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?

The Future Of Health Is Here

In January of 2009 the F.D.A. gave the go-ahead for clinical trials of what was expected to be the new research milestone: stem cells. However, not everything went according to plan, and before the study could even begin it had to be put on hold. Cysts were found in mice injected with the cells, forcing Geron to conduct more mouse studies and develop better ways to check for the purities of the cells. Finally, though, the virtual hold is over. On Friday July 30, 2010, the F.D.A. authorized the first test of embryonic-derived stem cells in people.

This is only the latest development in a giant controversy over the study and use of stem cells. The arguments are mostly part of the even larger debate over abortion, with pro-choicers advocating the use of stem cells and pro-lifers against it. However, there is one key difference between this debate and the debate over abortion: lives may hang in the balance.

A stem-cell is basically a cell that has yet to become a specific brand of cell; it is rather like wet clay, allowing itself to be molded into any shape, cell in this case, to suit the need of the user. Scientists who have studied the properties and potential uses of these cells in the medical field say that it could be used to generate cells and tissues that could then be used in cell-based therapy techniques. Furthermore these cells could be used to generate whole organs for transplants, helping to eliminate the large dichotomy of the demand for organ transplants versus the supply of organs. Diseases are no match, as well, as stem cells could be used to treat Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Scientists also say that this is only scratching the surface of what could be capable using these cells.

So, with all these life-saving properties, why would anyone wish to restrict the research into stem-cells? It all boils down to when life begins. According to some, life begins when the egg and sperm meet, creating a fertilized egg and the potential for human life. So the destruction of embryos in order to create these stem cells is akin to murder. This position is understandable, yet it leads to the freezing of embryos not used in vitro fertility, never to be used again. Today, about 400,000 embryos are frozen in fertility clinics around the country, with no projected plans for what to do with them. Not only that, but more are being made every day. Eventually something must be done with these embryos, freezing them is only a short term solution. So what to do with them? Just discard them when they could be used to save so many lives?

So, the authorization of stem cell treatments by the F.D.A. is the first step to what is expected to be a long line of achievements and breakthroughs in the medical field. No one knows what the future may hold, but because of this it may hold healthier humans.

Crimes Should Be Punished, No Matter The Color Of Your Collar

It is rather easy to set sentences for crimes such as felonies and misdemeanors. If it is first degree, the guilty party gets so many years in jail, if it is second, a different amount of years in jail. There are usually easy guidelines to follow in such cases, so such criminals usually receive similar sentences for similar cases, and, in most opinions, get what they deserve. However, this is not the case with white collar crimes and child exploitation crimes such as child pornography.

In 2005 the Supreme Court said that courts must consult federal guidelines when sentencing criminals to prison and fining them, but do not need to follow them. This allowed federal courts to have more leeway when sentencing such crimes, basing the punishments off of their sense of justice rather than a formulaic guideline to such sentences. This may have unintended and negative consequences.

According to one staffer at the New York Times, these new court rules, while not causing widespread chaos as predicted, did lead to almost arbitrary sentences that changed from judge to judge. So, two men who committed completely different levels of the same crime could end up with the same time in jail and fine. This staffer then argues, gaining credibility by quoting the Justice Department, that this will lead to “disrespect for the federal courts” because of the arbitrariness of the rulings. He then comments that as a rule sentences should be consistent and that the problem in the courts is differentiating the worst offenders from those who are less dangerous or have committed a less grievous crime. Judges give two men the same sentence for different levels of a crime because it is hard to differentiate between worse cases and more dangerous men. The editorial then goes a step further stating that ranking crimes by the size of the fraud may not be the best way to go, more dangerous criminals could be the ones with less sizable stolen goods; we must differentiate these men from the rest in order to tackle this problem.

So what can we do? What does this author wish for the people to do? For one, he aimed this article at the general public for a reason, the people have power. The people control the government, not the other way around, so if we say something the government will respond. However, he might have also been trying to target politically active Americans such as lobbyists, Congressmen, and judges to try to effect change from the inside. Whoever he was targeting, his ideas is sound and makes sense creating credibility from logic. No matter who he was targeting, they are bound to listen.

Partisan Support

It was Madison who first warned America against factions; interest groups after their own agenda and not the good of the people. He argued that a large republic would limit the effectiveness of these factions, and he seemed to be right for a time. However, some recent news has brought this assertion to question.
Most people would contend that political parties are not factions; they try to serve the people. Yes, they have their own ideology, but it is one that the people believe or else they would not have it. Besides, if something was in the people’s best interest, the political parties would definitely go for it. So how does one explain the current Supreme Court nomination hearings for Elena Kagan?
Kagan is a sure fit to being a Supreme Court judge. She was dean of Harvard Law School as well as the Obama administration’s solicitor general. Even the hearings up to this point have only confirmed her worthiness to sit on the Supreme Court. Yet, she is still unlikely to get bipartisan support. I ask one question, why?
According to a New York Times editorial entitled “The Republicans and the Constitution”, this is because of her interpretation of one small clause: the commerce clause. This unknown author, speaking to any who will heed (though probably a greater majority being Democratic), states that at the hearings Kagan “refused to take the Republican bait and agree to suggest limits on that clause’s meaning”, resulting in high emotions on the Republican side and partisan voting. The author then logically lays out his reasoning for this rational, stating that the commerce clause has been interpreted broadly since the Great Depression and Roosevelt. It was the justification for laws such as the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Even the Civil Rights Act used the commerce clause to partly justify itself. Because of such a broad interpretation of this clause and the resulting legislation and regulation, the editorial continues, it has been a target for conservatives for decades. The new health care law only exacerbated these attacks from conservatives, as lawmakers had slipped a line in the law stating that it “substantially affects interstate commerce”. Hence the partisan voting for Kagan, she supports the broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and Republicans do not like this. The article ends by stating that the commerce clause is responsible for some of the best things done by government, and, hopefully, for some of the best things to come.
While, yes the author does remain nameless throughout the article, his arguments retain their credibility through the logic in the article. Kagan seems to have no deficiency as a Supreme Court judge, and yet there is not bipartisan support for her, therefore it would make sense that other factors are contributing. The Republicans dislike of that pesky commerce clause fits the “other factors” description like a glove. This disagreement based solely on the party’s personal preference obstructs the just decision to allow Kagan on the court. It would seem that a large republic does not completely guard against factions.

Racial profiling

Racial profiling is a particularly devious form of racism. Airlines informally use it by pulling aside people of middle eastern descent to check for dangerous materials in their luggage. However, Arizona took it to a new extreme when it passed a law requiring police officers to investigate the immigration status of all noncriminals who they suspect to be undocumented. Feeling that this new law would lead to a new level of racial profiling, a Phoenix police officer sued. Finally, the case reached the federal level, as U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton is currently hearing it. The arguments from both sides have brought up an age old conflict: that of States powers versus federal powers. Proponents for the bill say that the State should help the Federal government do a job that it has trouble with on its own. Opponents of the bill, such as Stephen Montoyo, basically state that “we have only one nation; we can only have one immigration law”. Currently Judge Bolton has given no indication of what decision she shall make, nor when she shall make it. The law goes into effect July 29, and could be the model for other such laws. It behooves Americans to watch this law closely and understand the implications inherent in it; not only for the rights of the minorities that will be trampled on, but for the power it shall grant to the State government. Therefore, we must closely monitor this law.