Gettysburg College is one of many higher education institutions devoted to creating a politically engaged campus in order to increase voter registration among 18 to 24 year olds for this presidential election. During the October 3^rd presidential debate discussing economy, the College Union Building provided opportunities to watch the event among fellow students. The Eisenhower Institute, an organization which provides opportunities for students to engage in research, discussion, and outreach in issues of leadership and public policy, hosted one debate-watching experience for students interested in discussing the aftermath with the EI Fellows. The majority of people in the room consisted of Gettysburg’s “elite” political population, as well as some friends or students required to attend for class.  Filled with new adults voting in their first presidential election, the energy was electric. But as time drew on, and the candidates themselves lessened in maturity, the students began to lose interest. Laptops opened and iPhones came out while girls began gossiping in the corner about the previous weekend. One student playing Temple Run looked up in confusion when half the room burst out in laughter because Romney comically declared a liking for Big Bird despite his proposed cuts to PBS. Even in a room of top political science students, the debate lost to our generation’s world of meaningless distractions.

As those in the room represented the upcoming generation of politically interested students, one would hope that this was not the only side of the story. Thankfully, it was not. While it seemed as if the students on Facebook weren’t paying attention, the majority were chatting with friends about their views and asking questions about what the candidates were saying.  Others were following tweets from CNN or Fox’s twitter accounts, and the gossipers in the corner began discussing the return of moderate Mitt Romney. In a 90-minute debate where both candidates were exaggerating points to divide their opinions, it seemed almost natural for students to divert themselves with the surrounding technology. The television itself is a distraction due to the overwhelming information listed at the bottom of the screen. One creative, albeit immature way of staying involved, was the drinking game several students were playing (with water) as they counted the number of times the candidates repeated something stereotypical of their campaign. While I wouldn’t recommend this tactic to most people, it allowed students to find a funny way to keep engaged with the debate and understand the stance of both candidates.

College students are still learning how to be engaged members of society, and while technology, and sometimes pure laziness, distract students from this goal, many find a way to take these distractions and use them at their advantage. Both Romney and Obama agreed on the importance of education, and it was clear that everyone sitting in the College Union Building understood the privilege of their position, a privilege that students intend to take full advantage.

  In case you didn’t hear the cries and chants of democratic, Allied, and anti-Santorum rage echoing from Lincoln Square last night, here’s a little update: Presidential candidate Rick Santorum spoke at the Gettysburg Hotel last night, amid a mess of protesters and (presumably) supporters. For the sleepy town of Gettysburg, PA, population of less than 8,000, the sheer number of people who attended this event–according to a Santorum representative who spoke to the crowds milling outside the hotel’s ballroom, between 500 and 600–was impressive. Granted, if you give college students a chance to make signs and shout about things, you’re bound to get a good turnout.

The anti-Santorum sentiment ranged from Ron Paul supporters to Adam’s County Democrats representatives to irate college students—men and women alike, protesting Santorum for his previously outrageous statements concerning women, LGBTQ rights, healthcare, and birth control, among others. Bras were burned, “Rick Rick Go Away” songs were sung, Santorum was compared unfavorably to Lincoln; all in all, it was a rollicking good time. In some ways, I’m sure it was more informative than Santorum’s speech—which many did not get to hear, due to the masses of people filling the hotel’s hallway and lobby. Some Gettysburg College students did manage to make it inside, and supposedly shook hands with the man of the hour. Thankfully, for everyone else stuck loitering aimlessly outside, CNN was broadcasting at least part of the speech, and you can find as many videos as you want on YouTube, judging from the number of smart phones present.

  Santorum is conservative, religious, and Republican, extremely right-wing, and not afraid to be vocal about what he does and does not approve of. Nothing about that is new—nor is the response he gets from the people who hold opposing opinions. You can be as informed as you want and still not know the whole truth, due to the overinflated, propagandizing nature of the media and then the wildfire spread of half-truths and most popular stories on social networking sites. It’s a gip, plain and simple, and people get sucked in, caught up in the surge of ‘doing good’ and ‘speaking out’ and ‘making a difference.’

The pessimism of that statement notwithstanding, there is something incredibly empowering, even to the most gentle or nervous dispositions, about seeing women and men of all ages inspired enough by what they believe (regardless of what it is) to actually stand up and say so. It doesn’t matter if it’s a passionate speech or a devastatingly witty remark or even a simple chant; the actions are meaningless compared to the adrenaline and relief of expression, which is something any wallflowering bystander can relate to. It’s the courage of the act that people find attractive, and the same rule applies for the Presidential candidates, albeit on a much larger scale and with more far-reaching implications and consequences.

In all honesty, what I found most appealing among the signs and rants of the protesters was relatively simple: a sign that said “PLEASE GO AWAY,” because the person who made it couldn’t fit all the reasons they didn’t want Santorum in Gettysburg or in the Oval Office onto just one two-by-one sign. And after all, it never hurts to be polite.

Lincoln Square, 30 minutes before Santorum’s speech

After the big bang enlargement of the aughts and the financial crisis many have questioned what the future of the European Union is. Have the new dynamics of the 1980′s and 1990′s given way to a new round of Eurosclerosis, brought on by enlargement fatigue and the boneheaded fiscal policies of the PIIGS? It appears so. How, then, is the European Union to recapture its mojo and continue the drive towards European Integration?

One of the declared principles of the Treaty of Rome is the creation of an ever closer union of European states. Today, over 50 years removed from the signing of that document, tremendous work remains in the creation of an ever closer European Union and European public. As we turn over into a new decade it becomes increasingly clear how the European Union can foster a closer, more unified continent and more integrated border regions between countries; with an emphasis on improving transportation infrastructure across the continent and investing in the next generation of transportation technology.

The European Union should push forward with vigorous support for projects such as the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link, which would link the Danish island of Zealand to Northern Germany, significantly cutting down the time it takes to travel between Scandinavia and the industrial centers of Europe. Such a link would help promote the free movement of people and goods, cutting down the time and cost necessary to travel between Scandinavia and Continental Europe. Not only would this promote an ever closer union by encouraging greater travel between Northern and Central Europe, and thus greater cross-cultural exchange and access, but would also provide a boon to the European economy by helping cut down shipping costs between the regions, lowering transit prices and promoting the free exchange of goods and labor.

This project highlights the potential returns that investing in a 21^st century transportation network could have on European society, but many other steps can and should be taken to improve movement throughout the continent. The move towards a unified air control system, where the European Union manages all air traffic over the continent rather than each state managing their own airspace, similarly deserves vigorous support. With thousands of flights everyday, the possibility of congested airways causing costly delays is very real. The implementation of a unified air control system would alleviate this problem by allowing for better management and coordination of the skies over Europe, as no longer will 27 different national air agencies have to try to negotiate and coordinate European airspace, it will all be handled by one, singular agency. Such a step would help prevent congested air traffic, insuring that European skies will be able to handle increased use, and promoting movement around the continent.

The potential benefits that a modern transportation network would provide Europe are simply too great to ignore. For instance, sustained investment into improving and expanding European rail capacities would reduce shipping costs around the continent, promoting economic growth and a more integrated European economy. Meanwhile, continued support for high speed rail projects, and other infrastructure improvements which would allow for a greater number of people to travel throughout the continent, encouraging the development of a European identity by promoting access to the various societies of the continent, creating more of a melting pot of cultures in Europe. The borders between countries would continue to melt away as movement between them continues to ease.

If the European Union remains committed to creating a more integrated Europe, then it must demonstrate sustained support for transportation projects which will help integrate the European economy, promote the movement of people throughout the continent, develop cross-border regions around the continent. Through additional support for these projects the goal of an ever closer union can be better achieved in the 21^st century, and the European project will receive a much needed shot in the arm.

My apologies for the delay in publishing this article. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse decided to hurl every disease known to man at me in the past month. Nevertheless, here it is.

Tissues, humble pie and strait-jackets were the order of the night at Democratic headquarters across the country on Election Day, as Republicans dominated in House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections. What went wrong? How about, what went right? For America, everything.

As I indulged in a delicious foot-long hero sandwich and some purifying, overpriced bottled water that Republicans for some strange reason had not been able to poison with Arsenic, I watched with absolute delight as the map of America was enveloped in a sea of red—America was bleeding freedom. Even more gratifying was channel-surfing between cable news networks (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.), gazing at the constipated faces peppering the television screen.

I was most impressed with CNN. They had not one, but two, tables of panelists who could not figure out what was going on. I sympathized with Bill Bennett, who was flanked by James Carville and Paul Begala, whose foreheads collectively took up half the TV screen; their brains didn’t fare so well. Soledad O’Brien looked like she was trying to solve the Riddle of the Sphinx, while Candy Crowley simply looked like the Sphinx itself. And was it just me, or did someone forget to recharge Wolf Blitzer’s batteries? The most animated thing on CNN was their interactive election board, and even that failed to cooperate…repeatedly.

MSNBC was entertaining, as always. For a network that spends half its time mocking Fox News, MSNBC was about as fair and balanced as a Socialist Party convention on crack. Chris Matthews became so deranged that he started interrupting himself. I can’t be certain, but the thrill up his leg seemed to turn into an inflammatory case of hemorrhoids—not that there’s another kind. (If it’s any consolation, though, Chris Matthews’ constipated countenance gave me thrills up both my legs.) He, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann (whose recently disclosed Democratic campaign contributions, against network policy, might qualify him for his own Worst Person in the World) spent the night agreeing with one another like three guys in a rowboat with their backs to a sixty-foot tsunami, telling each other it’s a nice day.

Fox News’ coverage, needless to say—which is why I’m going to say it—was the converse of every aforementioned network’s; it was nowhere near as amusing to watch.

[Honorable mention: The most entertaining part of the night was Carl Paladino’s “concession speech,” in which he said to Andrew Cuomo—with baseball bat in hand—that his bat was a metaphor for the people of New York: Cuomo could either bring it with him or risk it being wielded against him. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaCEi52zs1I)]

As these Einsteins pondered the election results all night long only to come to the astounding conclusion that Americans were ticked with Democrats screwing the country for the past two years, I thought about lessons everyone could take from the midterm elections.

1)      Hero sandwiches—stuffed with delicious cold cuts, for all you vegans out there—are delicious.

2)      Chris Matthews has unipolar disorder.

3)       Nancy Pelosi is E.T. with hair. (If only she would phone home.)

4)      Harry Reid is a mouse with glasses, living off your cheese.

5)      Keith Olbermann is his own Worst Person in the World.

Then I thought about serious lessons.

1) Race doesn’t matter. Success and failure do. Intellectually honest people would want a great President who happens to be of a specific race, not someone perceived as a great President because he is of a specific race. Policies are what matter. Put in a candidate with rainbow skin who can secure prosperity and preserve the nation and its laws and intellectually honest individuals will raise no objections. In 2008, people voted for teleprompters, “Yes We Can,” “Hope,” “Change,” and the title of First Black President. As a result, the nation has fallen off a cliff. The same people who preach—under the guise of “tolerance” and “openness”—not judging others by the colors of their skin are the first to put racial labels on people; they’re hypocrites and should not be feared, but defeated in elections…which has happened. How many people get jobs just by showing up to a job interview and deifying themselves, without submitting a résuméé—without being judged based upon past records? Why, then, has the election to the highest office in the land come to that?

2) The general public is fickle. They change sides when they are affected and lack the prescience to consistently portend their own demise or diminishment. They settle for what sounds good to them at the moment, moves their hearts, and often, dulls their brains. People like President Obama, who can take seven sides of an issue in the same speech (Remember his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004?), thus appeal to them, for there is always something with which they can agree. Panem et circenses (“bread and circuses”) was the calling card of Roman politicians: keep the people fed and entertained and they will support you. Today, it’s sophistry and theatrics; and Obama, a former community organizer, knows exactly how to utilize both in his pathetic, but effective, pandering to the masses.  Lesson to be learned: sometimes Cicero is just a used-car salesman…or a community organizer.

3) Republicans, don’t squander this opportunity. After dismal showings in the last two major elections, Republicans have momentum and a second chance at political life. The last time you had any congressional majority whatsoever, you caved to Democrats (who acted like the majority party) and went along for the “bipartisan” ride and the country suffered, is suffering, and will suffer in the years to come because of it. Don’t be intimidated by an empty suit—even if he is from Chicago.

4) Obama is scared, but determined. Watching his post-election press conference, one could tell the President had his fill of humble pie. By no means will he willingly concede anything, however; on the contrary, his arrogance will make him less compromising and more assertive. This is the challenge that faces Republicans. May they not succumb.

5) 100% of statistics are false.

A quick rundown of where we are. (Please refrain from jumping out a window.)

-National Debt: $13.7 trillion

-National Debt % of GDP: about 94%

-Individual share of the National Debt: greater than $44,000

-Federal Budget Deficit of this year alone after 10 months: nearing $1.6 trillion

-Unemployment Rate: 9.6% in October (it has exceeded 10% in prior months), after the President repeatedly claimed it wouldn’t exceed 8% (You mean a politician lied?)

Mr. President, you’ve made us hope for change more than ever.

Not even halfway through his first term, President Barack Hussein Obama, the narcissistic former community organizer and masterful teleprompter reader, has wrecked the nation with more success than others could by trying. Many were warned of what was coming; most were too excited to care. Many wanted hope and change. They got change that has forced us all to hope more than ever before. They sowed the wind, and because of that, we are all left to reap the whirlwind. What went wrong?

There are two predominant schools of thought here, each the antithesis of the other; these are known to be liberalism and conservatism. Modern liberalism—not to be confused with classical liberalism—is rooted in principles of expanded government and greater governmental scope, particularly in economic matters. Its survival and success as an ideology therefore requires that the government assume more power and influence than it previously possessed.

It is true that the people can empower the government by electing liberal politicians, but in doing so the people possess only an indirect role in expanding government, for they cannot directly control the magnitude or nature of the authority that liberal politicians assume once in office.

Under liberal government, therefore, the people are passive enablers, not proactive sovereigns; they possess only secondary, indirect control. Of course, the people possess similar control in electing conservatives, as well. However, given the general nature of conservatism is to stifle excessive government intrusion and expansion, the people need not fear a reckless inflation of government under conservative leadership.

Liberal politicians, emboldened by their elections by the people, possess direct control over governmental change. They view the people’s endorsement as a mandate to expand government and, in the process, conveniently augment their own power. While these politicians might mask their radical liberalism behind “bipartisan” rhetoric during campaigns—as President Obama has done with as much craft as his disciples’ gullibility and emotional pliability—they recognize that, once elected, they hold free reign to pursue potentially radical agendas.

Danger lies not in words spoken prior to election—though words can portend future danger—but rather, in actions following election. The people, temporarily powerless until future election years, are left only to observe and cope with the actions of their newly elected, ambitious liberal leaders. The people are thus unable to obstruct the excessive government expansion that naturally follows. But why, some ask, does it naturally follow?

As established, liberalism generally entails a greater presence and role of government. The ascendancy of liberalism therefore requires, by necessity, inflating government. Because leftist politicians subscribe to the liberal ideology, they will do all in their power to promote such government inflation. As the government subsequently grows, so do both the number of its positions and, often, the power allotted to each existing position. This has held particularly true with recent government intrusion into healthcare and the financial sector. Liberal politicians therefore, while enlarging the scope of government, increase their own power. This, make no mistake, is hardly a coincidence.

If we assume that as government expands, its potentiality for corruption and administrative inefficiency expands with it, it follows that a liberal agenda will likely result in more corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency than what previously existed. Such growth will continue in perpetuum unless and until the people’s dissatisfaction eventually propels more conservative leaders into office in future election years.

Still, all ill effects of liberal control remain as burdens to present and future generations, and the size of government, once dilated, seldom contracts. The foremost examples of this are Social Security and Medicare liabilities, with a looming aggregate cost in excess of $50 trillion. Thus, while conservative leadership might temporarily halt disastrous trends brought about by prior politicians, it cannot reverse much of what has already taken effect. Those financial burdens await us all, especially our posterity.

Proponents of liberalism could—prima face—target conservatism, but with a host of less intellectually honest and rigorous criticisms. One of the most intriguing arguments against conservatism, for instance, is that if people are left to pursue what is in their self-interests, inequity will result. This suggests that human beings, in general, inherently seek what will benefit them the most. For the sake of argument, assume this is true. (Conservatives would likely contend that it generally is, but not so excessive as to diminish the collective good.)

The difference here is that liberals—if liberal politicians, the most self-interested people of all—use self-interest as a ground for further regulation, whereas conservatives account for self-interest to foster a free-market, competitive economy in which freedom of choice checks self-interest that would result in collective harm. In the process, economic efficiency is optimized with no less—and often more—collective good than an economy hindered by bureaucratic government regulation imposed by economically illiterate politicians.

As established, since politicians are human beings—though that point is debatable—it follows that they, too, will seek what is in their own best interests. Considering these self-interested politicians wield significantly more power—government power—than do the vast majority of citizens, shouldn’t liberals be more skeptical of politicians? Furthermore, since these self-interested politicians constitute only a minute fraction of the population, yet command an immense and ever-accruing proportion of power over the population, shouldn’t liberals be far more concerned with curtailing the power of politicians than diminishing the freedom of private citizens and companies beholden to the federal government?

Adding to this the fact that, compared to most citizens, politicians have more access to corrupting influences by the very nature of their offices, one can only imagine how quickly and often self-interested politicians can be overcome by vice—vice perpetuated and rewarded through our tax dollars. The continual growth of corruption and lobbying, in fact, owes itself to the growth of both the size and power of the federal government. After all, without the government’s growing command over more facets of our lives, there would be less need for private citizens, companies or corporations to implore politicians—or even pay them—to exercise less regulatory authority; “special interests” would thus be diminished in both size and power and the government, in turn, would be less corrupt.

It suddenly becomes clear that if human beings tend to act in their own interests, liberals should direct their skepticism and regulatory efforts more toward their own government officials. (They never will, as it would decelerate liberal politicians’ acquisition of government power.) This, ironically, is a tenet of conservatism. From this we can infer that either human beings, by nature, do not tend to pursue their self-interests or that opponents of conservatism make an illogical case.

If human beings do not pursue their self-interests, then the primary excuse for liberal regulation and overarching government power would be irrelevant; we would have no clear reason to support liberal policies. If opponents of conservatism make an illogical case, then we would have a bad reason—many bad reasons, in fact—to support liberal policies. In either case, modern liberalism, at least as touted by its most powerful adherents, lacks logical rigor.

This should surprise no one, for power supersedes principles for liberal politicians. Contrived “principles” are merely the means by which they attain their sacred omnipotence. Liberal politicians, for the most part, care little for principles as long as they acquire their sought power in the end.

At the same time, there are liberal members of the electorate who cling to principles; without these “true believers,” liberal politicians cannot get elected. To court these principled voters, leftist politicians run on principles—and radical ones at that—but only rhetorically. They are motivated by the power their election will provide; to them, principles are a means, not an end.

It’s an effective political symbiosis: liberal politicians implement policy—under the guise of their electorate’s principles—all the while securing what they want, power, for themselves. Both groups get what they want and the country suffers for it. Even more dangerous—but, unfortunately, more prevalent—are the politically apathetic, but emotionally galvanized members of the liberal electorate.

Tell these people an anecdote of a senior citizen who—in contrast to the vast majority of patients—did not receive “adequate” health care treatment and they will demand and support a broad federal overhaul of the entire health care system. Tell them of a CEO earning multi-millions and they—in their envy, ironically exacerbated by the very financial turmoil liberal policies have brought upon them—will demand a federal overhaul of the financial sector. Portray conservatives trying to curb the illegal—repeat, illegal—practice of illegal immigration as racists and nativists and these emotionally pliable souls will erupt with more fiery criticism of conservatives than of terrorists. (For example, ABC News recently reported that Barack Obama criticized Al Qaeda—for racism and the devaluing of African life. This has been one of his most—if not only—“scathing” public criticisms of terrorists yet. Rather telling for one whose illegal immigration rhetoric implies many conservatives are racists, too, isn’t it?)  The list goes on, and with it, the country declines.

While we should not apply it universally given its potentially anarchic implications—though the nation is as distant from anarchy as ever before—Thomas Paine’s notion that that government governs best which governs least has never held truer. Learn from the Founders. Trust developed minds, not empty suits. The Founders may be departed, but should we continue to stray from their vision and principles, so will the republic.

In the never-ending debate over same sex marriage Maryland was brought to the forefront recently when attorney general Douglas Gansler stated that Maryland would recognize out of state same sex marriages. This has of course upset Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Maryland legislature who are claiming that Gansler is ignoring the law. I could less about this argument if he really is overstepping his boundaries than what does it matter? While many gay rights organizations have applauded the decision it must be questioned whether this is as great as it seems.

Two things have happened recently that make recognizing out of state same sex marriages more appealing. First, Washington D.C. unless something unexpected happens will allow same sex marriages starting March 9. Secondly, Virginia Governor Bob McConnell on February 5 removed sexual orientation from a list barring discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, or political affiliation. Essentially employers can now fire someone for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. So what do these two seemingly unrelated events have in common? Northrop Grumman is looking for a site for its new company headquarters near Washington D.C.

Yes, I know I sound slightly paranoid at this. I just can not help feeling as if the only reason Maryland is offering to recognize same sex marriages is so they can try to lure Northrop Grumman’s new corporate headquarters to their state. Northrop Grumman has a 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign Equality Index. Essentially a rating system of how various companies treat their GLBT employees, not to mention their government contracts which is why their head quarters is moving. Get the picture?

In the hopes of luring a company, who plan on making their decision in April, which will provide jobs and boost the rating of a governor in an election year, the state of Maryland will recognize same sex marriage. Presenting themselves as more in line with the company’s commitment to the GLBT community. While Virginia may not protect its GLBT residents from job discrimination,there is nothing preventing the company from continuing their policies. A fact pointed out by Tucker Martin a spokesman for Governor McConnell.

While I suppose I should be happy that another state has decided that gays deserve equal treatment I’m not. This is a political ploy requiring no full commitment by the Democrats unless Maryland gets the headquarters. They are not sticking their necks out and saying gays should be allowed to marry and have access to the same benefits afforded heterosexual couples, impossible because of the Defense of Marriage Act. They are instead mooching off of Washington who is also trying to secure the headquarters. I would like to think that if this ploy works and Maryland becomes the site of the headquarters that the legislature will push for some kind of legislature whether it is marriage or civil unions with all the same benefits. That leaves the question of what happens if Maryland does not get the contract. Will Gansler decide to back down and claim that as an election year there are more important issues?

I would like to think positively, but Democrats do not have the best record of supporting the GLBT community recently. If Maryland does get the contract, it will certainly be a slap in the face of Governor McConnell, but will Maryland go any farther? The best thing that will probably come out of this is out of state recognition, I do not expect anything more. I hope I am wrong, but the Democrats have not been showing much spine recently; New Jersey, New York, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, certain provisions removed from the health care bill,  I could go on.

Bush-era politics, government invasion of privacy, and the destruction of civil liberties are the foremost images when the Patriot Act comes to mind. The Patriot Act is so mired with these negative images that any mention of the act will immediately repel most Americans. Beyond these off-putting associations, the Patriot Act is not all it’s accused to be. The reauthorization of the Patriot Act is an effective and unobtrusive way to protect national security.

President Obama extended for one year three provisions of the Patriot Act into law on February 27, 2010. The provisions extended are the use of court approved roving wiretaps on multiple technologies, seizure of property and records in anti-terrorism operations, and surveillance of ‘lone wolf’ suspects or non-US citizens who engage in terrorism without being affiliated with a particular organization.

The first extension on roving wiretaps allows investigators to tap multiple technologies for one person, such as more than one phone or a computer. This provision allows for a warrant on a specific person instead of on a specific piece of technology, which allows investigators to more effectively track a suspect. The ability of the government to use wiretaps is not a new practice. They were in use as of 1986, almost two decades before the Patriot Act was passed. The Patriot Act only extends their use to gathering information specifically on terrorists. This does not mean that the government can tap anyone’s phone or computer for no reason or even on minor suspicion. A court approved warrant is a necessary component for using a wiretap. The Patriot Act forbids investigation solely based on First Amendment activities.

During a normal investigation, investigators are only allowed to take information and photographs from the scene of a crime or from a warranted search. With the second extended provision of the Patriot Act, physical evidence can now be removed from the scene in a terrorist investigation. This provision goes further and allows investigators to obtain information from third parties about financial and other information of the suspected person. Again, the government cannot just obtain this kind of information on some random person. This type of investigative tool was used to track down the Unabomber in the 1990s.  There must to be some court approved reasonable cause in order to use this provision. Keep in mind; in over half of the cases tried with evidence used from the Patriot Act have resulted in either a conviction or a guilty plea.

The last provision that was extended is the ‘lone wolf’ provision. This clause allows investigators to track non-US citizens who are not affiliated with a known terrorist organization. Because terrorist groups are often only loosely organized, members may be hard to define. A person who knowingly participates in an act of terrorism, then, is suspect under this clause.

The Patriot Act isn’t an evil entity out to destroy innocent people, nor is it an invention of a Big Brother type government. The Patriot Act aims to target people that are trying to cause destruction and death. The Patriot Act is simply a modernization of old laws so that the federal government can keep up with the advances in technology, while protecting our country from future terrorist attacks.

Obama had a lot to accomplish last week when addressing Congress and the American public in the State of the Union address. His party is factionalizing, moderates and independents are moving away from his increasingly liberal agenda, and Republicans, prompted by Scott Brown’s stunning win in Massachusetts, are making a comeback.

But past his impressive rhetoric and effusive public speaking, what were Obama’s promises? What are his initiatives for the coming year?

The economy. Obama called on Congress for a “new jobs bill,” which would presumably help alleviate the 10% unemployment rate. No major specifics were given other than his plan to take $30 billion repaid by the bailed-out banks and give it to community banks to spur investment, help small business, and create jobs.

It is important to remember, too, that the unemployment rate is far worse 10%. First, there those who are underemployed but still counted as employed in labor statistics (such as a PhD grad flipping burgers). Second, there are those who are employed only part time because they cannot find a full time job – these individuals are also counted as employed. Finally, the unemployment rate does not count those who have stopped looking for a job but are able to work (called discouraged workers). In sum, these three factors all help underestimate the true unemployment rate and make it seem far better than it actually is. Obama understands this and is trying to address the problem in a broad manner, probably afraid that being too specific would alienate an already uneasy Congress.

This is long overdue for an administration that owes part of its election to a faltering economy; the government should have focused on this first and foremost during their first year in office instead of healthcare. If they did that, they would not only be more successful with improving our financial system, but would give them credit and headway in taking on healthcare later.

Health care reform. After taking quite a bruising on health care but knowing reform is very close to being passed, Obama urged them to “get it done.” Obama planned to pass healthcare by now and use his speech as congratulatory remarks. Instead, he and his administration are on the defensive and making a last ditch effort before the bill dies. It is a risk when he urges them to “get it done.” It grows partly from their leadership but mostly from their frustration. Whether healthcare will work or not depends on Democrats in Congress during these first crucial months of 2010.

Spending freeze. How ironic, considering how much the government has spent in the past year. Obama is considering a freeze government expenditures starting in 2011 to last for three years. Interestingly, he received a lukewarm response from Congress, though, as Democrats feel it will hurt the poor and Republicans feel it won’t do anything in light of previous government spending. This will probably not come to fruition due to the spending he will push for healthcare, the economy, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add little support from Congress to that notion and this plan is doomed to fail. Obama would be smart to back off from this idea and stick to what he has done and supported so far: spending money.

Don’t ask, don’t tell policy. This policy is policy for gays serving in the military, meaning no on asks about your sexual orientation and no one tells, either. Obama wants it repealed. It was a short interlude in his one hour and a half long speech and is probably a bargaining chip towards to the Democrats, who have long pushed for the end of this policy, in order to get ahead on health care and other initiatives.

Foreign policy. Obama vaguely described his foreign policy plan, rejecting both an interventional and non-interventional policy. He did put a word of caution to the Iranians and their nuclear program, but, in the end, he made no mention of why he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He probably feels he addressed it already during his speech at West Point last year and knows it isn’t too popular with Americans.

Overall. Obama’s speech was average. Although he put forward some good ideas and impetus behind them, his promises of hope and change are starting to wear off. Unless he gets America’s priorities in order and back on track, Obama is setting himself up to be the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter’s presidency in the late 70’s. This next year is crucial to his the mid term elections this November and his reelection campaign in 2012.

Actions certainly speak louder than words. We anxiously await Obama and his administrations until the mid term elections, when we can better gauge the American public’s response to his policies through the voting booth.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Last week, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat following his death. It is a resounding and much needed victory for the Republican Party. But, only a few weeks ago, it didn’t look this way at all.

Massachusetts seemed to be a sure bet for Democrats when campaigning started. Obama won it in the 2008 election easily and MA has voted liberal for a very long time. Kennedy spent 46 years representing them in the same seat for God’s sake.

But Scott Brown, an independent Republican, drew on support of the masses and attracted moderate voters. He campaigned all over Massachusetts in a pickup truck and his image of an everyman never seemed to wane. Coakley, on the other hand, went on a smear campaign against Brown in true elitist fashion. She became too greedy, too sure of herself, too pushy. The voters pushed back, and the people have spoken.

I don’t know whether this was a vote on President Obama’s healthcare plan or his agenda in general. What I do know is that the election of Scott Brown is far more important than most people think.

Brown is the forty-first Republican who will sit in the Senate. This means Democrats no longer have sixty votes, or what is called a supermajority. Often in the Senate, the minority will filibuster a majority-sponsored bill they disagree with; it is a classic tactic to cause a bill to fail and impede the progress of whoever has the most seats in Congress.

With sixty members of a party, however, the supermajority can opt for a motion called cloture, which brings the debate to an end and, essentially, shuts up the minority party. It is a defense against a filibuster. Up until the death of Ted Kennedy, the Democrats had a supermajority

By Ryan Kosyla

Lame-duck governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is expected to sign the “New Jersey Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act,” which would make it the 14 th state to legalize medical marijuana. It was passed by large majorities in both the state assembly and state senate.

We all have our opinions about whether marijuana should be legalized or not, but his article is not about marijuana legalization. It is about medical marijuana legalization, an entirely separate issue. And it comes down to this: I cannot for the life of me understand why in the world medical use of cannabis is prohibited. I’ll begin with a personal story and sum in up in a few generalized arguments.

When I was younger, my Dad often took me to see John Barker, a lifelong friend of his. I didn’t know much about him, other than the fact that he was in a wheelchair, had trouble speaking, and couldn’t lift his legs (my Dad would often have to pick them up and put them in place). Mr. Barker, or “Johnny,” as we called him, had ALS, also known as Lou Gherig’s disease.

According to the ALS association, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a motor neuron disease attacking nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, leading to weakness, loss of motor functioning, and paralysis. It is a virtual death sentence within three to five years of diagnosis. There is no known cure.

Mr. Barker tried to acquire medical marijuana. Other medications were not effective to help his frail, dystrophic body and often caused other extremely unpleasant side effects, to say the least. He was dying; he knew it, I knew it, everyone knew it. Doctors did not give him long to live. To no ones surprise, he soon died – peacefully, if you could say that, in his sleep.

I find myself unconvinced of any arguments against medical marijuana. Yes, there should be restrictions, just like there are with Valium, Percocet, and Oxycotin. Yes, the details of the bill should be tailored to ensure we don’t create another California. But those are minor things, when we need to be concentrating on the major thing: life and death.

I don’t buy any anti-medical marijuana arguments. Really – think about it for a second. Who am I to tell a terminally ill patient they can’t get high? Why in the world does it even matter to outsiders, when it has nothing to do with them? If there are over-the-counter drugs like Advil that can kill you with an overdose, why do we not allow for the responsible use of a drug on which it is impossible to OD? If we prescribe painkillers that are just as strong as, if not stronger than, pot, and with far worse side affects, why can’t someone who could benefit from smoking a joint or eating space cakes go ahead and do it?

This is a debate that makes sense to any common person. This is about being compassionate for others who are about to die, who seek relief for only a short time when they usually suffer and await their death. So let’s just cut the crap and get to it. Medical marijuana is not any worse, and I would argue is far better than, most the medications we give the ill without any second thought.

When it comes to medical marijuana, there is simply no reason not to allow it. And there are a million reasons to legalize it.