Category Archives: News

Marginalized Massacres: The story the media won’t sensationalize.

by

0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Sandy Hook, 20 children and seven adults murdered, plus injured. Virginia Tech, 32 students and faculty murdered and 23 injured. Aurora theater, 12 movie patrons murdered and 58 injured. Town Center Mall, two shoppers murdered, plus injured. Binghamton School, 14 murdered, plus injured. Fort Hood, 13 murdered and 30 injured. Boston bombing, four murdered and 298 injured. Between all of the aforementioned violent crimes, over 105 others were killed and over 64 injured due to other random killing sprees.

Jeff Bauman, who lost both his legs in the Boston bombing, being helped by both officials and bystanders.

Undoubtedly, violent crime is on the rise given this death spree toll is only five years running. And with everyone today holding a third eye in their pocket, streaming video, picture, and text at the speed of light, everyone in the world can be a witness and sit shoulder to shoulder with every news anchor in the world.

Au contraire, you might find it interesting that we are at an all time low in violent crime in over 40 years and a massive drop since the mid-1990s according to the FBI’s data collection.

In 1992, the United States incurred over 750 violent crimes per one hundred thousand people with a murder rate of 9.3 per one hundred thousand people. At the end of 2012, our nation had a violent crime rate of 377 per one hundred thousand people. In the last two decades, the rate has only increased between two consecutive years, 2005 and 2006. The murder rate of 2012 is down to 4.6, half that of two decades ago.

Wall Street Journal crime drop chart projected from 2009-2011, just two years.

Included with the decline of violent crime and murder, we have seen a decline in nearly every other category: rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny, and motor theft. These drops weren’t marginal either. The drop ranges from 30 percent in the case of burglary, to nearly 65 percent in the case of motor theft in the last two decades.

Impossible for me to marginalize crime statistics as significant as these, it may appear like I am attempting to marginalize the massacres we have experienced recently. In a certain light, I am.

While it would probably be a bad idea to leave me alone in a room with the Boston bombers or the Newtown shooter (if all were still alive), objectively, we need to realize that while things appear to be getting worse, they are actually getting better.

Even if you draw the timeline back a few centuries, on average, crime rates have always been on the decline and societies have continually improved.

Renowned Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker, said in a Ted Talk you can find online, “In fact, our ancestors were far more violent than we are. Violence has been in decline for long stretches of time, and that today, we are probably living in the most peaceful time in our species history.”

With the advent of modern communication, dramatized reporting, and easy access to traumatizing and gory digital media from around the world, it’s easy to see how the nasty gets emblazoned into the brains of the common and are therefore none the wiser to the increase number of people dying of old age and happiness.

Dramatization of media has even worked its way into the political realm, not so shockingly. It has facilitated the cry of the people to be loud enough that, now, of all times, our government needs to introduce laws of weapon control.

This isn’t an argument about whether weapon laws will be good, bad, or moot; This is an argument about how easy it is for the advent of easy access, instant communication and media drama can suade the people (and thus the government) regardless of the actual statistics and state of society as a whole… but you already knew that didn’t you?

Of course so long as there is murder, violent crime, and the like, we should make every effort as a society to prevent it… even if it’s at an all time low. That’s different than allowing the media and the public lead you to believe your safety is in jeopardy. Only a few minutes after the Boston bombings, the Sandy Hook shooting, and every other massacre, news networks scrolled fear mongering lines such as, “How safe are your children?” and, “Are terrorists taking over America?”.

The answer to these questions are, “As safe as they have ever been”, and, “I’m more afraid of spiders”.

 

Related articles

Jurassic Park 3D: Play Smart with the Environment, Don’t Play God

by

1

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Oh how we humans like to be masters of our environment, controllers of life. If we can do something, we do it. Though it may sound cliche, just because we can do something, should we?

Within the last couple of decades our knowledge of DNA has increased tremendously. Today, we are at the point where we can nearly bring back that which does not exist.

Like extinct species, for example.

Jurassic Park 3D

With “Jurassic Park 3D” coming out, we can expect to see more entertained discussion of what it means to bring back extinct animals, not necessarily just for viewing pleasure. A scenario like “Jurassic Park” is not possible, as 65 million years is far too long to get a good DNA sample of any dinosaur, but it’s still interesting to contemplate.

Teams have attempted “de-extinction” before, and nearly succeeded. A team of French and Spanish scientists brought back an extinct Pyrenean ibex (goat) in 2003, only for it to die just minutes after birth and therefore go extinct again. The Pyrenean ibex only recently went extinct, in the late 1990s, with the last one found dead under a tree with a radio tracker around its neck. This animal went extinct because it was over-hunted.

Scientists all over the world are working toward turning science-fiction into science-fact. Is it right, though?

Earth is its own habitat and has its own life cycle. In human years, Earth would probably be in its late 40s and have much to offer in resources and knowledge. Over 98 percent of all species to have ever existed have gone extinct — billions of species. Who are we to say that we should “save the animals,” as the endangered species activists so loudly exclaim? And does it really matter if we bring back extinct species?

In the long run, no, it doesn’t remotely matter.

The real question is whether or not humans have had a major influence on the rate of extinction. I would argue we have had a massive influence in the last few hundred years.

You have heard it time and time again, drilled into your heads, that we are taking vital resources from major habitats of the world that end up hurting and removing species, be it altering the predator vs. prey ratios or removing habitats. I don’t need to tell you about humans damaging our lonely planet when you’re exposed to it everyday.

It’s one thing to try to bring back an animal we recently hunted extinct, and another thing to bring back animals like wooly mammoths, saber-toothed tigers and mastodons. These three species have been extinct from four to 12 thousand years —  long before humans were a global threat.

Bringing back a few extinct or endangered animals that disappeared due to humans probably won’t help much from an ecological point, if at all. And bringing back extinct animals from 10,000 years ago is just scientific fun. Good luck trying to throw them into an unadapted environment which they haven’t been a part of for millennia.

Taking animals out of extinction for research’s sake is fine and dandy. It might, after all, lead to the discovery of many new and interesting things. Taking animals out of extinction to try and solve the world of problems that humans have created is a lost cause. And doing so just so we can have an “extinct exhibit” at the zoo is moronic and beyond egocentric.

The only way we can help our planet is to bring balance to the environment by the way we use it. Species come and go the same way we are born and die, and the only thing we can do is be a part of that cycle, naturally.

Staying ahead of that cycle is preserving the existence of our own species, for now. But there needs to be a balance because whether we like it or not, no matter how ahead we are, we’re dependent on what lives and grows on Earth.

Some call de-extinction “playing God.” Paleontologist Michael Archer at the University of New South Wales says we’ve been playing God ever since we drove animals to extinction.

Regardless of whether we’re “playing God” or not, humans need to stop thinking that there will always be a remedial fix to the problems we create and instead focus on preventing problems from even occurring in the first place. “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”

 

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! Nope, it’s just meteor 2012 DA14!

by

0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

June 30, 1908, was a rather eventful day in an otherwise uneventful forest in Siberia, Russia, when a meteor nearly a football field in size exploded only a few miles above Earth’s surface.

The “Tunguska event” went almost completely unnoticed thanks to its isolation from the rest of the world, even though it impacted Earth with an energy level equivalent to roughly 15 megatons of TNT —or 1,000 times as powerful as the thermonuclear detonation over Hiroshima, Japan.

The Tunguska meteor leveled more than 830 square miles and would have measured more than 5.0 on the richter scale — and was almost identical in characteristics to the asteroid passing a record close proximity to us today, Feb. 15th, named “2012 DA14”.

Asteroid 2012 DA14 is a little less than a football field in diameter and weighs an estimated 130,000 tons. It will pass within geosynchronous orbit at an altitude of about 3.5 Earth radii — 5,000 less than the satellites — and will be traveling 18,000 miles per hour, more than 23 times the speed of sound.

If this asteroid were to enter our atmosphere and become a meteor, it would be almost laughable for me to say it would be a bad day.

Have no worries, though, there is zero chance for 2012 DA14 to hit us, even on any return trip within the next 100 years.

As NASA Jet Propulsion Lab’s newest volunteer ambassador for Iowa, I will regularly make an effort keep you up to date on the latest information and research to come out of NASA. Clarified in the paper, any opinion I hold is independent to that of NASA.

With that said, it is unlikely you will be able to see the asteroid with the naked eye. If you wish to see it, it will require a mounted pair of binoculars positioned to catch the asteroid traveling from the southern evening sky to northern morning sky at about 1:24 p.m. The asteroid can be viewed via live feed from one of NASA’s telescopes at http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ustream.html

2012 DA14 was discovered by the LaSagra observatory in southern Spain on Feb. 23, 2012. This is almost exactly one year before the asteroid’s passing. Suppose it was calculated to be an impact like the one in Tunguska Forest.

Is one year enough time to prepare if 2012 DA14 were on an orbital path destined to impact us?

An asteroid this size is not big enough to decimate our large region of the world, but it is big enough to decimate a metropolitan area. Even though an asteroid is far more likely to impact water than land, let alone a highly populated area, things like this would need to be considered. Would it be feasible to organize a team to send out a spacecraft to intercept and divert said asteroid? Or would it be better to calculate its impact region and evacuate anyone within the effective impact radius?

If the asteroid were anything like 2012 XE54, discovered Dec. 9, 2012 — two days before passing Earth within the moon’s orbit — then there isn’t much we could do but evacuate as many as possible and tell the world to hunker down. Even though 2012 XE54 was not big enough to do considerable damage if it hit us, it still shows the owl-like stealth of these rocks and how well they fly under the radar.

As far as I can discern, a future asteroid impact is the only natural disaster humans have the capability to avert. It’s also the only known natural disaster capable of wiping us out just as it did the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

NASA and other private corporations should be well-funded such that scanning the local galaxy becomes simplistic and proficient enough to spot lethal asteroids well before they spot us, and possibly already have tested and proven asteroid diverting technology.

Quoted more than once in my columns, Aldous Huxley said, “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.” The sad reality is that it takes a massive disaster to occur for us to do anything about it on the come around, and even then we are lax. Let us consider the implications of said near-misses and start appropriating resources toward a solution.

Related articles

Boy Scouts to rethink LGBT policy thanks to grassroots movement

by

0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is the single largest contributor to the Boy Scouts of America, stated that if the Boy Scouts allowed homosexual members then the church would withdraw all financial support from the organization. Accordingly, making a business decision after receiving such pressure from a religious organization, the BSA complied.

This was a paragraph in a column I wrote last July after the Boy Scouts made a public reaffirmation of its anti-homosexual policy after a two year long internal debate. Two years of internal debate must show that they were conflicted to begin with.

Bill DeVos, an Eagle Scout and a Scoutmaster in upstate New York, shows his Eagle awards and a letter that he mailed to the Boy Scouts on Tuesday in protest over the organization’s policy banning gay Scouts and leaders. (Courtesy of Bill DeVos via NBCNews)

Earlier this week the Boy Scout organization has eaten the words it once so firmly stood by last July, saying they plan on revisiting the decision to not allow homosexuals in the organization, and instead leave it up to individual troops to decide.

Already pressure was mounting for the organization to rewrite its policy, at the same time held at gunpoint by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over potential funding leading to the Boy Scout’s July decision.

Outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other religious funding, there are many corporations that support the Boy Scouts. In the last several months, after the Boy Scout’s reaffirmation of its anti-gay policy, these corporations have also put some heat on the Boy Scouts claiming it violates their nondiscrimination policy.

With the Boy Scouts already on a membership decline over the last several years (20 percent over the last decade), a loss of support from its many corporate sponsors would be crippling, regardless if its top two contributors are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and United Methodist church.

Last July I also wrote, “No law needs to change; the BSA is still completely protected by the Constitution, and that is the beauty of a free society. The change of becoming a less discriminating organization needs to happen internally; and this ruling, though pathetic, might just finally teeter the Boy Scouts towards a truly moralistic organization.”

In 2000, the Boy Scouts went all the way to the Supreme Court on the matter of discriminating against gays and the court ruled a split 5-4 in favor of the Boy Scouts of America. So long as the group is a not-for-profit, private organization, they can discriminate against whomever they choose.

Just this last May, Eagle Scout Zach Wahls of Iowa City, Iowa, turned in a petition containing over a quarter million signatures that called for the lifting of the gay ban. Since Wahls petition and the Boy Scouts’ failure to act upon it, many other online petitions began sprouting up, amounting to signatures in the millions.

Many major corporations have pulled their funding from the organization due to their continued, active discrimination. A few of these CEOs are taking an active effort in actually lifting the ban, including members on the actual BSA Board. The National Council Board includes CEOs of major international businesses. Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, supports lifting the ban, and he is next in line to take control of the board.

At the same time, the ultimate reason why the Boy Scouts organization is so readily thinking about reversing its July reaffirmation soon, is thanks to the grassroots movement it forged itself, essentially digging their own grave.

Troops, leaders, parents, boys, civil rights advocates and Eagle Scouts such as myself caused an uproar. Be it total troop defiance of the policy or Eagle Scouts immolating their own rank in front of the council, all over America (and the world), the Boy Scouts of America National Council was marked as one of the greatest bigoted organizations of our time.

Though not a final decision, both President Barack Obama and his former competitor Mitt Romney stated the association should be all inclusive, mounting even more weight on the board’s shoulders. The board is said to meet and discuss next week.

Just as I concluded my July column, I will conclude this column with the posting of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council mailing address. As stressed before, please voice your opinion to them, personally. A discriminant society is a primitive and amoral society.

Boy Scouts of America, National Council

1325 West Walnut Hill Lane

Irving, Texas 75015-2079

Pentagon lifts ban on women in combat

by

0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Second in military chain of command to none other than POTUS himself, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has lifted the Pentagon ruling on women in combat. Specifically, Panetta lifted a ban that prevents women from taking part in ground combat positions.

Until now, and only recently, the closest women have been able to hold combat positions are in Air Force fighters and Navy ships. Congress will have thirty days to think on Panetta’s decision.

Just this past November, four military women along with the American Civil Liberties Union, sued Panetta and the Pentagon over the combat exclusion rule. They claimed that there were in fact women serving alongside men in Afghanistan and Iraq that were taking enemy fire as well as returning it but never being recognized for their combat efforts, and therefore, passed on promotions.

In just Afghanistan and Iraq, more than 900 women have been wounded in battle, accounting for about 2 percent of all Americans wounded in combat since 2001.

Nearly 15 percent of the U.S. Armed Forces is comprised of women. Previously, women were allowed to hold over 90 percent of all military positions, excluding infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, special forces and any position that has a high lack of privacy (e.g. submarines).

Possibly a post-Petraeus facelift, Panetta is giving the branches until January 2016 to implement the changes and come forward with any recommended exceptions, hinting at the possibility of continuing the exclusion of women in the special forces and/or infantry.

So the question remains, should women be allowed to serve in ground combat positions?

It depends.

As a former member of the Air Force ROTC, I can tell you that our branch (as well as all others) had a separate physical fitness standard for women. Push-ups, sit-ups and run times were markedly lower than that of men. If women were to take part in ground combat, you bet your ass I’d want her to be able to carry me out of a sticky situation if I were to get shot.

For this move towards equality to be granted, I deem it only obligatory that fitness standards become sexually ambiguous but equally difficult. Either that or we throw back to the time of segregated units — but instead of by race, by gender. Not an appealing thought.

Fitness is just the obvious point of argument. The greatest point of discussion is that of unity.

The single greatest catastrophe any military unit can obtain is disunity. The greatest reason for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, as well as the policy barring women in combat (and African-Americans many years ago) was the possibility of creating disunity. Just because brass is ready for equality, does not mean the members of the military are ready for equality.

An example of this disunity is in the book “The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq” where Helen Benedict gives an investigative account of women’s struggles in the military as a result of being around men. She cites many testimonials as well as studies showing: 30 percent of military women are raped while serving, 71 percent are sexually assaulted and 90 percent are sexually harassed. Funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, these numbers ruffled enough of the Department of Defense’s feathers to warrant an apathetic response.

Even if these numbers are by and large inaccurate, it’s still convincing enough that our military men are not prepared to cohesively work with women in a theater of combat — either that or women should be aware of this going in. Enforcing the law within the military is a necessity, though it often gets put on the back burner due to interests of wartime being placed at a higher priority.

On the flip side, in Israel, women were once allowed in close combat but are not anymore. The greatest reason was actually due to the fact that men reacted excessively protective, especially when a woman was wounded — so much so, it marred unit performance.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe women should take part in ground combat with the reservation that they meet the same standards as all other servicemen, but there is no doubt in my mind that this ruling will create disunity and tension among the ground troops in our present time. The women volunteering should be aware that it’ll take more than three years to adjust.

Normally, I would never make an argument that sways nay of equality, but in the interest of the lives of our soldiers and the security of America’s borders — testosterone and estrogen are difficult to mix and must be intensely scrutinized.

Iowa dental assistant fired for being “too attractive”, goes to Iowa Supreme Court

by

3

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Iowa Supreme Court ruled seven to zero that employers can fire employees on the grounds of “irresistible attraction” on Dec. 21, 2012.

Along with his wife, Fort Dodge Dentist James Knight claimed his dental assistant of 10 years, Melissa Nelson, was a threat to their marriage. Nelson, married with two kids, was accused of wearing “tight clothes” and being a sexual distraction. She wore a generic healthcare assistant uniform seen in most doctors’ offices and hospitals. Knight, ordered by his wife and counseled by pastor (he is a self-proclaimed deeply religious man), saw it fitting to terminate the “stellar” employee.

The Knights

The Nelsons

 

The Iowa high court said this was not a violation of the Civil Rights Act as the reasons for termination were not based on gender, but emotion. Now, Nelson works all but one day a week as a waitress.

Knight confided to Nelson’s husband that he feared his texts to her would develop into an affair. At the same time, Nelson, 21 years younger, claimed she never once had an attraction to Knight and looked at the middle-aged man as more of a father figure who happened to be her employer. Knight’s wife also worked with them and discovered the text messages in regards to family matters; soon after, she demanded he fire his dental assistant.

This is just another prime example of religious fear of lust followed by spousal jealousy, no matter how innocent or irrational.
Knight’s wife does not trust her husband, does not trust her ten-year fellow employee and does not trust the fact that she is a married mother. Knight does not trust the restraint of himself nor the composure of Nelson, should he put a move on her.

Nelson’s attorney, Paige Fiedler, made a comment that has made news across the globe, saying, “These judges sent a message to Iowa women that they don’t think men can be held responsible for their sexual desires and that Iowa women are the ones who have to monitor and control their bosses’ sexual desires. If they get out of hand, then the women can be legally fired for it.”

I completely agree with her attorney. The all-male high court virtually ruled unanimously that it is the responsibility of the employee (in this case, a woman) to be sure their associates and managers are not sexually attracted to them, for fear of losing their job — regardless of how great an employee they are.

A setback for Iowa, and gender rights in general, the case goes to show some people (high court included) can’t see the demonstrable contradiction to equality this ruling imposes.

The ruling technically complied with state law. An employer can avoid discrimination charges if family members are being favored. An employer can also terminate an employee if the business relationship causes tension in the family. Realistically, this situation applies even if the gender roles were reversed, or between people of the same sex.

Just as this case is a first for Iowa, I doubt we will see much of this unfold again, unless it is as an excuse to fire someone for reasons other than what is allowed under Iowa law. In Knight’s case, he sincerely believed that Nelson was a threat to his fidelity and marriage so long as she was employed.

Knight’s attorney, Stuart Cochrane, said, “While there was really no fault on the part of Mrs. Nelson, it was just as clear the decision to terminate her was not related to the fact that she was a woman. The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage. I don’t view this as a decision that was either pro-women or opposed to women rights at all. In my view, this was a decision that followed the appropriate case law.”

Sometimes the law isn’t complete or is flat out wrong as times change. Times have changed, and in the case of gender equality, they began to change a long time ago. I would understand it fitting for Nelson to be fired if actual flirtation and/or fornication took place, but they didn’t. The law is upholding the assumption the employer can’t control his sexual urges and penalizes the employee for that.
I’ll take it a step further and equate it with something made famous by Colorado Senate runner, Ken Buck, saying a raped woman had it coming with the attire she chose to wear.

Neuroscience and Homosexuality related in “Epigenetics”

by

0

[Science Daily]

Dec. 11, 2012 — Epigenetics — how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks — appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs.

According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus “erased,” can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son.

From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection.

In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality.

Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes’ backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out — when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carry over between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes.

Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized — some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters.

The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that “sexually antagonistic” epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.

“Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality,” said the study’s co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS’ associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

The paper’s other authors are William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden.

Related articles

Will the United States divide by secession?

by

0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

As some of you may have heard, eleven of the United States have presented enough signatures to The White House for the President to make an official declaration on the petition for secession. The White House allows anyone to submit a petition, but will only make an official response if the petition accrues greater than 25,000 signees. So far, the states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have crossed the given petition threshold — more are nearing.

Is it not obvious that with the exception of Ohio and Florida (barely), these are all red states, the color of the non-winner? After every presidential election there is always a backlash of resentment where secession petitions begin to appear — but this is the first time it has happened with such great magnitude as to require The White House to make an official statement on the matter.

As of November 26, over 918,000 total signatures have been included from all fifty states. Realistically, this isn’t a lot when you compare it to the 300 million populace, though, it is still more citizens than the residence of six individual states.

To be honest I find the signees of these petitions to be both lazy and quite frankly unappreciative. We live in a nation that has arguably the most beautifully written constitution and bill of rights — a near work of art. If secession signers want to leave so bad they have every right to move away, although, they already know this is a bad idea.

Why? Because they already know there isn’t another nation in the world that would both fit their needs as (in this case) a conservative and simultaneously give them opportunity to voice their secession opinion in a non-incriminating manner.

Firstly, nowhere in the constitution does it allow for a state to secede if they so choose. A new amendment would have to be made for a peaceful secession to take place. This requires a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate, followed by 38 of 50 state’s vote of approval.

Unlikely, I know.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia even wrote, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” We’re technically a union, not a confederacy.

However, I still believe the right should be granted to a state. If this amendment existed, I would think at least a two-thirds state vote for secession would be adequate in determining state decision.

No state has come remotely close to even a one in ten margin. Texas has the greatest signee turnout and still only accounts for 0.45 percent of its population. Alaska hasn’t reached the 25,000 vote mark but sustains the highest percentage of signees at 1.7 percent. This is hardly a majority, let alone two-thirds.

If I were to continue down this long road of unlikelihood and entertain the thought of a state leaving the Union, there would be an unbelievable amount of obstacles to overcome in order to become an officially separate, yet functional nation.

Any federal jurisdiction, including military, would have to be absolved and/or relocated. A new constitution must be written. Police, fire, military, utilities, currency, tariffs and tax collectors, road crews, and legislators would have to be created and conformed to the new law of the land. To put it loosely, it would be chaos.

Still, if the citizens of a state understand this and wish to secede, more power to them I guess. If our nation went as far as to amend the constitution to allow for secession, and a state (or multiple) enacted that right, it might actually be mutually beneficially. They would be happy in getting what they wanted, and I would be happy to have let go a state that doesn’t wish to be a part of the United States. Trade will probably continue as normal.

This is of course if the citizens within the state don’t go into civil war over the vote for secession.

Every four years when a new president is elected we see a turnout of secession petitions. By in large I find this petition to be an accurate representation to the number of uninformed sore losers that exist within our country. Even though it is nonsensical and would require a massive amount of legislation, I still believe states should be given the right to secede, given overwhelming majority vote.

Let me know your thoughts on the matter and hit share if you like what you see.

Related articles

Green Party presidential candidates arrested; Debate to be held

by

0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Presidential candidate Jill Stein and vice presidential candidate Cheri Honkala of the Green Party were arrested on the 16th of October, the evening of the second presidential debate. Complying peacefully, they were charged with disorderly conduct after being refused entry into Hofstra University where the debate was being held.

Stein and Honkala are the predominate Green Party candidates that show up on 85 percent of the nation’s ballots, including Iowa. After the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) disallowed them from participating in the events, Stein and Honkala protested by sitting outside the debate hall with an American flag and were surrounded by police officers preventing them from entering the facility.

Larry King 3rd party debate

Jailed for more than eight hours, the candidate’s campaign manager Ben Manski stated, “The arrest was outrageous and shouldn’t be tolerated in a country that is a leading proponent of democracy…. They knew that there was the possibility that they would be arrested. Their intention was to enter the premises and bear witness to the mockery of democracy that is tonight’s debate.”

Many might argue that her behavior, especially as a presidential candidate, was of slightly too high intensity. Fair enough. That same kind of pacifistic mentality strips everything it means to be a democracy. I would like to note that when Stein debated Romney in Mass. in 2002, the Boston Globe claimed “ [Stein] was the only adult in the room”.

Larry King decided to be the moderator for a live online debate held in Chicago for minor-party presidential candidates Tuesday, October 23 at 7pm on Ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty. The debate includes: Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson; Green Party, Jill Stein; Constitution Party, Virgil Goode; Justice Party, Rocky Anderson.

Larry King made it clear none of them will win, going on to say, “They have a story to tell. It’s a valid story. It’s a two-party system, but not a two-party system by law.” The debate is organized by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

To go back to Manski’s remark about “mockery of democracy”, there seems to be a very legal but very shady way our debates are held. Here’s a not so well known secret:

The Commission on Presidential Debates is actually a private corporation.

You heard that right. All the presidential elections you’ve seen televised since 1987 are formed and run by the Democrat Party and Republican Party. The commission is technically “non-profit”, but the money comes from contributions of various foundations and corporations. And when a corporation has money flow and is under the control of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC), it becomes quite apparent that nobody is going to devote attention or resources to a third party of any kind.

In 2000, Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit against the CPD which cited a monetary favor to the RNC and DNC and stated that was against the Federal Election Campaign Act. He lost that lawsuit on the basis he failed to provide enough evidence that the CPD was favoring or denying any party.

The CPD has drawn much outlash over the years that has lead to protests at their headquarters and the demand of contact information being posted on their website. The list of allegations is endless.

In 2004, Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik were arrested for civil disobedience after ignoring the police request to not enter the presidential debate.

In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity found that 93 percent of CPD’s money came from just six donors, all of which were kept secret.

Just a month ago, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed a lawsuit against the CPD for denying competition by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which is a century old act that denies business from restraining competition in the market. Johnson had asked the court to put a hold on all presidential debates until the lawsuit was completed or until all presidential candidates were allowed debate time by the CPD and had the feasible 270 electoral votes to win an election. That request was obviously denied.

Do you notice a trend here?

Two active presidential candidates and three former presidential candidates in recent times have all protested both formally and informally for the right to a fair election process, and all have lost and/or been arrested; All of which standing up for something.

Regardless of what the court finds in Johnson’s lawsuit and regardless of the likelihood of a third party getting elected, all parties that have a spot on an American presidential ballot should have the right to an equal and fair election process — what is this, a democracy?

NASA officially passes the torch

by

0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Irony echoed in the California skies over this last weekend. Space Shuttle Endeavor made its final flight while riding aback the modified Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. In one last great homage, Space Shuttle Endeavor ferried its way across the nation, passing over key locations and making it virtually the most encompassing air show in history.

Space Shuttle Endeavor flies over Houston

Flybys included places such as: The Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center, Gabby Giffords‘ home, NASA Ames Research Facility, The Queen Mary, Disneyland, Universal Studios, White Sands Missile Range, Jet Propulsion Lab, Dryden Flight Research Center, and eventually landing at LAX to be put on display at the California Science Center. The irony is Endeavor made one of its last flyovers above SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif.

SpaceX being the leading (and essentially only) contender for American human space-flight in the near future, NASA shows a bit of a political message by flying over the private corporation, if not a little bit of public relations. Maybe even a bit of passing on national responsibility. A passing of the torch, figuratively.

While it is my belief that the American government should do everything within its power to advance the space program, this rare bit of irony is a calling sign that the government actually needs our help as a people to put our foot on new frontier. Commercial space-flight is on the cusp of becoming a competitive, marketable industry. With SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, Virgin Galactic’s LauncherOne, Reaction Engine Limited’s SABRE, we are bound for a spillover into the regular market.

This isn’t to say that government space organizations are going to become obsolete. In fact, I think the opposite. What the government will always be able to provide is incentive for dreamers of today to become the achievers of tomorrow.

So long as humans are interested in space, the government will have a vested interest to be a part of it. Be it colonizing moons or planets, providing space defense, laying claim to mineral deposits, averting apocalyptic asteroids or most decidedly, research of the cosmos, the government will be ever-present through education, research grants and scholarships, as well as major national political decisions.

Even though NASA seemingly passed the torch of responsibility onto SpaceX, private corporations will vie for a market in space travel, not so much scientific research. These corporations have a market to create and fill and will likely succeed in the near future. The shift is subtle, though. I equate it to the difference between engineers and physicists. Physicists work on the expansion of scientific knowledge within the universe while engineers take that knowledge and apply it.

SpaceX and other up-and-coming corporations will be taking the research that the government programs continue to provide and apply it to the market in a competitive manner. In other words, I believe you should be rooting for the success of the private space industry while monetarily supporting the government sectors responsible for the research, such as NASA.

The glory of NASA might have burnt out as far as the public is concerned, only because they are no longer the ones in the spotlight sending astronauts on heroic missions to the moon. NASA is becoming the voice behind the character in animation films. Or better yet, the fuel for the fire.

Private corporations will help remove the need to innovate on the basis of politics because their funds won’t come from just the national budget nor a red scare. In order for NASA (read, government) to design and build asteroid aversion technology, NASA has to be able to give a reason to the people for spending their money in that light. As sad as it sounds, the public won’t have any of it unless there is an asteroid bumbling silently through space at 90,000 miles per hour with a target destination called “the Atlantic Ocean”.

By that account, we all might as well be dead.

The competition of private space corporations will naturally beget a space race, minus the nuclear warheads. It will reduce the cost of all things space-related, it will create jobs, it will inspire, educate and maybe most importantly, save the human species. NASA has assumed the role of the researcher and educator and maybe, just maybe, that’s where they best function.

After all, Neil Armstrong did say, “I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer, born under the second law of thermodynamics, steeped in steam tables, in love with free-body diagrams, transformed by Laplace and propelled by compressible flow.”

 

Hit share if you liked what you read, comment if you have anything to say, especially if you have a different opinion.

Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/InsanityIsJustAStateOfMind 

Related articles