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?

Religion in American Society

Over the years the role of religion in American society has generated a great deal of discussion and litigation. Beginning in the 1960's a number of Supreme Court cases created a stir among religious groups when rulings handed down by the high court limited the extent of religious influence in public settings, especially in schools.

Have these court rulings gone too far? What role should religion play in public schools? What should be permitted?

Those who believe the Court has been too restrictive in regards to religion in schools argue:

• The U.S. Supreme Court has replaced freedom of religion,” guaranteed by the Constitution, for freedom from religion. To ban school prayer diminishes the religious freedom of students who would like to pray and forces them to act according to the dictates of a non-religious minority.
  
  
• The U.S. Supreme Court has misinterpreted the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. A simple and voluntary school prayer does not amount to the government establishing a religion, any more than do other practices common in the U.S. such as the employment of Congressional chaplains or government recognition of holidays with religious significance and National Days of Prayer.
  
  
• School prayer would result in many societal benefits. The public school system is tragically disintegrating as evidenced by the rise in school shootings, increasing drug use, alcoholism, teen pregnancy, and HIV transmission. School prayer can help combat these issues, would instill a sense of morality and is desperately needed to protect our children.
  
  
• School prayer would address the needs of the whole person. Schools must do more than train children’s minds academically. They must also nurture their souls and reinforce the values taught at home and in the community.
  
  
• School prayer would allow religious students an opportunity to observe their religious beliefs during the school day. The U.S. Supreme Court has urged school cooperation with religious authorities for “it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”

Obviously, many believe that the Court has struck a fair balance between the secular and sectarian world believe:

Public schools are intended for education, not religious observance or proselytization.

Prayer is school is already legal. Students are already allowed to pray on a voluntary basis (in a non-disruptive way) so formal school prayer is unnecessary.

School prayer may lead to intolerance. Public prayer will highlight religious differences of which students may have been unaware. Those students who abstain from school prayer may be ostracized.

School prayer is inherently coercive and cannot be implemented in a way that is truly voluntary.

The public school system is created for all students and supported by all taxpayers. It should therefore remain neutral on religious issues over which students and taxpayers will differ.

Since no formal school prayer could honor the tenets of all the religions practiced in the U.S., as well as various denominational differences, prayer is better left in the home and religious institution of the individual student’s choice. A related argument is that school prayer usurps the role of parents and religious institutions who desire to provide instruction in keeping with their own beliefs.

Where are you on this issue?

Gay Marriage

In our federal system, each state is empowered to determine for itself the many rules and regulations that govern our day to day lives. Over the last several years, some states have outlawed same-sex couples from getting married. An equal number have legalized gay marriage. In all, six states now have legalized that controversial act.

For some, this patchwork of laws is confusing and they insist that there should be some consistency across the nation. Some have proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman. Others have hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would declare existing state laws that prohibit gay marriage as unconstitutional. Others, who support same-sex marriage, feel that the federal approach works best for them because most national polls indicate that a majority Americans oppose it.

Supporters seek to have gay couples treated equally under the law and subject to the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive:

They point out, for instance, that homosexual couples who have been together for years often find themselves without the basic rights and privileges that are currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who legally marry - from the sharing of health and pension benefits to hospital visitation rights.



Opponents argue that:

that marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of a healthy society because it leads to stable families and, ultimately, to children who grow up to be productive adults. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, they contend, will radically redefine marriage and further weaken it at a time when the institution is already in serious trouble due to high divorce rates and a significant number of out-of-wedlock births.



Should gay couples be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples? Are we better served a state by state approach as exists now? Or should there be some unifying national consensus on this issue?

Lower the Drinking Age?

The former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, John McCardle, started a movement several years ago to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. Last year a hundred or so university presidents have signed a declaration supporting that idea. This has stirred a spirited debate at many colleges across the country.

McCardle says:

"It hasn't reduced or eliminated drinking. It has simply driven it underground, behind closed doors, into the most risky and least manageable of settings."



Some even in law enforcement think that this initiative has merit. Chief of Police Mark Beckner of Boulder, Colorado, which is home to the University of Colorado, sees merit in changing the law:

"The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving. Those are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give 'em a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."



On the other hand, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) stands in opposition to a change in the law. Chuck Hurley, the executive director of MADD observes:

"The inconvenient truth is that a drinking age at 18 would cause more funerals. Nine hundred families a year would have to bury a teenager..."

"When the United States reduced its drinking age in the seventies it was a public health disaster. Death rates in the states that reduced their drinking age jumped 10 to 40 percent..."



In fact, when states changed the legal drinking age to 21, traffic fatalities among the affected population dropped 13%.

McCardle points out that while deaths on the highways have declined the number of non-traffic related deaths numbers around 3000 a year.

What do you think? What other points can you add to the discussion?

What to do in Afghanistan

U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan have already exceeded the number from all of last year. In fact, the numbers for August are the highest since the U.S. invaded after 9/11 attacks. Currently, there are about 70,000 American troops in the country and Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is expected to ask for another 20,000 soldiers to be deployed. Three years ago, the U.S. had about 20,000 forces in the country.

The U.S. is currently in the 8th year of the war there. Many would argue that the early success of toppling the Taliban government and chasing al Qaeda out of the country has given way to a resurgence of Taliban strength in many areas and control of large swaths of the countryside. These same critics would point to the historical record of failure on the part of those who have tried to tame Afghanistan including the British and the Russians.

One blogger has even suggested that Afghanistan is another Vietnam:

The US, meanwhile, is identified as an occupier and as the sole
support of a corrupt regime of drug lords, thieves and charlatans.

Does this sound familiar? It should. It is a replay of what
America did in Vietnam.

Now a new president, Obama, like Johnson before him, is telling Americans
that a war half a world away is "necessary for American security." This is a
ludicrous assertion on its face. If Afghanistan, one of the poorest
countries in the world, and really hardly a country at all, is a threat to
US national security, so is Malawi, Burundi and Fiji.

Let¹s be rational for a moment. The Taliban, whatever their irrational
Islamic fanaticism and their misogyny, have no interest in America, other
than to drive our troops out of their country. When they were in charge in
Kabul back in 2001, they had their hands full just trying to hang on in the
face of the war lords and drug kingpins who held (and still hold) sway in
various parts of the country, and when they eventually win and drive the US
and its NATO allies out of Afghanistan, they will have their hands full
again, just clinging to power.

American national security is not to the slightest degree threatened by the
Taliban.



That said, the case for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan counters that by suggesting that simply letting the Afghans alone would likely lead to greater instability in the region.

The United States has two primary national interests in this conflict: that Afghanistan never again become a haven for terrorism against the United States, and that chaos in Afghanistan not destabilize its neighbors, especially Pakistan.

The more important U.S. interest is indirect: to prevent chaos in Afghanistan from destabilizing Pakistan. With a population of 173 million (five times Afghanistan’s), a GDP of more than $160 billion (more than ten times Afghanistan’s) and a functional nuclear arsenal of perhaps twenty to fifty warheads, Pakistan is a much more dangerous prospective state sanctuary for al-Qaeda.

Furthermore, the likelihood of government collapse in Pakistan, which would enable the establishment of such a sanctuary, may be in the same ballpark as Afghanistan, at least in the medium to long term. Pakistan is already at war with internal Islamist insurgents allied to al-Qaeda, and that war is not going well. Should the Pakistani insurgency succeed in collapsing the state or even just in toppling the current civilian government, the risk of nuclear weapons falling into al-Qaeda’s hands would rise sharply. In fact, given the difficulties terrorists face in acquiring usable nuclear weapons, Pakistani state collapse may be the likeliest scenario leading to a nuclear-armed al-Qaeda.



If you were an adviser to President Obama, what would you recommend? Should the U.S. increase it's troop strength by 20,000 or should the U.S. reassess it's options in Afghanistan? Should there be a timetable for success? If the U.S. finds itself in essentially the same place in a year or so as it is now, should it pursue a policy of drawing down?

As Congress and the nation debate the merits of various health care reform proposals, one of the key questions we, as a society, must decide is whether health care is a right to all citizens or just a privilege? There are clearly people on either side os this question.

Senator Bernie Sanders believes it is a right:

Let's be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 - but this occurs every year.

In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation - and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.

At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees - rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely.

On the other hand, South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis takes a different view:

Health care is not a right. I have no right to health care, to food or to shelter. I do have a right to work though. And I have an obligation as a member of Judeo-Christian society to make provision for these things, for 'the least of these,' in the things of food, shelter and health care. One of the best ways to be my brother's keeper is to keep free enterprise flourishing so that he has a job."

From the Heritage Foundation:

The problem is that Sen. Kennedy is wrong; there is no fundamental right to healthcare. When the founders wrote of our “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they were referring to natural rights, things that we can enjoy on our own, without depending on government. They exist by nature—they are not entitlements to things produced by others. The rights to life and liberty are individual rights that I can pursue or neglect as I wish. Governments are instituted merely to secure these rights by providing the necessary infrastructure for their flourishing—this involves instituting a rule of law and order, providing for the public defense, and so on.

Where do you find yourself on this question?