US Senate Hears Arguments over DC Statehood

                                                            (Wikimedia Commons)
On Monday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee heard arguments over a proposed bill to grant the District of Columbia Statehood (whether it will get anywhere, well that's a different story). This is the first time the Senate has held a hearing on this topic in 20 years

Currently, Washington DC is a federal district that has a delegate to the House of Reps (Eleanor Holmes Norton) and two shadow senators (Michael Brown and Paul Strauss), but no actual votes in either chamber. It does get 3 Electoral College votes, though.

Now, the bill isn't really expected to get anywhere, because the GOP-led House wouldn't vote to support it. DC statehood has typically been an issue where Democrats support statehood and Republicans oppose statehood. Republicans wouldn't want it to happen because this would almost definitely mean more votes for Democrats in both chambers (Washington DC, like most other major cities, goes heavily for Democrats). Of course, they don't admit this, which you can interpret however you would like.

Anyway, I wanted to link to an article giving the arguments for and against DC statehood, as presented at this committee.

Personally, I think that DC should be granted statehood, mainly because I think that it's unfair that 650,000 people don't have proper representation in Congress. I think that the objections to DC statehood that are being put forth are good examples of red herrings. A red herring is a something meant to mislead the public or distract them from getting to an issue. The Republicans are trying to come up with arguments against statehood (many of which are pretty faulty) in order to hide their true reasons for not supporting it: concerns that Democrats will gain representation in the House and Senate.

Questions:

1. Do you think Washington DC should be granted statehood? Check out the article for arguments for and against. 
2. Support your answer with reasons why/why not.

Kansas Political Drama

                                                                       (Wikimedia)
The New York Times just wrote an overview of a pressing current event in Kansas. It all started in 2012 when Tea Party Republican Governor Sam Brownback passed sweeping tax cuts that, among many things, cut the top income tax rate by 25 percent. These tax cuts produced large benefits for wealthy state residents, while coming at a cost. The state is projected to have large budget shortfalls, which could lead to (and in some cases already has led to) cuts in public services, namely education. Furthermore, there is a giant debate over whether these tax cuts produced the economic growth that the governor said they would when he passed them. Also, these cuts led to Moody's giving the state a credit rating downgrade. Some conservatives maintain that they are working, while other people argue that they are not. 

So now for the political drama: Because of the supposed failure of these tax cuts to produce the growth they were intended to produce and the way they could lead (and in some cases already have led) to cuts in public education, over 100 Republicans endorsed Brownback's opponent the upcoming Kansas gubernatorial election, Paul Davis. Now, the race is very active, with Paul Davis seemingly leading in the polls. 

Now, people were very surprised to hear that not only was a Democrat in the lead for governor, but Republicans were endorsing him, for a couple reasons:

1) People see Kansas as a very conservative state, and for good reason. It has a Cook Partisan Voting Index (a measure of how much a state or congressional district tilts Democratic or Republican) score of Republican+12 (for reference, California has a Cook PVI score of Democratic+7, while Virginia has an even one [so basically R+0 or D+0], and Oklahoma has a Cook PVI score of R+17).

2) It is an off year (there is no presidential election), and the President is NOT popular in Kansas. When it is an off year in a place with an unpopular president, the president's political party typically does really poorly (think of the 2006 midterms where Democrats won big and the 2010 midterms where the GOP won big).

But we have to remember that there are a couple factors (other than the very controversial tax cuts) that make this possible in Kansas's political climate:

1) Kansas has a long history of electing moderate Republicans. The biggest example would be Bob Dole, the Republican candidate for POTUS in 1996. Another would be current Kansas Insurance Commissioner Republican Sandy Praeger, who spoke out against her party even before this tax business arrived (she was a large proponent of implementing the Affordable Care Act "correctly," or as the administration intended it to be implemented, in Kansas, which didn't make her any friends within the Kansas GOP). Praeger is one of the Republicans endorsing Davis. I think that knowing that the Kansas political climate has been friendly to moderate Republicans before may have eased these GOP officials' concerns about possible political ramifications that could arise from endorsing Davis.

2) Kansas is a decently politically elastic state (not the most, but above average). Political elasticity is a measure of how willing voters in a state or are are to vote for people of different parties. It is basically of a measure of how many swing voters as a percent of the electorate (those who are "up for grabs" and aren't bound to vote for the same party each time) a state has. It is closely related to how many independent voters a state has, as a percentage of the population. BUT, be sure not to confuse an elastic state with politically balanced states like Florida or Virginia; a state could have a lot of independent voters, but of those who do vote for one party of another, there could be way more Republicans than Democrats, or vice versa, creating an imbalance and giving one party a clear advantage in elections. Kansas is one of these states—while it is elastic, on average, it votes solidly Republican, because while there are a good amount of swing voters, of the people who aren't there are way more who vote exclusively for Republicans than exclusively for Democrats (confused? Read Nate Silver's piece. It is awesome). So, this means that Kansas, while on average voting for Republicans, CAN elect Democrats, explaining why it isn't unreasonable to see Davis up in the polls, especially after this tax cut controversy. In fact, former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius served as Governor of Kansas not too long ago, and from 2007 to 2009, Kansas sent an evenly-split US House of Reps delegation to Congress (there were two Democratic Reps from Kansas and two Republican Reps from Kansas). Meanwhile, Alabama, which is about as conservative as determined by Cook PVI, but MUCH less politically elastic, hasn't sent a House of Reps delegation to Congress that has been anything other than majority Republican since 1995 to 1997, when Democrats were more commonly elected to office in the South anyway (the switch of the Deep South from blue to red has been more gradual than the APUSH textbook suggested).

So, now for a couple questions:

1. There is still an enormous debate over whether these tax cuts have been effective at promoting growth, and if they were worth the cost. What do you think? Here is a New York Times editorial criticizing the tax cuts, and here is an article from Reason, a libertarian monthly magazine, supporting the cuts. You can glance over these two articles to see what arguments and pieces of evidences you find convincing.
2. How would you feel if a candidate you supported endorsed someone of the opposite party, maybe even someone you don't endorse? Are you furious at them for maybe not sticking up for their (or their party's) principles/candidates? Or do they earn points in your mind for being "independent"? Or both? Or neither?

Historic Scottish Independence Referendum Vote to Take Place Tomorrow

 

                                         (Source: Herald Scotland)                                  (Source: Yes Scotland)

Tomorrow, a landmark event will be taking place in Scotland as all Scottish residents who can vote (age 16 and over) will decide whether Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom. We can count on our fingers and toes the number of successful secessions that have taken place internationally, the majority of which we don't learn about in high school, as seen in the graphic below. 

(Source: The Washington Post)

The Scottish independence proposal requires a simple majority to pass. According to the polls, the likelihood of Scotland's secession is a solid maybe, as approximately 48% are in support of secession, with the nationalists (Better Together) against them. Any currently undecided voters could make a huge difference in the outcome of this event, as they hold the crucial vote which could sway the majority in either direction. I recognize that to many Scots, independence is always preferable to being oppressed and forced into a conglomerate of countries and cultures like the United Kingdom, but in the grand scheme of things, a failure to gain independence would not make the largest of impacts on the rest of the world. Its primary exports are salmon and whiskey, which are also exported from a variety of other countries, and they're just a small member state of a commonwealth. Many issues have abounded, such as which currency Scotland will use, the status of North Sea oil, and how border control and immigration will be handled. Are they worth it? I think not.

My questions to you, dear readers, are simple enough. What is your opinion on Scotland's bid for independence and why? Should they keep quiet and be happy that they are living in a stable commonwealth, or should they keep pushing for freedom from the United Kingdom and take each issue as it comes? What are the advantages and disadvantages to independence? Is this method of determining their independence practical or inefficient and dangerous when it comes to putting the power to decide in the hands of the people?

Wedge Issues & the 2014 US Senate Races

(Wikimedia Commons)

Alex Castellanos, a prominent Republican political strategist who you can see on CNN, said that Democrats “did win the culture war,” in an article from the New York Times (to be clear, not an article that he wrote, but one that he was quoted in). By “the culture war,” he really means the liberal vs. conservative social issues battles (mainly abortion and same sex marriage). The country is obviously swaying away from traditionally Republican positions on these issues to traditionally Democratic ones. These social issues are often considered “wedge issues,” issues that will divide an important voting block. The article’s main thesis is that, while Republicans use to be the ones exploiting these issues for political advantage, since public opinion has shifted on these issues, Democrats in the 2014 US Senate races are the now the ones using these issues for political advantage. For example, many saw same sex marriage as an issue that would scare some socially conservative hispanic voters (faith and family Democrats) away from the Democratic party, Democrats are using similar issues to scare socially moderate business conservatives (and especially the female ones or the male ones’ wives) away from Republican candidates. In short, Democrats are going on the offensive with issues that Republicans used to use against them in the same states.

What is especially fascinating is that public opinion has shifted so much that even Republicans in very culturally conservative states (such as Louisiana) are shying away from the issue (that being said, I don’t think Mary Landrieu, the Democratic candidate in that race, exactly wants her pro-marriage equality views to be blasted at voters either).

It is so interesting to me how far we have come since 2008 when neither Obama, Hillary, or John Edwards would support same sex marriage, even despite the pretty good evidence that at least one of them supported it privately. It is my speculation that neither Obama nor Clinton actually opposed it privately (as highly educated liberals I would expect them to support it), but opposed it publicly because they thought it would be a wedge issue that would divide the Democratic base (African Americans at the time, while voting over 90% for Democrats, staunchly opposed same sex marriage). Once, when asked by Ellen Degeneres whether a candidate that supported same sex marriage could win the presidency, Hillary responded “I don’t know.” To think that people are campaigning on this even in states like Virginia and North Carolina is insane.

So, the reason I posted this was 1) to introduce people to what a wedge issue is and 2) ask a few questions:

1. In the US, there is a huge amount of single issue voters who vote based on primarily a candidate’s position on abortion In my opinion, social issues like this are accorded a huge amount of importance in politics—especially with younger people—relative to their actual policy implications (I think environmental issues would be the exception, but I classify those issues as economic issues rather than social ones). That’s not to say that these issues aren’t important, but, if we are to look at gay marriage, it is pretty clear that the tide is turning in the “right” (well, at least according to me and most of you) direction. Do you think there is too large of an emphasis on social issues in American politics? Should we take a word from Bill Clinton and think, “It’s the economy, stupid”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_the_economy,_stupid? Or are social issues emphasized at an appropriate amount, or maybe not even emphasized enough?
2. Why do social issue get so much emphasis and carry so much weight in American politics?

Paris Peace Conference and the Situation Regarding ISIS

Today at exactly 9:15 Paris Time, the French President, Francois Hollande are opening the Paris Conference regarding the situation of Iraq and the terrorist group, ISIS. President Hollande clearly stated that "there was no time to lose" Both President Masum of Iraq and President Hollande of France were giving their thanks to the people who made it to the conference and they hoped that the conference would achieve a coalition that can combat the ongoing crisis of ISIS. Right now, Secretary of State John Kerry is currently in the conference to create an anti-ISIS coalition to combat ISIS.

Last Saturday, ISIS has released a recent video of the beheading of David Haines, a British aid worker. Prime Minister David Cameron has called ISIS' actions "an act of pure evil" according to NPR. According to CNN, these videos strike similarities with each other for they display the same type of video with an orange clothed victim and an executioner who most people people claim is the same executioner that both killed American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff. The executioner may have been claimed to be a British citizen who works under ISIS according to some sources.

Most of these videos have been directed toward America who had been calling airstrikes on most key cities in Iraq. In this issue, I would say that the American government should involve themselves more in the issue. Although the U.S. is trying to prevent themselves from entering the fray, they should create a solution that could bring the rest of the hostages that ISIS hold home. I hope that this conference could bring forth a solution that could counter and ultimately destroy ISIS.

What should the U.S. do to combat the threats that ISIS made with regards to the execution of three people?
How could the Peace Conference achieve a coalition against ISIS?

Any more comments are gladly accepted. Please comment Below!

Hillary Clinton and Her Return in Iowa

One phrase that says it all, "Hello, Iowa, I'm back!"

This Sunday, Hillary Clinton told reporters about her return in Iowa in order "to support candidates", however her return has marked the beginning of her presidential campaign for the 2016 presidential election. Her recent return in Iowa since her disappointing third place in Iowa, has led many people speculated about whether she was entering the 2016 political election.

According to CNN, she only went to Iowa to support Tom and Ruth Harkin, after Tom's 3 decades of being in the Senate, and other fellow candidates. But when she announced to the people that she was only supporting them, many people were upset and even urged her to run again for the 2016 presidential election. Many people including Hillary's former aids came to Iowa in support of Hillary. Although Hillary is considering about the election, her priority was the support of Tom Harkin.

I recognize Hillary myself as a capable candidate for the presidential election for she has the capabilities of handling the situation of the media and the political spectrum. With her as the president, not only she would be the first woman to be a president but she would make great change to the country. With beliefs aside, I respect Hillary's decision for considering about running for presidency. After being a Secretary of State for quite some time, she has all the time she needs to consider for election.

Should you consider Hillary Clinton as an efficient candidate for President?
If she were president, would she bring about good change for the better good of America?
Was she able to answer the media efficiently with her decision in electing for Presidency for 2016?

Please comment Below!

Tim Draper's Six Californias Fails to Reach 2016 Ballot

Local entrepreneur Timothy Draper's initiative to split California into six states has failed to reach fruition... for now.  The validity of some of the initiative's signatures was questioned, and with less than 100% of the required, verified signatures the plan cannot show up on the 2016 ballot.

(TechCrunch/Todd Trumbull/The Chornicle)

Draper's initiative is a prime example of 'devolution,' as the split would divide the government of the most populous state in the country into smaller geographic areas. However, public opinion remains critical. After the proposed plan went viral this year, several news sites critiqued the plan's apparent absurdity. Others lauded it as an attempt to split the wealthy areas of the state from the poorers ones, allowing rich places like Silicon Valley to make off with most of the benefits.

What do you think of this plan? What does this proposal mean for the nature of federalism?

School Mascot Controversiality

When you think of school mascots, what do you think of? There are quite a lot of mascots represented by various animals: Wildcats, Panthers, Swallows, Falcons, etc. A little more unconventional but fitting, considering the name, is us: the Aragon Dons. Now, what if I told you that there was a school using "the African Americans" as a mascot? Or perhaps, "the Chinese"?

This is none too far from the truth. Coachella Valley High School from California has a mascot known as "the Arab." This was depicted by a fierce looking man in a turban and facial hair, typically with swords. (See below)

For a couple of years now, the school has been under fire from the Arab-American community for misrepresentation of their culture. They go so far as to have kids from the high school dress in belly dancer outfits and dance around the Arab mascot during halftime. Many supporters of the school says it's alright for the school to display their pride in the Arab culture (even if they are non-Arabs themselves). Others argue that they've had the logo for so long, it isn't worth bothering them to change it now. Opponents of this school's mascot, however, explain the bastardization of Arab culture that occurs as a "symptom [of] systematic misrepresentation, dehumanization, and discrimination that occur against us daily." (Source) Finally, Coachella has agreed to change up their mascot: they will become the "Mighty Arabs", and they will switch out their current, stereotypical Arab for one who is more distinguished, a "stoic, strong-jawed man with a neatly trimmed beard." That way, both the Arab-American community is appeased, and the high school can continue on with their traditions.

However, I must say that I do not think this problem is solved. I think the simple fact that this high school uses "the Arab" as their mascot is a sort of objectification and bastardization of their culture, because they have to do these stereotypical "Arab activities" in order to be recognizable as Arabs. Just like how the Don has his sombrero and Spanish knight outfit, and the Tigers have their stripes, every mascot is supposed to have recognizable, distinguished features and behaviors. How can one do that with an Arab without being racist?

What do you think? Is it acceptable for a school to have this Arab (the new and approved one) as their school Mascot? Is their school tradition valid? If not, what can be done for this high school to become "politically correct"?

Missouri New Abortion Laws

In my opinion, this article should be titled "The government gets to choose what happens to your body!" Today, Missouri enacted a 72 hour waiting period for women wanting abortions, the longest waiting period (tied with Utah and South Dakota) of the states. This was passed overriding the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. Additionally, there is not even an exception clause to victims of incest and/or rape: they specifically rejected that amendment! Even though Roe vs. Wade ensured that abortions are to be legal up to a certain point, states continue to tack more and more conditions in order to make abortions harder and harder to get.

The new waiting period is supposed to give women a "reflection period." According to Republican Rep. Kathie Conway, if "you get a couple of more days to think about this pregnancy, think about where it's going, you may change your mind." Democrat Rep. Judy Morgan from Kansas City contests this, saying that this waiting period is "designed to demean and shame a woman in an effort to change her mind." Missouri already has a lack of accessible abortion clinics to the majority of the population: for example, St. Louis only has one abortion clinic, so some people go days out of their way to visit this clinic, only to be forced to wait 3 more days until they can have an abortion.

This makes me angry, because what a woman does with her body should be her decision, not the states. Even if she gets to have an abortion in the end, what gives the government the right to make it so hard for her? Each state has its own set of abortion registration requirements, and they vary in degrees of "freedom" women get to have over their own bodies. It makes me even angrier that in the case of Missouri, incest and rape victims are subject to the same laws. Imagine having to live with that violation growing inside of you, a cause for shame and depression and anger, and having the state tell you that you have to deal with it for a few more days until you can finally "cleanse yourself." When will this madness stop?

What is your opinion on this highly controversial topic? Do you think it's okay for Missouri to raise their abortion waiting period? Where should the line be drawn when it comes to abortion rights? How can we change this? Note: I recognize that this is an area of great tension and controversy, so please be respectful in your answers!

One last "fun" political comic:

Reflecting on 9/11 Thirteen Years Later

Obama gave a speech memorializing 9/11 today. Take a look.

"We carry on because as Americans we do not give in to fear. Ever," he says, heavily implying a parallel to the current struggle against the ISIS. In fact, this oratory comes directly after yesterday's announcement to launch a new misson against Islamist regimes in Irag and Syria.

In the past, the president's 9/11 memorials seem to be more focused on the victims of the attack rather than its impact as a country as a whole:

Obama's older speeches are a much clearer homage to the determination and perserverence that carried the country out of momentary bleakness, whereas his latest speech reflects on the event in a much more distant, analytical manner.

Is this evolution indicative of a changing perspective of 9/11? Or does Obama simply utilize speeches as rationalization for his current agenda?

Apple's Bigger and... Better?

The latest in tech news is the September 8th unveiling of both the new iPhones, 6 and 6+, and the new Apple smartwatch.

However, many have been criticizing Apple's newest products, claiming that they now put form over function when it comes to marketing their products. According to this chart from Forbes, the 6 is nearly identical to the 5s, although you can see quite a large difference in the 6+:

As you can see, in order to get a phone that is actually technologically improved on, the 6+ would be a better deal: for just $100 dollars more. In fact, the main difference in the new iPhone 6 is its thinness and screen size: 4.7 inches long and 6.9 millimeters thick, as compared to the iPhone 5s at 4 inches long and 7.6 millimeters thick. Another thing it boasts is its new camera with "focus pixels," but otherwise, it is quite similar to the 5s.

Are you an Apple fan, into that iPhone hype? What do you think about Apple's marketing strategy - release two new iPhone's at a time (like the 5s and the 5c), but making one of them the much obviously better deal, for a higher price? How is this large scale, Wall Street corporation able to control such a huge percentage of the population, with people camping out for the new iPhone 6 since September 4th, and is it dangerous for them to have such a large sphere of influence?

Income and the College Dilemma

Today, Eduardo Porter of the New York Times published an article explaining the changes being wrought on the American school system of today, particularly in higher education.

The article cites worrying statistics. Although the U.S. has historically provided accessible secondary education to students of a wide variety of incomes, in recent years the rate of educational attainment in our country has fallen behind other developed nations. Nearly 60% of Russian 25 to 60 year olds, for example, have surpassed the education of their parents. In the U.S., the rate is about 30%.

Even though it is possible to interpret these numbers as other countries "catching up" to the educational standards of the U.S., it remains disconcerting that low-income american families are disproportionately choosing not to attend college, since income has increasingly become a factor in college attendance.

What are the solutions to this? Is it true that the public school system disadvantages poor students by locking them out of wealthier high school districts? Why aren't the people who would most benefit from college attending college?

Cheney and the Abandonment of Isolationism in America?

On the night of President Obama's speech last Tuesday, Former Vice-President Dick Cheney swooped in to Capitol Hill and urged many House Republicans to "embrace a strong military and reject a rising isolationism in his party", according to NY Times. Because of the recent attacks by ISIS, he has tried to find ways in which the U.S. would be able to intervene militarily in ISIS Occupied Lands.

Dick Cheney was also partially responsible for President Bush's decision to start the Iraq military campaign that ultimately led to the start of the Iraqi War. Due to his nature that the U.S. must involve themselves in international affairs, he has leaned towards more military intervention than diplomacy. When ISIS took over most of the lands in Iraq and in Syria, he became a big advocate for more military spending.

According to some sources like, New York Daily News, "former vice president called on his party to fight Obama’s cutbacks to military funding". Over the past few days, he has tried convincing many Republicans in Congress to support his cause for military intervention.

In my opinion though, I see that Dick Cheney's way of trying to solve for the crisis in Iraq is a bit extreme for it would stir a wide criticism in his part. Not only it would create a division between pacifists and warmongers who either desire diplomatic resolution or military intervention but also it would create a split in the National Government.

What do you think about this topic? Please comment below.

Cops Steal Money

Equitable Sharing sounds nice, doesn't it? It's the name of a program that encourages cops to steal cash without filing charges and keep the money to fund their own departments.

The program is billed as fighting drug trafficking by confiscating cash from suspicious individuals, however horror stories have resulted. Yesterday the Washington Post released an investigation of these stops that presents many shocking anecdotes.

One example:

• Vincent Costello is driving from Florida to New York
• He is searched after officers claim they smell drugs (none are found)
• Police seize $32,000 in cash, as drugs often come from Florida and are sold in New York, plus the man was acting "unusually nervous." No charges are filed. 
• After $9,000 in legal fees, the police agreed to return half of the cash they took. He is left with $7,000 out of his original $32,000.

Check out the entire article-- it's full of stories like this. Is every example of these tactics being used as bad as the ones referenced in the article? Probably not. But the fact that a nationwide program exists that allows for these events is outrageous.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Are these programs constitutional under the 4th and 5th amendments?

Can this program be defended on moral grounds? Should police departments be able to pocket the money (and property) they confiscate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/08/they-fought-the-law-who-won/?hpid=z1

Waiting for the Buyout

This afternoon, the Wall Street Journal posted an article claiming to have the inside scoop on a ongoing buyout deal between Microsoft and Mojang AB, the game developers behind the absurdly popular video game Minecraft. Keep in mind that this is an ongoing story and that the source quoted was anonymous.

                                                                                (Photo source: Flickr Creative Commons/Gage Skidmore)

An announcement like this is not out of the ordinary considering the corporate climate of late.

When Amazon agreed to buy video game streaming service Twitch no more than two weeks ago, many Twitch celebrities expressed apprehension over what would become of the site--and their rights as content producers.

Similarly, the merge of Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the two largest telecom companies in the country, was initiated this year and tagged with an exchange of $45 billion.

The last notable time that the government stepped in to halt an enormous corporate merger was the 2011 deal between AT&T and T-mobile. The Department of Justice argued that an enormous merge like this would stifle competition and hurt economic growth.

Do you believe that these mergers have gotten out of hand? To what extent does the video game industry mirror large corporate mergers? At what point should the government step in to protect consumers' economic interests, if at all?

Changes in Ferguson!

On Sept. 8th, Ferguson had it's "first major sign of change" since the shooting of Michael Brown. Previously there have been several significant changes to the Ferguson protests, including unveiling the police officer who shot Michael (Darren Wilson), as well as some negative consequences, like a Ferguson state of emergency that resulted in the National Guard being called in and a curfew being set for citizens.

However, there is finally some potential legislation on the rise that will hopefully improve the conditions in Ferguson and ensure this kind of police corruption does not occur again. The Ferguson city council is planning to establish a board of citizens as an asset to the police force in order to "provide guidance." Additionally, the Ferguson court system will be changed dramatically, including capping the amount of fines the city can take as revenue in order to prevent police from issuing tickets to receive more fines. When it comes to arrest warrants, Ferguson has one of the highest warrant to people ratio, according to this chart from the Missouri courts:

The council is hoping that these new changes will prevent police harassment of the local black population, as has been the trend, not only in Ferguson but in surrounding areas too. Personally, even though I'm glad to see the city of Ferguson finally taking action (and when I say action, I do not count the last month's police action), I realize that the fight is not over. What I'm scared of is that people will look at this and say "look, Michael Brown and his supporters have won. The battle is over, and we can all go home." This is not true, nor will we be able to say this for a long, long time. As far as we've progressed in the civil rights movement, we've still so far to go – there is still so much prejudice and racism evident in the USA, and the African American population is still feeling the effects of slavery, segregation, and their whole extremely terrible history in the USA, putting them behind when it comes to socioeconomics.

What do you think of these pieces of legislation? Are they a huge victory for Michael Brown, or do we still need to keep fighting? What SHOULD the city be doing?

Net Neutrality Online Protest this Wednesday

Remember the anti-SOPA internet protests? Wikipedia, Mozilla, Google and countless other sites blocked out content (ranging from Google's logo to Wikipedia's entire site).























Similar tactics will be employed this Wednesday as Netflix (as well as the regular crew consisting of Reddit, Mozilla, etc) will be displaying a loading icon on their sites to symbolize the slower service some predict will accompany less internet regulation (the sites will not actually load slower).

Think about the buzz-term "net neutrality." In the spirit of UnSpun, what would be a more objective term for the regulatory climate Netflix is lobbying for? Is it wrong of these companies to demand tight restrictions on internet service (neutrality), yet few to none when it comes to internet content (SOPA)?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/netflix-to-join-internet-slowdown-protest-over-net-neutrality-20140908

A Resurgence in American Industrial Labor

America's modern economy has often been called a "service economy," notorious for outsourcing blue-collar, industrial labor to other countries. However, after the Great Recession of 2008, many business owners, especially in the middle of the country, see extracting America's own energy resources as a potentially lucrative business endeavor. Pictured below is one of energy giant Vallourec's thriving energy plants located in Ohio as described in a recent New York Times article. The plant is one of many that employs the environmentally questionable practice of "fracking," the process of forcibly drilling and extracting resources from sheets of rock.




Local energy production is booming. According to the article, American oil field production this year is up to about 11 million barrels per day compared to less than 7 million barrels per day in 2006. In addition, Ohio appears to be ripe for this kind of production with its decreasing unemployment rates.

Nevertheless, environmental opposition exists. This year, for example, California denounced the process of fracking and its potentially harmful effects on drinking water.

In my opinion, I do not think that a thriving local energy economy is worth the harmful environmental effects. What do you think? Should companies create energy initiatives on American soil? To tie this issue into our current unit, do you believe that regulating fracking falls under the "necessary and proper" powers of Congress in accordance with the commerce clause? Or should energy legislation be left up to the states? Perhaps a mix of the two (dual federalism)?

Legal Marijuana – Businesses say No

In recent years, it has become more and more common for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes to be condoned. In fact, currently there are currently 23 states that have legalized the usage of medical marijuana. In most cases, there is a set age at which people can apply for a license to use marijuana, as well as a set limit for how much marijuana can be owned/purchased at any given time.

However, recently there arose a controversy in many legalized states, including Colorado: while the state itself allowed the usage of marijuana, businesses kept their "zero tolerance" policies that advocated for drug free employees. In a recent case, Brandon Coats of Colorado was fired for having positive drug test results; however, not only is he in a state where recreational marijuana is legal, but he also holds a pass for medicinal marijuana usage, due to his paralysis. He is attempting to sue his company, and if he wins, it could potentially mean the end of drug free policies for businesses across the state.

Personally, I think it's quite unfair for businesses to fire this man, especially due to the fact that he holds a medical marijuana pass. This isn't the only case either; earlier in August, Donna Smith of New Mexico was terminated from working at Presbyterian healthcare services for the same reason, and she also held a medical marijuana pass. What do you think is the reasoning of these businesses, and are they justified in firing this people for having positive drug test results? Additionally, should business policies "trump" state law, making it hard for those who legally smoke marijuana to find jobs anywhere? Who do you think will win in this court case... and why?

CVS Discontinues Tobacco Products

As of this week, CVS is tobacco free. All other factors remaining equal, the company will make $2 billion less because of the change. CVS claims the change is due to tobacco products being incompatible with their values as a health-oriented chain. It was always ironic that CVS profited off both smoking and quitting (nicotine patches, etc), so the fact that smokers will no longer be tempted while trying to quit can only be seen as positive.

The key term above was all things remaining equal-- CVS clearly believes being on the right side of history in this regard will help their bottom line. And the company's stock price doesn't seem to argue (the official announcement came earlier this year). Is the market alone capable of ousting tobacco?




This relates to the topic of "sin stocks:" is it wrong to make a profit off people doing something that is wrong? If your answer is yes, where does the line get drawn? (Tobacco, alcohol, weapons contractors, private prisons, abortion, etc...)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2014/09/05/cvs-tobacco-position-is-a-great-first-step-for-the-brand/

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sinfulstock.asp