It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over...

The top courts in California are being asked to review whether a "voter-approved ban" on same-sex unions was constitutional. According to The New York Times, many cities and civil rights groups are petitioning to have their cases heard before judges. They believe the ban "is a substantial revision of [California's] Constitution, and therefore requires legislative approval." A long with this ruling, the courts will also making a ruling over the "legality of some 18,000 same-sex marriages" that took place in the state this past year. Some feel that by banning same-sex marriages they are being denied "equal protection under the state's Constitution." 

The case will start on December 19th of this year; it shall be very interesting. On the one hand, If they overturn the initiative to have same-sex marriages banned, the majority who voted, however slight, will be upset and claim that democracy has been thrown out of the window. If they spoke loud and (somewhat) clearly, then why shouldn't the will be carried out. On the other hand, the "will of the people" overturned the Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriages in the first place. The Supreme Court felt that they were protecting the rights of homosexuals who wanted to marry. But were they undemocratic in going against the will of the people? What's so wrong with protecting the rights of minorities? Ask the majority.

So who's wrong and who's right? Stay tuned.

GOP Focuses Efforts on 2010 Gubernatorial Elections

The GOP is hoping that the reorganization of congressional districts after the 2010 census will help the party regain seats in the House of Representatives. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Redistricting Data Office is already beginning to prepare for the 2010 Census Redistricting Data Program. In order to reorganize congressional districts by 2011, census officials are consulting with the offices of every state’s governor as well as legislators and election officials.

Republicans are relying on the 2010 gubernatorial elections to give them the advantage when it comes time to redistrict because of the immense power that most governors hold over where district boundaries are set. In the 2008 elections there were 11 gubernatorial elections in which the Democrats increased the majority they already held. Currently there are 29 Democratic governors but if the Republicans can manage to win back the majority, they would be well positioned to reshape the political map.

There will be 36 seats up for election in 2010 and 32 of those positions are in states where the governor will play a direct role in redistricting. In 28 states the governor has the power to veto any redistricting plan, in 5 states the governor is charge of making appointments to the redistricting board, and in 3 states the governor is consulted directly in the making of the redistricting plans. Chris Schrimpf, the spokesperson for the Republican Governor’s association believes that, “We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing.”

However, Democrats who also have their eyes on the 2010 gubernatorial races seem secure in the current political balance. Brian Namey, the spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association believes the Democratic governors to be “a formidable line of defense against Republicans who would like to Tom DeLay us out of congressional seats.” While the GOP may seem overly optimistic in their predictions, redistricting – in conjunction with the addition of Republican congressional seats due to increasing populations in states with Republican governors – could significantly change the political landscape in the next decade.

RACE: Has the Government Given Up On It?

Has the government given up on the race issue? Race is such a prevalent topic in American society, even today with the first African-American President-Elect. According to the Atlantic Unbound Roundtable, people may have decided that “the state of nature is for races not to get along and that there’s nothing American policymakers can do about it.” If policymakers come to the conclusion that there is nothing they can do about the current situation of African-Americans, including their high population in "all-poor neighborhoods", "bad schools", "few two-parent families", "high rates of poverty", crime and unemployment and the substantial economic gap between blacks and whites. The Atlantic Unbound Roundtable suggests that people might believe that this is not an issue as long as there is equality of opportunity. However, blacks do not from the same circumstances (especially financially) as many white Americans and are therefore born at a disadvantage. Programs such as affirmative action for instance, provide the opportunities to get positions that would not normally be available to people of African descent. If these programs that were implemented began to get questioned, that could hinder the educational and economic growth of the black community. Although Obama has had a profound effect on the motivation of many minorities, perhaps he will also be one reason why the government will not give up on race relation issues in America, and rethink how it has been handled thus far.

Oh, The Perils of Polling

In response to the various state bans discriminating against homosexuals, including Proposition 8, that were passed November 4, 2008, GLAAD in partnership with Harris Interactive created a survey titled "Pulse of Equality". This poll's results were published this Wednesday, December 3, 2008, and claimed an overwhelming national support for gay marriage or civil unions, among other important gay right's issues. GLAAD states that 75 % of U.S adults favor either gay marriage or civil unions.

While it is wonderful that this poll found such an overwhelmingly positive response to its questions on gay rights, it is hard to say that the nation supports gay marriage and the like solely based upon one poll. It is well known that polls must be taken with a grain of salt considering the many things that could have gone wrong. Although the margin of error in this poll was just -/+ 2, it is important to note that this was a telephone based survey. So, what about Americans who do not use telephones? Also, is it possible that those in favor of gay rights would be more eager to answer "The Pulse of Equality"? Moreover, it leaves one to wonder how Proposition 8 in California, and other similar constitutional bans on same-sex marriage or adoption, have passed this November.

While the poll's results are uplifting, it is too soon to say if America is as supportive of gay rights as the "Pulse of Equality" purports.

Will the Big 3 Change Their Collars from White to Green?

Ready to get down on their knees and beg, the CEOs of Chrysler, GMC and Ford have headed to Washington for the second time to ask for a governmental bailout to save their tanking companies. After ditching their private jets for hybrids to make the trip, these CEOs have made what will surely be some of the most dramatic offers in their histories as heads of one of the largest industries in the US.

They’re asking for $34 billion, a substantial increase from their original plea of $25 billion. Car and truck sales fell 37% in November, which puts these companies in a position in which, without this bailout, survival longer than 2 months won’t be an option.

The CEOs are literally pleading, with GM going as far as to pledge that their company executives would take a 20% pay cut and CEO Rick Wagoner and members of the board would work for $1 a year. Ford and Chrysler followed in suit, their CEOs offering a similar plan for dramatic pay cuts; after all, the three companies are so intertwined that, should one go down, the other two would follow right after.

But their most innovative promises concern their new environmental objectives. Ford promised production increases of its fuel-efficient Focus sedan to more than 1 million a year. GM has said that 22 of the 24 new vehicles it will unveil between 2009 and 2012 will be fuel-efficient cars and crossovers. And from Chrysler, plans are being laid for 73% of its 2009 vehicles to get more miles per gallon than previous models as well as the introduction of a fully electric vehicle in 2010.

Americans are split in their opinions surrounding this issue. A CNN poll showed Wednesday that 61% of Americans oppose a bailout. While many fear the threat of an even greater economic crisis if these companies were to go under, a more significant percentage of the population feels a bailout would be an undeserved get-out-of-jail-free card. After all, its not as if the recent economic downturn is the only reason why these companies are struggling. Had they developed a responsible business plan and responded to environmental concerns throughout the past decade, they would be in a much better position to survive this recession. America needs to be forced to change its ways, and nursing these companies back to health isn’t going to teach them anything.

Its time for some tough love. Unfortunately, it’s the American employees who will pay the price for the auto industry’s blind greed.

Why You Should Not Ask For Money In A Private Jet

Considering how lenient the government was in handing out money to the financial sector with its $700 billion, it is the difficulty that the auto industry is facing in trying to get funding of its own is almost pitiable. While Detroit's Big Three may not have done anything to merit a bailout, neither did the investment banks. It also does not help that support for an auto industry bailout has dropped since executives from the Big Three first traveled to Washington on private corporate jets to ask for money last month.

The moral of the story? When you want to get help from Congress, make sure public opinion is in your favor. Unlike the president, who wins by getting the most votes from the electoral congress, Congress members answer directly to the people, especially in the House of Representatives, where incumbents' only worry is over members of their district. Even the financial bailout plan, which also faced tough public opposition failed at first, and it was not until conciliatory "sweeteners" were added to appease Representatives from especially skeptical districts did the bill pass. However, the Big Three appeared to have learned a lesson - this time, their executives carpooled to Washington. In order to really save themselves, though, they will have to start paying more attention to what the public wants.

Change for US and Latin America

Under President Barack Obama’s reign, one can safely assume that relationships with foreign nations will be less militaristic and more social and conversational than was during Bush’s presidency. The United States’ attitudes towards Latin America have been particularly troubling. Despite the close ties between Latin America and the United States due to the high level of immigration from the former into the latter, and the amount of valued cash exchanges between these countries, their relationship has seen quaky grounds during the Bush Administration. In a long delayed attempt to help alleviate this strained relationship, the United States will have more discussions with longtime enemies of the nation such as: Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. "There will be an increased emphasis on multilateralism and the possibility of diplomatic overtures toward regimes historically antagonistic toward Washington," said Rob Munks, the Americas editor for Jane's Information Group.

Obama, in following his campaign promise for better relations with foreign nations has created a new organization, “A New Partnership for the Americas,” in which Latin American immigrants will act as informal ambassadors, the United States will expand the Peace Corps in Latin America, well as placing more of an interest in the region, all of which had been disbanded in 2004 under the previous presidency. Obama, it seems, views Latin America as a sort of family to the United States, commonly referring to the entire continent, the Americas, as a collective “we,” instead of categorizing each nation.

United States’ attention on Latin America, when it existed, focused mainly on its growing drug problems, along with its associated drug violence, and worked only to curb these issues. The hopes of children in the favelas (slums) of Rio, the security for the policemen in Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners heard from jails in Havana, were not seen or heard when it came to United States interests in Latin America.

Obama’s presidency, it seems, will be marked with a great effort to remedy the exclusion and hostility the Bush Administration has established when matters concerned with Latin America emerge. With the former’s assertion that his presidency will resolve the antagonistic relations the United States has with other nations, the foreign policy of the United States, it seems, will be taking the opposite approach the country had been adhering to for the past 8 years.

Obama Daughters to attemd the "Harvard of Washington's Private Schools"

With the weeks counting down to his inauguration, Americans have been watching President-elect Barack Obama's choices carefully in hopes of understanding what kind of president he will be. Just before Thanksgiving he announced that the Obama family would be sending their their two daughters to Sidwell Friend's School, a "prestigious academy that has educated generations of this city’s elite." Many had hoped that he would send his children to one of the District's public schools in support for the public system and as a show of equality of opportunity. The Obama family had, however, only visited private institutions during their search. For a man who had pledged great change, he has not always appeared to deviate much from the elite.

Yet, America also prides itself in freedom of choice and given the current state of public schools it may be unfair to fault him with such a decision. What Americans should hope for instead is that Mr. Obama will work to either give less fortunate families the same choice, or improve public schools so that they become a more appealing option. But this is not to say that there are not fundamental difficulties, especially regarding that urban schools such the District's, in attempting either option. Ultimately, Americans need to remember that Mr. Obama is only a man, not a messiah. 

A New New Deal?

With the onset of another economic crisis, the federal government once again comes to the aid of the states. On Tuesday, president-elect Obama met with state governors to discuss dispensation of federal funding for state projects. This is part of a larger effort to alleviate the effects of the economic crisis on a state level by creating more jobs and balancing the budget.
As state governments face increasingly large budget shortfalls, Obama has decided to involve the federal government. Obviously, this raises some issues about whether the federal government, while in debt, can handle more debt in order to support state projects. Debt is never a good thing, but it can be made into a lesser evil because, for example, that debt is used to create infrastructure, which can create jobs.

This project of Obama’s adds yet another parallel to the FDR era and the New Deal Coalition. Obama managed to build a wide-ranging electorate that crossed various socio-economic divisions and helped him win the election. FDR’s New Deal Coalition found similar support in a broad-based constituency that allowed the Democrats to remain in power for a long time. It also represented a continuing trend in more government involvement in the economic sector. Not only does Obama promote the Democratic tendency for government involvement like FDR’s Democratic party, he helps his wide-ranging constituency. Perhaps Obama’s bipartisan approach to helping the states with funding might help him solidify a New New Deal coalition.

A New New Deal?

With the onset of another economic crisis, the federal government once again comes to the aid of the states. On Tuesday, president-elect Obama met with state governors to discuss dispensation of federal funding for state projects. This is part of a larger effort to alleviate the effects of the economic crisis on a state level by creating more jobs and balancing the budget. “More than 40 states face budget shortfalls now totaling $30 billion and projected to rise to $60 billion by summer, with $120 billion more in spending gaps anticipated in the next fiscal year”. Obviously, this raises some issues about whether the federal government, while in debt, can handle more debt in order to support state projects. Debt is never a good thing, but it can be made into a lesser evil because, for example, that debt is used to create infrastructure, which can create jobs.
This project of Obama’s adds yet another parallel to the FDR era and the New Deal Coalition. Obama managed to build a wide-ranging electorate that crossed various socio-economic divisions and helped him win the election. FDR’s New Deal Coalition found similar support in a broad-based constituency that allowed the Democrats to remain in power for a long time. It also represented a continuing trend in more government involvement in the economic sector. Not only does Obama promote the Democratic tendency for government involvement like FDR’s Democratic party, he helps his wide-ranging constituency. Perhaps Obama’s bipartisan approach to helping the states with funding might help him solidify a New New Deal coalition.

Where does climate fit in to people and the media?

Undoubtedly more people subscribe to People than to the Ecologist. And why not? The focus is on gossip and intrigue, the glamorous and beautiful. To the average American consumer, studies of soil, photos of birds, and op-ed pieces on the state of the Amazon Basin pale in comparison to Britney Spear’s most recent mental breakdown.
I can understand the media game, the focus on people and face-to-face conflict, as opposed to institutional structure and practice, in hopes of reaping the benefits of selling one more magazine subscription or receiving one more hit on a website. Yet this means that today the American people know more and can more easily access information about the Spears family than the actions of their representatives in the House and Senate to combat climate change.
However, there are those few journalists that stray from the norm and cover the “difficult stories over the long haul,” who don’t garner such attention as those writing for Vogue. One such difficult story: climate change.
This year Andrew Revkin received the 2008 John Chancellor Award for excellence in journalism, alongside Jane Meyer. He was recognized for his work covering climate change. While this is very positive, Revkin currently sees his work as something that has “evolved,” where “climate change is not the story of our time” but rather a “subset”.
A subset to what one may ask? A subset, he claims, to people. For example, Revkin speaks of the “billion teenagers on planet earth right now,” as “the story of our time,” where as global warming is a “symptom” of this era not the disease.
While acknowledging Revkin’s ideas, I disagree. The focus on people is inevitable in our media, yet I believe we need to collectively demand more coverage on other species and processes that are a part of climate change. Al Gore’s acclaimed documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth," should only be the beginning of sensational media coverage on the issue. The media is a part of the democratic process, a way to hold government accountable, and the easiest way to inform and mobilize the masses. If People magazine pledges to include a section on climate change, highlighting people involved in the movement and processes that are apart of government action, I believe a greater shift in awareness will occur. Furthermore, if we encourage young children to go out and interact with nature as opposed to playing video games, we can help to foster a sense of co-ownership of our land. For children to believe that trees and birds own the world to the same extent that humans do; to treat others fairly involves treating trees, oceans, and whales fairly too. Let us find a place for climate change to be a part of the media, in a way that does not focus on people as the one true story of our time.