How Do We Measure Poverty?

            On Tuesday, September 17, 2013, the Census Bureau revealed that the poverty line has been stuck at 15% last year. Especially during the year before and some 2.5 percentage points higher than in 2007 before the housing market burst and sent the United States careened into recession. But critics have raised the question on how a measure based on how much people spent on food in the early 1960s has any relevance today? They are absolutely correct. But it is wrong to suggest that there are fewer poor Americans than the official count shows, or that poverty has improved much over time. By taking into account government programs as well as unavoidable expenses, such as child care, the poverty rate has actually been higher over the last three years than the official statistic suggests. But as the debate over the proper was to measure our deprivation brings up some important questions: What is poverty? What do we measure it for? Are we measuring the right thing?
            In the 1960s, when the government first came up with the concept, it decided you were poor when you had to spend more than a third of your cash income on what it considered the minimally acceptable diet. But this is hardly the way to do it. In Europe, for instance, few countries measure a poverty line in the American sense of the minimum income needed to avoid extreme hardship.
            This article was written on September 20, 2013 by Eduardo Porter. When I first read this article, I immediately thought of the first time we talked about the poverty line. And one of the questions that we discussed was, “How do you measure the poverty line?” It’s a tricky question to answer since there is no definite way to count every person in America. The census tries to do that, but there are so many illegal immigrants that don’t fill out the census.
            I have actually never seen the point in defining the poverty line. I’m sure there is a specific reason why, but I’ve never really seen the point. Anyway, there could be many ways to calculate how to define the poverty line but there will always be at least ten percent more people who aren’t accounted for because they keeping a low profile so they won’t get deported. But, using a formula introduced in the 60s won’t tell us much. It’s out dated, and pretty much useless because there are more people in the United States then there were back in 1960.

Trouble in Syria

            We all know about the trouble going on in Syria. If you don't know, let me give you a summation of the situation. Basically, the Syrian government has launched attacks on alleged places where the Taliban have been hiding. One of the most recent attacks was a bombing on a school full of innocent children. And now there is talk about Syria having chemical weapons and planning on using them for we don't know what yet. Now, the United States are faced with the dilemma on whether to interfere in Syria or let them figure out what they need to do. So far, President Obama has made it clear that he wants to stop a chemical war before it starts by attacking Syria.
             At first I didn't know all of this information, but, after some research, I took a side. I do not think the United States should get involved in Syria. I say this because we have no business in going there. One of the main reasons why we are trying to get involved is because if there is going to be a chemical war happen, and Syria starting it, Israel is in the line of fire. Now, the United States is allied with Israel along with like one other country. So, the only reason that is clear to me that we might get involved is because of Israel. The United States has sworn to protect Israel, but not by bombing another nation.
            I was at services the other day, and one of the Rabbis was giving a sermon about loving your neighbor as yourself. But the point he was trying to make was that we should get involved in Syria. But the thing is, Syria isn't our neighbor. I really don't think bombing our neighbor isn't exactly loving them like we love our self. But if we do bomb them, what then? Is Syria just going to give up? NO! They will just retaliate on more innocent people and take more lives than need to be taken. Then Russia will get involved and then we are all screwed! We shouldn't make peace with violence. That's an oxymoron within itself. What America should do is try and fix our own problems and not focus on someone else's. And once we have our own priorities in order, then we can help other people in other countries.

Justices Gut Voting Rights Act

            On Tuesday June 25, 2013 a greatly divided Supreme Court got rid of the most powerful section of the Voting Rights Act. The decision deplored by the White House but cheered by mostly southern states that are now free from nearly 50 years of intense federal oversight of their elections. The justices, being split along ideological and partisan lines, votes 5-4 to strip the government of its tool to stop the voting bias- the requirement in the Voting Rights Act that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting, mainly in the South, get Washington’s approval before changing the way they hold elections.
           Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority of conservative, Republican-appointed justices, said the law’s provision that determines which states are covered is unconstitutional because it relies on 40-year-old data and does not account for racial progress and other changes in U.S. society. The decision effectively puts an end to the advance approval requirement that has been used to open polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965; unless Congress can come up with a new formula that Roberts said meets “current conditions” in the United States. (Which is unlikely to happen anytime soon.)
            The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that prohibits discrimination in voting. Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states and local governments from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. The Act established extensive federal oversight of elections administration, providing that states and local governments with a history of discriminatory voting practices could not implement any change affecting voting without first obtaining the approval of the United States Attorney General or a three-judge panel of the District Court for D.C., a process known as preclearance. These enforcement provisions applied to states and political subdivisions (mostly in the South) that had used a "device" to limit voting and in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote in 1964. The Act has been renewed and amended by Congress four times, the most recent being a 25-year extension signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2006.

Privacy or Protection?

             For over ten years, Americans have made peace with the fact that someone in the government or in a big business might be watching their every move. But now people are becoming mare paranoid with modern reality: The government is collecting our phone records. Torn between our want for privacy and protection, we are now forced to decide what we want: our privacy or protection.
             The National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting phone records of hundreds of millions of U.S. phone customers. In another program of the company, it collects audio, video, email, photographic, and Internet search usage of foreign nationals overseas. In interviews across the country, Americans said they were stunned by the NSA’s actions. But the difference now is that enormous advances in technology and the public’s broad tolerance of monitoring because of shifting attitudes about terrorism. So online privacy have given government and private companies significantly more power to monitor behavior.
             The NSA, established on November 4, 1952, is the central producer and manager of signals intelligence for the United States. Estimated to be the largest of U.S. intelligence organizations in terms of personnel and budget, the NSA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and reports to the Director of National Intelligence. The NSA is primarily tasked with global monitoring, collection, decoding, translation and analysis of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes. The agency is authorized to accomplish its mission through clandestine means, among which is bugging electronic systems and allegedly engaging in sabotage through subversive software. The NSA is also responsible for the protection of U.S. government communications and information systems.
             Unlike the CIA and DIA, both of which specialize primarily in foreign human espionage, the NSA does not have a human intelligence division, although it is often portrayed so in popular culture. Instead, the NSA is entrusted with coordination and deconfliction of SIGINT components of otherwise non-SIGINT government organizations, which are prevented by law from engaging in such activities without the approval of the NSA via the Defense Secretary. As part of these streamlining responsibilities, the agency has a co-located organization called the Central Security Service, which was created to facilitate cooperation between NSA and other U.S. military cryptanalysis components.
            In other words, there is no Constitutional Amendment that says the NSA cannot monitor phone and internet records. The Fourth Amendment could be used in a trial if someone were to feel threatened, but it is unlikely because there is probable cause in monitoring records if there might be a threat.

Victory for Gay Rights

            On Wednesday June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that denied federal benefits to married gay couples. It also paved the way for the resumption of same-sex marriage in California. The justices made two 5-4 rulings in their final session. The first decision got rid of the federal anti-gay marriage law that kept same-sex couples from receiving tax, health, and pension benefits. The other was technical ruling that wasn’t about same-sex marriage, but declared California’s Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
             This ruling also made the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. DOMA was a federal law enacted in September 1996, while former President Clinton was in office, that allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. The law defined a “spouse” and its related terms as a heterosexual couple in a recognized marriage, Section 3 of the law codified non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, social security survivors' benefits, immigration, bankruptcy, and the filing of joint tax returns; as well as excluding same-sex spouses from the scope of laws protecting families of federal officers laws evaluating financial aid eligibility, and federal ethics laws applicable to opposite-sex spouses.
             Clinton – along with key legislators – later advocated for DOMA's repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had concluded Section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law while it existed, it would no longer defend it in court. In United States vs. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment – protects against abuse of government authority.
             The crowd outside the Supreme Court that day, June 26, began hugging each other and jumping up and down after the decision, at 11 a.m., on DOMA was announced. So, what’s next for California? A spokesman for the 9^th U.S. Circuit of Appeals said Wednesday that the court will likely take at least 25 days before gay marriages resume in California and for the Supreme Court’s ruling to become official. The Supreme Court said it may continue to bar gay marriages even beyond the 25-day period if proponents of Proposition 8, the state’s gay marriage ban, ask for a rehearing. Governor Jerry Brown said he has directed the California Department of Public Health to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples as soon as the appeals court hold is lifted.