Should the minimum wage be increased?

http://crossfire.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/should-the-minimum-wage-be-increased/

I think that the minimum wage should be increased. People cannot live on $7.25 an hour. Nor can they progress in society on $7.25 an hour. Big businesses can afford an increase in minimum wage. They may not want to, but they can. There is the argument that some people will lose their jobs, which is true. Small businesses that really can't afford to employ as many people as they currently do if the minimum wage increased would have to lay off workers, but that would be a very small percentage of people, I think. And in order for the economy to grow we need this extra money being pumped into it. And after a few years things should balance out. People get paid more=people spend more=businesses make more. So, those small businesses should be able to catch up after not too long. It's the cycle and the way of the economy. It's happened before and it needs to happen now.

Political vendettas 'as American as apple pie'

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/12/political-vendettas-as-american-as-apple-pie/

This article just kind of goes through several extreme cases of political retribution throughout the history of politics in the U.S. It's super interesting (you should read it). But also kind of disturbing. I'm thinking that maybe some of our "leaders" are spending too much of their time and resources on revenge and making other people not get what they want than actually focusing on the real problems in this country and the needs of the people. Obviously politics are a big game and a competition and in order to succeed there is always some of that (unfortunately) but when that becomes more important than your actual responsibilities and doing what the people elected you to do, um problem. That is a problem. 

Chris Christie's Bridge Scandal, Explained

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-traffic-jam-emails

"How'd this begin? In mid-September, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey unexpectedly closed two access lanes on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge, which spans the Hudson River and serves as a major commuter route between the two states. A massive, weeklong traffic jam ensued, clogging the streets of nearby Fort Lee.

Cops and lawmakers in Fort Lee said they were given no warning about the decision to close the lanes, which delayed school buses, first responders, and commuters bound for New York City. The Port Authority justified its decision by saying it was conducting a "traffic study."

Why is this political? Soon after the traffic jam, rumors emerged that the Port Authority closed the bridge lanes as political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat who endorsed Gov. Chris Christie's opponent in the 2013 gubernatorial campaign. As news outlets and New Jersey Democrats dug deeper into the circumstances of the bridge incident, they eventually connected the lane closures to two Port Authority officials with close ties to Christie: Bill Baroni, the deputy executive director of the agency, and David Wildstein, its director of interstate capital projects. Baroni and Wildstein have since resigned, and both men have retained criminal defense attorneys.

All along, the Christie administration had denied any connection to the decision to close the bridge lanes. In September, a Christie spokesman called the retribution claim "crazy." Christietold reporters at a December press conference that the Fort Lee traffic snarl was "absolutely, unequivocally not" a result of political score-settling. 

What's new today? In response to a subpoena, Wildstein provided a bevy of emails sent by Christie's staff to a panel of state lawmakers investigating the road closures. The messages fly in the face of many of the claims Christie has made about the lane closures. Wildstein will testify about the documents before that panel on Thursday.

The messages, traded between several members of Christie's senior staff, his campaign manager, and his deputy chief of staff, were sent mostly from staffers' private accounts and did not loop in Christie. They strongly suggest that members of Christie's inner circle planned the lane closures as political retaliation against Sokolich. Other top Christie associates included in the email chain after the lanes were reopened include David Samson, the chairman of the Port Authority, and Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman. The emails contradict repeated statements by Christie that neither his staff nor anyone from his campaign was involved with the lane closures.

The messages also lay bare Christie's staff's gleeful anticipation of Fort Lee's traffic debacle. On the day of the lane closures and in the aftermath, Christie's top aids privately traded jabs at Fort Lee's mayor and mocked the town's residents as they struggled to deal with the traffic."

I think this entire thing is absolutely ridiculous. Like, honestly, are you five years old? It ticks me off to know that a leader of the state would use people as pawns like that, messing with their commutes for days, causing complete chaos and stress, for what? To get back at someone who supported his running opponent? Who lost? I can clearly see why he didn't support you pal! I think these actions show very little respect for voters and their right to vote and support which candidate they want. Like, everyone doesn't have the same opinion. OBVIOUSLY. Can you deal with that please? These actions are very irresponsible and immature and disrespectful. Although I feel kind of bad for bashing on the guy, cuz like I don't even know him, but I really disagree with what has happened here! I'm sure he has some good qualities but.....This is a giant problem. He should be fired. 

.

Al Qaeda training Americans in Syria?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/01/10/tsr-dnt-sciutto-al-qaeda-training-americans-in-syria.cnn.html

The Syrian civil war has been growing in intensity and scope for more than two years. Young liberal Americans have gone over to fight with the rebels against their government, most had been previously in the U.S. military. U.S. officials are questioning and worried that these Americans have been or may be the targets of Al Qaeda recruiters. The idea is that since they are American citizens and have all the right paperwork and documents to get back into the country that the young Americans would be ideal assets to carrying out terrorist activity within the United States. U.S. officials have taken the liberty of tracking these Americans documents, phones, emails, and social media to make sure that they are not a threat to the homeland. 

My question is, other than their presence in Syria what other cause have these Americans given to be tracked and suspected by the U.S. government? Do they really have the right to track their communications? Under the USA PATRIOT act of 2001 the government has the right to "intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism." While I understand that there are precedented behaviors and situations that would cause this type of suspicion it doesn't seem quite right to me that the government is able to this with quite a small amount of probable cause against these Americans. But on the other hand I do understand it because how are U.S. officials supposed to stop tragedies like 9/11 without capitalizing on instances like these? 

Arkansas lieutenant governor says he'll resign over ethics violations

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/11/arkansas-lieutenant-governor-says-hell-resign-over-ethics-violations/?hpt=po_c2

Arkansas lieutenant governor, Mark Darr, announced his resignation after the state ethics commission discovered that he broke 11 campaign finance rules since 2010. Just following the ruling he admitted to being guilty and agreed to pay $11,000 in fines but refused to step down until now. Previously Governor Mike Beebe and others had called for his removal but in Arkansas, only the state legislature has the power to remove a lieutenant governor from office. 

I think it was a good idea for him to resign and I also think it's good that only the state legislature has the power to remove him. I think it can't be too easy to be able to remove government officials because then political enemies or people with other agendas would be able to abuse the system but it still must be possible. 

Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down As Unconstitutional

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/utah-gay-marriage-ban_n_4482222.html

The article basically just discusses the reasons that not legalizing gay marraige in Utah is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a ruling saying Utah's law passed by voters in 2004 violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. This caused an almost ripple effect and in the days that followed gay marraige was legalized in New Mexico and Hawaii. People were shocked and surprised that the highly conservative Utah would be among one of the earlier states to have this kind of action passed. Immediately after the ruling lot of gay and lesbian doubted how long it would last say that it was "too good to be true."

I have mixed feelings about this issue. Initially I think how in the world can you justify not legalizing gay marraige? It's in direct violation to the rights of those citizens and to the Constitution to do that, as stated in the article. 
There's a lot of people, however, that argue about how it's a matter of seperation of church and state, that people who do not support the legalization of gay marraige are ignorant because they are trying to mix religion and secular matters. That I disagree with because gay marriage, while your ideas of it may be guided by your religious veiws, is not a religious issue. It's a moral issue. So I think it would be much better classified as such. But I think where the big problem comes in between the two point of views is that in more recent years it's not being discussed as a moral issure anymore (at least for some) but now it's a civil rights issue. And in terms of civil rights, I feel that it only makes sense, legally/constitutionally, to have gay marriage leglaized. Even in terms of morality, though, the government doesn't traditionally rule on moral issues, nor do I think that it's their place (there are things such as murder that obvioulsy are a danger to society and that is why the government does rule on such things). For example, some may think that drinking is immoral, or that cheating on your spouse is immoral, but it's not the governements place to say that those things are illegal because they do not reach some moral standard. So, some may think that gay marraige is immoral, but I don't think that it's the governments place to say that it's illegal because of that. Therefore, I would come to the same conclusion, that it should be legal. 

Senators near deal on unemployment

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/194956-senators-nearing-deal-on-unemployment

Senate majority leader Henry Reid is hopeful that a deal can be reached to extend unemployment beneifts for a year without adding to the deficit. Senator Jack Reed and Representative Dean Heller have been pushing for a three-month plan for unemployment benefits that would add $6.4 billion to the deficit. Extending benefits for the rest of the year would cost $26 billion. But could be achieved by spending cuts. It is unclear whether this will pass in either the House or the Senate.

I think that unemployment assistance is a worthwhile reason for cutting spending in other areas (*cough* military spending *cough*). A lot of people feel that unemployment assistance encourages those out of work to not be super proactive about fixing that. Which I can see their point. But I think the real problem is that minimum wage is so low that people can make more from government assistance than from actually working. That is what I think needs to be fixed.