Freedom of speech?

A man named Nathan Shafer was arrested for posting a Facebook comment that was viewed as a threat to South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. After 19 Occupy Columbia members were arrested, Haley posted that she "appreciate[s] freedom of speech," and in response to this, Shafer commented, "I hope someone murders you before I do. How's that for freedom of speech?" He did apologize and delete the comment, but is still being prosecuted for the threat.

Can Shafer's action be defended by The First Amendment, or is there a just reason to prosecute him? Is there only a certain extent to which freedom of speech overrules?

Something to think about: Several months ago, another man made online comments calling for Obama's assassination. A federal court upheld the fact that he was simply exercising his rights.

Mitt vs. Mitt

During the recent Republican debates it seems that Republican candidate Mitt Romney has had different opinions on contradicting issues such as Pro-choice and Anti-choice. As a result, many voters have noticed and questioned his views, but more importantly, Democrats have noticed as well. For example, according to the The New York Times article "Democrats Take Aim at Romney in New Ad" (click on Link), Romney makes a complaint against "Obamacare" claiming that it is, "mainly focused on its mandate that individuals buy coverage, not on the exchanges." However, Romney is in no position to put down "Obamacare" when, "He has been on both sides of the individual mandate issue, too."

On the other hand, Andrea Saul, Romney's Spokesperson, says “Instead of focusing on the economy and creating jobs, President Obama and Democrats are focused on tearing down Mitt Romney.”

Well, then what? Is it the Democrats who are at fault for focusing to much on tearing down Romney? Or should Romney be targeted for his contradicting views?

(If the video doesn't work you can see it if you click on the link)

Objectivity

This is a picture of the Occupy Protests in Zuccotti Park in New York, where the Occupy Wall Street Protests are being held. This picture definitely contrasts with the pictures that have been shown on the news recently. The majority of the pictures and videos of the protests have been negative, with reporters choosing to cover the event when violence erupts. I personally went to Occupy SF, expecting to see hundreds and hundreds of middle class nicely dressed young adults with bold signs and strong beliefs. The media seems to project to characters like this. However, what I really saw was about fifty smelly smokers. So much for objective news.

-Pictures by Ashley Gilbertson for New Yorker

NBA finally ends lockout

After months of tense negotiations that seemed to go on with no progress, the NBA and its players have agreed on a contract. This lockout started on July 1,2011. The lockout stated that any contact between players and team staff would be prohibited. Players were stuck without practice facilities and draft picks were without support from the team. The dispute was mainly over the split of Basketball Related Income, or BMI. The players had a 57.3% share of the BRI under the previous agreement, but the owners wanted to lower it to 50%. The two sides went back and forth for multiple months, until
"Sanity prevailed". Both sides realized they were losing significant amounts of money and became more willing to compromise as time went on.
The National Basketball Player's Association was a labor union that represented all NBA players. In October, the NBPA decided to disband and convert themselves into a trade association. There are no signifcant differences between the two terms, however, workers are not forced to join trade associations. After the reorganization, the NBPA filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the NBA. This seemed to scare the NBA, and an agreement was reached soon after.

The question is, was the anti-trust lawsuit legal?

"Decertification is a weapon that the union has, and if it is upheld, then there is no grounds for a lockout, it becomes illegal. But if the NFL owners win the ruling, it makes decertifying a lot less attractive for the NBA players and gives owners an upper hand.”

Courts can determine whether the decertification is actually a legitimate one or simply a trick used by the players association. Labor agreements are always complicated, especially in businesses such as the NBA, where there are few jobs to compare to, and with the possibility of strike breakers being non-existant (unless fans want to watch the Waikiki Warriors). Just an example of good-old somewhat legal bargaining in the United Staes.

Black Friday sales figures beat expectations

Sales figures for Black Friday have been posted, with consumers spending 16.4% more than in the previous year. This data comes from a survey from the National Retail Federation; according to the data, total sales figures hover around 52 billion dollars, an increase from 45 billion last year. The high numbers come as a surprise to some analysts, which expected sub par figures.
There are multiple factors which have contributed to the high figures. Many consumers were turned away at the idea of enduring the harsh cold for hours immediately after a large meal, so this year retailers decided to open at midnight as opposed to the later hours of the night.
A recently coined term by retailers is "Cyber Monday", a continuation of the busiest shopping weekend of the year. Cyber monday is held solely online, thus the "cyber" designation. This was created due to an increase in online spending, with over 25% of consumers planning on shopping online this holiday season. This catering of Black Friday to this crowd has clearly proven successful for retailers, with over a billion being sold on Cyber Monday last year.
Consumer spending is known as a leading indicator to a recovering economy, and the strong figures may suggest this. However, only time will tell if this is a true recovery. The hard efforts by retailers to convince consumers into spending maybe more responsible for the increases in spending as opposed to an overall improvement in the economy.

Arab League imposes sanctions on Syria

The Arab League has imposed sanctions against Syria in a continued effort to try to end the bloodshed in the region. Moreover, it has called for the UN Security Council to pass a resolution to the same effect.

While Syria has been deeply economically damaged by economic sanctions by the EU and the United States, these new sanctions are expected to hit even harder. A large majority of Syria's trading partners are Arab nations. And even though, by design of the Arab League, countries which abstain or vote against the passed resolution do not have to adhere to the resolution's clauses (in this case, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon are likely not participating in the sanctions), the Arab League's move sent a broader symbolic message.

It should be remembered that the Arab League resolution suspending Libya from the Arab League was the pivotal point before international powers intervened in Libya. This new resolution on Syria may likely have a similar effect.

At the same time, it should be noted that the NATO General Secretary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has repeatedly said that there a NATO operation in Syria was out of the question. Certainly, the NATO engagement in Libya would differ greatly from a prospective on in Syria. One of the key differences between the two countries is geographical. In Libya, a majority of the population lived on the strip of land bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Meanwhile, the population in Syria is more interspersed. This would mean a campaign in Syria would likely involve more unintended victims.

Moreover, Syria still has many close regional allies. While Libya was practically deserted prior to Ghadaffi's downfall, Syria still has enormously close ties with Lebanon and increasingly nuclear Iran.

According the the Qatari foreign minister, the resolution did not specifically call for foreign military intervention. Rather, the sanctions were aimed at stopping the bloodshed in Syria. Still, many are worried that the imposition of economic sanctions will not hurt the government or the elite. Rather, many in Syria believe, as has been the case in many other countries, the imposition of economic sanctions will only hurt the poor. The New York Times article quoted a man saying:

“Those who couldn’t afford buying bread now can’t afford even smelling bread.”

It should be noted that the U.S. is now placed in an interesting position. The U.S. does stand to gain from a governmental change in Syria. The government of Assad, which favors the Alawite sect of Shi'ite Islam, is a state sponsor of Hezbollah. Hezbollah, a Lebanon based militant Islamic group which has a large amount of power in the Lebanese government, has a record for calling for the destruction of Israel. Moreover, it believed that Iran has been supplying Hezbollah weapons by proxy of Syria. If the Syrian government were to change to represent the Sunni plurality in Syria, Syria may drift away from the Iranian sphere of influence and take a more pro-compromise stance on the Palestine-Israeli conflict.

But at home and around the world, there are many reasons by which the US would be reluctant to engage in Syria. With the ongoing economic downturn, many in the U.S. believe that it is no time for another war. Moreover, elections come in but less than a year. Committing in Syria now would likely have repercussions during the voting season. Considering an international perspective, the Arab region dislikes American hegemony. Any move by the U.S. without Arab approval would make the U.S. seem like it is overstepping its boundaries.

At the same time, it should be noted that one of the reasons the international community was so quick to intervene in Libya was due to a feeling that the international community had failed in Rwanda. It could almost be said that there was a bit of a knee-jerk response by the international community which wanted to make amends and ensure that genocide did not take place once again.

In conclusion, the recent Arab League sanctions further complicate the situation in Syria. In the past, sanctions have often proven ineffective. In fact, the regimes in the DPRK (North Korea), Iran, and Cuba thrived off of sanctions. Considering that the U.S. and EU have already imposed sanctions on Syria and that two of Syria's major industries of tourism and oil have already slowed to a stop, these new sets of sanctions will likely have a greater symbolic meaning than an actual economic effect. Whether international sanctions will end the bloodshed in Syria is still a mystery, but as of right now, thinks in Syria are not looking bright for protesters.

In my opinion, if these sanctions prove ineffective, a Syrian mission is likely forthcoming.

Stuxnet

Andrew's earlier post that mentioned the current state of Iran's nuclear program reminded me of a few articles I read recently about one of the wildest things I have ever heard. Around mid-2009 programmers everywhere began discovering a computer worm that had infected industrial programs around the world. The worm was initially found in all kinds of places, with the only common thread being that it infected solely software made by the company Siemens, but after close examination it was determined that the purpose of the worm was to mess with the centrifuges at nuclear facilities.
It soon became clear that this worm, now being called Stuxnet, was meant as a direct attack on Iran's nuclear program when roughly 1/5 of Iran's nuclear centrifuges were destroyed. The virus works in a truly ingenious fashion, not only does it speed up the centrifuges that are responsible for enriching low quality uranium into weapons grade material until they are over-full with gas and explode, bust at the same time it sends false information to the monitoring centers at a plant that makes it seem like everything is normal and running just as it should be. Especially hard-hit was the Iranian nuclear facility Natanz, where over 1000 of their centrifuges exploded, causing the plant to shut down for over a year.
The origin of the worm is still technically unknown but there are strong clues that it was developed as a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to prevent or at least hinder Tehran's development of a nuclear weapon. For starters, in 2008 the U.S. government formed a partnership with many software manufacturers, including Siemens, to look for and fix potential cybervulnerabilities in their systems. This gave the government the opportunity to closely examine Siemens products, including the specific SCADA systems that were later targeted by the worm, as well as to identify several well-hidden holes in the software that the worm exploited. Then, earlier this year it was discovered that the Israelis had built a model facility that spun centrifuges identical to those in iran deep underground at the Dimona nuclear complex in the Negev Desert. This facility is said to have been the testing ground for the Stuxnet worm, to make sure it would work as plan once released.
Soon after the Stuxnet attacks began Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the head of Israel's Mossad announced separately that they believed that Iran's efforts to achieve nuclear arms capabilities had been set back by as much as five years, although Clinton cited increased U.S. sanctions and international pressure as the cause. Those estimates were amended to a one to two year set back and just recently, Iran seems to have finally overcome the damage caused by Stuxnet by developing a new generation of centrifuges that are both safer and faster.
I found all this information about the computer worm extremely interesting and it just shows the huge role cyber warfare currently has and will continue to have in global conflicts. That a crippling blow to an entire country's nuclear efforts was dealt with just an e-mail or USB drive is amazing.

"The pinnacle of Western Civilization"

I couldn't help but post my favorite article about the Black Friday madness. My favorite quote from this article:

"'Oh my God!' a woman screamed in the only sentence discernible among the high-pitched shrieks. One person commenting on the video wrote: 'The pinnacle of Western Civilization has arrived.'"

While this kind of phenomenon happens every year, I kind of wonder exactly what is it about America and Black Friday. I understand that it is a great boost of consumer confidence for America. But for some reason, I find the stories told every year come to sound like something from a satirical communist newspaper.

The CNN Foreign Policy Debate: Iran and Israel

To me, one of the most interesting portions of the CNN foreign policy debate was the section on Iran and Israel. I say this for two reasons.

First, the recent developments in Iran have been staggering. Two weeks ago the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released a report stating that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the IAEA speculates that Iran would have a nuclear weapon within a year if not within six months. This is certainly a stunning development considering that for years the IAEA, Iran, and the rest of the world have danced a shifty game about Iran's nuclear development.

Second, after the debate, I was reminded about a certain article that I had read earlier this year. Following Obama's tactical changes in middle east policy, the Jewish vote seems to have shifted slightly. In 2008, 8 out of 10 Jewish voters went to Obama. However, this may change considering Obama's recent position on Palestine. Of course the New York Times article (hyper-linked above) does qualify that the Jewish vote isn't a one-issue constituency, but I find it interesting how the Republican base has responded.

A CNN recap of the debate caught onto this trend. And I quote:

Republicans agree: We love Israel: Tuesday's debate made clear that in the wake of George W. Bush's eight years in office, the Republican Party lacks any sort of cohesive foreign policy vision.

There remains one point of consensus, however: That the United States should do whatever it takes to protect and defend Israel.

With the exception of Paul, the Republican candidates have all taken stridently pro-Israel positions throughout the campaign.

The ante was upped Tuesday by Romney, who made this promise: "If I'm president of the United States, my first trip -- my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region."

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said he would do the same.

Cain said he would side with Israel if it launched an attack on Iran to disable its nuclear capabilities.

Huntsman went out of his way to praise Israel later, saying this: "Our interest in the Middle East is Israel. And our interest is to ensure that ... Iran does not go nuclear."

So while Israel certainly isn't the most important hot topic issue in the nation right now. I find it interesting how these special interest groups are able to receive so much attention in foreign policy. (Especially considering how Obama has hinted that the United States should be shifting its foreign policy interests towards an Asia-PAC focus.) Certainly, the Jewish vote matters, especially in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, but is that the only reason the Republican nominees are so pro-Israel? While the Republican party has historically been pro-military, it seems more recently that, with the current economic problems, some portions of the Republican party have taken a rather isolationist twinge. That is, an isolationist twinge, with the exception of Israel.

Brazil Gets Ready For the World Cup

Earlier this November, a combined force of 3000 police officers and soldiers moved into Rocinha, one of the largest slums in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The operation, called "a pacification process" by the authorities, was the latest battle in the campaign being waged by the Brazilian government to gain control over the lawless slums run by drug-trafficking gangs that are all over Rio in advance of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics that are set to be held in the city. This newest raid, however, is very different from previous ones, such as the operation last November to clear another slum, the Complexo de Alemão, where authorities clashed with violent, armed drug gangs for over a week, leaving 41 dead and over 100 cars and buses burning in the streets. By contrast the raid on Rocinha went very peacefully, partly because of the much larger force used (3000 soldiers vs. just 800), but also partly because the arrest the day before the operation of Antônio Bonfim Lopes, the drug lord in command of Rocinha, left the traffickers there without a leader. Also notably absent this time were the accusations of abuse and corruption that had been so prevalent after Alemão. Residents claimed the government forces used excessive force and extorted money from them, and charges of corruption were given special weight after it was discovered that while 34 tons of marijuana, 692 ponds of cocaine, and over 400 firearms were confiscated, government forces reported that they had found only $68,000 in cash and the vast majority of the traffickers had somehow escaped arrest. Rocinha has received a much more positive response and is being touted by the government as a major success in the effort to establish control over Rio.
I personally think these kind of operations are the right thing for Brazil to do, not only because no one wants to see the World Cup or Olympics disrupted by gang violence, but also because it is a means for the government to raise the standard of living of its people. Brazil's economy is growing and its population is becoming wealthier but for the country to move from the ranks of the developing nations to those of the developed it needs to break the power of the drug lords and establish government control and the rule of law over the entire country, the marks of a first world nation.
In conclusion, Brazil still faces slum difficulties on its path to becoming a more stable and secure country.

The Umbrella Man

http://www.myvidster.com/video/3369552

The Korean free trade agreement passed

Yesterday, the South Korean Parliament finally passed the "Korus," better known as the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This piece of legislation was expected to pass weeks before; however, ongoing protests about fears of rising income inequality and youth unemployment swayed the political attitudes in Korea towards the left.

One of the interesting things about the passing of this legislation was the surprise vote held to pass the legislation. The Grand National Party (GNP) in Korea actually called a surprise vote to catch its opponents, the Democratic Labour Party, off guard. In a last attempt to sabotage the unfair vote, the Democratic Labour Party actually set off a canister of tear gas inside the chamber. If you want to see a video of the incident, click here.

This makes me start to wonder what the U.S. would be like if we could call house/senate votes without the presence of a party. Sure, we'd be able to get much more legislation passed;however, the legislation, as in the case of Korea, would only be the desires of one party. No compromise would be included. This, in some strange way makes me feel grateful that we have a legislative system that is in a sense slow at times. At least I know that in our Congress, the legislation is the result of compromise not of slim-majority ruling.

On a secondary note, does anyone have anything to say about the South Korea-U.S. trade agreement? I know that there has already been a post about it in the past. While this free trade agreement has aroused quite a bit of protesting in South Korea, it is to be noted that the dynamics of this free trade agreement and the dynamics of NAFTA are different. South Korea's economic production differs greatly from that of the NAFTA agreement states and thus the implications of this FTA will be different from that of NAFTA.

Democracy, Republic and Technocracy in Europe

This isn't exactly the most "national" affair, but I do think that the material is relevant to our discussions in class. The video is a speech given by Nigel Farage in the European Parliament.

To understand what Farage is talking about, you need to understand that while many of the Presidents of countries in Europe are elected, a large number of positions in the EU including the President of the EU are selected in a republican form. That is, people don't vote directly for the the president, but rather, people vote for the representatives who chose the position holders of the EU system.

Farage furthers this discussion to the actions recently taken in Italy. After Prime Minister Berlusconi was ousted, technocrat Mario Monti was installed into the governmental seat in Italy. To understand what a technocrat is, read this. One of the most defining figures of a technocrat is the fact that a technocrat is not elected to office. Rather, a technocrat is placed into office for relative skill.

While one pro of a technocrat is a lack of political baggage, one fault of a technocrat is a the fact that they don't have any political legitimacy, and if things don't go well backlash from the citizens is likely to be strong.

Considering the current trend, it is to be asked, do you think the recent trends to "Technocracy" are a good thing?

What's the Answer to the U.S.A.'s Financial Woes?

Economic experts Warren Gee and Nate Doug say, "Regulate."

News of the Day

1) Egypt
For the past few days much of the world's attention has been focused on a new outbreak of protests and unrest in Egypt. The protesters have been fighting with police and military forces since the 19th for control of Tahrir Square in Cairo, the symbolic heart of the January revolution against President Hosni Mubarak, citing the recent conduct of the military council that is currently in control of the transitional government as the cause of their anger. The 18 member council has been accused of delaying upcoming parliamentary elections that would create a new government and have said things about maintaining a leading role in the post-elections government. Many protesters say they feel betrayed by the military government. During the revolution the army was a major partner in the ousting of Mr. Mubarak but now the military is seen as just another self-interested faction bent on concentrating and keeping power and is quickly losing legitimacy with the Egyptian people.

2)The Republican Debate

In the latest of the 27 Republican debates scheduled for this primary season, the 8 candidates faced off over national security issues like terrorism, Iran, and illegal immigration. I thought several of the candidates performed well, including Newt Gingrich who after his recent rise in the polls had his turn as the focus for much of the questions and criticism in the debate but he managed to express his views well despite that and was even bold enough to take what is a controversial position in the Republican Party on illegal immigration. The debate was an opportunity for Herman Cain to show that he had shored up his knowledge of foreign policy after being highly criticized for his recent remarks many have likened to the blunders made by Sarah Palin during the 2008 election and he managed to avoid making any huge mistakes but overall it was not a great showing for the beleaguered candidate. My favorites from the debate were Ron Paul and John Huntsman who were critical of their fellow candidates for wanting to extend the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, taking harsh stances on Iran, and endorsing the use of racial profiling of Muslims to catch suspected terrorists. John Huntsman had a particularly heated exchange with Mitt Romney over the war in Afghanistan and was able to show off the foreign policy experience he gained from being ambassador to China.

3)Russia and Belarus

President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia announced on Wednesday that if the United States continues with its plans for developing a missile-defense shield in Europe, his country will withdraw from the New Start treaty and place its own missiles in places like Belarus and along the border with Poland. The shield, meant to help protect the U.S. from long-range missiles launched from the Middle East or North Africa, has been vigorously opposed by Russia since the idea's conception in 2002.
Belarus, on the other hand, recently announced that it is going back on the agreement it made in December 2010 to hand over its stockpile of highly enriched Uranium to Russia by the beginning of 2012. It is the only former Soviet republic besides Russia to have any weapons-grade uranium after the U.S. was able to secure nearly all of the enriched fuel in the region quickly after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Belarus, however, refused to hand over its stockpile and has since used it as a bargaining chip in diplomacy to get foreign aid and loans. President Aleksandr Lukashenko, who is called Europe's last dictator, has said that the transfer will not be restarted until the United States lifts sanctions against his country that have been in place since earlier this year after his fraudulent election and harsh crackdown on the opposition party in December.

4) Yemen

President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen signed an agreement today saying that he will relinquish power to his vice-president and that elections for a new president will occur within 90 days. The announcement comes more than 10 months after the protests in Yemen began and make Mr. Saleh the fourth Middle Eastern leader to be removed since the protests of the "Arab Spring" began earlier this year. However this is a very different situation from Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt because of the entire government being thrown out and replaced, in Yemen it is simply Saleh resigning. His vice president is still there, his government is still there, and the family members that he appointed to top state positions are still there. For this reason, the Yemeni protesters say this agreement is not enough and that they will continue to protest until more lasting change is achieved. They are also bothered by immunity clauses for Mr. Saleh, whom they want prosecuted in international court.

5)Biblical News

The Vatican today announced the findings of a study of a new section of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The study was authored by top officials from the Middle Eastern Institute of Biblical Study in partnership with American rapper Kanye West and the translations confirmed West's 2004claim that Jesus walks.

SAT cheating scandal grows

Recently, there has been an unraveling cheating scandal in Long Beach. 20 students who attend high schools in Long Beach have been accused of cheating on the SAT. This specific cheating scandal involves students who are paid to impersonate other students and take the SAT and ACT. One specific impersonator, Sam Eshaghoff, was reportedly paid up to $3,500 to take an SAT test.

Now, Nassau County is prosecuting many of the students under charges of scheming to defraud, falsifying business records, and criminal impersonation. I think this brings up a good discussion about the jurisdiction of the government.

Is this issue an issue of the Educational Testing Service alone? Does the government have jurisdiction over cheating? According to the New York Times article (Click on title for the link), a lawyer defending one the 20 accused students say that:

"While no one condones cheating, we have a school system that is separate and apart from the criminal justice system, and we have that for good reason."

Meanwhile, according to the article, Kathleen M. Rice argues that:

"This is a crime. Make no mistake that, as the system stands now hard working students are taking a back seat to the cheaters."

I guess my overall question is whether or not cheating is an actual crime. I certainly do not believe that cheating is in any way fair; however, we do not have any law against it. Do the charges placed upon these students have legitimacy? And even if these charges do have legitimacy, does that mean that all cheating is illegal? Or are only cases in which impersonation takes place illegal? There are certainly other ways to cheat on the SAT. Is regulating cheating within the jurisdiction of the government and is it a responsibility of the government?

Rick Santorum Should Give Up

I am getting tired of reading about this Former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum who I can only remember from losing Senate elections back in 2006. Is this guy really still confident in making a difference in next presidential elections? I think this guy is a real unworthy opponent, lagging in recent polls competing at 5th or 6th place for Republican candidates in the upcoming elections.

How does Santorum expect to get things passed with a mouth so implusive as his? Saying things like he almost threw up before speeches and earlier on this year saying he would pee in a cup to show he is a worthy contender. I don't know how that would help anything because whether or not he comes up positive for drugs, I still always thought he was an ill opponent. This guy already has controversial sex scandals. I can't wait for him to say more embarrassing things while getting eaten up by the press. So I give the best of luck to Mr. Santorum and tell him to keep saying whats on his mind like he has been doing because it seems to be working out for him.

Romney Blames President Obama For Current Defficit Problems

Mitt Romney spoke out to people explaining how he feels that President Obama is at fault for the collapsing deficit issues in America. He took direct shots at the President saying, Obama has done nothing to handle the situation and has completely avoided it. Romney went on to say that Obama has "been out doing other things — campaigning, and blaming, and traveling." Not things that he should be doing. Mitt also went on to bash and disagree with President Obama's plan to cut military spending saying that, “In a setting like this, the idea that we’re going to devastate our military is simply unacceptable.”

U.S. Occupation of Australia

This past Wednesday, Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard agreed to station 2,500 American Marines in Australia to “help strengthen the alliance between the U.S. and Australia.” However, to others this was clearly a response to China’s recent purchase of her first aircraft carrier—an weary move made to watch over China’s threatening naval growth and influence over South East Asia.

Recently, trade has been disrupted in the region because of China’s competition. By moving troops to Australia, Obama is asserting to China America’s presence in the region’s trading business. However, because China is Australia’s most important trading partner, American occupation of Australia won’t have much power in decreasing China’s influence in Australian trading.

The U.S.’s move may have caused tension in the Trans Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations, by deterring China from joining. The organization's goal is to lower trade global trade barriers and promote economic expansion. 

Was it really wise of the U.S. to move naval troops into Australia? Can it really help solve our trade problem there? Not to disregard the intimidation factor of establishing troops in a nation an ocean away, but I feel that the U.S. could have been directing its time and resources towards more efficient methods of improving her trade condition in South East Asia, such as establishing better trade relationships in the region, instead of raising tensions.

Could Black Friday Be A Start To Saving The Economy?

Black Friday may be one of the most morally questionable holidays in America. We have dedicated a day specifically for binge buying products (that we probably wouldn’t even use) only because they are marked with a significant discount. But as author Adam Davidson put it, “Black Friday is essentially a one day economic stimulus plan and job creation program.” It’s true—with the current state of our economy, most people spend the year saving on this and that, only to spend Black Friday splurging everything they have saved, thus injecting billions of dollars into the system.

                Successful Black Friday sales have given mixed predictions for the year—previously, big sales symbolized a successful year for businesses. However, more recently, big sales have been followed by a slow year. With the economic downturn, people rush to buy everything at discounted prices and immediately start saving up again the next day.

So what if we extended the Black Friday sales? We could stimulate the economy by following Black Friday with a series of smaller sales, convincing people to continue spending. But extended low prices will result in lower profits, which in turn create a vicious cycle of increased unemployment, lower prices, and less spending.

                To avoid this situation, after Black Friday businesses could raise prices just enough to convince consumers there is risk of inflation. Under the impression that prices will keep rising, consumers will start purchasing instead of keeping their money in savings, thus putting more money into circulation.

                Using inflation as a tool to heal our economy may strike some as absurd, especially since it was one of the main reasons why America is in a recession. But at this point, it's crucial to convince people that they need to spend; otherwise the economy will never be out of risk, as reflected in the uncertain and not entirely promising unemployment numbers. But even though inflation may have caused our current recession, could it bring our economy out of its slump as well?

Not a Climate for Change

We've learned that the Constitution designed the system to be difficult to change. Passing laws is hard, and making amendments can seem nigh impossible. And in many a case, it's easy to attribute slow-moving legislative progress to this intrinsic quality of our government.

However, there's a point where resistance to change becomes more of a barrier to progress and success than anything else. This is the case in the instance of the NOAA's request for the creation of the NCS (National Climate Service), which Congress just shot down. As quoted from a Washington Post Article (link in post title), "...in a political climate where talk of the earthly kind of climate can be radioactive, the answer in last week’s budget deal was “no.” Congress barred NOAA from launching what the agency bills as a “one-stop shop” for climate information."

This move would requiring some shuffling around with the creation of the NCS (would be similar to the National Weather Service), but would not require any additional funding.

Those that objected cited climate services becoming a propaganda source rather than a science source as cause for concern. But what's even more concerning is that limiting access to climate information won't make climate change go away.

And in fact, access to climate information is not an insignificant issue. From confusion over general where-to-go for climate info, to insurance companies studying past natural disasters, to better information regarding increasingly frequent hazardous weather, a single, streamlined source for climate info would certainly be a beneficial tool.

Climate change is happening; blocking legislation that would simply aid in making this more understandable and accessible doesn't aid the matter in the slightest. It's high time we learn to look past petty propaganda and take a stab at the real problems that we face. That's a bit more difficult when sides are busy looking to take stabs at each other.

EDIT (11/21): I realized I had written NCA instead of NCS (National Weather Service) in a couple of locations. Sorry for any confusion.

Protesters and Police

Always seem to go hand in hand. But even more than that, it seems to always be the police being painted in a bad light. This is relevant to just about the entire Occupy Movement, but especially so in light of the recent events at UC Davis.


At this point in time with regards to Occupy Wall Street, related coverage is more often than not about police activity, from protesters being evicted from Zuccotti Park to pepper-spraying UC Davis students, as mentioned above. Moreover, it seems that any action taken by police generates a tremendous cascade of detailed analysis--from court rulings on eviction legality to university probes following videos released online. Every action, from the first police call to the pepper-spraying of an 84 year old woman to the number arrested at each event (252 in New York yesterday) is noted and quickly made public, soon coming to define perceptions of the event at large.


But at the same time, perhaps policy activity is often the only real new news to report on, with the movement having gone on since September. This isn't to say that it's unimportant, or not worth noting, however. And while reporting has shifted from the roots of the movement as a whole to specific incidental occurrences, each incident does play a role in painting a portrait of the entire movement as a whole. 


There's Hubert Humphrey's quote that goes " The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously," which, when brought up in class, incited reference to the Occupy Movement. Given the trending subject matter of any new Occupy news, is this becoming all the more relevant? Likewise, ought we be weary of sensationalist reporting, or is it all worthwhile and relevant coverage?

Republican Presidential Candidates' Concern Over Border Problem: Crying Wolf

Despite numerous patrol stations and constant additions to the fences, the border between America and Mexico has never efficiently been able to prevent illegal crossings. Recently, the Republican presidential candidates have focused on their concern for eliminating these illegal crossings: Bachmann suggested a double fence, Perry wanted “aviation assets in the ground”, and Cain even suggested modifying the current fence to have an electrical charge.

However, contrary to the Republicans beliefs, statistics from the patrol stations are actually showing that the number of illegal crossings in the past few years has decreased and is going to continue to decrease.   At its peak in 2000, the number of arrests totaled 1,643,679, where just last year the number of arrests dropped a whopping 96% to 447,731. Next year, the number is expected to drop even lower. These decreasing figures can be attributed to increasing spending on border patrol. America has employed greater number of patrols (on land, boats, and airplanes), trained dogs to sniff out stowaways, installed infra-red, magnetic, and seismic sensors, and even established a team to chase the migrants through storm drains. In addition, those who are caught now have to serve several weeks in jail.

So with these promising numbers and improved measures, is the Republican presidential candidates’ focus on illegal immigration really justified? I believe that as it stands, we are already spending a hefty enough amount on border patrol. It can be argued that the decrease in illegal immigrants from Mexico is due to a loss of incentive. The current weak American economy deters migrants who may think the risk of crossing is not worth the potential rewards. If this is true, then spending on border control can even decrease; it is our economy, and not increased spending, that appeals or dissuades the migrants. However, just because the number of those who are illegally crossing the border is decreasing doesn’t mean illegal immigration is not a problem; the total number of illegal immigrants is actually increasing. The greatest controversy is over when we should be spending more or less on border control.

Health Care Coverage: More Stick, Less Carrot

Wal-Mart recently enacted a health care surcharge for smokers, and is not the only large company edging towards requiring certain workers to pay a greater portion of their health care costs. The idea is that workers "who smoke, are overweight or have high cholesterol," bear the burden of the higher health care costs that they're statistically expected to incur. Rather than reward positive behaviors, this approach penalizes unhealthy lifestyles--hence the description, "more stick, less carrot." These types of policies have doubled in the past two years, and the number is expected to continue growing--as is the percentage of health insurance that companies will be allowed to require certain employees to pay. (Currently, specific below-standard employees can be required to pay up to 20% of their coverage costs; however, federal regulations are slated to increase that percentage.)

This seems like a fair, justified, and decently effective approach to addressing larger issues with health and health care.
Says Karen L. Handorf, an employee benefits lawyer in Washington,

Employers cannot discriminate against smokers by asking them to pay more for their insurance unless the surcharge is part of a broader effort to help them quit.

Many company's plans offer smoking cessation programs, or reduce surcharges for workers seeking to quit. Furthermore, plans factor in accommodations for health issues that can't be helped--for instance, a medical condition such as nicotine addiction making it dangerous or impossible to quit smoking would exempt or reduce the surcharge for such an employee.

Jerome Allen, a part time Wal-Mart employee, discovered that he was paying a monthly $40 smokers' surcharge and has since quit smoking. Other surcharge plans can total up to $2000 a year--not an insignificant sum, and not an insignificant reason to quit.

If a surcharge incentive is what it takes to encourage positive lifestyle changes, I say it's well worth utilizing. At the surface, adding a surcharge only effects a cost-shift, not a true cost-reduction. However, given that it's ultimately the workers benefiting from health care, and the workers that must themselves be the ones to effect any change, shifting costs towards workers that have the power to act and respond to such incentive does seem like the intuitive course of action. It shouldn't matter so much whether the incentive is positive or negative, what's important is the positive change--the shift towards healthier lifestyles, and thus the shift towards reduced health care costs.

A Slow And Maybe Not So Steady Recovery

America’s economy has been in a slump for four years, and only recently has it started improving. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the number of jobs is increasing at a precariously slow and almost nonexistent rate, meaning that our economy could dive back into a recession at any point.

However, the statistics are not all so morbid. The number of jobs is indeed increasing, as observed in the 80,000 job increase for October, a significant rise from earlier this summer. Overall, the unemployment rate dropped to 9% in October. America owes these increasing rates to private payroll growth. The private sector is responsible for adding 2.8 million workers since the beginning of the slump in 2008. Despite the positive direction in which these numbers are headed, one must also take note that these increases are alarmingly slow. A rise in the number of jobs and the employment levels is a good thing, but how good is it if it is barely enough to keep up with the population growth?

Americans are torn over how to further stimulate the economy so the employment and job rates increase faster. I would believe that, as the results of private payroll growth show, increasing the private sector would be a reliable option. However, this would bring into question the tradeoff between economic stimulation and economic inequality. Is increasing our economic growth worth the economic inequality that will result? Other ideas were mentioned in the Krugman vs Summers debate , such as expansionary fiscal and monetary policy. But as Brad Delong notes, debate partners Krugman and Rosenberg couldn’t even agree on a solution. This just further indicates that Americans are far from agreeing on an effective solution.

What is most alarming to Americans is whether or not the employment rate will continue to rise, healing the economy, or if the slow pace of job increase is an indicator that economic growth will taper off. Are we to face a “Japan-style era of high unemployment and slow growth”? The fate of the American economy, though not entirely grim, remains unsure. Like the article says, it could be worse. 

President Obama speaks at Carrier Classic game

You may or may have not heard about the college basketball game last Friday that was played aboard the USS Carl Vinson in honor of the troops on veterans day. An entire outdoor stadium was set up on the ship which is about 1000 feet long and 300 feet wide. President Obama was scheduled to show up to the event and he did. Before the game started president Obama put his great articulate skills to work and gave a small speech before the large crowd at the game. Knowing that president Obama will be soon running for reelection, it was no surprise that he was elaborating on positives he was going to do for the veterans like provide for jobs, and support for them. He also brought up how the ship was, "A factor in bringing down Osama Bin Laden".

The Lost Youth

The lost youthful energy, that is, that the 2012 Obama campaign seems to be facing. 


In 2008, the power of "the youth" was a large contributing factor to Obama's success. Not only was the youth turnout up 2 million from the previous election, but the momentum of youth support came to characterize Obama's 2008 campaign, in a sense, building upon the need for change with a constituency whose potential hadn't always been maximized. "Campaigns," as a New York Times columnist put it, "are planned," whereas "movements are...impromptu." As Obama then stated, “The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor, young versus old, and it’s not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future.” 


But 4 years later with the 2012 elections just around the corner, Obama's campaign doesn't seem to be instilling quite the same energy in the same youth demographic. The same college students that volunteered at campaign offices through all hours of the night, while still likely to vote for Obama, aren't as eager to jump back into the rush. "“It’s hard to be a passionate follower of him,” says Jolie Glaser of University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “It’s easier to be a thoughtful supporter.” Instead, students are more focused on their prospects after college--or lack thereof, as some see it. "I don’t have as much enthusiasm this time as I did last time...Everybody is just focused on themselves and trying to get through school," explains UNLV student Sarah Farr. The election of 2008 provided hope and the prospect of change, but it's been 4 years and the outlook hasn't brightened significantly, if at all. 
"...even Mr. Obama’s supporters say it seems unlikely that the president — given the difficulties of these past three years and the mood of the electorate of all ages — will ever be able to replicate the youthful energy that became such a defining hallmark of his campaign."


Obama's message in 2008 can really only have been a one-time use deal, especially given the current job market/economic climate. Obama has lost his novelty; his supporters are faced with the realities of hard facts--not just hope. Constituencies change. Obama supporters will just have to approach the cause differently, this time around. There's no recreating the movement that defined 2008, but that doesn't translate into no hope for 2012.

Ultrafast Networks: Proceed With Caution

Recently, Google decided to design a system of "super fast fiber-optic broadband networks" and implement them in a few communities around the nation. These networks will incorporate engines that will be 1000 times faster than the average DSL, capable of downloading up to one gigabit per second. Content like HD movies will be downloaded in minutes, while viral videos will be ready to watch in mere seconds.

This was Google's announcement regarding their new plans:

"Our goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone. Here are some specific things that we have in mind:

Next generation apps: We want to see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it’s creating new bandwidth-intensive “killer apps” and services, or other uses we can’t yet imagine.

New deployment techniques: We’ll test new ways to build fiber networks, and to help inform and support deployments elsewhere, we’ll share key lessons learned with the world."

In related news, founders of computer networking company Arista Networks, David Cheriton and Andreas Bechtolsheim, have stated that despite the fact that there are super-fast, complex networks that are capable of holding a mammoth-sized amount of data, people should still be worried about their reliability. “We think of the Internet as always there. Just because we’ve become dependent on it, that doesn’t mean it’s true,” says Cheriton. Bechtolsheim adds that "because of the Internet’s complexity, the global network is impossible to design without bugs. Very dangerous bugs, as they describe them, capable of halting commerce, destroying financial information or enabling hostile attacks by foreign powers."

Even though the likelihood of network failures/attacks is small, I think Cheriton's and Bechtolsheim's points shouldn't be ignored. We pour much of our time into Facebook, Youtube, and other things, simply because the data is there. And now, smart phones and tablets allow for this data to be available at any time. On top of that, applications are allowing for people to read tons of literature on these devices, eliminating the need for print. This is great, no doubt about it. However, I just think that we should be cautious with how we proceed, as we are transferring a lot of civilization from the real world to the cyber world.

It's Just Water....... boarding.....

This post is coming a bit late, but I post this due to President Obama's speech in Hawaii today. During the Republican debate on Saturday, the subject of waterboarding came up and received many different answers. It ranged from Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann calling it enhanced interrogation techniques to Ron Paul acknowledging that it is indeed torture. My stance is this, I agree with Ron Paul (for once). Waterboarding is torture period end of story. It is a way of trying to make people talk by simulating what would happen to you when you drown. Now we all know that drowning is not a pleasant feeling since it involves suffocating to death underwater. To me, when people call it an enhanced interrogation technique it sends shivers down my spine. Have we become so heartless as to force a fellow human to experience their own death via suffocation just to get information (that will probably be wrong. I highly doubt people subjected to torture are actually going to give the right information). It is wrong and inhumane. I personally can find no way to justify it. So, when I watched the Republican debate on Saturday, I was disgusted by the nominees, to an even larger extent, by the audience. Cheering for waterboarding? I just want to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they don't know what waterboarding is, so that way I can go to bed thinking that they weren't actually cheering on torture. If McCain and Obama could agree that it was torture during the 2008 presidential race, then I think we should all be able to come to the same conclusion as well. Now, I find myself having to include Ron Paul in that category too, and that is something I am glad for. I may not like the man (at all) but at least he knows what is torture or what is not (although I guess it is really none of his business).

Here is an article that I got the idea from. It is incredibly short, but I felt it gave me enough to talk about. Plus, it has a video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/obama-calls-waterboarding_0_n_1091711.html

US Income Equality And The Occupy Movement

To be thankful, or to not be thankful, that is the question.

CNN Money came out with a report earlier this week that ranked the economic inequality of countries all over the world. The report shows that Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and Ukraine are the most equal, while Honduras ,Guatemala, Colombia, Central African Rep., and Bolivia are the least equal. Countries like the UK, Canada, China, Australia, and South Korea are somewhere in the middle, while America sits below these countries in a position that isn't horrible, but isn't really good either.

After taking a look at this list, I thought about Occupy Movement and where it stands now. It is obvious that the US is in great disparity when it comes to income equality, which explains why Occupy Movement is what it is; a call for change that many of us are grateful for. At the same time, this call for change has been regarded as just Americans not being thankful for how lucky we are as a country, and that middle-class-less countries like Honduras and Guatemala have it worse than us. However, I feel like it should be pointed out that one of the reasons the Occupy Movement exists is because we're trying to avoid the great income equality divide that these countries have. It doesn't mean we're not thankful-it's simply a change for the better, and by looking at this report, it'll help more people understand why protesters aren't just protesting for the sake of it.

The Week So Far

After the events that have been going on this week, I have had to pinch myself multiple times to reassure myself that I am not dreaming and that everything that has happened so far is reality. So far, Ohio has voted against Issue 2, Maine has voted to keep same-day registration, Mississippi (I still can't believe this one) voted against a law that would say human life begins at conception, Rick Perry single handedly tanked his campaign, and now Republicans and Democrats have both voted, unanimously, for a law designed to create long term building projects. I'm getting a bit overwhelmed from that but now it also seems as if part of the jobs bill past 94 to 1, in the Senate, that gives veterans a much greater chance to get a job once back in America and families that rely on the free lunch program can now get internet for only 9.95 dollars a month! That's a fifth of the average!

Based on my personal bias, I think that all these things are, to put it simply, spectacular. As of now, Veterans can be that much less worried about what they are going to do for a living after they get back from their tour of duty (best Veterans Day present I can think of). The best part about this law, is that it doesn't add to the deficit. Funding is taken from other programs for Veterans. The bill works by giving businesses the incentive to hire veterans by giving tax credits worth 5,600 for hiring a veteran out of work for six months and 2400 for hiring a veteran out of work for four weeks.

The second new thing I mentioned was the plan for poorer families to only pay 9.95 a month for internet. I think that is a great idea. We are finally giving people who can't afford much an opportunity to join the economy and society. Just think, how often do you need to use a computer, then think how often you need to use the internet, and then think about how some people can't afford that. The internet is basically the go-to place when you want information, so people without it have serious problems as a result. This is just one way to finally alleviate some of those problems by making obtaining internet that much easier. All and all a good measure and a good week (so far).

The Walking Debt

Posted is a hilarious video of John Stewart talking about former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Jon Corzine. Stewart pokes fun at Corzine's political and financial career, labeling him as the "Walking Debt." From this, he makes reference to the former CEO's numerous failures, such as his decision to invest 6.3 billion dollars in European debt. Corzine's hypocrisy is also highlighted when he talks about how there should have been tighter regulation to avoid debt increase for business firms, as he actually goes to avoid this same regulation when he is faced with "over-leveraged" debt. Stewart's lambasting of Corzine highlights the mistake of investing heavily in the private sector, which is why I feel that this video ties in exceptionally well with what we've been covering in class, especially since we've watched and learned about the 2008 economic crisis.

The Republican Debate and ..... uhhhhh.... hmmm..... Sorry forgot.

After the time that the media has spent hammering Herman Cain for his ever increasing number of character flaws, I think the media is going to have to split its coverage over two people again. The second person I describe is Rick Perry.

During the debate, he was asked which departments he would close as President. He started out fine naming the first two (education and commerce), but then he got to the third. For me, it was painful to watch. Here he was, a presidential candidate, and he couldn't even remember what he was going to do! He stood there on stage and hemmed and hawed while the rest of his competition through in "helpful" hints that only made him struggle more as he made jokes about it. He finally settled with I can't name the third one. "Sorry. Oops."

Oops is right. If you are a presidential candidate, shouldn't you know what you are going to do once in office? He knew he was going to cut something, he just didn't know what he was going to cut. How is that okay? How can there people who still support him? If he can run for president on a campaign like that, then the people have some serious reasoning issues. A man who has absolutely no clue what he is doing is running for the most politically powerful position in America. That is just not right in my opinion. After tonight, I hope Rick Perry's campaign is derailed. If a man like this becomes president, we all lose. If he can't prepare adequately for a debate, then how can he be expected to run an entire country. Not just Texas, but the entire U.S. If it is any help, I believe the third agency he was trying to remember was energy.

Here is a video of the event:

Bye Bye Issue 2 and hello same-day registration

It has just been called. Issue 2 has officially lost in Ohio. The votes are as follows: "yes"-33% "no"-63%. Now, the collective bargaining law (Senate Bill 5) that has been in effect since 1983, has been voted to be repealed and the middle class is celebrating. Public workers now once again have the power to bargain for changes from one contract to another instead of being subjected to the same policies, bad and good. They have even regained the power to strike. To me, it is mind boggling that this bill passed in the first place. What good is the first amendment if our right to freedom of speech (strike) can be taken away by law? It was my understanding that the law is supposed to protect our rights, not trample over them.

In addition to this, Same-Day Registration has been upheld in Maine despite the Republican controlled legislatures attempts to abolish it (under the pretense of voter fraud and stress to municipal clerks). Here is an excerpt form an article that addresses the issue of voter fraud:

"In 38 years of same-day voter registration, there have only been two cases of voter fraud, and those individuals were prosecuted and convicted," Bellows says. "So when you look at the facts, you're talking not about one voter whose vote might be negated, you're talking about tens of thousands of Mainers who would be denied their right to vote on Election Day."

Obviously, voter fraud doesn't seem to be much of an issue. With only two cases, a law that could potentially prevent thousands of people from voting in a state that has had same-day registration for over 40 years.... well that does seem a bit extreme. In my opinion, a law like this has no grounds in a representative democracy. People are supposed to vote. That is how our government runs, so why try to prevent people from voting?

Here is the link to a sight that gives a basic overview and a list of what issue 2 does.

http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/issue_2_early_ohio_election_re.html

Managers of Apple to be Learning About Union Awareness

Apple is assigning new managers to a course that will raise their awareness of unions. The course is designed to provide these managers with an understanding of how unions work, why they are organized in the first place, and how they affect the work place. Apple decided to make this move after there was an attempt to unionize a few months ago, and also to avoid increased operating costs if employees do decide to negotiate for increased pay and benefits.

Apple is definitely trying their best to avoid unionization, and personally, I think it's for good reason. Because a union acts a tarp for a set group of employees, incompetent employees are extremely difficult to weed out. If Apple wants to hold their reputation for good customer service, unionization is not appropriate. Non-unionization will allow the company to distinguish between the employees that hold true to their reputable service and the ones who don't. Lastly , and correct me if I'm wrong, but don't some unions actually reduce pay? I mean, as of now, Apple's employees receive above average pay, so why would unionizing be a boon to them?

Politics and....... Pokemon?

So I know talk about Herman Cain is getting a little old, but this was too good to pass up. For those of you who watch the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC you will have seen what I am about to say. Last Friday, Rachel Maddow did a segment on something that Herman Cain said in a motivational speech back in August. In it, he says how hard life is but you need to keep going. It sounds good, except he said it was taken from a poet and it turned out to be from the movie Pokemon 2000.

Really? Is that what politics has become now? Can people actually get away with not coming up with their own speech for their own election? Herman Cain seems to be making a mockery of the Republican nominees. He is a pizza guy, who came in and basically gained on popularity alone. His 9-9-9 economic plan is something he can't defend without bringing up apples and oranges, and now he has women accusing him of sexual harassment. Now I don't mean to pick only on Herman Cain, so I will get to what I am really trying to say. How can this happen. People are seeming to vote based on who can put on the best show instead of people who can actually do right by the country. Mitt Romney, for example, can't seem to make up his mind on what he wants to support. The only thing concrete about him is that he is business-savy and made a health care plan in Massachusetts that he no longer supports (oops). I know that presentation has always been part of campaigning, but doesn't it seem to have gone a bit too far into the comedic territory? Thoughts?

By the way, here is the link to the Rachel Maddow piece covering Cain's inspirational speech. It foes on from just how he quoted pokemon so enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySTT-rxwSs

Medicare: Welcome to Hotel Hospital

Over the next few months, Medicare will start paying attention to hospitals that exemplify a world class institution and that cater to its patients. The reason behind this? Medicare is promising to reimburse hospitals that are given good ratings by patients through the Affordable Care Act. Patients will take a survey to give hospitals a rating, which will determine if hospitals are good enough to receive that bonus payment from Medicare.

So, what exactly are good ratings? Of course, hospitals that are credited as 'good' by patients have up-to-date technology and excellent quality of service, but there's more. Patients will also be critiquing the quality of food, the availability of single, one-patient rooms, and also the quality of renovation-the aesthetics, in those rooms. And already, patients have been giving even the most prestigious hospitals low ratings because their previous expectations were not up to par compared to their most recent visits. This could be because of many reasons (Including, but not limited to): Food is not served on time, the hospital is too noisy at night, or the most excellent magazines are not offered.

Hotel Hospital is here and ready to serve. But seriously, with the economy how it already it is , I don't see how it is possible for hospitals to afford spending their budget on features that won't help their medical service. Medicare, too. We learned that along with Social Security, Medicare is a social welfare program that will be waning in funds over the next decades. Which leads me to wonder, why? Why is Medicare pushing towards this direction, when money for this program will be running out soon? Why should Medicare include things like aesthetics of a hospital for judging who gets the bonus payment? After all, aren't hospitals supposed to serve everyone, not cater to one person's needs?

Cain, Cain, Cain

How in the world is Herman Cain a presidential candidate still?

Looking at his past, you would never assume someone like him would run for President. He was a ballistics mathematician for the Army, CEO of Godfather's pizza, (which must be a Southern thing, because I've never heard of it) head of the National Restaurant Association, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas. And although impressive, that hardly seems like the resume of a President. Especially considering that he did all of that at least ten years in the past.

Setting aside the fact that I believe he is entirely unqualified for the position, I have a sort of aversion to the man. He gives me the creeps, especially with the slow, exact smile at the end of his latest campaign ad. And these new allegations of sexual harassment continue to add to my dislike of Cain. The Washington Post sums up the scandal:

Some of those who have cast their lot with Cain are beginning to worry that the candidate and his tight-knit team are not up to dealing with what has hit them, particularly as the number of allegations stemming from his years in the 1990s as head of the National Restaurant Association has grown. At least three women who were employees — none of them publicly identified — have suggested that he behaved improperly; two of them reportedly received five-figure settlements from the organization.

Although no poll information has been released yet, Cain does not seem to be dealing well with the allegations. When first asked about the scandal on the morning of the 31st, he insisted that he never did anything and had no knowledge of a settlment to keep the women hushed. That very night, he admitted that he knew some agreement was reached, but it could have been called a settlement or an agreement, he did not know When asked why the sudden change of memory, he insists that he simply started to remember more. He says that his memory was vague and inquries should be made with the NRA, who subsequently declined any comment. Cain's advisors have assumed that the allgations hold little to no credibility. The Post goes on to say

The shape and scope of the controversy may continue to evolve, given that one of the accusers has asked the association to release her from their nondisclosure agreement so that she may discuss her allegations.

So, which way is this going to go? Will Cain continue to play the Clinton card and examine the meaning of words and deny then admit hours later? Or will he admit and his capaign will come toppling? I know what I'm rooting for.

We Want to Vote!

We all know the argument for lowering the drinking age to 18, but students in Lowell, Massachusetts are now arguing that 17 year olds should be allowed to vote.

“When you’re 17, that’s when most of us are seniors,” said Carline Kirksey, one of the youth leaders of the campaign. “You have more adult responsibilities. You can join the military. You can be tried as an adult in court.” Another organizer Corinne Plaisir chimes in, saying that at 18 many young people are off at college. Figuring out the process all alone and voting unceremoniously by absentee ballot aren’t exactly enticements to civic participation. Instead, argues Plaisir, if young people can start voting in high school as part of their civics education, “It’s a prime time to engage in our civic rights.”

Personally, I agree with the teens in Lowell. At 17, you've begun to make your own decisions about politics. And when you're still in high school, voting seems like the coolest thing in the world; going into that little both, attaching the head and tail of the black arrow on the ballot. And they have good points. Plenty of minors are involved in politics today. From the youths at the Occupy protests, to Government classes in school, or being an activist for equality, teens are highly involved in the world of politics. So why not give them the a vote? It gives teens the privilege to have their voice heard and make a difference with their views, instead of their opinions falling on the deaf ears of adults who think kids don't know anything.