Wyoming Finally Did Something Useful

One thing that is being talked about this year more than any other year doesn't actually have much to do with politics.  It actually affects all of us living at this time.  What is this topic you say?  It just so happens to be the end of the Mayan Calendar and/or an apocalypse.  Many people think that this is a ridiculous theory and won't come to pass, but some are taking it seriously.  The government of the State of Wyoming is one of those groups.  On Friday, state representatives in the house advanced a bill to prepare for a possible nationwide economic or political meltdown.  An article on newser.com stated that the State was prepared to take such steps as issuing a state currency, drafting a statewide army, and acquiring an aircraft carrier.  Am I the only one that thinks this is ridiculous?  I mean, Wyoming with an aircraft carrier?  What's next, Wyoming with aircrafts!?  And in order to launch aircraft, they're going to need a coast too!  This portion of their apocalypse emergency plan doesn't seem to be thought through very well.  Several of the Wyoming legislators have spoken in favor of this current bill.  To quote state Rep. Lorraine Quarberg, R-Thermopolis, "I don't thinkthere’s anyone in this room today what would come up here and say that this country is in good shape, that the world is stable and in good shape — because that is clearly not the case."  Several other legislators agree with views like hers.  Maybe all 50 states should be working on their own doomsday bills. . . just in case.  Personally I don't put much stock in all the doomsday theories.  But if they are correct, I guess we have Wyoming to look forward to as the new "top dog" beings as they're the only ones taking actual steps to a apocalypse plan.

Money Money Money Money ...... MONEY!!

So the suggested topic for this week is corruption in politics. I am not going to talk about it because I do not know what is going on. You might begin to see a trend that says I am uninformed. That is because that is the truth. My topic this week is money.

According to an article by Eve Tahmincioglu, there is a debate going on in Congress on whether or not Americans should switch over to dollar coins. The main argument for both side is money, but more specifically, the cost of switching. From Eve's article, America would lose about 550 million dollars in the first 10 years. The projected savings from the article are 4.4 billion. To me, that says that for 20 years, it will save almost 5 billion dollars for America. It seems like that type of savings would carry over for at least another hundred years or so. How do I feel? I am for it.

A couple of the arguments I have heard against it is that "I don’t want to carry around a pocket full of coins all day" and "we already have 1$ coins we don’t use, why make more?" to answer the first one, I traveled to Australia. While I didn't go specifically to answer this problem, I now have some background information.  Australia has 1$ and 2$ coins. I never had all that many coins in my pocket and I paid in cash almost exclusively for about 3 weeks. You shouldn't need more than five dollars in ones, so carrying 4 coins won't kill you. Australia isn't the only country with one (whatever is equivalent to a dollar) coins. This article is full of just some European ones for a start.

The last thing I'll talk about is the fact we already have some. To that I say, we already have 2$ bills too, but how many have you spent in your life, less than 5?  Why?  Because they are reasonably rare and people like to hold onto them. If we stated to print as many as we do 1$ bills, which I just realized should be our backup plan if the coins fall through, people would use them. I say mint them and they will spend.

Super PACs: Do they need limitations?

            The campaigns for president are being run by things being called super PAC’s. One company or individual can donate an unlimited amount of money to a political action committee with no stipulations. The only requirement by law is that the PAC cannot coordinate with the candidate they are supporting. This term coordinate is very loosely defined and even so not well regulated by law.

            The reason corporations can give an unlimited amount is because in 2010 the Supreme Court found it as a violation against their first amendment to limit their free speech on the donation of to political action committees that are independent of political candidates. Many believe that this is giving corporations an unfair advantage in the election process. These super PAC’s are controlling the media and television ads and making the campaign more about the bashing of their competitors rather than about the election.

            The super PAC’s so far this election race have raised over 10 million dollars. This is a ridiculous amount of money that can be better spent elsewhere than on the election races.  If corporations have that much extra money to give just to get a certain candidates in the federal office then they could donate more money to charities and help out our economy. Many of the candidates and their PAC’s are not even following the only law of no coordination between the PAC and the candidate.

            Romney shares consultants with his campaign and the super PAC his is not involved in. Members of his staff are also married to members of the super PAC. The leaders of his super PAC were his strategists for the 2008 campaign. Romney has also shown up for fundraisers for the super PAC. If that was not enough all of their offices are in the same suites. This just seems a little fishy to me that they are not supposed to be coordinating yet they use the same consultants, work in the same suites, were once his campaign advisors and they know when to show up for fundraisers.

            With all of this money floating around there is bound to be a scandal just when it comes out is the question. Many critics believe that this new ruling by the Supreme Court have opened the doors for wide spread corruption in politics. With corporations leading the choice in the nominations for the republican primary we might have to get stuck with a candidate that we don’t like. The candidates need to get back to worrying about the election and what is best for our country not about the money. They need money to win, but not 10 million dollars. The Supreme Court needs to revise their ruling and put a limitation on how much corporations can donate to a PAC, if not we will soon have corporations running our country and not the people.

Private Funding in Campaigns

Republican super PACs have contributed to donating over $50 million to the Republican Party alone this year for the political campaign. PACs support several of the politicians running for the presidency and I think it’s good that people and organizations support the politician they are pulling for.  However, I think private funding for campaigns has gotten a little out of hand.

PACs have spent millions of dollars towards producing negative advertisements about the politician’s opponents, some of which aren’t even true. According to the New York Times, in January, the super PACs supporting both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, spent $17.6 million combined on advertisements to bash each other. The millions of dollars spent on these advertisements doesn’t even guarantee that politician’s victory, as Newt Gingrich found out in the Florida primary. 

So exactly what effects do PACs have on the election? According to Economics and Politics, PACs can influence elections in two different ways. They can either change the legislatures voting behavior, or simply affect the outcome of the election. The Daily Beast also says that the advertisements funded by the PACs have an even bigger influence on the primaries then the candidates own ads do. Super PACs have influence the outcomes of the Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida caucuses.

How can we control these PACs? The Huffington Post suggested that congress pass new legislation to limit the total amount of money that can be donated to a PAC by a single person. Also, each PAC organization should have an executive in each ad to take accountability for what is publicized in the commercials and notify Americans who their main funders are. I think both of these proposed solutions are a good idea. People usually think twice before doing anything if they are going to be held accountable for their actions so having a representative from the PAC in each ad might make them reconsider what they put into those commercials. This might eliminate several negative advertisements and PACs will become more positive for whom they support rather than negative for whom they oppose.

I think PACs are a very good thing, and it’s important that people support whoever they follow. However, I think PACs have gone too far into supporting their politician. I think the political candidates themselves should dictate whether or not they win the caucus by how they appeal to the American people. False advertisements shouldn’t be the deciding factor for who will win the presidency. I think lawmakers should look into putting limitations on PACs so people focus on what the candidates themselves present, not the PACs.

Should protesters be limited on what they can protest about?

                I believe that people have the right to protest about whatever they believe in. But there are limits to what is right to protest about. Although there is controversy about whether or not morals should be incorporated into government, there is a point where society needs to realize what is right and what is wrong.

                Let’s begin with the KKK. What is the purpose of the KKK? To protest against racial equality. As sad as it is, racism still exists in this modern time. Racial equality was achieved many years ago yet people still continue to believe that it should not exist. Not only is the KKK an advocate of racial discrimination, it is also the way that they go about sending their message to the public. Most instances heard about involving the KKK are violence related. This is where the line needs to be drawn. Not only is the KKK’s message being conveyed in a violent manner, the message is one that has been outlawed for many years. They do not only protest physically, they even have a website: www.kkk.com. Is having their vicious views and racial slanders on the internet any better than their violent actions? No, it is still not okay. Any form of protesting that offends other people is not alright.

                Another group heard about recently is Westboro Baptist Church. This group of people travels the country protesting soldiers’ funerals. Unlike what the KKK is protesting, there is no law stating that Westboro cannot protest soldiers’ funerals. So if there is no law against the protest of solders’ funerals, then it is completely fine, right? Wrong. It is morally wrong. Newsflash Westboro: If everyone in the country hates you do to your actions, it’s probably not okay. That is pushing the limit on protesting. In Westboro’s eyes, protesting the funerals is like protesting the war. In America’s eyes, Westboro Baptist Church is a horrible institution that protests our country’s heroes. Not only does the church protest soldiers’ funerals, but it is also protesting Whitney Houston’s funeral! Not that Whitney deserves more respect than America’s soldiers, but protesting a pop star’s funeral? Really?  

                In all, yes, protesters should be limited to what they can protest about.  If what you are protesting offends others and goes against the constitution, you should not be protesting about it. If what you believe offends other and is morally wrong, keep it to yourself.

Peace v. Hate: When have protestors gone too far?

As stated in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution, we, as citizens, have the right to 'peaceably assemble.' But when does it all become too much? We are taught when we are little that our words can hurt someone just as much as our actions can. So why would we allow protestors continue their protests that are solely based on hate? When are we going to say enough is enough?

Here in America, many people have exercised their 1st Amendment rights by protesting and some were for good causes. However, what do we do when the protests are for all the wrong reasons. One example of protestors going to far would be the Westboro Baptist Church and their protest at military funerals. According to abc, the United States Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, last year that there was nothing unconstitutional about there protest and that they have a right to be there. It also included Chief Justice Roberts stating in the ruling, "Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and- as it did here- inflict great pain......we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." The words to focus on here is 'inflict great pain.' Since when has a peaceful assembly changed to meant that the protestors can inflict great pain in any way?

According to an article titled, The Racist Skinhead Project, the skinhead movement has kept evolving over the last 30 years. Skinhead is a slang word meaning a member of a group that has a shaven head and often takes apart in white-supremacist or anti-immigrate rallies/activities. Though some skinheads are not racist, a majority of them are. They often take part in neo-Nazi rallies. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes neo-Nazi groups as groups that share a hatred for Jews, gays, and other minorities and a love for Adolf Hitler. One of the major American neo-Nazi groups is the National Alliance which was William Pierce until his death. They hold several hateful rallies also, perceiving Jewish conspiracies. Is this going too far?

I believe that we should all take advantage of exercising our rights, but when does it become a problem. Over the last century, our country as evolved to allow more and more people equality and freedom. It seems that we are trying to create peace among races, genders, and ethnicities. If this is true, should we allow hateful protests to continue? If our words are just as strong and even stronger than our actions, how can hateful protests be allowed? It's Hate v. Peace, not Hate=Peace. We cannot perceived these hateful rallies as nothing more than a peaceful assemble of people because it is not representing peace at all. We need to set some boundaries for protestors because what we are doing now, which is nothing, isn't working.

Hate spreads a lot faster than peace ever will and as a country that has worked for eternal peace, we need to prevent the spread of hate. Again, we are taught to use nice words when we are younger because words can hurt just as much as action. As Chief Justice Roberts said, speech is powerful. It may even be one of the most powerful rights we have. But shouldn't we exercise that right in a positive way? These groups that I mentioned have used and abused their 1st Amendment rights. There should be some restrictions based on the motive behind protests. How else do we stop the hate? 

This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land

     The definition of park is an area of land set aside for public use. The definition of public is accessible to or shared by all members of the community. The definition of community is a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests and perceived or perceiving itself as distinct in some respect from the larger society. So through all this word jargon and definitions, Occupy Wall Street can and has the right to take over a public parks for protests. But, that by definition and law is where Occupy Wall Street's rights end.

     Occupy Wall Street took over Zuccotti Park in New York City and many of the protestors brought tents and other materials that they used to “move-in” to the park. I believe that protestors have the right to protest and assemble in any public place that they see fit, but that does not include moving in and living there night after night. There were complaints about the park becoming dirty from all the protestors living there and that they should be evicted so the park could be cleaned. Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, ordered the park to be cleared out and at one in the morning police in riot gear lined the park and cleared out the protestors. Nearly 200 protestors were arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting officers' orders. I believe this is where Bloomberg takes the wrong action. If protesters can peacefully come together and take over a public place, then they should be able to peacefully remove them if necessary. Protestors should not have to be removed in the middle of the night by police armed and ready for war. I mean all the protestors are doing is sleeping, its not like they are going to kamikaze the police and attack. To justify his own actions Bloomberg later said, “the First Amendment protects speech. It does not protect the use of tents and sleeping bags to take over a public place.” Though I disagree with how Bloomberg handled the situation, I agree that protestors cannot “move-in.” Protestors have the right to assemble and to take over a public place, since it is open to the public, but they do not have the right to start living there.  

Divorce

What is the most defining part of everyone’s lives? How their parents raised them. This includes what choices their parents made. Close to 50% of marriages in America end in divorce. That is saying almost one in two marriages will fail. Patrick Fagan and Robert Rector state that nearly one million American children suffer from a parent divorce, and half of the children born in 2012 will see their parents divorce by age eighteen.

Now what happens to the children who suffer from divorce? The child’s performance lowers in every aspect of life. Their grades drop, and there are more behavioral problems present. The child has an increased rate of drug abuse and suicide. Now, just because parents get a divorce does not mean their children will suffer without a doubt from these effects.

There are many reasons divorce occurs. The usual causes said by Kota Baharu are: poor communication, financial problems, a lack of commitment to the marriage, a dramatic change in priorities, or infidelity. Three of these causes I feel could be prevented. Prevention of divorce is a very tricky topic. How can we lower the divorce rate, and not take away the liberties of the people? It is scary to even consider the government playing a role in love, but with the divorce rate so high there should be an increase in programs to help these couples, and future married couples.

A specific program that could help lower the divorce would be a counseling class for those considering marriage. In order for them to be married, they should have to attend a couple sessions. Marriage is work, and this class could teach the couple how hard it can be sometimes. It should help them prepare for everything they will have to go through together. If the couple were truly in love, pre-marriage sessions would not be that big of deal. The couple should almost be happy to learn more about each other.

I know that there are cases where divorce needs to happen. If any kind of abuse is happening the partner being abused needs to leave the situation that causes them harm. Ultimately though, a great deal of bad marriages could be saved or prevented, if we use some kind of governmental program. In order to protect children and the future, we should greatly consider starting a divorce program.

People Have Choices: Including Their use of Conraceptives

Recently, religious liberties have been challenged by Obama’s Contraception Plan. Just two days ago, February 10, 2012, President Obama made a compromise to his plan. Though it means the same thing, Obama had to take the time to make people happy and make a little switch up in his wording. I think people are creating a mountain out of a molehill.

People need to learn how to open their minds and take care of their own lives and let people’s lives be governed by their own beliefs. I think it is wrong to have beliefs to be pressured upon anyone. And though it is an opportunity to get birth control now, it is no different than having the opportunity to go to church.

I think this plan is a good decision. This will provide safety and health to any and every women. And, though it’s hard to believe, the world is beginning to grow (population wise) at an alarming rate. If this option is available, it will protect those women who can’t afford birth control and would like to use it, from pregnancy and bringing in an innocent life that they would not have planned for.

Also, with time, birth control has helped women with many other health issues. As stated by youngwemonshealth.org:

“Adolescent girls and young women are frequently prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, and for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.”

So with this new insight for some it is easy to see that offering birth control is not always a “sin.”

I am Catholic. And, just to get by point across, I use birth control. I don’t feel that this against my religion purely because of why it is being used. Maybe this is not right to some for a Catholic to remain faithful while using contraceptives; however, I still do not think it is wrong to allow this as a free opportunity ANYWHERE. I believe that even when working for a religious affiliated place, it doesn’t mean you share the exact same beliefs. Unfortunately, politics will always stir up conflict, but I, for one, think Obama became president for a reason. To try and lead a nation, so no matter if someone has the same beliefs, I believe it is necessary to back him up, and when there is a dispute, be able to weigh the options and bring up issues in a stern, and cordial way.

An Informed Decision

Women’s rights have been discussed in a lot of recent news articles, especially dealing with the health reform. But lately I have been looking at a relatively new senate bill that requires women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion. The bill has been introduced to many states and was passed in the Virginia State Senate this past week as well as other states.

Many people argue that this bill takes away women’s rights because they shouldn’t be required to do an extra procedure before undergoing an abortion. I found in some states that the patient pays for the ultrasound and in others I found that the clinic is responsible for costs. In Louisiana, the drafted “Ultrasound Before Abortion” bill states that the woman must get a list of free ultrasound services from the abortion provider, and that the abortion provider would perform the ultrasound 2 hours before the procedure. She then would get the options of viewing the ultrasound screen, hearing a description of the image, or printing the image from the ultrasound. 

The other side of this issue is that women need to be fully informed before going through with a medical procedure like abortion. According to the Huffington Post, the bill requires women to have an ultrasound, but it gives them a choice if they want to view the ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat or not. Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel sponsors the legislation and the Washington Post has her stating that the bill “does not infringe on a woman’s decision, her autonomy. It is not invasive. It does not attempt to infringe in any way on the doctor-patient relationship, and it absolutely does not infringe on her right to have an abortion.”

Even if the woman is completely ready for abortion, I think she should have to have the ultrasound and have the opportunity to view the heartbeat and the image.  If she decides to have an abortion after the ultrasound, at least she would be fully informed on what she is doing. On WVEC News, the Alaska Senate Minority Leader John Coghill said, “The choice is the female’s, and I respect that as much as I can respect it. But I’m also trying to bring as much respect for what a pregnancy really is.” I agree with his statement, and overall I think the bill is a good idea. It's important for people to be more informed on medical procedures they are seeking. 

Surpassing the Constitution; Imperial Presidency

The Federal Government has too much power, but where does it come from? I think that it comes from nowhere. Meaning, I believe that it is becoming increasingly prevalent for the government to derive its power from its own will, not that of the constitution. Some might argue, what’s wrong with that if the government is implementing policy for the good of the people. The problem is that if there’s nothing restricting the government from acting on self-control, especially if it has become the common practice, then what is to stop the government when they do need to be controlled because of, to phrase it lightly, their misguided tendencies?

A good example of the government overstepping its boundaries is the “enormous war-making power of the president,” as stated by Jonathan Chait. A couple of years ago, President Obama deployed troops to Libya, spending millions on this war action, all without the consent of Congress. While on its face this contradicts the constitution, in our modern day, this type of action was okay under the War Powers Resolution, which grants such an action as permissible, so long as Congress assents 60 days post operation, relays the New York Times. Well, Congress did not agree…and President Obama failed to withdraw troops within the 30 day period.

The War Powers Resolution’s purpose, states Bruce Ackerman, is to allow the President the sole power to create war in cases where there is a “national emergency created by attack upon the United States.” Well, for one the US was by no means in a national emergency. Two, the US was not attacked; in fact the US was the aggressors in this situation. Although the War Powers Resolution seems like an okay idea, because its intention is to protect the US, it seems as though it has altered the Constitutional authority of the President to such a degree that he can make a unilateral decision regarding war!

If you ask me, this is a step towards danger. How did President Obama justify this as being okay? He stated that there weren’t US ground troops, thus Americans were at little risk. What do I refute? Aren’t all war efforts shifting towards the technological route with more “remote controlled” operations? Meaning, the encounter with Libya is no different than any modern war-they are all dangerous. In addition, if, as President Obama claims, the interaction is so low scale, then why, within the first two months of operation, has the US spent over $700 million?

There are many things wrong with this situation. Something screams out unconstitutional.

Is the Government violating our First Amendment?

When the founding fathers sat down to write the US Constitution, they instilled the idea of the church and state being separate. In fact the first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Today, many people, including myself, feel that President Obama and the US government is now violating our first constitutional right.

Until very recent, under Obama’s 2010 Healthcare law most employers were required to fully cover contraception in their workers' health plans, including the ever so scandalous ‘morning after pill’. This means that all private corporations and business, religious/Christian based or not, were going to be required to provide insurance that covers something that completely goes against their morals and conscience. The Catholic population was furious.

Obama, being the politician he is, announced last Friday that he was going to change the rule a little bit. Now instead of the religious employers, who object to the use of birth control, insurance companies are now responsible for covering the cost of contraceptives ‘free of charge.’ And guess what? The Catholics still don’t approve. Hours after Obama announced the so called compromise the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) rejected the plan. One representative of the USCCB stated that the compromise “continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.”

So is the US government violating our first amendment? Yes, I believe so. The first amendment clearly states that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. This health care mandate is forcing people to go against their morals, conscience, and faith. Employers and even insurance companies have the right to follow their own conscience just like everyone else. Also, if an employee is that upset that the company they are working doesn't offer contraceptives as part of their insurance plan, that employee has every right to leave and find a different job in the secular community. If they don’t want to find a new job that offers that kind of insurance, birth control does not cost that much per month and is a very affordable out of pocket expense.

In conclusion, all I have to say is good job Obama. That’s one way to rally the Christian voters in an election year. 

Does the Constitution give too much power to the federal government?

When the Constitution was created, the government that it set in place was one with very limited powers, and a set of checks and balances to ensure that it would stay that way. In doing this, the Founding Fathers were attempting to protect the American people by giving power to the states rather than to a centralized federal government like the one that they had just left in Britain. Since then, this idea of a limited government has been meticulously and deliberately expanded by finding loopholes in the Constitution that grant more and more power to the government.

One of the most recent examples of this is the healthcare initiative known as “Obamacare.” Just a few of the many, many stipulations included in the nearly 2500 page document include government regulation of doctor salaries, private or public practice, doctors investing practices, and even the options available to patients for end-of-life services. The last time I checked, the layout set forth by those at the Constitutional Convention was intended to specifically prevent the federal government from doing something just like this: overregulating things it had no business being involved in in the first place.  As per an article from the National Review Online, “Article I of the Constitution lists the various powers assigned to Congress, such as raising an army and protecting intellectual property. Managing health care is not among them.”

David French echoed this idea of the government outstepping it’s bounds by enforcing things it had no power over enforcing when he stated in his article that the government has become “a state far larger and more powerful than the Founders ever hoped, but exactly as large and powerful as they feared.” This is cause for concern in my book, and hopefully for others as well. I really feel that a good hard look into our government is a necessity if we as a country want to keep prospering, and continuing to be a worldwide leader. I don’t mean to say that an entirely new government needs to be put in place, because we’re currently a world superpower due largely to the fact that our government is what it is. I do think however, that there are a lot of things in our government that are quite unnecessary, like the extent to which it is involved in matters like healthcare that should be very much personal, and that with some restructurings here and there in our current system of the way things are run, we could set ourselves up for future growth, instead of the economic downfall that we seem to inevitably be heading towards.