President Obama and Afghanistan

What do you want to hear from President Obama on Tuesday night? Do you support sending in the 35,000 additional troops that is being reported as his decision? Do you think the president should lay out a timeline for withdrawing troops in the region? Do you want to know how he plans to pay for the escalation of troops?

Money and Politics

The U.S. Congress in 1973 and again in 2002 has passed legislation that attempted to control the amount of money spent in political campaigns. The legislation attempted to regulate how much an individual could contribute (currently $2000), how much Political Action Committees (PACS) could provide a candidate ($5000), as well as, regulating what outside groups could do in support of a particular candidate. The 1973 law also limited how much candidate's could spend on their campaigns. That provision was deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

In his bid to win election to the presidency Barack Obama spent over $760 million, a record for a presidential candidate. In fact, Obama spent more than George Bush and John Kerry spent combined in 2004. Of course, campaign spending has soared well past the cost of living in all election contests. Many reformers are concerned as campaign spending increases and candidates are pressed to raise funds at an increasingly alarming rate that the candidates become more indebted to those who provide the money.

Others, however, argue that how one spends one's money is nothing more than expression of their support for a particular candidate and thus should be considered speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Further, they argue that the only way that challengers have of defeating entrenched incumbents is to raise large sums of money to overcome the advantages that an incumbent naturally has from his position in office.

Is there a way to stop the influence of money in politics? Should we try to regulate how much is spent on political campaigns?

Some have proposed that the Congress establish a partial public funding mechanism for House of Representatives and Senate races. When candidates reach a threshold amount of fundraising, which would vary from state to state based on population, they would receive government funding for their campaigns. They would have to meet the threshold with contributions of $100 or less. They could continue to receive funding through this arrangement by gaining $4 for every $1 they raise through these small contributions.

What do you think of such a proposal?

Life Sentences for Youth Offenders?

Next Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Graham v. Florida, a case that will determine whether giving juveniles life sentences is considered cruel and unusual punishment. In 2005 the Court ruled that executing any one under the age of 18 was unconstitutional. Court watchers are interested to see if the Court follows up that case by likewise declaring life sentences for juvenile offenders.

Across the country, 111 people are serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles that did not result in a death, according to one report; 77 of them are locked up in Florida, for crimes including armed robbery and carjacking. The state took a get-tough approach in the 1990s in response to a crime wave that was "compromising the safety of residents, visitors, and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry," Florida's brief to the court states.

Terrence Graham was sentenced to life in prison after he committed two felonies within a year of his turning 15.

The National District Attorneys Association, supporting Florida, said that while life without parole for juveniles might be unusual, "permanent incarceration for the most violent, hardened juvenile offenders is by no means 'cruel.' "

Sullivan and Graham are supported by a wide-ranging group of organizations: the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and academics and social scientists who argue that juveniles cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are. For the same reason, they say, younger teenagers are not entrusted with decisions such as voting, marrying or drinking.

A group of educators and social scientists told the court that such research was crucial to the 2005 decision that juveniles should not be subject to the death penalty. "The principal purposes of sentencing -- punishing the culpable and deterring the rational -- are not furthered by denying the possibility of parole to adolescents," the group said.

Should juveniles be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of ever getting out of prison? Should juveniles be held for life for crimes that fall short of murder? Should the age of the juvenile come into play?

Mandatory Voting?

As we discussed in class last night, the United States has a relatively low turnout for elections. The figure for voter turnout for congressional elections is barely above 50%. Other countries tend to have significantly higher voter turnout figures. In Australia, the rate is 95%. Of course, Australia has compulsory voting. Here's how it works there:

All Australian citizens over the age of 18 must register and show up at a polling station, but they need not actually vote. They can deface their ballot or write in Skippy the Bush Kangaroo (Australia's version of Lassie)—or do nothing at all.

What happens if you don't show up on Election Day? You'll receive a fairly polite form letter (see example here). At this point, you can settle the matter by paying a $15 fine or offering any number of excuses, including illness (no note from your doctor required), travel, religious objections, or just plain forgetfulness. For most people, the matter ends here. In most elections, about a half-million registered voters don't come to the polls. Ninety-five percent of them offer a valid excuse, and the matter ends there. Five percent pay a fine.

Would you favor such a system here in the United States? Or does requiring someone to vote defeat the purpose of voting as a right or privilege? Should we want everyone to vote, informed or otherwise? What does it say about the state of our democracy when barely half the voting populace exercises that right?

Should health care workers be required to be vaccinated?

The State of New York through its Health Department issued a rule that all "all hospital, home health and hospice health-careworkers" must get the H1N1 vaccination. The State of Washington has issued a similar mandate. Both the hospital worker's union and some public health officials have questioned those policies. In the past only about 50% of health care workers choose to get the vaccination. However, that compares favorably to the 1/3 of the general public that does so.

Some health care experts have been supportive of this requirement:

Dr. Julie Gerberding, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called New York’s move “a big deal.”

She had pushed for years for mandatory vaccinations — not just to protect health care workers, she explained, but to protect their patients, who are often aged, have weakened immune systems or are bedridden after surgery, which increases pneumonia risks.

“We tried to market the idea, to push people, to educate,” she said. “But looking back, broadly speaking, we failed. It’s time to look at a more aggressive approach.”

Others have expressed concerns about the safety of the vaccine and forcing people to take agains their will:

In response to the New York state vaccine mandate, the New York State Public Employees Federation (PEF) released a statement stating "vaccination for influenza is not as effective in the control of disease as vaccination for diseases such as polio, measles, and mumps. The safety of the H1N1 vaccine has not been as thoroughly established."

It should be noted that:

Every state already requires health workers to be immunized against measles, mumps and polio, and the unions do not object. Also, federal law requires their employers to offer free hepatitis shots against needle-stick injuries, and California requires them to offer free flu shots too. While workers may decline, they must sign a form saying they accept the risk.

Do health care workers have an obligation to get the flu shot in order to prevent their patients from getting the flu? Many who may already be the most vulnerable to effects of the flu may be in hospitals where the caregivers are not themselves protected from contracting the flu. How many lives may be saved if hospital workers have been vaccinated? On the other hand, should workers be forced to take the shots if they have a fear about the safety of the vaccine since its testing period has been over a much shorter time than usual?

Banning Books

Recently, the issue of banned books in the public schools found its place right here in the Roanoke Valley. From WDBJ-7:

It's a book one father says he would NEVER have allowed his son to read and he's furious it came from a William Byrd teacher.

The book in question is called 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' by Stephen Chbosky.

In it, there are countless stories of sexual encounters including homosexuality, forced sex and voyeurism.

These writings upset parent John Davis.

His son is a junior at William Byrd.

An English teacher gave her copy to a student, who then gave it to Davis's son.

This book is banned in other school districts across the country on what's called a 'Banned Book List.'

The book is NOT banned in Roanoke County schools.

Davis finds it troubling that two copies were available in the school's library.

The Roanoke County School Board responded:

"The principal took appropriate personnel action. It has been the long-standing practice of the school system not to publicly comment on action taken with regard to individual employees and, in keeping with that practice, we do not intend to comment on the action taken in this case."

The School Board was unaware of this book and that it was in the library.

Both copies have been removed and the Board has ordered a review of the system's procedures for accepting books in school libraries.

In the minds of many, the publicity from this episode is likely to stimulate greater interest in the book. One could imagine a large number of individuals checking their public library or going to Barnes and Noble to get themselves a copy to check out what makes the book so controversial.

Does the parent have a legitimate concern? Did he handle it properly? Did the school system do the right thing?

In the Roanoke Times on Sunday Dan Casey wrote a column that poses some interesting thoughts and includes some the back and forth on the issue:

Thursday morning I called Barnes and Noble at Tanglewood Mall with a simple question.

Do you have any copies of "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky? I asked.

The answer was no.

"I can order you a copy," the clerk said. "We're all sold out."

"Wallflower" was out of stock at the Valley View Barnes and Noble, too. And at Ram's Head Book Shop in Towers Shopping Center. A colleague managed to snag the last copy at Books-A-Million.

That's one of life's little ironies that must gall the book-banners.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Calls flooded the office of William Byrd Principal Richard Turner, and the Roanoke County schools administrative offices.

Members of the Roanoke Area "Tea Party" movement passed around an e-mail with the tantalizing subject line: "For Those Needing More Encouragement To Pull Their Children Out of Public Schools."

It read in part: "You should be outraged that a Roanoke county [sic] school teacher even owns such material, much less that she gave it to her students."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, among its 213 pages are passages about sex, masturbation, homosexuality, sexual violence and alcohol abuse.

But the parts I've read, which the offended father explicitly cited in his complaint to the school system, hardly glorify those subjects.

If anything, the narrator seems to describe them with a bit of angst and detached horror.

He comes across a bit like Holden Caulfield, the narrator of J.D. Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye," a novel that other book-banners have pilloried from time to time.

Is this much ado about nothing or a legitimate issue?

Flag Burning

In the 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson ruled that burning an American flag is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. This decision was met with much outcry from many Americans. That sentiment was felt in Congress when an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced. In very brief language it read:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

The amendment itself would not outlaw flag burning but would allow Congress to pass legislation that would do so. The necessary two-thirds vote was garnered in the House of Representatives but failed by one vote in the Senate to reach that threshold.

Would you favor amending the Constitution to give Congress the authority to outlaw flag-burning?

In his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, Chief Justice William Rehnquist made the case for outlawing the practice:

"The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another 'idea' or 'point of view' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag."

On the other hand, opponents of an amendment argue that while burning the flag is burning the symbol of freedom, outlawing the right to burn the flag as a sign of protest would, in fact, be outlawing freedom. Moreover, they argue that there has not been an epidemic of flag burning in the United States and amending the Constitution to outlaw something that is a rarity would not be worth the time.

What do you think?