CA Governor Debate: Brown v. Whitman

I’m a little surprised that no one has posted about the governor debate yet. Anyways…I watched the debate in parts and some of the videos wouldn’t load for me. But these are the topics that I actually watched: budget, death penalty, job creation, pension reform, and voting.

Budget:

Whitman is for cutting down the people while Brown is for cutting down the state. Whitman stated that she would “reform” welfare, euphemism for “cut it down.” Brown talks about reducing the state governor and legislature. I wasn’t sure if he was referring to salaries or all expenses included for those jobs though. Brown’s proposal sounds good, but how is it going to happen? Even if he can cut down his salary, how is he going to cut down the Legislature’s salary? He’s going to have to get through a lot of people, from both parties. For this round, I would say that Whitman wasn’t off to a good start because from the sound of it, it seems like she’s going to make the underprivileged who need welfare even more underprivileged. Also, Brown snuck a comment at the end saying that money from the schools in CA will go to rich people like Whitman instead. Being a student, I choose to believe that’s true and so one for Brown.

*just a side note, Brown talked about how many times we have all seen Whitman’s face and TV and I would like to corroborate that point because even my mom knows who Whitman is. And my mom rarely watches TV or follows politics. So Whitman definitely got her face out there.

Death Penalty:

Both candidates are in favor of speeding up the death penalty appeal process, but through different means. Brown says the right to a proper trial and lawyer belongs to the condemned and that can speed up habeas corpus. Whitman is tough on crime and will appoint conservative judges to the bench. She says that a federal program in the Criminal Justice League would accelerate the appeal process but never says what the program is. She made a good point saying that CA shouldn’t waste money on death row infrastructure anymore. Brown rebuts saying that law enforcement agencies have his back and talks about his record in Oakland, but I feel that the point regarding Oakland was to his disadvantage because Whitman got the last word in this round. She ended with giving stats that showed how ineffective Brown was as mayor of Oakland. Whitman said that Oakland is the fourth most dangerous city in America and the homicide rate doubled after Brown’s term. She was also quick to attack that Brown suddenly changed his moral stance on the death penalty last week (Brown had been morally opposed to it for the last 40 years and changed his mind last week). I say this round goes to Whitman partially because of her last arguments.

Job Creation:

Whitman began by throwing out more stats at the audience. Starting in this round, anyone can tell that she was very scripted and her body language was restricted by the podium. She repeated a lot of same phrases over and over again. She proposed factory tax cuts and startup tax cuts that both favored businesses (predictable since she is Republican and a businesswoman herself). She argues that tax revenues will be higher if we lower factory tax because that creates more jobs and more companies. She talks about Texas as a good economic example here. Brown compared Whitman to George Bush first thing on the rebuttal. That’s a smart move because a lot of things associated with George Bush have negative connotations to it. Brown focused on expanding green jobs and the energy of the future, and did not have any other ideas for job creation. Both candidates acknowledged that job creation is not an overnight job and will take years to accomplish.

By this round, it was visible what themes each candidate focused on. I won’t go into details about the rest of the issues because this page would get too long, but here’s a quick debrief:

1. Whitman focused a lot on statistics. At first it was effective, but it was overused. She started to sound like she was just showing off her brain after a few rounds. She was more scripted compared to Brown and always had a smile on her face (sometimes it was a smile/scold/smirk). She had a good flow in her speeches but also had a lot of repetitive phrases. Of course she had to deal with the fact that she wasn’t registered to vote for something like 20 years, but she addressed it, apologized for it, and moved on. That was fine for me.
2. Brown was more animated and emotive. He wasn’t afraid to stutter at times. To me, it didn’t take away from his points and instead made him seem more human. He focused a lot on his past records as governor and mayor of Oakland (Oakland wasn’t always a good idea b/c I believe that the people around the Bay Area are more informed about the city than people from other parts of California. So an advancement that he made in Oakland may seem great compared to Oakland, but not compared to some other city in CA). He has an advantage over Whitman in that he is a more experienced politician. His humor was more approachable (as opposed to Whitman’s hunting story with the governor of Texas). He explained a lot of government vocab that I didn’t understand like the “big five group” and “AB32” and so it was easier to follow.

I say Brown won this overall (from the five rounds that I was able to watch online) because he had a better connection with the audience and didn’t seem as elitist. He didn’t do an awesome job regarding some of the content in debate such as job creations (his only idea was green jobs) and that seemed too limited. But overall, he did better compared to Whitman.

Links to the videos on ABC (Thanks Jessia!):

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news%2Fpolitics%2Flocal_elections&id=7694586

Will marijuana be legal?

Nixon declared a war on drugs almost 40 years ago but CNN reports that about 76% of Americans know the drug war has failed. Millions of people want change due to the fact that millions more have been arrested and billions of dollars are lost. Even the people we should be looking up to have admitted to illegal drugs. George Bush made comments on tape that suggest he did use drugs. Bill Clinton stated that he smoked pot but didn't inhale. Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin admit they used drugs too. Even the FBI had to change their policy of not hiring people that have used illegal drugs in the past because not enough law enforcement positions were being filled when they eliminated all of these people. But the war on drugs has maybe just caused more problems. Due to the campaigns that threaten to arrest and incarcerate drug users simply increased the number of drug related deaths by making drug users too scared to call police for help when a someone has overdosed. Prop 19 will make it legal to grow, sell, and use Marijuana, but will that be a good or bad thing?

Christine O'Donnell: Does she think we were born yesterday?

It was just recently revealed that Christine O'Donnell, the already - infamous politician these days (the fun - to laugh at Sarah Palin - esque figure) "fudged" about her educational status and achievements.  She was found a liar on both counts: primarily that she did NOT take any graduate courses whatsoever at Princeton University and also, she didn't go to the University of Oxford, but to the Phoenix Institute to study political science. 

First of all, why "fudge" at all in this day and age, since of course, everyone is going to find out sooner or later...????!!!! And also, what does this reveal about our politicians these days? How can we trust those in power when they don't put their right foot forward and treat us as if we were born yesterday...

Ms. O'Donnell's actions makes her a joke and I don't believe the publicity is good publicity and good media-attention.  If she wanted taht, she could've just auditioned to be on Jersey Shore...but this is politics! This is the real world, Christine! The part that really gets me is that our politicians these days are so centered on being powerful and influential, without anything to show for it.  She is a joke and should be treated as one...Where did the real people with real values go? She also does a double injustice by putting other colleges down, the fact that she feels ashamed of her real education that she has to lie about it and mask the truth reveals her insecurities as a person, and these days, in any political position, we need level - headed, smart and strategic people with human beings being their focus.  Not a scandalous show and front page of a tabloid - kind of campaign...

Vacation or no Vacation...? That's the real question....

The word is in, and Obama isn’t looking too fondly on the educational system we have going on here in the US (sorry dedicated students and teachers, but this is just a speculation and not globalization/generalization of the whole community of students in this country).  Mr. President has recently been quoted saying students today are at a, “competitive disadvantage,” in the worldwide atmosphere and environment especially in a world economic situation that we are currently in.  “The challenges of the new century demand more time in the classroom,” Obama says.  A controversial aspect to this statement and opinion is also the President going further to state, “better pay for better teachers.”  I truly believe that teachers do, overall, get the mistreatment in pay compared to other people in this world.  Unfortunately, an important thing such as education and our future generations is put to the sidelines in this country and we are starting to see negative outcomes do to this.  Overall, I agree with Obama’s notion and statement, though it does put a damper on summer vacation, but we as students need to understand the value of keeping our minds stimulated with learning.  I think that the pros outweigh the cons by a LANDSLIDE and we should definitely support this statement.  But here’s the flaw in his statement, who can say who’s a fair and good teacher and not? That’s where I’d say this idea wouldn’t get implemented and passed since it is not clear and will cause many teachers, students and parents to riot and protest.  I do love vacation and breaks and of course looking forward to a nice long 3-day weekend, but it’s putting a huge weight and pressure on us students to do well in the real world.  We go to school and are performing much less than in previous generations and it’s time for us to do something about it, otherwise America will no longer be known for its influence on the world, as more academic and educated countries do better on the worldwide scale.  Are we ready to pass the torch? 

Pop Culture being the focus...wait, where did the Real News Go?

Ok…whatever happened to the cute, innocent, youthful girl we once knew as Lindsay Lohan?!?! Drugs…parties…alcohol…rehab…DUIs…arrests! I mean, what is up with her?!? US Weekly news has recently started posting news about her trying to get someone to cough up $10,000 to do a photo shoot with her post-jail time.  How low can you go? Her days as an A list star have been deteriorating ever since…forever! I mean, accept for Parent Trap, she’s been falling and failing to be a good example.  Which brings up my biggest complaint! If she’s so trashy, why does the news and media keep posting about her?  There are starving people in Africa, a threatening genocide in Darfur, a continuing war in Iraq (though we say we’re supposedly done…which we aren’t) and yet the HOT news is Lindsay Lohan and her new escapades in jail.  It’s sick how media is so focused on such small things as stars like her.  Just like on the world news tidbit on US news that only lasts for about a minute, “And now the news around the world in 60 seconds,” what the heck?!?! People need to  get their priorities straight about something.  Politics, economic and social issues are much more prevalent than the latest gossip on Lohan…media, you suck!

Wiretapping...the Internet

Wiretapping has been present in American society ever since when the first telephone was invented. The term has now expanded to include tapping internet connections as well.

The U.S. is looking to enforce new regulations for wiretapping the Internet because criminal suspects are abandoning the telephone as a means of communication. Federal law enforcement agencies claim that they need to keep up and expand their power in order to wiretap “all services that enable communications.” That includes Facebook and Skype. Once again, this raises the question of the balance between security and privacy.

Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the FBI, said that “We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts. We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.”

They are looking to expand this power abroad because currently, U.S. telephone and broadband services are already required to have the capacity to be intercepted under the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (1994). This bill would also mean that the government has to increase its subsidies for communications companies (on top of the large defense budget).

I say we let them do it. We have accepted social networking on the Internet, so we should be aware that the Internet is the last place where we should look for privacy. And besides, I doubt that any of us writes: “I’m about to bomb Times Square, come get me FBI!” for our status on FB.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Happy Birthday Google!

Today Google celebrates its 12th anniversary. It just beats the competition like Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, ect almost every week for the number of users and the most amount of time spent of a web site. This is not surprising due to the fact that everyday you hear the term "google it", but will that term slowly disappear? Google has invested in different areas and Rob Enderie, an analyst with Enderie group, suggests that Google might be at risk of losing focus since the competition rating like Facebook and Apple are dramatically rising. It would be a disappointment if Google can not keep up anymore because for many of us it is essential for school. Going "Mobile" is the next main goal for Google. They are hoping that when people think of Mobile that they think of Google. Will google find a way to make the money they have in the past 12 years or will Apple, Facebook and Yahoo take over? Will people "google it" anymore?

Texas School Board

On Friday, the Texas School Board passed a resolution in a 7-5 vote that Texas textbooks should limit the references to Islam because of fear of a "creeping Middle Eastern influence in the nation's publishing industry."
Need I say more on the story? This is wrong on so many levels.
So what if there is more Middle Eastern influence? America is getting so paranoid about other cultures that happen to be from that region. Newsflash: not all Arabs are terrorists! I would like to think that we're beyond that point of Islamaphobia, but recent story such as the Mosque in NY have led me to believe otherwise.
I also think that it's completely ignorant of the School Board, if not on a humanitarian level as a political level. A lot of what is fueling the tensions between the West and the Middle East is the lack of understanding and education on both parts. Those in the Middle East are told that Americans are all pigs and care about nothing but materialism, which may be true to an extent, but does not accurately describe American culture as a whole. Furthermore, we're told that the Middle East is full of radical Islamic fundamentalists who want nothing but the destruction of the West and our way of life. Which, again, could apply to SOME people but certainly not the culture as a whole. Curbing this lack of understanding is a key step in ending the viscous cycle of war and violence. This cycles costs a lot in human life as well as trillions of taxpayers' dollars.
The day that America as a whole is able to get over its fear of Islam may be the day I'm gone from this Earth. But it has to start somewhere, right?

I've had a fun time blogging and (hopefully) stirring things up. My parting message is: speak the truth and be honest. If people think you're mean, you've done your job right, because the truth hurts. Keep it real, people.

Love, The Power Gay

New Cancer Drugs: How Much Is Life Worth?

Although the cure for cancer hasn't been discovered yet, for the past decade, researchers have been developing cancer-fighting drugs aimed at prolonging a patient's life. The latest addition to this list of cancer drug treatments is Provenge, which costs a whopping $93,000 a year and adds four months' survival, on average, for men with incurable prostate tumors. Bob Svensson, former corporate finance officer, decided to get the treatment because his insurance paid for it. "I would not spend that money because the benefit doesn't seem worth it," says Svensson, had it not been for the supplemental Medicare plan he was signed up for which pays for Provenge. Usually, people can try these cancer-treatment drugs for a few months and keep using it only if they see results. But Provenge is an all-or-nothing $93,000 gamble. It's a one-time treatment to train the immune system to fight prostate tumors.
However this is usually not the case. For most people, the drugs may buy them a few months or years. And as time goes on, many people struggle to come up with the money to pay for their treatments. For example, job losses have led some people to stop taking Gleevec, a $4,500-a-month drug by Novartis AG that keeps certain leukemias and stomach cancers in remission. "Higher costs seem to be more accepted for cancer treatment than for other illnesses, but there's no rule on how much is too much," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer. For the last decade, new cancer-fighting drugs have been topping $5,000 a month. In a year, that would be $60,000!
We always describe life as something that is priceless, so is any amount of money worth a few more moments of life? Or could it be that outrageous prices (like Provenge's $93,000) still aren't worth it, even in the face of death?

SNL's Political Commentary

The new season of SNL aired last night, and the very first skit was aimed at Delaware Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell. The sketch made remarks of her past statements during her campaign, such as her past "dabble in witchcraft", and it goes on to the actress portraying O'Donnell to add more absurdity to O'Donnell's image.
Asa fan of the show, I found the sketch to be pretty funny, as I have with a lot of their political satire. The show has taken on politics regularly (especially since the 2008 Presidential Campaign) and even hosts these political faces on the show, to poke fun at themselves and other issues.
So what do you guys think of SNL's political satire?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bim/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/9/25/politics/p213651d20.DTL

U.S. Weapons Fueling Violence In Mexico?

When you think of disputes between the United States and Mexico, the first thing that pops into your mind is probably illegal immigrants. But Mexico seems to have another proposition. Mexico's president is concerned with the escalating security problems his nation faces, many of which are fueled by U.S. policies. "We live next to the world's largest drug consumer, and all the world wants to sell them drugs through our door and our window. And we live next to the world's largest arms seller, which is supplying the criminals," Mexican President Felipe Calderon told CNN en Español Friday.
A past Latin America national security adviser, Robert Pastor, reported last year that there were at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90% of weapons in Mexico come from the U.S.
American leaders, however, are acknowledging the problem and trying to solve it. "It's not only guns; it's weapons, it's arsenals of all kinds that come south," Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently stated, "So I feel a real sense of responsibility to do everything we can. And again, we're working hard to come up with approaches that will actually deliver."
This issue has also brought heat to another touchy subject: the claim that high crime rates are directly related to illegal immigration, as some U.S. politicians have contended. "Border violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, "There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of the drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life." However, Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa claims that there's no evidence linking high crime rates with illegal immigration. The two largest Latino populations in the United States are in the New York City and Los Angeles areas, she said, but both locales have seen a "dramatic drop in the crime rate."
So which one do you think is a more pressing problem? The U.S. weapons floating into Mexico, or the illegal immigrants escaping into the U.S.?

Texting While Driving, the New DUI?

The US Government just released the findings of a study of the effects of texting while driving. In 2008, there were about 6,000 fatalities due to drivers getting in accidents while texting. To put this in perspective, there are about 13,000 fatalities resulting from alcohol-impaired drivers (http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html). While the rate of texting-related deaths increased 26% from 2005 to 2008, the rate of alcohol-related deaths decreased 17% (if I did my math correctly. I'm a fuzzie, not a techie.) That means that due to the increasing rates of death from texting and the decreasing rates of alcohol related deaths, deaths from texting may overcome those caused by drunk driving. So what does this all mean? Essentially, in the future due to my "mathematical" predictions, texting while driving will become a larger threat to lives than drunk drivers. Wow.
This scares me. This reveals a few things to me:
Like the extremely effective anti-tobacco ads, MADD has done its work. Driving while drunk has become (and rightfully so) stigmatized. I assume that the reason for this is that alcohol has been here forever, giving humans times to develop social rules surrounding it, like not to drive under the influence. Texting, however, as a relatively modern phenomenon, has not yet developed the same etiquette rules as the rules surrounding the drink. Therefore, people don't associate as negative a stigma against texting while driving. Maybe it's time to start.
16,000 deaths since 2001 is 16,000 deaths too many.
Soon texting will surpass drunk drivers as the main cause of driving fatalities. Just because MADD hasn't attacked you doesn't mean that it's ok. Please, put the cellphone away when you're driving, or pull over to use it.

Love, The Power Gay

Banning Teens From Malls Is Good for Business?

When you think of going to the mall, you usually imagine yourself surrounded by all your friends and being able to shop wherever you want and when you want. But could this luxury soon be over? Dozens of malls now have what they call a "parental escort policy," which means that teens under the age of 18 have to be with a parent/guardian who is 21 or over in order to enter the mall. Most malls have these restrictions only on weekend evenings, but some are going so far as to keeping them in place 24-7!
At the end of May, the Mid Rivers Mall (St.Louis, Missouri) put their "parental escort policy" in action and they seem to have reported a higher percentage of customers and sales. After a month, their mall traffic was up 5% on Friday/Saturday nights, and sales went up between 3% - 10%, depending on the category.

And with schools starting up again and students running to the mall, many shopping centers are following Mid Rivers Mall's example and taking up the "parental escort policy." With thousands of "teen mall rats" roaming around, general manager Joe Castaldo of Crossgates Mall called it a "a babysitting service,"and decided to enact a teen curfew. "The policy is that kids aren't allowed to use the mall as a hangout," said Joe DePlasco, a spokesman for Atlantic Terminal Mall, "We're concerned about the overall experience at the mall."

With so many teen-oriented stores in the mall, including Abercrombie & Fitch and Hot Topic, banning these young people should have a negative effect, but instead, it has proved quite the opposite. Department stores, like Macy's and Nordstrom, make the bulk of the money for a mall. "There has to be a balance," Howard Davidowitz, a retail consultant said, "The problem a developer has is if [the mall] becomes a hangout, it becomes scary for older customer. That's the department store customer, and that's the anchor of the center." Castaldo of Crossgates Mall feels that his sales have gone up because the older customers start feeling welcome again, and the teens that decide to come have their parents' wallets in tow. "Now instead of teens just spending $10 on something, parents are coming in with their credit cards," he said.

Lenore Skenazy, a columnist and author, however disagrees with these policies. "They're treating 17-year-olds like they are babies who need supervision or juvenile delinquents who should be behind bars," she said. "There's a lot of self-fulfillment in that policy. The less chance we give them to prove themselves worthy of our respect, the less likely they will."

I wholeheartedly agree with Skenazy. By introducing these curfews and policies, malls are not only rejecting a significant part of the population, but also feeding their rebellion. In my opinion, enacting these policies won't stop teens from going to mall. It'd be near impossible to prevent teens from going because it has become such a staple in our lives. Sure, malls might make more money by attracting adult costumers, but it would also lose something that's part of the mall experience: the energy and liveliness that teens provide. Imagine cruising through the mall and everyone's talking quietly and walking around properly. Doesn't really feel like a mall, does it?

Florida Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Yesterday, a federal judge in a district Court of Appeals in Florida ruled that Florida's ban on adoption of children by gay and lesbian parents is unconstitutional. Forida Governor Crist agreed to cease the former law's enforcement immediately, opening the doors for thousands of gay and lesbian couples to begin the adoption process, thereby finding homes for even more children who so desperately need them. As probably all of you know, I am a staunch advocate for gay rights. This ruling will be significant for a couple of reasons:
1. The ruling will give necessary political momentum to the gay movement that will hopefully carry to 2012 when there will be Prop 8 take two (except this time, Camp Equality is pushing the initiative). In general victories for Equality such as this tend to have a ripple effect, changing the political climate for gays and lesbians such that the issue of homosexuality is put on the front burner of discussion, bringing the issues and grievances out of the closet, if you will.
2. When the ruling proceeds to the Supreme Court, a ruling in favor of adoption could nullify all laws banning gays from adopting in every state in the Nation.

Personally, this ruling is exciting for me. I have many gay friends who have adopted and are so glad they did. Knowing the children of many gay parents and seeing that they do not possess any abnormal developmental issues, I am extremely confident that gay adoption does not pose a threat for children.
The Prop 8 campaign ran a barrage of campaign ads claiming that should gay marriage become illegal, the children will somehow be compromised. These false and negative stereotypes hurt more than I can tell you. Aside from the political aspect of it, I had people telling me and everyone in the State of California that I am somehow dangerous to children, That I am a near satanic figure who wants to harm children. And when California passed Prop 8, it was personal. California told me that I am someone to be feared, and someone from whom to "protect children." This is why this ruling is especially touching to me, because it finally seems as though people aren't buying this anymore.

If you are not pro- marriage for gay people or adoption, I REALLY want you to comment and I swear I will not freak out and hate on you. We have a lot to learn from each other and I hope that this recent ruling can set up these discussions.

Love, The Power Gay

Obama's Middle East issues at the UN

Another issue that Obama addressed at the UN today was peace in the Middle East. Obama says it is time for Palestinians and Isrealis to pave the road to peace. He says that the two sides need to understand each other's arguments and rights, and respect them.
Obama also spoke of a world plan "to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years" and said the U.S has "joined with Russia to sign the most comprehensive arms control agreement in decades."
I think, that as good as the plan for Isreal and Palestine sounds on Obama's part, he may be repeating the same logic people have had for decades. It is not a problem of what the countries must do, but whether they will do it, and for now, that seems unlikely. The same goes for the nuclear weapons plans. this kind of control would require the cooperation of Iran and other nations. Obama's plans seem to be simply the best, and most idealistic, but things are not as simple as he may like.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/23/un.obama.speech/index.html?hpt=T2

World Leaders Unite At U.N. Session To Battle Issue of Poverty

At the recent Millennium Development Goals Conference held for the United Nations assembly, leaders from all over the world gathered together and discussed their efforts in ending world poverty. However, most countries had their own opinions and goals regarding the current situation. Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said, "Our ability to end poverty and hunger and improve child and maternal health depends upon the long-term availability of fresh water, food, medicine, and raw materials that nature provides." While the president of the Central African Republic, Francois Bozize, said his country is taking steps at dealing with impoverishment and other issues, such as infrastructure and life expectancy. "Poverty rates in our country continue to be alarming," he shared.
Our very own President Obama was present at the conference, and addressed what he calls the 'new' U.S. Global Development Policy. "Our focus on assistance has saved lives in the short term, but it hasn't always improved those societies over the long term," he said, "Consider the millions of people who have relied on food assistance for decades. That's not development, that's dependence, and it's a cycle we need to break. Instead of just managing poverty, we have to offer nations and peoples a path out of poverty." Calling America "the global leader in providing assistance," Obama hopes the U.S. will reach out to countries that are moving to democracy from authoritarianism. "No one nation can do everything everywhere and still do it well. To meet our goals, we must be more selective and focus our efforts where we have the best partners and where we can have the greatest impact," he stated boldly.

As Olivia reported in the previous post, Obama may be on the verge of 'losing his mojo.' So what do you think? Are his plans to tackle worldwide poverty on spot? Or should he focus on fixing up his own nation first?

"How did Obama lose his mojo?"

Th article addresses the change in Obama's image since the election campaign. They claim he had a "rock star" image during the campaign, even recruiting "Obamacans, Republicans who crossed the aisle in 2008 to launch Obama to his historic victory". But critics say that he has now lost his edge, at a critical time in the battle for control of the House and Senate, losing these majorities will cripple his next two years as President.
The article also states that Democrats who stood by Obama's side during the election are now "running from him". The article also addresses the dissatisfaction many have felt with Obama's lack of productivity, as one man is quoted in the article "'Honestly I think he just promised to change too much in 20 month -- no man can do that," That same man, later says "President Bush left us in not the best of shape, OK?" he said. "This country was at the edge of financial destruction. He leveled it off. I think he's done a good job. Republicans ought to back off and quit complaining, start helping the president".
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/obama.mojo/index.html
So what do you think of Obama, two years after the election? And are the judgements of Obama's "change" (or lack thereof) are fair?

San Jose Cop

My cousin works for the Public Defender's Office for Santa Clara County, and some of the horror stories she has told me about them are frankly disgusting and terrifying. I'm going to focus on this one story, however, that really caught my attention. San Jose Mercury released a story today that talks about how a San Jose Police Officer came to the home of a 15 year old boy and handcuffed him and drew his gun on him. The boy's crime? Having sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. The "arrest" turned out to be false, and the officer was just trying to scare the boy, as his girlfriend is the officer's stepdaughter. If you thought THAT was bad, when the boy's parents reported this to internal affairs to the SJPD, they charged the boy and the girl with unlawful sexual intercourse, a charge that is essentially never, ever enforced (by the way, the sex was consensual and the two have been dating "forever" allegedly).
This, to me, is so disgusting. Let's break it down, shall we?
1. The officer abused the boy. A police officer, regardless of relation to the suspect, cannot cuff and draw his gun on an underage boy that is of no immediate threat to himself or anyone else. You don't cuff someone for having sex. It sinply does not work that way. ON TOP OF THAT, a uniformed officer is abusing his powers and duties as a policeman by trying to "teach the kid a lesson" though the use of his municipally enforced badge. Talk about using the state to achieve personal gains. If cops are carrying out their personal issues while on duty and while in uniform, what's to say that they won't arrest someone for disagreeing with the City under the pretense of an alleged crime?
2. SJPD is transparently trying to cover it up. The SJPD is now trying to cover their tracks by claiming as though the cop was performing actions endorsed by the SJPD which is a clear case of avoiding the real issue at hand. This isn't exactly what I would call great PR work.
3. The cop has not right to enforce a private moral viewpoint. I don't care whether or not you believe premarital sex is wrong. I don't even care if it is illegal. I know from many of my friends who have had run-ins with cops for consensual underage sex that they DO NOT enforce that law. Why the officer suddenly decided to enforce this archaic and mundane law is clear: he was pissed that the guy was sleeping with his daughter and used the law to back up his anger. This is clearly wrong.
I'm sick and tired of people forcing their private moral views into the law. The officer should have handled it like a normal civilian and had a confrontation with the boy when not in uniform. That would make me feel more comfortable. But the fact remains that the officer abused his powers as an officer for his own personal issues. That's just plain immoral.

Love, The Power Gay

Short-termitis

Tom Friedman in the NYT:

Studying China’s ability to invest for the future doesn’t make me feel we have the wrong system. It makes me feel that we are abusing our right system. There is absolutely no reason our democracy should not be able to generate the kind of focus, legitimacy, unity and stick-to-it-iveness to do big things — democratically — that China does autocratically. We’ve done it before. But we’re not doing it now because too many of our poll-driven, toxically partisan, cable-TV-addicted, money-corrupted political class are more interested in what keeps them in power than what would again make America powerful, more interested in defeating each other than saving the country.

I agree with Friedman but wonder if he is living in a Cold War era box of relative consensus amongst elites and unable to accept that partisan bickering is actually normal.

On the other hand, previous generations of partisan bickering did not have the automatic feedback loop of polling and a daily news cycle.

Has the Tea Party Lost its Grassroots Cred?

This headline caught my attention because we recently talked about this in class. The article says that last week the Tea Party accepted a million dollar anonymous donation. There was a lot of criticism that even though the money was supposed to go to local groups, the central organization was granting the money, so it is still very much led from the top, not the bottom-up.
Do you think they have lost their grassroots reputation? Does the donation have an effect on their claimed grassroots ideals? How do you think will this change in image will effect their efforts as a party?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017179-503544.html?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

Torn Apart - Immigration Helping (?)

This past Sunday edition of the San Jose Mercury devoted the headline and a two page spread to a story called Torn Apart, a piece where a reporter followed the Jimenez-Mota family for a year.

The article and 30-minute documentary can be seen here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/torn-apart

I found it interesting, becuase two of the six children are Aragon students, and another recently graduated. The story follows the family through their struggles in a case for their mother to stay in the country (their father had already been deported).
I think that it is unfair of immigration Enforcements to target families. these people, regardless of their citizenship, claim America as their home and raise their children to take advantage of the opportunities avaliable. they work, and participate in the communtiy like any other American family. I think that the government should create a better system to allow these people to pursue citizenship, rather than live in fear and struggle.

So I want to know your opinion. Should ICE be targetting these families as they do? What should they be doing? Do you think they understand the impact they're having on these families?

27 States Get Bitten By Unemployment Bug

The month of August doesn't seem to have been a good one for those job-seekers out there. Although the national unemployment rate increased only a little last month, on a state-by-state basis, the job picture continued to look grim for states like Nevada, Michigan, and our very own California. These states reported unemployment rates higher than a whopping 12%, while the national average rate is only 9.6%. A total of 27 states recorded higher unemployment rates in August (compared to only 14 states for July).
Nevada had the worst rate for the fourth month in a row (with 14.4%, a record high), while Michigan followed with a close 13.1%. California recorded a 12.4% unemployment rate, and rounded out the top three states with the highest rates.
The western states seemed to be hit particularly hard, with its jobless rate rising to 10.8%. For Western states, "nothing really gets better until the housing market stabilizes," said Steve Cochrane, an economist at Moody's Analytics.
Based on the map below, the more red the state, the higher the unemployment rate.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Or will our battle with unemployment rage on?

To Label, or Not to Label?

As Courtney mentioned earlier, genetically modified salmon from AquaBounty Technologies Inc. may be the first genetically modified animal that is meant to be eaten (with the approval of the FDA). There is now a debate about whether or not the genetically modified salmon should be labeled to notify consumers that the salmon has been genetically altered. The industry representatives want the FDA to continue following the current labeling rules, which only requires GMOs to be labeled if there is "something materially different about the product" (Jennifer Corbett Dooren, Wall Street Journal). The industry representatives would not be in favor of labeling the genetically modified salmon because the labels will cause consumers to think twice about what they are buying and could deter the consumers from buying the genetically modified salmon even though there is no significant "material" difference, it just grows twice as fast as a normal salmon. No, the engineered salmon may not be different if we are talking about the "level of fatty acids," which is the same as conventional salmon, but there is a "material" difference in every single cell of the salmon. And, that "material" is DNA and there is a difference in the nucleic acids of the fish. True, if we considered DNA and the nucleic acids, all GMOs would need to be labeled, but there is a difference that consumers should know about because consumers should also have the right to know that their food has been genetically modified. This is different from the example in the Wall Street Journal article about the labeling of milk from cows that were given a growth hormone to produce more milk because the "milk produced by treated and untreated cows is exactly the same" (www.dairycouncilof ca.org) and the hormones only affect the cow to make it produce more milk. The salmon on the other hand is genetically different in every cell, and consumers ought to know if the salmon they are buying is genetically modified.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399404575506340629229692.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

http://www.dairycouncilofca.org/Milk-Dairy/MilkTypes.aspx

Did PG&E Do Enough?

As we all know, there was a catastrophic gas line explosion in San Bruno a couple of weeks ago that was very tragic and devastating. No one debates that fact. But now that we have acknowledge what happened, it is time to look at what happened and analyze what could have been done and/or what should be done now. Unlike the BP in the gulf Oil Spill which caused months worth of "exciting" news for the media to report, in my opinion, PG&E has taken ownership of the problem and has taken appropriate action to counter their mistake.

I don't believe that PG&E was negligent in its handling of the situation. According to fire crews, PG&E was extremely helpful in fixing the immediate problem. Despite this, many people claim that they had reported leaking gas to PG&E without much effect or action on its part. However, at this point, nobody really knows the FACTS, and most claims against PG&E are merely alleged. That is something I cannot make judgment on. State Sen. Mark Leno has vowed to investigate said allegations to see if PG&E needs to be held to more punishments.
To remedy the situation, PG&E gave $100 Million to residents affected by the explosion which, to be honest, doesn't translate to much per household. This to me is very honorable of PG&E and I'm glad they voluntarily paid and took ownership, but to be honest, I don't know how/if that money will translate to the residents affected. I hope that PG&E remains to be faithful to fixing this situation and I hope that they continue to take responsibility for this fiasco. In the meantime I respect what PG&E has already done and I hope it continues such efforts.

Love, The Power Gay

P.S. In case you haven't seen my comments from my previous post, I hope nobody was offended by either the title or anything said in the article. I agree, the tone was rather snarky and forward and perhaps too blunt. But I stand behind the content of what was said, if not the manner in which it was presented. My intention was not to insult anybody, but as Mr. Silton correctly observed "Your intention doesn't mean jack" (irony duly noted ;) ). If you were offended PLEASE let me know so we can have a nice productive conversation on the subject. And again, my sincerest apologies if you were offended. Furthermore, the face-lift line was a JOKE. Materialistic and shallow as it was, that's my kind of humor and I'm sorry if you don't subscribe to said style. Anyway, peace 'yall.

Google Transparency: A Look Into Declining Internet Freedom

Google's done it again! The week, they released a new online tool called 'Google Transparency.' This new application is an online report that shows internet censorship around the world. And, like all things Google-related, this new tool is definitely holding the spotlight. Contrary to popular belief, countries like Iran and China aren't the only places that have internet censorship. Thanks to this new application, people are able to see that countries ranging from Germany to Turkey to Australia and even to Thailand, all have some type of internet censorship. Google Transparency includes an interactive map that shows how many requests countries have made for Google to block or remove content.
Through this tool, users are also able to explore specific censorship instances. In Thailand, for example, Google was asked to remove YouTube videos that showed the Thai king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, with his feet near his head. Since their national law bans such offensive representations, they opted for the video to be removed, and Google agreed, however the video is still available in other countries. After "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" (an online protest in support of free speech) earlier this year, Pakistan similarly blocked YouTube for 10 days, as Google Transparency shows. Google said it hopes Transparency will help shed light on how the internet differs from country to country, and on the efforts of nations to block internet content.
However, their are some flaws in Google Transparency. Data about how many times countries have asked Google to remove content, as well as how many times they have requested information about Google users, is not uniform. It also does not include China because providing such information is illegal under Chinese law.
Dorothy Chou, a Google policy analyst who worked on the project, said, "The openness and freedom that have shaped the internet as a powerful tool has come under threats from governments who want to control that technology," and hopes that Google Transparency will be able to protect this internet freedom.
So what are your thoughts on Google's latest tool? Sure, it proves that internet censorship is happening all across the globe. But what is it doing to prevent it?

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Battle Rages On!

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, here's a quick low-down. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,"sometimes referred to as DADT, is the policy used to restrict the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members. It prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation while serving in the U.S. armed forces. It basically means what it's called: Don't Ask. Don't Tell.
Republicans and some GOP senators are in favor of keeping sexual orientation a secret, and thereby support the DADT policy. Democrats, on the other hand, are fighting to repeal this act, but their efforts are easier said than done. They need a total of 60 votes to open debate on this matter, and the only way they stand a chance of getting the numbers is to earn the vote of either Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, two Republican senators who are against the bill. However, it seems unlikely that either of these senators will join the Democratic stand, at least for this act.
The debate over this act has brought along hoards of people protesting and rallying for and against DADT. However, the advocate gaining the most media attention over this issue seems to be famous pop singer Lady Gaga. Fighting for the repeal of DADT, this celebrity pushed for the two senators to join the Democratic cause.

So what are your thoughts on this issue? Should DADT stay in place, or should we listen to Gaga's guidance: "If you are not honorable enough to fight without prejudice, go home."?

Genetically Modified Salmon

Although genetically modified crops have started to become more accepted in society, the FDA faces a decision about genetically modified animals. AquaBounty claims that it has genetically engineered a salmon that grows twice as fast, yet is still safe to eat. However, there are naturally many fears associated with genetically modified animals. If the FDA approves the genetically modified fish, then it will open the door to modifying other animals as well. Many also worry that genetically modified salmon may contain dangerous allergens, as it has never been eaten before. Not only a risk for humans, these new genetically modified salmon may have a detrimental effect on the normal salmon. Already a diminishing population, the normal salmon could not compete with the modified salmon. If a modified fish was to intermingle with the normal fish and procreate, then the modified ones would eat more food and have a negative effect on the natural salmon. However, AquaBounty says that the fish will be bred and contained in pools separate from the natural salmon, and will be in better conditions than many farmed salmon.

So, is this a fish or a frankenfish? Should we take advantage of these scientific advances, or stay out of nature? Although this could bring many benefits to food production, it also has the possibility of disrupting the food chain and containing dangerous allergens. This decision will have a HUGE impact on the future, with the possibility of a huge range of animals being genetically modified. Although I am extremely impressed with the Biotech industry and their accomplishments, genetic modification still makes me a little nervous. Although it is beneficial, I don't like the idea of changing nature. However, I am open to opinions and cannot wait to hear how the FDA will respond.

North Carolina's Death Penalty

The Racial Justice Act is new piece of legislation that was added in North Carolina last year, but the consequences of the law are still being debated. The Racial Justice Act requires "judges to let any inmate off death row if the judge finds that race was a 'significant factor' in the death sentence" and allows "future capital-murder defendants to claim racial bias" (Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal). Instead of being on death row, if the convict's case is successful in arguing that racial bias was a major factor in the death sentence, the defendant would have life sentences without a chance of parole. Although I would like to believe that the juries that convict the defendants are not skewed by the race of the defendant, such wishful thinking is just not true. I am in favor of justifying those defendants whose death penalty may have been wrongfully determined, but the Racial Justice Act just makes it too easy for the inmates to claim racial-bias of the jury to delay their sentence. In fact, 152 of the 159 inmates on death row have filed claims about racial bias regarding their death sentence. Not only will the trials take months to process and actually finish, but it is also difficult to prove that "race was a 'significant factor' in the death sentence." Not all cases will have the concrete evidence to prove there was racial bias in the decision of the inmates' sentences. In addition the new law "allows murder defendants to try to prove bias through broad statistical evidence, such as data showing that North Carolina prosecutors. . . have sought the death penalty more frequently against black defendants or in cases involving a white victim" (Nathan Koppel, Wall Street Journal). I just think it's ridiculous that "broad statistical evidence" could even be considered evidence in the first place. It is too easy to overgeneralize and skew the statistics to favor the defendant. On one hand the North Carolina prosecutors may be using the death penalty more for black defendants because the prosecutors are bias, but on the other hand, the death penalty may be used because there are just more black defendants who deserve the death sentence. I completely agree with the North Carolina Republican legislator Sarah Stevens' remark that "you shouldn't try a case on statistics. . . [because] statistics can be manipulated."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362404575479793817782142.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

Child Passenger Safety Week

Today is the first day of Child Passenger Safety Week. Not really much to say here, other than that the name of the week essentially summarizes its purpose. In reality, the issues of child safety, especially in vehicles, are important ones to take note of. Between January and July of this year, 23 children died as a result of being left or stuck in cars. Another 4 children are killed every day in car crashes. If you have younger siblings, cousins, neighbors, or kids you babysit, take a moment to check out this website about child safety in cars and make sure your family and friends are protecting their important cargo. And always remember: Safety First!

American "spy" back from Iran

Detained beginning in July 2009 and suspected of espionage, Sarah Shourd is finally home, safe and sound. Two other Americans, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattel, have not been so lucky and are still in an Iranian prison. All three were arrested by the Iranian government last summer when they strayed over the Iraq-Iran border on a hike. After having been detained for 410 days, Shourd was released after concerns about her health, which has turned out to be fine. While Bauer and Fattel's mothers are glad Shourd has returned, they continue to fear for and wish to see their sons.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that he may allow the return of the two American men if Iranian nationals held in American prisons are also released. This statement has raised worries that the three innocent Americans have become pawns in an often heated international discussion about Iran's nuclear development. Since the Iranian government has determined Ms. Shourd had no "ill intention" when she crossed the border, and the three Americans were together at that time, it is clear to me that the Iranian government ought to also accept the truth that all three strayed into Iranian territory accidentally and release the remaining two prisoners. On what grounds do they still hold the men?

Christine O'Donnell and her "witchcraft"

There has been a lot of talk lately about the Tea Party and its surprising strength. Christine O'Donnell is the name often associated with this party; she is the Delaware GOP party candidate. Reflecting the conservative views of her party, she has been gaining lots of popularity and hopes to gain a seat in the Senate.

.... and she "dabbled into witchcraft"? When I saw this, I was not sure how to react. This old television clip shows her saying that not only did she experiment with witchcraft, but had a picnic on a "satanic altar." Watch the video above for more details. Should we be worried? I think no. Although this is strange and may be somewhat disturbing to some, it probably does not mean much. Everyone has their interesting backgrounds and she was a crazy teenager at one point like everyone else. Now, if this had been a more recent event, I would be a little worried. However, I am sure that she is no longer attached to these witchcraft ideals. People are always able to dig up dirt in politicians' backgrounds, and I don't think that this clip should be held against her. However, initially, I was extremely shocked.

"Dream Act"

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors bill (Dream Act), which is sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois, would give some illegal immigrants a chance to become U.S. citizens. The Dream Act would "grant six years of legal residency to high-school graduates who have lived in he U.S. continuously for five years and arrived by the age of 15. They would become eligible for citizenship if they attend college or serve in the military for two years during the legal residency period" (Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal). Although the Dream Act would encourage youths to go to college and join the military, the bill can be likened to an "amnesty program for children whose parents broke U.S. immigration laws" (Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal).

In opposition to the Dream Act, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alaska thinks that the Dream Act would encourage more people to illegally immigrate to the U.S. Sessions said, "when you take a policy that says you are going to reward people who have entered our country illegally with a guaranteed pathway to citizenship, and with billions of dollars in financial aid or benefits they would not otherwise be entitled to, what message are we sending?" First of all, to refute Sessions' argument, the Dream Act would not "guarantee" illegal immigrant youths a "pathway to citizenship." Indeed there will be a possible pathway to citizenship, but only if the youth meets the requirements of the act. The requirements include: the youth must not be "deportable under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality Act," "has never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or removal," and "is a person of good moral character." (www.govtrack.us) Personally I don't think the "person of good moral character" requirement is specific enough. Who is to say what constitutes to "good moral character?" Sure, there are some pretty objective ones like the youth should not have murdered anyone because that's a serious criminal offense, but what if the youth shoplifted once? Does that make the youth ineligible because it's bad "moral character?" The bill should be more specific and define "good moral character." I do, however, agree with Sessions in that the youths would be rewarded with financial aid and other benefits that would cost billions of dollars. Perhaps I partially oppose the bill because I am applying to college and I can use all the money that I can get, but I oppose the fact that the youths would be able to receive "higher education assistance" that would otherwise go to citizens who also need the money. Although I also don't think that we should be "reward[ing]" people who have entered the U.S. illegally, I don't have a problem letting the youths join the military if they are patriotic and want to. The college part of the bill just poses a problem to me because of the whole financial aspect of it and how funds will be distributed. It's hard to say if the Dream Act will actually encourage people to illegally immigrate to the U.S., but it definitely adds to the reasons to do so because of the increase of opportunity to not only get higher education in college, but also to gain citizenship. A striking number is that "about 825,000 youngsters in the country illegally would likely qualify for legal status under the bill" (Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal). The military does seem to generally support the Dream Act because, as Louis Caldera said, "recruiters at stations were telling [her] it would be extremely valuable for these patriotic people to be allowed to serve our country."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-729

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858304575498072319915164.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

The New American Dollar

Is the United States currency in need of a makeover? The people at the Dollar Rede$ign Project think so. They began an online project, collecting designs for new currency. The theory is that new currency, by being brighter, bolder, and new, will inspire American citizens to be more interested in the economy- and spending their money. If the new money was more interesting, the economy would be stimulated as people used their money just to try it out.

A brief history of the American dollar: Before the Revolutionary War, the colonists used English, Spanish, and French currencies. Massachusetts was the first state to issue paper currency in 1690. Our currency was named the "dollar" in 1775, and the central government first issued treasury notes (called Demand Notes) during the Civil War. Beginning in 1862, United States Notes, called "greenbacks" replaced Demand Notes and were printed until 1971. A standardized design that we now recognize was implemented in 1929, and security measures such as microprinting were first utilized in 1990.

The new designs range widely, and many are extremely different from the dark green bills we are used to. Those pictured above are vertical, reflecting a study done that revealed more people deal with their money vertically than horizontally. Others are loosely based on the Euro design in an effort to encourage cooperation with European countries. Some include images of important Americans in history, including Barack Obama, Amelia Earhart, and Martin Luther King Jr. Others list important American values: equality, liberty, justice, creativity. Some have images of transportation, others are just patterns. Each set includes a design for every bill, and each bill has the important information: "United States of American," the denomination, etc.

The people at the Dollar Rede$ign Project are no longer accepting designs, but have opened voting for the best design. They also have created petition to encourage the government to consider a redesign of our American currency to stimulate the economy. Check out the various designs, pick a favorite and vouch for it. Or, express a reason to keep our old dollar design. Is a radically new design worth it, or will it just confuse check out clerks around the country? If you support a new dollar design, what would you like to see on our cash? Why?

Lady Gaga against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Whether wearing an outfit covered in lace, or a dress with meat on it, Lady Gaga attracts a lot of attention. With a wide fan base and amazing publicity, Lady Gaga manages to stay in the spotlight with her music and performances. However, she is also the topic of a lot of controversy. Recently, she has decided to go all out in her efforts to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. As we all know, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. A hugely controversial topic, Lady Gaga claims that gays and lesbians are not being treated fairly and urges her "lil monsters" to lend their support. On Tuesday, she urged them to call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule the vote. Although this was successful, many Republicans lead by Senator John McCain threaten to filibuster the "don't ask don't tell" repeal which is included in a Defense Department budget bill. On Friday morning, she created a video, to which I have linked to above, in which she urges her followers to call their senators and support the repeal of this policy. In the video, she singles out Senators John McCain, Mitch McConnel, James Inhofe, and Jeff Sessions urging the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

Although many people despise Lady Gaga and her attention-seeking ways, I am impressed with her efforts to repeal this policy. I think that she is smart to take advantage of her millions of fans and channel them towards something she believes in. Gay rights advocates have been trying for years with protests, demonstrations, etc to promote equality and have not been able to make a huge amount of impact. However, because Lady Gaga already has the publicity, her voice is definitely heard.

On the other hand, many people believe that this is just not her place. How does she expect to be taken seriously as she traipses around in her underwear? She does not have enough knowledge regarding this controversy to be able to make a convincing argument.

Lady Gaga is definitely an interesting character, but regarding this policy, her motives seem sincere. She actually took a group of homosexual soldiers who had been discharged from the military to the MTV video music awards as her guests. I respect her efforts, although slightly unconventional, and hope that they make a difference in the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Meg Whitman Buying Governorship

Meg Whitman gave herself another $15 million dollars today, bringing the total amount of her personal fortune spent on this race to $119 million dollars. This beats the previous record holder, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, who spent $109.2 million, or $186 per voter. Meg Whitman has spent more of her own personal fortune than any politician running for any office in America (national, state, or local) in history. Her Democratic competitor, Jerry Brown, has only acquired $30 million for his entire campaign thus far.

The money Meg Whitman has spent on her campaign could pay for:

• 1,652 full time Aragon teachers (at the 2003/04 average salary)
• 29,750 $4,000 FASFA grants
• 732,026 months of food stamps for 4 person families in California
• 5,950,000 backpacks with school supplies for underprivileged children

So far, Meg Whitman has spent $3.22 on every person in California, or $5.17 on every registered voter. It seems clear to me that she is literally paying for the votes by simply spending more money than her opponent. History shows us that valid debate is what lives on in history, and results in actual forward progress for the nation. Do deep pockets and a willingness to spend money accomplish the same thing? Is it fair that Meg Whitman can outspend her competitor to such a degree?

1 in 7 Americans lives in poverty

What a shocking and deeply saddening point. 1 in 7. This means that in one of your average classes, there are 4 or 5 people who are suffering from poverty.

In 2008, the poverty rate was 13.2%, or 39.8 million people. In 2009, it had risen to 14.3%, or 43.6 million people. The percent of Americans without health coverage also rose from 15.4% to 16.7%, mostly due to a loss of employer-provided health insurance. Many people (typically Republicans) blame the Obama administration. They claim that it is his fault that the poverty rate increased since the Bush administration, and that his help plans are not working. However, Obama states that it could have been much worse. Through his Recovery Act, he believes that he has kept millions of Americans out of poverty. Although his programs include providing tax relief and income support, many Republicans argue that these are not the right solutions. They say that people need jobs, not just government benefits. The Obama administration has created a new health law that will cover millions more impoverished people, but it will not be implemented until 2014. Therefore, the situation does show signs of improving any time soon.

This is interesting because the country is facing the same issues that it has countless times throughout history. The Republicans are fighting for a "trickle down" method in which money is granted to businesses first so that impoverished people eventually have steady jobs, while the Democrats vie for the "trickle up" method in which impoverished people are given money right away. Typically, I would side with the "trickle up" method, but seeing how badly the poverty rate has increased makes me think twice. Although I understand the reasoning behind the "trickle down" method, I am still uneasy about the fact that money is not given directly to those who need it. If only there was some way to combine "trickle down" and "trickle up" so we wouldn't have to choose...

Thoughts?

Low Vaccination Rates Put Students at Risk

Although California requires that children "must be up-to-date with their immunizations for polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B and chickenpox" (Katharine Mieszkowski, NY Times), there are loop holes and exceptions that allow children to begin school without their shots. The exception is that the parents or guardians can sign a form that would allow children to not take the vaccines because of a "personal-belief exemption." The percent of kindergardeners who are vaccinated in schools in the bay area is about 92%, which is good because 84-95% is the range that would be considered adequate protection, but there are certain areas where there is a significantly low percent of kindergardeners who have received all their vaccinations, and that poses a risk to the students. Only 12% percent of the kindergardeners at Sebastopol Independent Charter School have all their vaccines and only 29% of the kindergardeners at Anna Yates Elementary School have their vaccines. The low percentage of students who have gotten their shots poses a serious health risk to the children. If one kindergardener falls sick with whooping cough, all the other children who have not gotten the vaccination will be in danger of catching whooping cough as well. And in the case of Sebastopol Independent Charter School, that's 88% of kindergardeners. And, let's face it, kids are dirty. They don't wash their hands if there isn't someone telling them to, they cough and sneeze all over everything, including each other, toys and crayons, and they go on sharing their germs to other kids. Sharing is definitely not caring when it comes to these illnesses. "Marin and Sonoma Counties have reported the highest rates of whooping cough in the Bay Area this year, They also have the highest local rates of personal-belief exemption." Although whooping cough may not be fatal in children over the age of 1, whooping cough can lead to bronchitis, pneumonia, and ear infections that are more serious. It's good that the state gives parents the choice to allow their child to be exempt from the vaccinations because of the "personal-belief exemption," but in this case, limiting this choice would be more reasonable because exempting children from getting the shots endangers the public health and safety.

A Venn Diagram is Worth a Thousand Words

h/t -- Sullivan (which means, a tip of the hat to Andrew Sullivan, whose blog is where I came across this content -- a nice informal way of giving credit to your sources). The diagram itself apparently was original posted at a site called Get Religion and while I believe the number of American Muslims is overstated, the point stands. The extremists control the debate, at our peril.

Proposition 19

One of the more controversial propositions that will be in California's November 2010 ballot is Prop 19. Prop 19 is an initiative statute that would legalize marijuana in California and allow local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. The New York Times reported that Prop 19 gained support from "some former law enforcement officials, including police officers, judges, and prosecutors."

Although there are some viable arguments for Prop 19, Prop 19 also has many weaknesses and consequences. Those in favor of Prop 19 argue that millions of dollars that are paid by taxpayers go toward enforcing the prohibition of marijuana, the taxpayer's money can be better spent catching violent criminals, California can profit from marijuana sales because, under Prop 19, marijuana can be regulated and taxed, there are penalties for driving under the influence, only adults 21 and older can purchase it, there will be safety controls on marijuana, and the drug cartels that deal marijuana would be cut from its funding. On the other hand, the money made from marijuana taxes would probably have to go to repairing the damages caused by people driving under the influence. Even though there would be penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana, the consequences don't stop people from driving under the influence of alcohol. Although Prop 19 would only allow individuals age 21 and over to buy marijuana, I doubt that would prevent teenagers from finding access to marijuana. In addition, Prop 19 isn't specific enough about what is considered driving under the influence. While there is the DUI test and other tests to see if someone is driving under the influence of alcohol, there isn't any description about driving under the influence of marijuana. Furthermore, as opposed to the current law that a worker can be removed from a job if he or she smells of alcohol or marijuana, if Prop 19 is passed a worker who is under the influence of marijuana can't be removed from the job until an accident occurs. Even if I were in favor of legalizing marijuana, Prop 19 isn't specific enough.

For more information on Prop 19 check out:

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/19-title-summ-analysis.pdf

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/19-arg-rebuttals.pdf

New Regulations on Shallow-Water Drilling

I think we all remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. People were outraged as tons and tons of oil leaked into the gulf, killing animals, polluting the water, and wasting oil. Since then, the government implemented a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the gulf and several new regulations on shallow-water drilling. Obtaining a permit to drill in the Gulf used to be a quicker and easier process, but now with the new regulations, many people in the oil industry are complaining. The new requirements include detailed spill response plans and responses to worst case scenarios, which are leading to setbacks and delays. Companies claim that this is costing them millions of dollars and leading to layoffs. An extremely small number of permits have been approved since the spill, but not because regulators are being more selective. Many companies have not even submitted applications for permits because they are so confused with the new intricate rules and requirements. However, the government states that it is not trying to make it harder on the industry, it is just trying to make it safer. Although I understand the frustration of the oil companies, I am not very sympathetic. After seeing what happened in the oil spill, I want the government to take every precaution. Kieran Suckling, the director of the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona states that the oil industry is just going to have to get used to not having a close and personal relationship with the regulators. Being more of an environmentalist myself, I am all for taking extra precautions when it comes to oil drilling and believe that the oil industry will just have to learn to follow the new rules. Thoughts?

For more information...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/14/national/a023045D68.DTL