Change We Do Need At The Price Of Cooperation

On his blog, Governing Opinions, one of my colleagues wrote an interesting article about an energy bill proposed to the Senate. In it he stated that all it would take would be 7 Republicans, only seven, to come forward, put aside party politics, and vote for it. Such a bill would mean cleaner air for our children, it could “bring down the national deficit”, and would most likely mean that we would not incur more debt to China, who, by the way, already owns 21.9% of our current foreign debt.

So what is stopping these 7 Republicans? Party politics, that is all. It seems that our national system is becoming more polarized. Democrats vote Democratic and Republicans vote Republican. Just look at the recent nomination of Elena Kegan to the Supreme Court. As I have stated previously, she is a sure fit for the roll and yet Republicans are barring her entry because of party politics. If we want to get anything done, we must set aside these differences and belief and vote as one.
It also seems almost masochistic to not vote for an energy bill. Global Warming is happening, there is enough scientific data out there to prove that, and we have begun to feel it as well. Places are flooding that do not normally flood, the heat is higher than it has been in a long time, and there are even droughts across America. Something must be done to stop this at the source: carbon emissions. The proposed bill will set higher efficiency standards, force a percentage of energy to be renewable energy and create a cap on carbon emissions from power plants. All of these need to be done, and better now than later. If this bill does not pass soon, we may have to wait another Presidential election before it can pass and by then who knows how much worse the planet could be? Just breathing produces 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person.

Even without taking all the health benefits and planetary benefits, it will also benefit us economically and politically. First of all, if we become one of the leaders in renewable technology, our deficit would decrease, the American dollar will appreciate and our debt to China (the predicted leader in such energy) will not increase. Second of all, it is well known that many places that we get our oil from, such as Saudi Arabia, wish to do America harm. If we were to pass this energy bill we will be that much closer to independence from such hostile countries. Finally, I think the recent oil spill has proven that we are too reliant on oil as it is and that we must find another power source that does not involve possible ecosystem destruction.

Benjamin Seroussi

Happiness Should Not Bar Freedom

It seems that for the past decade or two gay rights have been on simmer. It was always in the background just waiting for the limelight to shine; biding its time until conditions were perfect and it could take center stage. Finally such is the time. Not only have many states passed gay marriage laws, but even a recent California law, Proposition 8, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, was recently overturned. Gay rights activists have been handed the microphone and they are singing for all their worth.

Gay rights seem to be the next step in a long century of civil rights. In fact, it is surprising that it has not been addressed sooner. Those against it would have one believe that marriage is a holy union between a man and a women, that homosexuality is morally wrong and reprehensible. When questioned further as to the why it is morally wrong, they will inevitably cite religion to help. Now this is, of course, fine if one were talking about their personal preference in the matter, but they are not. They are speaking about a law for the entire nation and how our nation defines marriage. The United States was founded on the idea that there should be a separation of “church and state”, that is government and religion. There are precedents in the Supreme Court, such as Lemon V. Kurtzman, that try to keep religion and government separate. So, when opponents of a bill come forward with an ideological argument based on religion, it should be as good as nothing. Religion is not an arguing tool for laws.

The real problem that gay rights face is not the opposition, though, it is the fact that it is left up to States to determine. A majority of Americans support gay rights (fact taken from the Government textbook), and yet the National government does nothing about it. It should be up to the Federal government to finally allow the people the freedom that they should have to marry who they wish to. To this end, that majority of Americans in support of gay rights should begin to petition the government to redress this grievance. They should make their voices heard and force the issue to be fixed. Only when the national government takes a stand in support of gay rights will the people truly be equal.

California And Its Continuing Controversial Bills

Last week, one of my colleagues, Lorenzo Salazar, posted a rather scathing review of Proposition 19 in California. This Proposition would legalize “various marijuana-related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorize various criminal and civil penalties”. Lorenzo stated in his blog that legalizing marijuana would lead to widespread chaos across the country, and may even lead to the federal government having to step in. This is a good point; confusion would set in at the fact that California had this drug legalized, while everywhere else it was illegal. There would be widespread chaos, and the national government would most likely have to decide to take a stand on this issue: either to step in to overrule this Proposition, or legalize the drug itself. However, while I do agree with Lorenzo’s conclusion, I am rather hesitant to accept his ideas on the legalization of the drug itself.
First, I must point out that the legalization of marijuana would generate some tax revenue. Perhaps it may not generate as much as one might hope, but it would generate more than it is now. In 2001, 55.6% of Americans ages 18-25 reported that they had used some form of illicit drug during their lifetime. More than half of Americans that age have used drugs such as marijuana. That is, they have used it illegally and without a tax on it that would generate revenue. If marijuana were legalized, the government would be able to generate revenue on it. Now, I am not saying it would be any form of “saving grace” on our economy, but it would be more than what we are generating now: zero.
Further on in his blog, Mr. Salazar asked how it would be enforced, especially on a large scale. I believe that the answer to this question is all around us. The government regulates the sale and use of cigarettes and alcohol to all adults over a certain age; they could regulate one more drug. In fact, they might be able to discourage it to an even greater extent by creating a large tax on it, such as the one on cigarettes, in order to discourage buying.
Now, while I do no believe that California should be the one to start this controversial topic, I do believe it needs to be started. I will not argue that marijuana is a good thing; I believe it is morally reprehensible. However I also believe that if it is going to be used there might as well be some form of benefit to the country. Why waste a perfectly good form of income?