Americans STILL Suffering from Polluted Drinking Water?

BOSTON, Mass. (9/17/1009) -- Americans are drinking polluted water…In recent years, violations of the Clean Water Act have risen across the United States, The New York Times reported on September 12, 2009. Family health is now compromised in areas of the country where clean water used to be the status quo. No, people are forced to “think before they drink.”

Jennifer Hall-Massey’s family lives outside of Charleston, West Virginia, where the bath water that she bathes her two young boys in is contaminated with lead, nickel, and other heavy metals that cause rashes, burns, and eats away at tooth enamel.

Although many of the chemical factories and manufacturing plants have admitted to causing the contamination, very few of these violators have been held accountable for their actions. In fact, most have completely escaped punishment.

The new EPA administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, told the NYT that the Clean Water Act of 1972 is no longer sufficient legislation and strengthening water protections is one of her top priorities.

Original NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1253287007-WUIC0JgT4Kcd662pGzQs4g

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

"Obama-Care"

BOSTON, MA (9/14/2009) -- Is health care a question of legality or morality? Are we, as American citizens, entitled to health care that allows us to live worry-free, knowing that we will never leave a hospital untreated due to the price of the medical treatment? I think almost every American would agree that this is the case. But Why?

Because health care is a necessity in life- it is one of the key components in ensuring the American dream of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Therefore, it is not simply a question of policy and legislation that Washington finds itself carving out of the oak tree of history, it is a moral standard that lawmakers are choosing to either adhere to or disregard.

When Obama presented his health care plan to the American people on September 9, 2009, he was might have thought he was delivering a marketing speech to a panel of the toughest critics in the world. He was, in a way. But his audience was not the elite businessmen who were sitting in their Brooks Brothers' suit coats standing and sitting in agreement as the president spoke before their very eyes. The REAL audience assessing Obama's plan was driving home from work on I-95, setting the table for dinner in Waltham, MA, and sifting through bills at their desks as they contemplated taking out a second mortgage on their homes, in order to pay their outstanding medical bills. These were the men and women that listened to Obama's words, careful to take every statement with a grain of salt.

Here, I am going to take a liberty that, as a journalist, I am told never to take. It may feel a bit naughty (in truth, it DOES, why else would I be apologizing?), but I am going to switch into first-person narrative. Because, in reality, I can speak for these people I have described- the real audience for Obama's health care argument- because I am an average American citizen and this topic concerns me. It is my health at stake.

As a college senior in my final year of undergraduate work, I often think about the future and the possibility that in one year, I may be paying my own medical bills. So when Obama spoke, I listened, sitting in my sweats on the couch in my boyfriend's college apartment.

President Barack Obama is one of the most ideological presidents that I have seen in my mere 21 years of existence. He always has his chin up, his eyes twinkling, and his head held high. I don't believe half of what he says, even though most of the time, I want to. I really do!

Obama's plan deals with three brackets of people: the insured, the uninsured, and the irresponsibly uninsured.

For the insured, Obama plans to make insurance better; there will be more stability for job insurance, people will have the freedom to choose the doctor they desire, routine/preventative check-ups will be covered, and you will not be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. Bravo! Obama also condemned insurance companies that force people to pay for prescriptions "out-of-pocket," saying "No One should go broke because they got sick."

For the uninsured, Obama is determined to provide insurance through an Insurance Exchange that allows insurance companies to compete for clients on a level playing field. Despite accusations from right-wing Republicans, Obama says that a new government insurance option will only be added to the pool of other insurers, one of many fish in the sea. The cheap, government option will be totally self-sufficient and non-profit, entirely independent of tax payer dollars. The exchange would not go into effect for four years, however, tax credits and a low cost plan would be offered in the meantime.

And for the irresponsible American citizen, Obama has a message, "No gaming the system!" The president spoke directly to the minority of Americans who can afford health care, but choose not to pay for it. These are the people who think they will never get sick and then, inevitably, end up being rushed to the emergency room and the rest of us end up paying their bills. These are the people that rack up health care costs and these are the people that are going to prevent reform plans from successfully coming to fruition. But no longer. From now on, Obama wants to make it mandatory to carry health care insurance- just as it is mandatory for every driver to carry some sort of auto-insurance. End of story.

First, let me tell you what I did like about his plan. He acknowledged, as the late Ted Kennedy said, that this is not a bi-partisan issue. The matter of health care is one of "large heartedness" and the moral character of our country. Obama also said that he will protect Medicare and the future of the elderly population, he will offer the American people a choice in affordable health coverage- a choice that does not have to be government funded, and he "will not accept the status quo as a solution."

Along with this optimistic attitude, Obama made several compromises. He is willing to use ideas from across the aisle- including elements of health care reform proposed by former President Bush and Obama's political opponent in the 2008 elections, Senator John McCain.

The problem is that the health care plan is going to cost a grand total of $900 billion over a ten year period. Where is all of this money coming from? Obama says that it is coming from within the health care system, from harvesting all of the expenditure that is wasted on executive bonuses and elsewhere. Obama says that by making the system more efficient and by holding people accountable, we can fund the new subsidized health care plans without "adding one dime to the deficit." Any additional costs will be paid for by the added money entering the system by way of the newly insured (formerly uninsured).

Ok, this is all fine and good, but I am not convinced. I want to see the numbers. I agree, (admitting to my own ignorance of the health care field) retrieved wasted money could provide the system with a significant figure, however, can it really fund all $900 billion? Break it down for me...where exactly is each sum coming from? Show me the numbers.

Obama showed some true backbone towards the end of his speech, however, after getting dubbed a "liar" by Rep. Wilson in reference to illegal immigrants' exclusion from the health care plan. Obama said that he will not waste time listening to people who want to try to kill his plan. He will only listen to those who are willing to work to improve it. The use of fear and antistatic values to hinder progress will not be tolerated. That being said, Obama would not let a few sour grapes ruin the monumental moment in US history.

Promising to "pull this economy back from the brink," Obama told Americans, "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

See: Obama's Health Care Speech to Congress

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Patrolling the Pentagon (More like Getting Lost in the Maze)

Washington, D.C. (9/8/2009) -- Pentagon mornings start early.

At five AM, the quiet Virginia neighborhood-where I resided with my aunt and uncle over the summer months- is completely dead, void of any live movement. The sun has not yet appeared in the hazy gray sky, although it will show itself within the hour. The darkness envelops every traditional colonial home, hugging the perfectly manicured lawns and trimmed shrubbery. This is one of the only parts of the day that you could honestly call "cool." The air is not yet heavy with humidity and the sun has not had the chance to fry the world with its burning rays.

Washington, D.C. is a busy place. I learned from my first month and a half working downtown on 14th Street that almost without exception every man or woman walking beside you on the street, or getting onto the Metro has a plan and a purpose for his or her life. Career minded and driven by the desire to achieve success, it is every Washingtonian's goal to move up in the world...by whatever means they can.

This attitude is appealing to the young, politically minded intern like myself. As a student, you are naturally at the bottom of the pile, so an environment that promotes upward mobility is ideal. However, it is also exhausting and a bit disheartening when you are one of thousands of young (and not so young) people, trying to make your stamp in an economic recession.

Thus, I found myself (after several months of informative and very beneficial freelancing/networking) lucky enough to be offered a position working for the United States Navy Public Affairs Office (called CHINFO) at the Pentagon.

Talk about high profile! Walking into work that first day in my smart, new, gray Banana Republic suit, I felt on top of the world; even my lowly status in an unpaid, no-name position could not get my spirits down when I walked past security with my U.S. Navy badge. I was on the inside, now.

The summer was a flourish of tasks, working side by side with my mentor and the other Public Affairs Officers in the N3 and N5 sectors of CHINFO. I immediately was faced with an extensive military vocabulary, completely foreign to the average American civilian, forcing me to learn standard acronyms with astonishing speed. I think I dreamt about PSASDs, QRs, CENTCOM, and pet names that the Navy gave to political figures (such as calling President Obama the POTUS, "President of the United States"). I was fortunate to have an extremely wonderful LCDR as a mentor who not only took the time to teach me how to complete tasks properly, but then had enough faith in my work ethic to begin to hand tasks over to me for completion. It was an exhilarating feeling to be considered worthy of helping with high profile tasks. The level of respect that I witnessed within CHINFO and the U.S. Navy far exceeded my expectations.

By the end of the summer, my life had been consumed by my job at the Pentagon and I was deeply involved in planning a film premiere of a Discovery Military Channel's "At Sea" film on land, sea, and sub-surface warfare within the Navy. The premiere was a huge success, an event that marked the excellent technological advances and achievements of the U.S. Navy and was attended by top U.S. politicians, as well as U.S. Navy officials, such as the Under Secretary of the Navy the Honorable Robert Work.

I must admit that since my time at CHINFO ended in the second week in August, I have refrained from wearing any form of business attire. I have put away my Navy badge and my fake black leather briefcase remains on its hook back home in Vermont. However, a large plaque with a photo best wishes from all of my summer colleagues hangs above my head in my student apartment in Boston. It is a continual reminder of the work that diligent people continue to do in our nation's Capitol. It is work that I hope to return to someday very soon.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Baby Boomers are Busting Out

Washington, D.C. (6/9/2009) -- Aging is a peculiar phenomenon. The concept is applies to all humanity, however, most people spend little time thinking about it, until, they receive their AARP memberships cards in the mail.

            Donna Brazile, presidential campaign manager for Al Gore and a veteran Democratic political strategist, led a panel discussion at the National Press Club on Monday, focused on how to handle the near-future retirement crisis.

            Volunteers of America, the host of the discussion, predicted that the senior population in the United States double in the next couple decades. Noting that America is on the “cusp of one of the most dramatic demographic shifts in its history,” the organization used the event to highlight the startling fact that by the year 2030, there will be over 71.5 million people age 65 or older.

            The problem lies not in the influx of cookie-making grandmas or doting grandpas, but in the demands that this surge of seniors will place on our country’s current elderly care system.

            The panelists, ranging from former Senate Democratic Leader Tm Daschle to task is huge and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, differed are many aspects of healthcare delivery. However, they remained aligned in their belief that the country needs to prepare in advance and it needs to do so with urgency.

            Brazile led the discussion in a light-hearted manner, teasingly referring to Volunteers of America President Charles W. Gould as “Chuck,” introducing famed conservative Newt Gingrich as “the man to my left,” and commenting that there were two women holding up the ends of the panel (herself and famed anthropologist, Mary Catherine Bateson).

            However, despite the enjoyment the audience experienced listening to the five famous politicians crack “age” jokes, the 200 middle-aged viewers were not amused by the topic as a whole.  There was an element of severity to the conversation, which could not be removed through any amount of cajoling.

            According to statistics provided by Volunteers of America, nearly 25 percent of U.S. households currently play a role in providing care to elderly people. A woman, on average, spends about 18 years caring for a parent—the same amount of time that she spends raising a child.

            In our society today, people are living later in life and, therefore, they need healthcare longer than ever before. The problem is that the money just isn’t always there. Many elderly people do not have enough money to live a long-term, sustainable lifestyle and they have no choice but to rely on government funding. Unfortunately, this funding through Medicaid and Medicare has been mismanaged and the system is not functioning in the way that it should. By 2017, only eight years from now, the Medicare trust fund is expected to be insolvent.

            So what do we do to ensure that seniors live successfully throughout their aging period? Volunteers of America's president, Charles Gould, said that it is necessary to face realities and give seniors the independence that they need and demand. Mary Catherine Bateson disagreed.

            “I can’t think of any time in my life that I have been independent,” said Bateson. “The human condition is inter-dependent. What this country needs is the engagement of all of its citizens.”

            Bateson said that although it’s often difficult for the elderly to accept help, it is important that they realize that they need it. It is also important for the younger generations to offer their services to their elders, because this relationship will help the younger citizens become better leaders of the country.

            Newt Gingrich chimed in that this is all a part of the balance that people need to find as they age. Uncharacteristically moderate, Gingrich was passive on the argument for independence. He said that although elderly people might not have as much energy as they used to (so they might need more help completing everyday tasks), they don’t make as many mistakes as they once did. Laughing, Gingrich said that he qualifies in this category at the age of 65. (Some might argue, however, on the part questioning whether he still makes big mistakes).

            Tom Daschle was the cynic of the group, stating that he is only 50 percent confident that sufficient legislation will be passed in preparation for the baby boomers’ seniority. He said that he wished he was more optimistic, but he has a hard time believing that such a huge task will be completed by the time funds start running out.

            At the moment, Congress is considering Senate Bill 118, which promote the construction of new senior housing facilities. Introduced by Democratic Senator Herb Kohl, the bill would also preserve and improve existing senior housing structures and allow for the conversion of some facilities into assisted living residences. This is just one example of legislation that could be set in place now that could help prepare the country in the future senior crisis.

            Instead, Daschle agreed with panel members that healthcare is both a moral obligation and a privilege. Yet, he also stressed two elements that he believes people need to entertain in their minds while thinking about mental healthcare debate.

            First, Daschle said people need to take responsibility for their own personal health and second, they need to contribute to the greater healthcare system, because this is also a human responsibility.

            Both Gingrich and Bateson mentioned a window of opportunity that they saw in forging stronger inter-generational relationships. Bateson called this “life-long learning,” which is the key to keeping dialogue open between young and old people.  With a greater number of parents caring for grandparents, grandparents raising children, and children caring for the elderly, our culture is morphing into one of “mutual giving.”

            Gingrich called this trend towards “mutual giving” as America’s notion of extended relations—one that is moving away from the modern era of individualism and returning to a post-modern technologically connected society. Gingrich titled this as ability for people to remain “electronically intimate, despite geographic separation.”

            Gingrich concluded that he thinks if President Obama is willing to accept “half a loaf,” then there could be healthcare reform for seniors within the 2009-2010 year. But, the president must be willing to compromise; unlike back in 1993-1994 when the issue of healthcare remained unresolved between parties so subsequently, reform was never accomplished.

            As Daschle stated, “If we can only find common ground…(a slogan all too familiar to the Obama era)” then we could find a way in ensure healthcare for all, including seniors. 

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Reaganomics v. Obamanomics: Surviving the Slump

Washington, D.C. (6/8/2009) -- Age may seem like a superficial factor to consider, in regards to the president of the United States. I mean, does it really matter if the person is a parent or a grandparent? Maybe, maybe not. What is interesting to note is this: two American presidents within the past twenty-five years have entered office in the midst of a huge economic slump. These two men, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, are our nation’s oldest and youngest leaders.

            Arguably, with age comes experience and wisdom—two concepts that do play a big role in determining the future of our country and when it will eventually emerge from recession.

            Frank Donatelli, a former advisor to President Reagan, said that all presidents blame their predecessors for the inconvenient problems that they face. Donatelli spoke at a panel discussion comparing the economics of President Ronald Reagan and current U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday, hosted by the Young America’s Foundation (YAF).

            Donatelli said that history has proven his point: Reagan blamed Carter, Obama blames Bush. Both men entered office with the urgent need to pull America out of an economic recession, but they had different ways of doing that.

            The comparison could be made on many different levels. Donatelli noted that both presidents acknowledged that the two major problems within the United States were ignorance and apathy. Reflecting on his days on the campaign trail with Reagan, Donatelli spoke about seeing these qualities within the American voting population. He recalled a man participating in a conversation with Reagan outside of a store. Reagan asked the man what he should do about the economy and the man answered: “I don’t know and I don’t care.”

            This sentiment has been (and still is) adopted by the American people in response to many political matters. People become so absorbed in their own lives, schedules, and the demands of family life, that they feel overwhelmed by the idea of active citizenship. It is this philosophy that has created the devastating bankruptcy of the modern era.

            Regan said, in commenting on the failed economy of 1980, that well-grounded patriotism was no longer the style. He saw the need for a re-institutionalization of freedom. In order to accomplish this, Reagan knew that he had to empower the younger generations. Just like Obama is right now.

            Kate Obenshain, former chairman of the Virginia GOP and vice president of the Young America’s Foundation, said that she believes that President Obama has the same insight as Reagan did almost thirty years ago. However, he does not plan to revive the same ideal of individual freedom within democracy; Obama has an entirely different agenda. Instead, he desires to re-institutionalize the idea of government power in the form of European socialism.

            “Obama gets it (the need to empower young people),” said Obenshain. “And that’s scary!”

            Donatelli stated that, although the word on the street is that the Obama administration faces the worst economic disaster that America has seen since the Great Depression in the 1930s, that is actually not the case. When comparing Enhanced Misery Index (EMI) numbers, today’s EMI is at 14.5, whereas, the EMI when Reagan entered the white house was an astounding 38.3. Therefore, according to the Enhanced Misery Index, we aren’t in nearly as much trouble now, as we were twenty to thirty years ago. 

            In light of the recession—big or small—President Obama saw the need for embodying young people. Yet, he did so by convincing younger generations that government is the answer; if we let the government take control over our education, healthcare, and personal lives, then it will save us in the end from economic failure. That is not the case.

            The government is causing our country to slide further and further into economic crisis. According to California Congressman Tom McClintock, Obama is causing the United States to sink deeper and deeper into debt every day. Re-defining the American Dream, Obama wants to play the Robin Hood of the 21^st century. Instead of encouraging American free trade and capitalism (economic standards upon which our country was founded), Obama is stealing from the rich to give to the poor. And it’s all under the guise of taxes.

            McClintock said that with Obama’s plan to tax “couples” with an annual income of 250,000 dollars or more per year, he is actually targeting small businesses. When these small businesses start to feel the heat, he said that they are simply going to close down or move out of the country, as they did in California. In the end, the negative impact of the loss of commercial revenue on the economy will far outweigh the federal tax income. This will push the economy farther into ruin.

            Friday, the New York Times’ Deal Book reported that this week Steven A. Ballmer, the chief executive of Microsoft, will be moving many of its jobs overseas, in the event that the Obama proposals are enacted. They are doing exactly what McClintock said would happen to American businesses: they are giving up and leaving.

            The Young America’s Foundation panel did more than just discuss politics on a rainy afternoon in Washington D.C. It spoke to a room full of 150 young U.S. citizens about their future and their president.

            The message was simple: Reagan pulled this country out of recession through deregulation. Obama is trying to achieve economical success by doing the exact opposite--but perhaps with a slightly different result.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Kill Pill?

Washington, D.C. (6/8/2009) -- Birth control pills are not getting safer—they are merely getting less dangerous. Aggressively promoted and advertised, birth control and preventative contraceptives have blossomed into a rapidly developing industry that is having a major influence on the American public.

            According to the American Life League (ALL), over 80 percent of women in the United States have been on the pill at some point in their lives. The ALL, along with a minority of medical professionals in the field of Napro-technology (natural gynecology) believe that the pill is slowly killing them.

            This horror movie-like saga was the scenario portrayed by Dr. Lynn Kerr, one of the panelists who spoke about the damaging effects of birth control pills on women’s health at a press conference held on Thursday at the National Press Club.

             Dr. Kerr, an Associate Clinical Professor at UCSF/Fresno Internal Medicine Residency Program said that she strives to teach her students an alternative viewpoint to the status quo, which tells doctors that birth control pills are the safe and easy, “quick-fix” to an array of medical issues. 

            When females go to the doctor to be treated for issues such as disabling periods (dysmenorrhea), lack of menstruation, secondary amenorrhea, loss of periods, and ovarian cysts, doctors are often quick to write a prescription for one of the many up-and-coming birth control pills and then send patients on their way. Because the prescription does help relieve condition symptoms, patients believe that they are “cured” from their ailment, as long as they remain on the drug.

            “The birth control pill is not truly a treatment for those problems,” said Dr. Paul Carpentier, first vice president of the American Academy of Fertility Care Professionals. “It (the pill) floods the body with such artificial hormones that the body can no longer function in normal ways.”

            Dr. Carpentier practices family medicine at the Heywood Hospital in Gardner, Massachusetts, where he says that he refuses to prescribe the pill to females. Instead, Dr. Carpentier chooses to find alternative treatments for his patients. These treatments, unconventional in the modern era, include simple lifestyle adjustments such as diet changes, therapeutic healing, and charting menstruation cycles. This last option is a strategy that synchs the female menstruation cycle with specific pain medications, in order to pinpoint treatment at the climax of discomfort.

            Dr. Carpentier claimed that birth control pills shut off normal processes, which in a way, is like putting a Band Aid over a festering wound. It doesn’t fix the problem; it just masks the issue and allows it to get worse.

            Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League acted as the mediator during the panel, inserting brief remarks that easily gave away his bias. He was adamant that young teenage girls have access to birth control through clinics such as Planned Parenthood.

            Sedlak said that this access is dangerous not only because it sends the message to 13, 14, and 15 year-old teens that it’s ok to be sexually active, but also for medical reasons. He said that young girls are not always aware of their medical history and, therefore, they might not know of a family history that could be counter-indicative to birth control pills and cause fatal consequences.

            With healthcare recently taking center stage in politics, there is a push for government funding of family planning programs. Whether this funding includes alternative programs (such as Napro-technology) is still up for debate. Sedlak, however, thinks that there is no reason that federal funding shouldn’t provide patients with all of the alternative treatments.

            Educating women on natural family planning is cost-efficient in an economy that is forcing Americans to save money whenever and wherever they can. According to Sedlak, the amount of money it cots for one woman to take birth control for six months could be used, instead, to pay a teacher to educate a whole group of female medical students about natural family planning options for the duration of a college semester. 

             Title 10 already provides 300 million dollars to support health care, but the Obama Administration wants to increase this number to 700 million. Planned Parenthood alone is asking the Obama Administration for a total of 4.6 billion dollars to further its own incentives. The ALL hopes that this money won’t be funneled straight into Planned Parenthood, but will be used more wisely: supporting programs that are more cost efficient and that “really work.”  That’s what it’s all about. 

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Mental Retardation: Can it Save you from Death Row?

Washington, D.C. (6/3/2009) -- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Court of Appeals in the case, Bobby, Warden v. Bies, Monday, saying that Bies’s claim of violation of the Double Jeopardy clause was invalid because he was never acquitted and then re-convicted after his 1992 sentence.

            Michael Bies has been sitting in jail at the Ohio State Penitentiary for the past 17 years, while his murder case traveled through the United States Court system in Bies’s attempts to abdicate his death sentence by claiming his own mental retardation.

            Bies, along with an accomplice, Darryl Gumm, abducted 10 year-old Aaron Raines from a park in Lower Price Hill. Police found Raines’s body later that evening in the basement of an abandoned building.

            Coincidentally, shortly after Bies’s case was first heard back in 1992, another case, Atkins v. Virginia, was settled that established a precedent barring the execution of mentally retarded offenders. At the time of Bies’s hearing, his mental capacity was a concern, but the jury decided that it was entitled to some weight, however, they resolved that the mitigating factors did not outweigh the crime’s brutality, and so for this reason, the verdict was not reversed.

            Bies attempted to question all previous courts’ decisions in his recent oral argument before the Supreme Court on April 27, 2009. He claimed that his mental capacity was, in fact, a contributing factor in the case. For this reason, Bies immediately raced to the next level of judicial appeal, following the courts’ condemning sentence. He continued to run his case from court to court after each unsatisfactory outcome.

            In addition to reversing the Sixth Court of Appeal’s ruling, The Supreme Court stated that Bies’s use of the Double Jeopardy clause was inappropriate and his case was basically unfit for the Supreme Court. Point blank: Bies was wasting the Supreme Court’s time.

            “The decision invites unwarranted federal interference in state-court proceedings.  Immediately after the state post-conviction court denied his motion for summary judgment, Bies raced to federal court under the cloak of double jeopardy, thereby frustrating any progress in that proceeding or development of the record on the Atkins issue,” said Justice Ginsburg.

            Justice Ginsburg read the verdict, which interestingly enough, did not directly reference Bies’s mental state of health or question the Ohio courts’ procedure for testing degrees of mental retardation.

             The court said that if Bies wished to address this issue, he would have to go back to square one and appeal to the District Court. The Supreme Court felt that this was not a necessary factor in its determination of whether Bies was victimized under the Double Jeopardy clause.

            The clause states that once a capital defendant is “acquitted” based on findings establishing entitlement to a life sentence, the Double Jeopardy clause bars any renewed inquiry into Bies’s mental capacity.

            After careful consideration, the United States Supreme Court deemed Bies’s case inappropriate for this appeal and the Double Jeopardy clause inconsequential to the sentence.

            Justice Ginsburg read the courts’ decision in a mumbled tone, reflecting the level of enthusiasm the court felt for the case.

            She said that “First, Bies was not ‘twice put in jeopardy,’ He was sentenced to death, and Ohio sought no further prosecution or punishment.” The court viewed Bies’s plea as a mere excuse, saying that Bies had put himself in the position of Double Jeopardy voluntarily by choosing to appeal his case multiple times.

            Justice Ginsburg said, “Instead of ‘serial prosecutions’ by the government, this case involves ‘serial efforts’ by the defendant to vacate his capital sentence.” The Supreme Court was not going to let Bies off the hook, wisely noting that their decision (as is often the case) could create a snowball effect for criminals waiting on death row.

            The Supreme Court added, “The decision potentially has ramifications for all types of criminal cases.  The Sixth Circuit has allowed an individual who has neither been acquitted of a crime, nor subjected to a second prosecution, to invoke the Double Jeopardy.” The fear is that, now, after Bies’s appeal made it to the top and was heard by the highest court in the United States, other felons will attempt to invoke the Double Jeopardy clause in the hopes that their cases will also be reconsidered.

             Ginsburg spoke for the court when she concluded that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals made a grave mistake when, along with its consideration of the Double Jeopardy. It failed to independently reassess the case evidence. It also neglected to pay detailed attention to Bies’s level of mental retardation over the past two decades.

            Both the Ohio State Court of Appeals and the Ohio State Supreme Court originally deemed Bies’s mild to borderline mental retardation as mitigating factors, but not significant when compared with the aggravating circumstances. The degree of retardation was never reconsidered over the course of deliberations.

            Therefore, in its Monday verdict, The United States Supreme Court reestablished Bies’s conviction based on its decision that Bies’s case did not fall under the umbrella of the Double Jeopardy clause, and subsequently, the U.S. would not protect him from capital punishment.

            The Supreme Court acknowledged that with the Atkins determination to uphold the Eighth Amendment rights of offenders, the validity and justice of Bies’s conviction was questionable. To the defendant, the death sentence seemed in direct contradiction to the recent legislation.

             However, both the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed Bies’s conviction, based on their decision that the mitigating circumstances were factors in the case, but did not outweigh the nature and severity of the crime.  

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

American Learning (at Every Level of Life)

            Secretary Arne Duncan cares about kids. He worked for seven years successfully restructuring the Chicago school system and now he is in charge of distributing 100 billion dollars of federal stimulus money to schools all around the country.

            “We have to educate our way to a better economy,” said Duncan at a press conference held at the National Press Club on Friday. “Our children only have once chance to get an education.”

            Duncan said that he thinks that we have a huge window of opportunity right now to really change things in our education system. He noted four key factors that will influence the success of education reform efforts: absolute leadership from the top (referring to President Barack Obama, who appointed Duncan to his position), bi-partisan support, great ideas, and real resources.

            “With unprecedented resources, we expect to see unprecedented reform, “ said Duncan. He is thinking big.

            Duncan plans to put money towards programs that support early childhood development, statewide student data tracking systems, teacher merit programs, and an increase in college grants, scholarships, and loans. Duncan also believes that there needs to be a huge focus on decreasing student dropout rates. 

            “There are no good jobs out there for high school drop outs,” said Duncan, claiming that a failure to graduate with a high school diploma condemns students to a life of poverty and “social failure.”

             “I worry a lot about the dreams of our young people that are starting to die,” said Duncan. With sincerity uncommon to politicians in this day and age, he spoke about the urgency he feels in bringing about change to the American school system.

            “We are lying to our students,” said Duncan. He described the false sense of achievement that the United States education system endorsed in the past. The schools would tell students that they were “meeting states standards,” which was a false measurement of achievement, because state standards were not up to par. Because of this falsehood, Duncan said that students were inadequately prepared when they took SAT or ACT tests for college admittance and were then shocked with their poor performance.

            In his viewpoint, Duncan said that if the student had been expected to meet internationally benchmarked standards, then they would have been aware of their weaknesses as early as the fifth grade, and they could have been working on those problem areas all throughout high school. By the time they took the college tests, the results could be drastically different.

            According to Duncan, “No Child Left Behind” failed because it had goals that were far too loose and a plan of action that was far too rigid. He focused not on the previous administration’s inability to reform education, but more on his desire to “fundamentally flip it (the program) on its head.”

            Duncan said that in the past the American government has lacked the political will and the courage to do the right thing by children. He plans to change that.

            In an age-old game of “copy and paste,” Duncan wants to take a look at the prosperous schools in our communities and replicate them throughout the country. He noted the “extraordinary” Thomas Jefferson High School in Fairfax County and said, “Let’s clone that magic.”

            But Duncan is not open to all educational options. When asked about school choice and a voucher program (an alternative option where the government would allow federal funding to “follow the child,” and parents would receive money to choose where to educate their students), he was prickly.

            “I don’t think vouchers work,” he said. Claiming that vouchers only serve one to two percent of American children, Duncan deemed the idea exclusive. “I don’t want to save one to two percent of our children and let the other 98 to 99 percent drown.”

            Interestingly, Duncan’s criticism of voucher programs avoided any reference to the successful local Washington D.C. voucher system, as well other similar programs across the country such as the 15-year Milwaukee program.

            Statistics gathered by the National Center for Education Research and Regional Assistance for the 2008-2009 year show that after three years, students enrolled in the Washington D.C. voucher program show a significant positive increase in reading ability and parental satisfaction in their child’s school. More information about school choice is available through the Alliance for School Choice, The Black Alliance of Educational Options, and the Greater Washington Urban League.

            In light of his efforts to de-privatize education, Duncan’s viewpoint on a couple hot topics was surprising. Duncan chose not extend his attack on charter schools, however, and actually supported the work of these non-governmental education programs. He did not say that he thought charter schools were the answer—it is obvious that he is invested in the restoration of public schools—but he did applaud the charter schools for their success and he said that he doesn’t see why he would ever want to end something that was working.

            When asked what he thought about home schooling as another alternative option, it was obvious that Duncan was finished speaking about options that deterred from his plan. He merely stated, “God Bless them (home schoolers).”

            Duncan centered his speech on the challenge that he wants to present the American people with to raise their expectations and to find the courage to “not just tinker around the edges” of education reform, but to do something about it. He said that he plans to walk the talk.

            Duncan pledged to overhaul American public schools, especially the absolute bottom one percent “dropout factories”—about 1,000 schools per year where the dropout rates peak 80 percent at times. He said that if he doesn’t do this within the next four (or maybe eight) years, then he would have failed at his job.

            “We know what is possible,” Duncan said. “We should be in the business of investing in our children, not subsidizing banks.”

            This comment is interesting in the wake of General Motors’s announcement yesterday that it was filing for bankruptcy. Despite the Obama administration’s resolve to stop spending unnecessary money and focusing federal funds on areas with “real” potential--like education--President Obama just gambled 50 billion dollars away to bailout the automotive industry.

            Now we, the American people, have a huge stake in a bankrupt company and we spent half the money that we want to spend on education to buy it. Our motives are good, but will they be enough to counteract our spending craze? In truth, perhaps this is a different kind of spending, but money is money, and even if it’s for a noble cause, if you don’t have the money, then you don’t have the money.

            Furthermore, how can money that we wisely invest into our schools help us break free from the chains of recession when we are still caught up in the same degenerative patterns?

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

What I've gathered about Iran...

I've been taking notes about Iran. The country, the people, the culture, the religion, and mostly notes on what people have been writing about Iran. And there's been a lot of commentary on the place.

What's all the buzz? Well, besides the fact that America and parts of the rest of the world are feeling uneasy with Iran's fascination with nuclear energy and the production of uranium- a mere curiosity, they say, we are also a little befuddled. While we had our eyes so focused on Iraq and the ousting of Saddam Hussein from power, we forgot to keep watch to see who was coming in our peripheral vision. We would have seen Iran creeping into our blind spot and we would have quickly adjusted our mirrors. At least I hope that would have been the case.

Of course, I lost the scrap piece of note paper where I was jotting down all of my ideas....but my main finding was this: Iranians are much smarter than we think. Much of our discomfort and tension surrounding the United States' relationship with Iran is centered around bad communication and an inability to compromise and work out a deal. The U.S. needs to negotiate, while still getting the job done. Now, I'm not saying we need to back off and leave them alone, or sit and drink coffee and turn a blind eye. I'm just saying that we might need to play their way, in order to get anywhere.

From what I've read, (a significant percentage of my week's reading came from my aunt's copy of the June 1, 2009 Newsweek that I swiped for reading on the Metro commute into the capitol) the Iranians are amazing at bartering. Now I know first-hand that the Middle East is the hub of trade...in 2006 I studied in Amman, Jordan and I left the souq (marketplace) several times with more than I ever intended buying.

However, the kind of bartering I am speaking of one of perfection. Elite and premeditated, it is not trade out of necessity, but out of common interest. Therefore, the transaction does not require speed or any sort of deadline. Instead, it demands patience, intellect, understanding, rhetoric, and a uncanny level of insight of the other party. This is harder to come by, but must be what America and Obama strive for.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu