Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Lifting the Moratorium: Challenging a Voting Trend?

On Tuesday, October 12, 2010, the Obama administration ended the controversial six-month moratorium on offshore drilling of the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spill that began on April 20th with the explosion and subsequent sinking of the Deep Water Horizon drilling rig lasted for approximately five months and has been called by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar “the worst environmental disaster in the country’s history.” Lifting of the off shore drilling moratorium will permit drilling to resume in the near future provided the drilling companies pass new and more comprehensive safety and security features.

According to a poll from pollingreport.com concerning the environment and energy production, as of May 25th of this year 55% of Americans felt the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies like oil, gas and coal. After what has been one of the most devastating environmental disasters to happen to the country, many Americans are wondering why the moratorium was lifted at all.

The answer to this questions lies within the economies of the states affected by the spill, like Louisiana and Mississippi. Senator Mary L. Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana, states, “the moratorium was a government-imposed economic disaster. It has caused more financial harm to the state than the spill itself.” Senator David Vitter, a Republican from the same state echoes Lendrieu’s sentiment.

Although from opposing parties, both senators from Louisiana support the lifting of the moratorium. Nationally, the opinions of the parties are polarized. The Democratic Party favors the moratorium while the Republican supports its lifting. However, on this local level, both parties seem to agree. In a society where these two parties are becoming more like to opposing ideological teams and voters are becoming more heuristic in their voting techniques, the democratic candidates for the upcoming November 2nd election do not fit into the voters increasingly plebiscitary mindset and presents a more complex decision for voters within these southern states. The voters in Louisiana and Mississippi are no longer able easily to vote along their party’s line because the issue of the moratorium cuts directly across them. Whether this stance of the Democratic candidates will effect the outcome of elections in these states will only be seen on November 2nd.

Governors star in a New York theater

The first New York governors’ debate took place on October 18th with all seven candidates making an appearance. It opened up the possibility of a clash between the front-runners, Carl Paladino (the Republican pick), and Andrew Cuomo (the Democratic rival), in a race that has been "making headlines for its nasty tone". (Evidence of the nastiness is handsomely provided by the news media, most notably in Paladino’s antigay criticisms on Cuomo). Surprisingly, these two candidates hardly acknowledged each other at the debate. However, the five third-party candidates picked up the slack by taking jabs at each other. Charles Barron, the candidate who was a former Black Panther, jeered, "Asking Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino to end corruption is like asking an arsonist to help us put out the fires. It doesn't make sense."

That the debate captured the public’s attention has a lot to do with the candidates’ theatrical behaviors, but the tendencies and preferences of the news media also played a role. The news media preys on entertainment and conflict, and the debate provided both. Various major news media, including CNN, The New York Times, and The Economist made it a priority to mention how Kristin Davis, the candidate who was a former prostitute madam, made frequent brothel jokes. In fact, one New York Times article covering the debate failed to mention anything with political substance until the very end.

The news media’s consistent focus on the candidates’ personal idiosyncrasies made the debate seem more like a humorous talk show than a serious political debate. As The Economist writes, the debate "provided guffaws and little else."

First Amendment on Trial in Snyder v. Phelps

Quite possibly the most attention-grabbing case on the Supreme Court docket for this term is that of Snyder v. Phelps. A few basic facts of the case: the Westboro Baptist Church has made itself known throughout the U.S. for its protests at soldiers’ funerals. Albert Snyder, the father of late Marine Matthew Snyder, sued the Phelps clan for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the case has now worked its way through the court system to its final destination, the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the case is the conflict between the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and what rights, if any, the grieving have to be spared emotional distress at their loved ones’ funerals. Whether or not Matthew Snyder should be considered a “public figure” is a key factor in the case, since the Supreme Court previously ruled that public figures could not be awarded damages for emotional distress in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. This seems to be the issue troubling the justices the most at the moment, since if they find in Albert Snyder’s favor it could open the floodgates to countless future lawsuits of a similar nature.

In an increasingly rare sign of bipartisan agreement, Albert Snyder has received support from 42 senators, including both the majority leader, Harry Reid, and minority leader, Mitch McConnell. The senators’ brief emphasizes Matthew Snyder’s status as a veteran, rather than the First Amendment aspect of the case. To that end, they point out preexisting statues in forty-six states regulating picketing and protestors at military funerals. These statutes are valid under the First Amendment because they both “serve a significant governmental interest” and “leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information,” and could make a difference in the Court’s decision.

While the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church are clearly despicable by almost any moral standard other than their own, the justices are walking a fine line in this case. The emotional appeal of Snyder’s case is impossible to ignore, but they must be able to set that aside and make upholding the Constitution their only goal.

Skype-Dates with Doctors Prompt Anti-Choice Backlash

The wonderfully connective power of webcams has expanded into a new realm of long distance relationships: the medical field. Telemedicine is the practice of providing health care (including interaction with a doctor) via videoconference, thus eliminating the need for long commutes by those living in rural areas. The technology itself is fairly uncontroversial, as it increases medical attention for those living far from physicians. But in Iowa, the method is being put to a particular use that has conservatives outraged: providing the “abortion pill.”

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland has instituted a program allowing women seeking abortions to undergo the required exams and investigations (blood tests, ultrasounds, medical histories, etc.) with a nurse, watch an eight minute video detailing the procedure and its risks and then videoconference with a doctor who can remotely control the release of mifepristone (previously known as RU-486) and misoprostol. Pro-lifers have objected to the new use of this web technology and recently reiterated their request that the Iowa Board of Medicine stop this practice on the grounds that it fails to comply with a state requirement that doctors administer abortions (surgical or otherwise).

Here we have another outspoken minority in danger of overturning the opinions (and rights) of the majority. (Note that
over 1500 women have taken advantage of this program since June 2008.) Should the intensity of the opposition overrule the more tepid support for this telemedicine? Iowa is hardly known for its reproductive rights crusaders, but I argue that this issue should be solved not by applying the idea of pluralism but by referral to the interpretation of the Bill of Rights that originally impacted the Roe v. Wade decision. Dr. Vanessa Cullins’ claim that “They are not really protesting the new technology [but rather…] abortion in general” is absolutely true. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee won the original case thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment; limiting a woman’s right to choose challenges such extension of the due process clause and, given that telemedicine is accepted for other uses, is both hypocritical and unconstitutional. The Internet-assisted administration of RU-486 should be treated no differently than that of, say, Singulair. And in the case of medical abortions, patients seem to receive more care, not less—and the public can hardly argue against that.

Clashing Over Budget Slashing

The Tea Party is well known for their efforts to reduce government spending and the federal deficit. The defense budget is a Tea Party nightmare. It costs billions of dollars and according to the Center of Defense Information, the military has decreased in size, military equipment is older, and the army is at a historic low for readiness to fight. Naturally, some Tea Party members are looking to reduce the defense budget, which would also result in shrinking government.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to cut major weapons programs and is surprised to receive support from the Tea Party. While the Tea Party is all for a strong defense, they believe that they is plenty of waste and fluff to be cut out. Their interest in cutting the defense budget signifies how on certain issues they stray from their conservative roots and agree with liberal members of Congress.

As a result of the Tea Party's stance on defense, they are isolating themselves from the GOP. The GOP believes that a strong military is a constitutional responsibility so there should be no reduction in the defense budget even though it would require the United States to borrow even more money, thus increasing the national debt. However, some Tea Party members actually disagree and would like to reduce government spending, but not the defense budget. They also try to generally oppose all government spending, rather than pointing out specific budgets (excluding bailouts, heath care).

It will be interesting to see which side the majority of Tea Party agree with. Will they still support Gates or will they give in to the urgings of the GOP? An excellent way for the Tea Party to slash government spending and size is to simply reduce the defense budget, which will result in a fiscally responsible United States, but they will need to show a unified front in order to do so.

Reducing our Carbon Footprint One Vehicle at a Time

In one of many recent efforts to reduce our carbon footprint, the federal government has proposed putting new restrictions on heavy vehicles. On Monday October 23 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced that heavy vehicles could be restricted by regulations on fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions for the first time in the nation’s history. The new regulations would affect heavy duty pick-up trucks and vans as well as vocational trucks, including everything from delivery trucks to school buses and mobile homes. The policy, which will be going into effect next year if approved, would have different restrictions based on the size of a vehicle and its intended use. The mechanical regulations would apply not only to the engine but the entire vehicle, with mileage requirements imposed on all heavy vehicles produced between 2014 and 2018. According to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson the cost of more expensive new trucks will be offset by the saved cost of fuel while simultaneously reducing U.S. dependence on foreign fuel and improving the environment.

The EPA has published the proposed regulations and is providing a 60 day comment period during they will accept any suggestions regarding the proposed legislation. This is plebiscitary democracy at its finest. The people, whether directly involved with the government or not, will have an opportunity to express their views on this motion before any final decisions are made.

The double edged sword of Republican anti-immigrant political ads

David Vitter, Republican Louisiana Senator, begins his political ad, "Charlie Melancon, thanks to him, we mightas' well put up a welcome sign for illegal immigrants" and ends with a group of dirty Mexican illegal immigrants gleefully cheering as they drive off in a black limo. The message that David Vitter wants to convey is clear; Charlie Melanco supports illegal immigration and should therefore lose the Senate seat. This is just one of a few highly controversial political ads’(Rick Perry, Texas*,and Sharron Angle, Nevada) that have surfaced as midterm elections approach.

These ads are being highly criticized for enforcing racial stereotypes of illegal immigrants as a political tactic to win voters over. Whether you call it racist or anti-foreign, these sentiments are very real in many voters, 76% of Americans agree that illegal immigration should be decreased, and it is a successful strategy. However, it has the potential to backfire, as no candidate wishes to be called racist, and this in fact can lead to loss of support. For example,in 2009, Florida Republican Committeewoman Carol Carter, was forced to resign after sending a racist e-mail that compared the black people who attended Obama’s inauguration to those stuck in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. Republicans want the best of both worlds--to draw on racist sentiments in society, while avoiding the tile of racists themselves. The issue of racism is then a double edged sword.

This midterm election Hispanic votes are expected to be low, approximately 6.8% a drop from 7.4% in 2008, especially since they are told not to vote. Although it is obvious that most Hispanics will not vote for a candidate whose ads assert racists messages towards Hispanics, it is also a crucial problem for non-Hispanic voters who will vote against the Republican Party for racist remarks. Additionally, this is problematic for all Republican candidates because voters have a tendency to vote based on the general party image. This is especially true in the media, because newspapers and television news shows like to personify political parties and make one individual the political celebrity that represents the entire party. Perhaps Republican candidates will be able to convey the positive image of protecting American citizens against excessive illegal immigrants that threaten jobs in the current detrimental U.S. economy. But, if this image is construed as racist, then the Republican Party will lose many voters this November.


*Rick Perry's campaign committee seems to have pulled this video from youtube and I can't locate it elsewhere, perhaps they read my blog :)

What Do the Midterm Elections Mean for U.S. Education?

President Obama just declared an “educational arms race.” He is pushing Congress to make the tax credit covering college tuition of up to $2,500 per year permanent and reauthorize the reformed version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, will the 2010-midterm elections change the way government is handling education?

The GOP may gain control in one of the Congressional houses. According to The Washington Times, several Tea Party Senate candidates vocalized their desire to get rid of the Education Department altogether because they want more local control, and the department is going too far with its Common Core State Standards Initiative and Race to the Top. If voters elect such candidates, and the GOP gains majority control in a house, we may see a pull away from national control.

Why are the parties varying so much on their stands on education? The Democratic Party maintains national standards are necessary for equality of opportunity - all students deserve an equal education. The Tea Party is antigovernment and antiregulatory and proposes local and state rights. These populist leaders want to check Washington elites from infringing on true Americans and leave schools to “local school boards, teachers, parents, people…and not have it in Washington.” However, the Democratic Party points to the counter values of community and civic republicanism – we need to pay taxes to support schools and value the future of the nation over ourselves. Tea Party leaders would retort that yes, communities are the ones who need to regain control, so the federal government needs to pull back a bit, or actually, a lot.

Madison’s bicameral structure may result in a Republican Senate and a Democrat House of Representatives. Will the two houses be able to work together and create effective bipartisan education reform? The upcoming midterm election may determine whether the U.S.’s federalist structure of local, state, and national institutions will result in coordination and halt increasing inequalities in schools either by focusing education more locally or nationally, or result in lack of cohesion and want of effectiveness.

The Ongoing Battle

The contenders? The Irresistible Force of the U.S. Government vs. the Immovable Object of the Chinese Yuan.

According to Reuters.com, the House of Representatives passed a bill to pressure the Chinese government to appreciate its currency Yuan on Sept. 29. By a vote of 348-79, both Democrats and Republicans supported to impose “countervailing duties” on imports deemed to be unfairly state-subsidized. In the past few years, China has gained enormous trade surplus by exporting cheap goods to the world, especially America, while the U.S. has suffered greatly from trade deficit. One effect of this huge trade deficit is the loss of jobs in the American labor market.

Notice that since Sept. 2, the Yuan has climbed again more than 1% a month, and appreciated 20% between 2006 and 2008 according to the U.S. Treasury. A 1% increase in currency value is a significant figure in economics, but Congress still demanded a faster appreciation of Chinese Yuan. Why did Congress firmly take a risk of damaging the bilateral relationship between two giant powers in the world? One possibility is that candidates for 2010 midterm elections need strong support from the discontented public.

Yes, the economy has not fully recovered from the crisis last year. American people WANT jobs! However, the unemployment rate is still high. From TradingEconomics.com, Reuters, the unemployment rate in Sept. 2010 was 9.60%, which is pathetically similar to the unemployment rates in the past nine months. Voters have examined their government's performance retrospectively, and are closely watching each step made on the road to economic recovery. The midterm elections are a great opportunity for both Democrats and Republicans to win support.

Now, on an international level, the U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is struggling to pass a proposal of “setting numerical targets for external imbalances” in the G-20 Summit in South Korea. Hopefully, a comprehensive currency deal, which will provide a range of criteria for judging a nation’s economic policies, will be finalized in the G-20 Seoul Summit on Nov. 11 and 12. Domestically, we will also wait and see whether this bill on “countervailing duties” will be passed by the Senate after midterm elections, and eventually signed by the President.