Despite the best efforts of Vladimir Putin and
his terrorist commandos in the eastern
Donbas region, Ukraine’s presidential
elections did in fact take place on May 25th,
under conditions that international observers
concur were fair and free. As of this writing,
Petro Poroshenko appears to have won in one
round.
Herewith a few lessons:
First, Ukraine is hardly the unstable almost-
failed state that Putin and his Western
apologists say it is. The terrorist violence was
confined to two provinces—Luhansk and
Donetsk. In the rest of the country, the voting
proceeded smoothly. On top of that, Ukraine’s
security forces were able to maintain law and
order in much of the country, a positive
development that builds on the armed forces’
creditable performance in their “anti-terrorist
operations” in April and May.
Second, Ukraine is anything but the
illegitimate state Putin and his western
apologists say it is. Voting participation for
the entire country was high: about 60 percent.
Not including the two provinces that were
terrorized by Putin’s commandos,
participation was even higher. Everyone
knows that the only thing that kept Ukrainians
in the Donbas from voting was Putin’s
terrorists.
Third, Putin’s terrorist commandos have been
outflanked by the elections. People want
stability; they want a return to normality.
And they know that elections can bring about
both. The terrorists, like Putin, have nothing
but violence to offer. That is not a winning
electoral platform. Nor is it any way to win
the hearts and minds of the eastern Ukrainian
population the terrorists claim to be
defending from wild-eyed Ukrainian
“fascists.” Small wonder that, after hemming
and hawing for several months, even
Ukraine’s richest oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov,
got off the fence and denounced the terrorists,
while calling on Donbas residents to take to
the streets and march in protest. (And, in an
indication of just what is still so wrong with
the Donbas, hundreds of thousands heeded his
call. Were they not, one might well ask,
capable of acting on their own—without being
told to do so by some higher-up?)
Fourth, while Ukraine now has a legitimately
elected president, Putin has egg on his face—
lots of it. Russia’s fascistoid dictator can
continue questioning democratic Ukraine’s
legitimacy, and he is perfectly entitled to
believe that fair and free elections are unfair
and un-free, but at some point such
truculence becomes nothing more than
childishness, stupidity, and petulance. Come
to think of it, haven’t those three qualities
defined Putin’s behavior since the fall of
2013, when he coerced Ukraine’s since-
deposed sultan, Viktor Yanukovych, into
backing out of the Association Agreement with
the European Union? Ask yourself this: just
what has Putin gotten out of this entire crisis?
An arid peninsula with enormous economic
and political problems, a spike in his
popularity, and affirmations of love from his
Western apologists. And just what has he lost?
Good relations with the West, good relations
with Ukraine, and the prospect of a rapid
recovery of Russia’s moribund economy. Isn’t
it time to recognize the obvious: that Putin’s
statecraft is about as refined as
Yanukovych’s?
Fifth, Ukraine’s much touted, much decried,
and much denounced “radical, right-wing
extremists” attracted about 1–2 percent of the
vote—which surprised no one who knows a
bit about Ukrainian politics. (Contrast that
with the 25 percent achieved by France’s
National Front in the May 25th elections to
the European Parliament.) In a word,
Ukraine’s right-wingers are a fringe
phenomenon that has played no serious role
in Ukraine’s national politics, is playing no
serious role in Ukraine’s national politics, and
will continue to play no serious role in
Ukraine’s national politics. All those Western,
Russian, and Ukrainian analysts who’ve been
beating the drum about the nefarious
influence of Ukraine’s right in the last few
years—while turning a blind eye to the
extremism of Yanukovych’s thuggish regime
and the even worse extremism of the pro-
Russian hyper-chauvinists who eventually
became the core of Putin’s terrorist
commandos in eastern Ukraine—have some
serious crow to eat. And some serious
apologies to make: for diverting attention
from the real danger in Ukraine to their own
personal obsessions.
Sixth, it may be time to be guardedly
optimistic about democratic Ukraine’s
prospects. True, the Donbas will remain a
problem for a long time, but Putin’s terrorists
are unlikely to branch out to other parts of
the country. As Turkey, Israel, Colombia, and
many other countries have shown, life can go
on, even when terrorists are ensconced in
regional strongholds. More important, Putin
and his terrorists appear to be in a dead end.
The government of Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk has a serious reform program that
should bring about radical economic change
and a whole-scale decentralization of
authority. The newly elected president has
good credentials and a huge popular mandate.
The West—the United States, the European
Union, the International Monetary Fund, and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—
supports Ukraine and will make sure that
reforms are in fact implemented. Finally, the
capital city, Kyiv, has a new mayor, the pro-
Western reformer, Vitaly Klitschko.
Not bad for a country that, according to
Putin’s Russian propagandists and Western
apologists, is supposedly on the verge of
collapse.
4 Jun 2014
HEZBOLLAH THREATENED BY IRAN'S FINANCIAL WOES
I
Share
Tweet
Email
Print
More about: Middle East , Lebanon, Iran, Syria, US
ONLINE FEATURES
Hezbollah Threatened by Iran’s
Financial Woes
71 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends. Recommend
Oren Kessler and Rupert Sutton
ran’s economy continues to flounder. It is
hemorrhaging money in Syria, and years of
sanctions have left it suffering from high
unemployment (a quarter of youth are jobless)
and the world’s second-highest inflation rate
(20 percent ), despite a minor boost provided by
an interim nuclear agreement. Now, however,
Iran’s economic woes are beginning to affect
its ability to project power across the region,
potentially leaving its most dangerous
international proxy in the lurch.
Sources close to Hezbollah told Lebanese media
last week that Iranian funds to the group are
drying up. In the words of Hezbollah expert
Matthew Levitt, “Iran is not in good financial
shape; the money from Tehran [to Hezbollah]
doesn’t come as it used to.” As a result, the
group’s military wing has reportedly ordered
its overseas cells and external security units
to find new revenue streams, and its social
services have also had to cut costs.
Over the past three decades, Tehran has
funded Hezbollah terrorism around the world,
from its 1983 bombings of US and French
barracks in Beirut that killed 299 servicemen,
to attacks in the early 1990s at Jewish and
Israeli centers in Argentina that killed 114.
That relationship has continued to this day—
in 2012 Hezbollah bombed an Israeli tourist
bus in Bulgaria , killing six, and the same year
planned a similar attack in Cyprus. The group
has been accused of attacking diplomats as far
afield as India and Georgia, and last month
its operatives admitted to plotting attacks on
tourists in Thailand.
At the same time, Hezbollah also operates a
global network of criminal and narcotics
rings. In West Africa, it has made millions
trading in blood diamonds and arms. In
Colombia, its members have been convicted of
cocaine trafficking, and in the lawless border
areas between Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay it runs smuggling networks
transporting marijuana and tobacco. In the
US, officials have uncovered a multimillion-
dollar Hezbollah-run smuggling ring dealing
in drugs and cigarettes.
As less money comes in from Iran, Hezbollah
will likely have to turn to these illicit
operations even more to make up the
shortfall. Last week, however, a bill was
introduced to the US Senate that seeks to
challenge the group’s money-laundering and
logistics operations, designating Hezbollah as a
narcotics-trafficking and transnational
criminal organization. The bill would place
sanctions on individuals and firms conducting
any business with Hezbollah, severely
hindering the organization’s ability to
fundraise at a time when its coffers are
already drying up.
With its diminished financial prospects,
Hezbollah’s overseas cells could face an
accompanying decline in the group’s ability to
conduct both terror attacks and criminal
activity. The failure of its recent attacks in
Cyprus, India, Georgia, and Thailand indicate
that its operational capacity is already
compromised—something money troubles will
only exacerbate.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to bankroll the
Syrian government in its brutal three-year
war against rebel forces. Tehran is believed to
provide the Bashar al-Assad regime with
upwards of $600 million monthly to prosecute
the war and cover its fiscal deficit. For its part,
Hezbollah is itself losing money , pledging to
provide for the families of up to 500 of its
fighters killed in battle alongside Syrian
forces.
Rogue behavior carries costs. The Islamic
Republic’s nuclear program has devastated its
economy, raising fuel, food, and energy prices
for ordinary Iranians. Its three-year
campaign to save the Syrian regime is
bleeding its bank accounts, and damaging its
ability to fund terror beyond its borders.
The Syrian tragedy has claimed as many as
160,000 lives , with no end in sight. Still, in the
dark clouds above Damascus a silver lining
may be emerging: the weakening of the
Islamic Republic and its most dangerous
proxy.
Share
Tweet
More about: Middle East , Lebanon, Iran, Syria, US
ONLINE FEATURES
Hezbollah Threatened by Iran’s
Financial Woes
71 people recommend this. Be the first of your friends. Recommend
Oren Kessler and Rupert Sutton
ran’s economy continues to flounder. It is
hemorrhaging money in Syria, and years of
sanctions have left it suffering from high
unemployment (a quarter of youth are jobless)
and the world’s second-highest inflation rate
(20 percent ), despite a minor boost provided by
an interim nuclear agreement. Now, however,
Iran’s economic woes are beginning to affect
its ability to project power across the region,
potentially leaving its most dangerous
international proxy in the lurch.
Sources close to Hezbollah told Lebanese media
last week that Iranian funds to the group are
drying up. In the words of Hezbollah expert
Matthew Levitt, “Iran is not in good financial
shape; the money from Tehran [to Hezbollah]
doesn’t come as it used to.” As a result, the
group’s military wing has reportedly ordered
its overseas cells and external security units
to find new revenue streams, and its social
services have also had to cut costs.
Over the past three decades, Tehran has
funded Hezbollah terrorism around the world,
from its 1983 bombings of US and French
barracks in Beirut that killed 299 servicemen,
to attacks in the early 1990s at Jewish and
Israeli centers in Argentina that killed 114.
That relationship has continued to this day—
in 2012 Hezbollah bombed an Israeli tourist
bus in Bulgaria , killing six, and the same year
planned a similar attack in Cyprus. The group
has been accused of attacking diplomats as far
afield as India and Georgia, and last month
its operatives admitted to plotting attacks on
tourists in Thailand.
At the same time, Hezbollah also operates a
global network of criminal and narcotics
rings. In West Africa, it has made millions
trading in blood diamonds and arms. In
Colombia, its members have been convicted of
cocaine trafficking, and in the lawless border
areas between Argentina, Brazil, and
Paraguay it runs smuggling networks
transporting marijuana and tobacco. In the
US, officials have uncovered a multimillion-
dollar Hezbollah-run smuggling ring dealing
in drugs and cigarettes.
As less money comes in from Iran, Hezbollah
will likely have to turn to these illicit
operations even more to make up the
shortfall. Last week, however, a bill was
introduced to the US Senate that seeks to
challenge the group’s money-laundering and
logistics operations, designating Hezbollah as a
narcotics-trafficking and transnational
criminal organization. The bill would place
sanctions on individuals and firms conducting
any business with Hezbollah, severely
hindering the organization’s ability to
fundraise at a time when its coffers are
already drying up.
With its diminished financial prospects,
Hezbollah’s overseas cells could face an
accompanying decline in the group’s ability to
conduct both terror attacks and criminal
activity. The failure of its recent attacks in
Cyprus, India, Georgia, and Thailand indicate
that its operational capacity is already
compromised—something money troubles will
only exacerbate.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to bankroll the
Syrian government in its brutal three-year
war against rebel forces. Tehran is believed to
provide the Bashar al-Assad regime with
upwards of $600 million monthly to prosecute
the war and cover its fiscal deficit. For its part,
Hezbollah is itself losing money , pledging to
provide for the families of up to 500 of its
fighters killed in battle alongside Syrian
forces.
Rogue behavior carries costs. The Islamic
Republic’s nuclear program has devastated its
economy, raising fuel, food, and energy prices
for ordinary Iranians. Its three-year
campaign to save the Syrian regime is
bleeding its bank accounts, and damaging its
ability to fund terror beyond its borders.
The Syrian tragedy has claimed as many as
160,000 lives , with no end in sight. Still, in the
dark clouds above Damascus a silver lining
may be emerging: the weakening of the
Islamic Republic and its most dangerous
proxy.
3 Jun 2014
FOREIGN AIDS
Foreign aid or (development assistance) is
often regarded as being too much, or wasted
on corrupt recipient governments despite any
good intentions from donor countries. In
reality, both the quantity and quality of aid
have been poor and donor nations have not
been held to account.
There are numerous forms of aid, from
humanitarian emergency assistance, to food
aid, military assistance, etc. Development aid
has long been recognized as crucial to help
poor developing nations grow out of poverty.
In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to
give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National
Income) as official international development
aid, annually. Since that time, despite billions
given each year, rich nations have rarely met
their actual promised targets. For example,
the US is often the largest donor in dollar
terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms
of meeting the stated 0.7% target.
Furthermore, aid has often come with a price
of its own for the developing nations:
Aid is often wasted on conditions that
the recipient must use overpriced
goods and services from donor
countries.
Most aid does not actually go to the
poorest who would need it the most
Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich
country protectionism that denies
market access for poor country
products, while rich nations use aid as
a lever to open poor country markets
to their products
Large projects or massive grand
strategies often fail to help the
vulnerable as money can often be
embezzled away.
often regarded as being too much, or wasted
on corrupt recipient governments despite any
good intentions from donor countries. In
reality, both the quantity and quality of aid
have been poor and donor nations have not
been held to account.
There are numerous forms of aid, from
humanitarian emergency assistance, to food
aid, military assistance, etc. Development aid
has long been recognized as crucial to help
poor developing nations grow out of poverty.
In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to
give 0.7% of their GNI (Gross National
Income) as official international development
aid, annually. Since that time, despite billions
given each year, rich nations have rarely met
their actual promised targets. For example,
the US is often the largest donor in dollar
terms, but ranks amongst the lowest in terms
of meeting the stated 0.7% target.
Furthermore, aid has often come with a price
of its own for the developing nations:
Aid is often wasted on conditions that
the recipient must use overpriced
goods and services from donor
countries.
Most aid does not actually go to the
poorest who would need it the most
Aid amounts are dwarfed by rich
country protectionism that denies
market access for poor country
products, while rich nations use aid as
a lever to open poor country markets
to their products
Large projects or massive grand
strategies often fail to help the
vulnerable as money can often be
embezzled away.
TAX AVOIDANCE / HAVEN
We might notlike the idea
of paying taxes, but without it,
democracies will struggle to function, and will be unable to provide public services. This affects both rich and poor nations, alike.
Individuals and companies all have to pay
taxes. But some of the world’s wealthiest
individuals and multinational companies,
able to afford ingenious lawyers and
accountants, have figured out ways to avoid
paying enormous amounts of taxes. While we
can get into serious trouble for evading
payment of taxes, even facing jail in some
countries, some companies seem to be able to
get away with it. In addition, if governments
need to, they tax the population further to try
and make up for the lost revenues from
businesses that have evaded the tax man (or
woman).
Why would companies do this, especially
when some of them portray themselves as
champions of the consumer? The reasons are
many, as this article will explore. In
summary, companies look for ways to
maximize shareholder value. Multinational
companies are in particular well-placed to
exploit tax havens and hide true profits
thereby avoiding tax. Poor countries barely
have resources to address these — many have
smaller budgets than the multinationals they
are trying to deal with.
Yet, companies and influential individuals
also pour lots of money into shaping a global
system that they will hope to benefit from. If
the right balance can’t be achieved, not only
will attempts to avoid taxation and other
measures undermine capitalism (which they
claim they support) they will also undermine
democracy (for even responsible governments
may find it hard to meet the needs of their
population).
of paying taxes, but without it,
democracies will struggle to function, and will be unable to provide public services. This affects both rich and poor nations, alike.
Individuals and companies all have to pay
taxes. But some of the world’s wealthiest
individuals and multinational companies,
able to afford ingenious lawyers and
accountants, have figured out ways to avoid
paying enormous amounts of taxes. While we
can get into serious trouble for evading
payment of taxes, even facing jail in some
countries, some companies seem to be able to
get away with it. In addition, if governments
need to, they tax the population further to try
and make up for the lost revenues from
businesses that have evaded the tax man (or
woman).
Why would companies do this, especially
when some of them portray themselves as
champions of the consumer? The reasons are
many, as this article will explore. In
summary, companies look for ways to
maximize shareholder value. Multinational
companies are in particular well-placed to
exploit tax havens and hide true profits
thereby avoiding tax. Poor countries barely
have resources to address these — many have
smaller budgets than the multinationals they
are trying to deal with.
Yet, companies and influential individuals
also pour lots of money into shaping a global
system that they will hope to benefit from. If
the right balance can’t be achieved, not only
will attempts to avoid taxation and other
measures undermine capitalism (which they
claim they support) they will also undermine
democracy (for even responsible governments
may find it hard to meet the needs of their
population).
SYRIA UNREST
Syria is one of the oldest places where
civilization has thought to have started. Its
capital, Damascus, is one of the oldest
continuously inhabited cities in the world.
Throughout history it has seen many changes,
violent and otherwise.
Today it is comprised of a number of ethnic
groups, mostly Arab, though a reasonable
number of Kurds, Armenians are also
present. There have also been a number of
Iraqi refugees and the main Arab group are
themselves from different sects and
denominations.
Around January 2011, following on from the
Arab Spring where protests against ruling
regimes erupted in a number of Middle East
countries, protesters in Syria came out
demanding President Bashar al-Assad and his
government step down. In response, Assad
sent in troops with some cities and regions
being besieged for weeks and months. Both
pro and anti-government protest gatherings
have at times been large.
Criticism of Syria’s crackdown has been quite
widespread. The Arab League has responded
by suspending Syria’s membership. Syria
claims that it is fighting an insurgency that is
terrorist by nature and claimed Al Qaeda is
involved. It has not been possible to verify
that claim so many see it as a cynical excuse.
The ruling regime is a sect of Shia, so has
support from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah,
while the opposition is largely Sunni, thus
receiving support from other Middle East
countries, such as Saudi Arabia and others.
Thousands have been killed — civilians and
armed combatants. Some are asking the West
for a military intervention like there was in
Libya, but the US in particular is not keen on
another military intervention even though
they have been openly hostile and critical of
the Syrian ruling regime for many years.
China and Russia also have close ties with
Syria and to date have not been keen on any
action condemning Syria and have even
vetoed some actions. Some papers have
reported Iran and others helping Syria with
weapons, while others also mentioned the
opposition being armed by the West.
civilization has thought to have started. Its
capital, Damascus, is one of the oldest
continuously inhabited cities in the world.
Throughout history it has seen many changes,
violent and otherwise.
Today it is comprised of a number of ethnic
groups, mostly Arab, though a reasonable
number of Kurds, Armenians are also
present. There have also been a number of
Iraqi refugees and the main Arab group are
themselves from different sects and
denominations.
Around January 2011, following on from the
Arab Spring where protests against ruling
regimes erupted in a number of Middle East
countries, protesters in Syria came out
demanding President Bashar al-Assad and his
government step down. In response, Assad
sent in troops with some cities and regions
being besieged for weeks and months. Both
pro and anti-government protest gatherings
have at times been large.
Criticism of Syria’s crackdown has been quite
widespread. The Arab League has responded
by suspending Syria’s membership. Syria
claims that it is fighting an insurgency that is
terrorist by nature and claimed Al Qaeda is
involved. It has not been possible to verify
that claim so many see it as a cynical excuse.
The ruling regime is a sect of Shia, so has
support from Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah,
while the opposition is largely Sunni, thus
receiving support from other Middle East
countries, such as Saudi Arabia and others.
Thousands have been killed — civilians and
armed combatants. Some are asking the West
for a military intervention like there was in
Libya, but the US in particular is not keen on
another military intervention even though
they have been openly hostile and critical of
the Syrian ruling regime for many years.
China and Russia also have close ties with
Syria and to date have not been keen on any
action condemning Syria and have even
vetoed some actions. Some papers have
reported Iran and others helping Syria with
weapons, while others also mentioned the
opposition being armed by the West.
GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
The global financial crisis,brewing for a while, reallystarted to show its effects inthe middle of 2007 and into2008. Around the world stock markets have fallen, large financial
institutions have collapsed or been bought
out, and governments in even the wealthiest
nations have had to come up with rescue
packages to bail out their financial systems.
On the one hand many people are concerned
that those responsible for the financial
problems are the ones being bailed out, while
on the other hand, a global financial
meltdown will affect the livelihoods of almost
everyone in an increasingly inter-connected
world. The problem could have been avoided,
if ideologues supporting the current
economics models weren’t so vocal,
influential and inconsiderate of others’
viewpoints and concerns.
institutions have collapsed or been bought
out, and governments in even the wealthiest
nations have had to come up with rescue
packages to bail out their financial systems.
On the one hand many people are concerned
that those responsible for the financial
problems are the ones being bailed out, while
on the other hand, a global financial
meltdown will affect the livelihoods of almost
everyone in an increasingly inter-connected
world. The problem could have been avoided,
if ideologues supporting the current
economics models weren’t so vocal,
influential and inconsiderate of others’
viewpoints and concerns.
ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animals are used for research in a variety of settings,
including tests to determine the safety of drugs,
cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not
humans should use animals for testing purposes,
however, is a controversial subject. There are both pros
and cons to using animals for testing, but the scientific
community, the government and society in general have
yet to reach a consensus on this ethical issue.
One of the primary advantages of animal testing is that
it allows researchers to develop new medications and
treatments, advancing the field of medicine and
enhancing the health of society. For instance, many
drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes,
infections and other medical maladies have resulted
from tests performed on animals. Many proponents of
animal testing support the practice for this reason, even
if they do not support testing cosmetics or other non-
essential substances on animals.
Animal testing also enables scientists and researchers
to test the safety of medications and other substances
with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for
instance, may pose significant risks to humans, so
testing them on animals first gives researchers a chance
to determine drugs' safety before human trials are
performed. While scientists are cognizant of the
differences between humans and animals, the
similarities are considered significant enough to produce
relevant, useful data that they can then apply to
humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans
and saves lives, not only because the exposure to risky
substances is minimized, but because resulting
medications and treatments have such positive impacts
on the overall quality of life experienced by humans.
Critiques of Animal Testing
One of the major disadvantages to animal testing is
that a significant number of animals are harmed or die
as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately,
many of the substances used on animal subjects never
receive approval for human use or consumption. Those
who oppose animal testing consider this a very
important point, because humans receive no direct
benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals.
Opponents also argue that animals are dissimilar
enough from humans to make the results of animal
tests unreliable. A related criticism is that testing
induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects
do not react to experimental substances in the same
way that they might in more natural circumstances,
making the results of experiments less valid.
Using animals as research subjects is also expensive,
because the animals require food, shelter, care and
treatment in addition to the costs of experimental
substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can
increase the costs of the practice as well. The actual
price paid for the animals is also worth consideration;
there are companies that breed and sell animals
specifically for testing purposes.
including tests to determine the safety of drugs,
cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not
humans should use animals for testing purposes,
however, is a controversial subject. There are both pros
and cons to using animals for testing, but the scientific
community, the government and society in general have
yet to reach a consensus on this ethical issue.
One of the primary advantages of animal testing is that
it allows researchers to develop new medications and
treatments, advancing the field of medicine and
enhancing the health of society. For instance, many
drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes,
infections and other medical maladies have resulted
from tests performed on animals. Many proponents of
animal testing support the practice for this reason, even
if they do not support testing cosmetics or other non-
essential substances on animals.
Animal testing also enables scientists and researchers
to test the safety of medications and other substances
with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for
instance, may pose significant risks to humans, so
testing them on animals first gives researchers a chance
to determine drugs' safety before human trials are
performed. While scientists are cognizant of the
differences between humans and animals, the
similarities are considered significant enough to produce
relevant, useful data that they can then apply to
humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans
and saves lives, not only because the exposure to risky
substances is minimized, but because resulting
medications and treatments have such positive impacts
on the overall quality of life experienced by humans.
Critiques of Animal Testing
One of the major disadvantages to animal testing is
that a significant number of animals are harmed or die
as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately,
many of the substances used on animal subjects never
receive approval for human use or consumption. Those
who oppose animal testing consider this a very
important point, because humans receive no direct
benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals.
Opponents also argue that animals are dissimilar
enough from humans to make the results of animal
tests unreliable. A related criticism is that testing
induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects
do not react to experimental substances in the same
way that they might in more natural circumstances,
making the results of experiments less valid.
Using animals as research subjects is also expensive,
because the animals require food, shelter, care and
treatment in addition to the costs of experimental
substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can
increase the costs of the practice as well. The actual
price paid for the animals is also worth consideration;
there are companies that breed and sell animals
specifically for testing purposes.
SMOKING BAN
A smoking ban is a public policy that includes criminal
laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in
certain public places and workspaces. There are varying
definitions of smoking employed in this legislation. The
strictest definitions define smoking as being the
inhalation of any tobacco substance while the loosest
define smoking as possessing any lit tobacco product.
There are many reasons why smoking bans originated,
but most of these have medical origins. Research has
shown secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as
smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand
smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung
disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are
common. Those who live in homes with smokers have a
20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than
those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as
unfair that others have to suffer the effects of
secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the
decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked
with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in
lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no
choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking
bans remove these risks for many people. The National
Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States
and National Institutes of Health all support smoking
bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.
Smoking bans are also imposed because they improve
air quality in restaurants and other establishments. In
New York, it is now illegal to smoke in all hospitality
venues. Studies by the Center for Disease Control have
shown the air quality in New York establishments to be
nine times higher than those in New Jersey where
smoking remains legal. Studies have also shown
employees are exposed to far fewer toxins in areas
where smoking is banned in the workplace. In Norway,
tests showed a decrease in the nicotine levels of both
smokers and nonsmokers when smoking bans were
enacted in the workplace.
Critics of Smoking Bans
Despite the positive effects on health and air quality,
many people are still opposed to smoking bans in the
United States. Critics in the smoking ban debate include
the well-known musician Joe Jackson as well as
Christopher Hitchens, a political critic. Usually, people
who oppose smoking bans see these laws as an
example of the government interfering in people's lives.
They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-
smokers who are subjected to second-hand smoke.
Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner
and draw distinctions between public places, such as
government buildings, and privately owned businesses,
such as stores and restaurants.
Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing
smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply
move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking
indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and
exposing a new set of people to their secondhand
smoke. Some have even argued that local bans on
smoking will increase DUI fatalities. Those who wish to
smoke will be forced to drive further away to do so,
althoughno evidence has been found to support this
theory.
Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and
more common in the United States. Whether the rights
of the non-smoker to breathe in fresh air outweigh
those of the smoker to smoke freely is a matter of
opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban
debate.
laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in
certain public places and workspaces. There are varying
definitions of smoking employed in this legislation. The
strictest definitions define smoking as being the
inhalation of any tobacco substance while the loosest
define smoking as possessing any lit tobacco product.
There are many reasons why smoking bans originated,
but most of these have medical origins. Research has
shown secondhand smoke is almost as harmful as
smoking in and of itself. The effects of secondhand
smoke are relatively the same as smoking. Lung
disease, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma are
common. Those who live in homes with smokers have a
20-30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than
those who do not live with a smoker. Many see it as
unfair that others have to suffer the effects of
secondhand smoke when they are not able to make the
decision for exposur to it. Non-smokers who worked
with smokers experienced a 16-19 percent increase in
lung cancer rates. In this case, the worker had no
choice but to face exposure to the smoke. Smoking
bans remove these risks for many people. The National
Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States
and National Institutes of Health all support smoking
bans because of the statistics of second-hand smoke.
Smoking bans are also imposed because they improve
air quality in restaurants and other establishments. In
New York, it is now illegal to smoke in all hospitality
venues. Studies by the Center for Disease Control have
shown the air quality in New York establishments to be
nine times higher than those in New Jersey where
smoking remains legal. Studies have also shown
employees are exposed to far fewer toxins in areas
where smoking is banned in the workplace. In Norway,
tests showed a decrease in the nicotine levels of both
smokers and nonsmokers when smoking bans were
enacted in the workplace.
Critics of Smoking Bans
Despite the positive effects on health and air quality,
many people are still opposed to smoking bans in the
United States. Critics in the smoking ban debate include
the well-known musician Joe Jackson as well as
Christopher Hitchens, a political critic. Usually, people
who oppose smoking bans see these laws as an
example of the government interfering in people's lives.
They look at the effects on smokers, not those on non-
smokers who are subjected to second-hand smoke.
Other critics emphasize the rights of the property owner
and draw distinctions between public places, such as
government buildings, and privately owned businesses,
such as stores and restaurants.
Some critics of smoking bans believe that outlawing
smoking in the workplace may cause smokers to simply
move their smoking elsewhere. Instead of smoking
indoors, workers may begin smoking in public parks and
exposing a new set of people to their secondhand
smoke. Some have even argued that local bans on
smoking will increase DUI fatalities. Those who wish to
smoke will be forced to drive further away to do so,
althoughno evidence has been found to support this
theory.
Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and
more common in the United States. Whether the rights
of the non-smoker to breathe in fresh air outweigh
those of the smoker to smoke freely is a matter of
opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban
debate.
RACIAL PROFILING
Racial profiling is a phrase often used in law
enforcement or the court system to refer to the use of a
person's ethnicity or race to decide on whether to
engage in some type of legal proceeding. The act itself
is very controversial and considered by many as illegal
and inappropriate.
Racial Profiling Debate
There are several definitions of racial profiling, including
those established by different offices like the Office of
the Arizona Attorney General. This office defines it as
"Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual's
race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable
suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual,
unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying
description of a specific suspect for a specific crime."
Most definitions are similar in that they identify that
some type of police action is being taken that relies on
the national origin or race or ethnicity of a person rather
than the actual behavior of the person in some manner
of criminal activity.
Racial profiling is also referred to as racially-biased
policing and can be broken up into a narrow definition
and a broad definition. The narrow definition is the most
commonly used definition with regards to a police
officer stopping, questioning, arresting or searching
someone based on his or her ethnicity or race. The
more broad definition looks at racial profiling as
occurring whenever police use race or ethnicity as a
factor when reacting with suspicion and action against
an individual.
Critics of racial profiling look to the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution to challenge the
practice. This amendment protects citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures without probable
cause. The Fourteenth Amendment is also used in legal
cases to support the right of citizens to be treated
equally under the laws of the United States.
In 2001, former President George W. Bush addressed a
Joint Session of Congress and declared that racial
profiling was wrong and that America was going to end
it. He went on to comment that the nation's police
officers need the support of the American people, and
due to the abuses of a few, they were hindered in doing
their jobs properly. Rather than being racially profiled,
law enforcement was being pigeon holed, although it
could be said they were experiencing a similar situation
to that of those individuals who were racially profiled. A
year later, Attorney General John Ashcroft shared
President Bush's sentiment and stated that using race
as an indicator of potential criminal behavior was
unconstitutional and undermined the criminal justice
system. A former policy regarding racial profiling was
issued by the Department of Justice in June of 2003
that forbade the practice by federal law enforcement
officials.
Police Profiling Debate
The racial profiling debate, however, seems to center on
whether or not the practice is really all that bad. Some
in the realm of law enforcement argue that the practice
is necessary and effective. They believe that due to
demographic and socio-economic factors and their
relation to crime, those in a large minority population
have a higher risk of participating in criminal activities.
They argue that ignoring the facts due to moral integrity
is professionally and morally wrong. If law enforcement
officers are to identify and take action against violators,
any information to assist them in being more effective is
crucial. Critics of racial profiling argue that individual
rights are violated when this practice is utilized. Civil
liberties organizations intimate that this type of profiling
is in fact a form of discrimination and undermines basic
human rights and freedoms. Researchers are interested
in collecting data and analyzing trends to see how this
information corresponds to perceptions of racial profiling
and the effects it has on ethnic groups.
enforcement or the court system to refer to the use of a
person's ethnicity or race to decide on whether to
engage in some type of legal proceeding. The act itself
is very controversial and considered by many as illegal
and inappropriate.
Racial Profiling Debate
There are several definitions of racial profiling, including
those established by different offices like the Office of
the Arizona Attorney General. This office defines it as
"Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual's
race or ethnicity as a factor in articulating reasonable
suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual,
unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying
description of a specific suspect for a specific crime."
Most definitions are similar in that they identify that
some type of police action is being taken that relies on
the national origin or race or ethnicity of a person rather
than the actual behavior of the person in some manner
of criminal activity.
Racial profiling is also referred to as racially-biased
policing and can be broken up into a narrow definition
and a broad definition. The narrow definition is the most
commonly used definition with regards to a police
officer stopping, questioning, arresting or searching
someone based on his or her ethnicity or race. The
more broad definition looks at racial profiling as
occurring whenever police use race or ethnicity as a
factor when reacting with suspicion and action against
an individual.
Critics of racial profiling look to the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution to challenge the
practice. This amendment protects citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures without probable
cause. The Fourteenth Amendment is also used in legal
cases to support the right of citizens to be treated
equally under the laws of the United States.
In 2001, former President George W. Bush addressed a
Joint Session of Congress and declared that racial
profiling was wrong and that America was going to end
it. He went on to comment that the nation's police
officers need the support of the American people, and
due to the abuses of a few, they were hindered in doing
their jobs properly. Rather than being racially profiled,
law enforcement was being pigeon holed, although it
could be said they were experiencing a similar situation
to that of those individuals who were racially profiled. A
year later, Attorney General John Ashcroft shared
President Bush's sentiment and stated that using race
as an indicator of potential criminal behavior was
unconstitutional and undermined the criminal justice
system. A former policy regarding racial profiling was
issued by the Department of Justice in June of 2003
that forbade the practice by federal law enforcement
officials.
Police Profiling Debate
The racial profiling debate, however, seems to center on
whether or not the practice is really all that bad. Some
in the realm of law enforcement argue that the practice
is necessary and effective. They believe that due to
demographic and socio-economic factors and their
relation to crime, those in a large minority population
have a higher risk of participating in criminal activities.
They argue that ignoring the facts due to moral integrity
is professionally and morally wrong. If law enforcement
officers are to identify and take action against violators,
any information to assist them in being more effective is
crucial. Critics of racial profiling argue that individual
rights are violated when this practice is utilized. Civil
liberties organizations intimate that this type of profiling
is in fact a form of discrimination and undermines basic
human rights and freedoms. Researchers are interested
in collecting data and analyzing trends to see how this
information corresponds to perceptions of racial profiling
and the effects it has on ethnic groups.
BORDER FENCE
The Mexico-United States barrier is the subject of a
great deal of controversy in the United States. Also
known as the border wall or border fence, it is
constructed of several barriers that are intended to keep
illegal Mexican immigrants from traveling across the
border into the United States. The barriers were
originally built as part of a three prong operation to
curtail drug transportation routes from Latin America as
well as illegal immigration. Operation Gatekeeper is in
California, Operation Safeguard is in Arizona and
Operation Hold-the-Line is in Texas.
The placement of the barriers was a strategic effort to
mitigate the flow of illegal border crossings into the
Southwest part of the United States. Unfortunately,
opponents of the barriers claim that they are a drain on
taxpayers' money and more of a political gambit. They
see the Mexico-United States barrier as an ineffective
deterrent to illegal immigration that ultimately and
inappropriately jeopardizes the safety and health of
people seeking sanctuary in the United States. Other
concerns involve the impact on the environment with
regards to animal habitats and migration patterns.
The border itself between Mexico and United States is
fraught with a mix of urban and desert terrain and
spans over 1,900 miles. Both the uninhabited areas of
the border and urban areas are where the most drug
trafficking and illegal crossings take place. Crime is
prevalent in urban cities like El Paso, Texas and San
Diego, California. The border is constructed of a series
of short walls and virtual fence areas that are monitored
by Border Patrol Agents through a system of cameras
and sensors. In the last 13 years, over 5,000 migrant
deaths occurred along the border according to a
document from the Human Rights National Commission
of Mexico.
In 2005, United States Representative Duncan Hunter
from California proposed a plan to construct reinforced
fencing along the entire border, including a 100-yard
border zone on the United States side. An amendment
to the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005 was passed that called
for mandatory fencing along 698 miles of the border. As
a result of the legislation, the government of Mexico, as
well as ministers of several Latin American countries,
condemned the construction plans. Rick Perry, the
governor of Texas, expressed his dissatisfaction and
indicated that the border should be open with a
technologically supported safe and legal migration.
Residents of Laredo, Texas were also displeased as
they were concerned about the economic ramifications
of the fence.
Public Opinion - The Border Defense Debate
In 2006, a CNN poll showed that most Americans
preferred the idea of more Border Patrol Agents rather
than a 700 mile fence. Congress revisited the fence
plans in 2007 as they wanted to see a comprehensive
border security plan, and senators from Texas
advocated a revision. The Secretary of Homeland
Security was able to see the fence plan to fruition
without any legal recourse due to a rider attached to the
Real ID Act of 2005. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation
Act and National Environmental Policy Act were all
waived when fencing was extended through a research
reserve near San Diego, California. The United States
Department of Homeland Security and United States
Customs and Border Protection spent over $40 million
and earmarked $50 million more to determine the
adverse effects the fence would have on the
environment. Despite these measures, by January 2010,
the fence project from Yuma, Arizona to San Diego,
California was completed. In March 2010, President
Barack Obama froze the expansion of the virtual fence
to use the money to upgrade current border technology
great deal of controversy in the United States. Also
known as the border wall or border fence, it is
constructed of several barriers that are intended to keep
illegal Mexican immigrants from traveling across the
border into the United States. The barriers were
originally built as part of a three prong operation to
curtail drug transportation routes from Latin America as
well as illegal immigration. Operation Gatekeeper is in
California, Operation Safeguard is in Arizona and
Operation Hold-the-Line is in Texas.
The placement of the barriers was a strategic effort to
mitigate the flow of illegal border crossings into the
Southwest part of the United States. Unfortunately,
opponents of the barriers claim that they are a drain on
taxpayers' money and more of a political gambit. They
see the Mexico-United States barrier as an ineffective
deterrent to illegal immigration that ultimately and
inappropriately jeopardizes the safety and health of
people seeking sanctuary in the United States. Other
concerns involve the impact on the environment with
regards to animal habitats and migration patterns.
The border itself between Mexico and United States is
fraught with a mix of urban and desert terrain and
spans over 1,900 miles. Both the uninhabited areas of
the border and urban areas are where the most drug
trafficking and illegal crossings take place. Crime is
prevalent in urban cities like El Paso, Texas and San
Diego, California. The border is constructed of a series
of short walls and virtual fence areas that are monitored
by Border Patrol Agents through a system of cameras
and sensors. In the last 13 years, over 5,000 migrant
deaths occurred along the border according to a
document from the Human Rights National Commission
of Mexico.
In 2005, United States Representative Duncan Hunter
from California proposed a plan to construct reinforced
fencing along the entire border, including a 100-yard
border zone on the United States side. An amendment
to the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal
Immigration Control Act of 2005 was passed that called
for mandatory fencing along 698 miles of the border. As
a result of the legislation, the government of Mexico, as
well as ministers of several Latin American countries,
condemned the construction plans. Rick Perry, the
governor of Texas, expressed his dissatisfaction and
indicated that the border should be open with a
technologically supported safe and legal migration.
Residents of Laredo, Texas were also displeased as
they were concerned about the economic ramifications
of the fence.
Public Opinion - The Border Defense Debate
In 2006, a CNN poll showed that most Americans
preferred the idea of more Border Patrol Agents rather
than a 700 mile fence. Congress revisited the fence
plans in 2007 as they wanted to see a comprehensive
border security plan, and senators from Texas
advocated a revision. The Secretary of Homeland
Security was able to see the fence plan to fruition
without any legal recourse due to a rider attached to the
Real ID Act of 2005. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation
Act and National Environmental Policy Act were all
waived when fencing was extended through a research
reserve near San Diego, California. The United States
Department of Homeland Security and United States
Customs and Border Protection spent over $40 million
and earmarked $50 million more to determine the
adverse effects the fence would have on the
environment. Despite these measures, by January 2010,
the fence project from Yuma, Arizona to San Diego,
California was completed. In March 2010, President
Barack Obama froze the expansion of the virtual fence
to use the money to upgrade current border technology
IS TORTURE THE LAST RESORT?
Terrorists have killed thousands of people across the
globe. These deaths are undeserved, and as a result
many people push for the torture of terrorists in order to
uncover information to prevent future attacks. The
torture debate, however, is hugely controversial subject
in modern society.
Arguments in Favor of the Torture Debate
First, there are a number of advantages to torturing
terrorism suspects. Information obtained from terrorists
is often incredibly time-sensitive. The information
obtained through torture is used for a variety of
purposes. If information is given about an attack taking
place in the future, military and government officials can
utilize that information in a timely manner to prepare for
an attack. Torture allows officials to obtain the
information in a timely fashion. Next, many argue that
terrorists are deserving of some extra punishment as a
result of all the death and misery that they have
caused. Torture is a means of providing that extra
punishment.
Torture is also justified by many because it is still
relatively humane compared to what terrorists to do
soldiers they capture themselves. Torture is considered
a good method to turn to when needed information is
not disclosed by terrorists. Lastly, when tortured, a
subject may supply information that was not even
requested by the interrogator. This information is often
incredibly useful, but officials do not always know the
right questions to ask.
Arguments Against the Torture Debate
While there are definitely some advantages for the
torture of terrorists, there are also many disadvantages.
Torture is considered by many experts as both
impractical and ineffective. When people are tortured,
the information supplied is often falsified; the person
undergoing torture does not have an ultimate goal of
supplying accurate information. Indeed, most torture
victims are not even capable of giving accurate
information. Instead, their main goal is simply to stop
the torture in order to allow pain or stress levels to
return to normal levels. Another disadvantage is the
high rate of attrition among interrogators. It is hard to
keep the interrogators psychologically sound when they
partake in such difficult activities.
Other disadvantages in regard to the torture debate
revolve around the psychology of interrogation regarding
the subject of the questioning. Those undergoing
interrogation and torture may consider themselves as
heroes, not criminals. Interrogators who torture are
perceived as dirty and immoral, making the subject even
more resistant to yield information. Last, torture causes
an array of negative opinions. Those who undertake
practices involving torture are perceived as evil, swaying
public and international opinion and potentially causing
a great number of negative effects.
globe. These deaths are undeserved, and as a result
many people push for the torture of terrorists in order to
uncover information to prevent future attacks. The
torture debate, however, is hugely controversial subject
in modern society.
Arguments in Favor of the Torture Debate
First, there are a number of advantages to torturing
terrorism suspects. Information obtained from terrorists
is often incredibly time-sensitive. The information
obtained through torture is used for a variety of
purposes. If information is given about an attack taking
place in the future, military and government officials can
utilize that information in a timely manner to prepare for
an attack. Torture allows officials to obtain the
information in a timely fashion. Next, many argue that
terrorists are deserving of some extra punishment as a
result of all the death and misery that they have
caused. Torture is a means of providing that extra
punishment.
Torture is also justified by many because it is still
relatively humane compared to what terrorists to do
soldiers they capture themselves. Torture is considered
a good method to turn to when needed information is
not disclosed by terrorists. Lastly, when tortured, a
subject may supply information that was not even
requested by the interrogator. This information is often
incredibly useful, but officials do not always know the
right questions to ask.
Arguments Against the Torture Debate
While there are definitely some advantages for the
torture of terrorists, there are also many disadvantages.
Torture is considered by many experts as both
impractical and ineffective. When people are tortured,
the information supplied is often falsified; the person
undergoing torture does not have an ultimate goal of
supplying accurate information. Indeed, most torture
victims are not even capable of giving accurate
information. Instead, their main goal is simply to stop
the torture in order to allow pain or stress levels to
return to normal levels. Another disadvantage is the
high rate of attrition among interrogators. It is hard to
keep the interrogators psychologically sound when they
partake in such difficult activities.
Other disadvantages in regard to the torture debate
revolve around the psychology of interrogation regarding
the subject of the questioning. Those undergoing
interrogation and torture may consider themselves as
heroes, not criminals. Interrogators who torture are
perceived as dirty and immoral, making the subject even
more resistant to yield information. Last, torture causes
an array of negative opinions. Those who undertake
practices involving torture are perceived as evil, swaying
public and international opinion and potentially causing
a great number of negative effects.
THUS TERM LIMITS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
Term limits ensure that elected public officials cannot
remain in power indefinitely. They do this by putting a
restriction on the number of terms someone may be
elected to a public office. Some term limit provisions
only restrict the number of consecutive terms a leader
may serve; others limit the total number of terms over a
lifetime. Lifetime terms limits are much more restrictive,
since an official may never again be a candidate for an
office in which she or he has served the limit of terms.
On the other hand, a limit to serving consecutive terms
means a politician could conceivably be re-elected to
the same seat over and over as long as there was a
break in between each period of service.
The practice of term limits goes back at least as far as
Ancient Greece and Rome, both societies which had
elected officials rather than a royal family or a
theocracy. Several modern presidential republics also
enforce term limits on a variety of offices. For example,
Mexico limits its president to one term of six years'
duration, and its congress people cannot serve
consecutive terms. The Russian Federation limits
consecutive terms for its president to no more than two.
In the United States, term limits date back to the
colonial period, when William Penn provided for triennial
rotation of the upper house of the colonial legislature in
his Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties. Currently, the
President of the United States can only serve two terms
as provided for in Amendment 22 to the Constitution,
but there are no restrictions on terms for the Vice-
President or for members of Congress. There have,
however, been calls for the introduction of term limits
for other national offices in an effort to prevent one
person, such as William Byrd in West Virginia or Teddy
Kennedy in Massachusetts, from virtually holding an
elected position for life.
Within the United States, policies on term limits for
officials elected to state or local offices vary, with some
localities enforcing them and others having no such
policy. Term limits are less common in countries that
have a parliamentary republic rather than a presidential
one, since the head of state often does not have a set
term of office at all; instead, he or she can be taken out
of power at any time upon losing the confidence and
support of the parliament. However, even in a
parliamentary system, some officials who serve a
particular term may have the amount of time they can
hold office limited.
Opponents of Term Limits
Critics in the term limit debate claim that they can be
arbitrary and end up preventing the best person for a job
from serving in it; at times, experience is more
important than fresh perspectives. Constant transition in
leadership can stall legislation and public works projects
before anyone benefits from them. In fact, over the
history of the United States, term limits have, at times,
been relaxed in order to allow a particularly strong
leader to stay in power in a crisis situation, as in the
case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Proponents of Term Limits
Proponents in the term limit debate argue that they
ensure a wider range of perspectives in government and
prevent power from being consolidated in one person,
which could easily happen due to the popularity or
privilege of a particular individual. Term limits offer an
automatic check on consolidation of power.
remain in power indefinitely. They do this by putting a
restriction on the number of terms someone may be
elected to a public office. Some term limit provisions
only restrict the number of consecutive terms a leader
may serve; others limit the total number of terms over a
lifetime. Lifetime terms limits are much more restrictive,
since an official may never again be a candidate for an
office in which she or he has served the limit of terms.
On the other hand, a limit to serving consecutive terms
means a politician could conceivably be re-elected to
the same seat over and over as long as there was a
break in between each period of service.
The practice of term limits goes back at least as far as
Ancient Greece and Rome, both societies which had
elected officials rather than a royal family or a
theocracy. Several modern presidential republics also
enforce term limits on a variety of offices. For example,
Mexico limits its president to one term of six years'
duration, and its congress people cannot serve
consecutive terms. The Russian Federation limits
consecutive terms for its president to no more than two.
In the United States, term limits date back to the
colonial period, when William Penn provided for triennial
rotation of the upper house of the colonial legislature in
his Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties. Currently, the
President of the United States can only serve two terms
as provided for in Amendment 22 to the Constitution,
but there are no restrictions on terms for the Vice-
President or for members of Congress. There have,
however, been calls for the introduction of term limits
for other national offices in an effort to prevent one
person, such as William Byrd in West Virginia or Teddy
Kennedy in Massachusetts, from virtually holding an
elected position for life.
Within the United States, policies on term limits for
officials elected to state or local offices vary, with some
localities enforcing them and others having no such
policy. Term limits are less common in countries that
have a parliamentary republic rather than a presidential
one, since the head of state often does not have a set
term of office at all; instead, he or she can be taken out
of power at any time upon losing the confidence and
support of the parliament. However, even in a
parliamentary system, some officials who serve a
particular term may have the amount of time they can
hold office limited.
Opponents of Term Limits
Critics in the term limit debate claim that they can be
arbitrary and end up preventing the best person for a job
from serving in it; at times, experience is more
important than fresh perspectives. Constant transition in
leadership can stall legislation and public works projects
before anyone benefits from them. In fact, over the
history of the United States, term limits have, at times,
been relaxed in order to allow a particularly strong
leader to stay in power in a crisis situation, as in the
case of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Proponents of Term Limits
Proponents in the term limit debate argue that they
ensure a wider range of perspectives in government and
prevent power from being consolidated in one person,
which could easily happen due to the popularity or
privilege of a particular individual. Term limits offer an
automatic check on consolidation of power.
DID WAR ON IRAQ PASS THE MESSAGE?
The Iraq War began on March 20, 2003 with the
invasion of Iraq by troops from the United States and
Great Britain. This war has also come to be known by
several other names including Operation Iraqi Freedom
and the Second Gulf War.
Before the invasion, the government of the United States
claimed that there was a possibility that Iraq was
storing weapons of mass destruction that posed a
threat to the wellbeing of the United States and other
nations. The United Nations asked Iraq to cooperate
with weapons inspectors and verify their possession of
cruise missiles and other weapons, but the nation's
officials were noncompliant. Surprisingly, none of these
weapons were ever discovered following the invasion.
This, along with several other incidents, has led to a
great controversy regarding the necessity of the Iraq
War.
Following the invasion of Iraq, the goals of the United
States and Britain changed somewhat. The invasion led
to an occupation by American and British troops and
the eventual capture of Saddam Hussein, the leader of
the Iraqi government at the time. Efforts were also
made to improve the quality of life of the people of Iraq
by removing the oppressive government and replacing it
with a democratic government that was more or less set
up by United States' officials.
Over 300,000 American and international troops were
involved in the invasion and matched up against an
Iraqi army of about 375,000. Thousands have lost their
lives on both sides. Over 16,000 Americans have lost
their lives and between 98,000 and 107,000 Iraqi
civilians have also been killed. This is one of the main
reasons why so many people have been opposed to the
war.
Human rights have been a very controversial issue
throughout the duration of the war. Both sides have
been accused of violating basic human rights with their
practices. The Iraqi government is criticized for their use
of torture and death squads and massacres of their
people. Many supporters of the war rally behind the
effort to end these practices. However, others argue
against the war because the other side has also been
using practices that could be considered inhumane.
White phosphorus was used in Iraq and has had
negative effects on the health of civilians. Many
bombings of American troops have also resulted in
civilian deaths.
Public Opinion of the War
The public Iraq War debate appears to resound largely
with disapproval. In 2007, BBC World Service polled over
26,000 people in 25 nations. They found that 73 percent
were opposed to the way the United States handled the
Iraq invasion. Another survey conducted in 2007 showed
that over two-thirds of people internationally believed
that the United States should withdraw from Iraq.
Withdrawals have since been initiated and President
Barack Obama supports the removal of troops in as
timely a manner as possible.
Citizens of nations in the Middle East also have mixed
opinions of the war. Over 60 percent of Saudi people
have a negative view of the war and ninety-six percent
of Jordan was opposed to the war as of 2007. The
majority of people in France, Jordan, Lebanon, China,
and Spain all believe that the world was safer before
the Iraq War.
Did the United States make a bad move in its invasion
of Iraq? Public opinions vary. The war has led to a large
number of casualties, but the Iraq War debate still
lingers on whether or not the invasion was ultimately
justified.
invasion of Iraq by troops from the United States and
Great Britain. This war has also come to be known by
several other names including Operation Iraqi Freedom
and the Second Gulf War.
Before the invasion, the government of the United States
claimed that there was a possibility that Iraq was
storing weapons of mass destruction that posed a
threat to the wellbeing of the United States and other
nations. The United Nations asked Iraq to cooperate
with weapons inspectors and verify their possession of
cruise missiles and other weapons, but the nation's
officials were noncompliant. Surprisingly, none of these
weapons were ever discovered following the invasion.
This, along with several other incidents, has led to a
great controversy regarding the necessity of the Iraq
War.
Following the invasion of Iraq, the goals of the United
States and Britain changed somewhat. The invasion led
to an occupation by American and British troops and
the eventual capture of Saddam Hussein, the leader of
the Iraqi government at the time. Efforts were also
made to improve the quality of life of the people of Iraq
by removing the oppressive government and replacing it
with a democratic government that was more or less set
up by United States' officials.
Over 300,000 American and international troops were
involved in the invasion and matched up against an
Iraqi army of about 375,000. Thousands have lost their
lives on both sides. Over 16,000 Americans have lost
their lives and between 98,000 and 107,000 Iraqi
civilians have also been killed. This is one of the main
reasons why so many people have been opposed to the
war.
Human rights have been a very controversial issue
throughout the duration of the war. Both sides have
been accused of violating basic human rights with their
practices. The Iraqi government is criticized for their use
of torture and death squads and massacres of their
people. Many supporters of the war rally behind the
effort to end these practices. However, others argue
against the war because the other side has also been
using practices that could be considered inhumane.
White phosphorus was used in Iraq and has had
negative effects on the health of civilians. Many
bombings of American troops have also resulted in
civilian deaths.
Public Opinion of the War
The public Iraq War debate appears to resound largely
with disapproval. In 2007, BBC World Service polled over
26,000 people in 25 nations. They found that 73 percent
were opposed to the way the United States handled the
Iraq invasion. Another survey conducted in 2007 showed
that over two-thirds of people internationally believed
that the United States should withdraw from Iraq.
Withdrawals have since been initiated and President
Barack Obama supports the removal of troops in as
timely a manner as possible.
Citizens of nations in the Middle East also have mixed
opinions of the war. Over 60 percent of Saudi people
have a negative view of the war and ninety-six percent
of Jordan was opposed to the war as of 2007. The
majority of people in France, Jordan, Lebanon, China,
and Spain all believe that the world was safer before
the Iraq War.
Did the United States make a bad move in its invasion
of Iraq? Public opinions vary. The war has led to a large
number of casualties, but the Iraq War debate still
lingers on whether or not the invasion was ultimately
justified.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
In operation since January 1, 1995, the World Trade
Organization regulates trade between the 153 member
nations who participate in the organization. The 153
member nations of the World Trade Organization
comprise more than 97% of total world trade. The
objective of the World Trade Organization is to stimulate
economic growth and promote free trade between
nations. The World Trade Organization provides a
framework for the negotiation and formalization of trade
agreements between the member nations as well as a
dispute resolution process aimed at enforcing World
Trade Organization agreements that have been executed
by government representatives of member nations.
Although the World Trade Organization technically
operates on a one country, one vote system, votes are
not actually ever taken. Instead, decision making in the
organization is usually by consensus with bargaining
power based primarily on relative market size. Although
the use of consensus in decision making increases the
likelihood that the ultimate decision will be widely
accepted, it is generally a slow process that ultimately
results in ambiguous agreements. Furthermore, the
consensus decision-making usually occurs through a
process of negotiations between small groups of nations
as opposed to by consensus of all member nations.
WTO Debate Controversy
The practice of consensus decision-making has sparked
a World Trade Organization debate, because critics
contend that many of the developing country members
of the World Trade Organization are often excluded from
the informal negotiations and, therefore, are excluded
from the main decision-making process. Furthermore,
critics of the World Trade Organization's consensus
model argue that it ultimately favors the United State
and Europe due to their greater relative market size.
These critics assert that the World Trade Organization is
biased in favor of wealthy nations and multinational
corporations and against smaller, poorer developing
nations. In support of their position, critics contend that
wealthy nations are able to maintain high import quotas
and duties in certain products, thereby blocking imports
from developing nations. Similarly, critics assert that
the World Trade Organization maintains high protection
of agriculture in developed nations while pressing
developing nations to open their markets. Thus,
opponents of the work of the World Trade Organization
argue that the organization is actually widening the very
sociological gap between the poor and the rich that it
claims to be correcting.
Other opponents in the World Trade Organization debate
argue that the World Trade Organization is so focused
on free trade that it is ignoring issues such as labor and
the environment. They contend that the organization
actually promotes the agenda of wealthy multinational
corporations that is aimed at free trade above the
interests of working families, local communities, and the
environment. These critics are concerned that an
emphasis on trade will be devastating to world natural
resources unless proper attention is paid to adequate
environmental regulation and resource management. In
support of their positions, critics point to the opposition
by the World Trade Organization to the laws in the
United States that protected sea turtles and those that
protected dolphins as well as to the clean air
regulations of the United States. Furthermore, the World
Trade Organization opposed the laws of the European
Union banning hormone-treated beef. The World Trade
Organization opposed these laws and regulations as
barriers to free trade. Furthermore, opponents argue
that the needs and rights of the labor market of the
member nations are being sacrificed on the altar of free
trade.
Organization regulates trade between the 153 member
nations who participate in the organization. The 153
member nations of the World Trade Organization
comprise more than 97% of total world trade. The
objective of the World Trade Organization is to stimulate
economic growth and promote free trade between
nations. The World Trade Organization provides a
framework for the negotiation and formalization of trade
agreements between the member nations as well as a
dispute resolution process aimed at enforcing World
Trade Organization agreements that have been executed
by government representatives of member nations.
Although the World Trade Organization technically
operates on a one country, one vote system, votes are
not actually ever taken. Instead, decision making in the
organization is usually by consensus with bargaining
power based primarily on relative market size. Although
the use of consensus in decision making increases the
likelihood that the ultimate decision will be widely
accepted, it is generally a slow process that ultimately
results in ambiguous agreements. Furthermore, the
consensus decision-making usually occurs through a
process of negotiations between small groups of nations
as opposed to by consensus of all member nations.
WTO Debate Controversy
The practice of consensus decision-making has sparked
a World Trade Organization debate, because critics
contend that many of the developing country members
of the World Trade Organization are often excluded from
the informal negotiations and, therefore, are excluded
from the main decision-making process. Furthermore,
critics of the World Trade Organization's consensus
model argue that it ultimately favors the United State
and Europe due to their greater relative market size.
These critics assert that the World Trade Organization is
biased in favor of wealthy nations and multinational
corporations and against smaller, poorer developing
nations. In support of their position, critics contend that
wealthy nations are able to maintain high import quotas
and duties in certain products, thereby blocking imports
from developing nations. Similarly, critics assert that
the World Trade Organization maintains high protection
of agriculture in developed nations while pressing
developing nations to open their markets. Thus,
opponents of the work of the World Trade Organization
argue that the organization is actually widening the very
sociological gap between the poor and the rich that it
claims to be correcting.
Other opponents in the World Trade Organization debate
argue that the World Trade Organization is so focused
on free trade that it is ignoring issues such as labor and
the environment. They contend that the organization
actually promotes the agenda of wealthy multinational
corporations that is aimed at free trade above the
interests of working families, local communities, and the
environment. These critics are concerned that an
emphasis on trade will be devastating to world natural
resources unless proper attention is paid to adequate
environmental regulation and resource management. In
support of their positions, critics point to the opposition
by the World Trade Organization to the laws in the
United States that protected sea turtles and those that
protected dolphins as well as to the clean air
regulations of the United States. Furthermore, the World
Trade Organization opposed the laws of the European
Union banning hormone-treated beef. The World Trade
Organization opposed these laws and regulations as
barriers to free trade. Furthermore, opponents argue
that the needs and rights of the labor market of the
member nations are being sacrificed on the altar of free
trade.
GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS?
Global warming is defined as an increase in the average
temperature of the earth's atmosphere. This trend
began in the middle of the 20th century and is one of
the major environmental concerns of scientists and
governmental officials worldwide. The changes in
temperature result mostly from the effect of increased
concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
These gasses, which include carbon dioxide and
methane, are mostly produced through human activity.
Global Warming Debate Controversy
The global warming debate has quickly become a source
of controversy. People disagree on how to address the
problem and some simply do not believe that global
warming is even occurring at all. Global warming is an
internationally recognized problem and many nations are
on board with addressing the issue in the most effective
manner possible. The Kyoto Agreement was called for a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and, as of
November 2009, was signed by 187 nations. Since
1750, there has been an overall increase of 90-250
percent in the release of carbon dioxide.
Climate Change
If global warming continues at the rate it is right now,
scientists warn against a large number of ill effects.
Decreases in the amounts of ice and snow in some
regions have already endangered many species and
continue to do so. Further global warming will also
result in a melting of the polar ice caps, which is
already occurring. This will lead not only to loss of
habitats, but also to a rise in the level of the ocean. A
rise in ocean levels could bury some of the coastal cities
and islands under miles of water and greatly reduce the
amount of land available for human life.
Climate change already impacts a large number of
species. For example, coral reefs and mangrove trees
have declined in numbers. There is also significant
evidence to support changes in forestry over the last
100 years. As global warming has sped up, there have
been a number of responses, both innate and planned.
Many animal species have responded by migrating to
cooler climates. Others have adapted and some are
simply close to extinction.
Political & Scientific Reaction
As far as politics go, the responses are just as varied.
Mitigation is common and calls for a reduction of
emissions and less reliance on fossil fuels. Coal burning
power plants are now replaced with hydraulic power
plants and electrical cars are replacing some gasoline
efficient cars. Many people, however, feel that this is
not enough. These "environmental radicals" want to see
a complete overhaul of the system and severe reduction
of any reliance on factories or machines that produce
greenhouse gasses. Some environmental radicals have
proposed a system called geo-engineering. This would
involve engineering the climate of the earth artificially
through removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
or blocking incoming sunlight. These techniques would
be particularly costly to develop, so they are strongly
opposed by supporters of mediation and simple policy
change.
When it comes down to it, most politicians and
scientists agree that the power to stop global warming
lies mostly with the people. Whether a supporter of
simple mediation and reduction of use or a believer in
dramatic overhauls such as geo-engineering, most
scientists agree that the more people who are on board,
the better. One survey found that over one-third of
people were completely unaware of global warming and
its effects. A great first step toward changing the
environment would be to educate these people.
temperature of the earth's atmosphere. This trend
began in the middle of the 20th century and is one of
the major environmental concerns of scientists and
governmental officials worldwide. The changes in
temperature result mostly from the effect of increased
concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
These gasses, which include carbon dioxide and
methane, are mostly produced through human activity.
Global Warming Debate Controversy
The global warming debate has quickly become a source
of controversy. People disagree on how to address the
problem and some simply do not believe that global
warming is even occurring at all. Global warming is an
internationally recognized problem and many nations are
on board with addressing the issue in the most effective
manner possible. The Kyoto Agreement was called for a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and, as of
November 2009, was signed by 187 nations. Since
1750, there has been an overall increase of 90-250
percent in the release of carbon dioxide.
Climate Change
If global warming continues at the rate it is right now,
scientists warn against a large number of ill effects.
Decreases in the amounts of ice and snow in some
regions have already endangered many species and
continue to do so. Further global warming will also
result in a melting of the polar ice caps, which is
already occurring. This will lead not only to loss of
habitats, but also to a rise in the level of the ocean. A
rise in ocean levels could bury some of the coastal cities
and islands under miles of water and greatly reduce the
amount of land available for human life.
Climate change already impacts a large number of
species. For example, coral reefs and mangrove trees
have declined in numbers. There is also significant
evidence to support changes in forestry over the last
100 years. As global warming has sped up, there have
been a number of responses, both innate and planned.
Many animal species have responded by migrating to
cooler climates. Others have adapted and some are
simply close to extinction.
Political & Scientific Reaction
As far as politics go, the responses are just as varied.
Mitigation is common and calls for a reduction of
emissions and less reliance on fossil fuels. Coal burning
power plants are now replaced with hydraulic power
plants and electrical cars are replacing some gasoline
efficient cars. Many people, however, feel that this is
not enough. These "environmental radicals" want to see
a complete overhaul of the system and severe reduction
of any reliance on factories or machines that produce
greenhouse gasses. Some environmental radicals have
proposed a system called geo-engineering. This would
involve engineering the climate of the earth artificially
through removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
or blocking incoming sunlight. These techniques would
be particularly costly to develop, so they are strongly
opposed by supporters of mediation and simple policy
change.
When it comes down to it, most politicians and
scientists agree that the power to stop global warming
lies mostly with the people. Whether a supporter of
simple mediation and reduction of use or a believer in
dramatic overhauls such as geo-engineering, most
scientists agree that the more people who are on board,
the better. One survey found that over one-third of
people were completely unaware of global warming and
its effects. A great first step toward changing the
environment would be to educate these people.
1 Jun 2014
WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
The War in Afghanistan (2001-present) began when the
United States military invaded Afghanistan on October 7,
2001. This war is still in progress today after 9 years
and 166 days. It has since been known by several other
names including The War on Terror and Operation
Enduring Freedom. The war was spurred by the attack
on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and
remains an ongoing conflict.
The invading troops were led by the United States with
the support of the North Atlantic Free Trade
Organization, or NATO. The United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Canada, Poland, Turkey, Spain, Romania, and 39
other nations all contributed to the initial effort. Over
146,000 troops were sent into Afghanistan from these
various nations. The main enemies at the start of the
war were the Taliban government of Afghanistan and Al
Qaeda, a large terrorist organization that was behind
the September 11th attacks. Other terrorist groups such
as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hi-Khalis were also targeted.
New terrorist organizations have since been discovered
and are being targeted as they are found.
The War on Terror has had many successes. The
Taliban was dispersed and over two thirds of its
leadership was destroyed. Many Al Qaeda camps were
destroyed, though there are still suspicions that the Al
Qaeda is still in operation from remote locations.
Afghanistan was also occupied by NATO troops, which
helps ensure that new terrorist groups are not coming
into power. The war is still being fought adamantly,
despite reduced media coverage in recent years. In
December of 2009, President Obama sent an additional
30,000 troops into Afghanistan over a 6 month period.
He also set a withdrawal date of 2014. He has
promoted human rights and progress towards increased
rights for women in Afghanistan as well.
Another goal of the War on Terror has been to improve
the human rights or women and children in Afghanistan.
The Taliban Party was infamous for denying women any
rights and committing violence against women and girls.
To this day, women in this nation have poor access to
the justice system and to education. They are also often
subject to physical violence. The United States and its
allies hope to improve this situation.
Afghanistan War Criticism
Many critics in the War in Afghanistan debate feel that
the war has been indirect in its approach and poorly
managed. They tend to feel that since there is no one
definite enemy, the war is set up for an indefinite
conflict. Another common criticism has been the large
number of civilian casualties. Somewhere between
14,000 and 26,000 innocent people have lost their lives
during the war, either by becoming caught in the
crossfire or in a bombing situation.
A number of protests against the war have been seen
throughout the world. Though the majority of Americans
were in support of the initial invasion, the majority of
Americans are now opposed to the war. Many see it as
an unnecessary act of aggression against the people of
Afghanistan. The NATO bombing campaigns are often
the focus of such sentiments. Many groups have
proposed non-violent solutions to the problem in
Afghanistan and wish to end the loss of civilian lives.
The War in Afghanistan started off as a fight against the
Taliban and Al Qaeda but has grown to a larger scale
effort to eliminate terrorism. Whether or not the United
States will indeed remove all troops by 2014 remains to
be seen. Regardless, the War in Afghanistan debate
remains at the center of public attention in the US and
abroad.
United States military invaded Afghanistan on October 7,
2001. This war is still in progress today after 9 years
and 166 days. It has since been known by several other
names including The War on Terror and Operation
Enduring Freedom. The war was spurred by the attack
on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and
remains an ongoing conflict.
The invading troops were led by the United States with
the support of the North Atlantic Free Trade
Organization, or NATO. The United Kingdom, Germany,
France, Canada, Poland, Turkey, Spain, Romania, and 39
other nations all contributed to the initial effort. Over
146,000 troops were sent into Afghanistan from these
various nations. The main enemies at the start of the
war were the Taliban government of Afghanistan and Al
Qaeda, a large terrorist organization that was behind
the September 11th attacks. Other terrorist groups such
as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hi-Khalis were also targeted.
New terrorist organizations have since been discovered
and are being targeted as they are found.
The War on Terror has had many successes. The
Taliban was dispersed and over two thirds of its
leadership was destroyed. Many Al Qaeda camps were
destroyed, though there are still suspicions that the Al
Qaeda is still in operation from remote locations.
Afghanistan was also occupied by NATO troops, which
helps ensure that new terrorist groups are not coming
into power. The war is still being fought adamantly,
despite reduced media coverage in recent years. In
December of 2009, President Obama sent an additional
30,000 troops into Afghanistan over a 6 month period.
He also set a withdrawal date of 2014. He has
promoted human rights and progress towards increased
rights for women in Afghanistan as well.
Another goal of the War on Terror has been to improve
the human rights or women and children in Afghanistan.
The Taliban Party was infamous for denying women any
rights and committing violence against women and girls.
To this day, women in this nation have poor access to
the justice system and to education. They are also often
subject to physical violence. The United States and its
allies hope to improve this situation.
Afghanistan War Criticism
Many critics in the War in Afghanistan debate feel that
the war has been indirect in its approach and poorly
managed. They tend to feel that since there is no one
definite enemy, the war is set up for an indefinite
conflict. Another common criticism has been the large
number of civilian casualties. Somewhere between
14,000 and 26,000 innocent people have lost their lives
during the war, either by becoming caught in the
crossfire or in a bombing situation.
A number of protests against the war have been seen
throughout the world. Though the majority of Americans
were in support of the initial invasion, the majority of
Americans are now opposed to the war. Many see it as
an unnecessary act of aggression against the people of
Afghanistan. The NATO bombing campaigns are often
the focus of such sentiments. Many groups have
proposed non-violent solutions to the problem in
Afghanistan and wish to end the loss of civilian lives.
The War in Afghanistan started off as a fight against the
Taliban and Al Qaeda but has grown to a larger scale
effort to eliminate terrorism. Whether or not the United
States will indeed remove all troops by 2014 remains to
be seen. Regardless, the War in Afghanistan debate
remains at the center of public attention in the US and
abroad.
UNITED NATIONS
The United Nations is an organization that focuses on
developing and enforcing international laws and policies.
The main goals of the UN are to achieve peace, social
progress and economic development. The organization
was founded after the end of World War II in 1945 as a
way of replacing the failing League of Nations. There
are currently 192 nations that are a member of the
United Nations, and this includes all sovereign nations
in the world except the Vatican. The Headquarters of the
United Nations is located in New York City in the United
States; the current President is Li Baodong of China.
The UN has several assemblies. The General Assembly
is the main body of the UN and meets yearly. Each
session lasts several weeks. During the first two weeks,
all members are given the opportunity to address the
assembly and bring items to the attention of the board.
The General Assembly also votes on important issues. A
two-thirds majority is needed in order to approve a law,
an election or expulsion of a member.
The Security Council is a division of the United Nations
whose goal is to maintain peace between nations. This
is the only council with the power to make binding
decisions which the members must carry out. All other
councils can only make recommendations. Fifteen
nations have members on the Security Council. Five of
these are permanent and ten are temporary. China,
Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United
States are the only permanent members.
The International Court of Justice is a division of the
United Nations that is responsible for international trials
and legal decisions. Its headquarters are located in the
Netherlands. This court has heard cases of war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and the like. The International Criminal
Court is a division that began operation in 2002. This
court judges those who have tried to commit war crimes
and genocide across several nations and have violated
international law in doing so.
The United Nations also includes several specialized
agencies that work on particular issues. For example,
the World Health Organization is dedicated to improving
the health status of those in impoverished nations and
ensuring that nations provide adequate health care for
their citizens.
Funding for the United Nations comes from voluntary
donations by member nations. The General Assembly is
responsible for overseeing the budget and determining
the capacity of each nation to pay based on their gross
domestic product, or GDP. Less developed nations are
asked to contribute less and instead advised to use
their resources to improve the status of their nations.
Debating the Effectiveness of the United Nations
In recent years, participants in the United Nations
debate have questioned the organization’s
effectiveness. Those who criticize the organization often
feel that the small administrative structure undermines
the UN's peace keeping mission. Also, there are few
repercussions in place for nations that do not follow
mandates. Permanent members of the Security Council
have been known to avoid mandates themselves
because they cannot lose their status as members as
easily. Still, many people believe that the United Nations
provides a great basis for international relationships.
Though the organization was founded over 50 years
ago, it is still able to oversee the international court
system and bring justice to many dangerous criminals.
Without the United Nations, the world would be a very
different place.
developing and enforcing international laws and policies.
The main goals of the UN are to achieve peace, social
progress and economic development. The organization
was founded after the end of World War II in 1945 as a
way of replacing the failing League of Nations. There
are currently 192 nations that are a member of the
United Nations, and this includes all sovereign nations
in the world except the Vatican. The Headquarters of the
United Nations is located in New York City in the United
States; the current President is Li Baodong of China.
The UN has several assemblies. The General Assembly
is the main body of the UN and meets yearly. Each
session lasts several weeks. During the first two weeks,
all members are given the opportunity to address the
assembly and bring items to the attention of the board.
The General Assembly also votes on important issues. A
two-thirds majority is needed in order to approve a law,
an election or expulsion of a member.
The Security Council is a division of the United Nations
whose goal is to maintain peace between nations. This
is the only council with the power to make binding
decisions which the members must carry out. All other
councils can only make recommendations. Fifteen
nations have members on the Security Council. Five of
these are permanent and ten are temporary. China,
Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United
States are the only permanent members.
The International Court of Justice is a division of the
United Nations that is responsible for international trials
and legal decisions. Its headquarters are located in the
Netherlands. This court has heard cases of war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and the like. The International Criminal
Court is a division that began operation in 2002. This
court judges those who have tried to commit war crimes
and genocide across several nations and have violated
international law in doing so.
The United Nations also includes several specialized
agencies that work on particular issues. For example,
the World Health Organization is dedicated to improving
the health status of those in impoverished nations and
ensuring that nations provide adequate health care for
their citizens.
Funding for the United Nations comes from voluntary
donations by member nations. The General Assembly is
responsible for overseeing the budget and determining
the capacity of each nation to pay based on their gross
domestic product, or GDP. Less developed nations are
asked to contribute less and instead advised to use
their resources to improve the status of their nations.
Debating the Effectiveness of the United Nations
In recent years, participants in the United Nations
debate have questioned the organization’s
effectiveness. Those who criticize the organization often
feel that the small administrative structure undermines
the UN's peace keeping mission. Also, there are few
repercussions in place for nations that do not follow
mandates. Permanent members of the Security Council
have been known to avoid mandates themselves
because they cannot lose their status as members as
easily. Still, many people believe that the United Nations
provides a great basis for international relationships.
Though the organization was founded over 50 years
ago, it is still able to oversee the international court
system and bring justice to many dangerous criminals.
Without the United Nations, the world would be a very
different place.
MINIMUM WAGES
Minimum wage is defined as the lowest amount that
employers can legally pay their workers per hour of
labor. Most jurisdictions do have laws in place to
enforce a minimum wage. However, there are both
benefits and drawbacks of this type of policy. Many
supporters of minimum wage say that it increases the
standard of living and keeps people out of poverty.
Those who are opposed to it tend to believe that it
increases unemployment and harms the less skilled
workers.
The first minimum wage law was passed in New
Zealand in 1894. Since then, many other nations have
adopted similar policies. In the United States, the
current minimum wage is $7.25. The state of
Washington has chosen to establish a higher minimum
wage of $8.67. These rates are not established
randomly. In fact, they are the result of much research
in the areas of economics, standard of living and
inflation. Labor supply and the effects of rising
unemployment are also considered when establishing
minimum wage.
Minimum wage laws were established and are upheld
with certain goals in mind. Those who support minimum
wage laws usually believe that these goals are being
adequately achieved and that this alone is enough
justification to keep the laws in place. Minimum wage
was initially established to reduce poverty. Establishing
a minimum wage in the United States helped do away
with sweat shops and insures that people are paid
properly for their work. Minimum wage also protects
younger workers and minorities from being paid less
than others to some extent.
Proponents of Minimum Wage
Many do believe that minimum wage laws achieve these
goals. They do ensure that workers on the low end of
the pay scale are not underpaid because of their gender
or race. They also do ensure that workers are given a
fair wage. However, their effect on society as a whole
and on those who are not currently employed is
questionable. Supporters of minimum wage also believe
that a minimum wage stimulates consumption and thus
puts more money into the economy by allowing low
paid workers to spend more. They also believe that it
may increase the work ethic of those who are paid little
and thus benefit employers. It also encourages people
to join the work force, rather than seek other illegal
means of earning money such as selling drugs or
prostitution.
Opponents of Minimum Wage
Some people who are opposed to the idea of minimum
wage believe that it is not accomplishing the goals it
was designed to meet. In several instances,
employment has decreased more than the increase in
wages and thereby overall earnings are still reduced.
Businesses are sometimes forced to hire fewer
employees because they must pay minimum wage.
Thus, fewer people have a job. Studies also show that
very few low-wage workers actually come from families
in poverty. Thus, minimum wage is more often imposed
on the sixteen-year-old worker with his first job than on
people who would otherwise be unemployed.
Other opponents of minimum wage believe that it can
cause price inflation as businesses must raise their
prices to accommodate the higher wages. They also
believe it discourages further education of the poor. The
United States currently has laws in place to ensure a
minimum wage. Whether or not these laws should
remain in place is a matter of debate. There are benefits
and downfalls to minimum wage laws and nothing is
cut and dry.
employers can legally pay their workers per hour of
labor. Most jurisdictions do have laws in place to
enforce a minimum wage. However, there are both
benefits and drawbacks of this type of policy. Many
supporters of minimum wage say that it increases the
standard of living and keeps people out of poverty.
Those who are opposed to it tend to believe that it
increases unemployment and harms the less skilled
workers.
The first minimum wage law was passed in New
Zealand in 1894. Since then, many other nations have
adopted similar policies. In the United States, the
current minimum wage is $7.25. The state of
Washington has chosen to establish a higher minimum
wage of $8.67. These rates are not established
randomly. In fact, they are the result of much research
in the areas of economics, standard of living and
inflation. Labor supply and the effects of rising
unemployment are also considered when establishing
minimum wage.
Minimum wage laws were established and are upheld
with certain goals in mind. Those who support minimum
wage laws usually believe that these goals are being
adequately achieved and that this alone is enough
justification to keep the laws in place. Minimum wage
was initially established to reduce poverty. Establishing
a minimum wage in the United States helped do away
with sweat shops and insures that people are paid
properly for their work. Minimum wage also protects
younger workers and minorities from being paid less
than others to some extent.
Proponents of Minimum Wage
Many do believe that minimum wage laws achieve these
goals. They do ensure that workers on the low end of
the pay scale are not underpaid because of their gender
or race. They also do ensure that workers are given a
fair wage. However, their effect on society as a whole
and on those who are not currently employed is
questionable. Supporters of minimum wage also believe
that a minimum wage stimulates consumption and thus
puts more money into the economy by allowing low
paid workers to spend more. They also believe that it
may increase the work ethic of those who are paid little
and thus benefit employers. It also encourages people
to join the work force, rather than seek other illegal
means of earning money such as selling drugs or
prostitution.
Opponents of Minimum Wage
Some people who are opposed to the idea of minimum
wage believe that it is not accomplishing the goals it
was designed to meet. In several instances,
employment has decreased more than the increase in
wages and thereby overall earnings are still reduced.
Businesses are sometimes forced to hire fewer
employees because they must pay minimum wage.
Thus, fewer people have a job. Studies also show that
very few low-wage workers actually come from families
in poverty. Thus, minimum wage is more often imposed
on the sixteen-year-old worker with his first job than on
people who would otherwise be unemployed.
Other opponents of minimum wage believe that it can
cause price inflation as businesses must raise their
prices to accommodate the higher wages. They also
believe it discourages further education of the poor. The
United States currently has laws in place to ensure a
minimum wage. Whether or not these laws should
remain in place is a matter of debate. There are benefits
and downfalls to minimum wage laws and nothing is
cut and dry.
MILITARY INTERVENTION
Military intervention is used by the American
government to control what the government perceives
as a foreign conflict. Military intervention is often the
target of protest as well. This multilateral protective
intervention has a number of pros and cons.
Military Intervention Debate Pros
There are a number of advantages to military
intervention. First and foremost, military intervention can
potentially save hundreds or even thousands of lives.
When a government or terrorist organization is inflicting
pain and death upon civilians, military intervention can
often stop the damage. Along those same lines, military
intervention can also force corrupt foreign governments
to disband and step down, saving countries from
corruption and harm.
Military intervention is often legally sanctioned by an
international organization, such as the United Nations.
This support and legality allows the actions to be
justified and not looked upon negatively by foreign
nations. The support also ensures that forces come
from around the globe, rather than just from one
country. Military intervention is a last resort, used when
peaceful methods of intervention are unsuccessful.
Military intervention can potentially deter future corrupt
and tyrannical governments from developing. Seeing
corrupt governments destroyed definitely helps to keep
new individuals from creating a similar government.
Cons to the Military Intervention Debate
While there are certainly some great advantages for
military intervention, there are also a great deal of
disadvantages. Military intervention is an extremely
violent and drastic measure that should be undertaken
only if extremely necessary. Unfortunately, governments
often fail to consider peaceful options, progressing
immediately to violence. Due to this desire to
immediately choose the violent option, interventions
often are not sanctioned. Congress typically does not
get a say, nor does the U.N. Ignoring international
support and sanctioning often means that the
intervention is unsuccessful due to lack of support.
There are no troops sent in from other countries, and
those responsible for the intervention are often
admonished.
Military interventions cause a great deal of deaths of
military personnel sent in to eliminate the conflict. There
is no international framework in place for military
intervention, especially outside of Europe. Without an
international framework, decisions and responsibilities
are often not well-considered. There is no oversight for
the intervention, leading to problems. Without rules and
guidance, interventions often fail, whether because of
poor strategy or lack of support.
government to control what the government perceives
as a foreign conflict. Military intervention is often the
target of protest as well. This multilateral protective
intervention has a number of pros and cons.
Military Intervention Debate Pros
There are a number of advantages to military
intervention. First and foremost, military intervention can
potentially save hundreds or even thousands of lives.
When a government or terrorist organization is inflicting
pain and death upon civilians, military intervention can
often stop the damage. Along those same lines, military
intervention can also force corrupt foreign governments
to disband and step down, saving countries from
corruption and harm.
Military intervention is often legally sanctioned by an
international organization, such as the United Nations.
This support and legality allows the actions to be
justified and not looked upon negatively by foreign
nations. The support also ensures that forces come
from around the globe, rather than just from one
country. Military intervention is a last resort, used when
peaceful methods of intervention are unsuccessful.
Military intervention can potentially deter future corrupt
and tyrannical governments from developing. Seeing
corrupt governments destroyed definitely helps to keep
new individuals from creating a similar government.
Cons to the Military Intervention Debate
While there are certainly some great advantages for
military intervention, there are also a great deal of
disadvantages. Military intervention is an extremely
violent and drastic measure that should be undertaken
only if extremely necessary. Unfortunately, governments
often fail to consider peaceful options, progressing
immediately to violence. Due to this desire to
immediately choose the violent option, interventions
often are not sanctioned. Congress typically does not
get a say, nor does the U.N. Ignoring international
support and sanctioning often means that the
intervention is unsuccessful due to lack of support.
There are no troops sent in from other countries, and
those responsible for the intervention are often
admonished.
Military interventions cause a great deal of deaths of
military personnel sent in to eliminate the conflict. There
is no international framework in place for military
intervention, especially outside of Europe. Without an
international framework, decisions and responsibilities
are often not well-considered. There is no oversight for
the intervention, leading to problems. Without rules and
guidance, interventions often fail, whether because of
poor strategy or lack of support.
LABOR UNIONS
A trade union, or as it is sometimes called a labor
union, is when a group of workers band together to
achieve goals related to their job. Trade Unions are
often in the news, especially when they are striking or
picketing. However, many people do not know the
history behind these organizations, what they do for
members and the pros and cons of trade unions.
Trade unions originated in Europe during the industrial
revolution. Because of the machinery that had become
commonplace, skilled labor became less in demand so
employers had nearly all of the bargaining power.
Employers mistreated the workers and paid them too
little for the work they did. Trade unions were organized
that would help in the improvement of working
conditions.
The concept of the trade union has evolved over the last
one hundred years, but the underlying concept is the
same. Union members want their employers to treat
them with respect and pay them a fair wage. During the
early and middle portions of the twentieth century,
laborers were a major force in America and around the
world. They have lost some of their influence in the past
few decades, mainly because of financial struggles.
The largest union organization in the United States
today is AFL-CIO, which has millions of members
across the country. What do trade unions do for their
members? It varies from union to union, and not every
union will offer every type of benefit. Unemployment
benefits and insurance are very common benefits and
are useful to members in many industries. Collective
bargaining and industrial action allow members to
negotiate with their employers over wages and working
conditions. A final activity that many unions participate
in is supporting candidates or lobbying for laws to be
passed or repealed.
Public Opinion – Labor Union Debate
With everything the media says about unions, one may
wonder if they are good for our economy and business
in the United States, or if they cause more harm than
good. This is a very good question, and there is no
simple answer. Unions can help workers in industries
that are regularly underpaid or mistreated. With a union,
workers do not have to worry that employers will
drastically cut pay or lay off worker with no notice. But,
with all of these benefits come some risk, and these
risks are what cause criticism of unions by the media.
Unions take the power out of the employer's hands on
many issues. There are examples of cases where
workers were engaging in sexual or racial harassment,
but were protected by their unions and allowed to keep
their jobs. Poor workers and excellent workers often
receive the same pay and raises, giving no reason for a
person to work harder than necessary at their job.
Unions can make workplace politics even more
complicated. There are a lot of issues to consider when
you look at unions. They will likely have a place in
certain industries for quite some time; however, they will
likely never reach the numbers and influence they held
in the early part of the twentieth century.
union, is when a group of workers band together to
achieve goals related to their job. Trade Unions are
often in the news, especially when they are striking or
picketing. However, many people do not know the
history behind these organizations, what they do for
members and the pros and cons of trade unions.
Trade unions originated in Europe during the industrial
revolution. Because of the machinery that had become
commonplace, skilled labor became less in demand so
employers had nearly all of the bargaining power.
Employers mistreated the workers and paid them too
little for the work they did. Trade unions were organized
that would help in the improvement of working
conditions.
The concept of the trade union has evolved over the last
one hundred years, but the underlying concept is the
same. Union members want their employers to treat
them with respect and pay them a fair wage. During the
early and middle portions of the twentieth century,
laborers were a major force in America and around the
world. They have lost some of their influence in the past
few decades, mainly because of financial struggles.
The largest union organization in the United States
today is AFL-CIO, which has millions of members
across the country. What do trade unions do for their
members? It varies from union to union, and not every
union will offer every type of benefit. Unemployment
benefits and insurance are very common benefits and
are useful to members in many industries. Collective
bargaining and industrial action allow members to
negotiate with their employers over wages and working
conditions. A final activity that many unions participate
in is supporting candidates or lobbying for laws to be
passed or repealed.
Public Opinion – Labor Union Debate
With everything the media says about unions, one may
wonder if they are good for our economy and business
in the United States, or if they cause more harm than
good. This is a very good question, and there is no
simple answer. Unions can help workers in industries
that are regularly underpaid or mistreated. With a union,
workers do not have to worry that employers will
drastically cut pay or lay off worker with no notice. But,
with all of these benefits come some risk, and these
risks are what cause criticism of unions by the media.
Unions take the power out of the employer's hands on
many issues. There are examples of cases where
workers were engaging in sexual or racial harassment,
but were protected by their unions and allowed to keep
their jobs. Poor workers and excellent workers often
receive the same pay and raises, giving no reason for a
person to work harder than necessary at their job.
Unions can make workplace politics even more
complicated. There are a lot of issues to consider when
you look at unions. They will likely have a place in
certain industries for quite some time; however, they will
likely never reach the numbers and influence they held
in the early part of the twentieth century.
INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Censorship refers to any action taken by a society to
control access to ideas and information. Throughout
history, many different types of societies, including
democracies, have used censorship in various ways. The
issue is increasingly important due to the rapid
development of new communication technology. As
innovators continue to create new ways for people to
share information, many people are now arguing over
the issue of censorship.
Pros and Cons of the Internet Censorship Debate
For the proponents of censorship, restricting the access
of information is something that can provide benefits to
society. By censoring pornography on the internet,
children are less likely to encounter it. By censoring
certain types of images and videos, society can prevent
offensive or vulgar material from offending those that it
targets. For example, some would argue that society
should censor material that is insulting to a particular
religion in order to maintain societal harmony. In this
way, censorship is viewed as a way to protect society
as a whole or certain segments of society from material
that is seen as offensive or damaging.
Some argue that censorship is necessary to preserve
national security. Without using any kind of censorship,
they argue that it is impossible to maintain the secrecy
of information necessary for protecting the nation. For
this purpose, censorship protects a state's military or
security secrets from its enemies who can use that
information against the state.
Those who are against censorship argue that the
practice limits the freedoms of speech, the press and
expression and that these limitations are ultimately a
detriment to society. By preventing free access to
information, it is argued that society is fostering
ignorance in its citizens. Through this ignorance,
citizens are more easily controlled by special interest
groups, and groups that are able to take power are able
to use censorship to maintain themselves. Additionally,
they argue that censorship limits a society's ability to
advance in its understanding of the world.
Another main issue for those who are against
censorship is a history of censorship abuse. Those who
argue against censorship can point to a number of
examples of dictators who used censorship to create
flattering yet untrue images of themselves for the
purpose of maintaining control over a society. They
argue that people should control the government instead
of the government controlling its people.
control access to ideas and information. Throughout
history, many different types of societies, including
democracies, have used censorship in various ways. The
issue is increasingly important due to the rapid
development of new communication technology. As
innovators continue to create new ways for people to
share information, many people are now arguing over
the issue of censorship.
Pros and Cons of the Internet Censorship Debate
For the proponents of censorship, restricting the access
of information is something that can provide benefits to
society. By censoring pornography on the internet,
children are less likely to encounter it. By censoring
certain types of images and videos, society can prevent
offensive or vulgar material from offending those that it
targets. For example, some would argue that society
should censor material that is insulting to a particular
religion in order to maintain societal harmony. In this
way, censorship is viewed as a way to protect society
as a whole or certain segments of society from material
that is seen as offensive or damaging.
Some argue that censorship is necessary to preserve
national security. Without using any kind of censorship,
they argue that it is impossible to maintain the secrecy
of information necessary for protecting the nation. For
this purpose, censorship protects a state's military or
security secrets from its enemies who can use that
information against the state.
Those who are against censorship argue that the
practice limits the freedoms of speech, the press and
expression and that these limitations are ultimately a
detriment to society. By preventing free access to
information, it is argued that society is fostering
ignorance in its citizens. Through this ignorance,
citizens are more easily controlled by special interest
groups, and groups that are able to take power are able
to use censorship to maintain themselves. Additionally,
they argue that censorship limits a society's ability to
advance in its understanding of the world.
Another main issue for those who are against
censorship is a history of censorship abuse. Those who
argue against censorship can point to a number of
examples of dictators who used censorship to create
flattering yet untrue images of themselves for the
purpose of maintaining control over a society. They
argue that people should control the government instead
of the government controlling its people.
GUN RIGHTS
The right to keep and bear arms fundamentally is the
assertion that people, either individually or collectively
as a militia, have a personal right to possess weapons.
Often, but not always, the arms at the forefront of the
conversation are firearms, though other kinds of
weapons are involved as well. Debates about the right
to keep and bear arms also usually involve issues such
as the right of individuals to defend themselves, their
families and their property as well as issues such as the
right to protect oneself even against one's own
government.
United States vs. United Kingdom
Although much of the history of the laws in the United
States have their basis in English common law, the
United States and the United Kingdom have very
different approaches to the issue of the right to keep
and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is
recognized in the United States Bill of Rights and has
been enacted as the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution. In contrast, in the United Kingdom,
neither English law nor Scottish law discusses the right
to bear and keep arms. Although they may carry pepper
spray or a side baton, even police officers in Great
Britain do not routinely carry firearms. Further, the
Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibited individuals from
carrying offensive weapons, such as firearms and
knives, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Moreover, the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1997
effectively banned in Great Britain the private possession
of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting
purposes.
Unlike the United Kingdom, which has taken a relatively
restrictive approach to the possession of arms, the
United States has taken a more lenient approach. In the
United States, three models have evolved regarding the
interpretation of the meaning of the right to bear and
keep arms as delineated in the Second Amendment.
Proponents of the first model, sometimes referred to as
the collective model, focus on the reference to a militia
in the preamble to the Second Amendment and argue
that the intent of the Second Amendment is to authorize
states to have a militia. Proponents of the second
model, sometimes referred to as the modified collective
model, contend that the right to bear and keep arms is
a right that is limited to individuals who are actively a
part of a militia in accordance with the regulations of
the militia. The third model, which is sometimes referred
to as the individual rights model, holds that the intent of
the Second Amendment is to ensure that individuals
have the right to own and possess firearms.
The third model has given rise to much debate about
whether the right of an individual to own and possess
firearms is unlimited or subject to the imposition of
reasonable limitations. Even among those who believe
the right to bear and keep arms is subject to limitation,
debate rages on about who may impose the limitations.
Should the regulation of firearms be exercised by the
federal government? Or should firearms regulation be
controlled by the individual states? Currently, in the
United States, each of the 50 states regulates firearms
within their own jurisdictions and in accordance with
their own regulations. Debate about the right to keep
and bear arms continues between those who desire
stricter control of firearms and those who believe any
control is unconstitutional.
assertion that people, either individually or collectively
as a militia, have a personal right to possess weapons.
Often, but not always, the arms at the forefront of the
conversation are firearms, though other kinds of
weapons are involved as well. Debates about the right
to keep and bear arms also usually involve issues such
as the right of individuals to defend themselves, their
families and their property as well as issues such as the
right to protect oneself even against one's own
government.
United States vs. United Kingdom
Although much of the history of the laws in the United
States have their basis in English common law, the
United States and the United Kingdom have very
different approaches to the issue of the right to keep
and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is
recognized in the United States Bill of Rights and has
been enacted as the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution. In contrast, in the United Kingdom,
neither English law nor Scottish law discusses the right
to bear and keep arms. Although they may carry pepper
spray or a side baton, even police officers in Great
Britain do not routinely carry firearms. Further, the
Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibited individuals from
carrying offensive weapons, such as firearms and
knives, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Moreover, the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1997
effectively banned in Great Britain the private possession
of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting
purposes.
Unlike the United Kingdom, which has taken a relatively
restrictive approach to the possession of arms, the
United States has taken a more lenient approach. In the
United States, three models have evolved regarding the
interpretation of the meaning of the right to bear and
keep arms as delineated in the Second Amendment.
Proponents of the first model, sometimes referred to as
the collective model, focus on the reference to a militia
in the preamble to the Second Amendment and argue
that the intent of the Second Amendment is to authorize
states to have a militia. Proponents of the second
model, sometimes referred to as the modified collective
model, contend that the right to bear and keep arms is
a right that is limited to individuals who are actively a
part of a militia in accordance with the regulations of
the militia. The third model, which is sometimes referred
to as the individual rights model, holds that the intent of
the Second Amendment is to ensure that individuals
have the right to own and possess firearms.
The third model has given rise to much debate about
whether the right of an individual to own and possess
firearms is unlimited or subject to the imposition of
reasonable limitations. Even among those who believe
the right to bear and keep arms is subject to limitation,
debate rages on about who may impose the limitations.
Should the regulation of firearms be exercised by the
federal government? Or should firearms regulation be
controlled by the individual states? Currently, in the
United States, each of the 50 states regulates firearms
within their own jurisdictions and in accordance with
their own regulations. Debate about the right to keep
and bear arms continues between those who desire
stricter control of firearms and those who believe any
control is unconstitutional.
EUROPEAN UNION
The European Union is a group of 27 member politically
and economically allied nations. The original union was
based on the trade of coal and steel between six
nations, but it has increased in size since 1958. The EU
has a single market and a set of laws that apply in all
states. People are allowed to move freely from state to
state, and goods and services are also traded freely. In
addition, the EU has its own currency, called the Euro.
Over 500 million people live in the EU, which is about 7
percent of the world population. The GDP is about 16.2
billion US dollars. However, there is still some
controversy regarding whether this is the best economic
arrangement for these European nations. Many believe it
benefits some nations and not others, but supporters
argue that it enhances all economies and builds
stronger cultural ties.
Potential Pros to the European Union Debate
One of the main pros of the EU is that people traveling
from nation to nation, which they often do in Europe,
only have to carry one form of currency. They do not
have to go through the hassle of making exchanges or
figuring out exchange rates.
Another benefit to this system is that it allows people to
move freely between nations, which makes it easier for
people to work internationally. People have more say in
where they live and can move to better climates if they
desire. Supporters of the EU also argue this
arrangement keeps more money in Europe, as it reduces
the amount of trade necessary with nations outside of
the EU. It also allows for competition with larger
nations, such as China and the United States, which is
not possible for small nations on their own.
Arguments to the European Union Debate
Those who are against the EU have several reasons for
their opinions. Many believe the Euro has contributed to
the economic crisis in Europe, since struggling member
nations tend to pull down the entire European Union.
Those that would not struggle on their own endure more
financial hardship as a result. Other opponents of the
EU believe it makes it harder to regulate the influx of
immigrants and refugees. Some nations may also lose
their skilled workers, since they can move to other EU
nations so easily.
Another criticism of the EU is that making changes in
laws across all involved nations costs money and
results in a rise in taxes. In addition, though the EU was
designed to prevent war, some believe disagreements
over policies could result in violence.
and economically allied nations. The original union was
based on the trade of coal and steel between six
nations, but it has increased in size since 1958. The EU
has a single market and a set of laws that apply in all
states. People are allowed to move freely from state to
state, and goods and services are also traded freely. In
addition, the EU has its own currency, called the Euro.
Over 500 million people live in the EU, which is about 7
percent of the world population. The GDP is about 16.2
billion US dollars. However, there is still some
controversy regarding whether this is the best economic
arrangement for these European nations. Many believe it
benefits some nations and not others, but supporters
argue that it enhances all economies and builds
stronger cultural ties.
Potential Pros to the European Union Debate
One of the main pros of the EU is that people traveling
from nation to nation, which they often do in Europe,
only have to carry one form of currency. They do not
have to go through the hassle of making exchanges or
figuring out exchange rates.
Another benefit to this system is that it allows people to
move freely between nations, which makes it easier for
people to work internationally. People have more say in
where they live and can move to better climates if they
desire. Supporters of the EU also argue this
arrangement keeps more money in Europe, as it reduces
the amount of trade necessary with nations outside of
the EU. It also allows for competition with larger
nations, such as China and the United States, which is
not possible for small nations on their own.
Arguments to the European Union Debate
Those who are against the EU have several reasons for
their opinions. Many believe the Euro has contributed to
the economic crisis in Europe, since struggling member
nations tend to pull down the entire European Union.
Those that would not struggle on their own endure more
financial hardship as a result. Other opponents of the
EU believe it makes it harder to regulate the influx of
immigrants and refugees. Some nations may also lose
their skilled workers, since they can move to other EU
nations so easily.
Another criticism of the EU is that making changes in
laws across all involved nations costs money and
results in a rise in taxes. In addition, though the EU was
designed to prevent war, some believe disagreements
over policies could result in violence.
BARACK OBAMA
Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th President of the
United States, and was sworn into office in November of
2008. Prior to his election to the Presidency, he served
as a Senator for the state of Illinois. He is the first
African American president and was born in Honolulu,
Hawaii in 1961. Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law
School and also holds a degree from Columbia
University. He is a member of the Democratic Party and
serves alongside Joe Biden, the current Vice President of
the United States of America. He has a wife named
Michelle and two children named Malia and Sasha. Like
many US Presidents before him, Obama has many fans
and critics who have varying opinions of his political
tactics and ability to rule the nation.
Pros and Cons of the Barrack Obama Debate
One of the main reasons many people like Obama is
that he comes off as a bright and assertive leader. This
makes him good at rallying the American public behind
certain causes. Many people also like the fact that he is
rather cautious. He thinks before he speaks, especially
when speaking to the public.
The political and economic policies Obama espouses are
also well-liked by a number of citizens. He is very
familiar with political and social issues that affect the
middle and lower classes, not just those of the wealthy.
Many supporters also believe that his religious
upbringing gave him a greater appreciation for the plight
of the oppressed. His actions as President have had the
goal improving the quality of life for those people. For
example, his healthcare plan has provided healthcare to
many Americans who never had care before. As far as
the economy goes, his supporters believe he has
realistic goals of transforming the American economy to
better deal with globalization. He takes into account the
fact that most Americans are concerned about rising
prices, and makes decisions that prevent entering
another Great Depression.
For every Obama supporter, there is someone who
believes that he does an inadequate job as President.
Critics believe that he is inattentive to military and
national security needs. He does not seem interested in
these matters and seems to focus largely on the
economy.
Some critics also believe that his ideas are too radical
and simply not feasible in today's economy. They
believe that giving more to the poor means taking more
from the middle and upper classes. For example, the
healthcare plan may bring care to the less fortunate, but
critics argue that it does so at the expense of others,
who may have to pay more for their care in the long
run.
United States, and was sworn into office in November of
2008. Prior to his election to the Presidency, he served
as a Senator for the state of Illinois. He is the first
African American president and was born in Honolulu,
Hawaii in 1961. Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law
School and also holds a degree from Columbia
University. He is a member of the Democratic Party and
serves alongside Joe Biden, the current Vice President of
the United States of America. He has a wife named
Michelle and two children named Malia and Sasha. Like
many US Presidents before him, Obama has many fans
and critics who have varying opinions of his political
tactics and ability to rule the nation.
Pros and Cons of the Barrack Obama Debate
One of the main reasons many people like Obama is
that he comes off as a bright and assertive leader. This
makes him good at rallying the American public behind
certain causes. Many people also like the fact that he is
rather cautious. He thinks before he speaks, especially
when speaking to the public.
The political and economic policies Obama espouses are
also well-liked by a number of citizens. He is very
familiar with political and social issues that affect the
middle and lower classes, not just those of the wealthy.
Many supporters also believe that his religious
upbringing gave him a greater appreciation for the plight
of the oppressed. His actions as President have had the
goal improving the quality of life for those people. For
example, his healthcare plan has provided healthcare to
many Americans who never had care before. As far as
the economy goes, his supporters believe he has
realistic goals of transforming the American economy to
better deal with globalization. He takes into account the
fact that most Americans are concerned about rising
prices, and makes decisions that prevent entering
another Great Depression.
For every Obama supporter, there is someone who
believes that he does an inadequate job as President.
Critics believe that he is inattentive to military and
national security needs. He does not seem interested in
these matters and seems to focus largely on the
economy.
Some critics also believe that his ideas are too radical
and simply not feasible in today's economy. They
believe that giving more to the poor means taking more
from the middle and upper classes. For example, the
healthcare plan may bring care to the less fortunate, but
critics argue that it does so at the expense of others,
who may have to pay more for their care in the long
run.
WAR ON TERROR
The War on Terror is an international campaign to end
terrorism. The effort is overseen by the United States
and the United Kingdom and also receives much support
from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.
The effort has included several wars, most recently the
Iraq War and also the War in Afghanistan. It is being
fought predominantly in the Middle East, but also in
Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa.
The War on Terror officially began on October 7, 2001
and was spurred by the attack on the World Trade
Center of the United States on September 11, 2001. The
initial phase of the War on Terror was the War in
Afghanistan. This resulted in the fall of the Taliban
government as well as the destruction of the Al 'Qaeda
camps. The Iraq War began in 2003 and has resulted in
the overthrow of the Baath Party government as well as
the execution of Saddam Hussein, the nation's former
leader. Free elections and a democratic government
have been instated in Iraq, but insurgency and loss of
civilian lives continues.
The phrase "War on Terror" was initially used by
President George W. Bush. However, it has not been
used by the administration of President Barack Obama.
Instead, this administration prefers to refer to the effort
as the Overseas Contingency Operation. This is largely
because the concept of a war on terror has been
criticized for its lack of a framework and defined enemy.
Proponents of the War on Terror
Proponents in the War on Terror debate commonly
support the cause because they believe the government
will be able to end terrorism through the effort. It has
been shown that ending terrorism is nearly impossible
and many people feel, in fact, that the world is less safe
since the invasion of Iraq.
Opponents of the War on Terror
Critics in the War on Terror debate commonly charge
that it has been exploited by governments to reduce civil
liberties and take away basic human rights. Many argue
that the term war is not appropriately used in this
context since there is no one enemy. Ken McDonald, the
Director of Public Prosecutions in the United Kingdom,
has stated that those responsible for terrorist attacks
like the London Bombings are not, in fact, soldiers.
Thus, they should be dealt with through the criminal
justice system, not through military action.
One other problem with the War on Terror is the lack of
agreement on the very definition of terrorism. Some who
are labeled terrorists in one nation may be considered
freedom fighters in another. In fact, citizens of Iran and
Venezuela commonly use the work "terrorism" to
describe the actions of the United States during the
War.
Some also believe that the War on Terror is very
inefficient in achieving its goals. In a 2005 paper, an
Oxford Group showed that the Al Qaeda was still alive
and active, despite efforts of American forces. George
Bush pledged that the War on Terror would not end until
every global terrorist group had been found and
defeated. This initially rallied support for the war, but
upon further examination proved to be rather unrealistic
and seems to denote a perpetual war.
terrorism. The effort is overseen by the United States
and the United Kingdom and also receives much support
from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.
The effort has included several wars, most recently the
Iraq War and also the War in Afghanistan. It is being
fought predominantly in the Middle East, but also in
Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa.
The War on Terror officially began on October 7, 2001
and was spurred by the attack on the World Trade
Center of the United States on September 11, 2001. The
initial phase of the War on Terror was the War in
Afghanistan. This resulted in the fall of the Taliban
government as well as the destruction of the Al 'Qaeda
camps. The Iraq War began in 2003 and has resulted in
the overthrow of the Baath Party government as well as
the execution of Saddam Hussein, the nation's former
leader. Free elections and a democratic government
have been instated in Iraq, but insurgency and loss of
civilian lives continues.
The phrase "War on Terror" was initially used by
President George W. Bush. However, it has not been
used by the administration of President Barack Obama.
Instead, this administration prefers to refer to the effort
as the Overseas Contingency Operation. This is largely
because the concept of a war on terror has been
criticized for its lack of a framework and defined enemy.
Proponents of the War on Terror
Proponents in the War on Terror debate commonly
support the cause because they believe the government
will be able to end terrorism through the effort. It has
been shown that ending terrorism is nearly impossible
and many people feel, in fact, that the world is less safe
since the invasion of Iraq.
Opponents of the War on Terror
Critics in the War on Terror debate commonly charge
that it has been exploited by governments to reduce civil
liberties and take away basic human rights. Many argue
that the term war is not appropriately used in this
context since there is no one enemy. Ken McDonald, the
Director of Public Prosecutions in the United Kingdom,
has stated that those responsible for terrorist attacks
like the London Bombings are not, in fact, soldiers.
Thus, they should be dealt with through the criminal
justice system, not through military action.
One other problem with the War on Terror is the lack of
agreement on the very definition of terrorism. Some who
are labeled terrorists in one nation may be considered
freedom fighters in another. In fact, citizens of Iran and
Venezuela commonly use the work "terrorism" to
describe the actions of the United States during the
War.
Some also believe that the War on Terror is very
inefficient in achieving its goals. In a 2005 paper, an
Oxford Group showed that the Al Qaeda was still alive
and active, despite efforts of American forces. George
Bush pledged that the War on Terror would not end until
every global terrorist group had been found and
defeated. This initially rallied support for the war, but
upon further examination proved to be rather unrealistic
and seems to denote a perpetual war.
IS COLLEGE EDUCATION WORTH IT?
The debate over whether a college education is worth it
may have begun when the colonists arrived from Europe
and founded "New College" (later renamed Harvard
University) in 1636. With 19.9 million US college
students in 2013 and average student debt at over
$26,500, the debate continues today.
People who argue that college is worth it contend that
college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger
salaries, and more work benefits than high school
graduates. They say college graduates also have better
interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children,
and have proven their ability to achieve a major
milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend
that the debt from college loans is too high and delays
graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or
getting married. They say many successful people never
graduated from college and that many jobs, especially
trades jobs, do not require college degrees.
Colonial America produced nine colleges that still
operate: Harvard University (1636), the College of
William & Mary (1693), Yale University (1701), Princeton
University (1746), Columbia University (1754), Brown
University (1764), Dartmouth College (1769), Rutgers
University (1766), and the University of Pennsylvania
(1740 or 1749). [3, 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85, 86 ]
These universities were funded by the colony or England
and usually catered to a specific religious denomination
such as Congregational or Presbyterian (Puritan). [3, 78,
79 , 80, 81 , 82, 83, 84 , 85, 86 ] Primary and secondary
school systems were not yet established so "college
students" were sometimes boys as young as fourteen or
fifteen years old and were admitted to receive
preparatory education with the assumption that they
would matriculate to college-level courses. [3 ]
may have begun when the colonists arrived from Europe
and founded "New College" (later renamed Harvard
University) in 1636. With 19.9 million US college
students in 2013 and average student debt at over
$26,500, the debate continues today.
People who argue that college is worth it contend that
college graduates have higher employment rates, bigger
salaries, and more work benefits than high school
graduates. They say college graduates also have better
interpersonal skills, live longer, have healthier children,
and have proven their ability to achieve a major
milestone.
People who argue that college is not worth it contend
that the debt from college loans is too high and delays
graduates from saving for retirement, buying a house, or
getting married. They say many successful people never
graduated from college and that many jobs, especially
trades jobs, do not require college degrees.
Colonial America produced nine colleges that still
operate: Harvard University (1636), the College of
William & Mary (1693), Yale University (1701), Princeton
University (1746), Columbia University (1754), Brown
University (1764), Dartmouth College (1769), Rutgers
University (1766), and the University of Pennsylvania
(1740 or 1749). [3, 78 , 79, 80, 81 , 82, 83 , 84, 85, 86 ]
These universities were funded by the colony or England
and usually catered to a specific religious denomination
such as Congregational or Presbyterian (Puritan). [3, 78,
79 , 80, 81 , 82, 83, 84 , 85, 86 ] Primary and secondary
school systems were not yet established so "college
students" were sometimes boys as young as fourteen or
fifteen years old and were admitted to receive
preparatory education with the assumption that they
would matriculate to college-level courses. [3 ]
WAS BILL CLINTON A GOOD PRESIDENT?
William Jefferson Clinton, known as Bill Clinton, served
as the 42nd President of the United States from Jan. 20,
1993 to Jan. 19, 2001.
His proponents contend that under his presidency the
US enjoyed the lowest unemployment and inflation rates
in recent history, high home ownership, low crime rates,
and a budget surplus. They give him credit for
eliminating the federal deficit and reforming welfare,
despite being forced to deal with a Republican-
controlled Congress.
His opponents say that Clinton cannot take credit for
the economic prosperity experienced during his scandal-
plagued presidency because it was the result of other
factors. In fact, they blame his policies for the financial
crisis that began in 2007. They point to his
impeachment by Congress and his failure to pass
universal health care coverage as further evidence that
he was not a good president.
Bill Clinton was born on Aug. 19, 1946 in Hope,
Arkansas. He graduated with a BS from the Georgetown
University School of Foreign Service in 1968, then
attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship,
then earned his JD from Yale Law School in 1973. He
married Hillary Rodham in 1975, and was first elected
Governor of Arkansas in 1978. After serving five terms
(12 years) as Governor, Clinton announced his
candidacy for US president on Oct. 3, 1991. Despite
scandals involving accusations of draft dodging and
cheating on his wife, Clinton and his running mate,
then-Senator Al Gore (D-TN), won the Nov. 3, 1992
election with 370 electoral votes and 43 percent of the
popular vote. [47 ] By defeating incumbent Republican
George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot, Clinton
became the first Democratic president in 12 years. [ 48].
At the age of 46, Clinton was the youngest president
since John F. Kennedy and the third-youngest ever. [ 1]
His campaign staff was also considered young and
inexperienced at dealing with the challenges of
transitioning from the campaign trail to the White
House. This led to some alleged missteps early in his
presidency, which were compounded by the inheritance
of problems such as the annual deficit being $60 billion
worse than the first Bush administration originally
admitted.
as the 42nd President of the United States from Jan. 20,
1993 to Jan. 19, 2001.
His proponents contend that under his presidency the
US enjoyed the lowest unemployment and inflation rates
in recent history, high home ownership, low crime rates,
and a budget surplus. They give him credit for
eliminating the federal deficit and reforming welfare,
despite being forced to deal with a Republican-
controlled Congress.
His opponents say that Clinton cannot take credit for
the economic prosperity experienced during his scandal-
plagued presidency because it was the result of other
factors. In fact, they blame his policies for the financial
crisis that began in 2007. They point to his
impeachment by Congress and his failure to pass
universal health care coverage as further evidence that
he was not a good president.
Bill Clinton was born on Aug. 19, 1946 in Hope,
Arkansas. He graduated with a BS from the Georgetown
University School of Foreign Service in 1968, then
attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship,
then earned his JD from Yale Law School in 1973. He
married Hillary Rodham in 1975, and was first elected
Governor of Arkansas in 1978. After serving five terms
(12 years) as Governor, Clinton announced his
candidacy for US president on Oct. 3, 1991. Despite
scandals involving accusations of draft dodging and
cheating on his wife, Clinton and his running mate,
then-Senator Al Gore (D-TN), won the Nov. 3, 1992
election with 370 electoral votes and 43 percent of the
popular vote. [47 ] By defeating incumbent Republican
George H.W. Bush and independent Ross Perot, Clinton
became the first Democratic president in 12 years. [ 48].
At the age of 46, Clinton was the youngest president
since John F. Kennedy and the third-youngest ever. [ 1]
His campaign staff was also considered young and
inexperienced at dealing with the challenges of
transitioning from the campaign trail to the White
House. This led to some alleged missteps early in his
presidency, which were compounded by the inheritance
of problems such as the annual deficit being $60 billion
worse than the first Bush administration originally
admitted.
DO ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE IMPROVES THE VOTING PROCESS?
Originally developed in the 1970s, direct recording
electronic (DRE) voting machines have become
increasingly used nationwide. After the 2000 US
presidential election's troubles with "pregnant” and
"hanging” chads and the subsequent passage of the
2002 Help America Vote Act which swelled use of DREs,
electronic voting technology became widely debated.
Proponents argue that electronic voting machines are
secure, able to unambiguously capture the intent of a
voter, capable of preventing residual votes, reliable, easy
to use, calculate and report voting results faster, and
are accessible to disabled, illiterate, and non-English
speaking voters.
Opponents of electronic voting machines argue that
DREs give too much power over public elections to their
private manufacturers, are vulnerable to hacking and
other forms of tampering, do not allow for meaningful
audits and recounts, and do not offer voters a
trustworthy way to verify their votes.
electronic (DRE) voting machines have become
increasingly used nationwide. After the 2000 US
presidential election's troubles with "pregnant” and
"hanging” chads and the subsequent passage of the
2002 Help America Vote Act which swelled use of DREs,
electronic voting technology became widely debated.
Proponents argue that electronic voting machines are
secure, able to unambiguously capture the intent of a
voter, capable of preventing residual votes, reliable, easy
to use, calculate and report voting results faster, and
are accessible to disabled, illiterate, and non-English
speaking voters.
Opponents of electronic voting machines argue that
DREs give too much power over public elections to their
private manufacturers, are vulnerable to hacking and
other forms of tampering, do not allow for meaningful
audits and recounts, and do not offer voters a
trustworthy way to verify their votes.
SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGAL?
Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted
suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should
have the right to end their suffering with a quick,
dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the
right to die is protected by the same constitutional
safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage,
procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving
medical treatment.
Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep
their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath.
They argue there may be a "slippery slope" from
euthanasia to murder, and that legalizing euthanasia
will unfairly target the poor and disabled and create
incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in
order to save money.
suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should
have the right to end their suffering with a quick,
dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the
right to die is protected by the same constitutional
safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage,
procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving
medical treatment.
Opponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
contend that doctors have a moral responsibility to keep
their patients alive as reflected by the Hippocratic Oath.
They argue there may be a "slippery slope" from
euthanasia to murder, and that legalizing euthanasia
will unfairly target the poor and disabled and create
incentives for insurance companies to terminate lives in
order to save money.
IS DRINKING MILK HEALTHY FOR HUMANS?
Milk is one of the most popular beverages in the United
States. We have been told it "does a body good," but
some scientific studies have found that contrary to
popular belief, drinking milk may do more harm to our
bodies than good.
Proponents of milk say calcium and other vitamins and
minerals in milk make it an important part of a healthful
diet for people of all ages. They argue that milk’s
benefits include weight loss, strengthening bones,
improved cardiovascular and oral health, cancer
prevention, and relief of PMS.
Opponents of milk argue that it contributes to obesity,
calcium deficiency, allergies, heart disease, cancer, and
other health ailments. They argue that claims regarding
milk's benefits are merely advertising campaigns
designed to promote dairy sales and
States. We have been told it "does a body good," but
some scientific studies have found that contrary to
popular belief, drinking milk may do more harm to our
bodies than good.
Proponents of milk say calcium and other vitamins and
minerals in milk make it an important part of a healthful
diet for people of all ages. They argue that milk’s
benefits include weight loss, strengthening bones,
improved cardiovascular and oral health, cancer
prevention, and relief of PMS.
Opponents of milk argue that it contributes to obesity,
calcium deficiency, allergies, heart disease, cancer, and
other health ailments. They argue that claims regarding
milk's benefits are merely advertising campaigns
designed to promote dairy sales and
IS OBESITY A DISEASE?
The United States is the second most obese
industrialized country in the world. [52] A 2013 report
stated that 31.8% of Americans were obese, compared
to 14% in the mid-1970s. [54] [52] Obesity accounts for
10% of deaths and healthcare spending in the United
States. [2]
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it
meets the definition of disease; it decreases life
expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the
body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease
because it is a preventable risk factor for other
diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is
caused by exercising too little
industrialized country in the world. [52] A 2013 report
stated that 31.8% of Americans were obese, compared
to 14% in the mid-1970s. [54] [52] Obesity accounts for
10% of deaths and healthcare spending in the United
States. [2]
Proponents contend that obesity is a disease because it
meets the definition of disease; it decreases life
expectancy and impairs the normal functioning of the
body; and it can be caused by genetic factors.
Opponents contend that obesity is not a disease
because it is a preventable risk factor for other
diseases; is the result of eating too much; and is
caused by exercising too little
IS (OBAMACARE) GOOD FOR AMERICA?
In March 2010, the US Congress passed HR 3590, the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and
HR 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation
Act of 2010. President Barack Obama signed them both
into law, along with Executive Order 13535 restricting
federal funds from being used for abortion services. On
Thursday June 28, 2012 the US Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the PPACA in a 5-4 ruling.
Proponents of the health care legislation have called it a
"historic victory" and "landmark legislation" that reforms
the US health care system by reigning in health care
costs, making health care more affordable, and
protecting consumers from unfair insurance practices.
They cite the Congressional Budget Office which reports
that by 2021, it will reduce the nation's deficit by about
$210 billion.
Opponents have called it a "socialist" and
"unconstitutional" government takeover of the health
care system that will increase the cost of health care,
decrease the quality, and entrench a new entitlement.
They say the law will increase the nation's deficit $340-
$700 billion over the next decade. In 2011 and 2012 the
House of Representatives voted 36 different times to
repeal or replace Obamacare.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and
HR 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation
Act of 2010. President Barack Obama signed them both
into law, along with Executive Order 13535 restricting
federal funds from being used for abortion services. On
Thursday June 28, 2012 the US Supreme Court upheld
the constitutionality of the PPACA in a 5-4 ruling.
Proponents of the health care legislation have called it a
"historic victory" and "landmark legislation" that reforms
the US health care system by reigning in health care
costs, making health care more affordable, and
protecting consumers from unfair insurance practices.
They cite the Congressional Budget Office which reports
that by 2021, it will reduce the nation's deficit by about
$210 billion.
Opponents have called it a "socialist" and
"unconstitutional" government takeover of the health
care system that will increase the cost of health care,
decrease the quality, and entrench a new entitlement.
They say the law will increase the nation's deficit $340-
$700 billion over the next decade. In 2011 and 2012 the
House of Representatives voted 36 different times to
repeal or replace Obamacare.
SHOULD ABORTION BE LEGAL?
The debate over whether or not abortion should be a
legal option continues to divide Americans long after the
US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade [49]
declared the procedure a "fundamental right" on Jan. 22,
1973.
Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice,
contend that choosing abortion is a right that should
not be limited by governmental or religious authority,
and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or
fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to
unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.
Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, contend
that personhood begins at conception, and therefore
abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human
being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn
child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when
couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to
adopt.
Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the
debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion
should only be used as a last resort, while others
advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under
any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from
opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting
it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman's life
is at risk.
legal option continues to divide Americans long after the
US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on Roe v. Wade [49]
declared the procedure a "fundamental right" on Jan. 22,
1973.
Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice,
contend that choosing abortion is a right that should
not be limited by governmental or religious authority,
and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or
fetus. They say that pregnant women will resort to
unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.
Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, contend
that personhood begins at conception, and therefore
abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human
being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn
child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when
couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to
adopt.
Variations exist in arguments on both sides of the
debate. Some pro-choice proponents believe abortion
should only be used as a last resort, while others
advocate unrestricted access to abortion services under
any circumstance. Pro-life positions range from
opposing abortion under any circumstance to accepting
it for situations of rape, incest, or when a woman's life
is at risk.
ARE SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES GOOD FOR OUR SOCIETY?
Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society?
47% of American adults used social networking sites like
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, and
Classmates.com in 2011, up from 26% in 2008. [26] On
social media sites like these, users may develop
biographical profiles, communicate with friends and
strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos,
music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the
online communities promote increased interaction with
friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and
students valuable access to educational support and
materials; facilitate social and political change; and
disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites
prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on
frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior
making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to
predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false
and potentially dangerous information. Read more...
Did You Know?
Pro & Con Arguments
Top Pro & Con Quotes
Background
Video Gallery
Comments
Social Networking ProCon.org is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit website that presents facts, studies, and pro
and con statements on questions related to social
networking and its impact on society.
Did You Know?
1. Social networking sites are a top news source for 27.8%
of Americans, ranking below newspapers (28.8%) and
above radio (18.8%) and print publications (6%). [1]
2. Students who used social networking sites while
studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who
used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus
non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82. [ 84]
3. 35 global heads of state, every US Cabinet agency, 84%
of US state governors, every major candidate for US
President, and more than 40% of top global religious
leaders are on Twitter. [157 ]
4. 10% of people younger than 25 years old respond to
social media and text messages during sex. [100 ] [173 ]
5. In July 2012 Americans spent 74.0 billion minutes on
social media via a home computer, 40.8 billion minutes
via apps, and 5.7 billion minutes via mobile web
browsers, a total of 121.1 billion minutes on social
networking sites. [ 147]
Background: "Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our
Society?"
47% of American adults used social networking sites like
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn, and
Classmates.com in 2011, up from 26% in 2008. [26 ] On
social media sites like these, users may develop
biographical profiles, communicate with friends and
strangers, do research, and share thoughts, photos,
music, links, and more.
Proponents of social networking sites say that the
online communities promote increased interaction with
friends and family; offer teachers, librarians, and
students valuable access to educational support and
materials; facilitate social and political change; and
disseminate useful information rapidly.
Opponents of social networking say that the sites
prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on
frivolous activity; alter children’s brains and behavior
making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to
predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false
and potentially dangerous information.
SixDegrees.com, which existed from 1997-2001, is
considered the first social networking site because it
allowed users to create personal spaces and connect to
friends online. Friendster, created in 2002, popularized
social networking in the United States but was quickly
outpaced by other social networking sites like: MySpace
(2003), Facebook (2004), Twitter (2006), Pinterest
(2009), and Google+ (2012). Facebook reported one
billion monthly users worldwide on October 4, 2012,
making it the most popular social networking site with
one in seven people on the planet using the site. [142 ]
Every day, Facebook manages 2.7 billion "Likes,” 300
million photo uploads, and 2.5 billion status updates
and check-ins. [143 ] Twitter, the second largest social
networking site, had an estimated 107.7 million users in
the United States (as of Jan. 31, 2012) [ 144] and 500
million worldwide users (as of Sep. 28, 2012). [ 172]
Pinterest is the third largest social network with 23
million unique visitors in July 2012, followed by
LinkedIn, Tagged, Google+, and MySpace [145 ] [146 ]
59% of all Internet users use at least one social
networking site and 56% of social networking users are
female. [ 26]
SHOULD THE UNITED STATES RETURN TO GOLD STANDARD?
Prior to 1971, the United States was on various forms of
a gold standard where the value of the dollar was
backed by gold reserves and paper money could be
redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United
States dollar has been a fiat currency backed by the
"full faith and credit” of the government and not backed
by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue it provides long-
term economic stability and growth, prevents inflation,
and would reduce the size of government. They say a
gold standard would restrict the ability of government to
print money at will, run up large deficits, and increase
the national debt. They say the economy has historically
performed best under a gold standard.
Opponents argue a gold standard would create
economic instability, spur periodic economic deflation
and contraction, and hamper government's ability to
stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during
recessions and financial crises. They say returning to a
gold standard would be extremely difficult given the
scarcity of gold and could severely harm the already
fragile US economy.
Since its founding in 1776, the United States has had a
variety of monetary systems including bimetallic
systems where the dollar was backed by both gold and
silver (1792-1862), a fiat monetary system
(1862-1879), a full gold standard (1879-1933), and a
partial gold standard (1933-1971). From 1971 to
present the United States has been on a fiat monetary
standard. [71 ]
a gold standard where the value of the dollar was
backed by gold reserves and paper money could be
redeemed for gold upon demand. Since 1971, the United
States dollar has been a fiat currency backed by the
"full faith and credit” of the government and not backed
by, valued in, or convertible into gold.
Proponents of the gold standard argue it provides long-
term economic stability and growth, prevents inflation,
and would reduce the size of government. They say a
gold standard would restrict the ability of government to
print money at will, run up large deficits, and increase
the national debt. They say the economy has historically
performed best under a gold standard.
Opponents argue a gold standard would create
economic instability, spur periodic economic deflation
and contraction, and hamper government's ability to
stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment during
recessions and financial crises. They say returning to a
gold standard would be extremely difficult given the
scarcity of gold and could severely harm the already
fragile US economy.
Since its founding in 1776, the United States has had a
variety of monetary systems including bimetallic
systems where the dollar was backed by both gold and
silver (1792-1862), a fiat monetary system
(1862-1879), a full gold standard (1879-1933), and a
partial gold standard (1933-1971). From 1971 to
present the United States has been on a fiat monetary
standard. [71 ]
DOES LOWERING THE FEDERAL CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATE CREATE JOBS?
The creation of the federal corporate income tax
occurred in 1909, when the uniform rate was 1% for all
business income above $5,000. Since then the rate has
increased to as high as 52.8% in 1969, and the single
rate has become eight different rates for different
income levels. Today's rate for companies with over
$18.3 million in income (the top category) is 35%.
Throughout US corporate tax history, Americans have
debated whether or not lowering the rate results in job
creation.
Proponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it incentivizes job creation in the United
States instead of overseas, encourages increased
investment in research and infrastructure, and passes
savings on to consumers through lower prices. They say
that the United States already has the highest corporate
income tax rates in the world, which creates a
competitive disadvantage for US businesses.
Opponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it results in more profits for corporations
without affecting job creation, and that unemployment
rates were the lowest in recorded US history during the
time when corporate income tax rates were highest.
They say that lowering the rate would increase the US
deficit, and that companies hire employees based on
need, not because of corporate tax rates.
occurred in 1909, when the uniform rate was 1% for all
business income above $5,000. Since then the rate has
increased to as high as 52.8% in 1969, and the single
rate has become eight different rates for different
income levels. Today's rate for companies with over
$18.3 million in income (the top category) is 35%.
Throughout US corporate tax history, Americans have
debated whether or not lowering the rate results in job
creation.
Proponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it incentivizes job creation in the United
States instead of overseas, encourages increased
investment in research and infrastructure, and passes
savings on to consumers through lower prices. They say
that the United States already has the highest corporate
income tax rates in the world, which creates a
competitive disadvantage for US businesses.
Opponents of lowering the corporate tax rate to create
jobs argue that it results in more profits for corporations
without affecting job creation, and that unemployment
rates were the lowest in recorded US history during the
time when corporate income tax rates were highest.
They say that lowering the rate would increase the US
deficit, and that companies hire employees based on
need, not because of corporate tax rates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)