Political Science Links

Here's a links page that would be helpful for research projects more so than blogging.

Are Politicians Using the Media as a Campaign Set-up Tactic?

LINK IN TITLE

As I am sure most people already know, Sarah Palin was recently hired to be a political analyst for Fox News. However, Palin is just one among many people who are currently blurring the supposedly unbiased media and politics. Former Fox Analyst Angela McGlowan is now running for the House. Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich are also Fox analysts. It has been rumored that CNBC's Larry Kudlow and CNN'S Lou Dobbs will announce political bids.

The candidates are obviously using TV as a way to get their name out there. In an age where some people are apparently so concerned with being able to comfortably drink a beer with the President, visibility is key. People are much more likely to vote for the familiar name and face they hear/see on their friendly nightly news than an unknown person. That would just be scary.

Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, says networks sign political figures to make it easier to book them, and to prevent other networks from booking them instead. He states that the rise of political figures working in the media is "a competitive issue".

I'm sure Griffin is right, but does it really seem right to interview your "political analysist". Doesn't it seem a bit like cheating?

At what point is it abusive for people with political dreams to use the media as their start? When has the line been crossed? What even defines the line?

List of Links

Here's a list of links of things found on the web that were interesting or funny (but that I won't have time to write a full-on blog post about) with a short description:

Superbowl Blog: This is a pretty awesome blog matching up every president with a Superbowl and doing an analysis on each game with its matching president (44 Superbowls, 44 Presidents). The only slightly scary thing is that the Superbowls are beating the Presidents by more than a field goal.

The Onion's video: A satirical video: "New Lay Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other." Pretty funny.

Eunomia: Posting a little analysis about the upcoming election year and how the Democrats will fare (not necessarily worse than normal, although it is possible). It also uses some polling stats and analysis to assert that any big losses in Congress isn't necessarily due to dissatisfaction with Obama.

Newsflash: CNN brief on one of the top Taliban commanders, who has reportedly been captured.

"Adults Aren't Alright": Holds some interesting statistics and opinions about adults using social networking systems (mainly Twitter) versus teenage use (which has become more and more relevant as I've heard about many parents of classmates joining Facebook). Bottom line: adults do stupid things on internet. *Note: this article is rated PG for brief mentions of things unsuitable for children

Rachel Maddow, Aaron Schock, and Miranda Rights: There's a video and the manuscript. There's a little bit of discussion on Miranda rights, and Mirandizing suspects.

Slam Dunk Disappointment (and other thoughts about All-Star weekend)

For anyone following All-Star weekend, what did you guys think?

In my opinion, the whole event has gone downhill...

The game itself is not competitive; it's merely a game in which all the major stars try and make fancy shots and completely ignore the concept of defense. I love watching Steve Nash and Dwayne Wade (MVP!) play, but the game is itself was boring and anticlimactic.

The most disappointing component for me, however, wasn't even the game. The major disappointment was the slam dunk contest.

It wasn't even the fact that Nate Robinson won (I was rooting for DeMar DeRozan). It was the lack of creativity and execution. What ever happened to dunkers like Spud Webb, or Michael Jordan, or even Dwight few years ago. Even the text voting to win has caused the competition to be less competitive in my opinion, since a popular star, or one from a highly tuned in and populated area (cough,LA,cough) might win even if he didn't have the best dunk.

Basically though, both Robinson and DeRozan didn't have great dunks, didn't even have really good dunks, and as someone who loves watching the dunk contest every year, I was not impressed at all (and neither was Charles Barkley).

On a happier note, Stephen Curry did well in the three-point shooting contest, winning the first round and then coming in second to Paul Pierce in the finals. Next year, though, I'm hoping to see Anthony Morrow, who has a higher 3-point shooting percentage than either Curry or Pierce. Or anyone else in the competition for that matter.

Some highlights for me were: the Rookies finally beating the Sophomores, Nash winning the skills contest, and Kenny Smith winning the three on three shooting contest, and of course, seeing Charles Barkley's ridiculous Taco Bell commercial at every break.

The danger of a single story

LINK TO VIDEO IN TITLE

Ok, so the link in this post links to a Youtube video that pretty much has nothing to do with economics or government, but it is an excellent video. The video is of Chimamanda Adichie's speech at a conference. She talks about her personal experience with stereotyping, but I found the way she told her story really interesting. She is an educated woman from Nigeria, and her experience is both enlightening and fun to listen to. Basically, she talks about the danger of a "single story". She uses "single story" to describe people's perceptions of other cultures, and how we often view things we are unfamiliar with in a very narrow way. For example, many people think of all African people as poverty stricken people who desperately need outside help. Her experience as an African child was quite different.

The most recent example I could think of was about the Olympics. I was watching a skiing competition, and found myself sincerely surprised that an Australian skier was the reigning medalist. After all, Australia is a land of kangaroos and deserts, is it not? It took me a while to completely wrap my head around the fact that there probably is snow somewhere on the entire continent, and that's when I realized how I had stereotyped this athlete. Of course, I then found out the guy also has Canadian citizenship, and my stereotyping mind went right back to its old ways, but you get the point.

Anyway, I know the video is really long, but it is completely worth watching, so if you have 20 free minutes, it would be an excellent use of your time.

An Update on Nuclear Power

I know there was already a post on President Obama's endorsement of nuclear power, but there have since been developments in budgeting for new nuclear power plants. On Tuesday, the President is expected to announce a loan guarantee for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. According to the article linked to above, the "loan guarantee was authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. If the reactors are built and operate profitably, the borrowers will repay the banks and pay a fee to the federal government in exchange for the guarantee; if the borrowers default, the federal government will repay the banks." This post at Mother Jones says, "The chances of default on the government-backed loans are 'very high–well above 50 percent,' according to the Congressional Budget Office. 'If they go belly-up, taxpayers get to pay it,' said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear." The increased budget allocation for nuclear power plants–essentially a sign of a major shift to nuclear power–is clearly risky for the federal government and thus a potential burden for taxpayers.

Aside from the initial costs of building nuclear reactors, there are safety costs to be considered as well. This article mentions tritium (Hydrogen-3, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen) leaks at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The leaks have not been shown to have had any effect on public health, but, says one of President Obama's nominees to join the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the leaks show that the plant does not "'have [its] act together.'" There is clearly potential for more dangerous accidents in connection with a plant that failed to prevent tritium leaks into the groundwater.

Problems like the tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant might support arguments for the construction of new power plants; new plants could promise solutions to the problems that threaten public safety and the reputations of old plants. However, there's still the question of how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. The Obama administration's plan to close Yucca Mountain, a repository for radioactive waste, makes this question especially troubling; with a shrinking number of places to store nuclear waste and no clear method for disposing of it, nuclear power cannot currently be considered a sustainable practice.

Thoughts on the economic effects, safety, or sustainability of nuclear power?

Yours Truly, The Banks

Kind of going off of Jane’s post last Sunday about Chase beginning to cut ties with Obama, this is a little bit of a devil’s advocate post that I wrote to present a different side of the story. In our Democratic surroundings, it’s easy to get caught up in the bank-bashing sport, and yes, I get why people hate the banks. I really do, but I also think that there are two sides of the story and we generally only hear one. I also think the banks are being clumped up into one big category when each bank has a different story. So here is what I imagine an executive at a bank would write in a letter to President Obama.

Dear Mr. Obama,

In the beginning, a lot of banks put a lot of hope in your administration. I believe you mentioned that our badly weakened economy was “also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” This seemed to give recognition to the fact that in addition to the management of some banks making poor decisions, there were also bank regulators at major banks reviewing lending practices, consumers taking out highly leveraged loans, lawmakers promoting that every American should own a home; poor decisions were made by many. But now, we feel betrayed by your actions and your words.

Let’s start with your actions. We didn’t need your TARP money. We didn’t even want it. But you forced us to take it. Then, when we tried to spend it, you pointed the finger at us, blamed us for the recession, called us irresponsible for paying bonuses to our executives, even if they earned it. You lowered the taxes on the middle classes. But you raised the taxes on my business. A special tax just on banks. Is it really fair that I have to pay a special fee just because I am in the banking business?

In the Federalist Papers, part of the government’s duty was to safeguard the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Well, the majority hates the banks right now. They screamed for blood, shouted that we make less, were enraged at the injustice of us, at the banks, making money. But instead of protecting us and our right to run our business, you gave into the majority. Instead of assuaging their anger, you fed the flames, adding to the animosity against us with your defamatory words condoning us for how we run our business. You did not protect us from the majority. You joined them, attacked us and made things worse.

We have since paid back the TARP money, even the steep interest. Yet, you propose to tax us more. We can’t make loans to the small businesses that you want us to loan to if we have no money because you’ve taxed it . Question: GM received TARP money as well. They have yet to pay it back. Why are no fingers pointed at GM? Why are no extra taxes being imposed on them?

I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence that the week you propose to tax us even more, the stock market fell 500 points. People have no confidence in us, and worse, perhaps no confidence in you.

President Obama, you are the leader of our country. You can be the role model who demonstrates collaboration. None of us can fix the economy on our own, not the government, the banks or the consumers. Let the best minds work together, from government and banks, to collaborate on how to best help our economy; let us be a team rather than adversaries.

Yours Truly,

A bank executive

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? Criticisms are welcome... expected even.

The Politics of Aid

The good news about the United States is that we are generally good with sending aid and money to countries that have just undergone natural disasters (e.g., Haiti earthquake, Indonesia tsunami/earthquake).

The bad news is that the United States is still working on how to deal with disasters that are not-so-natural, but are still costing hundreds of thousands of people their lives.

As I’ve been witnessing the outpour of aid to Haiti, it’s occurred to me that Americans are very good at getting help for places that need it (fundraisers, donating, spreading awareness, etc), and that’s a very good thing.

But I think we need to work on bringing aid to countries that are undergoing their own disasters. I understand that it’s not nearly as easy to bring aid when the “disaster” is man-made. The political entanglements are complicated and an internal war spanning over five years in an African country gets significantly less attention and thus less public support than a massive earthquake that happens in an instant and is on every news channel for the next week.

In my mind, and judging by the vast response, it seemed as if the Haiti earthquake had been the most devastating event to occur in a while.

But if we compare the approximate death tolls:

Holocaust: depends on definition, but 11,000,000 is the most inclusive while 6,000,000 is generally accepted as the numbers of Jewish people killed.

Rwanda: at least 500,000 (not including HIV positive war rape victims) with some estimates over 1,000,000.

Darfur: Estimates range between 50,000 to 450,000.

Haiti quake: death toll is currently between 200,00 and 300,000.

It’s odd how an earthquake brings us all together, but we can’t pull it all together in time to prevent mass government-sponsored killings (e.g., Holocaust, Rwandan genocide, Darfur). We’ve given aid to these causes, but not nearly on the same scale, and definitely not large enough to prevent these genocides before the worse occurred.

In the Holocaust, we were slow to react, probably because of the disbelief. In Rwanda, we were both stung by defeat in Somalia and once again, did not take into account the reality of the situation. In Darfur, we were held back by lack of international support. But I believe we, as Americans, who pride ourselves on our system of “liberty and justice for all,” should treat a life lost in a genocide with the same weight as a life lost in an earthquake. I believe we should learn from the mistakes we have made in dealing with past genocides, and do everything in our power, whether trying to convince other world leaders to support intervention, or rallying up the public to help provide aid, to stop the next one.

What are your thoughts on the seeming discrepancy between aid? Why do you think there is such a difference in support? Is this something the US needs to work on, or would the US involvement be too complicated?

Conflicting Views: The Cost of Not Having Health Insurance

Matt Yglesias, Tyler Cowen, and Andrew Sullivan were all blogging about the same thing this week: how many people actually die from not having health insurance.

All of their analyses start with an article by Megan McArdle. The article basically asserts that there isn't evidence to prove that a significant number of people without health insurance die from lack of insurance. This assertion conflicts with a 2008 report from Urban Institute that estimated that 20,000 people die from lack of health insurance every year. The problem with the Urban Institute study, according to McArdle, is that it is an observational study instead of an experimental study, which would be much more expensive and labor intensive. Also, the 2008 study did not take into account many confounding variables, such as the fact that those without health insurance are more likely to be poor, smokers, less educated, obese, etc. McArdle has a whole list of why the previous statistics claiming that lack of health insurance causes more deaths is biased (anyone is Statistics will find numerous examples of things we've studied).

She then discusses a study done using more than 600,000 subjects. The study, which measured and controlled many factors, concluded that there was no significantly elevated risk among the uninsured. McArdle also throws in assertion that lack of health care is not necessarily responsible for more deaths than health care itself, citing an estimate that around 80,000 people die from infections that result from medical treatment. At the end of the article, McArdle talks about how leaving tens of millions of Americans without health insurance violates our sense of equity, which correlates strongly to this weekend's worksheet that has us both analyze the importance of equity and grade the execution of equity in America's economic system in comparison to other trade offs.

As far as other opinions go:

Matt Yglesias, in this post, cites conflicting evidence and claims that there is not evidence to overturn the "principle that has strong theoretical support."

Tyler Cowen, in Marginal Revolution (scroll down until you reach "Clarification on heath care" and "How many people die from lack of health insurance" is more indecisive. He believes McArdle to have compelling arguments and evidence, but intuitively believes that lack of health care should make a difference. His logic is that if it is this difficult to reach the conclusion that people die from lack of health care, then any deaths from lack of health care do not occur in a large enough number to be significant.

I have to admit that McArdle's article made many compelling arguments as far as the bias in the previous statistical students. By the end of the article, I was practically convinced. I thought her analysis of the effects of the confounding variables was very logical. The assertion that going on Medicare at 65 doesn't reduce the risk of death, and that there is no discontinuity in the mortality rate, was also a logical and convincing argument countering the belief that having health insurance reduces death.

Yet, I also find myself skeptical that lack of insurance really makes no difference in health. Reading Austin Frakt's post refuting McArdle's article reinforced the seemingly more logical conclusion that having health insurance must somehow impact mortality.

Basically, just like most of these posters, I can't come to a definitive conclusion with all of the conflicting evidence presented. I imagine that this cyber-exchange between these bloggers will continue over the next few days and I will definitely be reading to see if anyone presents any utterly convincing arguments.

Thoughts? Comments? Does health insurance reduce death rates? Is McArdle way off, or is Yglesias in denial?

More reading:

Megan McArdle's response to Yglesias and Frakt: here

McArdle's blog posts on the subject: here and here

Lieutenant Governor Confirmed?

After California's previous Lieutenant Governor, essentially the "vice president" of the state, John Garamendi was elected to the United States House of Representatives last November, Governor Schwarzenegger picked state Senator Abel Maldonado to be the new Lieutenant Governor. However, Maldonado can only take office after he is confirmed by the state Assembly and the state Senate. While the Senate approved the nomination, the Assembly voted 37-35, just 4 votes shy of the simple majority needed to confirm Maldonado's nomination.

However, the Governor's office then released a statement saying that they believe that 41 people would have to vote against Maldonado's nomination to prevent him from taking office. The Assembly's speaker, however, issued a statement saying that Maldonado cannot take office because he needs 40 votes to be confirmed. The Governor's office still insists that Senator Maldonado will be sworn in as Lieutenant Governor and is planning a confirmation ceremony.

Many people insist that choosing Maldonado is a political move intended to position him as an incumbent in the coming November election when the voters will choose the Lieutenant Governor.

As Assemblyman Jim Nielsen said, "So much for bipartisanship. Today it died in the state Assembly." Is it just me, or is it kind of ridiculous that the state Constitution doesn't make it perfectly clear how many votes are needed for a confirmation? Is Schwarzenegger abusing this lack of clarity to get what he wants? Does he truly believe that Maldonado was lawfully confirmed? Are legislatures allowing their votes to be decided be politics and upcoming elections, rather than actual policy/competency issues?

Note: Link to article in title ...

Senate Confirms 27 Presidential Nominees

The Senate has now confirmed 27 of President Obama's nominees (see previous post about holds). Link to NYTimes article in title.

The White House issued a statement by the President in which he reiterated the need for changes in how Washington works. Acknowledging the holds on the nominations by various senators, the statement read, "many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator’s state or simply to frustrate progress. It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people." I'm not sure the holds enraged the American people so much as drew attention to the ridiculousness of the motivation for the holds, but it's good to see the President following up on what he said in the State of the Union speech.

The statement also demonstrates the power of the President over the Senate; he can make or threaten to make recess appointments, thus bypassing the Senate in the nomination/confirmation process. Regarding the remaining waiting nominees, President Obama said that if senators "do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future." This seems like a perfectly reasonable use of presidential power–how else is the President going to get things to actually happen in the Senate? The statement makes it seem like there won't be any recess appointments this time around...does that mean that the President is trying to demonstrate that he doesn't want to take too much power away from the Senate?

Bankers do not play baseball

In an interview yesterday, Obama said he didn’t begrudge Wall Street executives' big bonuses. This, while somewhat irritating in the midst of an economic crisis, was then followed by the statement that the $17 million bonus awarded to the chief executive of JP Morgan Chase and the $9 million bonus that went to the Goldman Sachs chief executive were “extraordinary,” but that “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

First of all, as far as I know, baseball players didn't help to launch us into this economic crisis. Some players with large bonuses may not have gotten to the World Series, but they didn't hurt millions of Americans with their failure either.

Obama then attempted to justify his statement, saying, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen ... I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

Yes, the American people may have chosen the free-market system. They may believe in the American dream, where every little peasant boy and girl can become the next Bill Gates. The American people, however, are probably not thrilled by hearing about these executives' bonuses while they're reading the want ads in the newspaper. Furthermore, these bankers have been extremely dependent on taxpayers' dollars for the past year. They may be "savvy businessmen", but they haven't succeeded recently simply because they were the best in a big game of fair competition.

In Obama's State of the Union speech, he said that he understood "Some [Americans] are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn't ... ", but declared that "To recover the rest [of the money we spent on the banks], I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need."

Obama seemed to understand the frustration many Americans felt when they saw their tax dollars go to the bail outs of companies that lavishly handed out ridiculous bonuses. And then came this interview.

Was his banker/baseball comparison a simple mistake, that he's now looking back on and shaking his head about? Was it an attempt to attempt to appear less anti-business? Did he take conveying his understanding of the average citizen, and support for business at the same time, too far?

A Change in the Tone of Politics? Doubtful.

Remember what President Obama said in the State of the Union speech about trying to fix the problems with how Washington works?

"Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern."

That change doesn't seem to be starting just yet.

Last week, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) placed a blanket hold on at least 70 of President Obama's nominees awaiting confirmation by the Senate. A hold, you'll recall, is a method by which a senator asks to be informed before a particular motion (in this case, the President's nominees) is brought to the floor, thereby stopping the motion from reaching a vote until the hold is removed. After some pretty blunt criticism from the White House, which suggested that the blanket hold was just retaliation after not getting earmarks, the senator lifted some of the holds. The removal of some holds, according to this entry in the NYTimes blog, "may temper a threat by Democratic leaders in the Senate–and even the White House–that the administration would make recess appointments during next week's Presidents' Day break, bucking any notion of senators' approval."

Though Sen. Shelby's spokesperson later said that the senator wanted to draw attention to issues of national security and was unconcerned with earmarks, it turns out there has been a conflict between Boeing and Northrop Grumman over who will get the contract for an Air Force (an issue of national security?) aerial refueling tanker (giving it to Northrop would create jobs in Alabama, Sen. Shelby's state). Sounds like an earmark to me... But either way, the blanket hold (not just on nominees associated with the aforementioned conflict) just seems like a really disruptive bid for attention. Is preventing the government from functioning efficiently (appointing people to positions that need to be filled) really a good way to draw attention to a problem? The tactic does attract attention, but that attention probably isn't a good thing; Shelby and his blanket hold have been subject to ridicule over the last week. Do the holds give the White House more reason to make recess appointments so that Shelby doesn't win anything but a designation as a symbol of the unhelpful, inefficient game of American politics? After all, the government needs to govern.

Listen to your parents!

Yeah... I can't believe I just said that. But according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average kids from ages 8-18 spend roughly 7.5 hours a day watching TV, using their cellphones, listening to music, playing video games, using the computer and so on. How is that a bad thing? Well according to Kim Painter of USA Today “Many experts, including the pediatrics academy, consider that much screen time bad for mental and physical health”

(at least HE'S a level 80 warlock)

This is where parents come in. Studies have shown that kids whose parents set rules spend 3 hours less on the computer or TV. They also

-Do better in school

-Drive safer

-And have a lower chance of smoking.

Now don’t start ruling your kids with an iron fist, parents. The most effective parents not only set rules, but enforce those rules in a supportive and kind way.

Wall Street Strikes Back

JPMorganChase has always been a strong supporter of the Democratic Party, and its chief executive Jamie Dimon is a good friend of President Obama's. Jamie Dimon is a frequent White House Guest, and a large donor to the Democratic Party. So it was somewhat expected that this trend would continue. It kind of did, Chase still contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations. "But it has rebuffed solicitations from the National Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican Counterparts." This change reflects the anger of Chase, and its attempt to challenge President Obama's tighter financial regulations proposals. The Republican party is rushing to capitalize on this current dissent from Wall Street. Even though some of the big shots in Wall Street may be Obama fans, they say that they are not going to stand for being bossed around. They will begin to withhold their money. It has become expected that they will donate, even if they are bossed around. But now these Wall Streeters are not going to play that game anymore. These people on wall street are saying that if Obama keeps taking stabs to punish or hurt them, they may have to rethink where their political allegiances lie.

-Jane Hayashi-

Sarah Palin Political Cartoon

Click on the title of this to be directed to a political cartoon of Sarah Palin holding a tea pot overflowing with money with a speech bubble saying "Now THIS is MY kind of party". This cartoon is one example of the many different opinions on Palin's recent surge into the public. As I said in one of my previous posts, I wondered about and asked you all for your input on why Palin was suddenly putting herself out in the public eye again. So here is a follow up for you. Some critics believe that Sarah Palin has only one motive for reappearing, and that is money. She is now becoming so popular, especially now that she is a Fox commentator, and recently she was paid $100,000 for her speech and appearance at the Tea Party Convention. So this political cartoon just further satirizes Palin's intentions, and brings attention to the belief that all she wants is money.

-Jane Hayashi-

Connecticut Gas Blast

Earlier today, in Middletown, Connecticut, tragedy struck when an unfinished power plant exploded, killing at least 5 workers with more than a dozen workers injured. This explosion occurred at the Kleen Energy Systems, and the boom was felt and heard for miles. This power plant was being built to produce energy using primarily natural gases. At the time, there seem to be no workers who are unaccounted for, and the cause of the gas explosion is still unknown. The explosion tore apart the outside of the power plant, but the building, roof and the smokestacks are still in tact. In a statement made by the town's mayor, the power plant was supposedly 95% complete. Natural gases are responsible for about 1/5 of the nation's electricity. INvestigation of this explosion and its causes begin on Monday. Allegedly, workers at the plant were purging the gas lines, a method that has been under scrutiny since an explosion at a Slim Jim factory occurred last year. "The [Safety] Board voted last week to recommend that national and international code writers strengthen their guidelines to require outdoor venting of gas lines or an approved safety plan to do it indoors." This is such a tragic thing that has happened, and hopefully this will lead to some investigation into preventing other occurrences like this from ever happening again.

-Jane Hayashi-

Pakistan Bombings

On Friday, 33 people were killed and about 150 others were wounded in a bus bombing in Karachi, Pakistan. Thousands of people gathered in Karachi for a mass funeral, to mourn for those lives that were lost. Shops, schools, and offices were closed down, and the amount of public transportation was decreased while people poured into the city. As of now, it seems that these people are grief-stricken, and not to angered, but rather are focusing on mourning their losses, and consoling to families and friends of the deceased. But it is expected that as soon as the shock begins to wear off, these families will become angered at the failure of the cities security. There were 2 bombs planted on buses, which were set off at the same time on Friday, and a third bomb went off outside of a hospital where the wounded were being taken. The buses were full of Shia worshippers. As of now, 20 suspects have been rounded up, but many speculate about the reasons for this bombings. Karachi is no stranger to this violence, and believe the people who bombed the city want to destabilize the city. Karachi is said to be strategic city, since it is a port city. Karachi is the financial heart of Pakistan. It is believed that the Jundallah (the Army of God) is behind this attack. The Jundallah is also the group that was behind the Ashura attack, another bomb attack which killed 43 people in a Shia procession. It is just so shocking that these acts of terrorism are occurring, I guess all for power of the country. But who really knows what the motives of these attacks truly are.

-Jane Hayashi-

NFL Hall of Fame

Today, Jerry Rice and Emmett Smith were elected into the NFL Hall of Fame. After all, both of these men have won 3 Superbowl titles, as well as being the MVP in one of those Superbowl championships. In order to be elected to the Hall of Fame, each candidate must gain an 80% nomination from the 44 media members. Each of these men will be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio on August 7. Each of these men achieved great things in their careers, Rice was the NFL's career receiving and touchdowns leader, while Smith was the top rusher. Both men, when commenting on their nomination began to tear up, something you would never expect from these men. It showed just how much it meant to them, and Rice claimed he could never take this for granted, and compared it to the feeling of winning the Superbowl. These men were nominated alongside John Randle, Russ Grimm, Rickey Jackson, Floyd Little, and Dick LeBeau. This comes at such a great time, as tomorrow is the Superbowl. Personally, I am glad they were nominated, and share along in their joy. Even though Jerry Rice is such a huge celebrity, he never seems to take his fame for granted. He can sometimes be seen walking around in downtown San Mateo, and was recently seen eating at local restaurant Baywatch.

-Jane Hayashi-

No more trips to the moon?

Obama is planning on increasing NASA's funding by 2%, while getting rid of manned space flights. If this budget is approved by Congress, then it's pretty much the end of sending astronauts to the moon.

Although I'm quite disappointed that we won't be seeing a moon base anytime in the future, I do understand Obama's plan. There are disadvantages of sending astronauts to space to perform tasks

1) It costs a few hundred times MORE cash to send astronauts to space than it does to send only satellites. George W. Bush planned on sending astronauts to the moon and Mars, but soon gave up the plan because it was too expensive.

2) Almost all the important discoveries about space and astronomy have been made by unmanned satellites, and most of the machinery needed to perform future research about space won't require astronauts. Actually, because the Hubble Telescope was built by astronauts, the telescope could not be sent millions of miles away from Earth to capture better photos (and it cost much more to have the telescope installed by astronauts).

There are just so many benefits if NASA plans to not send humans to the Moon and Mars. Think about it, sending hundreds of satellites to Mars instead of a manned mission is actually much cheaper and efficient. I guess visiting the moon won’t be happening in my lifetime.

(Or having the chance to meeting a hot alien...)