PC|Bluestocking

You all remember Proposition 8 right?  When the election was over and Obama was in office, there was one disappointment and that was the California masses who decided majority rule should decide a minority’s rights.  But it was all for the sake of preserving the sancitity of marriage, which cannot and should not be redefined (ignoring the fact that it already has been-I’m sure you might notice some discrepancy between how we practice marriage and how the Hebrews did over 2000 years ago).  So in the interest of protecting the sancity of marriage, John Marcotte wants to pass the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act, that bans divorce.  Hey, they said ’til death, didn’t they?

“I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more,”  said John Marcotte.  This is no joke.  About half of all marriages nationwide end in divorce.  It is a real problem, and we have a fine gentleman acting to protect the sanctity of marriage.  There are about 17,000 Facebook fans so far, and he has dozens of signatures on his petition.  It’s uncertain how California would react if it did make it to vote, but we’ll probably never know.  He needs nearly 700,000 more signatures by March to make it, and this usually costs a lot.

For those who supported Proposition 8, ask yourself a question.  If you’re really willing to sacrifice another’s right to protect traditional marriage, do you have a leg to stand on when someone comes looking for your rights?  For those who were as disappointed as I was that cold November morning last year (for the same reason–not Obama), join the club (on Facebook).  I’m certainly a fan.  If you disagree with this reasoning or have any other reductio ad absurdums for the protection of the sanctity of marriage, comment.

Crap, here I go with another Campus article, is there no end in sight?  Probaby not, I still have to interview the new religion professor, and I’m not allowed to be funny with that one, but that actually probably means you’ll all like it more.  In case you’ve been living in a cave for you entire life (and if so, kudos that’s impressive, Nader would be proud I’m sure) Ralph Nader, three time presidential candidate (if you have been living in a cave, he didn’t win), spoke at PC.  You may have certain preconceived notions about him, but love’em or loath’em, Nader spoke out on green issues and called corporations out. 

In a nutshell, he spoke of the unseen violence committed by large corporations.  Personally, I don’t trust any word with more than three syllables, which could explain my distaste for all things republican, libertarian, and conservative.  If you want to poke holes in this joke just think democracy, homosexuality, and adenosine triphosphate–all of which I’m kosher with.  Where was I?  Oh yes, that guy I liked.  Ralph Nader also challenged preconceived ideas.  Nobody thinks of white-collar crime when they here the word “crime,” (unless you’re an obese rabble-rousing documentary maker with a new take on COPS–look it up) but it’s devastating.  War and street violence kill a fraction of those dead at the hands of money makers.  Welfare for the poor isn’t such a bad idea when you consider all the large corporations that are carried on the backs of the taxpayers.  Why do they need it?  You can argue they’re doing a service, but ultimately they’re in it for themselves, so they should use their own money.  There was a booksigning and Q&A session afterward followed by a luncheon provided–not by GDH and that’s the important thing, as well as another Q&A.  All in all, it was good fun–if you’re a liberal.

I’d like to take a small segue and talk about the book he wrote that MFB was selling at the front of the auditorium, Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! written as a practical utopia, possible only through the knowledge and funding of America’s top billionaires.  I’m actually nigh-on halfway through, so I thought I’d insert a quick review so far.  It’s good.  It’s fun, it’s interesting, imaginative, though it’s not easy.  In other words, the cave-dwellers out there would not like it since he uses real people and expects some degree of savvy on the subject, and I a lowly bio-bumpkin do wish the concepts were a bit better explained.  Still, it’s better than Atlas Shrugged, partly because it’s shorter, but mostly because doesn’t have characters give 50-page long monologues on the theme…yet.  It’s obvious the point he’s trying to get across, and it also makes you think about what you could do, since he names all of these strategies and litanizes the evils of Wally World.

Off that segue.  Bottom line,  Nader was here.  As effective as he has been in legislating change (something anyone who knows the word Corvair can bitterly attest to), you can’t help get the feeling that he’ll forever be screwed if he stays in a third party.  Which begs the question, why only 2 parties.  That forces us to turn republican and democrat into umbrella terms.  Think if there were only two Christian religions, Roman Catholic and Protestant, how would you choose?  It’d be easy to find something you identify more with, but Protestant would contain Calvinists and Arminianists, biblical literalists and looser interpreters, pacifists and neoconservatives.   We need viable third parties, and electoral reform is the only way that can happen, since the winner take all forces umbrellization.  Also, please comment, I love to get the feeling my articles are being read.

In a move to promote net neutrality and ensure that all people in the United States have free, unhindered use of the internet, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed that the FCC turn its principles of network openness into official regulation. He also recommended adding two more principles to those that already exist, bringing the total number to six. The original four rules can be summarized as follows: users cannot be prevented from accessing lawful internet content, applications, and services by network operators, and users also cannot be prohibited from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

Genachowski’s new rules include a rule to prevent internet service providers from discriminating against particular internet content or applications, but while allowing reasonable network management. The second rule is to ensure that all information is released to the users regarding the internet service providers’ implemented network management policies. AT&T and Verizon Networks have already accepted the newly proposed regulations; however, their approvals only apply to their wired networks, while Genachowski’s rules would apply to both wired and wireless networks. They argue that the rules are too difficult to implement for wireless networks because of the contraints on wireless network capacities.

The Internet is not a series of tubes.

Right under all of our noses America has already turned Socialist and many never even realized it. A gradual process spanning from the late 1800’s to today has created a society that many in the early 1900’s would agree is Socialism. Socialism even at its peak in America has never faired well in elections or with the general sentiments of the American public. Maybe it was the Red Scare and fighting the USSR or its the lack of a cap on the success of an individual in a laissez faire system but socialism has never had the foothold in America as it has had in many other sovereign, industrialized nations. Many people may not realize it but socialist candidates are not considered third party runners in many nations including most countries throughout Europe and even Canada. The last election to have a major socialist candidate in the United States was in 1912 with Eugene V. Debs.

The reason America would seem socialist by early 1900’s standards is by the platform that the socialist party of 1912 ran on. Many of the promises stated by Debs during his 1912 run for president have been carried out and still continue through this day and age.  Some of these promises include:

1)Eight hour work days

2)The conservation and development of natural resources

3)Establishing minimum wage

4)The separation of the Bureau of Labor from the Department of Commerce and Labor

5)Child labor laws

While it may seem like these aren’t much because we have been living with them all our lives, these are the issues socialists fought so hard to change in the early 20th century. Many other similarities include the rights of workers and universal suffrage for all citizens of the United States. While we may not think we live in a socialist society today, Debs would look at today and see a society that has progressively moved towards a more socialist agenda. Among his other promises includes the first time a universal healthcare plan was ever proposed in the US.

When looking back we can see that these issues have been debated and fought about for nearly 100 years. It makes you think that if so many policies from the socialist party have been enacted from 1912, how much farther can we go?

I laugh when people tell me that America has the best health care system in the world.  Us, the US, the nation that led AIDS cartwheel through the gay community while Reagan took the research funding to the guillotine, the nation that lets the uninsured into poverty should they have the ill-fortune to acquire ill health, the nation who decided to apply free market capitalism to the universal right of health.  I could go on.  So I will.

The United States has an absurdly high expenditure on health care.  Spending roughly $4,178 per capita compared to Switzerland, our next highest competitor that spends $2784–and the median for the nations polled is about a thousand dollars lower.  This is for a variety of reasons including: 1) skyrocketing costs for medical technology and prescription drugs, 2)administrative costs, and 3)the uninsured, whose medical problems could be fixed cheaply earlier, but are allowed to spiral out into medical and financial crises.  America also has relatively high infant mortality rates and relatively low life-expectancies.  Finally, America is the only developed nation without universal health care (aside form South Africa).  Not only is it not freely accessible, but it’s unfairly financed.  We need change, and by that I mean…

Better than Baucus.  The Baucus Bill, written by Senator Max Baucus (D) from Montana, has gotten more attention recently because it’s a more bipartisan proposal, but you’d hardly notice from all the GOP politicians ignoring it and the Democratic ideas it ignored.  As it is there would be 17 million (instead of 46 million) without health care.  It would fine families without health insurance.  It sounds cruel, but it makes sense.  The easiest way out of paying the fine is paying health insurance and at least the latter does you good.  There would also be tax credits to help middle and low income families obtain coverage.  The Bill would be be financed by squeezing funds from MediCare and raising taxes; within a decade revenues and savings would exceed costs.  Good, but not good enough.  It does not include a government health insurance plan to compete with private insurers.  What real reform needs is choice.  People are worried that a government plan will drive private plans out of business, but right now private insurers have a monopoly, since it’s usually easier and much cheaper for people to get insurance through their employer.  Competition begets efficiency (okay so maybe free market capitalism can be applied to something as universal a right as health, but I’m justified if I at least highlight the importance of universal health).

In conclusion, the Baucus Bill floating on the floor of Congress is not enough to make America’s health care live up to what it can truly be.  Universal health care does not have to be less cost effective than the current plan.  Government health care worries people because they are afraid of the government having a say in whether their health care is worth the expense.  But right now human greed is making that call.  Who do you trust more?  Shouldn’t we at least get a choice?

There are many of us who are only at PC today because of scholarships and student loans. With the economy tanking and bringing us all down with it, concern over student loans has arisen in Washington.

The whole deal is called the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act and it is due to go to the Senate before you know it. Representative George Miller from California is the fellow who wrote the bill. He said, in a quote from the New York Times “This legislation provides students and families with the single largest investment in federal student aid ever.” He went on saying that we need to “stop funneling vital taxpayer’s dollars through boardroom and start sending them directly to dorm rooms.”

All colleges would be required to convert to this federal Direct Loan program by June 1, 2010. It plans on increasing the maxim limit on the annual Pell grant scholarship by $40 billion and is planning on providing money for other programs such as community college and early childhood development. The overall goal is to make loans available regardless of credit marks. After all, 2/3 of American students take out loans and borrow money to fund their education. Now, people are starting to recognize how important it is to help out us starving students.

For more information check out the story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/education/18educ.html?_r=1