Minority Politics in a Majority State

The perils of an ethnographically driven democracy are numerous and obvious, as shown in the recent nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic American to be placed on the Supreme Court. While I personally couldn't be more thankful for the nomination of the third woman to the Supreme Court, as well as I revel in the fact that she is from the Bronx, I can't help but think that this progress was still limited by Obama's fears of total cultural domination. What do I mean by this? Well, to put it simply, the Obama administration is constantly on the fringe of playing privy to race politics. Why are race politics less acceptable under a black president (the first, of course) in comparison to their acceptability under the 200 years of white presidents? Good question.

As the New York Times reported this morning, there are many politicians struggling to understand Sotomayor's intentions as Supreme Court Justice. Naturally, the Justice selection process often leads to intense scrutiny, but with the selection of Barack Obama was president, this scrutiny becomes much more, well, suspicious.

“The American ideal is that justice should be colorblind,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “As we see people like Barack Obama achieve the highest office in the land and Judge Sotomayor’s own nomination to the highest court, I think it is harder and harder to see the justifications for race-conscious decisions across the board."

The notion that changed has happened, and race issues can be moved away from is pertinent to the ideal of American democracy; simultaneously, the repercussions of race politics have severely distorted the legacy of what America was meant to be. You cannot have reconstruction in race relations in 40 years (since 1964), even when everything has been done properly. It took America nearly 100 years to resolve the true issues of Reconstruction, and most of this time was spent turning deaf ears unto the needs of most Americans. Besides, what is the "proper" way to tend to race relations? Some seem to feel its ethnic purging, genocide. Are we not purging our troubles by just not listening? While there is no proper way, there certainly need to be some established strictures to make sure that all Americans are given equal societal footing.

In a related article (which nearly brought me to tears of bittersweet-ness), native Puerto Ricans discuss the importance of Sotomayor's nomination. They truly see this nomination as an opportunity to gain strength in the equalization of minorities and races. "The Americans, he said, 'nos mastican pero no nos tragan' — they chew us but they do not swallow." To go with this analogy, Sotomayor's nomination will force ingestion of such issues into the public eye.

Going back to the main notion of "cultural domination," the culture shock that Sotomayor's nomination brings to America is nothing in comparison to the reaction that would have happened if Obama had chosen an African American. Sotomayor lies in the safe region between non-white, but the even safer region of non-black. Had Obama selected a black Justice, the reaction would have been atomic: "Barack Obama is a reverse racist who is going to strike provisions of the 13th Amendment through the Supreme Court in order to enslave white Americans." Again, while this nomination is certainly pushing the envelope, there are just some things beyond its reach.

-Sabrina

Community Colleges Offering Four Year Degrees

Yesterday, the New York Times posted an article entitled "Community Colleges Challenge Hierarchy With 4-Year Degrees" by Tamar Lewin. This article addresses the growing trend of Community Colleges upgrading their programs to offer 4-year Bachelor's Degrees. At the current time, most Community Colleges serve as an inexpensive option for completing core classes to obtain an Associate's Degree. Then, students seeking a Bachelor's Degree have to travel on to more expensive 4-year colleges and universities in order to complete their undergraduate studies. However, Miami Dade College and thirteen other Florida Community Colleges are seeking to change all that. Throughout the country, seventeen other states are implementing similar programs in which students can continue their studies at their Community College to obtain a Bachelor's Degree. While critics argue that this shift is unnecessary and will "drive up costs, take resources from needy students and lead to low-quality degrees," Miami Dade’s President, Eduardo J. Padrón, argues that they are providing affordable education to the community in fields that regular universities do not want to teach. Dr. Padrón states that "Ours is a mission of rescue. The universities that handpick their students based on SATs and grades get three times the funding we do. We are the underfunded overachiever."

I think that this shift is long overdue. In a society where a Bachelor's Degree has become a requirement for employment, (even in jobs where there is no clear need for such a degree) students need an affordable option to obtain a 4-year degree. During the current financial crisis, jobs are hard enough to come by for people with degrees, but for those without them finding employment is nearly impossible. If we are going to require a Bachelor's Degree in the same manner that my parents' generation required a high school diploma, then we must make that option accessible to all citizens, not only those who can afford the ever increasing tuition at four year colleges and universities. As I recall the Community College for my area, Bergen Community College, allows the top ten percent of graduating high school seniors at each school in Bergen County to attend the college free of charge. This makes education an option for people who it otherwise would not be. Beyond that, tuition is substantially lower than that of Ramapo College, the College I currently attend. At Bergen Community College, a course cannot exceed $420.00 in cost to the student. At Ramapo, it costs $336.40 per credit for in-state students (the cheapest rate). That means, for one four credit course at Ramapo (they are all four credit courses) it costs the student $1,345.60. That is almost a thousand dollar difference per class.

Another reason that I feel so strongly about this initiative is that the increased demand for employees with degrees has forced young adults to attend colleges or universities more than ever before. However, most of us are not fortunate enough to have the kind of money lying around to simply pay all these expenses up front. Instead, we have mortgaged our souls to Freddie and Sallie and the like, and will be paying them back for a decade (if not more) after we graduate. With an entire generation starting their lives this far in debt, it is no wonder that our economy can no longer sustain itself. I know many friends of mine have already accumulated close to $100,000.00 in student loans, and that is just for undergraduate studies. Starting out "adult" life that far under water is not good for anyone, but especially for people seeking the type of degrees that these Community Colleges are offering 4 year programs in, who most likely will not seek Post Graduate education and will take a lower paying job because of it. The New York Times article states that: "Mike Boulus, the executive director of the group that represents the four-year universities, called the plan to expand community colleges 'a solution in search of a problem." I could not disagree with Mr. Boulus more. There is a problem, regardless of how much it is ignored, and this solution will benefit students nationwide who have hit a brick wall after two years at Community College.

European Living: Why It's So Hard for Americans to Handle?

At the suggestion of Professor McKenna, I just read Russell Shorto's article in the New York Times about the past eighteen months that he has spent living in Holland. I found this article to be an interesting and informative account of the life of an American in Holland. The primary focus of the article seems to be on defending the European welfare state, although Mr. Shorto does recognize its drawbacks. He notes that, as an American, it was very difficult to accept the high income tax rate in the Dutch welfare state. Fifty-two percent of each citizen's income is taxed, in order to support the vast array of social programs. However, when Mr. Shorto finds that between income taxes (state and federal), property taxes, sales taxes, social security, and similar items that all Americans have to pay, we are already quickly approaching that fifty-two percent mark, he seems to find the figure much more acceptable.

I think my favorite feature of the Dutch welfare state is the mandatory four weeks vacation each worker is given, and the salary they are still paid while they are away, as if they were at work the whole time. I think I could go for an arrangement like that! This is on top of quarterly payments for each of your children, school supplies, free health care, subsidized daycare costs, and socially acceptable (and comfortable) public housing. The Dutch have found a way to keep things uncomplicated, and have a shared sense of community that ripples through their society. Unfortunately, the American mindset is an extreme contrast to that of the Dutch. Everyone here is out for themselves, and working non-stop is the only way to become a success. It seems to me that we have versions of most of these programs in America, but they are ineffective in their current form. We have yet to be able to figure out public health care, and even the most progressive states are falling short on health care programs for children. Why, I wonder, do we pay all these taxes and have so much less to show for it?

According to the BBC News, Dutch Children are the happiest of all the children in Europe. I find it telling that children living in the Netherlands are the happiest, and children living in Britain, a country with similar economic and governmental policies to the United States, are the unhappiest. BBC also states in the above article that Dutch schools and parents do not put as much pressure to excel on the students as other countries do. This probably has a major impact on the overall level of happiness in the childrens' lives. Something else that probably plays a role in happiness among Dutch children and adults is the cost of eduction. Taken from a brochure on why you should study in the Netherlands, this factor probably makes a lot of people very happy:

A national system of student grants gives direct subsidies to all permanent residents who study full-time and meet the criteria. As a temporary resident you will not be eligible for such a grant, and there will be no other sources of funding to which you can turn. Therefore, when you enter the Netherlands you will have to prove to the immigration officials that you have enough money to support yourself. The authorities will ask you each year to prove that you have the equivalent of at least EUR 658 (in 2003 = USD 690) a month. In fact, it costs approximately EUR 700 (USD 740) a month to live as a student in the Netherlands. The annual tuition fee for enrolment in a regular degree programme at a university or hogeschool starts at EUR 1396 (2002-2003 = USD 1465). At several universities the fee is much higher than this.

I had trouble finding any more information about the cost of university studies for permanent residents, how much the direct subsidies are usually for, or what the criteria is that must be met in order to qualify for the grants. However, I am certain from what I have found that it is much less expensive to obtain higher education in the Netherlands than in America. I am wondering if higher education there is free. Does anyone know?

Given all of the above information, it would seem that living in the Netherlands is just not as hard as living in America. Everyone understands the importance of helping one another, working hard and relaxing. Unlike the Dutch, Americans seem only to know how to work really hard. Somehow though, most of us still have trouble making ends meet; go figure. For me, though, it seems that no matter how hard I work, or how many hours I work for that matter, I cannot afford something as simple as my own place to live. In America, these issues that should be simple, basic needs become complicated and difficult to obtain. All of the things that the Dutch have accounted for, health care, education, housing, and the like, are all things that many Americans are struggling to be able to afford. The result is a lot of overworked citizens who are under constant pressure and stressed out all the time. I think that many Americans feel like they are just another hamster; running on the wheel as fast as they can, but seemingly getting nowhere. Perhaps some will choose to give up on the American dream for a European one in which life will be less complicated and more enjoyable. As for me, although I love everything that the Netherlands has accomplished, I think I will stick it out here and hopefully participate in the improvement of my own country one day.

CNN versus Fox: Ideologically Driven News

Today I watched the CNN Newsroom and the Fox Newsroom from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. Ah, the modern marvels of DVR! I wanted to see how the stories that were being presented at the same time overlapped with one another and the different ways in which they were presented. I found that through the hour, both news stations covered many different stories, but only five of them contained similar content (discounting the weather). Of those five, only three were presented in a significantly different fashion.

Both stations discussed the Republican party's desire to change their image. CNN covered the story from a skeptical, bordering on mocking perspective. Both stations described a Town Hall meeting led by Eric Cantor, a young House Republican and growing force in the Republican Party. CNN focused on how badly Republicans are doing in the polls and how they desperately need a new image. They even implied that they are utilizing the same tactics Obama did in the hopes of gaining some popularity. CNN also pointed out that the Republican party is at an all time low as far as popularity. They went on to state that this initiative, the Nashville Council for America, is officially declared as a nonpartisan initiative, although all of supporters the appear to be republicans. They are going around America trying to a more positive message for the country and a more positive image for the party. CNN ended the segment by adding that the Democrats are calling the Republicans the party of "No". Fox's coverage of the issue was focused more on the future of the Republican party. I was surprised that the Fox anchors did seem skeptical of Representative Cantor's efforts and mentioned that perhaps the party leadership should focus on other prominent members of the party. Fox news generally portrayed the pizza party as a positive effort, much more so than CNN. Fox did mention that the Republican electorate is shrinking and changes do have to be made to the Republican party if it hopes to have the future Fox was so focused on.

Both news stations also spoke about mourning the loss of former Congressman Jack Kemp. Fox news spent a few minutes praising former Congressman Kemp and tracing his career all the way back from when he was a college football player. Fox called him a "champion of Conservatism, a crusader for lower taxes who helped inspire President Reagan and a leader who helped shape and strengthen the Republican party." Their coverage was in depth and actually seemed sincere. CNN on the other hand spent probably a minute or less on the story just stating that former Congressman Jack Kemp passed away last night from cancer at the age of seventy-three. They briefly discussed his career and stated that lots of tributes "from both sides of the aisle" were coming in about him. They then aired President Obama's letter of condolences, which spoke about former Congressman Kemp in high regard. However, after watching both, it seemed as if, in comparison to Fox, CNN had rushed through the issue and did not give him adequate attention. Although, CNN also covered the untimely death of Reverend Vernon King, the nephew of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.. He passed away at 48 years old, in Greensboro, North Carolina, and there was still no word on cause of death. Fox news did not even report this story.

Finally, both news shows addressed some aspect of President Obama's current administration. While CNN was singing President Obama's praises, Fox news in essence attempted to tear him apart (I wonder if that is what they do every night). CNN reported on President Obama's scheduled meetings for the upcoming week and the big decision to be made with regard to a Supreme Court nomination. The coverage about President Obama was all very positive, which is to be expected I suppose. Even if there were significant, measurable problems with Obama's policies up to this point, I do not think that CNN would be covering them. However, the Fox news coverage of Obama was exactly the opposite. It was as if they were trying to create an issue where there was none to report on. The anchor began the segment by stating that President Obama spent his first three months in office saying he inherited all these problems from the Bush Administration. She then posed the question: Is it time for President Obama to start accepting responsibility if things do not turn around? Then with a huge grin on her face she said that she believed that time came last week, and asked the Fox news correspondents (one Democrat and one Republican) to weigh in. This basically turned into a back and forth between these two correspondents, with the two Republicans getting more and more excited (visibly) at the idea that with a super majority in Congress and power in the Executive branch, the Democratic party will start getting blamed for some of the mess the country is in. The Republicans of course stated that Obama is not taking any responsibility that none of his plans have helped the economy out of turmoil yet. At that point you could see that the Democrat was getting more and more frustrated that they would not let him talk. When they finally did let him speak, he said one hundred days is too early to assess President Obama's programs and how they are working; to give him more time. At that point the Republican correspondent started going on about how Democrats all blame Bush for all the ails of the world and that the Obama supporters will find a way to blame Republicans when none of Obama's plans work. By the end, both correspondents were speaking over each other and the anchor eventually had to cut them off. This childish display was embarrassing in my opinion, to all three parties involved. It was obvious before they even started speaking where each of them stood on this issue, and they all ended up looking very unprofessional.

I just realized that I really do not like partisan news coverage. I am aware that completely objective news does not interest most people, (I can not even guarantee that it would interest me fully) but I believe that the extreme nature of these news stations is out of control. I do not mind if there is some leaning in the news I receive, but when it is so focused on blatant digs at the other party, the sense that the information you are receiving is legitimate is completely lost. When the news is centered primarily on benefiting one party and hurting the other, the stories get further and further from the truth. In this situation both sides are only obtaining propaganda, and being distracted more and more from the issues that really matter. That is a scenario I am simply unwilling to support.

Pandagon Blog

Today I read the past few days of posts on Pandagon, an obviously liberal blog which features outrageous political stories. A few of the posts from the past few days stuck out to me. The first was about an abstinence educator named Keith Deltano. It remarks on how abstinence only education does not work, but money is still being given from the government to fund these programs. The post includes a video of a Keith Deltano conducting his abstinence only routine for a group of students. The post is clearly mocking the routine and implies that Keith Deltano is having a negative impact on students, reinforcing gender stereotypes and insulting the intelligence of females. The author, Pam Spaulding, uses a very informal tone in the post, which appears to be aimed at getting a rise out of people by explaining that, as outrageous as this program is, it is funded by United States taxpayers. I know I am offended that any of my money would support the programs of this "cinder block wielding lunatic."

The next post that caught my attention was by Amanda Marcotte and is about the controversy over President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame. This post is also informal in tone. Ms. Marcotte states that there really is no controversy, and that only a small number of right-wing "wankers" are objecting. The post says that those who are creating the problem say it is a relgious issue because President Obama is Pro-Choice, which goes against Catholic teaching. However, Ms. Marcotte cites the inconsistency that Notre Dame had no problem with President Bush who initiated the Iraq War, but war is also against Catholic teaching. The post insinuates that is really a race issue, but then does not address that for the rest of the post stating that discussing it would result in "bunch of pearl-clutching faux outrage of the sort we’ve seen from Donna Barstow or Byron York." The author seems to dismiss this as a non-issue, implying that the right wing minority at Notre Dame will not have any impact whatsoever.

Another post that really stood out to me was written by Pam Spaulding and described a school in Kentucky's new policy of banning homosexual students from the restrooms. Allegedly, an Assistant Principal of Franklin County High School in Kentucky sent an e-mail to teachers directing them to not allow homosexual students out of the class to use the restroom. This e-mail came as a result of two female students being caught kissing in the restroom. Ms. Spaulding states the obvious health issue, and also points out the laughable irony that the word of the month at Franklin County High School is tolerance. I agree that there is no need for students to be making public displays of affection in High School entirely, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, but this Assistant Principal went way too far in her attempt to prevent this specific type of incident. I can only wonder what her policy is on the heterosexual students (who, if my high school is indicative of what other schools across the nation are like, do the same thing). In this instance, I really hope that this report is mistaken, because I would like to believe someone who could be an Assistant Principal would not be that ignorant.

I was very entertained by reading Pandagon. The authors of the blog use the shock factor to their advantage, taking any outlandish story and addressing it as you would if speaking to a friend. The informal tone of the blog tied with the type of posts they write makes it a fun read. However, I am not sure how informative the posts really are, because they seem to be more aimed at getting a reaction than explaining both sides of the story. I heard about things I had not heard about elsewhere, so I suppose it is informative, and I was annoyed that people could be so ridiculous when I read them, but I can not help but suspect that in some instances there is probably more to the story.

Girls Next Door

The Girls Next Door is a show about three women, Bridget, Holly and Kendra who live with Hugh Heffner in the Playboy mansion. I watched the show today in order to determine whether or not I think the show has an impact on the socialization of young women. I have never seen the show before, but it was pretty easy to understand the basic premise: three playboy bunnies use the unlimited supply of money they have to do whatever they want.

The show today was about the women taking a trip to New Orleans for Mardi Gras. Bridget has a radio show, and they were broadcasting from Mardi Gras. The three went there, partied at Mardi Gras, held a fundraiser to benefit victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, and toured the area that was primarily effected by the Hurricane. After watching it, I believe that it definitely would have an impact on the socialization of girls who watch it.

First of all, the girls are all beautiful (a requirement for being a Playboy bunny). Any young girl who is exposed to any type of mainstream media knows what "beautiful" women are supposed to be, and these three meet the criteria very well. They are all blond, tall (from what I can tell on television), thin and large-chested. It is drilled into the heads of young women all the time that these qualities are what makes a woman attractive. This has all kinds of effects on the socialization of young women, as they aspire to look like the women that they see portrayed as attractive. If there was not so much emphasis in our society on being attractive, I do not think that we would have nearly as much of a problem with teenage girls and eating disorders. This is serious problem among young women especially, and I have personally seen too many people struggle with eating disorders. As if that were not bad enough, the girls then try to imitate how these women act, and that really worries me.

These women live in the lap of luxury. In the episode I just saw there is the mansion they live in, limousines that take them everywhere, make-up artists that travel with them, extravagant hotels and a lot of partying. Everyone in the show, even the news anchor when Bridget appeared to talk about the fundraiser, seems to worship these women. Who would not want all of those things? However, most girls will equate looking and acting like these women as being the only way to get them. During this show, there were surprisinly not more than a few instances where I thought the women were portrayed as being stupid, but I am sure that is shown in some episodes. They definitely were not shown as intelligent women. So girls think they have to act dumb in order to obtain this kind of life. Also, the women dress in skimpy clothing and act as if they are always a sex object. At one point Kendra said "I'll get the most beads because of my new and approved babies right here" while rubbing her chest. Does it really surprise you that you see young women sporting less and less clothing everywhere you go? Society cannot figure out why teenagers are becoming sexually active at earlier and earlier ages, but I have a pretty good inkling why. Girls are exposed to behavior like this and think that acting like a tramp is the best way to get everything these women have.

I have no problem with Playboy, or with this show existing. If people want mind-numbing entertainment, they can have it. However, if I were a parent, I can guarantee my children would not be watching this show. Unfortunately, I think this type of influence over the socialization of young women (and men; they expect women to look and act this way as much as the young women think hey have to) permeates deeper into all of the media in our society. I do not think the show is powerful enough to have a vast impact all on its own. However, within the context of our society where women are portrayed in this way, it definitely does. Hopefully, the media will find a way to stop reinforcing this stereotype and help young women realize there is lot more to life than trying to be like the women they see on television.

No Child Left Behind Act: Response

One of my classmates, Chris Doyle, recently wrote about the failures of the No Child Left Behind Act in response to the New York Times front page coverage of the issue. After reading the post, the New York Times article and watching the video of Obama's comments which was embeded in the post, I have the following response:

When I first heard about the No Child Left Behind Act, it sounded like a great thing. Who does not want to promise equal education to all students in the country? However, that is an ideal that is complicated to actually obtain. There are many issues with this process, but I will address only a few which I think to be the most important.

Firstly, as long as school districts are primarily funded by local property taxes, there will always be a disparity among the quality of education from school to school. I live in a southern Bergen County town, and our school district relies upon the approximately 8,000 citizens of the small town to pay for it. Things get a bit more complicated to explain in my district because the town next to ours does not have a high school and also pays to send their high school students to ours. But in theory, they are paying an equal amount in their property taxes to sustain the cost of the eduction for the students of their town. While my school was always struggling for funding, we could afford Advanced Placement classes, computer labs, and apparently (recently) an artificial football field that cost millions of dollars. A few miles in pretty much any direction, one could find schools in towns with higher property taxes which had all of these things and extras, such as more selection in Advanced Placement classes, personal laptops issued to all students, student-run televison and radio stations, etc.. However, within these same few miles, towns with lower property taxes and a lower median household income can be found. In these schools you hear about a tremendous dropout rate, not having enough books to go around, and not being able to pay high quality teachers enough for them to consider working there. Although there are Abbott Districts in New Jersey, which receive extra funding from the State based on these problems, I can attest to the fact that children in Passaic (an Abbott District) do not receive even close to the quality of education I did at my small high school. These problems of inequality will subsist until the funding process for New Jersey schools is reevaluated. Right now, if you can afford to live in an affluent district, you get a better education. It is unfortunate and wrong, but it is the status-quo.

Secondly, from my own experience in speaking with grammar and high school teachers in my personal life, the No Child Left Behind Act places too much burden on the educational systems in the less affluent towns. To be honest, the more affluent districts do not have much to worry about as far as holding up to national standards because they usually have less students in classes and can provide individual attention, students are usually coming from fairly stable homes and parents with some level of education, and teachers would rather work there than in a less affluent district. However, the districts in which the income is lower, the population of the schools is higher and the overall education level of the community is lower are the places that cannot meet these expectations. The teachers in the districts that are struggling with this find themselves teaching children not about math or science or reading, but about how to pass a national test which focuses on these areas. When children are simply being taught how to take a test due to the district's fear of penalization, no one benefits. The teachers cannot do their jobs correctly due to pressure to make sure the students pass the test, and the students are not really learning substantive information. From what teachers in my life have told me, the No Child Left Behind Act merely reinforces this cycle, and the districts that need the help the most are penalized for not achieving the minimum standards.

I agree with my classmate that President Obama must critically reevaluate the No Child Left Behind Act if it is ever to be successful. President Obama remarked that he intends to change the assessment tools, and rather than relying on a blanket national standard, evaluate each district as it stands and create a growth model. Then, based upon this growth model, schools would have to show a certain level of improvement each year until they met the national standards. This seems like a great place to start in my opinion, but I think New Jersey needs more. I cannot speak for other areas, but I do not see why there is any reason to have 70 (or more) school districts in Bergen County. While it is nice to have your high school right in your town, I think regionalizing the school districts is worth considering. Each town could contribute less money, while at the same time levelling the playing field of education for their children. Although I am sure this is not what many people living in more affluent school districts want, I think it is what is best for our society as a whole. If every county in New Jersey did this, perhaps some of the major disparity between districts would be lessened. I know that some counties already do and are still struggling, but then those districts would be evaluated and receive state funding appropriately. I am no policy genius, and I do not claim to know the nuts and bolts of exactly how all of this would work, but it makes sense practically, and is worth some attention as an option from our government and our media.

CBS Evening News

I just watched the 6:30 CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. There were seven main stories presented in the 30 minute broadcast and they are as follows:

1. Supreme Court Justice Souter announced that he is stepping down. The coverage included a portion about Justice Souter's appointment and background on the Court, why he was leaving and speculation of who President Obama will/should nominate. There was a clip of President Obama saying that he would only nominate someone who supports abortion rights and empathizes with minorities and the disadvantaged. There was also a clip of a Senate Republican stating that President Obama will receive a tough fight from the Senate Republicans if that is part of his criteria. Then Katie Couric spoke with Correspondent Jeff Greenfield who talked about different possible candidates to fill the slot on the Supreme Court. I would say that this segment took between ten and fifteen of the thirty minutes in the show.

2. Swine Flu: Katie Couric said the swine flu outbreak is "looking a bit less ominous tonight". There was a clip from a press conference with the CDC in which they stated that the strain does not carry the genes necessary to turn into a mass killer. Then there was a related story about a plane making an emergency landing because a passenger on board felt ill and they were worried about the swine flu. CBS continued the coverage with a story about American Farmers who are worried about the virus. Harvest is in three weeks, and since no Mexican workers are able to get work visas to come to America for the harvest season, they are worried that they will not have the manpower necessary to harvest all of their crops. Not only will this be a huge problem for the farmers, but it will also effect prices for consumers. They concluded the swine flu coverage with a piece about the perils of the pork industry. Several countries including Russia and China have banned North American Pork products, thinking that the swine flu could infect pork (which it cannot). The total amount of money at stake for American and Mexican industries as a result of the swine flu is $350 billion.

3. Hydroxycut recall: The popular weight loss supplement Hydroxycut has been linked to severe liver damage and at least one death. The FDA is urging Americans not to use Hydroxycut anymore. The manufacturer is recalling fourteen Hydroxycut products, but 9 million packages were sold last year alone.

4. Chrysler files for bankruptcy: All the sales in the auto industry are down. Chrysler is idling all North American plants for sixty days and closing five plants all together. They are leaving the dealerships open to try and sell the already manufactured cars with big incentives to buy. The American government is backing all of Chrysler's warrantees.

5. John Demjanjuk: A retired auto worker from Cleveland is closer to being deported to Germany to face charges that he was a guard at a Nazi Concentration camp during the Holocaust. He claimed he was too weak to travel, but the Prosecutor released a video of him walking on his own.

6. Danny Gans, a star impersonator from the Vegas strip, passed away. The segment included a feature of his acts in Vegas and a history of his career.

7. Assignment America Segment: Seventy year old Andy Mackee was told that he would die without his medication a long time ago, but stopped taking it anyway. He uses the money he would have spent on prescriptions to buy musical instruments for children and travels to different schools to give lessons. He has already given children over 13,000 harmonicas and has made thousands of string instruments. He gives free lessons and occasionally buys other instruments for children who seem really interested.

Overall, I felt that the stories were ordered from the most important to the least important. I do not know if I would have put the Hydroxycut recall before the Chrysler bankruptcy, but otherwise the stories seemed to be ordered properly. Since there were only seven stories, it is hard to tell what there would have been with more stories or a longer broadcast, but from what I saw tonight, it appears that CBS Evening News chose to put the most important stories first, leaving the feel good story for last. I also thought that the length of the segments varied from beginning to end, with the most important getting the most time, and the least important getting less time. I have to say good job to CBS for properly presenting the stories in order of importance.

First Supreme Court Justice Appointment for Obama

Today the New York Times announced that Supreme Court Justice Souter will be retiring at the end of the term in June. The Times article notes that this will be the first Supreme Court appointee for President Obama and the first appointee under a Democratic President in fifteen years. The two most recent appointments, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, were both under President George W. Bush. The confirmation process for these two slots on the Court were long and drawn out, and as the Times states, "intensely partisan and divisive moments in Washington". However, since the Democrats have such a large majority in the Senate, it does not seem as if President Obama will have as much trouble getting his nominee confirmed.

Justice Souter has expressed his disdain for Washington quite clearly and has apparently been telling friends since before the election that if President Obama won, he would be leaving the court. He was appointed by President George Bush, Sr. in 1990. Obviously, he was expected to be a conservative, but surprised many by becoming one of the most reliable members of the liberal side of the court. The Times article points out that replacing him with a liberal will not make any big impression on the overall ideology of the court. I have to disagree with that idea. Right now, there are five conservatives and four liberals on the court. Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative, tends to be the swing vote in most circumstances. If Souter, who the Martin-Quinn Supreme Court Ideology Project scores as having about the same level of liberal leaning as Breyer and Ginsberg (which is less than the most extreme liberal on the Court: Stevens), is replaced by someone who does not have near that same level of liberal leaning, there can be many different outcomes. I am not saying to appoint an extreme liberal because I do not think that would have any type of positive effect on the court, in fact, I think it would make it more divisive. However, if President Obama appoints a Justice that is more moderate than Breyer and Ginsberg, the new Justice may be apt to side with the conservatives on more issues than the others would. This would definitely give the conservatives on the Court a clear advantage. Ideology is something that President Obama should carefully consider in the appointment of the new Justice, especaially when there are so many more extreme conservatives on the Court than there are extreme liberals.

Additionally, Mary L. Dudziak of the blog, Balkinization, wrote a post entitled: "What should Obama look for in a Supreme Court Justice?" defining what she thinks the most important issues the President should take into consideration are. Beyond mere ideology, I agree with Ms. Dudziak that the life experience of the appointee are invaluable in helping them to form their legal opinions. Justice Ginsberg has been an outspoken advocate for the rights of women, not only because she is a woman, but because she experienced the discrimination women all over America have faced (and some are still facing). Her ideas of possible experience that would bring the necessary kind of diversity to the court are stated by her as follows:

"The next justice must understand that legal principles are not simply abstractions but have immediate and long-term consequences in the lives of individuals and communities. Perhaps Obama's nominee will have represented clients in deportation hearings, served low-income families in a legal aid office, or advised gay and lesbian members of the armed services. At this moment in American history, a nominee who has represented detainees at Guantanamo could bring important insights into the court's deliberations and further signal a change in the nation's posture toward human rights."

She also states that the appointee should be someone who can bring the opposite ends of the Court together, a mediator of sorts. I could not agree with Ms. Dudziak more. I want a Justice who has seen the real problems of the country and actually experienced them, and I can not think of another President who I would legitimately expect to use that as criteria. However, I have faith that President Obama will pick someone who will bring real world experience to the bench as well build some bridges between the conservatives and liberals of the Court.

Daily Show Versus Network News

After our discussions in class, I found myself wondering why people opt to be entertained by people like Jon Stewart rather than finding out about the actual issues going on in society. I personally do not have a lot of extra time to watch television, and have never really watched the Daily Show (besides the clips we have watched in class). After having watched both the network news and the Daily Show yesterday, I am beginning to understand why people, especially people in my age group, prefer Jon Stewart's take on the news.

Since yesterday was the day after the 100 days mark for President Obama, a lot of attention was given to Obama's progress thus far in office. After watching the network news coverage of that and other issues (like the ever intensifying swine flu panic) it was actually very fun to watch Jon Stewart's interpretation of the recent events. While I did not feel The Daily Show gave me any substantive information, (other than a few really good jokes) I have to agree with our in class discussion and reading, that the network news did not provide much substance either. Given that I read the New York Times online in the morning on most days, I feel fairly informed as to the daily news. Watching the network news is usually not very informative and is very repetitive at that point. Jon Stewart takes the stories that the media is focusing on and points out the comical aspects of each one.

During last night's show, Jon Stewart remarked on the "Snoutbreak '09" and joked about the various requests for main stream media to stop referring to the outbreak as "swine flu". He addressed many other issues, in a very funny manner. I honestly found myself laughing through a good portion of the program. However my favorite segment was the following:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Obama 101
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

In this segment, Jon Stewart makes a great point about the main stream media. He compares Fox, MSNBC and CNN and the different ways they presented the 100th day in office coverage. His observations were hysterical, yet somewhat unsettling due to their level of accuracy. I loved that he criticized all three networks and pointed out how absurd all three were. If there was anything educational about the show, I would say it would serve to help make people better consumers of main stream media, helping them to realize that everything has a slant to it.

I can understand why shows like Daily Show can be helpful in our society. Other people in my age group are usually not as interested in the news as say, the average Political Science nerd, and shows like this can help gain the attention of otherwise disinterested twenty-somethings. While I do not credit its educational value, The Daily Show is entertaining, and may just result in a viewer doing their own research on a topic they see presented there. In my opinion these types of programs are not harming society in any way, and just might result in some good.

Watching the Local News: A Painful Experience

I just watched the 11:00 news on News Channel 12, New Jersey. First and foremost I must say that it was extremely frustrating to watch. With weather every ten minutes and commercials at about the same rate, actual news air time within the hour was severely limited. Of the remaining news time, a good chunk of it was spent on sports segments. In fact, the same sports report ran twice within the hour, and both times it took up a whole period of time from one commercial break to another. I would say that of the hour I watched News 12 New Jersey, there was about 30 minutes of actual "news".

During this time, News 12 covered 27 other stories. Some of them included: a local woman giving away prom dresses to girls who cannot afford them, a dog getting rescued from a well it fell down, a brush fire in North Bergen, children in the Head Start program planting a garden, a string of robberies at local Dunkin' Donuts chains, kittens left in a hot car in Newark which were then taken away by the Humane Society, along with many other fairly inconsequential stories. This would not have bothered me so much if it were not for the way in which they covered the few stories of consequence that they aired.

Of all the stories in the hour, I would classify only eight of them as being at least somewhat political in nature. Of those, one was a blatant photo-op for Governor Corzine, in which he read a Dr. Seuss book to children at Parkway Elementary School for Read Across America. The second was about the child welfare system in New Jersey, which in recent years has come under criticism for failing to adequately protect children. However, the story consisted of a brief mention by one anchor that a recent report says that the child welfare system in New Jersey is making progress. Another story had to address the swine flu, because what would a news segment be this week if it did not mention it? News 12 made sure to report that Governor Corzine says that we have plenty of medications stocked from the avian flu scare (which also turned out to be a lot of hype over nothing) and that New Jerseyians can rest assured that there is enough medication to go around. Here, they also reported that 60% of their viewers were concerned about the swine flu, while 40% thought the media was blowing it out of proportion. In another segment, they quickly addressed the Specter party switch. They also quickly noted that President Barack Obama chose a secretary of Health and Human Services. News 12 spent a little bit longer showing President Obama's apology for the low flying plane in Manhattan earlier this week, showing that both Governor Corzine and President Obama claim they were not informed about this photo-op. I would have linked to these stories as well, but none of them made the website as far as I can tell. News 12 reported that Governor Corzine and the Supreme Court of New Jersey were re-evaluating school funding in urban districts but did not explain what was happening at all. However, on the website, there is a link to a story which I assume explains what is happening. Unfortunately, the link does not work, so I may never know. The only politically oriented story they seemed to spend more than a minute on involved the school board elections in a "Kane In Your Corner" segment, which is a special feature of the show. The story on school board elections focused on the cost of these elections and how many citizens feel they are unnecessary and ineffective.

Overall, I did not feel any more informed after having watched the local news. I was frustrated by the lack of content, and frustrated even more by the way important stories were briefly mentioned and not explained. I was further disappointed by News 12 after viewing their website, but at this point I am not surprised. I think it is safe to say that if you want to hear about significant events and have them explained in at least some detail, you should avoid watching News 12.

Chevy Volt: Real Solution or Just Another Flashy Toy?

Yesterday, Environmental Capital, an environmental business blog by The Wall Street Journal featured "GM’s New Plan: Fewer Jobs, More Chevy Volt". The post describes GM's plan to cut down on expenses and to enhance the technology present in its new car model, the Chevrolet Volt. Advertised in the following video, the Volt seems very promising.



Unfortunately, seeming like an impressive new option and actually being that are two very different things. In the Wall Street Journal blog, Keith Johnson emphasizes the main criticism of GM's latest endeavor: it is more expensive than cars that use gasoline. While some might argue that there will be savings in the long run due to the money owners would save spending on gas, I have to disagree. Have you looked at your electricity bill lately? Owners will substantially reduce their gas bills, (especially if they travel less than 40 miles between charges) but electricity is not overwhelmingly less expensive.

I must admit that when I first heard about the Volt I was immediately intrigued. I thought it would be a great trade in when my lease is up on the Chevy Cobalt(ironically enough in 2010, the Volt's scheduled release year). When I got the Chevy Cobalt in 2006, the sticker price was about $15,000.00. According to Michael Graham Richard of Treehugger.com, the Chevy Volt will cost closer to $35,000.00. That price is clearly out of the range of most Americans, and during the economic crisis people are even less likely to be able to spend the extra money.

Bottom Line: GM will have to find a way to make the Volt less costly if they intend to see it succeed. There's really no need for the extra features prominently displayed in the above video. If GM eliminates some of the bells and whistles that in my opinion are unnecessary in a car intended for mass production and sale, they might actually have a shot at survival.

Taking Colbert Too Seriously?

Today, a post was made by Jason Linkins on the Huffington Post blog entitled "Colbert Study: Conservatives Don't Know He's Joking". This post talks about a study conducted by Heather L. LaMarre at Ohio State University that finds "that lots of conservatives seem to not understand the intrinsic, underlying joke of The Colbert Report". The study found that conservatives were more likely to think that Colbert genuinely means what he says, even though he says it in a joking manner. They were also more likely to think that Colbert dislikes liberalism. Since I have not seen much if any of the Colbert Report, I decided to look up a recent video clip to get a better idea about what the study is testing. The following video was posted on the Colbert Report website today:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Days of Swine and Doses
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor First 100 Days

After watching this clip I find it hard to believe that anyone does not realize Mr. Colbert is not being serious. The show is aired on a network called Comedy Central. It is obvious that Stephen Colbert is a comedian and that he does not sincerely believe everything that he is saying. With that being said, I can understand how people taking a survey who only watch the show could think that Stephen Colbert really is a conservative, just joking about his own ideology. However, Jason Linkins makes a great point in bringing up the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, during which Mr. Colbert made jokes criticizing President Bush and the main stream media. Since I really don't know anything about Mr. Colbert, I did a little research of my own and I found this article from the Washington Post which states that: "Colbert, whose office is adorned with a 1972 Richard Nixon campaign poster, admits to being a Democrat. But, he says, 'I'm not someone with a particular political ax to grind. I'm a comedian. I love hypocrisy.'"

It is somewhat frightening to think that anyone would believe that Mr. Colbert means the outlandish and extreme things he says. I do not think that the extreme point of view is ever a good one, and it often leads to people taking equally extreme actions. However, I hope that a Comedy Central does not have the power to greatly influence the beliefs and actions of masses of people. There will always be people who are extremists, whether it be liberal or conservative, and in my opinion they will be that way regardless of what shows they watch on television. Perhaps The Colbert Report should take more initiative to make it clear that Stephen Colbert is simply mocking the extreme point of view, not supporting it. Personally though, I believe that if someone is unsophisticated enough to believe that a show on Comedy Central is serious, they probably will not have any major impact on society.

Supreme Court Rules on Warantless Car Searches

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog posted an article today regarding the case of Arizona v. Gant which was decided yesterday by the Supreme Court. This case was about defining when the police are allowed to search someone's car. Mr. Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license and already sitting in the back of a police car when an officer searching his car found a gun and cocaine. Mr. Gant was sentenced to three years, but appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Arizona, where the conviction was thrown out. When the case made its way to the Supreme Court, they decided that the police did not have the right to search Mr. Gant's vehicle and to uphold the ruling of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. This case created unlikely alliances; the 5-4 decision had liberals and conservatives on both sides.

The New York Times article on this case states that this all started in 1981 with the decision of New York v. Belton. In this case, police officers were pretty much given the green light to search any car any person has been arrested in. However, the Justices in the majority of Arizona v. Gant, Justice John Stevens, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all felt that the ruling in New York v. Belton had been too broadly applied and needed limiting. The standard set forth in the decision of Arizona v. Gant is stated in the New York Times article as follows:

Vehicle searches should be allowed only in two situations, he wrote: when the person being arrested is close enough to the car to reach in, possibly to grab a weapon or tamper with evidence; or when the arresting officer reasonably believes that the car contains evidence pertinent to the very crime that prompted the arrest.

As someone who has personally experienced multiple warantless searches by police officers, (Tip for readers: Do not ever drive a black Camaro through Garfield, New Jersey; You'll be sitting on the side of the road for forty-five minutes while they search your car for drugs) I can completely understand why the Court has finally decided to restrict the ability of police officers to search your car. In the instances I am talking about, no arrests were made, so maybe the rules are different. However, I do not see any reason to search the car of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation. So many weapons and drugs charges merely piggy-back some sort of traffic violation. Watch Cops sometime, you'll see what I'm talking about. While I do not support drug use or illegal possession of weapons, I do greatly value privacy. If the person is arrested for some unrelated traffic offense, what you would find when searching their car is irrelevant. I think that too often police officers are given too much leeway as far as violating individual rights is concerned. It will be interesting to see how the police handle adjusting to this limitation on their power.

I also have to note that I was very surprised to see the way the Court split on this issue. I was shocked That Justice Stevens, the most liberal member of the Court, and Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Court, wound up on the same side of a case that was split 5-4. This was especially meaningful given the widespread impact this decision will have on Police Departments around the country. There is one thing I have not been able to figure out yet about this case, and maybe someone else can help:

I know that police officers now cannot search the vehicle of an individual who has been arrested unless there may be evidence of the crime in the car or the individual being arrested is close enough to the car to reach into to it. What I am wondering is if this applies to traffic stops where no arrest is made. I would assume that it does, but you can never be too sure with the number of needless laws in this country. Can the police just pull you over for a traffic violation and still search your car when no arrest is made? I have tried to find the answer to this question, but I have not been able to. Any input?

Good Night, and Good Luck

The movie Good Night and Good Luck depicted the courageous efforts of Edward R. Murrow in ending the witch hunt for Communists in America which was led by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Edward R. Murrow was a well known television journalist, who risked his livelihood in order to expose Senator Joseph McCarthy for what he was doing in America. Senator McCarthy was going through the ranks of the United States government and finding Communist spies. However, it was quite evident that McCarthy was taking the situation too far, accusing people of being Communists through lies and assumptions. Luckily for all of us, Edward R. Murrow was not afraid to publicly assert that McCarthy was lying through a television program. The nation realized that they had been duped by McCarthy, and he quickly fell from his comfortable position of accuser. Hopefully in the future, we will never have another instance of McCarthyism on our hands (although it is likely we will).

There is another aspect to this film that I feel is even more applicable in today's society. The following video shows the speech that Edward Murrow gives at the end of the movie.



This speech shows Edward R. Murrow's deep commitment to truth and information in mainstream media. He suggests some educational programing be weaved into the seemingly endless stream of entertainment programming. He states that he feels people would not ignore this program, but embrace it and the country as a whole would benefit from it. If he had lived to see what media has become today, I think Mr. Murrow would be appalled. With constant access to information on the internet, people merely look up what they need, when they need it and then forget about it. Otherwise, in my experience, most people do not care about truly deepening their understanding of major issues in society. Even if Mr. Murrow's idea was implemented today, I doubt it would reach very many people. People have hundreds of television stations with digital cable, satellite television and other common services, those who had no desire to listen could just change the channel or head over to their computer to obtain some meaningless entertainment. In my opinion, those who are interested enough to continue watching are the kind of people who would have researched information on their own, and while they will appreciate the program, they are not the ones who need to be watching it. I like his idea, I just worry that Americans have become too complacent. They do not want to hear about the fundamental issues that are effecting society, and I do not think that even Mr. Murrow's plan will force people to care.

NPR: Debate Over the 2010 Census

Yesterday, I listened to NPR's All Things Considered broadcast on the 2010 Census debate, which can be found here. Having briefly considered working part-time for the Census after receiving an e-mail from my college saying they were hiring, this particular topic peaked my interest. I never realized how much debate there is over the census, but now that I think about it, I can see why.

Jacki Lyden,the host, states that more than 100,000 people started working for the Census Bureau this week. There will be 1.4 million temporary jobs with the Census Bureau over the course of conducting the 2010 census. However, there is still widespread debate over the best methods to use in collecting the census data. The 1990 Census missed so many people that the Clinton Administration tried to implement the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 census. This sparked tremendous political debate between Democrats and Repulicans. Democrats want to employ a method of statistical sampling in which a model could be used to account for the people who are missing from the actual raw data. Republicans disagree with this practice and believe that physically counting each citizen is the only way to conduct the census and that no adjustments should take place after that. The battle wound up in the Supreme Court and eventually President George W. Bush precluded statistical sampling as an option.

The stakes are high in this particular debate. Census data is not just there to provide something for all of us political science majors to use in our reports, it has actual consequences in the political realm! How much federal money goes to your state, the number of representatives your state gets in the House of Representatives, and how many people vote on your state's behalf in the electoral college all depend on the census data.

Representing the Republican point of view, Newt Gingrich spoke on the show. Mr. Gingrich states that all Republicans want is for every American to be counted, the way the Constitution intended. Their concerns with statistical sampling are that it will not accurately represent the population and that it will distort the figures. His solution is an outsourcing of the census to private companies to avoid workers who have an agenda and to enhance accuracy. When asked if he thought President Obama would try to reverse the restriction President Bush made against statistical sampling he said that he thinks President Obama will try to change the rules and adjust the count after it is taken.

Representing the Democratic point of view was Robert Shapiro, Supervisor of the 2000 Census. Mr. Shapiro stated that the census is the largest nonmilitary operation the Federal government carries out. He explained that statistical sampling happens after all of the census data is collected. Then 1,000,000 homes are selected at random. The occupants are re-interviewed and the data from all one million homes is used as a sample. The sample is checked against the entire population to see if the population is adequately represented. If it is not, then based on a statistical model, they make adjustments. He emphasizes that statistical sampling is not in place of an enumeration, it is in addition to it, and actually makes the census data more reliable. Mr. Shapiro also states that the Census data does not have the kind of impact on Congressional results that the Republicans think there is.

After listening to an argument from both sides, I have to agree with the Republicans on this one. Though I have used statistical sampling and relied on it in many of my classes, I do not think that I would chance the amount of federal aid, how many representatives we have and how many electoral votes we have on a statistical model that could always be flawed. I do not see why we cannot just have a good, old-fashioned head count. I realize that some people avoid participating in the census out of fear or just apathy and that this is why so many people go unaccounted for. Perhaps then, we can determine some kind of incentive to motivate people to participate in the census and to provide accurate information. If we can convince people that the census is a good thing and that no one is going to get in trouble because of it, then we would not have the need for statistical sampling. Maybe we should be focusing our efforts there.

Hannity: 6 Ideas to Save America?

On April 9, 2009, the following segment aired on Hannity on the Fox news channel:




While the transcript can be accessed on the Hannity website, I am going to briefly discuss the piece. Mr. Hannity is talking to Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, about the economy and potential solutions. This segment comes as a portion of a larger feature on the show: "6 Ideas to Save America". Representative Ryan speaks about lowering corporate taxes to keep jobs in America, making tax returns less complicated and suspending the capital gains tax through the year 2010. All of these things sound great to anyone; no one likes to pay taxes! Representative Ryan goes on to state that President Obama intends to raise every one of these taxes. Mr. Hannity asks Rep. Ryan if Republicans in Congress can garner any support from the Democrats (who have the majority in Congress) in order to support what the Rep. Ryan is proposing. Rep. Ryan does not seem to think so, even in the wake of the "$4 trillion in debt on top of a stimulus on top of a TARP on top of an omnibus on top of earmarks" mentioned by Hannity. (Just a side note here: I think it is funny that the way Mr. Hannity brings this up, to the uninformed citizen it would seem as if President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are responsible for the $4 trillion debt that America is in. I could have sworn some of that money was spent before President Obama's administration! My thought: Maybe Obama would not have to raise any of these taxes if it were not for the massive debt and mess of an economy he was left with.)

Mr. Hannity and Rep. Ryan then go on to discuss the tax system, and Mr. Hannity states that the bottom fifty percent of wage earners pay less than three percent of the federal tax bill. They also state that the top ten percent of wage earners pay seventy percent of the federal tax bill. That sounds awfully unfair at first glance, but if you think about it: who are the top ten percent of wage earners in America? I do not have statistical evidence to back my assumption here, but with all the celebrities, corporate business owners, CEOs (until recently of course) and other ridiculously high paying positions in America, I would think that a good portion, if not all of the top ten percent of tax payers are millionaires (if not billionaires). I would also assume that the bottom fifty percent consists mostly of people working minimum wage, working 40 hour weeks only to show about $15,000.00 for it at the end of the year. I cannot agree with Mr. Hannity and Rep. Ryan here: the wealth IS NOT already redistributed. We as a country just are not going to tax people who can barely survive (if they even can) on what they earn as much as we tax people who can live lavishly and still have tons of money to spare. This does not constitute a redistribution of wealth, it is merely a refusal to put a burden on people who cannot handle it as opposed to people who can.

Mr. Hannity and Representative Ryan basically conclude that nothing can be accomplished until elected Democrats are replaced with elected Republicans, and essentially put this plan on hold until 2010. What I do not understand is why. In my opinion, this type of show only encourages partisanship divisiveness. If these people really wanted to find a practical and feasible solution to the country's problems, they would attempt to work together with their colleagues, regardless of political affiliation, and collaborate to find the best solution. I do not disagree with all of the points that were made by Mr. Hannity and Representative Ryan, but the us versus them mentality is why nothing ever gets done in this country. I think that despite all the criticizing they do of President Obama, this time they should take his lead in fostering a connection between Democratic and Republican elected officials. It is time we put politics aside and truly save America, before it is too late.

Mr. America

In two Op-Eds Larger Than Life in London and Liberty, Equality, Envy from today's New York Times, A.A. Gill and Amélie Nothomb remarked on President Obama's visit to London. I found these articles particularly intriguing, as they presented the views of citizens in other countries toward our new President, Barack Obama.

The view of A.A. Gill, of London, is clearly expressed in the title of his article where he describes the President as "Larger Than Life". He seems to take President Obama and First Lady Michele Obama as a breath of fresh air among stale and disconnected world leaders. After reading this article, one would envision the Obamas as vibrant, young, and most importantly extremely humble and gracious people. He focuses on the character of President and First Lady Obama as the most important factor in their future success. However, he also notes something that I think is extremely important, people around the entire world love the Obamas. He describes President Obama as the "only popular politician left in the world." This has immeasurable importance now that every issue has become globalized. In contrast to the isolationist personality of President Bush, President Obama has gone around the world impressing both world leaders and world citizens. The fact that world leaders want to be associated with him will prove very useful foreign relations in the future. It is also quite comforting to know that our President is held in such high regard globally.

Amélie Nothomb, of France, wrote a similarly praising article. Her position is that not only do people around the world love our President, but that they are jealous of us for having such an amazing leader. She also states that the leaders are even more envious, "wondering why they are not loved as well as Barack Obama is loved." The general tone of Ms. Nothomb's article is that people worldwide worship President Obama, she even states that "Mr. Obama's anger is portrayed here as something holy." While I wonder if that statement takes things a bit far, the important fact is people everywhere appear to be very supportive of our new President.

With such high expectations globally, I sincerely hope that President Obama will be able to live up to all of them. I agree with both columnists in the respect that I am proud to have Barack Obama as the President of the United States. However, we do still have to wait and see how he handles the many national and international crises he has inherited. Hopefully, for all of us worldwide, President Obama will show over and over again that he deserves the popularity.

Financial Fool's Day

April first around the world is observed as April Fool's Day, a time to play pranks and have a good time. However, this year, the first of April has taken a much more somber tone. The G20 Summit took place in London, where world leaders gathered to discuss solutions to the international economic turmoil. In response to the conference, thousands of people gathered in the financial district of London to protest any aid going to "the bankers", among other things. While many stated that it was intended as a peaceful demonstration, the intense anger of crowd members soon became evident as violence erupted, according to this article from the New York Times. The protest turned into a riot situation amid uprisings against the police and destruction of bank property. People of the crowd smashed the windows of the Royal Bank of Scotland and emerged from the broken widows carrying items such as computers and destroyed them in the street. The video below shows the news reports on the events of the protest.



Personally, I applaud the efforts of the individuals who went to the protest and remained peaceful. These people stood outside in huge crowds all day to stand up for what they believe in. Instead of sitting at home complaining about the way the government is spending their money, these citizens took to the streets to advertise their dismay, writing "thieves" on financial buildings and asking officials not to let the "bankers" steal any more from them. While I do not support vandalism or violence, I have to question why American citizens have not been doing the same. After 700 billion dollars of our tax money went to some of the biggest financial institutions in the country and rapidly rising unemployment rates, it astounds me that Americans are not protesting in the streets as well. Besides, even if we did, would it get media coverage?

I wonder what would happen if what is depicted in video below had taken place in New York City. What do you think?

Twitter as Grounds for Mistrial?

On the front page of today's New York Times a story appeared that raises questions about our generation and problems we face due to new technology. The article details an increasing problem around the country: jurors and internet access. While the internet is certainly not new technology, accessing the internet at all times is easier than ever before. Judges in various cases have found that jurors are accessing the internet to find out information that would otherwise be excluded from the official proceedings. Jurors have admitted to doing outside research on the specifics of the cases, the parties involved, the attorneys representing them and other related topics, with a simple search of the internet on their cell phones. This is an obvious violation of the rules which specify that jurors are not supposed to be influenced by information not presented at trial. This means that jurors are inadvertently providing grounds to set aside their decisions by declaring a mistrial. Outside research is not the only action being considered grounds for mistrial: Twitter and Facebook updates caused a request for mistrial in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state Senator. One Arkansas Court is being asked to set aside a $12.6 million judgment due to one juror's Twitter updates throughout the course of the trial. The article even mentions that attorneys have begun checking websites and blogs of potential jurors as a part of the jury selection process.

The questions we should be asking ourselves as a society are whether or not this is an acceptable practice, and how feasible rules regarding internet access actually will be. On one hand, if you believe that jurors should be completely isolated from internet access throughout the course of a trial, how will the Courts enforce this rule. Should cell phones be confiscated? What penalties will be incurred if a juror refuses to give up their cell phone, or simply lies about having one? On the other hand, if the Courts do nothing, how biased will decisions be based upon information received via the internet? If we know that jurors are making decisions based on what they're reading on the internet, a whole new set of questions arise. How can we be sure that all jurors are obtaining their facts from credible outside sources? Is the outside information biased? Does it include references to evidence or events strictly forbidden from being presented in the proceedings?

It becomes quite clear that the allowance of such blatant disregard for the rules regarding juries will completely compromise the judicial system. While it is understandable that jurors think they are making more informed decisions by doing their own research, they do not seem to realize that they are undermining the rules of evidence that have been relied upon for generations. That being said, the internet is more available than ever before and the technology is not going away. The legal system will have to adjust, but jurors may also have to redefine their civic responsibility to include giving up the internet for the length of their service.

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Last semester, I took a course focusing on the Supreme Court of the United States. During this course, the professor mentioned a case entitled Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. This case was particularly disturbing to me, not only as a woman, but as a member of the workforce.

The details of the case are as follows:

Lily Ledbetter was an employee of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for many years. As an Area Manager, a position primarily filled by men, she was an easy target for gender discrimination. Over time, salaries of the employees in the same position were incrementally increased, but men in the same position as Ms. Ledbetter were raised higher, creating a disparity of pay that was evident even when evaluating the salaries of employees with less seniority than Ms. Ledbetter. Since this act of discrimination did not involve Goodyear Tire denying Ms. Ledbetter promotions or other comparable measures of workplace equity, it was completely unknown to the her that she was the victim of discrimination. Goodyear made sure to keep the earnings of employees strictly confidential from one another. When Ms. Ledbetter finally discovered the systematic discrimination that was taking place, she filed a law suit against her employer.

After rulings in favor of Ms. Ledbetter in lower level Courts, the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the Court decided that since Ms. Ledbetter had not filed her claim within 180 days of the discriminatory act she had missed the statutory limitation to sue. The 5-4 ruling was extremely controversial, and Justice Ginsberg was so appalled with the decision that she wrote a lengthy dissent. Justice Ginsberg cited the fact that Ms. Ledbetter was unaware of the act of discrimination during the statutory time-frame and called the Court's reading of the governing law "parsimonious". Justice Ginsberg suggested that the legislature take action to remedy this apparent mistake by Justices in the majority.

The Supreme Court of the United States basically set a precedent with this ruling that any person who does not file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of said act does not have any right to seek justice in Court. Obviously in Ms. Ledbetter's case this became an unfair requirement, especially since she was unaware of the acts as they were happening. The dissenting Justices argued that this would be an unfair requirement in all similar situations. Congress clearly agreed, and remedied the situation by passing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009. The Feminist Law Professors Blog covered this event in a post written by David S. Cohen. Mr. Cohen remarks that it is not surprising that all Democratic Senators voted in favor of this bill, while only five Republican Senators voted to pass the measure (four of which were women).

The most disappointing portion of this scenario in my opinion is that political affiliation and ideology has such a huge impact on the laws of our country. A conservative leaning Court can change the whole way discrimination laws are applied, making it almost impossible to meet the requirements to win a lawsuit. It is not only a matter of the individual people and cases being impacted, but the precedent they set for future interpretation of our laws. Issuing a ruling that makes discrimination laws virtually unenforceable is just as bad as repealing them all together. Had that action been taken, perhaps the majority of the public would see that this is certainly cause for alarm.

A person cannot be required to take action before they know that they have been discriminated against. That would be like requiring someone to report a robbery before they even knew they had been stolen from. Luckily, Congress and President Obama made it their concern to right this wrong. The passing the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a step in the right direction. Hopefully, this type of action will not be necessary in the future, but when it inevitably is, I only hope for such successful utilization of the checks and balances system.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog! My name is Corinne Maloney, and I am a junior at Ramapo College of New Jersey. This is my test post, but please return. There will be very interesting information in the future. Until then, check out my niece's website at http://www.addysonmae.org.