Oh, Sarah.

For the second time in a week, Fox News was caught using old footage. When reporting on Palin's book tour, the network used footage from a 2008 McCain/Palin campaign rally to show that she is still drawing large crowds. However, Fox isn't the only network apparently scrambling to generate interest, MSNBC was recently caught using doctored photos of the former vice presidential candidate.

Perhaps there's a reason these news networks are resorting to such tactics to generate news about Palin. Like maybe the fact that she's not news anymore. Or at least not in the sense that anyone other than people magazine needs to cover her. If she announces that she's running for president, then we need to pay attention. Until then, I think it's reasonable to expect our news media to report on real issues. You know, the trillion dollar war, the threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions, the fact that the ice caps are going to be gone in about five minutes. That sort of thing. Anything can be sensationalized. Anything can be made interesting. Anyone can be photo shopped into a bikini.

The MSNBC segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUV4gqD-0Qc

The article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts988

Don't get too excited, Tyler

The Fruita City Council voted on Tuesday to allow medical marijuana dispensaries within city limits. Naturally, there are restrictions. Dispensaries must be 1000 feet from schools and daycares and 250 feet from residential homes and public buildings. In 2000, Colorado voted to allow medical marijuana in the state and cities have since been struggling with opposition from individuals, especially in relatively conservative areas such as ours. Palisade passed a moratorium delaying the establishment of dispensaries, though one was approved before it was passed. Grand Junction has granted licenses to 19 businesses, but recently decided to enact a year-long halt on any new licenses.

I'm a strong proponent of medical marijuana, but I have to wonder how many individuals in the Grand Valley actually need it. We have four major hospitals and already twenty dispensaries. It seems a little out of proportion.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/services/content/news/stories/2009/11/17/111809_1a_Fruita_pot_shops.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

We should take a class trip to Breckenridge.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/opin/content/news/opinion/overthetop.html

Karzai's Inauguration

Hamid Karzai is to be sworn in for another full terms as Afghanistan's president on Thursday. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exalted, "There is now a clear window of opportunity for President Karzai and his government to make a new compact with the people of Afghanistan, to demonstrate clearly that you're going to have accountability and tangible results that will improve the lives of the people." It is an opportunity for America to do the same. Yet to announce any clear strategy for dealing with war, Obama has made people of both parties uneasy and skeptical. He is expected to soon announce whether he will send 40,000 more troops. Without them, General Stanley McChrystal, top US and NATO commander, fears that the war will be lost. However, this brings up the question of how the war could ever possibly be won. And perhaps more pressingly, if it's even worth trying. Certainly, protecting America and the world from terrorists is important, but inflaming anti-western sentiment in an already volatile region is probably not the best way to go about it. Obama has promised to do everything in his power (which, being the president of the US, is a hell of a lot) to end the war in Afghanistan before the end of his term. He told CNN, with a slight jeer at the previous administration, "My preference would be not to hand off anything to the next president. One of the things I'd like is the next president to be able to come in and say 'I've got a clean slate'."

Obama's decision lies heavily upon how much he can trust Karzai. Western leaders are putting pressure on him to stop corruption in his administration and prove himself to be a leader worth supporting. The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan warned Obama to be wary of sending more troops before Karzai has sincerely demonstrated his desire to clean up Afghanistan's government.

With the Taliban insurgency quickly rising in power, Obama must make a decision soon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091118/ts_nm/us_afghanistan

More on the inauguration:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_afghanistan;_ylt=AsI3VeZM7dc_r3U2tF0dTEtg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2cDhoaDNzBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLXRyb3VibGVkYWZn

Where in the Constitution does it say that government has the right to make us purchase a good or service like healthcare?

I've always found it silly when people ask questions like that of the Constitution. Not every issue is clearly outlined- not only because many of the prominent issues we face today were unknown to the founding fathers, but also because a certain degree of ambiguity ensures that our government is flexible to the times. Almost all issues of our time drift into the grey of the necessary and proper clause. We are confronted not with issues of policy, but with conflicts of philosophy. The founding fathers expected that national leaders would be members of the intellectual elite, individuals able to interpret what is right for the nation as a whole. But are they? Have we reached a point when conflict no longer sparks compromise? Politicians and individuals alike have become so entrenched in their own ideals that a philosophical war may never be won by either side. However, the policies themselves will be resolved- either implemented or dismissed. It's strange that an issue between Jefferson and Hamilton is still a problem today. Strict vs. loose interpretation. How much power should the states have? Can the government limit personal freedom for the common good?

In interpreting the philosophy of the Constitution, I think it's important to look to its philosophical foundation: John Locke. To consider Locke is to consider the social contract. The social contract is, "[The] belief that political structures and the legitimacy of the state derive from an (explicit or implicit) agreement by individual human beings to surrender (some or all of) their private rights in order to secure the protection and stability of an effective social organization or government." Perhaps many Americans today would disagree with this, but did the founding fathers? Considering they were heavily influenced by Lockean philosophy in drafting the Constitution, it may be safe to assume they would.

I want to return to the original question. Does the government have the right to make us purchase healthcare? The real question is this: Does universal healthcare secure the protection and stability of an effective social organization or government? A difficult question to answer, but certainly one to consider.

More about Locke:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

A kind of interesting site that provides opposing viewpoints on current issues:

http://www.opposingviews.com/topics/politics

Week 1/Blog 2

Today, the Senate Banking Committee announced a new bill that, if passed, would strip the Federal Reserve of its supervisory power and replace it with three separate agencies designed to “police banks, protect consumers, and dismantle failing institutions.” Over the past four years, the Fed has increased its regulatory powers, but, according to committee chairman Chris Dodd, it has failed- epically. And of course, the financial industry was quick to retort. Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, stated, “The bill would produce conflicts among regulators, undermine the state-chartered banking system and impose extensive new regulatory burdens on those banks that had nothing to do with creating the financial crisis.” Republican opposition has not been as staunch as anticipated, but they have expressed concerns that the bill would create unnecessary bureaucracy and make credit difficult to obtain.

As this is such a new proposal, and I’m relatively unfamiliar with the functioning of the Federal Reserve, it’s difficult to be anything but skeptical. But more than anything, I’m rather surprised that this was even proposed while healthcare is still in the Senate. It wouldn’t be plausible to ignore every issue until healthcare is passed, but focusing on more Republican-friendly ones wouldn’t be a terrible idea while there’s a black tornado of death attached to Obama’s political capital. Three cheers for partisan politics and policy gridlock.

In the meantime, can we expect another Bank War? Will Obama kill the bank before it kills him? I seriously doubt it.
I'm all for strict government regulation, but seriously Senate Banking Committee, what are you thinking? Maybe sometime, hopefully sometime, but not now.

Here is the article I plagiarized:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul

C-SPAN has a pretty interesting video and a summary of drafted legislation:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/10/HP/R/25741/Sen+Dodd+releases+regulatory+reform+legislation+draft.aspx

Week 1/Blog 1

Finally, health care has moved to the Senate. But in light of partisan horn blowing over the bill’s abortion policy, we should prepare for another long debate.

Abortion, it seems, has replaced the public option controversy that for so long prevented progress in the House. Each party perceives this as an opportunity to change existing policy, which the bill would simply extend. Under current federal law, no tax dollars may be used to cover abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened. Not only does the bill uphold this policy, it even includes stipulations to ensure that no private plan receiving federal subsidies may cover abortions. Republicans, however, are calling for the implementation of even stricter policy, presumably that abortion shall not be allowed under any circumstance. Democrats, on the other hand, fear that limiting the coverage of abortion will limit women’s choices of coverage in general, which is precisely what health care reform is intended to remedy. In an interview with ABC, President Obama discounted both concerns stating, “I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices.”

In the heat of their political squabbles, both parties have lost sight of the goal of health care reform itself: to provide equal access to quality care. Thus, the public option proved a viable issue for debate. Abortion, however, does not. The 40 million uninsured Americans do not have time to wait for Democrats and Republicans to hash out some sort of compromise. Instead of further delaying reform, would it not be plausible to simply introduce an amendment once the bill itself has been passed? I will not deny that abortion is an important political issue. However, our representatives must realize that it is a political issue- not an issue of life and death. Countless other desperately needed policies are being strangled by these purely political concerns.

For example, the bill includes provisions to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Americans should be ashamed of the unacceptable discrepancy between access to and quality of health care between the general population and the Native American population. The reauthorization of the IHCIA is the only hope for improving Native American healthcare and, for many Native Americans, the only hope of having access satisfactory care. Reauthorization is being prevented by abortion. An entire population is being denied access to equal care by abortion.

Our government has a responsibility to ensure that fundamental human needs are accessible to all people. Our representatives must set aside their political agendas and focus on the task at hand. Health care reform is not about abortion. Health care reform is about saving lives in giving American citizens peace of mind.


Just as an interesting side note- the health care insurance companies have been exempt from federal anti-trust legislation. We’re Americans. We’re capitalists (in theory, at least). It would follow that we promote competition. Trust-busting ensures that an industry cannot monopolize consumers. Health care insurance is not simply something you can go without when prices get too high, which means that insurance companies have been able to raise their prices without regard to the needs of consumers. The introduction of a government option provides an alternative. Alternatives create competition. Competition lowers prices and helps consumers. Furthermore, competition is the essence of the free market. Thus, a government option promotes the free market. End side note.

Obama's interview with ABC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgBzmoo9izw

For further information from the Associate Press see:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul