!Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras

In response to !Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras

           Knowledge is power and given the recent heated debate about Police misconduct this is a policy that everyone can get behind. Cameras would allow citizens who are victims to be able to prove their claims. At the same time, police officers that are unfairly accused could prove their innocence. According to TIME magazine a study of the Rialto, California, police department found that the use of “officer worn cameras reduced the rate of use-of-force incidents by 59 percent” and “utilization of the cameras led to an 87.5 percent reduction in complaints” by citizens against cops.

            But this no brainer fix doesn’t come without its issues. Obama has backed a program that began just last month that has purchased 50,000 body-worn cameras to provide evaluations of how well this works. I’m hoping that they will address some issues, and I won't be surprised if this quick fix quickly turns controversial before they figure it all out. First of all, is every cop going to be recording his entire day? This would inadvertently become mass surveillance of everyday activities of millions of people across the nation. Police would also risk recording private moments as they enter people’s homes, and have interactions with witnesses, bystanders, victims, and families of victims in a variety of stressful and extreme situations. I wouldn’t want my personal moments broadcast to the Internet because an open records law provides public access to these recordings.     
            This is not just a citizen privacy issue but also a privacy issue for the cop. What if he/she gets caught talking bad about their boss to a co-worker or they have to go to the restroom. We don’t allow our bosses to record us at work, why should they?
            Alternatively, if we give them the power to switch the camera off during those times what stops a corrupt cop from keeping his/hers off during a key interaction. I don’t think it would be long before a Cop used the excuse of forgetting to turn the camera on, or that he/she thought the camera was recording, or that there was no time to make that move to turn it on in an important case. 

             I am for the idea, as I consider it the checks and balances of law enforcement. I am just skeptical of how well it will work on a grand scale.

Support for Clean Energy

In November of 2014, my hometown county in California, which contains less than 58,000 people, passed a measure to prohibit fracking, the environmentally destructive act of extracting natural gas and oil that lies deep underground. For a sleepy little town this is a hugely progressive move. A few outspoken citizens had formed a group called San Benito Rising, together they collected over 4,000 signatures in order to get the measure on the ballot. Almost immediately after the measure passed a company called Citadel Exploration filed a lawsuit against the county. They claimed that local CA governments do not have the authority to ban fracking. They also claimed a 1.2 Billion dollar loss. For a town that had been limiting development for years, a $1.2 billion fine was terrifying thought for the citizens. But less terrifying than the destruction fracking could bring to the small city that thrives on its agricultural foundation.

The proven destruction to the environment caused by fracking and clear disadvantage of small local governments to fight it makes me think it is the U.S. governments job to prohibit hydraulic fracturing. (If you are not aware of the damage that fracking can do then read this.) Right now some of the public thinks that because the price of gas is low there is not an immediate issue. I’m not alone in fearing that this is turning into one of those long term investments that are so hard to get the ball rolling on until it’s too late. I think action towards a solution lies within the grasp of the U.S. government's role in safe guarding our nation from threat. 

But if we ban fracking on U.S. soil we would just be more dependent on foreign gasoline. And that is not a solution. Instead the government should be making strides towards supporting green energy sources, including research and education. Although some would argue that subsidies don’t help consumers and that it’s up to the private sector to invest in new technology. I would argue that green energy dramatically supports the nation and instead of outsourcing this to other countries the U.S. would benefit in being a leader. 

With the help of the government we could be creating more jobs involved in wind power and solar energy. Currently my husband is looking into solar panels for our house and interested in American made panels versus panels made in China. Not only are American made harder to find (closest company is in Georgetown) they are much more expensive. If Americans purchase outsourced solar panels then it's a missed opportunity, not to mention defeating the purpose of being green since they are being transported across the globe.

It should go without saying that investing in clean energy research and development would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In 2012, the United States relied on 40% of our consumed petroleum from foreign imports. According to this site between one quarter and one half of wars since 1973 have been linked to oil. With money saved from avoided conflicts this long term investment wouldn't even take that long, and the nation would benefit on so many levels by investing in the future of green energy.   

Commentary on a Classmate's Blog

In a World of Political Shenanigans: The Military and my commentary

I agree that the U.S. needs to prioritize spending. We spend too much on defense. Our involvement has caused a snowball effect that has caused us to get further involved in foreign affairs and spend more and more money. Motives behind the 9/11 attacks were because of the U.S. involvement in Israel, troops in Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq. The amount the U.S has spent on wars since the terrorist attack is over $1.6 Trillion. Wars are expensive, detrimental, scary, senseless, uncivilized, devastating and not progressive. Meanwhile our education system results in less than average results, making America look like the big stupid bully of the world. Data for 2010 shows we spent 20% of the budget on defense while only spending 3% on education.

            The idea of spending less on defense and more on education would benefit society greatly in many ways. I truly think that we could come up with clever new ways to defend our country without spending so much money. The next generation should come up with less barbaric ways of dealing with world conflict, and this can be achieved by education reform. We need to learn how to cope with conflict and when to stay out of foreign affairs.

            Education reform won’t happen just by throwing a bunch of money at the nation's schools. We need to offer better support to teachers that way quality increases. We need more research done on progressive teaching techniques and new issues that effect students today, such as ADD. Maybe we can figure out a system of standardized testing that teachers actually agree with. And while we're at it let's make peace studies a required course. The point is we should be devoting more economic resources on building and deploying young minds. The more we learn, the more we understand, the less we'll fight. If we truly want our country to be great then we need to prioritize where money is being spent because spending so much military defense is just protecting our right to remain stupid.

Needed: More time legislating and less time fundraising.

            The amount of money spent on campaigns has gotten to be astronomical. In 2012 over 6 billion dollars were spent. Without financial support a political campaign is doomed, and money does not always come easy. The U.S. would benefit greatly if we enforce stricter campaign finance laws in order to limit the amount of money being spent during a political campaign.

           Candidates waste so much time and money campaigning to win that they lose site of their obligation to the public. I genuinely think that people wanting to run our country start with good intentions and a mission that drives them, but navigating through campaign bureaucracy often changes the game. The last time an elected President aligned with neither the Democrat nor Republican party was in 1850. This is because rich special interest groups are vital in supporting their party’s candidates, making it almost impossible for the underdog to get past Primaries. In order to make their greater good happen candidates are essentially forced to accept donations that may come with repercussions. Often individuals and corporations that donate do so with the expectation of political favors. This scenario is multiplied by 100’s to gain enough money to run a campaign but then the newly elected officials end up with a huge laundry list of everyone else’s to-dos. This sort of corruption is the basis for a lot of voter dissatisfaction with our political system.  

            I propose that we come up with a system that allows politicians to spend more time legislating and less time fundraising. Campaign finance reform would even out the playing field by making sure rich candidates stay within respectable spending limits and give economically challenged candidates a fighting chance. Frivolous campaign spending only causes a further divide between the candidates and the public. Typically the largest portion of campaign money is spent on paid advertisements, which are loaded with slander or are incredibly cheesy. Expensive pamphlets and yard signs just end up in the landfill. Another large portion of the money is spent on campaign staff. They spend a majority of their time trying to raise more money. This process is superficial and out of control. It needs to be scaled back.
          Canada, Britain, Mexico and many other nations enforce campaign-spending limits. Britain’s short campaign period allows less time for money to be spent. Some European countries provide free radio and TV broadcasting for candidates. Mexico practices a mixed finance system, giving public funds to candidates while allowing for limited amount of private contribution. If the U.S. put into place strict campaign finance regulations it would help create a more representative government. Politicians could spend more time focusing on issues and less time trying to make friends with money. And they wouldn’t have to worry about keeping and making those financial relationships a top priority. I think that if the U.S. adopted campaign finance reform we’d have a more representative and functional government and voter satisfaction would be raised.

What's in store for Hillary

            The article "The First Female President" written by Tina Dupuy on the Blog The Smirking Chimp brings light to some of the approaches the media will take if Hillary Clinton is elected as the first female President. This week Hillary Clinton devoted part of her speech at the U.N. to the progress women have made in the world in the past 20 years. But most people did not get to hear it or even realize she made a speech at the U.N. The media has been in too much of a frenzy with the Clinton email scandal, which can be debated somewhere else. The point Dupuy is making in this article is in line with something Clinton also mentions in her speech, that as women we have come far but “we’re not there yet.”

            
Similar to the challenges Obama has had to deal with, Dupuy thinks that Hillary “will have to deal with weird and blindingly stupid things no white male president has ever had to deal with.” She is preparing us for what may come with the territory for our first female President, warning that “And we, as Americans, who always admire and romanticize pioneers, will have plenty to cringe over.” She then goes on to list a huge amount of inappropriate derogatory terms that she thinks could possibly be used by the media directed toward Clinton.

           Dupuy has aimed this article toward Democratic sympathizers, woman, feminists, or anyone who is tired of the media trashing people and harping on unimportant details. As a journalist and also a stand-up comedian she uses a sarcastic tone to shine light on some of the inappropriate language that the media might use toward Clinton. It’s shocking and sad but we have all read some media publication using some of the exact terms she brings up. By shining light on this sort of negative approach it will be more obvious when the media does start attacking her for these petty things and maybe the public will learn to turn a blind eye to this unprogressive media, making it go away faster.

Un-Affordable Act

“When One Penalty is Enough”

By The Editorial Board  

New York Times

February 19, 2015

Article Here  

           In this article the author is talking about the Affordable Care Act deadlines and fines. They are arguing to extend the deadline to sign up for insurance until after April 15^th this year. This argument is based on the fact that some people may not be aware of the fines associated with not having insurance until tax time this year, when 2014 charges are to be included in tax returns. The fine for not having insurance in 2014 is $95 or 1% of annual income, which ever is higher.

            The 2015 deadline to sign up for insurance was February 22 and the fines have been raised to $325 or 2% of annual income, whichever is higher. For someone making just $20,000 a year the cost of NOT having insurance would be $400.  That seems harsh and demanding. With over 85% of people qualifying to receive financial help with insurance coverage I’m sure many will opt to take the coverage instead of paying the costly fine, but for 2014 and 2015 fines, it will be too late.

            I agree with the author of this article. It seems fair to give people the chance to avoid those costly fines especially since I don’t feel this news been widely distributed. It is my first time hearing the amount of the charges and other than the small mention Obama made in a Buzzfeed video, I hadn’t realized that the deadline to sing up has come and gone. To be fair, I have insurance so I am in the clear but I imagine many others that will be affected were not aware of the logistics of the Act. 

            I decided to do a small poll among acquaintances. I asked 16 random volunteers to answer "Without Googling it.... Are you aware of the fine amount for not having insurance in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act? Do you know the date of the deadline to sign up for insurance in 2015?  Are you aware of the 2015 fine amount?" Out of 16 people 10 did not know any of the information asked. Just 2/16 people knew the correct cutoff date and fine amounts for 2014 and 2015. 3/16 knew just the deadline date and 1/16 knew just the fine amount. I also got a few interesting side notes out of the poll, one comment being that one self employed individual would like the date extended since she had not done her taxes yet and did not know the amount of money she made last year so she had to make up a amount in order to fill out the healthcare application. Another interesting comment was from an individual that is a nurse at a Hospital that works with uninsured patients often, she wasn't aware of the fines or deadline to sign up but mentioned that those patients are stigmatized.  

            This mandate is not new but since there seems to be a lack of public knowledge and this is the first time fines will be enforced I think it’s a wise suggestion to extend the 2015 sign up deadline until after the first round of fines have been charged. It would eliminate a lot of gripes and excuses and maybe remove some of the criticism toward the Affordable Care Act.