Partisan politics prevail and fail

About a week ago, I was reading this fascinating article, which was an analysis of how partisan cooperation saved the Democratic party from fracturing under Republican pressure. It's a rather long read but very insightful. This ties nicely with the 5th period FRQ because it is a clear example of how political parties can help the electorate party by rallying together a united front that together has the ability to successfully implement its agenda.



In addition, the clear example of cooperation between two two branches of government (executive and legislative) connects well to what we learned earlier in the year. Specifically, the article hones in on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's fluctuating relationship with President Barack Obama. Though both Democrats, both have been at odds with each other in the past. However, when facing shutdown and default, their union held the Democratic base together long enough to break the Republican front.

However, the next party that may break is the Democratic party itself. This article points to division within the party on issues related to the health care law and spying. While some candidates can afford to upset some influential party members, others cannot.

When do you think Congressmen should defect from party-endorsed policy? Although partisan politics has received much blame for the lack of progress in Congress, what merit do you think parties have in this day and age in government?

Random note for those who get it: a local news angle will come... at some point

Obamacare Website Update

     The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has brought in tech experts from large companies such as Google, Red Hat and Oracle to aid in repairing the healthcare registration site. Officials are feeling confident that the site will be performing smoothly by November 30, which would give citizens enough time to enroll and begin receiving coverage by January 1.
     HealthCare.gov was opened with the intention of helping Americans in 36 states see if they qualify for tax credits to buy and sign up for private health insurance. The 14 states are not affiliated with HealthCare.gov have set up their own websites for this purpose and have been running smoothly in comparison to HealthCare.gov.
     Despite the newest efforts to improve the website, many remain skeptical about whether or not HealthCare.gov can really get its act together. Questions have also risen about the diligence of the trials and testing the website went through before launch.
   
     But, what do you guys think?

Links links links everybody

After showing the US the door, Iraq is back knocking.

In light of a resurgence in terrorist activity in Iraq, the Iraqi government has reached out to President Obama in hopes of receiving greater United States support.

The Iraqis are asking for weapons, training, and manpower but do not want U.S. troops on the ground. While the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq suggests that providing additional American personnel for guiding purposes costs relatively little, others, like Sen. John McCain, remain skeptical and insist on seeing a thought-out strategy for how Americans will help change the situation.

Although it may seem obvious for the U.S. to distance itself from a conflict it had just left, there are many considerations. One is the Iraqi's threat that they will turn to other nations, like China and Russia, for support. Americans have vested interest in maintaining positive ties with the nation, because it is geographically situated in a volatile region of the world that the U.S. wants influence in; however, it must also invest too much, for the tolls of intervention are painfully evident in the wars of the past decade.

How do you think the U.S. should react to this request?

In order to tie this back to Gov... Washington in his farewell address warned America to stay out of foreign affairs. In this day and age of globalization and complex foreign cooperation, to what degree, if at all, do you believe the U.S. should follow Washington's statement?

Article

From the Founder's Point of View

While the government shutdown and threat of default are a thing of the past at least for now, there is much to be analyzed. A recent Stratfor report touched upon what the Founding Fathers would have thought if they witnessed this fiasco.

In the report, I found that many of the author's points were corroborated by the Federalist papers that we read for class. Mainly, it is the point that the US government is intentionally set up such that progress would be difficult and cumbersome to achieve, but it would also prevent extremist factions and spur-of-the-moment events from rashly altering the course of government. However, what the Founding Fathers also believed was that our leaders would be reasonable and willing to moderate. They would be appalled by the hard-line stances and divisive rhetoric that has come to dominate politics today. The Fathers themselves, according to the report, were moderate men who approached problems with consideration for all viewpoints.

Perhaps one line in the report best sums up what the problem with our government is today. "The founders needed to bridge the gaps between the need to govern, the fear of tyranny and the uncertainty of the future. Their solution was not in law but in personal virtue." Personal virtue is a rare sight in Washington today.


Lastly, a quote that I'd like your thoughts on cause I've been trying to understand this: "The republic of the mind was always greater than the republic itself."

A cliche question: What do you think our Founders would say? 
Another question... What's the solution?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/us-debt-crisis-founders-perspective?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20131015&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=title&elq=602ebaaf144344d6ad3282e603ae2618

Educators Debate the Extent of Online Surveillance

     Since the October 15 conviction of two girls for aggravated stalking, which led 12-year-old Rebecca Sedwick's suicide, the debate over the legality and necessity of online surveillance of students has once again become a popular topic of debate.
     In the past, the administration's job was simply to make sure that students behaved themselves on campus grounds. However, with the widespread use of social media as an emotional outlet for many students, educators are now having trouble walking the fine line between maintaining their students' right to free speech and keeping their students safe.
     In recent court cases, students have been suspended and jailed for their pictures and online posts. In Nevada, a 16-year-old was sentenced to 31 days in jail and a 90-day suspension from school for bragging online about having guns and planning to kills students on a specific date. He sued the school district for violating his first amendment rights, but the Ninth Circuit of Appeals dismissed his claim. On the other hand, courts in Indiana ruled that two students' online photos were simply "crude humor" as opposed to "substantial disruption."

     Do you think school administrators are justified in tracking their students' online actions? If so, where should they draw the line between students' free speech rights and maintaining the safety of their schools? Is legal action justified?  What constitutes "substantial disruption"?

Article
   
   
   

UK Man deported after false statement to officials

After a slip-up at the Mexico/US border in 2009, Philip Hartley-Wall now finds himself in the UK, where he was born but hasn't lived in since he was 9 years old. Hartley-Will immigrated to the United States in 1981, and had lived in LA until 2009, where at the border he told officials he was a US citizen, when he only had a green card, meaning he held "permanent alien residency status." He plead guilty and was charged with making false statements to an official. After spending 7 months in federal prison, he was deported to the UK; he had no family nor connections there except for an acquaintance he made during his time in the immigration removal center. He stayed with his friend's family for six weeks after arriving in Manchester. His wife and 12 year old daughter still live in the US; his wife has had to sell their home after she couldn't keep paying the mortgage on only one salary and his daughter, described as having, "the body of a 12-year-old but the mental abilities of a six-year-old," has been acting up in school due to her father's absence. President Barack Obama is being urged to allow Hartley-Well clemency--or mercy to allow him back in the country. 

Should Hartley-Well be allowed back into the country? Would Obama allowing clemency backlash and cause other families experiencing the same event demand clemency as well? Should Hartley-Wall have been deported in the first place or was the punishment truly "disproportionate"? 

FDA pushes for harsher regulations on painkilers

The FDA has urged the US to make painkillers harder for patients to obtain. The change in policy would make it more difficult for patients to obtain refills on prescription drugs; it would decrease the amounts of refills patients could get between prescriptions and would require a patient to bring in a written prescription to their pharmacy, rather than just having a doctor call in an order.

One of the main reasons for tightening restrictions is the increase in deaths caused by drug overdose--the number of deaths per year due to overdose has quadrupled since 1999.

These new regulations, if put in place, would require patients to get a new prescription every three months, rather than every six.

How much of an impact will these regulations make to patient health? How effective will they be on painkiller abuse?

Drones cause tension with Pakistan

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Obama met today in the White House to discuss their alliance to battle terrorism, however the US's use of drones could cause some tension in that agreement.

Sharif has called for President Obama to stop the drone strikes in Pakistani borders, and stated that as long as those continue, there will be tension in US and Pakistan relations. Pakistanis hope their leader will convince the US to stop the drone attacks, as they feel they've been "pushed around by the US."

Along with drone strikes, added tensions have affected the relationship between Pakistan and the US. After the assassination of Osama bin Laden in 2011, the Pakistani government arrested a doctor for supposedly assisting the US in finding bin Laden's whereabouts; the US's mission to kill bin Laden was kept from the Pakistani government.

However, experts have mentioned that because of the recent decline in terrorist targets, the amount of drone attacks will likely begin to decrease.

Some experts argue that drone attacks are more effective and cause less civilian casualties than other methods might.

Do you think that the US has the authority to conduct counterterrorism in foreign countries? Do the benefits of killing terrorists outweigh the civilian casualties that will almost certainly occur? Is it acceptable to risk killing civilians in the short term for the long term benefit of security?

Affordable Care Act website can't get its stuff together

The already unpopular Affordable Care Act has disgruntled Americans further because of the continuously glitchy healthcare enrollment site. Democrats who have supported the act will need to defend their decision during mid-term election next year. Enrollment deadline for the healthcare plan is Dec. 15, but because of the website’s glitches, it’s difficult for people to submit or finish their enrollments. For those who are not insured by February 15th of 2014, they will be forced to pay a fine. Congress’s biggest concern is the damage control that is inevitable because of the struggle the website is having. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is expected to give a statement in the near future about the failing website. Republican Paul Ryan has gone as far as to call for her resignation. 

My questions to you are;

Why not push the days back? Americans are clearly angered by the act, and now more so thanks to the malfunctions.

Another thing to note; Democrats are more technologically aware than Republicans in general, will this hurt that image? Will this give Republicans the opportunity to get their technological side to match up to the Democrats'? 

And what is the solution to this long term? Does this mean if the government wants to embrace technology, does it need to hire people from, say, Google to get there websites running the way they should? 

California Election Reform Article

This piece about California is currently the top story at the New York Times and it relates directly to several recent lessons including the politics of election districts. I would like to see more of a political science treatment to these issues, but the article has several obviously credible sources supporting its contentions. I think the article understates 2 important factors that help explain the more constructive tone in Sacramento: the Democrats supermajority status, which leaves the remaining Republicans a choice of being constructive or being shut out from governing, and Governor Brown's leadership, especially on fiscal issues. Still, having voted for all of these changes, I am glad to see that they might be having the intended effect.

On another note, the lack of blogging this week was my fault but we will return to student-driven blogging next week.

U.S. Halts military aid to Egypt

American officials announced yesterday that the United States is withholding a large portion of military aid scheduled to be delivered to Egypt in light of military crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood protestors. The Brotherhood, which supports ousted President Mohammed Morsi, has been engaged in street protests against the military regime for over a month, protests that have cost hundreds of lives. The July ouster of Mr. Morsi, when the military stepped in to remove him, has been met with mixed reactions in the United States. Mr. Morsi's performance as president was obviously unsatisfactory, but this kind of breakdown of the democratic process is dangerous in itself. Even if the United States disagrees with the policies of a leader, is it prudent to allow the democratic process dissolve through a military coup? After three months of inaction, the United States has finally decided to take a stand by cutting off funds, but is this action too little too late? What could have been gained by cutting off aid earlier? Or not at all?

Tea Party Crashers

Cruz (from the video): "It is shameful that the administration is barricading and trying to shut down the memorials."

Wait but you... and your ridiculously long speech... and the fact that you helped shut down these memorials in the first place...? Oh, the irony.

I had to wonder. Have some Tea Partiers left their party yet?


(Source: Gallup)

Hmm... so it seems like people are ditching the party. Poor Tea Party.

Despite the decline in the number of Tea Partiers, Cruz actually won the Values Voter Summit straw poll (sponsored by the Family Research Council Action) on Friday with 42% of the vote. Paul Ryan (Romney's VP candidate in 2012) finished with less than 5% of the vote. The Family Research Council Action president says that this straw poll "reveals what conservative, Republican-leaning voters are looking for in a potential candidate." It's meant to be an early predictor for the Republican choice for president. This Texas senator seems to be one of the leading Republican presidential candidates for the 2016 election.

We've recently just covered in class why third parties, sooner or later, generally fail. Recent events have obviously further tarnished the Tea Party's image. Do you think the Tea Party is about to end? What can Tea Party leaders possibly do to prevent a die-off? Which party (Republican or Democrat) do you think is absorbing the ex-members of the Tea Party and why? Do you think Cruz has a chance to be the leading Republican presidential candidate in 2016, or is his sudden rise going to be countered by a sudden fall?

Prepare for the Apocalypse (kind of)

President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim: "We're now five days away from a very dangerous moment. I urge U.S. policymakers to quickly come to a resolution before they reach the debt ceiling deadline... If this comes to pass, it could be a disastrous event for the developing world, and that will in turn greatly hurt developed economies as well" (source: Daily Mail)

Alarming times call for alarming warnings. In five days, the U.S. will have exhausted it's borrowing capacity. Jack Lew, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, have warned congressional leaders that "[i]f the government should ultimately become unable to pay all of its bills, the results could be catastrophic."

Bottom line is, we need to raise the $16.7 trillion debt limit. But the House won't vote on the debt limit until they settle the issue over the funding of Obamacare. Neither the president nor House Speaker Boehner is prepared to negotiate. If they can't reach an agreement by Thursday, the U.S. could start defaulting on its obligations as early as late October. 

Tensions are high. How confident are you that Congress will be solve this issue before the October 17th deadline? Are Republicans stubborn enough to not only shut down the government, but also let the U.S. default? What does this say about our government system? Which side (Boehner or Obama) do you think is going to give in a little to the other side first? Is this a matter of pride and ambition? 

Day 11 of gov shutdown: I miss sushi

I want to be all like, omnomnom.

But then I'm all like, mmm, better not. Most of the FDA food inspectors have been sent home because of the government shutdown. 

FDA spokesman Steven Immergut has made clear that they're trying to do the best for the public health with their skeletal staffs and limited resources, but that all routine food safety inspections will be suspended until the government is up and running again. Only facilities that "present an immediate threat to public health" will be inspected. About 367 inspections per week will be delayed.

The House passed a bill on Monday that would return funding for the FDA during the shutdown. But the Senate has dismissed this bill among the many other bills that are part of the Republicans' piecemeal strategy intended to mitigate the damage they've done to important government functions that are suffering from the shutdown. Californian House Rep Sam Farr argued against the bill, telling HuffPost that "[p]assing these bills would be like seeing a school bus on fire and agreeing only to rescue the good-looking kids. It's ridiculous. I want to put out the fire." Democrats like Farr believe in the need to reopen the government fully, not little by little, and raise the debt ceiling. 

Has the shutdown has improved your knowledge and appreciation for what the government does for us? Or has it only made you more infuriated by the government? Which "non-essential" part of the government that isn't being funded during the shutdown do you think SHOULD be funded and deemed "essential"? Is the Republicans' piecemeal strategy a strong or vain attempt to fund the government while saving face? And do you agree/disagree with the Democrats' response?

Yelling for Yellen

(Source: The New Yorker)

One of the concerns surrounding Janet Yellen, Obama's nomination for the head of the Federal Reserve, is how she's going to balance jobs and inflation. Is she a hawk, or a dove?

She has been known to stress the need to fix high unemployment, maybe even at the risk of triggering inflation by doing so. To increase employment last year, she pushed hard to keep interest rates close to 0, risking a brief inflation increase. By seemingly valuing jobs over inflation, she's often been called a dove. But some argue that she's a "hawk in dove's clothing," since she did argue for rate rises in 1996 in order to control inflation. Balancing both views, Yellen's friend and writer for Bloomberg praises that "Yellen's appointment should be viewed as an investment in the Fed's dual mandate, which emphasizes the central bank's role in taming both unemployment and inflation" (Source: Bloomberg). Maybe she's not a dove or a hawk. Maybe she just adapts to changing circumstances, which is a relief, because she won't be as susceptible to endangerment by natural selection as the doves and hawks are.

Yellen's extremely impressive record, experience, ability to cooperate and compromise, creativity, work ethic, and educational background all convince me that she will be brilliant as the Fed chair. Furthermore, I believe she will inspire many aspiring young women, including myself. But do you think she'll be able to handle it? The dual responsibilities of the Federal Reserve (handling unemployment and inflation) proved to be a challenging for all previous Fed chairs. How will Yellen be different than Bernanke, or other chairs before her? Do you think she's a good fit for the job? Is she a hawk or a dove, and what would that mean for the country as a whole?

Lastly, can we just take a moment to recognize how awesome she is? And adorable?

Even the Brits don't like Snowden

The NSA has been under fire for the past few months after former contractor Edward Snowden released a cache of classified material regarding government surveillance techniques to outside sources. In recent news, British MI5 chief Andrew Parker condemned Snowden's actions as similar to giving "gifts to terrorists." The intelligence chief addressed UK news stating that in order to fight terrorism, both domestically and abroad, intelligence services need to have the tools to monitor threats: a statement that I agree with (although his wording was a little strong for my liking). While a certain level of oversight is necessary, US and UK authorities need to have the operational flexibility to conduct operations vital to national security. In this instance the NSA may have overstepped its constitutional bounds and lacked appropriate oversight, but to say that Snowden's actions were responsible (or worthy of the Sakharov Prize) would be absurd. Although some have cast him in the role of the American patriot on a quest to protect the rights of American citizens, Edward Snowden seems to be acting purely to discredit the United States in international affairs (cough releasing information just prior to the G-20 Summit  cough). The reckless information leaks that have been lauded by the likes of Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin have only served to humiliate the US in world affairs and throw the NSA and General Keith Alexander under the Congressional bus. While Snowden's actions were certainly bold, he forfeited his image as the American patriot through his flight to China and later Russia, two countries with reprehensible policies regarding human rights. Calling Snowden a traitor is a cheap emotional cop-out, but to call him a hero is to glamorize a reckless game with dangerous outcomes.

The Republican Party's Dilemma

(Source: Gallup)

First off, I'm super excited to report that David Frum is posting again! (Don't call it a Frum-Back). One of his latest posts, Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Political Parties, gives a good summary of why the Republican party has been going downhill, and is very relevant to the topics we've covered in class recently.

The Republican party suffered some pretty huge losses in the past few years, including the fight over Obamacare, the 2012 election, and the fight over 2012 fiscal cliff. And now, it looks like they're about to lose once more, over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling.

Why? Frum condenses it down to 7 bad habits: maximalist goals, apocalyptic visions, irrational animus, collapse of leadership, self-reinforcing media, politics as war, and despair.

(I highly suggest you read the article for some great in-depth commentary on these 7 habits.)

A quote from the post that I think is worthy of sharing: "[E]ffective parties make conflict work for them. Hate leads to rage, and rage makes you stupid." He goes on to provide an example in which the Republican party leaders let their rage get to them, which produced an unfavorable outcome for the Republican party as a whole.

And unfortunately, I have to agree with Mr. Frum on that one. It's gotten to the point where the public sees their actions as having stuck a wrench in the works of government and progress. Public opinion of the Republican party has already decreased since the shutdown. How can the Republican party stop these habits from ruining their party's image (and the U.S.'s image in general)? What will have to happen before the Republican party can recover from the blows, or in other words, what will the Republican party need to change? What do you think a Republican presidential candidate in 2016 will have to accomplish and focus on if they want to win? 

Ross Ulbricht... just another criminal

The recent seizure of online black market website "Silk Road" and the arrest of its alleged owner, Ross Ulbricht, has brought the federal government under fire from certain internet circles. Still smarting from recent revelations of so called "domestic spying" by the NSA, civil liberties activists are accusing the federal government of using the arrest as a way to further its alleged anti-privacy agenda. However, it is important to understand that Mr. Ullbricht is simply just another criminal. The charges brought against him in two different states include conspiracy to traffic narcotics, money laundering, conspiracy to murder a witness, and attempt to procure "murder for hire" (Ullbricht allegedly paid a federal agent to kill a rival.). Mr. Ullbricht is no crusader for internet freedom; he is merely a common criminal looking to turn a profit by facilitating the overtly criminal activities of others. The indictment brought against Ullbricht is not an indicator of a tyrannical federal government, but of a legitimate need to act against those who live in blatant and irresponsible contempt of the law. The seizure of his website also brought into the spotlight Tor, an internet engine designed to facilitate anonymity on the web, and Bitcoin, an internet currency that is seen as a way to enable anonymous and easy monetary transactions online (but also seems to be laying the groundwork for tax evasion and money laundering amongst other things.)

What do you think about the government's intent in indicting Ullbricht? How about calls for greater regulation of the internet anonymity in light of this criminal activity?

Also food for thought: Is the internet a right? Does it bring with it a certain right to anonymity and enhanced privacy? Keep in the mind that the internet is a service provided by commercial interests and that anonymity may not be considered a reasonable expectation outside of the computer world...

Not bluffing? Then call the vote

Boehner has announced in an ABC interview yesterday that "There are not the votes in the House to pass a clean CR [continuing resolution]." 

A White House official has responded with: "The administration and Democrats in Congress are asking the speaker to prove that a majority in the House would not vote for the Senate-passed bill to reopen the government by holding an up-or-down vote on the clean continuing resolution."

218 votes are needed to pass the CR; if all 200 democrats and (as of today) the 25 confirmed Republicans all vote in favor of the clean funding bill, and then it would pass swiftly through the Senate and onto the president's desk to sign. No more shutdown. 

Why isn't Boehner putting the clean continuing resolution on the floor for a vote? If he's so certain, why not prove it to us all that there really aren't enough votes in the House to pass it? What's the deal with Boehner?

The New and Improved $100 Bill

On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve will distribute the new $100 bill, which is designed in a way that will decrease counterfeiting issues. The new bill have more color, a different paper blend, a holographic inkwell, and a 3-d blue strip, which took over 10 years to be created. This is because the $100 bill is the most common bill to be stolen and counterfeited. Currency collectors are keeping their eye on the bills, some of which are willing to pay $15,000 for bills with low serial numbers (e.g. 00000001through 00000100). The most important purpose of the new $100 bill is to decrease the amount of counterfeiting issues within the nation. 

Secret NSA Documents Reveal Operations

On November 2007, Roger Dingledine spoke in an event held by the NSA, talking about his volunteer-run software that enables Internet anonymity. This program is used by millions of people to hide their identities on the online, and it allows information to get from one place to another without identifying where it came from and/or the pathway it took. Tor is very important to journalists and activists in the U.S and other countries in order to communicate without being reprised by their governments.

When former NSA employee Edward Snowden disclosed top-secret NSA information, one of the documents shown revealed that the NSA has been spying on users and unmasking their identities. The NSA was even able to block access to the program once. Human rights groups have been concerned over the fact that the NSA seems to neglect the people's right to privacy. On the other hand, Tor has been used by criminals to transact illegal activities in order to avoid suspicion. Tor still runs today and continues to promote internet privacy and anonymity.

Does the NSA have the right to do spy on us? And if so, to what extent? 

Do you support programs such as Tor that enable anonymity, despite the use of such programs for criminal activities?

Additional information: Washington Post, Tor

From Shutdown to...Default?

President Barack Obama demanded that the Republican-led House of Representatives end the three day government shutdown, but no negotiations have been made so far. The government leaders must compromise quickly to avoid a "catastrophic" default before the debt limit date on October 17. A default, by definition, is when a debtor fails to fulfill his obligations stated in the debt contract. The government has reached its $16.999 trillion limit in May, but despite the U.S Treasury's creative strategies, these will not be enough to meet the nation's obligations on the 17th. Thus, the government could run out of money and end up in a default, which the U.S Treasury warns could cause the economy to disintegrate into a state that is worse than the Great Recession. This would mean that the country's credit rate would drop and "job creation, consumer spending and economic growth" would surely be affected. 

House Speaker John Boehner told Republicans that he will not let the government reach the point of a default, and says that if needed, he will pass a measure to prevent this with a slim Republican vote and a largely Democratic vote. 

The government's time is running out, and a solution must be made. It's either they work together, or continue this deadlock.

What do you think the next step of the government should be? Is the economy actually going to plummet down as badly as the U.S Treasury claims? 

For more articles: USA Today, The New York Times, ABC-Associate Press 

Driver's Licenses to Illegal Immigrants

On Thursday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that allowed illegal immigrants to own driver's licenses, making California the tenth state to do this. These licenses would permit illegal immigrants to drive and/or own a car, but a special marking will indicate that such licenses could not be used for federal purposes. Immigrant advocates rejoiced since they have long advocated for a law like this, and they see this as a step towards equality for illegal immigrants. The licenses are to be issued starting January 1, 2015.

How significant is this bill to the immigration reform? Do you think that this bill could influence further immigration reform laws?  What is your stance on current immigration policies?

For more information: The Washington Times

Let's End the Shutdown, Shall We?

Hi guys! I'm sorry for the delayed blog posts, but here's one now:

This afternoon, Obama is calling for a meeting with Congress in order to discuss, and hopefully resolve, the government shutdown, and told CNBC that he feels "absolutely exasperated, because [the shutdown] is entirely unnecessary". The government closed due to the Republican House and the Democratic Senate's failure to compromise on debates over funding and budget bills before the beginning of the new fiscal year; this CNN article further explains the major summaries of the shutdown itself. In the meeting, Obama plans to ask the House to pass a new spending plan without restrictions on the Affordable Care Act and increase the debt ceiling, although it seems likely that GOP leaders are willing to persist against these proposals. White House spokesman Jay Carney stated that Obama does not plan to grant concessions to the Republicans, but rather just focus on reopening the government. We have yet to see what will come after this meeting, but alas, we shall wait. 

What do you think of the government shutdown? Do you think that compromise can be made quickly, or will this draw out a little longer than expected?

New Jersey Judge States Gay Marriage Should be Legal

On Friday, September 27, a New Jersey State judge ruled that same-sex couples should have legal rights to marriage starting on October 21. Since 2007, the New Jersey has recognized gay marriages under civil unions, which did not grant these couples the same federal rights.  A year ago, New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, vetoed a bill that would have legalized gay marriage in New Jersey. This past June, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages should be recognized by the federal government's benefits agencies, but not civil marriages. So, the New Jersey judge stated that limiting same-sex couples in New Jersey to civil marriages is unconstitutional. According to CNN, ruling may be appealed and go to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

How influential do you think this case will be in regards to legalizing gay marriage? What do you think the outcome of this case will be? How do you think this ruling or potential appeal will affect the rest of the country? Any other thoughts?

Government Shutdown is Approaching Faster as Congress Continues to Disagree

As Congress continues to debate over ObamaCare, a government shutdown seems to be approaching quickly. (For those of you who want more information about shutdowns, CNN gives a brief description of how a government shutdown will affect Americans). The majority Republican House wants to pass a bill to delay Obama's Affordable Care Act for a year, however, the largely Democratic Senate, will most likely not pass that bill, which could play a role, along with the debt crisis, in causing a government shutdown. According to The New York Times, as the debate to pass the bill to delay Obama's Health Care Laws continued, it ultimately came down to two options for Republicans: vote for the bill to delay the health care laws and cause a shutdown or accept the Senate's bill and potentially face a Republican backlash. This past weekend, House Speaker, John Boehner, decided to accept the bill to delay the health care laws, making a government shutdown even more realistic.

What are your thoughts? Do you think Boehner made the right decision? How do you think a shutdown will affect Americans' daily lives? Do you see any potential solutions to prevent a government shutdown?

You Are What You Eat, King.

Guys, guys, come look! There's a catfight!

It's cute, really. Two politicians no one really wants to listen to both making a fuss about more things people don't really want to listen to. They think we care, bless their little hearts. If you read my post earlier, you already know that Ted Cruz needs to shut the heck up. But I'm adding a new name to the list of people who need to get over themselves: Peter King. 

Maybe mommy never loved him and that's why he needs so much attention. Recently King has come out trashing Ted Cruz and his followers saying that they have been plaguing his office with "vile" and "obscene" phone calls.  I'm not sure why he's so offended. After all, we know there is nothing more vile or obscene than what goes on behind a politician's closed doors.  But King justifies his little hissy fit with an even BETTER reason: 

""I have young women, women interns, full-timers, in their late teens, early 20s, and they get these phone calls."

What?! Heaven forbid the legal-age probably not virgin women hear some obscene words! Someone save their pre-suffrage era and unequal little souls! They are much to fragile to be hearing such things! Hearing insults and inappropriate language is NEVER part of taking a job working for the government! Oh Lord! 

Once again, Shut up. 

And also, I'm not a "WOMAN'S RIGHTS HEAR MY OVARIES ROAR" feminist,

But don't insult women who KNOWINGLY took this job knowing it might not always be rainbows by using them as an excuse and an attack against a Senator that everyone is already bored of talking about anyway. K thanks. 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/26/rep-king-cruz-supporters-making-vile-obscene-phone-calls/?hpt=po_c2

iOS 7 Making People Sick

When Apple's most recent software update, iOS 7, was released last week, millions of users rushed to update their devices. The new iOS program includes vibrant colors and animations. According to Apple, these features were added to create a more enjoyable and pleasing experience with vibrant color coordination and the dimensional appearance. However, just after days of using the new software, many people are complaining that the supposedly delightful animations are actually making people sick. ABC News reports that people have experienced nausea, dizziness, headaches, and motion sickness. Many of the people ABC News interviewed mentioned that they wished for a "downgrade" for the iOS software or they are hesitant to update their Apple devices because it is making their devices insufficient.

I have yet to experience any sickness from using Apple's iOS 7, however I do think that this is an issue for Apple because one of their main goals with the new software was to make it attractive to prospective and current buyers, yet if it is creating illnesses, then it could force people to buy other products. I think this will hurt Apple as they begin to sell their new iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c because people will not want to invest in a product that they cannot use to its full potential. What are your thoughts? Have you experienced similar sicknesses from using iOS 7? How do you think these reports will affect Apple?

I'm Not Cynical, I'm Hipster

"Everybody is stupid and no one understands me." Except...
This beautifully sassy article I stumbled upon today. My heart leaps and twirls with joy, and I think I'm in love. Here's a few excerpts, just to get a taste of the sweet, dripping sarcasm:

"Political discourse in America has reached levels of douchebaggery previously only theorized about but never observed..."

"Do you think Americans are basically sweaty, waddling butter vessels who deserve to have their corn syrup taken away?"

Granted, rated PG-13 for strong language, the article is called "4 Things We Should Remember When Arguing About Politics," and despite its crude and almost childish sense of humor the article is, well, great! And this is coming from someone who gets the most indignant and downright recalcitrant attitude when asked to even CONSIDER a differing opinion (though I'm getting better...at keeping my mouth shut at least). The article lists four main points in such a way that even opinionated and stubborn you-know-whats like me have to chuckle and nod their heads. 

1. There are intelligent, well-thought-out arguments on ever side of (almost) any issue

2. You don't NEED to have an opinion

3. No one ever changed their mind from being yelled at

and, finally...

4. We're all just humans, man. 

Not exactly educational in a political sense, but as far as ethical arguments go? It might help ya keep your head on straight. Might be more important for some than the rest (cough cough *points at self*) but a fun read none the less....so actually CLICK this link. Like, READ IT. It's a good laugh, and an even better soup for the cynic's soul.

Shut up, Ted Cruz

Well, well, well. Someone who likes the sound of their own voice more than I do. Obviously, I have my opinions. But for once, someone has me beat on the obnoxious scale. Ted Cruz, this one's for you, babe. Senator Ted Cruz just today finished a 21 hour argument against funding Obamacare. Read that one more time; dont' worry, it's not a typo. TWENTY-ONE HOURS. As in three hours less than a whole day. As in three school days back to back with no break. Twenty. One. Hours. Plot twist! Senator Cruz is a Texan! Just kidding, that's not a plot twist at all. Maybe Cruz has heard the same mature and totally original political slanders I've been hearing recently. Didn't you guys here? Obama is actually a communist and he's got a secret plan to turn us all into mindless, socialist robots. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. STUPID. Honestly, everyone needs to stop talking, not just Ted Cruz. None of you (political gossipers and big-headed, overpaid Congressmen, not you my lovely fellow students) have anything good to say. It's repetitive. It's vague. It's lies. I hate liars. How about we work on FIXING our country's issues and not having affairs in office and then maybe, JUST MAYBE, you'll actually have something worth listening to. Until then, I. Don't. Care.

Ciao.

(...but really, 21 hours?! #icant)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/25/opinion/borger-cruz-spectacle/index.html?hpt=po_c1

I Wrote the Constitution

Here's something surprising....NOT! Americans abusing the flexibility and vagueness of the Constitution to fit their own selfish needs. An article on Fox news says gun enthusiasts are now molesting the wording of the Second Amendment to make it read that every American is actually GUARANTEED the individual right to own a gun.

Isn't that cute?
Hi! Welcome to America! Privacy? An honest government? Of course not! But you can have your own gun (: Yes, yes, this country hasn't gone downhill or lost its moral and ethical compass at all. In fact, I was thinking, guys. That whole freedom of speech and press thing...I was thinking that, I could use my freedom of speech to tell you all that your opinion doesn't matter and that I call the shots now. Oh, what? That's a dictatorship? That violates your Constitutional rights? Really? Because it's right in line with mine...

See the dilemma?

Look, I'm all for being whatever. Gun enthusiasts get excited about guns, just like I get excited about Ed Westwick and Chinese food. Whatever. I'm not judging gun enthusiasts for wanting to be able to shoot stuff (just kidding, I totally am. Calm down over there, Jim Bequette). However, I am judging those who manipulate the Constitution and the written rights of others to match their own SELFISH idea of the American dream. YOU PEOPLE. I AM JUDGING YOU HARD. There's a special place in hell for you guys, and it's right next to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/senate-website-gets-2nd-amendment-wrong-critics-say/

Tragedy in Kenya

This past week, the Al-Qaeda affiliated militant group, Al-Shabab, invaded a mall in Nairobi, Kenya. This militant group through grenades and fired at civilians in the mall, killing 67 civilians and military officials. According to BBC, the militant group reported on twitter that they held 137 hostages that were killed by forced chemical leaks, however the government did not confirm this and has told people to ignore these posts. Many people are still trapped inside the mall or unaccounted for, so the police force is working to find these civilians and to move them to safety. The video above is a clip of a police officer helping a family move to safety. Today, Kenya began their three day mourning for all the people who were injured and killed in the attacks. It has been reported that the reason for the attack is that Al-Shabab threatened an attack, if Kenya did not remove troops from Somalia. Al-Shabab's goal is to create an Islamic state in Somalia. Personally, I think that the US should tighten domestic security, but other than that keep their distance to prevent getting tangled in another foreign conflict.

 How do you think the US should respond?

When is the Right Time for an Immigration Reform?

Since the past Presidential Election in 2012, some Republican leaders have been trying to create an immigration reform to help increase the number of Hispanic votes for their party because in the previous election, Obama captured the majority of the Hispanic Votes. In 2012 city councilman, Brad Bailey, worked with Florida's Senator, Marco Rubio, a Tea Party Republican, to create a bill that would facilitate the process for immigrants to become citizens, increase the number of visas for workers, and increase security on the United States-Mexico border. This bill passed in the Senate, however, it  did not pass in the majority Republican House because many Republicans do not support the idea of having an immigration reform. As time goes on, these leaders looking to pass this bill notice that they need to try and pass this bill sooner than later in order to gain Hispanic votes for the next election. However, this proposal keeps getting pushed back due to other important issues, such as Obamacare, Syria, and the debt ceiling. I think that the Republicans should focus on passing this bill because it will help gain Hispanic voters, which is their primary goal. I also think that this bill is time sensitive, just as the other issues, so Congress should settle this issue soon.

What are your thoughts? Do you think it is necessary for the Republican party to push for this immigration reform to increase their number of Hispanic votes? Also, do you think that this bill should continue being pushed back, or do you think it should be settled sooner than later for the election?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/politics/shutdown-threat-immigration-reform/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Senator McConnell Takes a Step Back

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is the Republican minority leader in the Senate. He has been known to take on leadership positions especially for budget and economic crises and discussions. However, many congressmen have noticed that McConnell is suddenly quiet and almost completely detached from the discussions. Both Republican and Democratic congressmen have noticed the newly subdued senator and think that it leaves the Democrats "without a bargaining partner" (New York Times). They argue that his absence is one of the main reasons why Congress is having a hard time finding a solution for current budget issues according to the New York Times. Many people believe that he is staying “behind the scenes” due to the upcoming election, as his Tea Party Opponent, Matt Bevin, is increasing in popularity in Kentucky. 

I can see McConnell's motives in keeping quiet because he does not want to do anything that may completely hurt his election, howerver, I think that staying quiet is ultimately worse because it will slow down congress in passing important measures. Do you think that McConnell’s actions will benefit or hurt his chances at re-election? Also, how do you think this will affect the current issues in congress, like health care reforms and budget cuts?

Dinner With the Foote's

Not really an informational post, more just an interesting little rant that came up at dinner.
So apparently Stanford Hospital is going to establish their own HMO because the majority of their employees are getting healthcare through Kaiser. Now, on this topic, my mother said something along the lines of..
"Stanford needs to take care of their own people before they start to worry about fixing everybody else...and maybe the United States needs to think that way to."
What? Help our own impoverished and struggling people before going overseas to help everyone else with their problems? What? The U.S. has a hero complex? What? What?

What do you think?
Should we be fixing things here instead of spending time and effort overseas?
Or are we doing more good than harm?
Does the U.S. have a hero complex? Do you think our founding and our roots make us ENTITLED to this complex? (Ugh...I hate that word. Entitled. No one is entitled to ANYTHING. We all evolved from bacteria. Grow up.)

Anyway, discuss.

NOBODY TALK TO HILLARY!!!

   Even with elections seemingly forever away (1,042 days to be exact), people are already freaking out over the return of the horrid...the fearful...the ruthless...
HILLARY CLINTON!!!! (cue dramatic music)
When asked about his wife's political intentions, it seems good ol' faithful Bill had some other ideas of what HE had in mind for Hillary. Hinting that Hil would choose to be a grandmother over president ANYDAY, which must be accurate because I'm pretty sure we could all agree that Bill Clinton has better family values than anyone and he definitely knows what his wife wants and needs and is in no way intimidated by her success (if you did not catch my dripping sarcasm over the internet, I'm sorry. Satiric font has not been invented yet).
But no matter. Elections are eons away. For now, we can just sit back and watch Obama run back in forth in this cat and mouse game called politics.
Until 2016 Hillary.........(maybe)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57604292/bill-clinton-on-the-question-thats-best-not-to-ask-his-wife/

Health Care Bullies Children

    An apparent "glitch" in the health care law might cost families thousands in family plans, as well as cause over 500,000 children to go without health care according to some analysts. Congress could fix the problem, but after a recent decision to strip funding from the law (thanks, House. Deep down, we're sure your intentions are good BUT...), fixing the problem seems highly unlikely meaning that your child's cough might suddenly be a big deal. "Affordable" health care was defined as 9.5% of a person's income...but that's for the person ALONE. Not their family and whatever swarm of little ones they spawned and have running around with pneumonia or swine flu or whatever else floats around these days. Granted, it's not a parent or guardian's fault a child gets sick, but nor should it be the government's job to enact nationwide healthcare (I thought citizen well-being was under state power?). Anyway, you can bet mommy and daddy will suddenly care a lot more about healthcare reform if suddenly little Johnny isn't covered anymore. We'll see what happens.

What do you think? Healthcare nationwide? Or state specific...

OR based on need? Should Bill Gates have the same healthcare as Octomom?

Hmm...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/23/aca-family-glitch-issues/2804017/

All Players United: Grassroots Change

Look at the wristband; you can see APU

A group of college athletes have started an organization known as All Players United, or APU, whose goal is to "protest the NCAA's treatment of athletes on issues ranging from concussions to compensation." This weekend, the athletes of 3 universities wore the letters of their organization while playing in their respective games. This televised and really got people interested in this movement. I think that it is very important for these athletes to fight for their rights, and it shows us that if you want something done, do it yourself. These students have effectively started a grassroots organization that could change the course of collegiate athletics.

This organization has even sprouted talk about a player union for college athletes. This would allow them to have representation, and therefore have a better chance to express their opinions. This is a huge step forward for the NCAA athletes and I hope that they keep fighting and receive some fairer rules. Is this the best way to go about requesting change? Why has it taken so long for something like this to happen?

ESPN
CNN
USA Today

Government Shutdown Imminent?

Today, the fight over Obamacare has created quite a big dilemma for Congress. The House voted to defund Obamacare, for the 42nd time according to CNN. This time is different. The House has created a situation where unless the Senate passes the law as well, we very well might see a government shutdown. This would occur on September 30th if the government can not agree upon a spending resolution, which would in turn, spark debate for raising the debt ceiling.

Obviously, Obama does not support this bill, but he even went as far as to call the House Republicans out on focusing on the politics of the matter and not the people. They want to do anything they can to stop Obamacare and make Obama look bad that they are willing to risk a shutdown of the government. Do the Representatives that passed this bill think that this threat will push the Senate to follow in their footsteps? Is there any other explanation? 

Huffington Post

Who Needs Food Anyways? Oh Wait...

Today the House of Representatives passed a bill that would cut the aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps, by roughly $40 billion dollars in the next decade. Although there is really no way this will pass the majority Democrat Senate, it does raise the question of "Do we really need this many people on food stamps?" The supporters of this bill suggest that they are only closing loopholes and restricting people who should not get help anyways, but this seems to be unfair. Currently, there are about 48 million people that utilize food stamps, a number that has been generally increasing since their creation (Look at graph above). Those people who "shouldn't" be receiving food stamps constitute a large enough number to where this cut will definitely make a difference.

Are people taking advantage of the system or is hunger in America really as widespread as the numbers suggest? If it is really such a big problem then why are so many people unwilling to acknowledge it? And on the off-chance that people actually need the food stamps, having millions more people starve is not going to look good for this bill, or for the people that passed it for that matter. It seems like way too big of a risk for me, what do you think?

CNN
Business Week
USA Today