ORG
FALL 2012
B P R
bpr.bcp.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
BellarminE
B P R
staff
political review
Editor-in-Chief Copy Editor Copy Editor Design Editor Design Editor Online Editor Hiep Nguyen 14 Chris Cognetta 14 Ved Paranjpe 14 Ryan Demo 14 Richard Liu 14 Sony Theakanath 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
table of contents
national politics
4 5 5 6 7 8 Swing State Analysis Electoral College Vote Chart Impact of Unemployment Effect of Attack Ads Foreign Policy Plans Demographic Effect on Voters Ved Paranjpe Ved Paranjpe Rohan Dhoopar Brandon Sanchez Rohan Dhoopar Ved Paranjpe
B P R
opinion
Obamacare Is Personal Access to Contraceptives Chicago Teachers Strike Immigration and the Law Illegal Immigration The GOP and the Dream Act Mitt Romney and the 47% Pension Reform Handling the Federal Deficit Same-Sex Marriage Misconceptions About Obama Proportional Representation Electoral College Ayn Rand and the Tea Party 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 Richard Liu Michael Fiedorowicz Vaibhav Menon Stephen Carbone Kyle Kelly Vaibhav Menon Aman Agrawal Stephen Carbone Boo Yuen Brandon Carrillo Vivek Viswanath Hiep Nguyen Vivek Viswanath Michael Fiedorowicz
california
Proposition 34: the Death Penalty Proposition 37 High Speed Rail 21 22 22 Hiep Nguyen Richard Liu Emilio Flamenco
international
Arab Spring Embassy Attacks in Libya Greece and the Eurozone Crisis Resource Dependence 24 25 26 27 Boo Yuen Michael Fiedorowicz Sameer Rai Zeeshan Mallick
national politics
so its still anyones game. According to New York Times 538, Nevada is the most likely state - by a longshot - in which a single voter will cast the deciding ballot for the winner of the electoral college, making Nevada arguably the most critical states for both candidates. Obama leads in areas near Carson City and in the Las Vegas area, which contains most of the states population; Romney sweeps rural Nevada.5 Again, both campaigns are trying to court the states large Latino population. Nevada has been one of the hardest hit states by the housing crisis and by the economy in general (unemployment is in the double digits here) something that the Romney campaign is trying to blame on Obamas policies. Thus, if Romney can clearly persuade the electorate that he will improve the economy, something his fellow Republican Sharon Angle was unable to do a few years ago, he can take advantage of a weak incumbent (like Harry Reid was in his race against Sharron Angle) to win the state. New Hampshire: Even though this tiny northeastern state carries only four electoral votes, its divided electorate makes it a swing state. In fact, in 2008, Barack Obama
and Independents.1 The areas near the major cities of Miami, Orlando, Tampa, and Tallahassee also tend to vote Democratic. However, the rest of the state, particularly the panhandle, has traditionally supported the Republican candidate by margins as high as 80%.2 As per the New York Times 538 blog, which ran over 15,000 scenarios of election results, only in 2% of scenarios could Romney lose Florida and still pull off an electoral college victory. To that end, both campaigns have courted extensively the states large Latino population, which is concentrated in the Miami area. Romneys campaign has released the Mi Padre Spanish language ad, in which Romneys Spanish-speaking son Craig highlight his fathers family values. Similarly, the Obama campaign is attempting to convince the states large elderly population that under their policies, they made Medicare last, rather than Romneys policies, which would bankrupt the system by 2016.3 The latest polls, conducted on October 12th, give Romney a two or eight point advantage.4 Nevada: Obama has led the polls here from almost zero to a mere four points during the month of October,
Ohio: Its large number of electoral votes (18) gives it immense significance. No Republican ha s ever won the presidency without winning Ohio; however, Senator Rob Portman from the state believes Romney can do just that, but did not specify how. Regardless, Romney has been appealing to Ohio voters with
ads highlighting his support for the coal industry, an important economic activity in Eastern Ohio. Additionally, the demographics of Ohio predominantly blue-collar, white, working-class voters show a group that traditionally
supports the Republican candidate. Much of Obamas appeal lays in his promotion of his bailout of the auto industry, which has benefited many Ohio voters. Plus, an internal fight between Governor Kasich and the director of the
states Republican Party, Kevin DeWine, has wasted many GOP resources in the state. As of October 13, Obama leads in most polls by a mere one to five points. However, if Romney can over-perform in twelve very closely contested
counties (where Obama has a massive head start thanks to his having offices there for over a year), Romney can push the rock over the mountain and carry the entirety of Ohio.
From RealClearPolitics
Impact of Unemployment
recent poll taken by Gallup finds that over 70% of Americans believe that economic problems, ranging from unemployment and deficit spending to taxes and income inequality, are the biggest issues facing the nation today. When it comes to the 2012 election, it seems the economy is by far the most discussed issue. Incumbent president and Democratic nominee Barack Obama, along with the rest of his party, suggests that Americans should remain consistent
and allow him to nourish the economy back to health. On the other hand, former Massachusetts governor and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, along with his party, suggests that Obama has had his time, but since he has failed to complete his job of fixing the economy, he should be replaced. When it comes to the economy, everyone agrees that it is not in its best shape. However, as an election looms, this begs the question of how the economy will impact the elections outcome.
One of the most discussed statistics regarding the economy today is unemployment. Simply put, unemployment refers to the amount of people in America who are looking for work but unable to find a job. At the time of writing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the unemployment rate stands at 7.8%, the lowest it has been since President Obama took office. Many believe that this statistic alone has sealed the election for the president. However, as Nate
Silver, a political blogger for the New York Times who correctly predicted who would carry 49 out of 50 states in the 2008 election through averaging a centurys worth of statistics that impact elections, points out, it seems clear that the trend in [economic]
performance matters more than the absolute level. Silver highlights the example of the 1936 election, in which the incumbent Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to secure the presidency in a landslide despite a double-digit unemployment rate, simply because the rate was steeply declining from where it had been earlier in the Great Depression. The reason trends matter more than a given month is because of perception. If people perceive that the economy is doing well because the unemployment rate is falling over time, they are more likely to vote for the incumbent president, who, they believe, can and should
sustain the trend. As Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, professor at Princeton University, and writer for the New York Times, notes, unemployment has been on a sustained downward trend. A quick look at BLS statistics over the past year confirms this. A year ago, in October 2011, the unemployment numbers stood at 8.9%. At the time of writing in October 2012, the rate was 7.8%, meaning the difference over a year has been 1.1%. While the trend has been a slow recovery, it is a recovery nonetheless, meaning the average American will perceive the economy as moving forward. Additionally, another important factor to consider is the unemployment
rate in swing states, which are extremely key in determining the elections outcome. Virginia, a swing state that holds 13 electoral votes, has the nations 10th lowest unemployment rate at 5.9%. Ohio, which determines 18 electoral votes and has been described by many as the state that will determine this years election, has the nations 20th lowest unemployment rate at 7.2%. Wisconsin, which carries 10 electoral votes, has the nations 25th lowest unemployment rate at 7.5%. All of these states have jobless numbers that are lower than the national average, meaning President Obama has an even higher likelihood of winning the election by winning these states.
When it comes to the economy, the big number people say will determine the outcome of the election is the unemployment rate. However, its important to realize that the unemployment rate of a given month alone, such as this months 7.8%, will not determine the election. On the other hand, the trend in unemployment, such as the 1.1% drop since a year ago, will have a bigger impact when the polls open in November. With the economy overall looking upwards in most peoples eyes, it seems President Barack Obama has more to gain from the economy in 2012.
tend to focus heavily on and critique the background and character of a candidate, rather than criticizing said candidates platforms. This directs the attention away from the supported candidate and towards the alleged negative qualities of the opponent. According to Kathy Winkle of the Rocky Mountain Collegian, By April 2008, 9.1 percent of ads put out by candidates and interest groups were negative, but in the 2012 election season so far, 70 percent have been negative. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Americans have greater access to negative ads and messages than ever before, due to the increasing popularity
of social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Additionally, commercials (both via television and radio) have been plentiful. Also more accessible and popular are internet memes, which serve to poke fun at social, political, and cultural aspects of our society. After the October 16th
presidential debate, candidate Mitt Romneys binders full of women gaffe arrived on the cyber-scene in a series of memes such as One Does Not Simply Fill Binders With Women. Cultural phenomenon Saturday Night Live also plays a role in the parody of political candidates.
On the show, a sketch of the first presidential debate depicted President Obama as absent-minded and distracted. While these ads and general negative messages have
been widespread throughout the year, one question about these ads stands out: do they serve their purpose? The answer to that question is yes and no. Discovery News
reports that negative ads have affected undecided voters in the past. As psychologist Joel Weinberger says, People stop for a car wreck, but there are no traffic jams for beautiful
flowers. Perhaps, in this election season, Weinbergers statement rings true indeed.
Image: http://www.sergiopolitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/t1larg_romney_generalelex_MITT_1ST_DAY.jpg
Obama/Biden
Middle East
Do not believe Iran has nuclear weapons and therefore do not want to attack/instigate it
Romney/Ryan
Do not want to intervene in Arab Spring unless absolutely necessary Want a conciliatory approach to China where both America and it succeed
Believe Iran has/is close to nuclear weapons and want a hard line on its program Do not want to intervene in Arab Spring unless absolutely necessary Support Guantanamo Bay
Rest of Asia
Want India as a strong ally to counterbalance China in Asia Believe in overall pivot to Asia in Americas foreign policy
Want a hard line on China, especially its practices of currency manipulation to boost its economy
Also want India as a strong ally in order to counterbalance China Less fervent on pivot to Asia for general American foreign policy Support austerity (spending cuts) alongside Germany, and bailouts only if countries agree to austerity immediately afterwards Will not sanction Russia if it risks any tensions whatsoever Also see Turkey as extremely pivotal
Europe
Want to help Europe with bailouts and going against austerity (reducing government spending to lower deficit) plans
Will sanction Russia over its human rights violations and corruption See Turkey as pivotal in all of Afro-Eurasia Want to appease Cuba by sticking with past plans of leaving it alone for the most part
Want to let Latin American nations solve their drug cartel problem on their own for the most part
Want to draw a hard line on Cuba and strongly support the pro-democracy movements there Want heavy intervention in Latin America to solve the problem of drug cartels running free
had Marco Rubio galvanize Hispanic support for the Romney campaign. A state in which the Hispanic vote will be critical is Florida, seen by many as a state that Romney must win. Marco Rubio is obviously an asset here. Another similar state is Nevada, which is the state with the highest likelihood that an individual voter there will pick the electoral college winner, also with a significant Hispanic population. If Romney can gain ground with Hispanics in these states, his electoral college victory will be made far easier. While the Asian vote may be smaller in number, it is still a large factor in swing states like Virginia. The make-up of the group is slightly more balanced than that of other groups, with 62% backing Obama in 2008 and 38% backing McCain.4 Both Romney and Obama have shown no hesitancy in reaching out to such Asian voters in northern Virginia, where 13% of the population is Asian, by holding Asian-American community festivals and urging Asian-Americans to declare their support for a candidate.4 However, all this is contingent on the premise that states do not implement tough voter identification laws, as they can be seen as having an adverse effect on minority turnout. In a study by the University of MissouriKansas City, Harvard, and Brown, such laws were found
Of all the three major minority groups in America, its the African-Americans who most strongly support the current President Obama. In 2008, a full 95% of AfricanAmericans who voted for Obama.3 Perplexingly, the highest number of AfricanAmericans as a percentage of their state population is in the South, a region that votes solidly Republican. If the polls conducted hitherto are any accurate indication, that number will remain abnormally high, at 87%,3 this year. One explanation for this drop in support may be the fact that African-Americans have been hit harder than average by the economic recession, which many have blamed on Obamas policies. Another
1. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ cal-context-participation-electoral-politics/
Hispanic voters also support Obama by a large, but not overwhelming, margin. About 67% of Hispanics back Obama, while 33% back Romney.5 President Obama has gained much of this support by supporting the DREAM Act, which provides young Hispanic illegal immigrants and children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, and not deporting many illegal immigrants who live in America as of now. Illegal immigrants tend to disproportionately be Hispanic. In what was seen as an attempt to appeal to Hispanic voters, the Democratic Party selected as its keynote speaker for its 2012 convention the Hispanic mayor of San Antonio, Texas, Julian Castro. The Romney campaign has released many Spanish language ads and
2. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/immigration/impact-race-ethnicity-immigration-politi3. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/obama-black-voters/index.html
4. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79073_Page3.html
OBAMACARE IS PERSONAL
opinion
O
Obamacare Is Personal
ut of the path to recovery from the economic crisis comes signs of hope. With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), our nations healthcare situation has finally moved in the direction of universal coverage for every citizen. However, even though ACA is a big step forward for American healthcare, the United States is still quite behind when compared to other countries when it comes to insuring every person. Nations like France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and San Marino have all had universal healthcare systems for decades, giving every person comprehensive access to doctors, medicine, and hospitals. Sure, you might not want to read this entire article, but allow me to convey a personal anecdote demonstrating why universal healthcare is a necessity. My own father would have died if it wasnt for affordable health insurance. Around half a year ago, my father quit his job due to body aches, primarily in his spine. My mom was laid off during the recession, so no one in the family had any form of insurance. Were we unfortunate? Definitely. But the plight of the homeless, the unemployed, and those working for minimum wage pay is far worse. A company like McDonalds provides no comprehensive healthcare plan. With no job and no insurance, my dad could only hold the pains and hope that they would dissipate. Within a week, these pains had become so intense that he had to seek medical help. He paid hundreds for a couple of X-rays, and he later discovered that something was horribly, horribly wrong. Portions of his spine were being chipped off thanks to cancer cells. With absolutely no time to hesitate, he left for Taiwan alone, since he was a dualcitizen. In Taiwan, every citizen is required to purchase health insurance directly from the government, through a program called NHI (National Health Insurance). This type of healthcare is called single-payer insurance, and covers a large portion of all fees ranging from traditional Chinese medicine,to surgery, to hospitalization. My father was diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer, where cancer cells had spread
Images:
Map of Countries with Universal Healthcare to all areas of his body. In this stage, a person is generally considered hopeless. At this point, moving any part of his body resulted in immense pain. However, he had to go on, as he was fighting for his life. In Taiwan, he received all kinds of treatmentsintense radiation to kill cancer cells, both physical and hormonal therapy, hospitalization, care from radiation oncologists, you name it. My fathers life was saved, but the path towards recovery was extremely rough. Incredibly, everything was covered under 200,000 NTD, around $6,834 USD. Surgery was completely free, and the majority of the costs came from ordering services such as a wheelchair (since my fathers bones were extremely frail after treatment). Healthcare allows people of all economic backgrounds to afford hospitalization and not worry about costs. Opposing healthcare is equivalent to downgrading our national well-being, and picking on those with lower incomes. Life
or death should not depend on how much money one makes. Rather, everyone should be able to afford medical care if desired. Are basic human rights so hard to fight for? If my father had not been a Taiwanese citizen, he may not even be here right now. This is why I urge people to stop opposing Obamacare. Simply put, Obamacare will mandate every citizen who does not already have health insurnace through their employer to purchase a policy. ACA will also grant federal subsidies to those with lower-income backgrounds. Additonally, people living in some states will have access to Medicaid if they fall within 133% of the federal poverty line. This will ensure that all Americans will have insurance with or without employment, improving everyones quality of life.
I would like to thank Luca Dau for giving me the English equivalent of healthcare terms, as I only knew how to say them in Mandarin.
1: http://www.etftrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/healthcare.jpg 2. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2007/07/
10
ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTIVES
Access to Contraceptives
ince women do make up somewhere around 50% of population, they are without a doubt one of the key voter demographics in this years election, and as a result birth control and the funding of Planned Parenthood has become a major issue. A debate has developed around whether or not government should be giving any financial support towards birth control.
Many womens rights advocates have argued that women should they have the right to control their own bodies. This particular argument has, for the most part, been a huge win for the Obama administration when it comes to women and their votes. The reason this argument has leaned so strongly towards the President in the past few weeks results from a few missteps taken by some in the conservative community who believe it is not a right to have access to contraception. This is paired with the fact that 99% of all women, regardless of their political or religious views, have used a form of contraception. Most memorable of these missteps was when conservative kingpin Rush Limbaugh declared that Sandra Fluke, an advocate of governmentfunded birth control and a
vehement Obama-supporter, a slut and a prostitute for possessing such convictions. Keep in mind that Ms. Fluke is a Georgetown law graduate, womens rights activist, and was deemed eloquent enough to speak at the Democratic National Convention. With all due respect to Mr. Limbaugh, he is by no means the one who should be resorting to the degradation of women possessing such stature. Flukes (and the Democrats) argument has been simple throughout: using birth control when it is not included in your health care plan is extremely expensive, especially for young women. Fluke argued that some girls at Georgetown were paying $3,000 a year for birth control pills. Not having the ability to use contraceptives leads to instability in ones sex life and financial standing. Furthermore, with the passage of President Obamas health care bill and its declared constitutionality, the government has to some extent admitted that is their job to keep people healthy in an attempt to promote
national stability. Birth control does exactly that, by not only decreasing financial woes, but also making women much less likely to get ovarian, uterine, and bowel cancers, in comparison to those not on the pill, as reported by a group of British medical scientists. The government has an obligation to provide the nation with stability, and that is exactly what agencies like Planned Parenthood do through educating people about family planning. The United States and the entire world are facing a problem of overpopulation. Two of the three best ways to deal with this are elevating the status of women, and educating people on family planning (the third being the reduction of poverty), and both are covered with government support. Women, when given the choice to control of their own bodies, will immediately feel their social status rise even further. This chain of events is clear considering the fact that right now, women have not had the opportunity to show their frustration in the polls yet. The little discussion
11
One of the largest points of contention and sources of vitriol during the strike was the correlation between students standardized test scores and teachers job security. Emanuel and the Chicago School District had earlier proposed a policy of evaluating teachers based off of their students standardized test scores. This move sparked outrage among the teachers union, which believed that the policy was unfair and impractical in general. Eventually, the district relented, giving the teachers job security, higher pay, and promising not to enact their initial proposal for teacher evaluation that could potentially lay off hundreds of Chicago schoolteachers.
Mayor Emmanuel, who previously served as the White House Chief of Staff to President Obama, and the striking teachers pose an interesting issue, especially given the upcoming presidential election. Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger to Barack Obama in November, actually agreed with Emanuel, one of Obamas biggest proponents, regarding the validity of the justification of the teachers decision to strike. In fact, the Romney campaign and its supporters chided Obama for his inaction regarding the issue, saying, President Obamas refusal to speak out against the teachers union strike in Chicago represents an abdication of leadership. Furthermore, another one of Obamas closest advisers, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, remarked that both the union and Emmanuel were to blame. Such bipartisan criticism raises the issue of whether Obama ought to distance himself from Emmanuel and the fiasco that was the Chicago Teachers Union Strike. However, analysts agree that Obama has done a commendable job of not taking a particular side
strike-story-top.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443816804578004652048007358.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/politics/chicago-teachers-strike-poses-risks-for-obama.html
Image: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/120911010941-chicagoteacher-
people come to America is to find jobs and make better lives for themselves. I see no problem with that and feel pride in the fact that our country is known throughout the world as a place where people can have a better life.
12
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
has to do with getting more jobs back in Americas economy for the American people. But when a lot of these jobs go to people who arent even citizens of this country, it is both troubling and infuriating. Around 7 million illegal immigrants enter our country each year, resulting in around 6 million jobs (not everyone will get a job) that are no longer available to the American people. That seems neither fair nor right. Second, as we all know, California is in the midst of a huge budget crisis and Governor Brown is threatening
to raise taxes. Above all else, public schools are in trouble and dont have enough money to pay for adequate teacher staffing, supplies and many other basic educational programs. If illegal immigrants have children in America, the children automatically become American citizens, and are entitled to receive a public education. I believe this is good and right, for if these children are going to have success as American citizens, they will need an education. But the problem is that illegal immigrants dont pay taxes, and therefore dont help pay for their kids education. It is left to actual citizens to pay a rising percentage of their taxes to public education to help cover the increasing costs of running the schools. We are at a shortage of funding largely because there are not enough parents paying for the increasing costs of their kids education. Illegal immigration has vastly hurt our schools by creating a greater demand for resources without contributing to the necessary additional
funding, and it only seems like its getting worse. This seems both unfair and unsustainable. Finally, one thing people seem to forget about illegal immigration is the fact that it is illegal. For that reason alone, I really dont understand how we can justify illegal immigration. We have laws to protect the liberty and security of American citizens and to maintain the orderly functioning of our institutions. Failure to adhere to any one law leads not only to an overall disregard for that law but for all laws, and contributes to a belief by many that if you dont agree with a law you can simply ignore it. The law against illegal immigration is intended to keep criminals, terrorists, scam artists, and others with bad intentions from easily entering the United States. These border laws were put in place to keep Americans safe, not to keep people of other races, religions or political views out of our country, as some people like to say. Drug trafficking is one of the biggest criminal
activities around and there are thousands of attempts to smuggle drugs into the U.S. every day. Respect and enforcement of the law against illegal immigration is key to our efforts to maintain our security. In closing, I want to be very clear. I am not whatsoever antiimmigration. Unless youre a full-blood Native American, the reason youre alive here in America today is because your parents or ancestors were at one time immigrants to this country. Almost every time I see my grandma, she tells me the story of my great grandfather coming over from Italy through Ellis Island. This country was and continues to be built on legal immigration. If the issue is that the immigration process today is too long, maybe it needs to be re-examined. But we can no longer keep condoning people who disrespect the United States by illegally entering our country.
Illegal Immigration
llegal immigration in the United States has been a very controversial issue over the past years. The federal government, due to its lack of bipartisanship, has not been able to pass any crucial immigration reform laws, so some states have been forced to pass their own laws. One such example is the Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Arizona has a major problem with illegal immigration, mainly because of drug cartels. Mexican drug cartels
send drug runners across the border to transport marijuana, meth, other drugs, and weapons. Arizona decided to take action, and in doing so, they ignited a lot of talk across the country. The bill was taken to court, and in June of 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the case of Arizona v. United States. They upheld the provision requiring immigration status checks during law enforcement stops, but they banned three other controver-
13
women who wake up early in the morning to pick vegetables are trying to build a life where their children can go to school, and hopefully get a good job. Many men come here alone and send money back to their families in other countries. They take the risk of dying crossing the border, or being caught by the border patrol and being sent back home. If this is not desperate, then I dont know what is. Learning the story behind each immigrant is key to do before making a judgment. Generalizations about immigrants cannot be made, especially when each immigrant has a unique background and reason for coming the United States. When we are given the chance to interact with immigrants,
we must take that chance and make the best of it. By talking with immigrants, we can understand why they came here, and what they plan to do with their time here. Jesus showed mercy and love, so we should be able to do that for each individual on earth. Illegal immigrants in America are held to a higher standard than that of citizens. Often, stories such as gang violence, drunk driving, and assaults involving illegal immigrants show up in the news and on the television. Many immigrants, due to their low income, are forced to live in areas where there is a strong presence of violence. These areas are the gangrecruiting centrals in America. Young kids find themselves
without a stable living, and gangs offer a life that looks appealing to those kids. They find themselves caught up in a world where they cannot easily get out. In order to help those kids, the ghettos where gangs are prominent need to be changed. The very emotional subject of what to do when an illegal immigrant gets caught is being played out across America. Should the person be deported, or simply charged for whatever they were caught doing? In my opinion, each case needs to be individually viewed. If a person is known to be an outstanding figure in a community, than I do not think they should be deported. But if a person has any prior charges, than yes they should be. More and more
factors, such as family, play into this debate, making it a very emotional subject. In the end, illegal immigration is an emotional subject that affects nearly all Americans in some way. The problem, as seen by most people in America, is that illegal immigration inside our borders needs to be dealt with. The truth is that the problem starts outside of the United States. It starts with the corruption and economic turmoil in countries like Mexico. If the United States can help those countries get their problems sorted out, than our own problems with immigration with would go away.
this law, apart from the blatant abuse of probable cause, is the introduction of racial profiling into the policing system. If police officers are to rely on reasonable suspicion every time they arrest someone on charges of being an unlawful resident in state where 13.4% of its entire population is foreign born (Migration Policy Institute), then they will begin to make the unfair correlation between a persons race and the legality of his or her residence in the country. As Omar Jadwat, an attorney at the ACLUs Immigrants Rights Project indicates while referring to SB 1070, Law enforcement resources are wasted when people are targeted based on their skin color, and our core American values of fairness and equality are compromised. The direction taken by Arizona
14
to two years, allowing the person to not only acquire the necessary documentation for permanent or long-term residency in the United States, but also giving him or her the money needed to gain the necessary education to become a productive member of society (American Immigration Council). To all those who oppose illegal immigration due to the misconception that immigrants do not contribute to society, this bill would ensure that these Americans would not only pay taxes after acquiring necessary documentation
but the educational benefits associated with the bill would also give them an integral place in Americas workforce. Given that the Immigration Policy center estimates that over 1.8 million people would benefit from the passage of the Dream Act because it forces them to be productive, Mitt Romney needs a better reason to veto it than simply to lambaste it as a handout, as he did in an interview with CNNs Soledad OBrien earlier this year. Jumping forward to Election Day in a few days, the heated rhetoric between
liberals and conservatives reveals two starkly different choicesnot just for voters, but for the candidates, too. In the week or two, Mitt Romney will find himself struggling to gain the support of the Latino votean important voter demographic that not only makes up 9% of the voting population, but is also key to winning battleground states such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida. The fact that a resounding 67% of this voting bloc supported Obama in 2008 does not paint a pretty picture for conservative Romney. supporters, characterized by
their hardline stance against illegal immigration. In any case, the issue of illegal immigration brings to mind a valuable lesson I learned from the Justice Summit year. America is a nation founded by and has always been a home to immigrants, seeking a better life for them and their children, seeking to escape persecution, and seeking to live the American Dream. On November 6th, dont take that dream away.
itt Romneys recent comments about the 47% of Americans that are dependent on the government, said at a private event in Boca Raton, Florida, have incited a lot of negativity from both parties, but as the election gets closer and closer, it becomes increasingly unclear who will lead in the polls on election Tuesday. On the week that the comments were leaked, Gallup Polls had shown that Democrats were around 68% less likely to vote for Romney, and Republicans were about 4% less likely. However, at the time, Independent voters were around 29% less likely to support Mitt Romney. Often times, the Independent vote can become the tie-breaker in the election, and the large amount of voters abandoning support for the candidate was very dangerous for the candidates chances in the election. Bear in mind that as soon
as the comments were released, Obama had begun to use Mitt Romneys words to get ahead in the polls. Obama used the comments as a way of proving to voters that Mitt Romney was out of touch with Americans in battleground states such as Florida, which decided the election in 2000. Nevertheless, Romney came back in the first Presidential Debate. After struggling along the campaign to connect with voters and seem in-touch with Americans, in the first debate, Romney was able to come out ahead, mostly due to President Obamas lackluster performance. The debate gave Mr. Romney a great lead, as he became seen as a committed, moderate Republican, contrary to his previous image as a selfinterested businessman. The debate really allowed Romney to close a large gap that was held previously. Before the debate, the polls showed that Obama was at around 50% of the vote, with Romney at
45%. Yet, after the first debate, Romney came back and tied with Obama at 47%. 10 days later, when Vice President Biden debated the Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, he utilized the comments during the debate, and was largely able to turn the tide for the Democratic ticket in the election. Of course, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney, and everyone involved in the Romney campaign has been continually defending Romneys character, by saying that he does in fact care, and is very much so a kind and involved American. President Obama continued the trend in the Second Presidential Debate, at a town hall setting in Hempstead, New York. Obama ended the debate talking about who the 47% are: those serving our country, those who pay the payroll tax, but dont have enough for income tax, those who have given their lives to working for America. The President also
15
unused sick and vacation time, growing numbers of employees qualifying for permanent disability, and overly optimistic assumptions about economic growth. The result is an
unsustainable rise in current and future pension obligations that far exceeds the ability for state and local governments to pay for them. With growing budget deficits, governments are being forced to cut other important and vital services to its citizens. Even worse, its the next generation of Americans who are going to inherit this awful situation, and be forced to pay higher and higher taxes and suffer greater
Images: 1. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KYqI1ZkHiJo/UELtWoYUHPI/AAAAAAAAAn0/Y8tP3m95uLM/ s1600/pensions.jpg
breaking a promise already made to public employees. My view is that the current situation is financially unsustainable and that our failure now to undertake serious reform presents a greater risk to the pensions of current public employees, as well as the economic wellbeing of future generations. Therefore, the right thing to do and the only thing to dois to reform public pensions now.
2. http://www.economy-ukraine.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/budget-deficit-us.jpg
cannot make money for the government by having a reality TV show. Instead, the U.S. is racking up a massive amount of debt, which begs the question, how do we handle the deficit? There are three basic ways to reduce the deficit,
reducing spending, taxing people, and printing more money. Of the three, the best way is to reduce spending, because of the significant consequences in taxation and printing money. Taxation is technically a viable way of reducing the deficit because naturally if the government
16
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
taxes imposed on businesses result in less revenue and less growth. With more taxes, it is more likely that investors will invest less when they know that they will be losing money to taxes somewhere, whether in the investment itself or in other taxes. The second way of reducing the deficit, printing money to pay off the debt tends to be even worse. Printing more money means having a greater supply of money with similar amount of demand for that money, which results in the devaluation of the dollar. When the dollar loses its value, the result is inflation. Some believe that because of the Phillips Curve (the concept that when employment increases, inflation increases), printing money for spending is good for the economy. However, history tells us the opposite. In the 1970s, the Nixon administration tried the strategy of printing money and creating inflation to help the economy, but instead
devastated the American financial sector and worsened already bleak economic times. This failed policy resulted in stagflation, a period of time where inflation increased and employment stayed flat. Jobs may cause inflation (because when people are employed, they have more money to spend), but the reverse is not true. Inflation does not help the economy. Inflation is detrimental to the average consumer because when food suddenly costs $10 instead of $2. In addition, the country suffers because we have less buying power, and we hurt anyone who owns investments in the U.S. government. Taxation and printing money may be more immediate solutions than cutting spending over time, but because of the consequences, taxation and printing money are not the answer. Rather than force a quick short-term solution that is detrimental to the
economy, the government must gradually cut spending in areas in which the U.S. is inefficient. First, Social Security provides a massive problem for policymakers. As more and more of the baby boom generation requires social security, the program will cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars. While it is important to provide the elderly with social insurance, the amount of money shelled out to each income group must be revised. Secondly, military spending must be reduced. Our government cannot afford a $600 billion Department of Defense Budget during stagnant economic times. The U.S. outspends every other country in the world in defense by a astronomical amount, including China (the worlds number two military spender) by over $500 billion. While the U.S. should continue to be the world leader militarily, it certainly can do so with less money.
Perhaps more important than the actual details of cutting the deficit is the largest problem afflicting policymakers today, partisanship. In order for any reduction of the debt, Democrats and Republicans must stop interfering with each other for the sake of interference. If any plan, whether the one mentioned, or a potential law Congress devises is to be effective, it has to be implemented and committed to, which requires bipartisanship. Without some compromise or bipartisanship, there is no way to guarantee any solution even getting through congress. Despite the fact that the government spends like a reality TV star on a shopping spree, policymakers are not dumb (for the most part), and they can get the job done with an effective plan, if something can just pass through Congress.
Same-Sex Marriage
he makes me feel beautiful and special, and really important. She makes me feel like I can do anything absolutely anything in the world. As I watched Erica gush over her partner Tevonda, I felt as though I was watching my parents with another one of their sickeningly-sweet, affectionate exchanges. It was then that I realizedthey were the same. Rather than stemming from a literal or physical faculty, I saw that the overwhelming sense of love between Erica and Tevonda, and between my parents, share no perceptible difference. Yet, in the United States, the love that exists between
couples is treated differently solely on the basis of whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act, leaves the debate debate over the legitimacy of same-sex marriage to the wishes of each individual state. However, it also defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman, and prevents same-sex couples from getting any of the federal benefits that heterosexual couples usually enjoy. This law was implemented in late 1996, making this definition around 16 years old. As the power to
17
terrible injustice faced by many homosexual couples leaves people like Erica and Tevonda feeling unworthy and less than the people they actually are, and deprives them of their dignity as parents. What exactly is the problem with legalizing the marriage between two consenting adults? When it comes down to it, the marriage of others has no drastic impact upon our lives. So why is it, then, that
this country flinches at the thought of two men, or two women getting married even if that same marriage may never come to our personal attention? The main aspect to grasp from all of this is that the ignorance of our country allows the very citizens that the Constitution swore to protect to live in a void of helpless deprivation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy9uSp6mntU http://gregstoll.dyndns.org/marriagemap/#year=2012-12
http://data.lambdalegal.org/take-action/nj-marriage/
to the hodgepodge. This article will aim to clear up President Obamas record now that he has run two presidential campaigns, and therefore has received double the damage of his rival, Governor Romney.
As the President, Mr. Obama certainly has faced his share of criticism and attacks, so I will look at some of the biggest misconceptions with regards to his political actions. First is a view that stems from as far back as 2008, during his first campaign. Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, insinuated that then Senator Obama was a socialist, stating You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it, due to his involvement with characters like Joe the Plumber and his message of spreading the wealth around. Socialism itself was a movement that originated in the late 1800s with the purpose of granting power to the masses and alleviating the horrible
conditions of the working class. Obama is not a socialist and several of his actions prove that. His moves to bail out the auto industry and place more regulations on Wall Street were desperate attempts to bring balance to capitalism in a time of failure across all economic sectors of the country. In fact, his health care reform act, one of the most fought over and controversial bills, keeps insurance in private hands rather than giving it over to the federal government. Clearly, Obama is no socialist. Perhaps the largest argument about Obama is his failed 2009 stimulus package. The Obama administration had promised that the stimulus would create 2.5 million new jobs. While it instead created about 1.4 to 1.5 million jobs, the net result of his package was still positive. The stimulus cannot be considered a failure if all it resulted in was success. Its goals to begin with were strained due to compromises in order to achieve success in
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-10-18/politics/campaign.wrap_1_obama-tax-tax-credit-income-taxes?_s=PM:POLITICS
18
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Proportional Representation
eople are becoming tired and sick of the gridlock in Washington, and many of us blame an increasingly bipolar two-party system for the inability of Congress to work. Liberals would like a party that does not have to moderate their progressive agenda in order to appease a few Centrist Blue Dogs. Younger conservatives wish to see a more modernized Republican Party, one that rejects the social conservatism that has shunned womens rights and same-sex marriage. People always wish they could look at more than two choicesin fact, according to a recent Politico article, more than half the country considers the need for a viable third party, and more than half the country would consider a third party candidate in the upcoming election.1 However, the American political system itself stands in the way of more than two parties competing for office. Currently, in any election across the country, the candidate with the most popular votes wins the election. This seems accepted as universally true by most Americansbut consider this, often times the winning candidate receives less than 50% of the popular vote, and that over half the electorate does not approve of the candidate. In addition, even though third parties, such as the Libertarian Party, won as many as 142,363 popular votes alone in California for House races, they did not win a single seat.2 Clearly, the political system existent in the United States prevents third parties from gaining any hold in politics. The United States is a country that needs proportional representation to break the two-party system which is controlling and wrecking Congress. Proportional representation reflects a simple proposition: that a candidate must be supported by the majority of the population to win an election. One solution, STV (or single transferrable vote), achieves proportional representation through the creation of multi-member districts where people rank candidates, and election winners are determined based on who is the first to reach a threshold determined by the number of votes and vacant positions. Votes are then redistributed to count second and third-choice votes until a second candidate reaches the threshold to be elected.3 Through proportional representation, elections become fairer to third parties and give them a more even playing ground with Democrats and Republicans. Elections with proportional representation are proven to give other parties a better chance at winning, such as in New Zealand, where eight parties current have seats in Parliament, with parties that are normally relegated to minor party status in the United States, such as the Green Party, achieving 14 seats.4 As opposed to the winner-take-all system, voters see more than just two viable choices, which enhances democracy and gives more opinions on legislation,
placing a check on the power and influence of a single party. Proportional representation also forces parties to work with each other through the formation of coalitionsbecause in most cases, most parties do not have enough seats to control one chamber outright. The formation of governing coalitions between multiple parties, such as in Germany, where Angela Merkels Christian Democrats govern in coalition with Philipp Roslers Free Democrats, helps bring in a more diverse government which respects multiple views. Beyond giving third parties a bigger voice in government, proportional representation may also help solve the problem of gerrymandering, where congressional seats are drawn by the party in power to keep some seats safe and uncompetitive. Former congressman John Anderson, a vocal advocate of proportional representation, notes that In addition to curbing the partisan excesses of winner-take-all democracy, proportional voting makes it easier to balance the goals of fair redistricting and minority voting rights.5 Proportional Representation takes away the incentive to gerrymander districts because each constituency has multiple members, removing the need for politicians to disenfranchise
districts of their own. Furthermore, systems of proportional representation also greatly reduce the amount of money in politics. FairVote, an organization advocating electoral reform, states that PR would lessen the impact of money, which is most potent when the game is all-or-nothing In winner-take-all elections, a 5% vote swing can mean a 100% swing in representation; in PR it generally means a 5% swing in representation.6 Proportional representation clearly removes the incentive for large corporations and billionaires to influence elections, making the democratic process more accountable to the people, and less about the influence of a few large companies. To conclude, proportional representation is sorely needed to expand voter choices by making third party candidates more viable, fix the corrupt system of gerrymandering seats, and also reduces corporate influence in politics. It is proven to be effective, and is what the United States must implement to the end the hegemony of the two-party system, and restore voter choice back to the American people.
1. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71718.html 2. http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/
6. http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/richie.html proportional+representation.jpg
Images: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PXobYkhXQlE/T2nxNJfWQaI/AAAAAAAABHo/ozucmjzcdJI/s1600/
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
19
Electoral College
s an event that only happens every four years no, its not the Olympics the American presidential election is one of the most hyped processes in the world. The elected candidate becomes the executive figure at the forefront of arguably the worlds biggest superpower, and thus, can influence actions all over the planet. Its no wonder then that citizens of the United States feel extreme pride in going to the polls and casting their votes. They have just made a commitment to a person who they believe will represent them well for the next four years. However, the truth of the matter is that half of these votes will make no real impact in the end. What does in fact control the voting process is the institution known as the Electoral College. First, let me explain the makeup of the Electoral College. It consists of 538 total electors from every state.
The actual number of electors per state depends upon the amount of members in that states congressional delegation. For example, a state with one representative in the House of Representatives and two senators would receive five Electoral College votes: three for the congressmen representing the state, and one for each senator. The members of the Electoral College are selected in regards to their affiliation with a political party. The Democratic Party for example, would nominate Democratic electors and similarly, the Republican Party would nominate Republican electors. This offers presidential candidates a wide variety of potential electors come Election Day. But what purpose do the electors actually serve? To answer this, we must move back to our voters earlier who have just made a commitment to a candidate. Most people believe that our vote actually goes directly to our candidate, but thats only
part of the truth. A person may wonder, if my vote does not go to my choice, then how is a president elected anyways? You see, citizens do place a vote, its just that the vote doesnt go to whom they expect it to. They end up with our friends in the Electoral College. Lets look at the process in closer detail. Remember that the electors for each state were divided based on political affiliations? Well, when a vote is placed for a certain candidate, it goes to the electors of that candidates party. So four years ago, every vote for then-Senator Obama went to a Democratic elector in that respective state. After Election Day passes and all the votes are in, the electors get to work. Its an important job, choosing the President of the United States, so deliberation does take quite some time. They have to record and consider all of the votes for their respective parties and come up with totals. Based on this, the electors then cast their vote for their respective candi-
dates. Results are processed in most states with a winner take all system, so a candidate who wins a majority of the electoral votes in a state also receives all of the states electoral votes. For a candidate to be elected, he or she must receive a nationwide total of 270 electoral votes. Some may view the electoral system as unconstitutional or un-American, as it robs people of their ability to directly elect a candidate. However, it is an easily implemented system and does offer a measure of fairness to states with very few people by giving them proper electoral representation. At the end of the day, like it or not, citizens of the United States will still have to go to the polls and cast their votes, and the Electoral College will continue its behind the scenes work and elect us a President.
20
aul Ryan and the Tea Party call upon their primary thinker Ayn Rand, one of the most profound and respected American philosophers, in support of their views. However, they seem to not be fully aware of the ideas she represented. Ryan, the Partys poster boy, and Republican Vice Presidential candidate, once claimed that Rand was the one person who most influenced him in his pursuit of political office. He threw full support behind her and her philosophies when he said, Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most, and this statement also matters most when one analyzes his views. But, to be frank, it may backfire against him. The volatility of this full-fledged support becomes abundantly clear when one begins analyzing and contrasting some of Rands more discrete and controversial writing with the views of modern-day conservatives. The fact is that the Tea Partys whole-hearted support of Rand is a clear misunderstanding of her philosophy, and shows how Paul Ryan and the Tea Party did not do their homework. One clear discrepancy between Rand and the Party
stating that upper-class wealth should be sustained, and that the prosperity of the rich will trickle down through job-creation with as little government involvement in that process as possible. Paul Ryan did admittedly at one point recently try to disassociate himself with most of Ayn Rands beliefs, and only support her economic ideas. But, it is important to not forget that he did mark this woman as the thinker that molded him as a leader. If we assume Ryan read her works as much as he claims, it is crucial to understand her views in order to understand this Vice Presidential candidate. Although, it is also important to recognize that, while Rand may have promoted such theories in her writing where they made sense on paper, actions do speak louder than words. While she degraded, and even insulted, all people who accepted the governments helping hand, in the last few years of her life Rand herself took government assistance in the form of welfare. She chose to grasp the nation by the hand and allow it to aid a citizen, herself. That being said, when applied to the real world, Rand is a moral egoist who believed the moral choice is always the one supporting and improving your own life. Her true economic virtues slowly seem more and more distant from contemporary conservatives who are still staring at the ink on the paper. While she is revered as a Tea Party hero, in reality, its evident that Ayn Rand does fully not align with their proclaimed policies, socially or
Image: http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/articles/rob_ryan_ayn_81512.jpg
21
california
E
Proposition 34: Death Penalty
ver since the beginning of time, people have been grappling with the issue of when it is right to kill a person for the wrongs they have committed. Looking at history, humanity has come a long way towards instituting the death penalty in more civilized ways, as we have moved from the gruesome methods of hanging, to the guillotine, to the electric chair, and then to lethal injection. It is time for California to lead the way in the United States, and end the death penalty once and for all by passing Proposition 34, which Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.1 The death penalty is a cruel and sickening method of punishment, and costs the taxpayer millions of dollars each year to implement. Before delving into the moral implications and flaws with any form of the death penalty, we must first consider the cost of implementing it. A 2011 study by The Guardian reports that the death penaltys implementation costs the California taxpayer upwards of $300 million per execution.2 This is money that can be better put to use funding schools and child care that will prevent future adults from committing crimes. In contrast, keeping an inmate behind bars for life actually costs millions of dollars less than using the death penalty.3 This cost is also simply unsustainable when California has a looming budget crisis and must also look to find ways to fund necessary public programs such as ambulances, hospitals, police, and firefighers. By keeping the death penalty, we are putting the livelihood of public employees on the line, and placing stake the safety of a neighborhood and education for the prospect that a person may be killed. Beyond the death penalty being just purely bad economics, it also has severe moral implications. The Seattle Times reported in 2005 that in 21 cases, the concentration [of anesthetic] wasnt sufficient to prevent a patient from responding to a verbal command.4 Something as simple as lack of anesthetic can keep an inmate in a state of pain, which shows how the death penalty is not only unbecoming of modern society but barbaric. The Innocence
Project, a non-profit working to exonerate people wrongly convicted of murders and currently living on Death Row, also notes the stories of people who have served a combined 209 years in prison including 187 years on death row for crimes they didnt commit.5 Furthermore, there are increasing cases where DNA testing is exonerating people who were previously thought to have committed murder.3 For a country which has dedicated itself to the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to the humane treatment of individuals, there is nothing more horrible and hypocritical than to kill a person. Putting innocent people to death is a heinous actan act which constitutes murder, and something which government should never participate in. Such incidents, where a person
is wrongly put to death, are shameful and unbecoming of the standards of a modern legal systemwhich should treat all its people with the respect and dignity they deserve. Two wrongs do not make a right, and it should not be up to us to determine who lives or dies in our society. Because of capital punishments prohibitive cost and questionable ethics, California should join the 98 countries which have abolished the death penalty by strongly supporting Proposition 34 on November 6.
1. http://www.safecalifornia.org/downloads/2.1.A_titleandsummary.pdf
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs cost/#.UII8Rm_A_4U
4. http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2002242011_execute15.html
3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-
5. http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php
22
PROPOSITION 37
Proposition 37 is Tricky
am stuck between both sides on Proposition 37provided that my theory might become true. modification which enables cattle to mature at a faster pace. Firstly, this proposition mandates that any food product which is processed or created through genetic modification to be explicitly labeled. Additionally, it also prevents any food that is genetically modified from being be labeled as natural. However, there are exceptions. Alcohol, animals that are fed with genetically-modified food, animals unintentionally fed with genetically-modified food, and foods served in restaurants do not need to be labeled. Just as a clarification, when I use the term natural food, I mean all food that is not a genetically-modified organism (GMO). Almost all the food we eat today is genetically-modified, even if it is are organic. For example, corn used to make soda and cereal is made of GMOs, and a lot of livestock eat that corn. What about other foods? Tomatoes, for example, are genetically modified to withstand colder temperatures. Some of the milk we drink comes from cows which are injected with artificial growth hormones, a On one side, consumers should have the right to know know what exactly is in their food. Food directly interacts with biological systems (as compared to the material of a car, which does not directly affect ones body), so this must be taken seriously. Plus, a food company should not hide information from consumers just to increase profits. However, the science behind the effect of eating GMOs is inconclusive. Some scientists have found that eating genetically modified food negatively impacts the body, while others have filed the exact opposite conclusion. Effects on the body, if any, may also depend on how heavily the food is modified as well. Furthermore, I do not know any cases where, after autopsy, doctors have declared that the cause of death was because the person ingested genetically modified foods.
In addition, labeling of genetically modified food may negatively impact companies which research genetic engineering techniques. My theory is that foods with GMO labels may discourage people from buying these products. In turn, there will be less revenue for genetically modified food, and therefore less profit for the companies which are hired to do research in biological and genetic engineering. These companies obviously will not go bankrupt, but less money equals less research. Scientific advancements which may improve the quality, durability, and nutrition content of fruits and vegetables might slow
down. If there is no conclusive evidence that GMOs are harmful, then what is the purpose of decreasing funding to an industry which has done no harm? According to recent polls, this proposition is more likely to pass. I just want food to be labeled without having a negative impact on science which does not seem possible.
Image: http://ourtinyearth.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ogm1.jpg?w=604
sial construction. In a 21-16 vote, the Democratic-led Senate secured $2.6 billion for the initial construction stages of the system, which will be the first truly high-speed rail line in the nation.
23
high-speed rail system, and he has a goal of giving 80% of Americans access to highspeed rail within the next 25 years. In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth, [and] remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations, the President said. In Spain, a highspeed line between Madrid and Seville is so successful that more people travel between those cities by rail than by car and airplane combined Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. signed the bill into law on July 18th. Ive been around long enough to know the difference between the skeptics, the fraidy-cats and the builders, Brown said. And we will create jobs, not by hiding out, not by saying no, but by saying yes to the future. The high-speed rail project is headed by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). The 800+ mile (1,300+ km) system would operate at top speeds of 220 mph (350 km/h), and would connect Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area to the Los Angeles and San Diego metropolitan areas via the Central Valley, where proposed stops include Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield. High-speed trains similar to those seen in other countries like France, Japan, and China would cover the roughly 430 miles (643.7 km) between San Francisco to Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes. In comparison, the trip by car takes roughly 6 hours and 30 minutes. The high-speed rail project has been opposed by many, and was in fact initially shot down by the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Jeff Dunham (R-Fresno) put forth an amendment that would prohibit federal funding for the project in 2012. The previous high-speed rail bill called for $10 billion from the federal government and private sector. Problem is, Mr. Dunham explains, there is no private investor for the $10 billion, the federal government is broke with $16 trillion worth of debt and cant come up with $10 billion, and the state of California can no longer float the bonds because its credit rating is so bad. Rep. Dunhams amendment passed the House 239-185 and seemed to put the brakes on the project, which has been criticized as a train to nowhere by critics opposed to its construction beginning in the rural Central Valley rather than the urban centers of the Bay Area and Southern California. President Barack Obama and his administration, like Governor Brown, have also been strong supporters for the introduction of high-speed rail in the United States. His administration has proposed construction of a nationwide
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx https://maps.google.com/
Theres no reason why we cant do this. This is America. Theres no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system, he continued. Many of the projects critics decry the high-speed rail project for its ever-increasing costs. The initial budget of $33 billion (2008 USD) rose to $65.4 billion in the CHSRAs revised business plan in November 2011. The projected completion date was also moved from 2020 to 2033. At the latest estimate, it is projected that the project will cost $98.5 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail authority-john-tos-cost-overruns?_s=PM:TRAVEL
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-06/travel/travel_california-high-speed-rail_1_california-high-speed-railhttp://www.cnn.com/2012/07/18/us/california-high-speed-rail/index.html
http://www.metric-conversions.org/length/miles-to-kilometers.htm
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/06/29/33024/house-votes-strip-ca-high-speed-rail-money http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/state&id=8734887
Image: http://c276521.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/high_speed_rail.jpg
24
international
F
The Arab Spring
ruit. Ironically, the food group that grows during the spring happens to be the spark that started the Arab Spring, possibly the most significant events in recent times in the international community. Mohammad Bouazizi was a 26 year old fruit salesman in Tunisia. He, like many other young men and women in Arab nations, suffered from a lack of freedom and some of the toughest economic times the world has seen. On the morning of December 17, 2010, a policewoman tried to forcefully confiscate Bouazizis fruit. When Bouazizi resisted, the officer slapped him in the face, adding insult to injury. What happened next became an event that would change the Middle East forever. Bouazizi drenched himself in lighter fluid and lit himself on fire. The demonstration left Bouazizi in critical condition, and he died on January 4, 2011. But the demonstration inspired others in Tunisia and across many Arab countries with the message; stand up to oppression,
even in the face of death. On January 14, 2011, the Tunisian government was overthrown, and the civil unrest across the Middle East would only bloom into what we now know as the Arab Spring. Bouazizi was not an individual extremist with beliefs that were radically different from the sentiment of the general population. His seemingly crazy act of martyrdom was simply the culmination of many internal problems within multiple Arab nations. These problems were the true cause of the Arab Spring, and Bouazizi was the spark that pushed citizens across the Middle East over the edge. One of the largest problems and causes of the Arab Spring was the young unemployed population. The IMF reported in 2011 that the Middle East had a youth unemployment rate of 25% (on a scary, but irrelevant side note the U.S. youth unemployment rate is at 18% and growing). Young people are the leaders of social reform, and when the youth
25
n the 11th anniversary of the infamous 9/11 attacks, a band of terrorists struck the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The attack has been engulfed in controversy, both internationally and domestically in the United States. The world has sat back analyzing American foreign policy while our presidential candidates have made a political show over small discrepancies in how exactly the events transpired. These arguments stem from the shift in reporting that came from the C.I.A., which changed their story a few days after their primary release of acquired intelligence. The original assumption made by U.S. officials was based on the limited knowledge they had garnered. In the wake of the attack, intelligence officers believed that an angered mob was simply attacking as an extension of Cairo protesters who were furious with the American-produced Innocence of Muslims YouTube video. The C.I.A. itself proclaimed this to be the case, and passed such
information on to the White House and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. It was not until only a few days later that Ms. Rice reported a change in information, proving how our country had been too quick to overlook Al Qaedas involvement, as new intelligence pointed to extremist terrorist suspicions in the attack. This is where more controversy began to brew on top of the aforementioned shift in position. Prior to the attacks, there were several indicators that could have helped prevent the tragic violence. The most notable of these indicators was the embassys call for increased security in the preceding week, which was denied by individuals above Ambassador Stevens himself. This came primarily as a result of an attack on the C.I.A. station chief in Tripoli, who had in that time been attacked by heavily-armed militants. Despite clear signs of warning, someone high up in the administration of the State Department or the White House denied the extra protection, and sadly this decision could have been the difference between the lives of
four American public servants. Someone was expected to be held accountable. Thus, in an effort to mitigate the politicization of this issue, and likely to draw public heat off of President Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton declared that she was responsible for the attacks. Obviously, not directly but rather indirectly as the head of the State Department, she believes that she should be held accountable for the thousands of people who are employed under her. Considering this report ran soon before the second presidential debate, many political pundits pounced on the thought that this was simply a play by the Obama administration to take heat off of the Commander-in-Chief during the debate. Even if this may be true, it is important to recognize the validity behind Clintons statement, because in the end any decision that is made in relation to our State Department stops with her, not necessarily all the way to the President. The issue did not avoid attention during the debate, and President Obama instead try tried the same
move as Mrs. Clinton when he pulled the blame onto himself, claiming that the buck always stops with him. Despite this Democratic Party blame game, Governor Romney falsely attacked the President for having not confirmed that the attacks were of ones of terror. The issue of accountability has not been resolved, and while many await answers, some believe the problem should be fixed, rather than obsessed upon. This attack will stand as a reminder of our still existent vulnerability as a nation that still cannot shake away the horrors of 9/11. It will also stand as a test of the Obama administration and their attention to foreign policy, as well of Governor Romneys ethical backbone which will come to light in how he uses the terrorist attack in Libya throughout the remainder of the presidential race.
com/2011/08/arab-spring.jpg 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/libyan-rebels-pro-
long-arab-spring/2011/08/22/gIQAl10JXJ_story.html 3. http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/files/2012/09/2012-09-
26
ack in 2009, Greece was on the verge of what would become far more than a local calamity. Globalization of finances, coupled with the ever increasing debt levels, led analysts and economists worldwide to speculate on whether or not the nation was on the brink of economic collapse. Credit swaps and loan defaults became central issues, and risk insurance premiums rose as investor confidence pummeled. At the time, all of this was at a level of pure speculation, without any repercussion locally. Looking three years forward to the present reveals an entirely different story. Following a credit collapse, nationwide default, demotion of the status of government commodities to junk bonds, and multiple rounds of bailout loans worth hundreds of billions of euros apiece, Greece finds itself in a state of economic turmoil. Unemployment is at a staggering 25.1% and at a far greater
number among the youth population, causing notorious riots and strikes to flood and spread throughout Athens and other major central cities. Highly regarded credit rating agencies have downgraded Greece severely as seen in the cases of Moodys and Standard and Poors. All of these occurrences have led seemingly hopeless victims and outsiders to ask: what is Greeces future? Amidst the 110 billion first round of funding in May of 2010, and the additional 130 billion added to the fund between July 2011 and April of this year, it is clear that massive economic efforts have been carried out by major European banks, treasuries, and associated economic sources. However, despite these initiatives on behalf of the E.U., as well as individual private investors in the European economy who fear widespread repercussions from expansions of the problem, Greece has maintained
significant economic downturn in the aftermath of the default. With maintained levels of debt to GDP (gross domestic product, or spending power) ratios, and high levels of accepted face value loss on Greek government bonds hovering over 53%, economists over the year of 2012 have been pondering over an entirely alternative solution to save the European economy. This solution lies in getting Greece back on its feet: allowing the country to leave the Eurozone entirely. This so-called Grexit would not only require the allocation of fewer E.U. euros to the effort, but would allow for more flexible debt restructuring on behalf of the government, and a newfound prospect and motivation for domestic production, due to the effects of the depreciation of the newly reintroduced Greek currency; the drachma. While analysts acknowledge that the Grexit would result in greater levels
http://ideas.repec.org/a/wej/wldecn/511.html http://www.ekathimerini.com http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/1140
http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-unemployment-rate-251-percent-2012-10 http://www.economist.com/node/21555572
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/15/eurozone-crisis-eu-summit-greece-spain
27
Resource Dependence
leave the water on when Im brushing. I use the AC, I take long showers, and I dont recycle as much as I should. In spite of all these things, Im still a huge proponent of dealing with climate change. The reason is that climate change, if left unnoticed, is going to have disastrous consequences in the near future that could very well destroy the human race as a whole.
Often, when people think of climate change, they dont see much wrong. People dont think that their inability to recycle will do much more then maybe raise sea levels about 1/10,000th of an inch. What people, especially people at Bellarmine, fail to realize is that global warming is already having a huge effect on people around the world. There is a ridiculous amount of examples of climate change directly leading to an increase of natural disasters. Wildfires in California and Russia. Floods in Pakistan and China. A variety of other hurricanes, fires, and natural disasters throughout the globe. People all see these and realize they are tragic, but the fact is
not enough people are making the connection that this is a direct result of higher temperatures. All of these become more likely due to the increases in climate change and CO2 emissions around the globe. Essentially, climate change has killed thousands, if not tens of thousands of people through natural disasters, in addition to displacing a few million people. The way I like to think about it is that climate change has basically committed genocide to the planet. Not just to animals, plants, or the sea, but directly to humans as well. The fact is that currently, climate change is directly affecting the state of the world by increasing natural disasters, and the world needs to take preventative action against it. But some people still may not be convinced. Some people may say, So what? Rising temperatures may cause natural disasters, but actually cutting carbon emissions in order to stop flooding in places like Pakistan may not seem appealing. Well, climate change is directly affecting us as well. Over the past decades, the world has
would be the first to go, but as global warming continues unchecked, the food supply would decrease for the entire world. That is the effect that climate change will directly have on the world and its resources. Climate change cannot be resolved in one day. It cant be resolved in 1 year, and it probably wont be resolved 100 years from now. But the point is that people (including myself ) need to start stopping our unsustainable practices, and begin thinking of better ways to preserve the environment. Whatever your political, religious, or social beliefs, climate change presents an immediate problem to the world today, and it needs to be dealt with.
by Conor Murphy 14
The 3 rs by AmChassy
fall 2012
B P R