Is Cyberspace Our Achilles Heel?

For all the fund the US spends on defense, we may be defenseless against the next attack against us claims Richard Clarke, author of Cyber War, who insists that the future of warfare is covert action using "weaponized malware," complex viruses that infect computers can steal information, cut off communication, or even destroy nuclear centrifuges. Cyber-attacks are nearly impossible to trace, but Clarke is incredibly certain that is was the US government who released Suxnet, which led to the destruction of about one thousand nuclear centrifuges in Iran, slowing the advancement of the country's nuclear program severely. If the government had achieved this objective by physically destroying the centrifuges, it would have been regarded as a declaration of war. Achieving it through a computer virus keeps it as "covert action." The problem with the use of weaponized warfare is that, although the US has a sizable arson of cyber-offence technology, we have no cyber-defense, nor much hope of finding one, according to Clarke.
"catastrophic consequences may result from using our cyber­offense without having a cyberdefense: blowback, revenge beyond our imaginings." -- Richard Clarke

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html#ixzz1vBnd5YT8

Because covert action requires no notification of other branches of government like deployment of troops does, and no approval from congress like declaration of war, does the expansion of covert action via technology leave too much power in the executive branch? How could we attempt to make a clearer distinction between war and covert action?

Does the anonymity of cyber war protect the country or is that advantage canceled out by the riskiness of not having a solid defense and/or does anonymity lead to chaos á la the classic bar fight that erupts when no one is sure who punched whom?

More of Richard Clarke on Cyber War and how to avoid an attack: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4aN4T7B-RA  

50 Years, One Graph

This handy graph by Lam Thuy Vo of Planet Money, a station on National Public Radio, details the comparison of the federal government's spending in 1962 as compared to 2011. As is evident in the graph, the United States government has been spending more and more on entitlement programs, government programs that offer benefits to individuals who meet mandatory requirements, as Medicaid barely existed in 1962.

A cursory analysis of the graph reveals the inordinate percentage of funds that the government devoted to defense spending in 1962. While this amount is mostly admissible to the Space Race, the nuclear race with the Soviets, the Vietnam War, etc., it does put our current defense budget in a healthy perspective. Nevertheless, defense remains the largest category of the federal budget.

Understandably, safety net program spending shot up in light of the recent recession and its consequent rise of unemployment, a lagging indicator of the well-being the United States economy. These programs include food stamps, housing assistance, and payments to the unemployed.

"Everything else" contains every single facet of federal spending not enumerated on the graph, such as NASA, energy, natural resources, agriculture, housing and urban development, education, science, justice, etc. While many of these governmental bodies require less funding than others, "everything else" still seems smaller than it should be (at least to keep student loans down).

What this graph does not reflect--yet is still important to note--is the fact that the growth of federal spending over the past 50 years has been more or less congruent with the growth of our economy. In 192, the United States Government spent 18 percent of its GDP, essentially $707 billion. In 2011, the United States Government spent 24 percent of its GDP, essentially $3.1 trillion.

While any drastic change to our current budget would be unlikely to pass--and cutting entitlement programs seems to be near impossible--do you see any improvements you would make to our current budget allotments? Do you think the heat the government has taken for its bloated military budget is less valid considering the defense budget in 1962? What do you think about the meteoric rise of Medicare and Medicaid?

Check here for the full story.

Failibuster: a Constitutional Question

Years of criticism of the filibuster have finally come into fruition: a nonprofit, Common Cause, sued the Senate this Monday regarding the constitutionality of filibuster rules that need mandatory routine 60-vote thresholds for any bill or nomination that generally have the support of the majority of the Senate anyway. In other words, Common Cause argues that the Constitution details the supermajority requirements for all legislative action (i.e. two-thirds vote for treaties/removal/expulsion/Constitutional amendments), thus making the 60-vote threshold is an unnecessary obstacle to passing legislation.

To critics' eyes, this lawsuit could not have come at a better time. The Senate is once again stuck in partisan gridlock, with complaints of abuse by minority Republicans of the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans employed the filibuster from 1981 to 2006, but 2006 to the present marks an unprecedented filibustering by the Republicans, averaging at 140 motions for cloture in the 110th and 111th Congress.


Most efforts to reform the filibuster in the past have floundered due to the fact that two-thirds of the Senate must agree to change any Senate rules. Thus, a Supreme Court decision ruling filibustering unconstitutional might be the only method by which the filibuster can truly be stricken from American politics. However, is the lawsuit valid?


Dr. Gregory Koger, a political scientist in the United States who specializes in studying filibusters (filibustology?), argues that no, the lawsuit is not valid. He believes the filibuster is constitutional for a whole host of reasons, the most notable of which I will summarize. (Interestingly enough, Koger would not even want the filibuster to be outlawed.)

• He notes that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Congress' discretion over its procedure seems concrete in the Constitution.
• Both the House and Senate use supermajority rules in many procedural threshold requirements to suspend rules, increase taxes, waiving the Budget Act, etc. If the cloture threshold is found to be unconstitutional, these practices will cast doubt over the validity of legislation enacted under these terms.
• Filibustering, while infamous, is not the only manner in which Senators can obstruct a vote. Declaring filibustering unconstitutional will not change the intent of particularly stubborn Senators.
• The Constitution does not mention a Congressional committee system, which both houses currently have in place. Said committees kill 70-90% of all bills in Congress before they even reach the floor. Koger argues, if filibustering is facing charges of unconstitutionality, why not also outlaw Congressional committees?
• While time is not a factor in the constitution, the simple fact that the filibuster has been a part of American politics since 1789 works in its favor. Just because the filibuster--like political parties, interest groups, primaries, etc.--has not been explicitly allowed in the Constitution does not mean it is unconstitutional.

How do you feel about this lawsuit and, more specifically, the constitutionality of the filibuster? Do you even think that this lawsuit will come to court? Keep in mind that the case may be dismissed as a "political question," as the employers of the filibuster have been almost exclusively minority Republicans. Furthermore, Common Cause wins and the filibuster is exterminated from the Senate, will the cogs of the Senate suddenly become unclogged and begin to work again? Or will senators find other ways to prevent votes? 

Koger explains:

"Changing the voting threshold would have the small benefit of removing an excuse for this dysfunction, but it would not solve the more fundamental problem that many legislators find it in their electoral interests to disagree."

Sushi: the Gay Marriage of Foods?

Is it possible that our common acceptance of gay marriage is due to the same reasons we like sushi? Jonathan Haidt, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia responds to the question of how popular opinion about gay marriage could have evolved so quickly through a gastronomical metaphor. Haidt claims that sushi, a food that seems unappetizing and foreign to most American palettes, has grown more and more popular as Americans have seen other Americans eating sushi and thus habituated to the concept. Likewise, he believes that America has become accustomed to the concept of gay marriage simply by adjusting to and accepting its existence.

While Haidt's claim may belittle itself due to its blatant appeal as a sound byte, his novel rationale could explain why popular opinion of gay marriage has shifted so much toward acceptance in recent years. Let's delve into the psychology of political socialization! Do you believe that we might support gay marriage just because we have become accustomed to the idea? What about his postulate that an individual's morals are not set in stone and instead can change rapidly?

You can hear it from the man himself in Haidt's own quick, two-minute summary of his beliefs in the video below:

Stilettos vs. Foot-binding

These days you see heels everywhere, specifically stilettos. Not only are they a trend in today's fashion, but they also symbolized women leaving inferior jobs and gaining status and power. For women to be wearing these heels on a day to day basis, they made it look a lot easier than it actually is. It takes balance and confidence to be able to rock a pair of heels, let alone stilettos. Even through the pain, women manage to wear these heels, not only for power but sex appeal, status, and luxury. In the past it was known that women bound their feet in order to transform their bones to show they were of higher class than the other women.

In your opinion, is there a difference between the foot-binding and the trend in stiletto heels?

Decline In Stocks: Greece

The future for European stocks doesn't look so promising. Fear that Greece will continue to decline has the world economy on edge. It was stated that the "Stoxx Europe 600 Index may extend it's lowest level this year". Global markets are being weighed down because of this economic crisis. Is this a big deal? What is the most concerning part of the whole situation?

Tick Tick Tick

        In honor of mother's day, I would like to share about an article in today's paper. The article was about the increasing practice for women to freeze their eggs in order to have children later on in life. One doctor from Reproductive Biology Associates of Atlanta said that about three quarters of these women are encouraged by their parents who often pay for part of the bill which ranges from 8 to 18 thousand dollars. The procedure is not always a sure thing either. It gives many women the relief of still having the possibility to birth children, without the pressure of finding a husband and baby-daddy RIGHT NOW. This may be a false sense of security, but some believe it is worth the risk. Many daughters see parental participation in this process as a gift that their parents can give them. An investment in the future so to speak. Such a large investment may seem too big a gamble when you're putting up the whole cost, but split down the middle, the risk feels less...risky. Many of the women, however, feel pressured by their parents. Fertility preservation for your daughter has to be an awkward conversation to bring up in every day situations. There is a"very fine line between concern and pressure" says Rachel Lehmman-Haupt, author of “In Her Own Sweet Time: Unexpected Adventures in Finding Love, Commitment and Motherhood”. Should parents suggest this kind of thing at all?I personally think it is quite odd for women to require such assistance from their parents in matters such as these, or recieve any pressure to freeze her eggs. The fear that one's biological clock is ticking is her own worry, not the business of her parent's. Is the need for grandchildren really as strong as the desire to raise one's own children? I don't think so. Any thoughts? This practice is also used for women who plan to be treated for cancer. I think this is a much more concrete reason to participate in the procedure than because a woman fears infertility due to her age.  Perhaps I am being closed-minded. Maybe? 

Eduardo Saverin Gives Up US citizenship to Avoid Taxes

 

If you've seen the movie, "The Social Network," then you know the co-founder of Facebook, Eduardo Saverin. He is the man that decided to sue the Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for an enclosed amount of money that is still unreleased.
 
 Recently  Facebook was estimated to be valued at $96 billion which Saverin responded to by renouncing his US citizenship to apparently avoid his taxes. Originally from Singapore, Saverin decided this would be the place he would move to. According to the article found on yahoo, "Singapore doesn’t have a capital gains tax. It does tax income earned in that nation, as well as 'certain foreign- sourced income,' according to a government website on tax policies there."

Although Saverin is renouncing his citizenship, he still has to pay an exit tax. Saverin will stay have to pay  taxes on the capital gains from the stock holdings. He will have to pay taxes on all and even the shares that are not sold will be treated as if they are, there is no escaping the IRS.

Although Saverin will be paying a pretty penny in exit taxes, he will be saving a lot of money by renouncing his citizenship and his investments in foreign companies will only mean for money for the now 30 year old billionaire.

My question to you is, should US citizens be able to renounce their citizenship to avoid taxes? Why or why not?