Iran Hangs Obama and Attacks a US Carrier

             You don’t have to be an expert in world affairs to know that Iran and the US aren’t exactly friends. Since the Iran-Iraq War of the Reagan administration, the Western superpower and Middle Eastern nation have been in constant disagreement and have often engaged in outright hostility. Relations have soured even more since September 11^th, after which President Bush dubbed Iran the “Axis of Evil.” In fact, relations have become so poor between the two nations that there are no formal diplomatic relations between the Republic of Iran and the United States.

            Despite their history of disagreement and tension, the two nations have started to cooperate, albeit uneasily. In 2014, they allied with one another against ISIL, and recently they have been engaging in nuclear talks in Geneva. Although the Iran-US relationship is by no means fixed and although their recent interactions have been marred by continued hostilities, many people have started to believe that the two nations are on their way to establishing peaceful and respectful diplomatic relations. That is, until Iranians hung President Obama and blew up a mock US aircraft carrier during naval drills.

On February 11, during Iran’s 36^th anniversary celebration of the Islamic Revolution, Iranians burned an effigy of President Obama. Many citizens also carried signs depicting Secretary of State John Kerry as a devious fox while chanting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” The display was broadcast throughout the Middle Eastern nation and met with approval by key figures in the Iranian government, such as Defense Minister Hossein Deghan.

As if hanging the President did not send a strong enough message, on Wednesday, speedboats swarmed a life-size replica of the USS Nimitz, striking the vessel with missiles, rockets, and mortars. The simulation was called Great Prophet 9, and it was the centerpiece of training exercises of the Iranian Navy’s Revolutionary Guards. According to one video caption on a Fars report, “Iranian naval forces displayed their skills in targeting enemy vessels.”

Now, Nimitz-class carriers permanently patrol the water of the Persian gulf, something which Iran has always resented. By blowing up a ship designed in the image of these carriers, Iran is making its position clear; it may be cooperating with the United States on a few fronts at the moment, but the Western nation remains its archenemy. Not only that, but Iran may be attempting to show the United States that, if the worst occurs, the nation is not afraid to go to war against the American superpower. Iran can and will sink a US warship if conflict were to break out.

The navy’s Revolution Guards Corps also conducted mine-laying exercises. Ali Fadavi, commander of the Iranian naval force, stated that this portion of their war-games was “the most important concern of the Americans,” for Iran has “the most advanced sea mines which [the US] cannot…[imagine].” Another commander stated that the navy wasn’t trying to show off all its strength with these drills, but rather carry out simple practice exercises. Apparently, Iran still has many “capabilities which will remain covert and hidden before being used in action.”

Well, so much for improved relations. On a governmental and social level, Iran’s hatred of America just seems to grow. If there was any lingering doubt whether Iran still viewed the US as Public Enemy Number 1, there really cannot be now. We are Iran’s archenemy, and Iran is making sure that we are very much aware of this fact.

The US, however, doesn’t seem to be alarmed. The White House did not issue a formal response to the burning of President Obama’s effigy and, in regards to the naval attack, US Commander Kevin Stephens simply said, “We're quite confident of our naval forces' ability to defend themselves.”

            Now, I’m not one to support feeding international conflict, but I can’t help think that it seems a little arrogant, even dangerous, that the United States has completely discounted Iran’s recent moves. We have a problem with the Iranian government; they hate us and see us as hypocritical, selfish monsters. I think it’s our duty, as self-proclaimed “international peacekeeper” to address these attacks. If we ignore them, if we continue to belittle and discount Iran, aren’t we just setting ourselves up for future conflict with Iran and other Middle Eastern nations?

What do you think about these attacks? How will they affect the American-Iranian relationships? Do you support the United States’ dismissive response or do you think we should act differently in the face of such attacks? Most of all, do you think there is any hope for US-Iran relations in the near future?

Sources:

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/irans-fury-toward-us-escalates-in-aggressive-means-2313367.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/in-mock-attack-iranian-navy-blasts-away-at-replica-us-aircraft-carrier.html?ref=world&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/world/iran-mock-carrier-destroyed/

Republicans Threaten DHS Funding

In a showdown reminiscent of the fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, government shutdown, etc. of the past few years, the clock is rapidly ticking on funding for the Department of Homeland Security. However, with the Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, the conflict has shifted to one between the two parties to a split within the GOP itself.

The DHS is set to run out of funding this Friday, something which shouldn't surprise anyone, least of all the Republicans. Upon gaining control of Congress, the party deliberately chose not to extend funding for the Department, which is responsible for executing President Obama's controversial executive action shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported. Thus, the current stand-off was planned and engineered months in advance as a tool for blocking the president's program.

As things stand, there is a divide between House and Senate Republicans over how to handle the funding deadline. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell surprised and angered many in his party by expressing his willingness to consider a clean resolution providing funding without touching immigration, a bill Senate Democrats have voiced support for. The proposed legislation passed a procedural vote 98 to 2 on Wednesday, and could go up for a vote as early as Thursday.

This legislative struggle is important on many fronts for the Republican Party. On the most basic level, DHS funding can be an effective proxy for defeating Obama's immigration plan. Additionally, the effort will demonstrate the organization and coordination of the party.

So far, however, it has proved the opposite. The Republican push has been uncoordinated and chaotic. On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner admitted to not having spoken to McConnell for two week, a baffling communication gap considering the importance of the upcoming bill. Furthermore, Boehner has yet to take a public position on the Senate's proposal, and has chosen a “wait and see” approach regarding a funding bill.

The Republicans are clearly divided over the best course to take. McConnell, who promised no new shutdowns in October 2013 [1], seems interested in securing DHS funding at nearly any cost. He has even offered two votes: one on a clean bill, and a second on a bill halting Obama's executive action. House Republicans, however, appear characteristically unwilling to compromise, and were upset by McConnell's cooperation with Democratic lawmakers. Iowa Representative Steve Kind criticized McConnell for having “tipped over his king,” or surrendered.

Alternative solutions have included a short-term funding measure, a joint committee between the two houses, and a bill rolling back certain portions of Obama's immigration policy. One interesting proposal has been funding the DHS, but on the condition that all funding will be pulled if Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen's recent injunction on Obama's executive action is overturned. It is unclear whether such an ultimatum would be enforceable or threaten the independent judiciary.

Thus, the Republicans appear to be at a stalemate. The party is split between moderates who want the DHS funded at all costs, and conservatives who want to see Obama's action on immigration blocked, and are willing to withhold the department's funding to do so. Now that they hold the Senate, the GOP establishment fears being blamed by the American people if a shutdown of the agency were to occur; on the other hand, compromise may elicit a backlash from House Republicans, many of whom have defied Boehner and the party mainstream. The Democrats, although a minority in both houses, are another wrench in the proceedings. Their support remains important in the Senate, where they have already filibustered opening debate on a funding bill four times.

Personally, I think that the Republicans are playing with fire when it comes to toying with DHS funding. At a time when groups like ISIS are becoming increasingly active and we are seeing a rise in home-grown terror attacks, it is reckless and dangerous to cut funding for an agency responsible for the national security. I think New York Republican Rep. Peter T. King said it best:

“We can’t allow D.H.S. not be funded. People think we’re crazy. There’re terrorist attacks all over the world, and we’re talking about closing down Homeland Security. This is like living in the world of the crazy people.”

What are your thoughts? Are the Republicans right or wrong to demand concessions from Obama to fund the DHS? As the majority party, should they compromise, or stick to their demands? What agreement will House and Senate Republicans reach, and how will the Democrats and the president react?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/us/congress-republicans-homeland-security.html?_r=0
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/mitch-mcconnell-government-shutdown-98943.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/25/texas-federal-judge-wont-comply-with-administration-request-to-lift-halt-on/

Republicans Propose That Idaho Become a Christian State

Republican party members of  county in Idaho are attempting to create a non-binding pieve of legislation that would formally declare Idaho a Christian State among the United States of America. This means that the law would do nothing more than call Idaho a Christian State and that the meaning and interpretation of laws would not change. If this proposal is made into reality is would see out that Idaho be "’formally and specifically declared a Christian state,’ guided by a Judeo-Christian faith reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence where all authority and power is attributed to God, the resolution reads.”

The proposal has no doubt sparked controversy in Northern Idaho, where the proposal was introduced. Supporters on one side favor the idea because they believe that Christianity is under "strident attack", saying that this is so due to a lack of public Christian traditions in public places such as schools. They believe that this bill will return to the religious values touched upon in the early documents of the founding fathers. Jeff Tyler, a supporter of the bill stated that “We're a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian Party, ... It's important that Christians stand up and be unashamed to say they're Christians." Among the committee where the proposal was put forward there are members who do not support the bill but are worried of being labeled anti-Christian by the largely Republican, Christian populace.

This article comes from the Huffington post, a decidedly liberal leaning publication, and so some of these claims I’m sure should be taken with a grain of salt, however the quotes of interviewed citizens speak for themselves and testify to the true insanity of this proposal.  For one, this nation was founded not on christianity, and not on religion at all but on secularism and freedom of religion. Traces of the idea of church and state separation are littered throughout the declaration of independence and the constitution, and JFK made efforts to separate church and state. America is not a Christian nation, and to call Idaho a Christian state, when 18% of the populace reports being unaffiliated with religion, it is not constitutional nor correct in simple fact. The founding fathers may have had their religion, but they had no will to place the label on other people and it seems that the supporters of this bill believe that America was founded on the basis of Christianity, when this truly seems to be their own romantic idealism. Another quote regarding this bill that I find ludicrous is by Jeff Tyler, who claims that the Republican party is a Christian party. It is not however. While a majority of republicans may be christian, the central part of Republican ideology is small government, and even this is a bit too specific. If a person says they are republican, they are, and they do not have to be christian or any religion at all for that matter. Another comment of Tyler’s, that it’s important that Christians stand up for their religion, is similarly weak in supporting this proposal. I 100% agree that Christians should not have to be afraid nor ashamed of expressing their religion, however this proposal is doing more than that, implying that Christians should impose their name on all of the state. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists and everything in between should not have any shame in expressing their ideals, however this proposal does the contrary and places a religion as a defining factor of the state when there is so much more that defines a population. A Republican opponent of the bill, Bjorn Handeen says it best by saying “ I’m not in favor of dividing us by religion; I'm in favor of uniting us by freedom,". This is exactly how I feel about this situation. Labeling an entire state as christian just because a simple majority of Christians makes up the populace does not defend freedom or the ideals of the founding fathers.

What is your opinion on the issue? Is labeling a state officially under a certain religion okay if it has no legal effect on the state? Do you think this is what the founding fathers would have wanted, given their own religions?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/idaho-christian-state_n_6747826.html

Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline Bill

On Tuesday, news came from the White House that President Obama did in fact veto the Keystone Pipeline bill that had passed in Congress on February 11th. This bill presents one of the first major challenges to Obama's authority that are expected to be made by the Republican Congress. The bill outlined the creation of a pipeline that would span 1,179 miles and carry about 800,000 gallons of heavy petroleum a day from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast. With the veto, Obama sent a 104 letter to the Senate. In it he states that through the bill, "the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest" (NY Times). 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has released a statement that the Senate would consider overriding the veto no later than March 3, but most people believe that the Senate would not be able to secure enough votes to get the required two-thirds majority. Environmentalists are applauding President Obama and believe that this decision shows that he intends to fully reject the pipeline's construction regardless of what the legal and environmental reviews about the process that he will hear next month. On the other hand, supporters of the pipeline have denounced President Obama's actions and are using it to denounce President Obama as a "partisan obstructionist" (NY Times). Supporters of the bill in the Senate are not giving up and state that they will attempt to attach language approving the pipeline in a spending bill or another form of legislation that they believe President Obama will have trouble rejecting. Overall, the veto may have halted the legislation, but it has done nothing to stop the debate. 

I think that these events are interesting, especially since we are currently learning about the powers of the president and how the veto system works. This is the president's third veto during his time in office. It appears as though President Obama is willing to hear more arguments in favor of the pipeline, but only time will tell what the fate of the Keystone Pipeline will be.

What do you think of President Obama's veto? Do you think he will change his mind in the future if the bill is reworded? Would the Senate would be successful in overriding the bill? What other ways can they try and get it passed? What does this tell us about the current state of the relationship between the different branches in the federal government?

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/25/this-is-the-real-significance-of-obamas-keystone-xl-veto/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/as-expected-obama-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102420827#.

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