Pot or No Pot.... That is the Question!?

As most of you probably already know, the state of Colorado has legalized the recreational use of marijuana (aka Pot).  Surprisingly (or not), there exist to totally different viewpoints about this issue.

On the one side, you have the supporters that claim that marijuana is no greater of a harm than alcohol, which is legal, and even more importantly, it has been proven to have medical benefits.

Of course, on the other side, you have the group that are claiming that legalizing pot as a recreational drug will not have a good outcome.  Many of those oppose the drug as a recreational drug acknowledge the science of its medical benefits, but fear that legalizing it beyond that purpose will lead more and more young people to partake in this drug, which will have horrible ramifications in public schools and will most likely lead to heavier drug use (marijuana has been known for years as the "gateway drug" - a drug that eventually leads using more potent drugs).

I would highly encourage each of you to do a look at some of the NUMEROUS websites and blogs that are out there on both the negative and positive arguments to legalizing pot.  Trust me, there is a ton of pro/con arguments out there.... some legit and others (on both sides) that are just nuts.  I will say this, I heard someone on television today state that the move to do this is nothing more than a further sign of our nation "simply throwing up it's arms and declaring - we give up!"  Interesting viewpoint... in my opinion...

BLOG QUESTION:
What is your opinion about the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug?  Is it a bigger deal than what it is being portrayed or is it just an "older generation" making a big deal about nothing?

WHY?????

As most of you probably already know, there was yet another shooting at a high school this past Friday (Dec. 13th) at Arapahoe High School in Colorado.  A young lady, Claire Davis (17) is clinging for her life after being shot by a classmate that was upset with one of the high school's staff members for kicking him out of a club.

Without a doubt, this tragedy is going to raise, once again, the debate over gun control and regardless of which side of that argument you may be on, there is another underlying issue that has seemed to go ignored.  Soon after the infamous Columbine massacre research revealed that access to guns amongst youth as actually declined over the years.  In other words, a high school student growing up in the 60s or 70s would more likely have access to gun than a high school student today.  It would go without saying that the further back in time that you'd go, the greater that number would increase (student's having access to guns).  Therefore, there has to be another issue of which needs to be addressed: WHY?  Why are students deciding to use such extreme methods as a solution to their problems?

I could literally go into a deep and philosophical discussion here, for this is an issue that I have a lot of opinions on, but I'll not reveal my viewpoints here.  Yet, I would love to hear your input on this topic.  I honestly do believe that it is a topic that needs to be discussed, locally, on the state level and on the federal level - and that topic isn't about gun control.

BLOG TOPIC: WHY!?  Why are today's youth resorting to such extreme methods as a resolution to their problems? Is society, as a whole, responsible or is this due to a major break down of the American family?  Do you believe that this is simply a "gun control" issue?

Again: please make sure you are respectful of each other's opinions...

This week's blog topic was suggested by the Key Element.

Pay for Play

The quest for greater revenues and T.V exposure to a seismic shift in college football with top programs Texas and Oklahoma possibly on the move to the Pac-10 to create a mega conference and to bring in mega dollars for those institutions have re-opened the discussion of whether students athletes should be provided compensation for competing in sports. The reason why this topic has been re-opened is simple, there are some people who think that with all the money that these schools bring in during the season they should be able to provide the players with some form of spending to pay for things they may need. 

Some would argue that providing athletes with a stipend provide less opportunity for boosters to come in and make an offer for easy money to your player. Coaches wouldn't have to worry about their players getting work-study jobs to make a little money during the off-season, players can give a better effort with incentive and will also be more rested and have more time to be in the weight room.

With every positive, there is a negative. For example, paying a player will create a jealousy factor among students who are not athletes and then you have to figure in what athletes get paid because it would be difficult to pay every athlete because most schools have a multitude of different sports. 

Trust me - there are a LOT of additional pro and con arguments for this topic.  To be quite honest, I had to resist going on a tangent here and presenting a number of them, for as I was typing this up, my head began to swim with pro and con arguments (ya know, those little guys in my head are going to argue this one ALL NIGHT long... I'll never get any sleep!)

Blog Topic Question This Week: Dah!  I think it's pretty obvious!  Should college athletes be paid?  It really does look like a simple question - but looks can be deceiving!!!

Happy Blogging!

SPECIAL NOTE: This week's blog topic was provided by Lady Maya.  If any of you have an interesting topic you'd like for us to discuss, drop me an email!  If it's a good one, I'll post it!

The Filibuster Issue

Ok, bear with me as I set the "stage" for this week's blog topic....


On November 21st, the Senate struck down nearly 225 years of precedent by ending the long-standing filibuster rules for most presidential nominations, a remarkable change in procedure that has been the subject of a years-long fight between Democrats and Republicans.  The vote was nearly down party lines, with a couple Democrats siding with the GOP that this was a dangerous move, politically.  This move is known as the “Nuclear Option!”  Oddly enough, those that preached against this move before, claiming that “…this “nuclear option” would fundamentally change the very foundation and structure of our democratic procedures and should never be implemented.” (Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)).

First in 1917 and then in 1975, the Senate formally set up rules for “cloture motions,” the name given to the parliamentary device to shut down debate. It requires the affirmative votes of 60 sitting senators.

The Constitution cites only five requirements for Senate supermajorities, including impeachment convictions of presidents, but allows the House and Senate to set their own rules. Under long-standing resolutions, the Senate considers itself to be a “continuing body” whose parliamentary rules remain in effect unless a two-thirds supermajority votes to change them.

Here’s a brief recent history of the Senate’s rules disputes:

May 2005: A bipartisan “Gang of 14″ agrees to work together to avoid blocking several judicial nominees selected by President George W. Bush. Senators who helped negotiate the deal included John Warner (R-Va.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

February 2010: Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) dismisses an effort by some Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, saying the chamber’s procedures were designed to prevent the majority party from unilaterally changing the rules. Some junior Senate Democrats were pushing to change the rules to avoid GOP attempts to block nominations and legislation.

Early January 2011: Senate leaders use a parliamentary trick to leave the chamber in a state of suspended animation — in reality adjourned since Jan. 5 but officially considered in a long recess that’s part of the same individual legislative day — until later in the month as they work out a proposed change in the rules.

January 22, 2011: The chamber makes its most significant rules change in 35 years by agreeing to speed up its work by limiting the use of the filibuster and dropping the confirmation process for about 400 federal agency nominees.

November 2012: Shortly after Election Day, Reid and McConnell begin sparring over several days on the Senate floor after the Democratic leader once again threatens to change the rules by eliminating the filibuster vote needed to formally begin debate on legislation. He would allow for a final filibuster vote, thus making the chamber run more efficiently.

December 2012: Showing how far some are willing to go to challenge what they consider arcane rules, a federal judge hears in a case about whether Congress is constitutionally required to pass legislation by a simple majority vote and whether the Senate’s filibuster rules violate such a requirement.

January 24, 2013: Reid and McConnell agree to a bipartisan compromise authored by a handful of senior senators. The new rules essentially short-circuit one filibuster vote during the “motion to proceed” to a bill, when the chamber begins considering legislation. Republicans had increasingly filibustered the motion to begin debating legislation to slow the passage of bills or block them.

July 11, 2013: During a blistering floor dispute over threatened rules changes, McConnell said that if Reid goes through with the so-called nuclear option, “our friend the majority leader is going to be remembered as the worst leader here ever.”

July 26, 2013: In another near-meltdown, Republicans agreed to confirm several of President Obama’s executive branch nominees and, in exchange, Democrats agreed to leave existing filibuster rules in place. The agreement came after an unprecedented closed-door meeting of senators in the Old Senate Chamber.

Nov. 21, 2013: Senate Democrats voted to change the chamber’s rules so that federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been required for more than two centuries. The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees..... at least for now.....

There are a number of pros and cons to this change.  Click Here to view an article written that sites some of these issues, as presented by Dr. Galloway, the senior specialist in American government for the Library of Congress.

Topic Question: Is the change in the Senate rules on filibustering a good thing that is basically long overdue, or will it have fundamental changes that go way beyond current issues?  Will this change set a "dangerous imbalance" in our government, especially if one party is in control of both the House and the Senate?

Are College Rankings a Good Thing?

Believe it or not, you're heading toward this topic like a speeding bullet train!  Think about it, it's almost mid-term (January) which means that you'll be 1/2 through your Junior year or to put it differently, you're ONLY a year and a half from GRADUATING!!! (Ok, reality just slapped you in the face!!)

U.S. News & World Report this week released its annual college rankings, which include data on nearly 1,800 colleges and universities. This year, Princeton came out on top of the national university rankings, while Williams College stayed in the top spot among national liberal arts schools.

This year, the rankings formula was changed to place more emphasis on student outcomes. "U.S. News strives to provide students and their families with the most comprehensive data available," said U.S. News' director of data research, Bob Morse, in a statement. "Measuring outcomes is critical to understanding how well a school retains and educates its students." High school rank, meanwhile, received less weight than in years past.

Of course, the release of the rankings also brought out the critics. Here's a sampling of the headlines: "Why U.S. News' college rankings hurt students"; "Why U.S. News college rankings shouldn't matter to anyone." (Click on these links to read the articles) Critics claim that the rankings give universities bad incentives when it comes to raising tuition and ginning up oversized pools of applicants; they also claim that the rankings don't place enough emphasis on affordability or the job prospects of graduates.

Even President Obama got in on the action recently, when, while announcing that the U.S. Department of Education would be releasing college ratings of its own, he said, "Right now, private rankings like U.S. News & World Report puts out each year encourages a lot of colleges to focus on ways to game the numbers, and it actually rewards them, in some cases, for raising costs. I think we should rate colleges based on opportunity. Are they helping students from all kinds of backgrounds succeed?"

Topic Question: Are College rankings beneficial or do they really matter when it comes to selecting a college?

Secession?

You read the topic heading correctly....Secession.  It has reared it's head once again.  Contrary to what many Americans believe, there was no amendment passed in the post-Civil War years (Reconstruction Era) that official made it illegal for a State to secede from the Union.  The question here becomes, if that should be something added to the Constitution or should States be "allowed" (that is a tricky phrase) to break from the United States.  Many people believed that the question of secession was closed once the Civil War ended, but there is a growing movement amongst several States to either completely break from the Union (forming their own independent country) or portions of a State wishing to break from their current State and forming a new State.

Read this article that appeared in The Daily Beast on Sept. 12th of this year. - Secession Fever Sweeps Texas, Maryland, Colorado, and California.  (This article focuses on three of the States that have the greatest traction toward some form of secession, but there are a few additional ones that have just begun to move in that direction)

This Week's Blog Topic:
Should States be allowed to secede from the United States?  Do they have the "right" (another tricky phrase) to do so?  Would such an a move create extreme problems for the United States, as a whole?  Do you believe that this could lead to another "civil war"?  Or is this simply (as the article seems to hint at), a movement lead by disgruntled Republicans and Libertarians (conservatives)?  

Apologies.....

You may have head the story about the young college girl named Rachael Sacks that wrote an essay online about being "rich" or maybe a better interpretation would be about "not apologizing" for being rich.  I've included the link below to the original essay and a link to the article that appeared in the New York Post.  Ms. Sacks essay has created a media firestorm, with people becoming furious about her essay, labeling her as a "spoiled rich kid" (something she actually doesn't deny) and other things I can't repeat here.  As a matter of fact, Ms. Sacks makes the cover of Saturday's New York Post (printed version pictured above), with the headline being "Mean Little Rich Girl."

Here's the original essay written by Ms. Sacks: I’m Not Going To Pretend That I’m Poor To Be Accepted By You

Here's the link to the New York Post article: "Don't Hate Me Because I'm Rich"

This week's Blog Topic is two-fold:
1. Is the media (and everyone that is upset over this) making something out of absolutely nothing? Is Ms. Sacks original essay properly depicted in the media?
2. Has our society became overly sensitive over economic differences - upperclass, middle class, and lower-class?  Why or why not?