What's going on in Libya and why you, as an American, should care.

What's going on in Libya and why you, as an American, should care.


As you know from the many news stories shown over only a short period of two months, many things in the Middle East and North Africa are changing. What started off as a government protest by an angry street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi has led to one of the most violent Arab world protests in many years. This not only led to two successful uprises in both Tunisia and Egypt but also to the extreme turmoil today in the country of Libya. Many people do not comprehend fully what is going on there, so let me break it down for all of you. Most people also do not realize just how much these protests will affect not only themselves but the economy as well.

Image Courtesy of: Wikimedia Commons

What's going on- The people of Libya have been under the oppressive regime of Muammar al-Gaddafi since 1969 and, quite frankly, they are fed up with it. Under this oppressive regime the people of Libya have suffered many injustices. Even the most basic human rights, freedom of speech and expression are denied there. While these practices are specifically deemed unjust by the United Nations, Gaddaffi simply does not care and most of the world does not seem to care either.

Why it is illegal- This is illegal for the most basic human reasons... it is wrong. Many other countries have not had to live under the oppressiveness that this regime presents and many Libyan people feel that they do not have to live this way either.

Why you should care- As seen in the Al Jazeera English video above you know that the Libyan government has not only opposed these protests but they have also met them with crushing opposition. In the interview, Gaddafi's son said that the Libyan situation is not like the Egyptian situation. Well, he was right, it was much worse. Also, I can only foresee it getting worse until the United States and it's allies can assist this rebellion. This region is one of instability and you, as an American, should want the most allies possible in that region. Libya could soon be one of our allies again if this situation is handled democratically and fairly by all parties.

How it affects you- This affects you as an individual in many ways. One of the most important things to Americans is saving money and one of the things that we tend to consume most of is oil. Libya, being one of the largest members of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) and a heavy supplier of oil to Europe, is a key factor in how much you pay at the pump every time you fill up gas. In fact, Gaddafi has said that he will halt shipping of oil until something is done to end the political uprising in the country. While, the Saudi government has promised to pick up the slack left by Libya at this time, it still may not be enough. It has even been confirmed that this summer gas might hit $4.00 a gallon and could even be averaging $5.00 a gallon by next year.

How it affects the United States- As any economists would tell you, oil is in everything you buy. Be it an actual oil product or a normal product that you wouldn't even consider to be oil related. Take an average, often thought to be, non-oil related item - shoes. While shoes are not "made with oil," it is still required in the production of the shoes. For example, everything from what is used to run the machines to the transportation used to bring those shoes to the United states will be more expensive due to the Libyan uprising. But other than a few harsh, but strategically tactful words by the Obama administration, Gaddafi has not actually been challenged too extensively on what he is doing.

How it affects the world- The world has also seen a lot of increased prices and decreased profits because of this. Because of the previously mentioned hike in prices of practically everything the stock prices of these companies have fallen as well. Be it the DOW or the NASDAQ, everything is being hurt by Gaddafi's stubbornness and refusal to step down and treat his people with respect. In fact, the only thing that the United Nations can do at this point, other than the already imposed numerous economic sanctions is establish a no-fly zone over Libya. In other words no airplanes or supplies will be able to flown over Libya at this time. Groundbreaking... No. But it's a start.

Ultimately nothing will change for the Libyan people unless the entire world pulls out the extra effort in order to help them because they will all benefit from it. The sheer necessity of oil that the entire world economy thrives on will benefit from this as well. Ultimately, I would like everyone to understand that it is within everyone's best interests (yes, yours too) to aid the Libyan people in their time of need.

Unilever Buys Out Alberto Culver

Buying Alberto Culver was the biggest transaction Unilever has done in 10 years. September 27th, 2010 Unilever had bought out Alberto Culver for $37.50 a share. Unilever had ran into some problems with buying out the entire business. In order to buy out the name Alberto Culver they would have to sell Simple, Cidal, and Wrights to so they wont be a monopoly. Analysts say Unilever's earning could boost 14 times before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. (Which means Unilever would profit from this, and not fall into debt, and not to mention it was paid cash). To me it seems that Unilever is the only one in the game after this deal is sealed. They own a huge supply of the market and with this investment it would make them a giant. The government passed the UK contracts this week allowing Unilever and Alberto to keep moving forward with the deal. The U.S contracts are still pending and will soon be announced to the public. Alberto Colver sells 65% of shampoos in the U.S and they also do amazing business in the UK, Mexico, and Canada.

My question is, what if Unilever can't get TRESemme their number 1 target? TRESemme is one of the best shampoos due to the fact that it comes in big quanity and quality and a cheap price. This deal could take years, so what if Unilever wants to walk away from the deal? People should think about selling their stock, because why risk 10% decrease for a 1% increase. There is nothing wrong with taking a profit, but why risk losing that. I am almost sure that this deal will pull through but what if it doesn't? All it takes is one deal to make you or break you. Why would Alberto sell though? It one of the most money strong companys in are economic times. Not many companys have that. It's going to put about 2000 people out of work in Illinois. It will hurt our economy more than it will help Unilever. It seems that Unilever is a monoply, it looks like its going against the anti-trust laws. We can only hope that everything pans out with these to companys

NFL CBA Expiration... Lockout?

The NFL

When Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers triumphed over their competition, thePittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLV, there were far more implications than who gets to bring home the Lombardi Trophy. In fact, the broadcast of Super Bowl XLV became the most-watched program in TV History racking up an average of 111 million viewers and 162.9 million viewers in total over the course of the game. Football has quickly become the most popular sport in this country and subsequently the most profitable, hauling in an annual revenue somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 Billion dollars. However, the problems surrounding the NFL lately have focused on how to divide up that money between the NFL and NFLPA (NFL Players Association). This dispute, which has loomed over every season since 2008, when the NFL owners opted out of the 1993 CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) has been carried into this year's off season as the focal point for NFL actions. During the super bowl, the NFLPA took out a 30 second ad that displayed the message, “Let us/them Play,” throughout its duration; I wish it was that simple.

The Dispute

For the past several months, every single one of those 162,900,000 fans have sat on edge as labor talks pressed onward. While the course of this dispute has been swept up in a media frenzy, many notable figures such as the President himself, have begun to weigh in; “You’ve got owners, most of whom are worth close to $1 billion. You’ve got players who are making millions are dollars. My working assumption at a time when people are having to cut back, compromise and worry about making the mortgage and paying for their kids’ college education is that the two parties should be able to work it out without the President of the United States intervening... I’m a big football fan, but I also think for an industry that is making $9 billion a year in revenue, they can figure out how to divide it up in a sensible way and be true to their fans who are the ones who, obviously, allow for all of the money that they are making,” – (President Obama) As is the case with many large businesses, the NFL as a whole, players and owners, showed a complete disregard for their customers or fans with the most recent development. It was a bleak weekend for NFL Owners, players, coaches and especially fans across the board. As of Saturday March 14, 2011, the NFLPA is (at least temporarily) no longer the exclusive collective bargaining agent of NFL players. What this means?........... LOCKOUT

(Image from Us.Fotolia.com)

What is a lockout?- a management action resisting employee's demands; employees are barred from entering the workplace until they agree to terms.

- Although the NFL has effectively been lead into a lockout, this will have no effect on whether or not there will be a season this September IF the Players and NFL can agree to a new CBA before then.

Out of the Conference room and into the Court Room

When talks began, the NFLPA, represented by executive director, DeMaurice Smith, and the NFL represented by commissioner Rodger Goodell met face to face at the table. When that failed, they turned to mediation, an alternative dispute resolution that calls for a mediator to watch over and facilitate discussions. However, 16 days at the office of a presidentially appointed federal mediator couldn't stop the Lockout from arriving. Within the course of a couple days following the NFL's declaration of a lockout, a class-action lawsuit has been brought on on behalf of the NFLPA against the NFL by 10 players including Tom Brady, Drew Brees, and Peyton Manning. As shocking as it is, three of the NFL's best players will now be serving as Plaintiffs. The court date has been set for April 6, 2011 as the dispute now lies in the hands of U.S. District Judge David Doty (who has presided in Minniapolis since 1993 and oversaw the last NFL labor dispute.)

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/625954-nfl-labor-talks-the-latest-news-surrounding-the-drama-in-washington-dc/page/2)

In the end, I can see no possible outcome in which the NFL will miss the next season due to the absence of a CBA or a lockout. If we have learned anything from past work stoppages in other sports such as the NHL in 2004, it is that it will certainly put a damper on the future growth and prosperity of the sport. The undeniable truth is that one side will have to give in eventually… for the fans' sake, I hope that moment is sooner than later but at least for now, all we can do is wait.

Albert Pujols Drama

If you are Major League Baseball fan you know who Albert Pujols is. For those of you who don't, he is arguably the best player in the game. In his 10 year career, all played as a St. Louis Cardinal, he has had incredible stats hitting over 400 home runs, almost 2000 hits, and has a career batting average of .331. Add to his resume 3 MVP's, and he is a sure to be future hall of famer. Pujols is now entering the final year of his current contract with the Cardinals and will become a free agent at the end of the season. Shouldn't he get the biggest contract if he is the best player then?



I believe so. Albert and his agent Dan Lozano set their negotiating deadline for a new contract to be February 16. The Cardinals had up until this date to try and renegotiate a contract with the star and failed to do so. Albert has said that he will not be bothered with contract talk during the season, so the Cardinals along with every other team will have a shot to sign him after the season ends.

The reason there was no agreement reached between the two parties was because of Pujols's demands. It has been rumored that he is asking for a 10 year $300 million contract. At $3o million a year, it would make him the highest paid player in baseball. That seems like a fair deal for having the best player in baseball on your team right? Well that is where it gets tricky. Pujols will be 32 next season and a 10 year deal would take him to 41 years old. In question now, is how well he will play at such an old age. It is not likely that he will be putting up the same numbers he is now, in 10 years. But he will still be paid an incredible amount of money for a potentially average performance.



The Cardinals tried to offer him an 8 year deal with a little less money but Pujols wouldn't budge. The Cardinals will not have enough cap space for a 10 year $300 million contract. Although Pujols has expressed that he "wants to be a Cardinal forever" he is not showing signs of loyalty to the club. It seems as if he is only interested in the money and will go to the highest bidder. Which teams would have the best chance of getting him then?

The Cardinals are the obvious front runner, but lurking behind are their division rival Chicago Cubs. The Cubs do not have a 1st baseman signed for next year and have the money to agree to the terms. When money seems to be the top priority the Yankees are always in the mix. With the team valued at $1.6 billion, they will have enough money to sign him, but to make room on the roster the Yankees would have to drop Mark Teixeira the current 1st baseman and pay the rest of his lucrative contract. The team has enough money to do so and would gladly do it to put Pujols in Pinstripes. Other teams amongst talk are the Blue Jays, Rockies, Giants, and Angels. Under the new MLB rules, Pujols will be free to negotiate as soon as the world series ends. Arbitration must be offered to Pujols by midnight on Nov. 23 if a club wants to keep its right to Draft-pick compensation. Draft-pick compensation is when a player signs with a new team and is classified by Elias Sports Bureau and a Type A player, the team that signs that player must give compensating draft picks to that players previous team. This, would be the only immediate downside to signing Pujols. We will just have to wait and see what happens at the end of the season to find out where Pujols will end his spectacular career.

Crocs Product Liability Case

The rubber shoe phenomenon has finally died down. The shoe manufacturer responsible for this fad is Crocs, Inc.. They have been faced with five product liability lawsuits regarding injuries from Crocs in result of escalator accidents. Eleven parents of the victims have filed product liability cases against this company and so far five have been awarded great sums of money. A particular accident happened when a young girl was behaving herself on the escalator. Her shoe got stuck, later resulting in broken bones. Compensations are being rewarded in order to help pay for hospital bills.

I believe that Crocs should take responsibility for these accidents. It is understanding that they were not aware of the problems that these shoes can cause when on an escalator. Similarly to the famous McDonald's coffee case, Crocs should immediately add a warning declaring the injuries that can result from these shoes. McDonald's now warns the drinker that contents in the cup may be hot. A simple sentence can stop any future cases from erupting.

Picture from http://photobucket.com/images/crocs/

FTC investigating Apple's App Store

Introduction

I'm sure you've heard of Apple products, such as the iPod, iPad, and iPhone. Well, these all run an App Store, where developers can post apps that Apple has approved, either for free or for sale. For paid apps, Apple gets a 30% cut of the price while the developer gets a 70% cut. This same setup is used in the Mac App Store as well.

Subscriptions

The Justice Department and FTC (Federal Trade Commission) are deciding whether the recently announced subscription service in the App Store is violating any United States antitrust laws. It seems as if Apple is forcing media companies' customers into using iTunes and the App Store as a payment source, which in turn gives Apple a 30% cut of the profit. Another big issue with the setup is that the developers are not allowed to have links to outside sources or other places where the customer may purchase content, because it would forgo the App Store as part of the purchase which would then take away Apple's 30% cut. Also, Apple's regulations state that the content can't have different prices at different sources (meaning if you buy directly from the developer's website, it can't be cheaper than buying it in the App Store, but the App Store version can be cheaper than outside versions). The article from The iPhone Blog also brings up a good point; several executives in the music industry are complaining because on top of having to pay the record labels royalties, they will not have to pay an additional 30% for any subscriptions sold in the App Store, which makes for a very anti-competitive business model. In addition to the revenue Apple makes from it's cut from the App Store, Apple also gets a cut from their advertising platform, called iAds. Engadget has posted that Rhapsody's official statement is that they will not comply with the new regulations. A Macworld article feels the opposite way, that there is no antitrust threat to Apple because of various reasons. The article says that in order for this claim to be true, plaintiffs would have to show that the new App Store rules prevent companies from selling their content. "Apple's conduct, while exclusionary, is not anti-competitive. A time-honored axiom in antitrust is that it's meant to protect competition, not competitors." This wouldn't be the first time Apple has been pressured into modifying the App Store's terms, though. As stated in a Rethink Wireless article, Forrester Research CEO George Colony thinks that Apple's success has gone to its head and it is overpricing subscription fees in the iTunes Store, which should be about 5% rather than 30%. Because of this new subscription scheme, Apple may infuriate valuable partners, such as the aforementioned Rhapsody.

In-App Purchases

The other subject the FTC is investigating is the subject of in-app purchases, especially in applications marketed towards children (such as Smurfs' Village). The argument they're making is that many children don't understand the difference between real and virtual purchases. The App Store requires the user to enter their password to complete an in-app purchase, but it saves the password for a short period of time. So, if you enter your password and your child goes to play a game, they can rack up very large amounts of in-app purchases without you even knowing. Back to the example of Smurfs' Village, it offers an in-app purchase called "WAGON OF SMURFBERRIES" for $99.99. Unknowingly, children agree to this and end up charging their parents accounts for large amounts of money.

Opinion

I think that while Apple has some right to a cut of the profit because they are supplying the bandwidth and absorbing credit card transaction fees, 30% is somewhat greedy. Apple recently announced that they've paid $2 billion to developers so far since the App Store has launched, which means their cut is close to $1 billion in revenue from the App Store alone. One justification that Apple does have in taking such a large cut is exposure. Without the App Store, many apps would have the exposure that they do and the ability to conveniently and easily be downloaded to many devices. In conclusion, I believe that Apple isn't justified in taking such a large cut from the app and the actual subscription cost, and that they shouldn't put so many limitations on developers. Often, developers would like to give a cheaper incentive on their own website compared to the App Store because there isn't as much overhead in terms of paying Apple a cut and they get more recognized as a developer. If Apple continues to be so greedy and place this many regulations, eventually the majority of the smartphone market will be saturated with Android devices rather an iOS devices because of the open-ness of the system compared to the highly regulated iOS.

What do you guys think? Do you think that Apple has a right to regulate prices of an application in other places than the App Store? What about Apple forcing all developers to remove outside links from the application? And what do you think about the FTC getting involved? Share your ideas in the comments!

Are teachers unions hurting education?

The educational system in America today is a bureaucratic nightmare that seems impossible to reform or correct. While you might be surprised to hear this, the US is not the most educated country in the world anymore, in fact it does not even crack the top ten. The US is 32nd internationally in math scores, 10th in science and 12th in reading. S0 why is the quality of education in the US dropping so much? The answer to that is teachers unions. Most Teachers Unions were established more than half a century ago to protect the rights of teachers because they were not getting fair and equal treatment, but today they are a wall impeding educational reform.
What the unions do is set up a policy where the teachers are paid a wage based on how much the union and the government agree on in collective bargaining. However, what collective bargaining does is give all teachers the same pay and rights without considering how good of a performance he or she is doing. It protects the lowest standard of teaching and if people wanted to motivate teachers to work harder we would have a merit based program that decides pay. Washington D.C. almost did. A couple of years ago Michelle Rhee, the superintendent of D.C. schools, tried to institute a new wage program that paid teachers based on how well the students learned. If teachers did a really good job they might even be able to earn twice their salaries at the time. It seemed like a program that would motivate teachers to work harder and provide results. The teachers union did not think so and killed the idea before it could even be put to a vote. If unions continue to protect the lowest standard of teaching then we can expect to have a lot stupider of a nation.
Unions are not just hurting the standard of teaching, but impending learning as a whole. According to Time Magazine the teachers union in Detroit forced the city to turn down a $200 million charitable gift to build 15 charter schools across the city because they were afraid how the influx of the new schools would affect them. Recently New York turned down a $700 million towards the school system for similar reasons. One of the reasons that unions turn down these offers that would build charter schools is because they would have a more aggressive evaluation of teachers, longer days and school years and more of an individualized theme compared to a group dynamic.
Tenure is another huge problem affecting the quality of teaching today. Tenure is when teachers a granted a permanent position at their jobs and it makes it extremely tough for schools to fire these teachers. One of the biggest reasons that it hurts teaching is because once some teachers are able to get it, they become lazy and lose motivation to be as good of a teacher. Personally, I come from a great school where every single teacher is the cream of the crop so this doesn't really affect me, but I know that it has had a profound effect on lots of schools from around the country. The collective bargaining done with teacher's unions has made it much easier for teachers to get tenure and even harder for schools to fire teachers. In New York they have this area known as the rubber room. What the rubber room is, is a place that teachers accused of misconduct go for usually around three years while their case is waiting to be heard. While in the room the teachers play games, read books, and spend their day doing menial tasks while collecting full pay. This is RIDICULOUS. The rubber room is costing over $35 million a year and the money is going to teachers who spend their day doing nothing. We could spend this money on the schools or invest it into the economy, but instead it's being wasted because teacher's unions have become so strong. Mayors and governors of New York won't go after this because they are afraid of the teacher's union. If something is not done soon then our whole school system will soon be not fixable and do we really want the next generation being brought up with a second class education? We have to take power away from the unions and start using a stricter standard to evaluate teachers. I'm lucky that I go to a school where my teachers all very good at what they do, but what about inner city kids who do not have the advantage that I've had in my life.

Bing Encroaching on Google's Territory?

The search giant, Google, revolutionized the industry in 1997 when it came out with it's relatively new way of searching. Instead of finding the number of times a word appeared on the page, the engine would rank pages by the number of pages and the importance of those pages. Now, many companies have followed suit, including Yahoo!, Dogpile, and more recently, Bing.

Lately, Bing and Google have been having issues over the search material and how Bing comes by its search results. Google is claiming that Microsoft is pulling search results from Google and using them as their own. While there has been no mention of any legal action on Google's part, the questions is, would it be valid?

The questions comes down to this: first, is Microsoft taking search results from Google, and if so, does it go against copyright and trademark laws? Does Google have the rights to the results of its searches?

First off, the question of whether Microsoft is taking search results from Google is a question for Bing. However, if Microsoft is indeed using search results from Google, that would be an infringement on Google's trademark of PageRank, the software that generates all of Google's search results. They would be using the program without Google's permission to make a monetary gain. However, unless Google can prove that Microsoft is using its search results for Bing, Google really does not have a case for trademark infringement.

The bigger question is whether Google has the sole rights to the results of its searches. Some would argue that Google is providing those results for free use, which means that anyone could use those results for their own and there would be no legal complications. However, Google's software PageRank is producing those results. Google does have the rights to the software, but it gives the results to millions of people on a daily basis. While some companies, such as Microsoft, may believe that this information is up for grabs, it shouldn't be. These other search engine companies should be required to have their own software for producing search results.

Did Liebeck deserve to win in the coffee case against McDonalds?

In the case Liebeck v. McDonalds, a 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck was severely burned from a cup of hot coffee after spilling it in her waist area. Accompanying her was her grandson, Chris. When Chris pulled up to the curb and parked the car, Stella Libeck clumsily splilled the extremely hot cup of coffee while trying to put in cream. This sounds like something that Stella had control of the whole time, and it was her fault that she carelessly spilled. After McDonalds denied Libeck's demand of $20,000 for medical bills, which, however, was actually $10,000, she hired Texas Attorney Reed Morgan to take on McDonalds. So just how hot was this coffee that burned Ms. Liebeck?

After hearing McDonald's own quality assurance manager say that the coffee was usually 180-190 degrees, give and take a little, people started to question Mcdonalds. McDonalds then countered with the fact that people like their coffee hot and is requested by the consumers for the great tasting results, then questioned Ms. Liebeck', asking her if she really thought the 180 degree coffee was ready to drink. Since McDonalds lost the lawsuit against Stella Liebeck; McDonalds is now forced to warn their customers about the coffee temperature by labeling each individual cup with the words, caution hot.

In the end of it all Stella Liebeck was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages based on its finding of reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct. When the jury heard that McDonalds income for coffee was around $1.34 million a day, they came to the conclusion that awarding Liebeck $2.7 million was reasonable. It went from Stella wanting $11,000 to her getting $2.7 million; in fact this trial will end all the other ones involving McDonald's coffee. What other ones are there? Before Stella's case, McDonalds had reported over 700 other people that have been victims of the extremely hot coffee. Many people look at this case as a frivolous lawsuit, meaning for Stella there was no chance of winning, but really she had a strong case that hundreds before her have tried to bring up. I believe that Stella Liebeck deserved to win this case, but any individual winning $2.7 million dollars has crossed the line, when really all she needed was around $11,000.

Toyota Sudden Acceleration

Everyone has heard about the latest Toyota recall. The sudden acceleration caused by improperly designed floor mats took the lives of 34 people. Although at first the Japanese car company refused to admit that the problem was in the manufacturing of the car, after hundreds of lawsuits, they admitted the issue. Right now 5.6 million vehicles in the U.S. have been recalled. According to a recent research Toyota accelerator recall lawsuits could cost $10 billion. A famous lawsuit was filed by two owners of a brand new Toyota-Seong Bae Choi and Chris Chan Park. They think that some of the blame for the sudden acceleration involves the electronics of the car, known as the ETCS-i. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Toyota case argue that Toyota has known about sudden unintended acceleration in its vehicles for nearly a decade The original design for the system included a feature that puts the engine into sleep mode in case of unintended acceleration. However, the company decided to sell the vehicles without the safety feature in 2001 resulting in many fatal accidents. Hiding the truth about floor mats and Failing to recall parts despite clear problems will put the company to a huge financial risk. The executives at Toyota knew about floor mat problems in 2008.On a recent conference they even bragged about saving 100 million by not recalling floor mats. These are some of the cars recalled by Toyota for faulty floor mats and sticky pedals: 2007-10 Camry, 2009-10 RAV4, 2009-10 Corolla, 2009-10 Matrix, 2005-10 Avalon, 2010 Highlander, 2007-10 Tundra, 2008-10 Sequoia. An earlier recall also involved Lexus models.

The invention by BMW- Smart Gas Pedals, may solve floor mat problem. The safety feature basically stops the engine when both the gas and brake pedal are pressed simultaneously. The feature only works when the vehicle is moving, so enthusiasts who want to launch the vehicle by revving the engine and holding down the brake will still be able to do so. A smart-pedal system is apparently something Toyota is considering as it attempts to deal with a safety problem involving floor mats that could cover millions of vehicles. But it would be costly, because they would have to pay for the BMW patent.

Solutions

· Remove Floor Mats

· Install Smart Pedals

· Changing Vehicle

Constitutionality of Obama Healthcare Plan

The Obama Healthcare Plan (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) is constitutional. The Act’s constitutionality has been challenged in many courts since its enactment. In many of those cases, the District Courts declared the PPACA unconstitutional. The Obama Healthcare Plan will cost many Americans their hard earned money, but precedent establishes that the Act is legal.In the first case to address the issue, the Act was found unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Virginia ruled that the individual mandate clause of the Act could be invalidated through a legal provision known as Section 1501. This provision states that a certain aspect of a law exceeds the constitutional boundaries of Congressional power. The individual mandate of the Healthcare Plan states that every American must have health insurance or they will face a penalty of a $625 or a collection of 2.5% of the individual’s salary, whichever is greater. Henry Hudson, the presiding judge, determined that the government’s defense that the individual mandate was protected under the Commerce Clause was inapplicable in this instance where U.S. citizens were forced to surrender their money to purchase something they may not want. Judge Hudson supported his ruling by explaining how that Act violated established Virginia law which prevented the state government from imposing penalties on individuals who had government commodities forced upon them. Judge Hudson ruled that only the individual mandate portion of the Act was unconstitutional, while the rest was legally acceptable. The second case in which the statute was found unconstitutional involved a coalition of 20 attorney generals, each representing their own state. They convened before Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Judge Vinson, like Judge Hudson, immediately found fault in the constitutionality of the individual mandate section of the Act. The defense raised the same arguments as in the Virginia suit. The ruling in Florida was much more disheartening for the PPACA. Judge Vinson ruled that the totality of the Healthcare Act was unconstitutional. Other cases were simultaneously fended off by the Obama Administration which in some instances resulted in findings that the Act is constitutional. Still other cases await ruling. Clearly, there is a split in the opinions of the various District Courts. The main question presented is what affect does the Act have on businesses and individuals? Many Americans are primarily opposed to the Act because the government is mandating that they purchase insurance. Businesses oppose the Act because of the increase in cost to their company’s insurance premiums. The Obama administration believes that by requiring multi-billion dollar insurance companies to make insurance affordable for all Americans, the best way for the insurance companies to continue to make money is to pass along the cost to corporate America and the wealthy. In the short term, this seems like a balancing act between the rich and the poor. In reality, the law’s requirement of providing affordable insurance to all Americans will create stability between the consumer and the insurance companies. The poor will have insurance to pay for their health care needs. They will not be dependent on Medicaid or government support. A new level of independence will be result. America will be healthier, and hopefully more jobs will be created. For those who complain that the Act is unconstitutional, they are incorrect. The Obama Healthcare Plan finds its precedent in a statute that dates back nearly eighty years. It is the very statute that the poor now rely on to pay for their healthcare needs. It is the same law that seniors rely on in their retirement. It was also vehemently opposed at the time of its enactment and challenged as unconstitutional. It is the Social Security Act. That ground-breaking statute from the last century set the precedent for the PPACA.The Social Security Act is now one of the longest standing government programs to provide economic safety and stability to those in need. It helped lift the country out of the Great Depression. The fundamental premise for that law is the same premise for this Act, and I am sure it will be cited as precedent by the Obama Administration when defending this Act before the United States Supreme Court.

Body Scanners... with benefits

Our country has been dealing with terrorist’s attacks and extremely dangerous threats for our nation for over two decades. The 1980’s was a period of great turmoil for many countries including the U.S. In a span of four years several airplane attacks occurred, killing hundreds of people around the world.
● A 747 explodes due to a bomb in a terrorist’s luggage over the North Atlantic killing more than 300 passengers.
● A 747 is bombed killing 270 passengers and crew members. This 747 was heading towards New York City.
● A French airliner explodes killing 170 people from 17 different countries.

Just to name a few of the numerous airplane casualties.
Back then, the government and the public did not react in the same way people react today। Draconian security measures were not implemented on U.S. airports, air traffic was not stalled, passengers’ personal items were not searched, and last but not least, people did not have to go through full x-ray body scanners and body pat downs by security officers in the airports.

How body scanners work
In 2010, a new security measure was introduced in U.S. airports; full x-ray body scanners. These scanners are able to detect any objects a passenger may have hidden on his/her body. If a potentially hazardous object is located, the security officers have the right to perform a body-search; essentially they have the right to pat down your body with out you being able to refuse that because then you would be even more suspicious.
The government claims that this security measure renders U.S. airports safer and less open to terrorist attacks. This might be true to an extent, however these scanners can not see through skin making it easy for terrorists to safely hide weapons and explosives in body cavities.

Use of Body Scanners

So since passengers and aircraft personnel are upset due to this security measure, which does not under any circumstance guarantee safe air traffic transportation throughout the United States, then why doesn’t the government recall these scanners? Well, to answer this question, we have to take into consideration the factors involved in the creation of body scanners.
The Transportation Security Administrator was planning on spending millions of dollars on body scanners. Three manufacturing companies with alleged governmental influences and connections were able to grasp this opportunity and be in charge of supplying U.S. airports with full body scanners.


The Manufactoring Companies

• L-3 Communications, a major contractor with the Department of Homeland Security and employee of three different lobbying firms, has a 163 million dollar scanner contract.
• Rapiscan- one of the company’s lobbyist is a former senior legislative aid, has a 173 million dollar naked-scanner contract.
• The American Science and Engineering Company- this company’s lobbyists include a former deputy administrator for the TSA, and a former administrator assistant at TSA। AS&E was the first full-body scanner contractors.

Each scanner costs approximately $130,000 to $170,000. President Obama’s budget request for this year requires $88 million necessary to install 500 new scanners throughout U.S. airports.
Personally I thought that body scanners were an attempt to increase our national security against attacks and prevent any potential terrorist from entering an aircraft. Now, thanks to the blog TSA Spend Millions on Body Scanners, Sparkin Competition Among Suppliers , I know that these scanners have a larger significance in politics rather than in safety issues. So what I am left to understand is that no matter how unjust it is, no matter the frustration of passengers and aircraft staff, and no matter how time and manpower consuming this security plan is, it will continue to exist in U.S. airports because there will always be $88 million in play.
The ultimate question remains whether body scanners are for our safety or for helping out certain companies to increase their profits.

How Can Gay Marriage Benefit Our Economy?

Suppose that you were only a fiscally conservative person who cared about reducing the massive amount of debt, but you were also tied down to your very conservative christian morals. I would say that, respectfully, your fiscal beliefs and moral beliefs are at odds. There are many examples of this that I could go into, but the one that is most clear is how gay marriage is actually good for the economy. In 2009 there were around 2,077,000 marriages. And in 2009 the average cost of a marriage was $19,581. This means that in 2009, at the height of the recession,

marriage was a $40,669,737,000 industry. This is a massive number that will only go up because people will spend more on weddings when the economy gets better.

So imagine that we are in a world where it was just announced, nation-wide that same sex couples could get married. This would lead to an increase in marriages and therefore more people spending money. The government gets some of this money directly from the license (typically $30 - $40 depending on the state or country) and a percentage of the cost of the wedding because of taxes. If we assume that everything is getting taxed a flat 8% tax (some places are higher some are lower), this would mean that the government is getting around $1,600 per wedding. Estimates indicate that this could mean an additional $10 million per state. If we further assume that gay marriages and account for 1% of all marriages (though it would probably be more), this could mean that there would be an additional $400 million into the economy throughout the nation. Again if people are spending more and total marriages are happening, all of these numbers goes up. This could turn out to be a big help to the government and businesses.

This may happen pretty soon. Obama has recently told the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because it violates the equal protection clause. This could mean a ripple effect through the nation with states giving full equal rights to same-sex couples. Boehner has defended DOMA basically saying that it is unconstitutional for the President to stop enforcing laws, especially those that have been on the books for 15 years. The House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group was not bipartisan when it had a 3-2 vote (Republicans 3, Democrats 2) to litigate the defense of DOMA. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote this letter wondering how much litigation would cost and asked if it would help create jobs.

We certainly know that defending DOMA won't create jobs and will stunt economic growth.