Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Trial: Will the Death Penalty be Incurred?

As the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial is coming nearer each day, complications have not been slight. One of the greatest obstacles heading into the trial is picking a jury that will be unbiased and balanced in its feelings. This trial is extremely controversial not only because Tsarnaev's supposed actions were within the vein of terrorism, but also because he murdered 3 people (including an 8-year-old boy) in a state that does not have capital punishment. However, because of Massachusetts' past, many are starting to believe that exceptions will be made.

Massachusetts abolished the death penalty more than 30 years ago and last carried out a death sentence in 1947. But a dark cloud hangs over the state's history and is very prevalent in the minds of any citizen that may become a juror in the trial. Massachusetts was the first colony to carry out capital punishment in 1630, hanging murderer John Billington in Plymouth. Mary Dyer and the three other "Boston Martyrs" was executed in 1660 under a law that banned Quakers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Salem Witch Trials of the late 1690s killed a total of 19 women accused of practicing witchcraft. Massachusetts was also the state to execute the Italian anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, a killing that is still believed unjust to this day. In all, Massachusetts has executed 345 people. Many state residents believe that first-degree murder always results in a death sentence, even though this rule was only in effect until 1951.

Besides this, there is still ambivalence about capital punishment in Boston, and this makes picking a jury for the Tsarnaev trial extremely difficult. Though Massachusetts law does not allow the death penalty, the federal government does. It is clear that the federal government thinks Tsarnaev is a "poster boy" for capital punishment, because his crimes were so heinous and cruel.

At the moment, potential jurors for the trial are being "quizzed" and widdled down a group that will reach a fair and unbiased verdict. When asked whether they'd be able to sentence Tsarnaev to die by lethal injection, the answers from potential jurors range from "absolutely" to "no way" to somewhere in the middle. One juror responded, "I'm not wicked opposed to the death penalty." The people with the strongest opinions (those on the extreme ends of the juror questionnaire rating scale) are the least likely to make the jury. The city as a whole is also divided. A 2013 poll conducted by the Boston Globe showed that just a third of Boston's residents favor the death penalty for Tsarnaev, while the other two-thirds would choose life in prison as his sentence.

Despite this, there is a strong and emotional rally against Tsarnaev that spans most of America (for good reason). His defense lawyer has told the press many times that he is concerned that the "Boston Strong" sentiment will make finding an unbiased jury impossible, and also complicate reaching a truthfully fair punishment for Tsarnaev.

The main issues here are that the public's response to Tsarnaev's crimes and Massachusetts' history seem to be calling for an exception to the state law abolishing capital punishment. Also, there is talk about the federal government simply taking over the trial so that the death penalty can be incurred, as this is still legal in federal court. I am personally for the death penalty, but understand how it is believed that Tsarnaev will not receive a fair trial because of all the bias. Though the bias is definitely warranted, the rallying "Boston Strong" slogan is, in a way, obstructing justice to some degree. I also think that Massachusetts' history of "eye-for-an-eye" killings will also be a factor in the decision of this case.

Does Tsarnaev deserve to die? Can a fair jury ever be selected in a situation like this? Should the feds take over this case and allow for capital punishment? Is "Boston Strong" obstructing justice?

SOURCES
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/us/tsarnaev-venue-hearing/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/us/tsarnaev-13th-juror-selection-history/index.html

The Army is testing a missile defense blimp, but could it be spying on us?

The Army is testing a new missile defense system in the form of a blimp. The system is comprised of a large blimp, roughly the length of a football field, and floats two miles above the suburbs of Baltimore, Maryland. Colonel Frank Rice said that “It's a three-year NORAD exercise that is going to test the integration of this [blimp] into our missile defense system.” The blimp is equipped with an extremely powerful radar, capable of seeing from Boston to North Carolina, roughly 340 miles in any direction. The Army claims that its sole use is scanning the skies of the Eastern Seaboard for incoming missiles, which could potentially be launched from Russian ships and submarines, or from ships hijacked by terrorists. Rice said that it is so important because "We are in the NCR, the National Capital Region, it is our geopolitical center of power in the United States. We have to protect it.”

It’s hard to fault the government for improving our missile defense capabilities, but some have qualms about the blimp. It is well know that similar blimps are installed on the Mexico border to spot anyone trying to cross illegally or smuggle illegal substances. The blimp’s altitude gives it a prime lookout spot to see anything it wants. The Army says there’s no such camera installed on the Baltimore based blimp, but this would not be the first time the government has lied about what measures they are taking in the name of security. The recent outpouring of information on the practices of the NSA has heightened citizen’s attention towards potential spying or privacy violations. Ginger McCall of the Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained documents pertaining to the Army blimp through the Freedom of Information Act and a lawsuit. Despite the Army ensuring her and the general public that the blimp will only be used for missile defense, she wasn't satisfied, "because I have these documents right here that say that the secondary purpose of this is to surveil and track surface moving targets." The Army continues to say the blimp will not spy on the American public, but the documents show that the blimp is capable of of tracking targets on the ground, which could be cars or even people.

What do you think of this new blimp the army is testing? Do you think the Army is being honest when they say it’s sole purpose is missile defense? Even if spying is a part of the blimps mission, is it tolerable under any circumstances? Would you feel comfortable with such a blimp if it were located above Ridgefield? To me, it seems like it would be quite rare for a missile to be launched at the east coast of the United States, but the blimp could prove useful in some rare instances. However, I think it’s fair for the American public to distrust the Army. The events that unfolded at the NSA have proven that our government is more than willing to spy on us, and lie about it.  Personally, I would not feel comfortable with a blimp like this one floating near where I live.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/army-missile-defense-blimp-has-americans-worried-about-privacy/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/18/us/army-blimp-test/

Jeb Bush's stance on Obama's foreign policy

In the aftermath of Obama's announcement of a new foreign policy concerning the issues in the Middle East, the former Governor of Florida, son and brother of former presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, has begun his criticism of the policy.  On Wednesday, Bush is expected to make a speech to the nation expressing his views on the topic.  Some excerpts from his speech have reached news networks, and people on both sides of the political spectrum are anxious to hear what he has to say.

From what has become available to the public, Bush plans to criticize not only President Obama, but former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on their policy actions abroad.  The crux of Bush's position will be based on the fact that he believes that "The great irony of the Obama presidency is this: Someone who came to office promising greater engagement with the world has left America less influential in the world." He has claimed that the Obama administration is not following up on their campaign promises of making America a more important player on the world stage, instead reducing it to the appeaser who will not stand up to significant foreign aggression.  This of course will increase his favor with the Republican Party, as he seems to be the most likely candidate for the GOP 2016 Presidential nominee.

It is interesting to see how informed and knowledgeable this former governor is on the subject of foreign policy.  Jeb Bush has grown up in politics, and has watched both his father and his brother take on the challenges of the presidency.  However, despite his many family connections to the White House, Jeb is neither his father nor his brother.  Another excerpt from Bush's speech shows that he acknowledges his predecessors mistakes and intends to not make the same ones.  "I love my father and my brother. I admire their service to the nation and the difficult decisions they had to make.  But I am my own man -- and my views are shaped by my own thinking and own experiences."

What do you think this means for the future of American politics?  Do you agree with Jeb on the basis that Obama has not been taking the right steps towards a more influential America?  Will this speech he gives improve or hurt his chances at running for, or becoming president?  What is your personal opinion of Jeb Bush?  Do you think he would make a good president or will he repeat the mistakes of his father and brother?

Sources:
 http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/politics/jeb-bush-iraq-speech/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/02/18/jeb-bush-foreign-policy-obama/23599367/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/18/us-usa-politics-bush-jeb-idUSKBN0LM06F20150218

Clinton's Unstoppable Campaign Machine

With the beginning of the 2016 election cycle just months away, the slate of presidential hopefuls seems to be getting clearer. At present, the Republicans already have a voluminous list of candidates, including Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul; the Democratic field is, for all practical purposes, Hillary Clinton. Already ahead by an average of 49 points in early polls, Hillary Clinton is a clear frontrunner in a field that is essentially devoid of any competition. A handful of other Democratic politicians have toyed with the idea of running for president, such as Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, but their poll numbers are abysmally low. One possible explanation for the thin Democratic field is that rising talent has been recently nipped in the bud. The past two mid-term elections have been resounding defeats for the Democrats, who lost control first of the House in 2010, and then of the Senate in 2014. Meanwhile, Republicans have been taking over statehouses and governorships at a swift rate. Democrats who might have been up and comers came and went. It is also a possibility that Clinton is simply too formidable a foe for any potential challengers. With over three decades of non-stop political action, the Clinton machine is remarkably experienced with campaigning. For Democrats, 2016 is a make-or-break election; failure would be catastrophic. It is for this reason, perhaps, that they are so averse to running any candidate with less political clout than Hillary Clinton. It may be that she is the last hope for keeping the Democrats in power in 2016. What is your take on the issue? Do you the Democrats stand a chance of winning if they run a candidate other than Hillary Clinton? Is Hillary Clinton the modern equivalent of Bob Dole: a respected and well known stateswoman who cannot garner enough votes for victory?

Source:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/02/2016-democratic-primaries

2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia

Everyone knows that 2016 will be a major year. The Presidential election will be held that November, and the summer a couple months prior will be the National Conventions for both parties. Today, through a Facebook video of Democratic National Convention Chairwomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz pulling a cheesesteak out of a refrigerator to announce that the Democratic National Convention will be held in Philadelphia. This is huge for the city! The other two runner ups were New York and Columbus, Ohio. Wasserman Schultz in a press conference with reporters claimed that Phili fit the three criteria for the convention: logistics, security and resources. She goes off of that to point out the importance of having that walkability between the Wells Fargo Center and the local hotels. With 18500 hotel rooms and within in a 15 minute walk, this can be a great advantage for delegates to easily come back and forth and interact very cohesively with everyone else involved.
This is not the first time a national convention has been held in Phili. The last time was in 2000 when Republicans chose then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush as their party nominee.
The one cost of holding a National Convention is the actual cost. It is expected that the city of Philadelphia will have to spend more than $60 million on the event. However, Wasserman Schultz does point out the amount of revenue given back to the Phili's economy is predicted to be more than double of what was spent. Mark your calendars, for July 25, 2016 will be the big day.

Do you think it was good to choose Philadelphia as the host city? How do you think the turn out for running delegates will be? Will you be watching?


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/philadelphia-host-2016-democratic-national-convention-n305051
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/democratic-national-convention-2016-philadelphia/index.html

FCC Redefines Broadband Internet Services

On Thursday February 5, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission officially altered the definition of broadband Internet service. Under this new rule, the standard for Internet download speed will be six times faster than the previous standard that was set in 2010. This new announcement does not come as a shock, as the FCC’s chairman Thomas Wheeler had recommended a change in policy concerning the speed standard earlier this month.  According to Wheeler, this new revision was greatly needed in order to keep pace with the increasing demand for faster and more accessible Internet in American homes. To illustrate, currently in the United States 53% of Americans who live in rural areas, which is approximately 22 million people, do not have what is considered basic Internet access, or Internet that is on the 25-3 level.  By comparison, only 8% of city dwellers lack Internet speed that is on the 25-3 level. Under these new regulations, those who live in rural areas will be brought up to date with the same kind of Internet services that the rest of the country enjoys.  

To add, the Internet Association’s President Michael Beckerman has surprisingly praised the FCC’s new regulations.  Beckerman stated that not only was the FCC’s revision “an appropriate policy goal,” but also that resulting higher internet speeds would lead to a “virtuous circle of innovation, new services and fresh demand from customers, which in turn fuels economic growth.” In contrast, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association has publically denounced the FCC’s new rules, declaring that they are “arbitrary and capricious.” If the FCC were to peruse a stricter and regulatory policy, it is certain that the large cable companies would flood the courts with a variety of lawsuits.

Moreover, the Federal Communications Commission’s revision to definition of broadband Internet service could potentially influence the commission’s decision to make new rules about net neutrality.  Net neutrality, the idea that the internet should be free and open, is the bane to many telecommunications companies’ existence.  The FCC’s impending decisions about this issue could mean that new regulations that affect how access speeds are maintained will be enacted, and will consequently greatly reduce the profits of major telecommunications companies.   In addition, the FCC could potentially invoke Title II regulations, which are currently used to regulate the phone companies. Under Title II, cable companies would no longer be able to “selectively slow traffic from websites such as Google or YouTube” and charge customers high prices for Internet fast lanes.  Although the commission does not intend to enact some of the title’s more radical rules, such as price controls,  any attempt to put any of the large cable companies under Title II regulations  will be met with a great deal of protest.  On the other hand, while Internet service providers like Comcast and Version dread regulation by the FCC, Internet content websites, like Google and Netflix, have vocal in their support about strong action by the FCC.   As a result of this growing controversy about net neutrality, lobbying battle lines have been drawn in Congress and are certain to greatly impact whether the FCC’s decisions will be successful or not.

What do you think? Should the FCC reclassify the cable companies under Title II? How do you think that interest groups and lobbying will impact the FCC’s proposed policy? Will the FCC’s new definition of broadband Internet services be beneficial to the nation as a whole or is it “arbitrary and capricious?”

Sources:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-firms-up-legal-grounds-for-net-neutrality-1423441251

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/f-c-c-sharply-increases-definition-of-broadband/

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/no-the-f-c-c-isnt-destroying-the-internet/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rb-TXtIMCc

Republicans or Democrats, Texas or Florida: Who is Crazier?

It’s not a secret that Republicans don’t like Obamacare. In fact, House Republicans have voted to repeal, change, or defund Obamacare more than 50 times in just a little over four years. On Tuesday, February 2, after the House’s 67^th hearing on Obamacare, the representatives voted to repeal the law in a 239-186 party-line vote; only three Republicans defected from the party to vote against repeal.

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you feel about Obamacare, the repeal is not likely to become law, as Senate Democrats will undoubtedly attempt to filibuster the legislation. If they fail and the bill passes, President Obama is sure to veto the bill, and because Republicans lack a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, it is almost impossible to override a presidential veto on this issue. Republicans know this, which is why  the legislation was not voted on to become law but rather “to let new Republicans…record their opposition to Obamacare and make good on the GOP’s campaign promise to go after the law and replace it” (Washington Post).

If the vote truly is a ploy to make the American people think that Republicans are keeping good on campaign problems, then this raises serious concerns over the nature of our government. First, this means that the Republican platform is not to cooperate with Democrats or to create new legislation, but to undermine bills that have already been passed. That’s not progressive or effective government; that’s a set-up for turmoil. Second, a vote like this does nothing to promote bipartisan cooperation and only intensifies interparty animosity. Democrats know that Republicans dislike Obamacare. At this point, they don’t have to waste time, money, and resources holding a hearing just to prove what the political world and the public already know.

Democrats, however, aren’t guiltless in this game of petty politics either. Although I understand that many Democrats are weary of having to combat futile and spiteful Republican efforts to undermine a bill that the Supreme Court has already deemed constitutional, they cannot stoop to insults and mockery if they want to win the favor of the American public. They must take the higher road and avoid, at all costs, feeding fuel to the fire of anti-Obamacare and anti-Democrat sentiment if they want the law to succeed or a chance at reclaiming offices in the 2016 elections. Unfortunately, even experienced lawmakers are being blinded by their emotions.

Most recently, in the same 67^th committee debate to repeal Obamacare, a Democratic Representative from Florida, Alcee Hastings, resorted to name-calling and insults while debating with the Republican Michael Burgess of Texas. Here are a few words from their interaction:

Burgess began saying, “Had the administration worked with the governors, we might be talking about an entirely different [bill].”

Hastings cut him off to say, “Had the administration worked with the governors? Had the governors worked with the administration we might not be in this position. I don’t know about in your state, which I think is a crazy state, and I mean that, just as I said it…”

Later, Burgess remarked, “[The representative] made a very deflamatory statement about my state, and I will not stand here and listen to it.”

To this, Hastings replied, “Well fine, then you don’t have to listen. You can leave if you chose. I told you what I think about Texas. I wouldn’t live there fore all the tea in China.”

Burgess said in response, “I am used to attacks and invectives being tossed my way, that’s parts of the territory, but there is no reason at all to impugn the people, governor of a state of this country, and I will await the gentleman’s apology.”

Hastings finished the conversation with an offhanded, “You will wait until Hell freezes over.”

I don’t care what party a politicians is from or how tired he or she is with the opposing party’s politics; government officials must treat each other with some semblance of respect. They cannot act in the way that Mr. Hastings has, nor can they aim to undermine legislation that has already been upheld time and time again. Nothing will be accomplished, just as nothing has been in Congress, when passive and outright aggression defines interparty relations. So, even though satirizing Representative Hastings’ remarks may make for a humorous segment on programs like the Daily Show, they reveal fundamental flaws in our party system.

Neither party is truly working towards cooperation, for, in the words of Jon Stewart, “We are run by children.”

What do you think, are we really run by children? How do you feel about Representative Hastings’ remarks; are they a sign of the degeneration of party cooperation? What do you think about about the never-ending Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare; are they worse, the same, or better than Hastings’ behavior? Finally, in our system of petty, ineffective government, who do you think is crazier: Republicans or Democrats?

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/05/jon-stewart-has-a-horrifying-realization-we-are-run-by-children/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/3/house-votes-repeal-replace-obamacare/

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/02/05/tsr-bash-rep-hastings-texas-crazy-state.cnn