2012 United States Presidential Election

Three weeks until election day. Cast your vote following the presidential debate tonight (Tuesday, October 16, 2012) from 9-10:30pm!

President Barack Obama

Governor Mitt Romney

               OR

Who will you vote for in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election?

NCAA Sanctions Against Penn State

Written by: Kahan Vaidya

A year ago, Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) was a household name known for strong academics, a historic football program with a legendary coach, and a “party school” reputation. A lot has changed in one year.

            The surfacing of a child sex-abuse scandal at the institution has been anything but ignored in the last few months by the media, university officials, and students across the country. The allegations of pedophilia towards Jerry Sandusky, ex-assistant coach and defensive coordinator for the Penn State Nittany Lions football team, have shaken the school. Not only has this cost the team their squeaky-clean reputation of “Success with Honor”, but it has also tarnished the legacy of the school’s beloved long time head coach, Joe Paterno, when it was reported that Paterno had kept the incident a secret for years.

           

Lovingly called “Joe Pa” by students and the Nittany Lion faithful, Paterno was coming off a record breaking season: becoming the winningest coach in Division 1 football history with 409 wins, passing Florida State’s Bobby Bowden. However, this and much more changed when the NCAA invoked sanctions against the university.

           

On Monday, July 23, 2012, NCAA President Mark Emmert held a press conference in which he stated the sanctions against Penn State. These sanctions were based off of the “Freeh Report”, an independent investigation of the university held by Louis Freeh, former FBI chief. The sanctions given by the NCAA include a $60 millon fine, a four year post-season ban for the Nittany Lions Football team, the vacation of all Penn State wins from 1998 to 2011 (111 from Joe Paterno, 1 from Tom Bradley), a significant loss in athletic scholarships, and a five year probation period for the program. The NCAA have also granted the student athletes in the football program the ability to transfer to a school of their choice and play immediately, opening up “poaching” of players by coaches and staff at other institutions.

           

The question remains whether justice has been served. Many question the NCAA’s ruling as being too harsh. Those who critique the sanctions say that the wrong people are being punished: the football players, the students of the university, and those living in the community. Others agree that the punishment is adequate for allowing Sandusky to continue coaching while leaders of the program and institution withheld information regarding his crimes. It is believed that these sanctions will affect the program for the better part of a decade, perhaps longer if a strong recruiting class isn’t constructed. For those Nittany Lion supporters, it is now a waiting game to see where the future of their institution lies.

How would you describe the NCAA sanctions against Penn State in response to the Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal?

NYC Soda Bans

Written by: Tarun Aurora

It goes without opposition that almost one-quarter of the American diet consists of junk food.  The fast food industry is one of the largest in the world and still maintaining elevating momentum.  The CDC and NIH have released numerous reports detailing the health hazards of consuming such foods and making fast food part of a primary diet.  Junk food companies have responded by posting calories of each of their menu items and by offering “healthier” choices as part of their menu, such as the baggie of apples given in each new McDonald’s Kids’ Meal.  Of particular interest in the fast food diets of Americans is the consumption of sodas and sugary drinks.  Since 2000, over 8% of daily caloric intake has been from sodas and carbonated beverages.  In today’s market, sodas are created from ingredients including high fructose corn syrup, caffeine, natural flavors, and phosphoric acid.  In an effort to curb the consumption of soda beverages in his constituency, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has passed legislation to ban the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces in restaurants.  Before the ban, restaurants were free to sell sodas of any size, from as small as 12 ounces to as large as 24 ounces.  Under the new law, however, consumers are still able to receive refills and even purchase multiple 16 ounce beverages.  As expected, controversy has surfaced across New York City as well as the rest of the country.  Many Americans feel the new soda ban infringes on citizens’ right to choose what they consume, while others defend its healthy intentions.  Either way, Mayor Bloomberg’s drastic measure to improve health in his city has looming implications.

Although the ban has been received with much uproar and resentment, especially by native New Yorkers, many across the nation are applauding Mayor Bloomberg on his efforts to improve personal health.  Countless health studies have proven that the overconsumption of sugars and “empty” calories is linked to obesity and diabetes.  Many agree that Mayor Bloomberg is attempting to reduce the risk of his constituents falling victim to such preventable diseases.  With both high income and low income Americans leading stressful and busy lives, the consumption of sodas, especially in conjunction with fast food, has become an easy and affordable part of life.  The food industry makes billions of dollars each year with the use of mass marketing and accessibility of junk food to the public.  Bloomberg is attempting not to eliminate the consumption of such beverages, but merely curb it to create long-term improvement in the lives of citizens.

Many Americans do agree that obesity is increasingly becoming a need for our government to address.  As of 2010, over 35% of adults and 17% of children are obese, with little to nothing being done to address the issue.  The Healthy People 2010 initiative put forth by the government asking each state to reduce obesity prevalence to 15% was met with abysmal results.  In fact, over 5 states increased their prevalence to over 30%.  However, we have seen the success of the government’s strong role in helping to decrease cigarette use in America with the implementation of warning labels on all tobacco products, the decrease in cigarette advertisements, and hike in sales taxes for such products.  Mayor Bloomberg’s ban is a small step in having the government take responsibility for an increasing epidemic. 

            Aside from the effort to improve the overall health of New York City, many citizens are viewing Mayor Bloomberg’s ban as a threat to personal rights and choices.  “Who is the Mayor to decide what I put in my body?” - a thought that resounds almost unanimously amongst those who oppose the soda ban.  According to most citizens, especially those affected by the ban, the choice to drink a 24-ounce soda versus a 16-ounce soda is theirs and theirs alone.  “If we give the right of the government to tell us what and what not to drink, what’s next?  Are they going to come into our homes and tell our kids when to sleep and who to talk to?” asks one frustrated citizen.  Opposers are concerned, and may rightly be so.

Still an ongoing debate, it is unclear whether the health care of an individual is the business of the government or not.  The government has the right to tax, however, and many citizens are claiming that a tax on sodas would have been a better solution to the problem.  With a tax on sodas and candies, such as the one placed on cigarettes, consumers would be discouraged from purchasing the products but still have the ability to do so.  A complete ban on sodas larger than 16 ounces plays out to many as the militant hand of the government attempting to strong arm the lives of the common folk.  Even furthermore, many restaurant and shop owners are concerned as to the future of their businesses.  Although soda sales are not the primary source of income, many fear of the future bans the mayor may place on food products, and how that may affect sales.

Clearly, Mayor Bloomberg’s recent ban has stirred waters across the nation and brought attention to both the extent of the government’s reach into personal matters and the need for intervention in the field of health care.  The ban implemented by the New York Mayor arguably infringes upon the personal rights and choices of the American citizen.  The government should not be able to dictate what goes into the mouth of each citizen.  However, others assert that such choices lead to the downfall of the American people through soaring health care costs.  In 2010, the average American paid $1,470 more toward the care of citizens brought into hospitals seeking care for ailments related to obesity versus other reasons.  The future of the ban depends on the reactions of fellow lawmakers and politicians across the nation. 

Is it time for our government to take control of the obesity problem by banning large sodas and perhaps even all other types of junk foods or is the choice of what to consume left solely to the individual?

Who should take control of the American obesity epidemic?

Update: Facebook's IPO Debut

Update: Facebook (FB) will begin trading today on the NASDAQ at 11am at a share price of $38. Leading up to the IPO debut, Facebook held one of its traditional all-night Hackathons. Mark Zuckerberg rang the opening bell for the NASDAQ this morning. Share your opinions! The original post is below, and the poll has been reopened!

Will Facebook's IPO be a boom or a bust?

Original Post:

Yesterday (2/1/2012), Facebook filed their S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to begin the paperwork for their Initial Public Offering (IPO). They are looking to raise $5 billion with their IPO, with a total company valuation upwards of $100 billion. The social media giant's IPO has been the most widely anticipated and is the latest in a string of tech IPOs that came out starting in 2011. This string includes Groupon, LinkedIn, and Zynga, all of which were considered "failures" on the Street.

In 2011, Facebook earned $1 billion in profit on $3.7 billion on revenue. 84% of their revenue came from advertising. Following Eric Schmidt (Google), Larry Page (Google), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Meg Whitman (HP), and Steve Jobs (Apple), CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be taking the traditional Silicon Valley salary cut in 2013; his salary will be $1 annually.

Given the hype around Facebook, the company's revenue potential, and the anticipation of its IPO, will Facebook perform well on the stock exchange? Or will it's fate be of the likes of LinkedIn or Zynga or Groupon? Cast your vote now!

Will Facebook's IPO be a boom or a bust?

Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

One of the hottest topics on the news docket today is a monumental Supreme Court case that could essentially define the first term of our president.  The Supreme Court will spend 3 days discussing the constitutional legality of Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.  In essence, the act requires virtually every American citizen to receive health insurance, whether through Medicare, Medicaid, employer provided options, or from a private insurance company.  If an American fails to agree with this mandate, he or she will be forced to pay a steep annual penalty.  The Supreme Court hearings come after years of the act undergoing deep scrutiny and revisions by Congress.

The crux of the bill, the individual mandate, is what has put our nation’s opposing parties in arms.  Former Solicitor General Paul Clements from Florida is representing the 26 states that are suing the national government on the notion that Obamacare is in direct violation of the constitution.  “The mandate represents an unprecedented effort by Congress to compel individuals to enter commerce...,” stated Clements in his opening arguments to the Supreme Court’s 7 Justices on March 27^th.  Clements goes on to observe that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution limits the federal government to regulating commerce, and does not allow it to enforce commerce.  Opponents of the act claim that Obamacare breaches the constitutional limits set in place by our current system of government by forcing individuals to purchase something against their own free will.  The court case of United States v. Lopez is usually cited, with opponents pointing out that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was ruled unconstitutional as the Supreme Court determined that the Commerce Clause prohibited the U.S. government in interfering with activity (in this case gun possession) that is not directly related to economic activity.  Furthermore, it is argued that if the regulation of health care is ruled constitutional, then where exactly does the buck stop in terms of the government’s economic power?  In the case of Wickard v. Filburn of 1942, the U.S. Government forced a farmer (Filburn) to cease growing his own wheat crop and purchase instead from the open market in order to help boost his local economy during the Great Depression.  ‘How far,’ ask stringent opponents of the ACA, ‘is too far?’    

In response to the alleged breaches of constitutionality made by the opposition, defenders of the ACA argue that because the health care industry comprises such a large fraction of our national economy, the U.S. Government is not overstepping boundaries in regulating it.  In reference to the Lopez case, the government was not able to regulate gun control since it is not directly related to economic activity, whereas the service of healthcare is coming from and going back to the pockets of American citizens, making it one of the most dynamic of economic activities.  Supporters explain that healthcare makes up nearly 1/6 of our national GDP and therefore should be and can be regulated under the federal government as interstate commerce.  Furthermore, it is pointed it out that healthcare is a service that cannot necessarily be considered an option. Unlike choosing to purchase a car or a house, we are bound to need a form of payment for our healthcare when we inevitably get sick.  In that sense, the act is not ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase something, but instead providing a service that will most surely be used at some point in their lifetime.  When individuals with no health insurance get sick today and hospitals are obliged to treat them, an insurance paying citizen’s premium rises roughly $1000 for the year.  A system with universal health care provides a safety net for those people unable to afford health care on their own.  Proponents of the bill go on toexplain that Obamacare will eliminate the exclusion of health care to individuals with ‘pre-existing conditions.’  Currently, private insurers prevent a large number of individuals from receiving health insurance benefits on the basis of pre-existing conditions that may cost insurance companies more money on that patient in the long run.  Defenders of Obamacare claim that the ACA keeps the U.S. Government within the bounds of the constitution by regulating an obvious economic activity.  

One thing is clear: both parties of our government agree that our current healthcare system is fundamentally broken and in need of desperate change.  However, it is the question of the legality and monetary consequences of the Affordable Care Act that has seen itself on the court’s floor.  As usual, we leave the question up to you: Does President Obama’s Affordable Care Act overstep the constitutional limitations of the federal government?

Does President Obama’s Affordable Care Act overstep the constitutional limitations of the federal government?

Hot Topic: Iran's Nuclear Program

The current commotion regarding Iran revolves around development of nuclear technology. Iran claims that they are developing nuclear capability for use as an alternative, clean, efficient energy source. Many countries, including the United States, Israel, and countries in the European Union consider Iran’s nuclear program a major threat. They believe Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program.

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but violated its safeguards agreement by developing a uranium-enrichment program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), after inspection, has released evidence that they consider credible that suggests Iran has carried out activities related to the development of a nuclear device.

The United States and the European Union have imposed economic sanctions against Iran in order to cut them off from the international financial system and pressure Tehran to end their nuclear program. In response, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, and also to cut off sales of Iranian oil to at least six nations of the EU.

Here is a link to the New York Times Topic Page for Iran: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?ref=topics

So, the controversial question follows: Does Iran have the right to develop a nuclear program for peaceful intentions (i.e. energy)? Vote below!

Does Iran have the right to develop a nuclear program for peaceful intentions (i.e. energy)?

The Long Awaited Facebook IPO: Boom or Bust?

Yesterday (2/1/2012), Facebook filed their S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to begin the paperwork for their Initial Public Offering (IPO). They are looking to raise $5 billion with their IPO, with a total company valuation upwards of $100 billion. The social media giant's IPO has been the most widely anticipated and is the latest in a string of tech IPOs that came out starting in 2011. This string includes Groupon, LinkedIn, and Zynga, all of which were considered "failures" on the Street.

In 2011, Facebook earned $1 billion in profit on $3.7 billion on revenue. 84% of their revenue came from advertising. Following Eric Schmidt (Google), Larry Page (Google), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Meg Whitman (HP), and Steve Jobs (Apple), CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be taking the traditional Silicon Valley salary cut in 2013; his salary will be $1 annually.

Given the hype around Facebook, the company's revenue potential, and the anticipation of its IPO, will Facebook perform well on the stock exchange? Or will it's fate be of the likes of LinkedIn or Zynga or Groupon? Cast your vote now!

Will Facebook's IPO be a boom or a bust?