Teenage Pages should stay out of Washington

In the Washington Post this week there was an article about two Pages who had oral sex in a public area of the Capital Hill Dormitories. The pages used in political offices are usually juniors in high school. The ones caught in the act were dismissed. However there is criticism that there has been some lax oversight in supervising these pages. Also in 2006, Florida GOP Mark Foley was forced to resign after it was shown that he sent sexually explicit emails to his male pages. In both of these cases there were people who claim to have been unaware but were obviously enablers in both situations.
I believe that in order to solve this problem, high school students should not be allowed to work in government offices. Don’t get me wrong, it is great to be able to do summer internships and learn more about a career as a government official. However, I feel that if sex scandals become an issue among minors, who are involved in the government, something is terribly wrong. People who are not old enough to vote are assisting government officials and acting immaturely in way that reflects on the reputation of the government as a viable source of power. There will always be sex wrapped up in politics, but I think adding teenagers into the mix is just asking for trouble. Although I’m sure the pages who were dismissed are the exception and not the rule when it comes to teen assistants, I feel it is better to let them go completely.

The Clinton Women Take On Iowa

This week I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about Hilary Clinton’s new campaigning strategy in Iowa. While Barrack Obama was there with Oprah, Clinton tried to show a new side of herself by bringing her mother, Dorothy Rodham and her daughter Chelsea Clinton. She also tried not to bash her fellow candidates as she has done in the past. When given the chance to condemn Obama, she has said that “all the Democratic candidates were capable”. With the media attention devoted to Oprah, Clinton used the day to make a more personal, direct appeal to voters. The crowds listening to her speeches, held in an elementary school gym, numbered only about 100-150 people. She also set aside large blocks to time to take questions, shake hands, pose for pictures, and sign autographs. Her mother and daughter came along with her to show the kinder more approachable side of Clinton. In some polls, about half of the respondents have said that they dislike her. While making a speech about helping families to overcome the cost of long term elder care, she mentioned that her mother is living with her, showing how she could relate to the topic.
I think it was smart for Clinton to bring along her family with her to Iowa. I also believe it was smart to choose her daughter and mother rather than her husband. This is because it shows her more caring side and makes her more relatable. The only unfortunate thing is that a lot of the media was not around to see this change in personality because Oprah also happened to be there. As for the people who did get to see Clinton in action, perhaps it will boost her chances of wining the Iowa caucuses.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-clinton9dec09,1,4318860.story

35 Miles Per Gallon Standard

This week I read an article from the Los Angeles Times about a bill that has the potential to greatly effect our environment in a positive way. Congress is proposing a measure providing for a 40% increase in fuel efficiency for new cars and light trucks by 2020 for a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon. This bill is expected to include a requirement that greater amounts of homegrown fuel such as ethanol be added t the nation’s gasoline supply. It also is likely to include a measure requiring utilities to generate more electricity from cleaner sources such as the sun and wind. Most Republicans seem to have complaints about this bill because they feel that it would lead to lighter, less safe vehicles, threaten auto industry jobs and limit customer choice. However, higher gas prices have many people thinking that this bill will probably be passed. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers expressed support for the measure on Saturday.
I think that this measure is an important one and will have a strong impact on our environment. The United States needs to become a more fuel efficient country. I believe this bill forces auto makers to become creative and find ways to make fuel efficient cars more accessible and better. I think the other aspects of the bill are good too, using sun and wind energy. Cutting down on the amount of oil we use could help the prices to go down and will also be better for the environment so I really hope President Bush doesn’t veto it.

Nutrition Considered in Farm Bill

This week I read an article from the LA Times about the farm bill being passed through congress and how it should be altered to provide more nutritious meals for public schools to help prevent obesity. The farm bill sets the nation’s agricultural agenda every five years. The urge by parents, nutrition experts and physicians, to rewrite the bill delayed it until next year. This will give the advocates more time to educate people in wanting to revise this bill. In previous years, the issue associated with the farm bill was over subsidies, but now nutrition has become a major concern. The $288 billion bill would spend more on fruits and vegetables. Ann Cooper, a food coordinator at schools in Berkley, claims “If we want to significantly impact the long term health of our children, we need to change the food in the center of the plate, the entrée. The farm bill negatively impacts the entrée by subsidizing food we don’t necessarily eat, like corn and soy. There’s so much fat hidden I these highly processed foods that end up on our kid’s plates”. Senators Lautenberg and Lugar want to expand a pilot program that began with the 2002 farm bill that provides elementary schools with fresh fruit and vegetables for snacks. The program, which started in four states now serves 175,000 students in 14 states.
I believe that it is a good idea to revise this farm bill because obesity is a significant problem in our society today and will impact the lives of future generations. I believe school meals should be nutritious because some poor students may not get the nutrition they need at home so anything that would help is important. It is also important that money goes towards healthier food instead of subsides for farmers who do not produce foods that are healthy.

Freedom of Speech Taken Too Far

Please excuse this late post, I was on Kairos :)

This week I found a current even that has to do with the protection and violation of the first Amendment of the Constitution. A Kansas church was preaching that U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are God’s just punishment for America’s tolerance of gays and lesbians. A federal jury in Baltimore ordered Westboro Baptist Church to pay $11 million in damages to the family of a Marine killed in Iraq. Members of the church had picketed outside of the funeral of a soldier carrying offensive signs that read “Fag troops” and “God hates you”. The jury found that the protestors were liable for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This ruling does not conflict with the first amendment because it does not require anyone to put up with intentional insults or trespassing on private property.
The family of the soldier did have the right to collect damages from the church because they were trespassing on a private ceremony and stating things that they knew would intentionally harm other people. It is one thing to have a different view from others around you and express it. But to provoke others with your beliefs at inappropriate times, such as a funeral, should not be allowed. People use the first amendment as an excuse to say whatever they want and cause offense to others, but a line should be drawn of when it’s not appropriate to make these kinds of comments.

Think You're Not Organized? Check out the Reagan Library

So we've all been to the Reagan Library at least once for a school fieldtrip. You might recall seeing the array of items presented to Reagan as gifts over the years of his presidency. They all looked so valuable and cared for behind the glass, but apparently they weren't being watched that carefully, considering that the library is uable to find our account for tens of thousands of valuable mementos. About six months ago, an archivist was accused of stealing from the collections and was fired. Of particualr interest is whether the artifacts that are unaccountd for include pieces from a large collection of ornamented Western belt buckles given to Reagan over the years by admirers who knew of his attachment to his ranch. The audit found that the Reagan library was unable to properly account for more than 80,000 artifacts out of its collection of some 100,000 such items, and "may have experienced loss or pilferage the scope of which will likely never be known". It also found numerous storage lapses, such as artworks stacked on top of one another, and sculptures and vases unwrapped and lying on their sides on open shelves, in an area prone to earthquakes. National Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said the agency welcomed the audit and was taking its findings very seriously. Part of the problem is that the presidential libraries originally did not have the same strict preservation guidelines used by most museums.

I think that it is pretty embarassing how bad the organizational system at the Reagan library was. Not being able to account for 80,000 out of 100,000 is quite the accomplishment, but not one I would brag about. There should definately be some kind of regulation in how national artifacts should be stored and identified so that this does not happen again. I honestly dont think that missing belt buckes is a national disaster, but I do understand that they have emotional value and should be taken care of.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-reagan8nov08,1,6698948,print.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=2&cset=true

Newest Issue of National Importance: ALIENS!!!!!

Just when we thought we had enough issues to deal with such as health care, education, immigration and taxes, we have one more thing to think about, UFOs. Tuesday night, Dennis Kucinich was questioned about his claim that he saw a UFO over Washington, as documented in his godmother's daughter's new book. He replied "I did" and went further by commenting that the government should "come clean" on the Roswell matter. This is referring to a supposed UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Not that he was doing so great before, but claiming to have seen aliens can't possibly help your presidential campaign, unless you are appealing to the nutty "I have been abducted" crowd. But believe it or not, he is not the first presidential aspirant to report seeing a UFO. According to media acounts, in 1973 when Jimmy Carter was the governor of Georgia, he filed a report with the International UFO Bureau (ahhh i cant believe this actually exists!) in Oklahoma City, saying that he saw an "unidentified glowing object" FOUR YEARS EARLIER ing Leary, GA. Why did he report it so late? I have no idea. But he's not the only one. Ronald Reagan believed he had seen UFOs at least TWICE! These reportings were kept secret by Reagan's staff because they did not want to make him look bad. This is entirely understandable. I do not see why any aspiring politician would want to claim that they have seen aliens. It only makes them look insane or extremely gullible, neither quality one would want for a leader. Overall, I found this article pretty entertaining and hope you did too. :)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ufo1nov01,1,3756597.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-watson26oct26,1,4606263.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
(link to article i got the info from in my last post) :)

Dr. James Watson: Father of DNA and....a racist?

So, we've all heard of James D. Watson, one of the men who discovered the structure of DNA. Well, apparently hes still alive, and he's gotten himself into some trouble. Last week he was suspened from the Cold Spring Harbor Labratory by the board of directors after making a "racist" comment. He had so many wonderful accomplishments, his colleagues were sad to see him go, but felt it was an appropriate time for him to leave. It all started when Watson went to Europe to pubicize his new book "Avoid Boring People" (my my what revolutionary advice Dr. Watson). During the interview, Watson said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whearas all testing says not really." He continued by saying "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." As one could imagine, he was faced with tons of criticism. Watson did apologize saying that "this is not what I meant" but it was too late and he was forced to resign.
I thought that this article was very interesting and there are different factors that need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, Dr. Watson is 79 years old. I am not saying that he has gone crazy because I'm sure there are 79 year olds who have there senses about them and are still sharp, but you have to wonder if this comment can be forgivable because of his age and he did not really understand what he was saying, and how it would be interpreted. To refute this point i just made, for the fun of it, Watson said this while promoting his new book, which must let you know he still is a sharp thinker. So one has to wonder, is this just a senile crazy old man or has he made some groundbreaking scientific discovery that intelligence does not evolve equally? Americans of course would refuse to believe this because it totally destroys the ideal the country was founded on, equality. Will people start using this statement, made by a valid Nobel Prize winner, as an excuse to be racist? People do have the right to free speech, and they have heard the opinions of great scientits, what will this all lead to?

Democrats' Plan for Children's Healthcare

This week I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about the Democrats’ attempt to push a children’s healthcare plan through congress. Recently Bush vetoed such a plan, which brought much objection. A coalition seeks to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was created for the poor. In order to override Bush’s veto, the coalition would need to convince House Republicans to pass it because it needs 2/3 majority. The new bill would expand SCHIP to cover more uninsured children in mostly low income families but also in some middle class families. Republicans who object say that the bill goes too far because it would offer government assistance to people who could already afford private coverage. This is just an issue that Democrats are pushing for while Republicans choose to ignore it.
I think that it is a good idea for the government to implement some form of health care for children of low income families. It would be expensive and impractical, however, to make the plan include health care for children who could already previously afford it. This addition to the bill would only make it harder to pass through Congress, so I don’t know why it is being pushed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-kidshealth15oct15,1,852350.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Armenian Genocide involved in American Law

So today I read an article from the BBC that talked about how American lawmakers were going to support some kind of "description" that the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks after 1915 was considered to be genocide. Currently, Turkey aknowledges that there was mass killings between 1915 and 1917, but does not call it genocide. President Bush is not in favor of US support in this decision because it would harm our relations in Turkey and our access to military bases needed in the war. The article also discussed the well organized groups of Armenian Americans who have brought this issue to natinal attention, considering there are only 1.5 million Armenians in the 300 million strong population of the United States. Although most government officials are supportive of declaring this historical event as genocide, they claim that this is simply bad timing and it is not worth our country's national security now to make this kind of statement. A resolution is expected to be met by November 16th.

I though that this article was very interesting in that the US government has taken upon itself to write history. I also tended to agree with those officials who claimed that even though this may be a worthwile cause and bring some kind of justice to the Armenian people effected by this event, this is simply bad timing. If putting a label on an event that happened 92 years ago will have such a negative event on the war that we are fighting now, I think it can be put off for a little while longer, as long as the people know that the United States is indeed supportive and aware of the issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7040344.stm

Sen. Craig Wants Another Chance

Thought you were done hearing about Senator Larry Craig?…think again. Although he pled guilty to disorderly conduct for attempting to solicit sex in an airport men’s restroom, he tried to overturn that plea today. Although he was overruled, he says that he plans to try to clear his name before the Senate Ethics Committee and feels he can still serve Idaho and wants to complete his term, ending January 2009 and then retire. Releasing a statement, Sen. Craig stated “I am innocent of the charges against me”. However, he already signed an affidavit, admitting guilt, and paid a fine of $575. In response to Sen. Craig’s urge to continue serving the country, Nevadan Senator John Ensign said “He gave us his word that he would resign. I’m calling on Sen. Craig to keep his word. If he loves his party, and he loves the Senate, the honorable thing to do is to resign.”
I can’t believe this guy is seriously trying to redeem himself. It’s bad enough that he got caught soliciting sex after being so adamant about his stance on homosexuality. He plead guilty, which should have ended the controversy, leaving people to shake their heads, but put the issue to rest. However, now after some consideration, Sen. Craig feels like that was not a good idea and is trying to deny guilt after all. Obviously if this whole thing was some kind of set up, he would not have pled guilty in the first place. Even if he were to retain his position, I don’t think he would get the respect that he thinks he deserves so it is not worth while for him to spend so much time in court fighting the charge when he has already lost.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-s.html

Anti-Immigration....its working

This week the Los Angeles Times discussed how anti-immigration laws such as the Real ID Act of 2005, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 have been working and that large amounts of immigrants are leaving the United States. The author viewed this as a positive event for our economy, because it opened up more job opportunities for less skilled American citizens. Studies have also shown that the drop in illegal immigrants has also reduced the crime and gang rate significantly in some areas. For example in the Fairfax County of Washington, there has been a 39% drop in gang activity and in Dallas there has been a 20% drop in murder rate. This author was obviously in favor of these trends that were taking place and attributing it to the decrease in illegal immigrants.
I believe that in our country we should make it easier to gain citizenship. There should be an equal chance for all who want to enter this country, but it should be done legally. Currently, I feel like many people immigrate illegally because the government is not efficient in eliciting citizenship. If there was an easier system, maybe there would not be such an influx of people desperately trying to sneak into the country. They would actually probably find that it would be more beneficial to wait and gain legitimate citizenship and get a better job because of it.

Finally, a good universal health care plan....not

This week, I read an article from the Los Angeles Times about Hillary Clinton’s universal health care proposal. As the first lady, Hillary proposed a similar plan in the 1990s but it failed horribly and was strongly opposed. Clinton emphasizes that this time, her plan would not be government run. Instead, it would be mandated that all businesses provide insurance for their employees and that it would all be paid for by raising taxes for the rich. She estimates that this plan would cost the government $110 billion a year. Her proposal would also mandate that everyone would be required to have health insurance, so those that could not get it from their employers would be covered by expanded versions of Medicare or plans that aid federal workers. Clinton’s plan is opposed by Republicans and Democrats alike.
I believe that health care is a very important issue in our country and that everyone should have the ability to get the treatments they need. However, I think that no matter what plan Clinton proposes, it will get shot down because everyone remembers her plan she had back when her husband was in office. Even if she had a better idea this time, I believe people will stay close minded because of past experiences and that Clinton should lay low on the issue of healthcare because if she asserts these strong opinions she could lose popularity. Although universal health care works in other countries, like Canada, the American public, especially the wealthy, would not be willing to have their taxes raised to pay for the health care of the lower class, when they are easily available to provide healthcare for themselves without aid.

What is the best way to vote?

During Wednesday’s class, we discussed how an electoral college is actually the determining factor in selecting the president of the United States. In national elections, the state is given the responsibility to make the decisions, while the will of the people is merely a suggestion. I find it odd that it is urged that the people vote in the presidential election, when in reality, their vote is not the one putting a president in office. We also discussed many pros and cons of the states and electoral colleges making decisions versus the general population. Many good points were made in favor of states and electoral colleges casting the votes, including that the general public is uneducated and can be easily swayed by passions or fads. Counting the votes by the majority of states as opposed to the public also protects the rights of smaller states, who contain less of the country’s population. While all of these make a strong case, I believe the strongest point in favor of electoral colleges was presented in the article I chose for my current event.
In this week’s issue of Newsweek there was an article entitled “Securing (Or Not) Your Right to Vote”. It contained the results of a study done on the electronic voting machines in California, as mandated by Secretary of State Debra Bowen. As many people had feared, it was confirmed that “There were far too many ways that people with ill intentions could compromise the voting systems without detection”. Some proposed solutions were to get a receipt from the voting machine and to turn it in for recounting purposes; however, it has been shown that even these receipts can be manipulated. A “voting integrity” act has been proposed as well, but it has yet to be passed. It a technological age, it is unsettling that the results of something as important as an election cannot be confirmed. Yet, other alternatives, such as going back to the paper ballot, are not favorable either. As we remember back to the presidential election of 2000 with the recount of ballots in Florida, it seems that there is no clear solution.
It may be said that we should not determine the president based on the will of the people because they are uneducated. I believe we should not determine the president based on the will of the “uneducated” public because there is no possible way to determine that their opinions are presented accurately.