelings of discomfort with the book’s language. Entertainment Weekly’s Shelf Life makes a good point that “if this puts the book into the hands of kids who would not otherwise be allowed to read it due to forces beyond their control (overprotective parents and the school boards they frighten), then maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to judge” (http://shelf-life.ew.com/2011/01/03/huckleberry-finn-n-word-censor-edit/). It’s also important to note that although there will be a censored manuscript, untouched versions of Huck Finn will continue to be printed.

Of course, being in the liberal Bay Area, I’m sure that the majority of us would never dream of banning Huck Finn from being taught. According to Mrs. Johnson, only about one student a year argues for banning the book in that Synthesis Essay of hers. I myself not only thoroughly enjoyed the novel, but thought that it had a world of information to offer both as a historical and literary piece. But could there be any good in slightly altering a copy of the novel to make it “school-appropriate?” Should the original text be respected? Is anything lost – or possibly gained – from replacing the offensive words?

For another overview of the situation, go to Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20110104/en_yblog_newsroom/huck-finn-gets-some-changes.

Internet Access in the Jails: Why it's a problem

Quite rapidly, smart phones are making their way into the prison, which means Internet access for the inmates. One prisoner at a Georgia state prison marks down the days until his release via his Facebook page. Other inmates, including himself, take the time to play FarmVille and other Facebook games. The same prisoner who marks down the days also happened to organize and coordinate a small strike among the inmates at multiple prisons in Georgia.
If you think about it, this really isn't all that surprising. Even Martin F. Horn, "a former commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction" admits that "This kind of thing was bound to happen...The physical boundaries that we thought protected us no longer work."
While one may assume that Internet access will keep the prisoners occupied, one also has to assume that these prisoners will not always be using their time to play online games. Internet access will allow prisoners to "call up phone directories, maps and photographs for criminal purposes," according to prison officials. In other words, the criminals will just keep on being criminals. On extreme levels, one may even say that they'll be able to plan something big while in prison, only to have it actually carried out beyond their cell walls.
Instead of a knife or other kind of blade, Terry L. Bittner, the director of security products with the ITT Corporation, claims that "The smartphone is the most lethal weapon you can get inside a prison." This poses as a major problem for the guards and for the prison directors because these phones are smuggled in all the time and if they are not all confiscated, a major (illegal) event may occur.
One of the inmates at Smith State Prison in Georgia said that, "Almost everybody has a phone. Almost every phone is a smartphone. Almost everybody with a smartphone has a Facebook." Using pseudonyms for confidentiality, prisoners are able to easily contact one another, while allows them to plan strikes and protests, as well as overall encourage criminal behavior.
In 2009, a few Maryland prisoners were caught approving targets for potential robberies via their smartphones. Some prisoners even try to order products from the outside, such as seafood and cigars (those wouldn't be my first choices, but, you know, whatever works).
From January 2010 to April of the same year, the Federal Bureau of Prisons workers collected 1,188 cellphones. In California, 9,000 phones were confiscated throughout 2010. While there are metal detectors and X-ray machines available, some smugglers even try to throw the phones over the fences so that they can collect them once they're in the clear. Jon Ozmint, director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, says that some of the way phones make it into the prisons is that smugglers "stuff smartphones into footballs or launch them from a device called a potato cannon or spud gun, which shoots a projectile through a pipe. Packages are sometimes camouflaged with a coating of grass, which makes them hard for guards to detect."
So I guess the following questions remain: Will prisons ever be able to prevent or stop these phones from getting into the cells and into the hands of prisoners? What can/should the prisons do to try to prevent this?

Year of the Tablet?

Apple's iPad

I myself have never toyed with an iPad, but that doesn't mean that I don't know how popular it is (or, rather, how popular Apple as a company is).
Currently, the cost of a share of Apple is $322.56. That's enough to let everyone know that they're a serious company that most likely doesn't plan on taking a break anytime soon.
2010 was intended to be the year that manufacturers would come out with even more impressive inventions and woo consumers with tablet computers. In January, 2010, Microsoft's chief executive, Steven A. Ballmer, presented three devices that were meant to go on sale in the later months at the International Consumer Electronics Show. However, none of these tablets were ever sold. In fact, they didn't even make it to the stores to be sold. Why? Because Apple offered the world their newest toy, the iPad. Instead of "Year of the Tablet," 2010 became "Year of the iPad."
On a personal level, this doesn't surprise me much. It's not big news that most people prefer, or at least recognize, that Apple's products have a high, steady demand. People want the latest technologies, and Apple is more than willing to present it to them. However, now that manufacturers observed the success of the iPad, they know what sort of features that people are looking for and are on their way of offering the same, and maybe even better, tablets of their own. Toshiba's director of product marketing, Phil Osako, admitted that while the company could have came out with their own tablet years ago, it wouldn't "have had the right features."
It is rumored that Microsoft and Motorola are scheduled to show off their new tablet computers, as well as Research In Motion and Hewlett-Packard. I'm sure that many consumers who are serious about their technological advances will be excited to see what they call come up with, but it's hard not to say that Apple should pat themselves on the back for getting such a good head start. Since October of 2010, 7.46 iPads were sold worldwide and until November, when the Samsung Galaxy Pad was released, Apple did not have any other competitors.
In 2010, 10.3 million tablet computers were expected to be sold. This year, that number rose up to 42 million. Will tablet computers replace laptop computers? And what's next after tablet computers? Osako, previously mentioned, admits himself that "[Toshiba] really [views] this as the next revolution."

Obama signs the James Zadroga bill

On Sunday, January 2nd of the new year, President Obama signed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which, as the name of the bill suggests, provides financial and health aid to September 11th survivors. The bill was named after a police officer who died from a respiratory disease that he caught in the midst of rescue operations on the day of the World Trade Center attack.
While there was opposition on the Republican side concerning how the bill would be paid for, lawmakers soothed their concerns by coming to a compromise that would reduce the overall cost of the bill, which ended up being $4.2 billion. If I understand correctly, foreign companies that receive "U.S. government procurement contracts" will be the ones who receive a fee for the bill.
In a nutshell, the signing of this bill essentially ended the "9/11 health crisis" that has lasted for the past nine years. The Zadroga bill will help those who risked their lives - including firefighters, members of law enforcement, and construction workers - to save those in need during a time of great tragedy and war and it is about time that these people are rewarded for their bravery. In addition, the bill will save those who are currently in need of medical assistance or financial aid, and will also act as a symbol of moral strength.
While the effects of the Zadroga law probably should have been reinforced a long time ago, at least something has finally been done and that is the important thing to focus on.With the new year having just started, I can only imagine how much Obama must have on his plate right now.
Overall, I would say that this is a good way to start off the year, don't you think?

And the Economy Bounces Back...

Seeing as we’re in Econ this semester, I thought that this would be appropriate…

According to economists surveyed by CNNMoney, 2011 promises a better economy! With the 17% rise in job openings by employers from June to October 2010, it is estimated that 2.5 million jobs will be added to the U.S. economy this year. In addition, fewer laid-off workers have filed for initial jobless claims (first week unemployment benefits from the government). In regards to business, capital spending has increased in the past few months; and as we’ll probably learn this semester, business expenditures often mean hiring of employees. The new jobs of the new economy will feed on themselves, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of wealth. Brett Ryan, economist with Deutsche Bank, puts it simply: “Jobs feed income and income feeds more consumer spending.”

Of course, all of the economy’s problems will not be solved this year. With 8 million jobs lost over the course of this recession, the close to 3 million added this year will only help to fix the damage. Economists still predict a high unemployment rate of 9% at the end of this year.

However, as evidenced throughout the holiday season in these past weeks, Americans seem to be opening their wallets a bit wider than they have in the past couple years. As chief economist for Manulife Asset Management Bill Cheney explains, “People have been frugal for three years. There will be a lot of new cars, a lot of new furniture, a lot of people moving out of their parents’ basement.”

So will our country pull out of this recession? I’d put money on it. Anybody else care to post an opinion?

Equality: Better for our souls?

Above are writers/epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

Nicholas D. Kristof, a New York Times columnist, begins his January 1st article with a quote from the famous writer, John Steinback, who stated that "a sad soul can kill you quicker, far quicker, than a germ." Not only did epidemiologists confirm this statement, but Kristof took it to the another level and connected it to America's social statuses. In his article, he writes that evidence strongly suggests that inequality does not only affect us on an economic level, but also on a deeper, more personal level. While this may seem a little obvious, Kristof goes on to mention the high crime rates, narcotics use, teenage birthrates, and number of those who heart diseases among those who have lower incomes than others.
Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, two well-known British epidemiologists, have written a book about the entire problem, titled The Spirit Level. The two authors assert, and offer overwhelming evidence, that "gross inequality tears at the human psyche, creating anxiety, distrust and an array of mental and physical ailments" (from the article, Equality, a True Soul Food by Kristof). They argue that avoiding the high level of inequality in this country will just lead to the demand for more prisons and police force. In addition to this potential need for more law enforcement, there will also be increased rates of mental illness, crime, drug abuse, and other problems that are detrimental and disastrous to individuals themselves, and to the country as a whole. 
It is not a surprising fact that humans are considered to be "social animals" whose mental health revolves around how they are compared to others. We have learned in Economics that people most likely tend to only be happy when they are seen as better off than others. For example, even those who have a low income will see themselves as better off if they know that others are doing much worse than there are. There have been numerous studies to prove this assertion about humans, such as a longitudinal study that involved British civil servants (i.e. doormen, messengers) who were merely observed over a considerable period of time. Unfortunately, the results were that the participants, all of whom were of low status, were "much more likely to die of heart disease, suicide and some cancers and had substantially worse overall health," according to Kristof's article. While Kristof proceeds to offer more evidence, he also acknowledges that fact that there will never be a way for humans to be equal in ability. While he admits this, he goes on to suggest that inequality in this country does not have to be as cruel as it is. I wholeheartedly agree with his statement. 
It is incredibly disheartening to find oneself looked down upon by others and to agree with their views of you. Not only does it hurt our pride, but it also forces us to question our own self-worth. We see this type of inequality everywhere: in public places (such as restaurants, shopping centers), schools, businesses, etc. But what can we do about it? It is difficult not to compare ourselves to others, to not look at someone else and think about what they have that you do not have or about what you have that they do not have. It is difficult to not feel at least some pang of hurt when you realize that you cannot afford something that another person can or when you start to believe that you are truly less important than someone else. Our society has molded us to become judge our status based on others, and so, for the most part, that damage is done.  
Kristof pushes for changes in national policy for this new year. While I agree that there are some policies that need changes, I also believe that some of this overbearing inequality can be challenged on an individual level. Not all damage is permanent, and I think that perhaps, even if it does not make considerable difference on a national level, we should all try to refrain from judging one another. Take into consideration each other's home conditions and state of minds. There's really no use for any of us to be silently turning against one another, even if it is just for a second and even if it is just a small comment. I hope all of you keep that in mind.

The Struggles of Keeping a Job in Japan.

According to an article from the New York Times, Maria Fransiska is a 26-year old nurse struggling to keep her job as a nurse in a hospital just outside of Tokyo. Initially, she signed onto the hospital's work force for three years, but in order to lengthen her stay there, she must pass an extremely difficult test that "only 3 out of 600 nurses brought here from Indonesia and the Philippines since 2007 have passed." As of now, she is doing the best she can to master the Japanese language and ready herself for the exam that will determine her income, and ultimately, her future. However, even Yukiyoshi Shintani, the chairman of the Aoikai Group, admits that the exam "is to make sure that foreigners will fail." Despite all odds, I pray that Fransiska becomes the fourth person to pass this test.
But the major concern and question is: what's going on with Japan's view on immigration? Currently, Japan is facing what is seen as a somewhat dangerous labor shortage and yet that still does not stop the country from welcoming immigrants who are looking, and more importantly willing, to work. Unfortunately, foreign workers and graduate students in Japan are actually encouraged by the government to return home, where there they all understand the tragic truth that they will earn significantly less than what they are able to make in Japan. Sadly, only "tiny interest groups" are protected against these unfair requests to leave. Those not a part of these groups, have much reason to be worried. For example, Tan Soon Keong is a 26-year old, talented student who has incredible work experience and an overall impressive background. However, even the 26-year old may be considered to be too old to land the job that he is applying for, and the fact that he is a foreigner makes it all the more difficult for him.
Furthermore, in 2008, only 0.085% (11,000 out of 130,000) of the foreign students who attended Japan's "universities and technical colleges" were able to find jobs (according to Mainichi Communications). I can only hope that those who were unsuccessful were able to find another way to earn a living for themselves.
In America, it is the older generations - those in their 50s and 60s, and maybe even 40s - who have a difficult time with finding, and keeping, means of employment. Yet no matter where you are, having a job and keeping that job will always remain a struggle. In regards to Japan's situation, it seems that despite the fact that an increased number of immigrants will most likely hep Japan's slow economic growth, Japan remains unwilling to completely embrace and carry out this solution. Not only is Japan hurting themselves by not taking in skilled workers, but they are also hurting those who are in desperate need of making a living for themselves and bettering their futures.    
So what is stopping Japan? What can help change Japan's mind? And what will it take for them to realize that these workers will be only beneficial to them, rather than detrimental?

Suicide Prevention in the Army (or lack of).

On December 16th, a funeral was held for the recently deceased 27-year old Staff Sergeant David Senft.
While this was a time to say farewell and commemorate the soldier, it was also a time that several questions were left unanswered regarding his untimely death. The Army stated that Sergeant Senft was found at Kandahar Aid Base and had died due to "injuries sustained in a noncombat related incident." As of now, no one has announced a specific cause of death. David's father, on the other hand, believes that his son committed suicide, and he's not the only one who believes so; many of David's friends and family members, as well as soldiers who served side by side with David, agree with his father's assertion. According to the email that was sent by the Army's Criminal Investigative Division to David's father, David was "found dead with a single bullet hole in his head, a stolen M-4 automatic weapon in his hands and his body slumped over in the S.U.V." Not only this, but David's cellphone was found lying next to David with a displayed message that read, "I don't know what to say, I'm sorry." And yet the Army still claims that the cause of death was otherwise.
David Senft first tried to commit suicide at Fort Campbell, Ky. His second time was at a mental institution that he was sent to by the Army. Despite these attempts, these cries for help, the Army nevertheless declared that he was "fit for duty" and shipped him off to Afghanistan to fight. There, he was forced to meet with on-sight counselors to help him cope with his troubles adjusting to his new surroundings.While Defense Department officials have often declared suicide prevention a top priority, it is clear that they are either very unsuccessful, or simply not trying hard enough/ignoring the problem. I'd bet on the latter. It was very clear that David was in no shape to be deployed, and yet he was anyway. Why wouldn't the Army make it their best interest to see fit that their soldiers, who are essentially the heart of the entire organization, are in their best shape, both physically and mentally? David's father asks, "I question why, if he was suicidal and they had to take away his gun, why was he allowed to stay in Afghanistan? Why did they allow him to deploy in the first place, and why did they leave him there?"
What do you guys think?