Filibuster Reform

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones describes here what he believes the main obstacle to filibuster reform is:  Party unity for the Democrats. Under Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid, the Democrats have faced some problems with the filibustering power of the minority party in the Senate.  As Colbert mentions, Reid has faced 386 filibusters in 6 years.  That's approximately 8.21 filibusters per each Republican Senator, also known as a just a ton of filibusters in general.  As Colbert explains, the very large number of filibusters has resulted from a change in rules where the filibuster can be launched by intent of "debate" rather than the actual getting on the floor and reading from cookbooks that we discussed in class.  This new kind of filibustering can be referred to as the "silent" filibuster.

It's easy to imagine why getting rid of the filibuster is attractive for Democrats, but how should they go about doing this?  If the filibuster is entirely removed then Democrats will regret the whole thing if the Republicans ever return to majority. .

Reform probably will look like making the filibuster at least require actual debate.  Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution means the Senate can make their own rules by a simple majority vote, a.k.a enough for the Democrats to pass reform without any Republican agreement.  Democratic Senator Merkley says that the reform will likely prevent the Republicans from silently filibustering.  This would require there at least to be conversation about legislation, potentially constructive and helpful to getting a good compromise passed.  Does this mean that the old filibustering shenanigans where one senator reads a comic book on the floor for hours will return again?  Hopefully the reform will have some provision against this.

This ties back all the way to the Federalist papers we studied at the beginning of the year and the debate over majorities and super-majorities.  When is a more than a majority a good thing?  Well, perhaps when doing things like amending the Constitution.  However for the legislative process, requiring more than a majority puts a damper on progress (assuming that filibuster=requiring the 60%).  James Madison warned against requiring more than majority to pass legislation in Federalist 58.   (In this quote, "quorum" can sort of be translated to the number of members needed to enact a decision).  Madison argues requiring more than a majority quorum would inhibit free government, instead putting too much power in the hands of the minority.

Remember all his warnings about factions?  Well, in the case of the filibuster, it's original intent seemed to be to elevate the minority party to a position where they could have greater leverage in decision making.  Not such a bad thing in theory, however, the problem is this power has been used irresponsibly.  It has effectively made the Senate require a 60 vote majority to pass anything, and that is exactly the kind of quorum Madison warned about.
Madison writes of a more-than-majority quorum:
", an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal"
How well do you think this quote describes the current political scene?  Did Madison identify eerily well the pitfalls of party politics?  Should the Democrats be wary in how they might affect the minority party of the Senate with their power to enact reforms of Senate rules?  As far as I can tell, the filibuster reform seems like a good, moderate step in the right direction that will hopefully improve the functioning of the Senate for years to come.  

(Mr.Smith Goes To Washington was  1939 movie about corruption in the Senate that included the filibustering.  The film was considered offensive to the institution of the Senate, and it's amusing to imagine it provoked retaliation in the form of legislation that never got passed.  It was also apparently simultaneously considered pro-communist in America and banned in the USSR, Germany, and Italy)  

North Korea: Friendly or Provactive?

We all know that North Korea's old leader Kim Jong Il died not to long ago. He was known for his over ambition in expanding his nuclear program. Yet, his son Kim Jong Un might be exactly the same as his father. In the coming up days, North Korea plans on launching a rocket into space, but the United States takes this as a "proactive" action.

North Korea claims that they're launching these rockets in order to further their technological programs. None of the said programs will be antagonistic to the world. All North Korea claims to do is "further their space orbit" in order to further the development of North Korea.

Even if North Korea is doing as they claim, they are wasting valuable resources that could be used to support the people. Many of the citizens in North Korea are in an impoverished state because of the wasteful spending of the dictator. Many U.S. higher ups claim that the rocket launchings will only alienate them from the world even more. If they are shooting rockets in attempt to further their military research, many countries will not stand for it. If they are shooting rockets in attempt to "further their technology," they are wasting resources which could be used for the people.

However, I am a little skeptical about the United States's claims. The only other country making such claims is South Korea. Everyone knows that South Korea and North Korea have rocky relations. Maybe it is just plan by South Korea and U.S. to paint North Korea in a worse light.

Ice on Mercury, the Closest Planet to the Sun

Go NASA!   Team Nasa has made an important discovery on the planet Mercury.  All the way back in 1991, radio telescopes had found evidence that there may be ice on the poles on Mercury.  A surprising thing to see on our solar systems smallest planet (sorry Pluto) which is also the closest to the Sun, bearing temperatures up to 700K or ~800 degrees Fahrenheit.
How could there possibly be ice?  Well, these radio signals sent from a telescope in Puerto Rico back in 1991 reflected off of certain patches of Mercury, scientists figured there could be ice.  A recent spacecraft called MESSENGER visited Mercury and confirmed these bright radar patches were indeed very indicative of ice.  Because of the tilt of Mercury's axis, certain parts of Mercury never see the sun.  Presumably these are the places where ice could have a chance of forming.


Using a science fictiony sounding thing called neutron spectroscopy, NASA determined that this hydrogen rich layer, just beneath the surface of the areas indicated by the radar bright-spots, has a very similar level of hydrogen concentration as ice, confirming their long held suspicions.

It is fascinating that the planet closest to the sun has these patches of ice water.  Water is the molecule to be when it comes to life, and finding it in places as foreign and desolate as Mercury shows that we are getting better at finding water's hiding places.

Pat Robertson says what?

Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and former Republican primary contestant for presidency in 1988, has made another controversial comment.

Robertson has interestingly spoken out against creationism, claiming that to go against science is to "lose your children." He also says that the 17th century Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher who posited the idea that the earth was created 4004 B.C was wrong and not following the word of God.

The statement seems to put Robertson in the 32% of Americans  (poll also mentioned in the CNN blog) who believe God assisted human evolution but did not create them in their present form. Robertson did not directly state support for the theory of evolution, but in saying dinosaurs did exist, he sort of indirectly supports the evidence of the fossil record which has a lot to do with evolutionary theory.  Regardless, the comment seems a little hypocritical considering this remark made back in 2005 that warned a town in Pennsylvania that removing supporters of intelligent design from it's school board would provoke the wrath of God.  It seems like sometimes even the most deeply held beliefs can change over time.  Fortunately, our country protects the rights of those with big voices like Pat Robertson to say their thoughts. Even if it is potentially disastrous for their political careers (Akin, Mourdock).

Democracy is Harder than it Looks

Egypt is among the Middle Eastern countries that the United States have been feeling uneasy about for awhile. After Mubarak was kicked out of the dictatorship role, a Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining power in the government. Right now Egypt does not have real democracy, but more of a pseudo democracy like China. (ie. You can vote, but you can only vote for the communist candidate)  And what's been going on inside of Egypt does not seem to be the way to true democracy.

Currently in Egypt there is a conservative panel, who is sympathetic to the Islam Brotherhood, creating the new Egyptian Constitution. They are trying the best to make the process quick in attempt to stop opposition. In attempt to stop this forced constitution, 30 panel members (consisting of liberals and Christians) have left the board. The 30 members that left are protesting that what the panel is creating is a new Muslim controlled State.

The current in place President, Mohamed Morsi, created more laws about giving himself more power until the Constitution is complete. He was supposed to make an announcement today. Because of the statement, there has been outrage in Egypt and protests on the streets. The protests have caused Morsi to rethink his plans. But the real stoppage of power came from the enraged judicial courts of Egypt.

Egypt seems to be in a big mess. The road to democracy is still a long way off, and it wouldn't be surprising to have another dictator in Egypt. I'm curious to see how the UN and the US will respond to this. I'm pretty sure the United States won't stand for another dictator (who is probably sympathetic to an Muslim Brotherhood) in a Middle Eastern Country.

Should We Lower our Moral Standards?

This Time article poses a highly interesting question:  are our moral standards for politics too high?  This question stems from the history of political journalism-from muckraking to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers, the relationship between journalists and politics has increasingly become about scandals and moral deviousness in our government.  A little less like cat-and-mouse and more like mouse-trying-to-expose-cats-corruption.  Justice must be served! Well, there seems to be reason to be prudent in how these affairs are exposed to the public.

The particular type of political corruption the author of this article, Joe Klein, discusses is earmarking.  Earmarking is basically the direction of funds towards a specific project or program. The author remembers the "Cornhusker Kickback," a controversy back in 2009 where the federal government promised to send extra Medicaid funds to Nebraska to secure the 60th vote needed to stomp out the filibuster.  He considers earmarks like this "a useful lubricant for the great gears of legislation."  Something Lincoln would have done.  A highly effective leader, the author argues Lincoln moved forward pragmatically, "via the low arts of patronage and patronization."

Are these type of manipulative earmarks justified?  I think in a situation as desperate as the fiscal cliff, morally-dubious negotiations are almost justifiable, but to a point.  If the media were to let corruption slide now, however well the issues may be solved, the permissiveness may come back to haunt a future political landscape. Is looking back to Lincoln appropriate?  It was well over a century ago.  The main question again seems to be one of pragmatism versus morality.  

edit: sorry the link was wrong before but now it is fixed

The Friendly Side of Politics?

Well, Obama and Romney are going to have lunch on Thursday.  Although inevitably there will be some massively awkward elephants in the room (no GOP pun intended), the event is somewhat heartwarming.  Two battle-hardened rivals, one leaving politics bitterly defeated, having his last shot at president taken away, and the other facing the honor and responsibility of another 4 years in office.

I think these friendly gestures are especially valuable for Romney, because although he isn't running for political office anymore, gracious public appearances are his last chance to leave a favorable impression on the American people.  The gracious loser is especially commendable, like McCain in 2008, who vowed to work with Obama moving forward at a similar post-election meeting.  However, McCain had a Senate seat to return to, unlike Romney who is presumably leaving the political scene.  This puts Romney in an interesting situation where he is not necessarily beholden to any party pressure.  He has already earned berate from fellow Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, over his remarks that Obama won the race by essentially bribing interest groups.  That's not a nice note to go out on.

But Romney's concession speech was so nice! (there were some rumors about him not writing the speech beforehand, although I feel like he did and made that remark as a sort of lighthearted confidence-booster sort of thing). Despite all the mean political battles that characterize the election, can the candidates simply forget it all after the election is over?  How much of these larger-than-life people do we not see, given the intense pressure of political campaigning? I think it's comforting to imagine that Romney and Obama will have a genuinely nice lunchtime together, maybe as a symbolic representation of a bipartisan future, and maybe for the sake of knowing our political icons are gracious humans.

Obama and the Budget

President Obama promised one thing during the campaign, and that is a balanced budget. Obama is now starting his plan to balance the budget. From the campaign, all we heard was one side of Obama's plan and that was to raise taxes on the higher class. But, it seems he does another half of the plan. Budget Cuts.

Originally, many wealthy business men were disgruntled about how Obama wanted to raise high class income taxes while, lowering middle classes. The way Obama explained his plan during the campaign seemed like a big blow to rich people, because they would take most of the taxes. To make the seeming pain worse, Obama said that he would alleviate the middle and lower classes taxes. With a description like that, I'm sure upper class members were afraid their taxes would go up many percentage points. But it seems, Obama had another plan.

Many media men are enraged that Obama won't delve on his plan on budget cuts, but there are going to be some. Some people are afraid on what Obama plans to cut, but it seems like social security is definitely off the table. One big area that Obama is looking at is healthcare. (Ironic isn't it?)

Finally, Obama had a meeting with 14 big executives from companies like Yahoo and Goldman Sachs. Most if not all of the executives came out of the meeting satisfied. One even gave a quote namelessly, "He seems flexible, but he said taxes should go up on the top 2%." It looks like big business and the President will find a way to settle this. If everything goes smoothly, maybe this economic crisis is something that the American people can get through. FDR got us through the Great Depression, maybe Obama will get us through the "Great Recession."

BP Again: Energy is Risky Business

So as a reminder of how complex and interconnected our globalized, energy-hungry world is, BP is back on the headlines.  After recently pleading guilty to several criminal charges against their disastrous misconduct  in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico back in 2010, BP is facing a temporary ban on getting new contracts in the U.S.  BP America is the second largest producer of oil in the United States and the biggest division of BP.
Now BP's conduct can be properly punished by the EPA because they have pleaded guilty to 11 of the criminal cases filed against them.  The EPA is punishing BP by preventing them from leasing new contracts, which seems strange as they have filed 50 new contracts since the disaster and just now they are being banned from participating in auctions.   How severe of a consequence this will be for BP depends on how long the ban lasts, and considering that the EPA has agreed to lift the ban once BP demonstrates it can measure up to our nations business standards, this ban may not be very long or consequential for BP.

The ban brings up a few interesting ideas.  One, actions like these show the importance of being careful with energy projects.  With energy being so important and such a huge industry, there are large scale projects with lots of investment and complex operations and thus and a potential for catastrophic failure.  Or are we getting better at avoiding that? Is there even hope that we will?  Also, there is this whole idea of globalization and the importance of energy in today's society makes the incident a reminder of how high the stakes are when it comes to large scale energy projects.

Are large scale energy disasters, like nuclear power plant disasters and oil spills, isolated incidents? Is it a matter of incompetence and mismanagement that can be solved by greater investment? Or are these projects so complex as to be inherently risky and unpredictable, so that greater investment is not a satisfactory solution?  Should we suck it up and take the risk in order to secure U.S energy independence?

Currency Manipulation

Currency, Money, Moolah, Bank, whatever you want to call it; it is an important aspect in life. Many people might even call it their motivator in life. It seems like it's a big enough motivator to stop the U.S. from calling China, "Currency Manipulators." Many people have been complaining that China is trying too hard to artificially keep the value of the yuan down to make their market goods cheap. However, why won't the United States call China "manipulators?"

China is the number one growing economy in the world. Everyone expects China to become the next economic super power. China will definitely surpass any western country in a foreseeable future. And that is the root of the problem. No country will have the courage to call China out on manipulating currency because they risk having bad trade relationships with China. Having a trade-war with China is economic suicide. Especially with the current state of the European and United States Economies the chances are no one thinks it is worth it.

There have been many pleads by the United States Congress for China to let the yuan grow as it naturally would. However the Chinese policy say that the yuan is going to reach its "equilibrium point soon." Even with these statements, many economists know that China's bank controls the fluctuation of the yuan and decides when to increase the value.

China's economic manipulation might seem faraway from all of us, but it really is much closer. Because of manipulation, big businesses will continue to see it favorable to outsource jobs to China. American companies who make their goods here will fail, as they cannot compete with the cheaper prices. I love my cheap goods. I am not going to lie on that part, but to help our economy, maybe it's time for someone to call out China on what they are doing.

An Update on Egypt: Tyranny?

Recently, President of Egypt Mohammed Morsi has expanded his presidential powers quite a bit, basically making his word a final authority immune to any countering force.  However, there is evidence that Morsi may not be expanding his powers for the mere purpose of strengthening his stake and the Muslim Brotherhoods stake in government.  A large problem with Egypt's new government has been the lack of any real legislating body.  A council of generals served called the Supreme Council of Armed Forces stood in place while the country's new government was being established, however, this body dissolved and the judicial body of Egypt has blocked the a formation of a new parliament.  Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood's main obstacle has been the judicial body, a court with old members of Mubarak's regime called the the Supreme Constitutional Court.  The court's rationale for blocking parliament seemed to be that the parliament would be largely Islamist, creating a government that might push a theocratic agenda.

Morsi's power grab could be explained as an effort to fight back against the SCC and eventually restore some kind of order between the executive, judicial,  and legislative branches of government.  However, his action seems inherently against this idea as he has refused to back down from his decree and because he hasn't reinstated parliament yet, effectively creating a government where his power goes unchecked.

The people of Egypt, well acquainted with the idea of tyranny, have staged a long protest in Tahrir Square against Morsi's decree.  Clearly, the ideals of democracy are very important to the people of Egypt and the pragmatic argument for Morsi's power grab has fallen short.

If Morsi were to go ahead and use his power solely to speed up the transition to democracy, would that justify his actions?  Would we necessarily frown on tyranny if it was somehow for the greater good of advancing a democracy?  Is there a lesson here in how delicate the implementation of a foreign system of government is?  Situations like these may influence how the U.S may consider dealing with the difficulty of facilitating or aiding the formation of democratic governments in the future given how complex the process is.

The Fiscal Cliff: An Update on Norquist and the Issue of Compromise

With the impending "fiscal cliff" of 2013 promising to bring the worst nightmares of both parties (tax hikes and program cuts),  some sort of compromise in the form of a mutual sacrifice seems necessary to cut the economic losses looming in the future.  Is a win-win situation possible? Maybe, but the lingering political pressures on Republicans stemming from harsh ideologues like Norquist has kept the issue a political ordeal rather than a which-policy-is-best-for-our-future ordeal.  Norquist's ideologue minded stand against compromise on the issue of taxes seems to be having a diminishing influence according to this CNN contributor, who notices that some Republican lawmakers like Scott Rigell have broken from Norquist in the name of progress and without fear of political repercussion   Interestingly enough, Rigell claims he did not have any troubles with big money donors or campaigning after breaking the pledge.  Despite seemingly isolating his constituents,  Rigell received praise and  a check from Warren Buffet for his bold move. In a bit of drama, Norquist has made another "pledge" to actively try to unseat these disobedient Republicans, but hopefully given the urgency of the situation this sort of threat will seem petty.

The potential for a win-win situation may not be entirely ruled out, with the vague hope of the loopholes-and-deductions revenue still at bay.  The question is of whether these can be cut to save revenue while avoiding tax increases.  An interesting opinion on the compromise from Kevin Drum of Mother Jones thinks that liberals actually have much to gain by breaking a deal with the Republicans on Social Security, potentially taking it off the table for "decades" if the deal is done right.  This would leave Republicans, hopefully no longer trapped by Norquist, in a position to make their own sacrifice and let tax revenue increase.

Feel free to share your own knowledge and opinions on the issue of the fiscal cliff.  Is a future where Republicans can have their tax breaks, thanks to cracking down on loopholes and exemptions, possible?  Should we be more worried about recession or truly unmanageable debt?

On the topic of representatives, in times like these being a real trustee and decision maker on behalf of inherit knowledge is particularly admirable, but with the way elections work, it's not entirely encouraged.  Is this gridlock an inevitable result of the way our countries democracy elects lawmakers?

The world and Carbon Emissions

In the most recent U.N. meeting, a huge topic of consideration is the rising temperatures and climate change. Rising sea levels and huge storms ie. Hurricane Sandy, have been appear much more frequently. Even with the world economic slowdown carbon emissions reached their peak in the year 2011.  Many other nations pointed fingers at the United States and claimed that we have to lessen the amount of Carbon Emissions each year. However, other big countries were attacked as well, notably China. However all nations don't plan on reforming their current plan to lessen the damage.

First, the United States was not willing to take Obama's plan on cutting gas emissions. In 2009, Obama proposed a bill which would make USA's goal to cut emissions by 17% by the year 2020. However, the bill was cut off by the US Senate. The problem is Obama wants to do something about the climate, but is always cut off by Congress. Obama promises for his second term that he'll spend more time on the climate. It looks like the United States might have another Al Gore appear.

Another group that the U.N. told off were 100 developing nations, which of course include China and India. The U.N. pleaded with the nations to not create damage on a "previously unimaginable scale."  China has recently overtaken the United States as the leader of greenhouse gases and there are other countries that are trying to expand as well. If everyone starts producing emissions as much as the U.S., Russia or China, the world will be no more than a baking oven.

I'm inclined to state that the world is going in a path of self-destruction. Nuclear warfare was the idea of self-destruction in the Cold War Era. However, the big issue is how do we stop ourselves from suffocating ourselves. Maybe carpooling and riding public transportation will be the way to go. Proposed ideas include limiting the amount a country can use by a certain date, working to limit per capita, or flat out "fair distribution." Whatever the solution might be, we need to come to one. Fast.

Pot Shenanigans

         So, we all remember that Marijuana was legalized in both Washington and Colorado. Many seem to hail this as a good thing, but why? The main argument for marijuana is the revenue it can raise. If the government can regulate the marijuana industry, they should be able to tax it. Considering the copious amount of support that has been predicted for the drug, the government should be able to make quite a bit of money off the sale of marijuana. Furthermore, with marijuana under government control, they should be able to control it and make it safer to consume.

         However, there seems to be trouble in paradise and pot isn't necessarily what its cracked up to be. Mainly, all the problems with marijuana's legalization comes from the lack of regulation the provisions have. Because there is very little control, the government really can't do much in the way marijuana potency and the tobacco industry. In terms of potency, stronger marijuana causes much more damage to an individual and is has a much higher chance of causing a car crash or some other physical injury. This results in increased spending for the government, balancing out the revenue gains marijuana originally offered. Meanwhile, the tobacco industry is able to take advantage of the small amount of regulation and sell marijuana easily (which includes possible advertisements aimed at attracting younger kids). You know something's up when the tobacco industry likes something.
          It's very difficult to weigh the issues with marijuana legalization. Each side, pro or anti, both have something to gain by taking their side, causing fairly strong bias. If one supports marijuana, it's probably just because they want to smoke it, or they want to make a profit (hello there tobacco industry). On the other hand, those that want it gone may just think it's icky or have some fundamental disagreement with marijuana consumption. Then there are the people who really just don't care either way who can just sit back and watch.
         So, is marijuana legalization important, and should we care at all? Is it ultimately harmful in the long run, or is it helpful and this is just a biased article?

Republican Tax Conflict

         Are Republicans actually changing their stance on taxes? My gosh, they might be. After so many years, their plan has generally remained the same: no tax increases, but instead, cut government spending. However, recently the question of "where should those cuts be?" has been asked again and again. The cuts could be in the health system, but conflicting with heath and treatment gets a great many people riled up (to say the least). There's the military, but would Republican's really cut a significant amount of military spending. Forecast says no. Ultimately, the Republican party has few other options to turn to. Other than cutting loopholes (which is a generally universally liked idea), tax increases are really one of the only remaining options. At the very least, the Republican party is considering Obama's tax reform that goes into effect January 1.
         However, we do have something BBC News likes to call the Norquist Factor. Grover Norquist leads the group Americans for Tax Reform which has important Republican officials make a pledge to never raise taxes. If anyone breaks the pledge, then they will have to deal with their party turning against them. That's a pretty good deterrent from voting towards tax raises.
         Norquist has also mocked Obama's tax ideas, basically stating that they will fail. He said that the rates will stay the same as they had the past two years. It's somewhat hard to tell if this will be true or not. Will things stay the same without changing, or will Republicans start to change their opinion? Will they be able to with Norquist's restrictions in play?

Outsourcing: The Debate Outside of 5th Period Gov

        A fire in a clothing factory in Dhaka (the capital of Bangladesh) broke out late yesterday afternoon, killing more than 100 people. The Tazreen Fashion factory was multistory and had no fire exits on the outside of the building.  Of course, the owner of the building claimed the factory was perfectly safe to work in. The fire, which may have been caused by an electrical short circuit, started on the ground floor and quickly spread to the entire building.  Firefighters were able to contain the fire this morning but not before 112 people had died.

        Fatal fires like this are fairly common in Bangladesh, where there are about 4,500 factories employing more than 2 million people.  Clothing like the textiles produced by the Tazreen Fashion factory make up up to 80% of Bangladesh's exports, and much of this clothing is exported to Western countries like the United States.  US businesses obtain cheap labor by outsourcing and cheap materials by buying from foreign countries.  When we think about political issues like outsourcing, we tend to focus on the domestic side of such issues while ignoring the international side.  Yet the actions of US businesses clearly have large repercussions for the citizens of foreign countries.  Should US businesses be allowed to continue outsourcing jobs to countries like Bangladesh (where working conditions are far below those of the US)?

The Next Kyoto

Starting tomorrow, nearly 200 countries will meet for the 18th Conference of the Parties (COP18) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  This year, the annual conference will take place in Doha, Qatar.  This is the same UN group that negotiated the Kyoto Protocol back in 1997.  However, since the Kyoto Protocol (under which countries agreed to reduce their carbon emissions by a certain percent of 1990 levels) is set to expire at the end of this year, agreeing on an extension of Kyoto or creating a new protocol is especially important for this conference.

        The Kyoto Protocol is widely considered a failure due to its lack of punishment for countries not adhering to its guidelines, the ease of withdrawal (Canada withdrew last year), and the exemption of developing countries (China and India's greenhouse emissions are virtually unregulated).  The United States, one of the largest countries and one of the biggest contributors to worldwide greenhouse emissions, rejected Kyoto due to the exemption of developing countries.

        As very few countries have agreed to negotiate a second commitment period under Kyoto, the delegates in Doha will likely begin work on a new worldwide treaty to be ratified in 2015 and take effect in 2020.  Whether or not they're able to come up with a treaty that actually works remains to be seen  Financing such a treaty is also an issue, requiring wealthy countries to support less wealthy countries.  Regardless, global warming remains a problem that needs to be addressed soon.  Can the UNFCCC finally come up with a good way to lower worldwide carbon emissions?

Voting Rights Act Repeal?

         Do we still need the Voting Rights Act, or is it extraneous? In 1965, it was needed to combat the severe racism that African-Americans had to face. Restrained from voting due to their skin color, the African-American population was not being heard. However, now, racism (although it still clearly exists) is not nearly as much as a rampant problem. As a result, section 5 of the Act seems somewhat pointless. Section 5 specifies that states with histories of racism must get all changes to voting rules pre-approved by the Justice Department before they can enact the change. Since racism isn't quite so relevant any more, shouldn't this pre-approval be pointless and a waste of time? Maybe.
         However, there really doesn't seem to be any big problem with it being there. It's a protection against racism, who would care if it is in place or not? For people to have some motivation to get rid of it in the first place, they would have to have some quarrel with that protection. That alone is enough to warrant suspicion towards why someone would want the Voting Rights Act gone.
         Should the Voting Rights Act stick around? Does it even matter at this point? Why would anyone actually want it gone in the first place?

Abortion in Ireland

        Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian immigrant to Ireland, recently passed away due to complications with her pregnancy.  Seventeen weeks after conception, Halappanavar sought medical help due to extreme back pain and was told that the baby would probably die.  Halappanavar and her husband requested an abortion to relieve her of the pain, but were denied.  They were told that, because Ireland is a predominately Catholic country, an abortion could not be carried out while the fetus was still alive.  Under Irish law, an abortion is legal is a mother's life is at risk.  However, this apparently differs from situations where a mother's health is at risk (yeah, it doesn't make too much sense to me, either).  Doctor's believed that Halappanavar's life wasn't at risk.  Three days after requesting an abortion, Halappanav's fetus died and was removed; four days later Halappanav died from a blood infection.

        After Savita's death, her husband, Praveen Hallapanav, made an inquiry about the circumstances of his wife's death.  However, the medical records seem to have been tampered with.  According to Praveen, there is no record of a request for an abortion.  Are healthcare workers in America just as capable of ignoring the law?  Many American women are denied abortion when the pregnancy threatens their health even though denying abortion in such a case is illegal under Roe v. Wade.  Aside from the blatant corruption of healthcare officials, it seems completely illogical for officials to have denied the Hallapanav's an abortion when they knew that the baby would die.  Savita's death has prompted outrage not only in Ireland but across the world, for Ireland's strict abortion laws are not all that different from the de facto laws in some parts of our country.  Is Savita's death more proof that we need to reform our system of dealing with abortions?

The Biebs has been Beaten

Note: this won't be a terribly political post.

        Today marks the end of an era.  As of today, Psy's "Gangnam Style" video officially received more views on YouTube than Justin Bieber's "Baby" video (808 million to 804 million views), making it the all-time most viewed video on YouTube.  Remember, there are only a little over 300 million people in America.  Aside from the absolutely insane number of views, the content of the two videos is remarkably different.  "Baby" details Bieber's love for some unknown girl. Gangnam style, on the other hand, supposedly mocks the consumerism of the wealthy Gangnam District of Seoul (and, by extension, I suppose it also mocks American consumerism).  Anyway, that's about as serious as this post could possibly get.  Most listeners probably don't even know what Psy is singing about (it's not all about sexy ladies!).

For your listening pleasure: