Hyper partisanship: a Downward Spiral

By Justin A. Chick

Since the advent of the United States and its application by our founding fathers, the party system of Democracy was designed to protect and represent our nation’s populace.

Unlike the Monarchy of 18th century Great Britain, the governing body of the United States was created to function in regard to the diverse ideologies prevalent throughout the colonies.  The intention was to govern via civilized debates, with each party or platform presenting their respective points of view, and then agreeing on a suitable compromise of principles to eventually implement into law.

Today, this democratic style of politics has been abused and manipulated beyond recognition.  What used to serve as an efficient source of policy making has now become an engine of personal interest, driving a wedge between Democrats and Republicans.  Congress, who has been gridlocked by political incompetence for nearly 2 years, has a current approval rating of around 15%.  This means about 85% of Americans don’t feel the government has provided reasonable solutions to problems it was designed to solve.

One of the major reasons for our country’s political inadequacies is due to a substantial lack of accountability among lawmakers.  The result is petty name-calling and finger pointing.  During the first year and a half of President Obama’s term, there was a tendency within his administration to blame the declining economy on his predecessor George W. Bush.  However true the claims may have been, they accomplished nothing politically and most likely had a negative effect on his ambitions by antagonizing Republicans before solutions were agreed upon.

Then, in 2011, the Obama Administration—Joe Biden specifically—made the remark, “Bush broke it, but we own it,” referring to the U.S. economy and attempting to take accountability for the 2 and a half years of stagnant economic growth.  It didn’t take long for conservatives to seize the opportunity to call for a public apology for previous remarks blaming Bush.

Community colleges earn failing grades on free speech

By Corey Friedman

College is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas — a place where students examine a range of diverse viewpoints, champion some and challenge others. At some North Carolina schools, however, robust debate is off the syllabus and questioning authority is out of the question.

Just up the road in Hickory, Catawba Valley Community College suspended student Marc Bechtol for two semesters after he criticized the college’s partnership with a debit card company on the college Facebook page. Bechtol accused the college and its partner financial institution of selling student information to banks, and he suggested a tongue-in-cheek method of retaliation: Registering a college email address with pornographic websites to trigger a flood of spam emails.

It’s clear from the full text of Bechtol’s post that the proposal was made in jest. But CVCC administrators didn’t appreciate his sense of humor. They pulled him out of class on Oct. 4. Without a hearing, Bechtol was banned from the campus for two semesters for violating a college policy that bars anything the administration believes “may be contrary to the best interest of the CVCC community.”

Rosary ban tied to ‘safety’

By William R. Toler

A 12-year-old girl could be a gang member according to a Nebraska school system.

Sixth-grader Elizabeth Carey has been banned from expressing her faith by Fremont Public Schools. The forbidden gang symbol: rosary beads.

“The principal said I couldn’t wear my necklace at all because gangsters were wearing it,” she told KETV-7.

Fremont Public Schools adopted the policy last year, according to the station. Steve Sexton, the superintendent for the system, used the tired old line that the policy is for “student safety.”

“We had information from law enforcement that there were documented instances of gang activity in the area and we had information that states that the rosary was being used as a symbol of gang affiliation,” Sexton said.

Local Catholics are understandably upset.

Occupy Wall Street: Week 3

By Justin A. Chick

Occupy Wall Street has reached its 3rd week of protests since the original congregation of enraged Americans on September 17.

What started out as an isolated protest against the discriminations and malpractices of the financial sector has evolved into a legitimate force.  The ideology behind the demonstrations have appealed to many Americans as the protests have spread to other cities across the nation including Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and Miami.

Many media outlets have questioned the demands of the protesters, often going out and interviewing the most outlandishly clad, eccentric individuals they could find in order to make some sense of the situation.

“So tell me, what exactly are you aspiring to accomplish here on Wall Street?”

“Um, well . . . corporations are taking money from the people by . . . uh, keeping it for themselves instead of giving it to other people.”

“Corporations?”

“Yeah.   Uh, like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch . . . .”

“Mortgage companies?”

“Uh, well . . . yeah.”

So it goes.  CNN’s Erin Burnett recently asked a protester, “So do you know that, um, taxpayers actually made money on the Wall Street bailout?”  The man replied that no, he was not aware of it.  “Does that make you feel any differently?” she asked.  To which he replied that, pending a little research, it might.

My question is: who said anything about protesting the financial bailout?

Who is Justice Kennedy?

By Justin A. Chick

Early last week, the Obama administration decided to pursue a Supreme Court ruling regarding its heavily disputed health care legislation.  26 states including Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan—key states in the upcoming presidential election—have filed lawsuits claiming that the mandate to purchase health insurance by 2014 or else face penalties is unconstitutional.

Rather than asking the U.S. Appeals Courts to make further rulings on the issue, the administration will seek Supreme Court adjudication.  It is likely that the Supreme Court will accept the case primarily due to claims of unconstitutionality.  If the Supreme Court does, in fact, take the case, projections have indicated a ruling by July of next year.  Thus, the decision could have a direct influence on next year’s presidential nomination.

Of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, the four most liberal—Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotoymayor—will likely support the bill while the four most conservative—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts—are expected to vote against it.  This could potentially make Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote; the deciding factor in the ruling.  Which raises the question among many Americans: who is Justice Anthony Kennedy?